Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: phila on August 29, 2007, 06:22:05 am

Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: phila on August 29, 2007, 06:22:05 am
The gauntlet is thrown down to the MF back manuafacturers:

"...Consider, too, the question of continuity, a matter of considerable relevance when the
purchase of an $8,000-or- more camera is on the table. Where the EOS-1Ds MarkIII is
completely compatible with virtually all vast EOS System, and can be expected to
remain compatible—and supported—for decades to come (note the current software
support for the D6000 and D2000), today’s medium format digital backs often do not fit
even recent products from the same manufacturer. Will a newly-purchased component
be compatible with same-brand software and hardware in the not-too-distant future?
Betting on, and investing in, the EOS-1DsMarkIII isa sure thing."


http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/news/pro...-Whitepaper.pdf (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/news/pro...-Whitepaper.pdf)


So is this a valid point or just marketing spin? I'm sure Contax owners (not a digital back manufacturer I realise, but a warning none the less?) can relate to this. Are Mamiya owners feeling nervous? Pentax fans have just had their hopes dashed. What about those who bought the Fuji MF back? Or the Kodak backs?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: thsinar on August 29, 2007, 06:36:58 am
just a start of an answer from my side:

Sinar will be there for 60 years, next year in this market. I am not sure if Canon was already there, at that time.

Did you said "Marketing Hype"?

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
The gauntlet is thrown down to the MF back manuafacturers:

"...Consider, too, the question of continuity, a matter of considerable relevance when the
purchase of an $8,000-or- more camera is on the table. Where the EOS-1Ds MarkIII is
completely compatible with virtually all vast EOS System, and can be expected to
remain compatible—and supported—for decades to come (note the current software
support for the D6000 and D2000), today’s medium format digital backs often do not fit
even recent products from the same manufacturer. Will a newly-purchased component
be compatible with same-brand software and hardware in the not-too-distant future?
Betting on, and investing in, the EOS-1DsMarkIII isa sure thing."
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/news/pro...-Whitepaper.pdf (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/news/pro...-Whitepaper.pdf)
So is this a valid point or just marketing spin? I'm sure Contax owners (not a digital back manufacturer I realise, but a warning none the less?) can relate to this. Are Mamiya owners feeling nervous? Pentax fans have just had their hopes dashed. What about those who bought the Fuji MF back? Or the Kodak backs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: josayeruk on August 29, 2007, 06:48:32 am
Its one thing to be compatible with a vast range of lenses...

But how many of those are good enough for digital capture?

Jo S. x
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Rick_Allen on August 29, 2007, 06:59:25 am
As I look over my VAST canon Fd system I smile with great pain.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: phila on August 29, 2007, 07:13:54 am
Quote
just a start of an answer from my side:

Sinar will be there for 60 years, next year in this market. I am not sure if Canon was already there, at that time.

Did you said "Marketing Hype"?

Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136140\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well I do note that the latest Leaf (not Sinar I realise) Capture 10 software only covers back to the Valeo 11 back of 2003 - four years. Canon support apparently (going by their statement) goes back to the D2000 of 1998. Surely a valid point. Of course whether anyone is still using a D2000 is probably moot, but I assume there would be photographers out there still using pre 2003 Leaf backs who can no longer take advantage of the latest software?

71 years in production for Canon, Thierry.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: thsinar on August 29, 2007, 07:26:18 am
I don't know if Canon does support this 1998 digital camera with their most recent or latest softwares version. Nor do I know if servicing and repairs are provided ad vitam eternam for those "old" cameras (I doubt).

But I can say that Sinar does support all backs introduced since the begining, being it on a software level with the most recent versions, when this is possible or then with previous (older) versions: we do have scores of customers still using a SB 22 (I mean here the very first 4 MPx sensr back) or then the SB 23).

Also, we do service/repair all backs back to the very first ones, if the electronical and other HW components as well as the sensors are still available on the market (which is obviously not the case always, neither for Canon).

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
Well I do note that the latest Leaf (not Sinar I realise) Capture 10 software only covers back to the Valeo 11 back of 2003 - four years. Canon support apparently (going by their statement) goes back to the D2000 of 1998. Surely a valid point. Of course whether anyone is still using a D2000 is probably moot, but I assume there would be photographers out there still using pre 2003 Leaf backs who can no longer take advantage of the latest software?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: thsinar on August 29, 2007, 07:27:22 am
OK, I did not know this. Thanks for the information.

best regards,
thierry

Quote
71 years in production for Canon, Thierry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: phila on August 29, 2007, 07:53:42 am
Quote
Also, we do service/repair all backs back to the very first ones, if the electronical and other HW components as well as the sensors are still available on the market (which is obviously not the case always, neither for Canon).

Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136145\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not sure of current day practice, but back in the '80s when I worked as a Canon technician (before moving to the 'right' side of the camera) we would repair (and still had parts for!) Canon II & III rangefinder models from 1950/1.

One suspects that the situation is not quite that good today. :-(
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Dustbak on August 29, 2007, 08:03:59 am
Backwards compatibility is a term that is really overestimated. It is also a real curse that prevents many companies to go really forward.

It makes a lot of software really bad.

Sure Canon software might support even the first digital files but do you really want that even when it means you will have to cope with less stable software that also carries a lot of unnecessary overhead?

Leaf Capture 10 software might mention the Valeo11 as the last model supported however I know from experience it also works with the Valeo6. LC8.0 which is also freely downloadable by anyone supports models like the C-Most and Cantare which by todays standards come from the stone-age. The fact that many of these backs are not mentioned doesn't necessarily mean they don't work with the software but they have not been tested with it.

Not sure why people are looking towards the 'one solution, ends all'. Working with MF equipment is in many ways very different than working with 35mm DSLR equipment. Resolution or high ISO performance is not necessarily the most important difference.

I believe there is a place for both, there are times I take a DSLR and times I take a MFDB with the appropriate equipment.

I do totally agree with you that nowadays cameras are considered to be consumption goods with a limited life-span after which you are supposed to replace the thing instead of getting it fixed.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on August 29, 2007, 08:51:08 am
I agree with my fellow dutchman

Also, of course canon has alot of lenses, but please ask yourself how many do you need ??

I love the MF system just for that.
There is one lens or a zoom, pick what you want
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: canmiya on August 29, 2007, 08:51:59 am
Quote
The gauntlet is thrown down to the MF back manuafacturers:

"...Consider, too, the question of continuity, a matter of considerable relevance when the
purchase of an $8,000-or- more camera is on the table. Where the EOS-1Ds MarkIII is
completely compatible with virtually all vast EOS System, and can be expected to
remain compatible—and supported—for decades to come (note the current software
support for the D6000 and D2000), today’s medium format digital backs often do not fit
even recent products from the same manufacturer. Will a newly-purchased component
be compatible with same-brand software and hardware in the not-too-distant future?
Betting on, and investing in, the EOS-1DsMarkIII isa sure thing."
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/news/pro...-Whitepaper.pdf (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/news/pro...-Whitepaper.pdf)
So is this a valid point or just marketing spin? I'm sure Contax owners (not a digital back manufacturer I realise, but a warning none the less?) can relate to this. Are Mamiya owners feeling nervous? Pentax fans have just had their hopes dashed. What about those who bought the Fuji MF back? Or the Kodak backs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When Canon changed from the Fd mount to the EF mount, 25 years ago with their film cameras, one could have made a similar statement regarding compatibility or lack thereof with respect to recent products.  Even in the digital domain, one only has to look at the ef-s lenses to realize that Canon makes products that are not fully compatible with all of its' dslrs - current and past.  

I don't think the gauntlet has bee thrown down at all with respect to mf manufacturers, as MF has not represented itself as the "all in one solution", but accepts and embraces the niche nature of the business.  I also do not feel that the gauntlet has been thrown down, because the limitation of the 35mm style dslr will always be its' sensor size.  Just as Canon has made a significant case for the ff sensor and its benefits, the same benefits exist between the ff 35mm sensor and the larger medium format sensor.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on August 29, 2007, 09:12:29 am
A lot of people will keep comparing the two.
For me it's two different systems and I pick up my Canon for everything were it's needed, but I did some midday shooting today with the Leaf on ISO25 and full on flash and this gives me a result I could not pull off with the canon without the use of ND filters and the consequences in focus.

As long as people only look at the MP count there will always be people calling out MF dies or is death.

I made the switch only 2-3 months ago and I feel so secured in my switch everytime I open a file from the backs and from the 5D.
The 5D is a wonderful machine but the files or so fragile and soft compared to the MF output.

Alot of people however don't see that.
Recently there was a thread on DPREVIEW about the H3D39 compared to the 5D and there was one replier who did an upscaling of the 5D and claimed he could not see a difference......
Well ok what do you want to talk about than
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Anders_HK on August 29, 2007, 09:47:47 am
I sold my D200 in June and bought a Mamiya ZD camera body with six lenses in July. The 1Ds Mk III does not make me nervous. Nothing about its sensor speaks of more than a doubling of the sensor in the 1D Mk III and from what I have seen of images from them there seem like only incremental improvements in DSLR quality not near my ZD.

What has got me nervous is the D3. Not because I believe that one gets near my ZD but because Nikon really did their homework on that one, and that has me wonder of the upcoming larger pixel Nikon rumored  for next year. Its not about pixels, but about if Nikon does their homework same well on that one and if it may be with a high quality sensor for landcape, art and studio (non high ISO). My ZD will be high quality images for many years, but... I just sold my D200 and am in process selling my Nikon gear, simply because I did not believe Nikon would come out even with what they did with the D3!

On other hand....

   ZD = 2x area of sensor of 1Ds Mk III & D3, regardless makes difference.

   ZD lenses lighter weight than Nikon    ... and the new Nikkors presented are heavier than the lenses they replace!!! So, in essence my ZD with any zoom lens will be lighter in weight than what I would have needed to use on a D3 as example. Weight in my camera bag is same with either system, I checked.

   ZD & medium format backs do not appear to be upgraded as frequent as DSLRs.

Regards
Anders
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: mattlap2 on August 29, 2007, 09:59:17 am
Right now the biggest factor that makes older Digital backs incompatible with current solutions is more hardware than software.   I am sure that Leaf, Sinar or any other manufacturer would not have a problem making software backwards compatible if the hardware needed to support the feature sets of newer software would support it.

Remember ...  many of the older backs took PCI Fiber Optic cards or SCSI cards that are no longer compatible with current hardware.   It is moot to make a software package compatible that needs 2GB of memory if the older hardware needed for the back cannot support it.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Graham Mitchell on August 29, 2007, 10:10:04 am
Interesting that Canon are not playing the 'image quality' card  They know they are beaten in that respect. I think we all already know that Canon has some virtues, which makes them the camera of choice for many. Image quality isn't one of those virtues, so for people looking at max IQ they go for digital MF or large format film.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: bradleygibson on August 29, 2007, 10:17:17 am
As someone who just left the 1-series EOS in June for MF after four years of deliberation and six months of research, I definitely have an opinion on this.

It's clear Canon is making progress with their cameras, as are all the manufacturers in both small and medium format.  The question is, whether the improved image quality of MF is worth the additional expense, weight and time it takes *for you*.

In my case the answer is clearly 'yes'.  But I can see how the convenience might cause someone less picky about image quality to leave the medium-format fold, as it were.

I hope there are enough of us who are willing to put out those extras for the quality MF can provide to keep this industry viable for decades to come.

The link posted above to the Canon 1Ds Mark III whitepaper (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/news/pro_lineup/EOS-1DsMkIII-Whitepaper.pdf) gave me an error.  This link seems to work.

Best regards,
Brad
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: hankg on August 29, 2007, 11:01:02 am
I think Canon is just taking a swipe at Hasselblad. Hoping to capitalize on any discontent about the H3D being a closed system and the new 28/4 not working on the H2. I don't really see how the Canon system is any more of an open platform then the Hassy though.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Carl Glover on August 29, 2007, 12:58:28 pm
Bearing in mind that I use quite a bit of Carl Zeiss and Nikon glass on my 1DS MkII (via adapters) I'd say that Canon is a tad more 'open platform' than Hasselblad, though admittedly by default.

For image quality though, my Sinar 54LV/Rollei 6008 blows the Canon out of the water, I don't expect that to change for a while either...
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: wolfnowl on August 29, 2007, 02:33:53 pm
Quote
I think Canon is just taking a swipe at Hasselblad. Hoping to capitalize on any discontent about the H3D being a closed system and the new 28/4 not working on the H2. I don't really see how the Canon system is any more of an open platform then the Hassy though.

When I read that quote I was thinking of Hasselblad as well.  If you go back a decade or two within the Hasselblad system, one of the things they were noted for was backward compatibility, with parts from one camera being able to mount on another.  This started to change in a big way when they got into electronics and particularly the cameras with focal plane shutters - CFE lenses and the F series lenses for example, but the 205FCC for example was still able to use and work with the old C series lenses even if a 500C couldn't use an F series lens.

I remember this compatibility as being a marked difference to several different 35mm companies - when Pentax went from screw mount to bayonet mount (arguably a good thing), or when Minolta went from the X-700 to the newer 'Maxxum' autofocus cameras for example and all of a sudden everything 'old' was no longer compatible.  Of course one could argue both ways - on the other hand the companies could say that they were simply keeping up with the latest technological advancements.

Still, I personally think Hasselblad is digging a hole for themselves - time and the market will be the determining factor.

Mike.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: geesbert on August 29, 2007, 04:18:42 pm
i think backwards compatibility for software is a very important point. i am very sure there are only very few people using a canon d2000 nowadays, but there must be some of the millions of files from that time that might need to be opened nowadays. i am not so sure a software from 1998 still works on current machines.


what are you doinig if you know you have a picture taken 1998, but can't open it with todays software? maybe search ebay for a 9 year old computer.

maybe it is a good idea to DNG all your raw files.


another thing: being in buisness for decades doesn't help a bit. voigtländer, contax, zenza bronica, pentax MF, just to name a few...
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jonstewart on August 29, 2007, 07:53:07 pm
Quote
As I look over my VAST canon Fd system I smile with great pain.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136142\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's a superb answer... I just about remember the transition from FD to...what's that new one?... oh yes, the EF mount!

You brightened my day! Thanks.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on August 30, 2007, 07:33:26 pm
Quote
Interesting that Canon are not playing the 'image quality' card  They know they are beaten in that respect. I think we all already know that Canon has some virtues, which makes them the camera of choice for many. Image quality isn't one of those virtues, so for people looking at max IQ they go for digital MF or large format film.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=136174\")


Of course they're not playing. Just look at the famous Canon Mark III sample image:
[a href=\"http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos1dsm3/eos1dsm3_sample-e.html]http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos1dsm3/...3_sample-e.html[/url]


Everyone owning a DB will laught at this image. At least from my point of view is a disaster.... And I'm sure the MKIII can do better than this but... the way to MF quality is still very long for Canon...
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Jeffreytotaro on August 30, 2007, 09:35:28 pm
My cameras in order of use:

Phase One P45+ on a Cambo Wide DS with Schneider lenses

Leica M8 (very little distortion on a range finder camera)

Then the Canon 5D.

For me the Canon lenses are not up to the job when it comes to resolution or distortion.  11mp to 17mp now 22mp, who cares.  Those lenses cannot see even half of those pixels.  At least they boosted to 14bits.  Still a big difference between 16 and 14 though.

I shoot a lot of straight lines so I care about distortion.  We all use the best tool for the job.  For me it's not Canon.  Works for many others though.  MFDBs are not going anywhere soon.

In terms of workflow the Phase back means less work for me.  No distortion corrections, no color fringe corrections.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: phila on August 31, 2007, 04:22:36 am
Quote
Still a big difference between 16 and 14 though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Given Photoshop works in 15 bit, I wonder just how big the gap really is?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: rainer_v on August 31, 2007, 04:43:53 am
Quote
"Of course they're not playing. Just look at the famous Canon Mark III sample image:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos1dsm3/...3_sample-e.html (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos1dsm3/eos1dsm3_sample-e.html)
Everyone owning a DB will laught at this image. At least from my point of view is a disaster.... And I'm sure the MKIII can do better than this but... the way to MF quality is still very long for Canon..."


"For me the Canon lenses are not up to the job when it comes to resolution or distortion. 11mp to 17mp now 22mp, who cares. Those lenses cannot see even half of those pixels. At least they boosted to 14bits. Still a big difference between 16 and 14 though."

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136448\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

in which respect this image is a desaster? just curious to know,- although i have mf backs in my bag.
and .... 16bit is much better than 14bit especially if these 2 additional bits just exist in your iimageination. no back use more than 14. the rest is "floor", same as in the canon.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: sundstei on August 31, 2007, 05:11:26 am
Quote
Of course they're not playing. Just look at the famous Canon Mark III sample image:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos1dsm3/...3_sample-e.html (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos1dsm3/eos1dsm3_sample-e.html)
Everyone owning a DB will laught at this image. At least from my point of view is a disaster.... And I'm sure the MKIII can do better than this but... the way to MF quality is still very long for Canon...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136448\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You have to enlighten me here..in what way is this photo a disaster?

I use a A75 + H1 and am not really laughing. I have seen some sample files from Leaf and Phase that would make me laugh  

Svein Erik
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: eronald on August 31, 2007, 05:32:16 am
Quote
You have to enlighten me here..in what way is this photo a disaster?

I use a A75 + H1 and am not really laughing. I have seen some sample files from Leaf and Phase that would make me laugh  

Svein Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136519\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It looks exactly like a 1Ds2 file for skin tone. I just sold my 1Ds2, haven't used it for months because of this skin tone.

Edmund
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: josayeruk on August 31, 2007, 06:03:07 am
Quote
You have to enlighten me here..in what way is this photo a disaster?

I use a A75 + H1 and am not really laughing. I have seen some sample files from Leaf and Phase that would make me laugh  

Svein Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136519\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wow, where would I start!!

- Skin tone
- Wierd CA on the out of focus areas (lens?)
- Noise
- Oh and none of it is in focus so hard to judge!  

Jo S. x
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on August 31, 2007, 08:48:12 am
Quote
You have to enlighten me here..in what way is this photo a disaster?

I use a A75 + H1 and am not really laughing. I have seen some sample files from Leaf and Phase that would make me laugh  

Svein Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136519\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wow, where would I start!!

- Skin tone
- Wierd CA on the out of focus areas (lens?)
- Noise
- Oh and none of it is in focus so hard to judge! biggrin.gif

Jo S. x


+Green cast on skin shadows.. etc.... etc...
Is not my intention to start a war here, but ... please don't tell me this compares to your H1.
I've taken portraits with a Ligtphase that are far better than this one... but again, not my point to make fuzz... it's just my opinion...
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Dustbak on August 31, 2007, 09:13:25 am
Though I do not find it a really bad image, quite good for a DSLR actually, I agree with things found.

Besides that, it isn't really sharp in one place either. It is supposed to be on her right eye but it isn't really there. The so specific softness of DSLR is very visible.

The ca under her arms, weird magenta/green reflections in the pearls. The Magenta/Green line on the left side of her dress.

For a shot to advertise the quality of the flagship product it is not good. Have a look at the floating thumb on the right side.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: AndreNapier on August 31, 2007, 09:28:45 am
I just came back from 2 weeks Euro trip where we were testing some models. Through the west countries I was using A75/RZ but on my last leg to Tirana Albania because of harsh economic situation I decided to leave the camera in Milano hotel and take only 1DsII with me.
This was the very last time I did it. In my opinion files are like beautiful girls. A lot of them look great by itself, but when you put a pretty street girl on stage with real beauty contestants you can't hold your smile.
This is the laughing that we are talking about.  
Canon files make a great life companion, reliable, pretty, dependable and ready whenever you are. Do not put them against MF and you are set for life.

http://AndreNapier.com (http://AndreNapier.com)
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: H1/A75 Guy on August 31, 2007, 10:23:01 am
"but when you put a pretty street girl on stage with real beauty you can't hold your smile."

I like that. Well done, Andre.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: AndreNapier on August 31, 2007, 10:35:43 am
Quote
"but when you put a pretty street girl on stage with real beauty you can't hold your smile."

I like that. Well done, Andre.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136552\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My wife just noted that the difference between 12bit and 16bit is pretty much the same as between 24 inch waist and 32 inch waist on a model. It is hard to see! Isn't it?
Andre
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: thsinar on August 31, 2007, 10:40:00 am
I'd like to "reorientate" the discussion.

The initial statement and claim from this published statement/announcement was:

"... today’s medium format digital backs often do not fit even recent products from the same manufacturer. Will a newly-purchased component be compatible with same-brand software and hardware in the not-too-distant future? Betting on, and investing in, the EOS-1DsMarkIII isa sure thing."

It was less a question about quality comparison than to put in doubt the compatibility of products (and also the "survva" of) from MFDB manufacturer in the near future ("not-to-distant").

Thierry
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: H1/A75 Guy on August 31, 2007, 11:26:44 am
Sometimes my mind goes to sleep while reading some of these seemingly non-sense threads. If one has doubts about compatibility of products in the future or near term the answer is simple - Don't Buy. I'll try and stay awake in the future.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: thsinar on August 31, 2007, 11:54:44 am
Excatly.

Thierry

Quote
Sometimes my mind goes to sleep while reading some of these seemingly non-sense threads. If one has doubts about compatibility of products in the future or near term the answer is simple - Don't Buy. I'll try and stay awake in the future.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jonstewart on August 31, 2007, 12:24:16 pm
Quote
Through the west countries I was using A75/RZ ...

http://AndreNapier.com (http://AndreNapier.com)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How do you find the crop factor with that combination, if you don't mind me asking? (I'm thinking of use in interior, btw)

TIA
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: sundstei on August 31, 2007, 12:34:40 pm
Quote
+Green cast on skin shadows.. etc.... etc...
Is not my intention to start a war here, but ... please don't tell me this compares to your H1.
I've taken portraits with a Ligtphase that are far better than this one... but again, not my point to make fuzz... it's just my opinion...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136542\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I was not stating that the photo was perfect, simply that I see just as much trouble in my Aptus files hence not making the file "laughable". There are strange noise areas even in ISO 50, CA all over from most H1 lenses, sensor blooming in highlight, colors off, wb off, weird tonalities, frame vignetting and Leaf is still not able to make the left and right side of the frame the same brightness  I have shot with PhaseOne since the H10 to P45 and Leaf since A22 to A75. MF is not immune to all the problems mentioned above.

Skintone is not the effect of equipment.. i hear that so often its getting ridicules..

The photo is not terrible. Its weak in some technical areas, but what do you expect at f1.8? And its just a JPEG.. what can you judge from a simple JPEG?

As far as 14 vs 16 bits.. I doubt there is anyone alive that can see the difference in a blind test. If you work the file really hard.. you can have the advantage of having more RAW data, but usually it will just be "more of the same".

SveinErik
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on August 31, 2007, 03:21:19 pm
Hi,
Try to shoot a graybackground with a spot, in other words a gradiant.

I bet everyone will see the difference in 12-14-16 bits.

I have switched from the 5D to the Mamiya ZD back and now the leaf and the gradiants are stunning with the Leaf (16 bits) were ALL other solutions did not did very well

Also in skintones the 16 bits is clearly seen, the skin is much smoother and more detailed.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: AndreNapier on August 31, 2007, 03:28:14 pm
Quote
How do you find the crop factor with that combination, if you don't mind me asking? (I'm thinking of use in interior, btw)

TIA
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136586\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I use it for a full year now and find it a very workable solution. It will all depend on your needs.
For people shooting it works perfect. 110mm is an amazing lens with a beautiful drawing. If you need very wide angles 50mm is limiting. You get a great look of Rz 50mm wide but not that much coverage. My back is dedicated to H mount but once I tried the Rz I never looked back.
I blacked out the rest of the screen and by now I do not even think about it.
Andre
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jonstewart on August 31, 2007, 05:47:00 pm
Thanks, Andre, that's about what I thought - probably not wide enough for interiors.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: yaya on August 31, 2007, 06:16:07 pm
To answer the original question, here's an exercise:

Go to the DSLR manufacturers' websites, download some of the product shots of their flagship cameras and check the EXIF data....

Many of these are shot with digital backs, which is kind of like saying "we produce a great camera but we don't think it's good enough to produce its own marketing material..."

I don't think the mentioned file is truly bad, but to download a (badly compressed) jpeg that comes up tilted 90º, can only add to my "first know them, then talk about them" belief.

Yair
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: sundstei on August 31, 2007, 06:26:05 pm
Quote
Go to the DSLR manufacturers' websites, download some of the product shots of their flagship cameras and check the EXIF data....

Many of these are shot with digital backs, which is kind of like saying "we produce a great camera but we don't think it's good enough to produce its own marketing material..."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thats just a silly statement  

Canon or whoever else of DSLR manufacturers hire photographers to take the photos. What equipment the photographer happen to have in his studio is irrelevant.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: eronald on August 31, 2007, 06:36:52 pm
Quote
Thats just a silly statement   

Canon or whoever else of DSLR manufacturers hire photographers to take the photos. What equipment the photographer happen to have in his studio is irrelevant.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136654\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And what about the example shots in those selfsame brochures ? Are they just taken off some royalty-free site ?

Edmund
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: sundstei on August 31, 2007, 06:41:53 pm
Quote
And what about the example shots in those selfsame brochures ? Are they just taken off some royalty-free site ?

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


What are you talking about? Yair specifically statet that several of the PRODUCT photos where shot with DBacks (probably because they were taken in a product photography studio equipped with a viewcamera).

I dont believe neither him nor me suggested the example photos were shot with something other then the manufacturers own cameras.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on August 31, 2007, 09:18:27 pm
The frustrating thing about threads like this is we just don't get any direct comparisons demonstrating the superior qualities of MFDBs, where each shot in the comparison has been expertly processed without bias and in accordance with the best methodology and practice for the respective formats.

It would be very strange if a large-photosite, 39mp image were not superior in some way to a small-photosite, 16mp or even 22mp image.

But it would be interesting to see just how significant the differences are, at base ISO. At high ISO I guess there would be no contest. The Canon would blow the MFDB out of the water   .
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: SecondFocus on August 31, 2007, 09:20:23 pm
Quote
Hi,
Try to shoot a graybackground with a spot, in other words a gradiant.

I bet everyone will see the difference in 12-14-16 bits.

I have switched from the 5D to the Mamiya ZD back and now the leaf and the gradiants are stunning with the Leaf (16 bits) were ALL other solutions did not did very well

Also in skintones the 16 bits is clearly seen, the skin is much smoother and more detailed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

By the way Frank, the report on your blog about the 5D, ZD and Leaf is excellent and very helpful. I have pointed a number of people to it who have consistently not grasped the difference between MFD and the 35mm mega megapixel race.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tucker on August 31, 2007, 10:28:48 pm
Quote
I don't think the mentioned file is truly bad, but to download a (badly compressed) jpeg that comes up tilted 90º, can only add to my "first know them, then talk about them" belief.

Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Totally agree, Yair.

When you read that Canon White Paper that was just released, related to the 1ds3, and you really look at the specs on a camera like that, and you truly appreciate what an incredibly advanced machine that all of these cameras are, (including the digital backs), you realize that it's all one step short of pure magic, that human beings designed these things, and can manufacture them in bulk, to such amazingly tight tolerances.

When you really look at that 1ds3 White Paper, you could almost imagine it having a NASA logo on it, and selling for a hundred grand apiece. Truly, an outstanding accomplishment, shooting five frames a second, and having all that stuff operating a fractions of a second, all in sync. (And then, you see people shooting pictures of their cat with them, and then having the nerve to complain about 12 bits versus 16 bits).

And then, you see that lame sample that Canon's marketing department issued, related to a camera that's now touting 22MP, and then the sample is shot at 1.8, where almost nothing is in focus, and you can only surmise that there are about a thousand brilliant minds designing the camera, and one stoner mind that's marketing the camera. Who in their right mind would issue a sample shot at f1.8? And why not a pure RAW file, that most anyone could download and test in DPP? Why a JPG?

Either there's one guy in the marketing department, totally clueless, or else Canon's still working on the camera, and finessing the firmware to get it right, and they don't want to issue anything shot at f11 or so.

Whatever the case, it's truly strange behavior on their part.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tucker on August 31, 2007, 10:30:48 pm
deleted.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: sundstei on September 01, 2007, 02:27:34 am
Quote
It would be very strange if a large-photosite, 39mp image were not superior in some way to a small-photosite, 16mp or even 22mp image.

But it would be interesting to see just how significant the differences are, at base ISO. At high ISO I guess there would be no contest. The Canon would blow the MFDB out of the water   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136671\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In theory, shouldnt the "large-photosite 39mp image" also be better in high ISO? This is a statement that is always used in the 5D vs APS-C format cameras. Hence the assumption that the larger sensor and photosites automatically deliver superior image quality seem to be somewhat flawed.

Of course we all know the reality to be that at higher ISO the digibacks look like crap
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: nicolaasdb on September 01, 2007, 02:32:30 am
I am using a leaf 65 and a ds1MkII.....tested the phase 45 and 30 backs and the Leaf 75....I shot the exact same girl in exactly the same light with a leaf and a ds1mkII...the next day did the same with another girl and the 45 back.....did slight color corrections and printed large 13x17 prints on a epson R2400......hung them on my wall and tried to find the differences...and let me tell you...they are so close that I doubted if it was worth it spending 20+ K plus camera equipment/lenses on a MF digital back!

I did anyways...need to do the "smoke and mirrors BS" to make the clients understand why they are paying so much money!....but honestly (and I am speaking as a commercial fashion/beauty/body photographer) I still don't feel that the difference is that great that is it worth it paying thru the nose!! for a mf system especially now that the ds1mkIII is on it's way!

and don't start about billboard size images (had them in times square and on sunset) with my ds1mkII and they looked great!!

complaining about colors, and sharpness...and noise??!? come on!! everything is manipulated in lightroom and photoshop anyways! But what do I know.

I like to shoot with my 65...but LOVE to shoot with my ds1mkII....light, fast focusing, even faster shooting (never mis a moment)...BETTER focussing!! and an image can be great, but when it is out of focus and ment to be sharp...you can't use it..not even when it is 24bit or higher!
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: MarkKay on September 01, 2007, 02:43:16 am
I could not agree more.  I did not say anything when i saw that example image but equally perplexed and confused.   I would prefer a raw image as well but perhaps the current version of DPP does not support the new RAW images or maybe the Canon folks do not trust anyone else to do the  appropriate conversion--- but then after what they left us for the one example--- geez
Quote
And then, you see that lame sample that Canon's marketing department issued, related to a camera that's now touting 22MP, and then the sample is shot at 1.8, where almost nothing is in focus, and you can only surmise that there are about a thousand brilliant minds designing the camera, and one stoner mind that's marketing the camera. Who in their right mind would issue a sample shot at f1.8? And why not a pure RAW file, that most anyone could download and test in DPP? Why a JPG?

Either there's one guy in the marketing department, totally clueless, or else Canon's still working on the camera, and finessing the firmware to get it right, and they don't want to issue anything shot at f11 or so.

Whatever the case, it's truly strange behavior on their part.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136681\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 01, 2007, 03:00:57 am
@Nicolaas,
Try a shot with a model standing outside, you will see a HUGE difference.
First in DOF, the DOF of the MF is stunning, shooting on F8 and a normal portrait lens (150-200mm) will give you great DOF and issolate your model like a DSLR will do on much larger apertures.
Also watch for dynamic range which is much greater.
AND the 3D look of the picture.

I have shot several sessions with the ZD back and now with the Leaf Aptus22 and even with the normal shots I take during the workshops to show the students the depth and roundness of the models is MUCH more apparent than on the 5D.

If the customer sees the DIFFERENCE is something else, I know that since I started shooting MF my customers do complement me on the 3D look of the images which is weird because before they never did


@secondfocus.
Thanks so much, I got alot of heat on those reviews (especially from DSLR people) but also alot of positive remarks, thanks again.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: paul_jones on September 01, 2007, 03:13:43 am
Quote
I am using a leaf 65 and a ds1MkII.....tested the phase 45 and 30 backs and the Leaf 75....I shot the exact same girl in exactly the same light with a leaf and a ds1mkII...the next day did the same with another girl and the 45 back.....did slight color corrections and printed large 13x17 prints on a epson R2400......hung them on my wall and tried to find the differences...and let me tell you...they are so close that I doubted if it was worth it spending 20+ K plus camera equipment/lenses on a MF digital back!

I did anyways...need to do the "smoke and mirrors BS" to make the clients understand why they are paying so much money!....but honestly (and I am speaking as a commercial fashion/beauty/body photographer) I still don't feel that the difference is that great that is it worth it paying thru the nose!! for a mf system especially now that the ds1mkIII is on it's way!

and don't start about billboard size images (had them in times square and on sunset) with my ds1mkII and they looked great!!

complaining about colors, and sharpness...and noise??!? come on!! everything is manipulated in lightroom and photoshop anyways! But what do I know.

I like to shoot with my 65...but LOVE to shoot with my ds1mkII....light, fast focusing, even faster shooting (never mis a moment)...BETTER focussing!! and an image can be great, but when it is out of focus and ment to be sharp...you can't use it..not even when it is 24bit or higher!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136701\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i agree. i was shooting with my canon and h1/p25 side by side on quite a few jobs, but when the pressure got up, or the light fades i tend to reach for the canon. the p25 was sharper by a nose out of the camera, but the canon files sharpen up nicely in shop.
the times when the p25 out did the canon by a conciderable margin is when you are shooting high contrast situations, like back lit stuff- there is quite a lot more information in the highlights that the 1dsmk2.
but canon seems to have been listening to its users, 14 bit files will be a world of improvement over the 12, but i doubt there will be the same level of difference between 14 and 16bit.
the highlight recovery (i hope) will improve things as well.

i also find the look of the canon lenses (the fast ones - ie 1.2 85, 50) a lot nicer than even the 100 2.2 on the hassy.

right now, im not sure what im going to invest in next in medium format. but a couple of days ago i quite happly bought three new canon lenses- with none of the apprehension of buying the h1 lenses.

paul
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: sundstei on September 01, 2007, 03:17:07 am
Quote
I could not agree more.  I did not say anything when i saw that example image but equally perplexed and confused.   I would prefer a raw image as well but perhaps the current version of DPP does not support the new RAW images or maybe the Canon folks do not trust anyone else to do the  appropriate conversion--- but then after what they left us for the one example--- geez
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, the reason is pretty simple: right now there is no software that can convert the 1DsIII files. Later when software is available, they should provide RAW files for download.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: phila on September 01, 2007, 05:15:41 am
Quote
  ...or else Canon's still working on the camera, and finessing the firmware to get it right, ...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=136681\")

This appears to be the case Mark. I posted this on the DSLR forum a couple of days ago rather than here, but as it is relevant:

Some user info via [a href=\"http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_1DS_MkIII.html]http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_1DS_MkIII.html[/url]

"The firmware is still being tweaked, and testers get regular visits from a Canon rep to install new firmware and take detailed reports on problems/issues/performance. Some of the comments I've received (in no particular order)

Liveview focussing works a treat - people doing product work are loving it
Good lenses are showing their benefits, but others are not as bad as some had expected
The highlight tone priority is ideal for anyone working outside on sunny days :-)
People are using DPP to process the RAW files for the time being, although many are converting to DNG for further work.
Some of the amount of extra dynamic range that can be pulled out of the 14 bit files still needs some software tricks, but expect some pretty interesting results when the various specialist raw processing software vendors get to work.
Overall colour accuracy is a definite improvement over the 1Ds2, particularly noticeable in reds/skintones
The amount of fine detail visible suggests that a relatively weak (compared to 1Ds2) AA filter is in use. The improvement looks more than would be expected from the 16->21 MP increase.
The improved viewfinder really shows if you have to go back to using a 1Ds2
At A3 sizes(and above) prints and large glossy magazine images look noticeably better than the MK2
High ISO noise performance is much better (than the Mk2) with less chroma noise and better detail.
At 100 ISO there has been the suggestion of a bit more shadow noise - not visible in real work, and perhaps more suited to 'Angels on a head of a pin' arguments on DPR ;-)
Unless you are working in a very well lit studio environment the P25 MF back is easily matched, and a P45 can be bested if the lighting is not optimal."
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: yaya on September 01, 2007, 05:16:15 am
Quote
Thats just a silly statement   

Canon or whoever else of DSLR manufacturers hire photographers to take the photos. What equipment the photographer happen to have in his studio is irrelevant.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136654\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As silly as it may sound, we also hire photographers to take the product shots for us and we always make sure they use Leaf backs for these shots.

This is quite a basic practice in our industry and is called trusting your product.

Yair
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: thsinar on September 01, 2007, 07:41:22 am
I couldn't agree more, Yair.

Kind regards,
Thierry

Quote
As silly as it may sound, we also hire photographers to take the product shots for us and we always make sure they use Leaf backs for these shots.

This is quite a basic practice in our industry and is called trusting your product.

Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: sundstei on September 01, 2007, 09:52:38 am
Quote
As silly as it may sound, we also hire photographers to take the product shots for us and we always make sure they use Leaf backs for these shots.

This is quite a basic practice in our industry and is called trusting your product.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Canon (or other manufacturers) do not have a camera for shooting small product photography. You should know this...

It would be silly for Canon/Nikon to limit the photograhers to use some kind of special setup for making photos of their products.




By they way.. talking about image problems on the Canon and its "terrible" example file. I generally have a lot less problems with my canon files then my Aptus files. I still cant get the two halves of the image on my Aptus 75 to have the same exposure on normal fashion photos. According Cedric Muscat@Leaf this is "correct", "can only be corrected in LC" and "This is worse when it comes to the Kodak sensor". Nice solutions.

You might trust in your own products (you get paid to do so) but i dont (..and i have to pay for it).


SveinErik
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tucker on September 01, 2007, 09:52:48 am
Quote
As silly as it may sound, we also hire photographers to take the product shots for us and we always make sure they use Leaf backs for these shots.

This is quite a basic practice in our industry and is called trusting your product.

Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yair,

Before you start getting too righteous about "trusting your product" and being fully truthful and forthcoming, lest I remind you that you yourself approve those ads in PDN that shows the Leaf LCD fully stripped-in and faked, even when you have the clear option to show the product as it truly is.

So before you go grabbing your crotch about your advertising practices, let's factor that one in there. But obviously, we've covered this territory before.

You see that CyndiLauper-ish woman on the LCD in the PDN ad, and then the potential customer picks up the actual camera and sees the quality of the REAL LCD, and boy, what a surprise that must be.

But I've beaten this dead horse with you long enough. But you walked right into that one...

Hope you're doing well.

MT
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Quentin on September 01, 2007, 11:41:08 am
Quote
To answer the original question, here's an exercise:

Go to the DSLR manufacturers' websites, download some of the product shots of their flagship cameras and check the EXIF data....

Many of these are shot with digital backs, which is kind of like saying "we produce a great camera but we don't think it's good enough to produce its own marketing material..."

I don't think the mentioned file is truly bad, but to download a (badly compressed) jpeg that comes up tilted 90º, can only add to my "first know them, then talk about them" belief.

Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yair,

Spot on  

My view is Canon has blown it with their latest releases in comparison to Nikon. MF is going the be the preferred choice for high resolution and studio capture.  Why take a product seriously as a studio tool if its not good enough to do the product shots for its own advertising?  

Quentin
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: MarkKay on September 01, 2007, 12:09:12 pm
Paul I am quite surprised by your comments. I did some comparisons with the hassy 100mm/2.2 and Canon 85/1.2 II and found the former to give more better detail, more accurate color (although this might reflect that we were comparing different backs), and while the bokeh was different, I did not find one better or more pleasing, just a bit different.

Quote
i agree. i was shooting with my canon and h1/p25 side by side on quite a few jobs, but when the pressure got up, or the light fades i tend to reach for the canon. the p25 was sharper by a nose out of the camera, but the canon files sharpen up nicely in shop.
the times when the p25 out did the canon by a conciderable margin is when you are shooting high contrast situations, like back lit stuff- there is quite a lot more information in the highlights that the 1dsmk2.
but canon seems to have been listening to its users, 14 bit files will be a world of improvement over the 12, but i doubt there will be the same level of difference between 14 and 16bit.
the highlight recovery (i hope) will improve things as well.

i also find the look of the canon lenses (the fast ones - ie 1.2 85, 50) a lot nicer than even the 100 2.2 on the hassy.

right now, im not sure what im going to invest in next in medium format. but a couple of days ago i quite happly bought three new canon lenses- with none of the apprehension of buying the h1 lenses.

paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: paul_jones on September 01, 2007, 02:06:15 pm
Quote
Paul I am quite surprised by your comments. I did some comparisons with the hassy 100mm/2.2 and Canon 85/1.2 II and found the former to give more better detail, more accurate color (although this might reflect that we were comparing different backs), and while the bokeh was different, I did not find one better or more pleasing, just a bit different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136747\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i find the blur from the 1.2 is stronger, more beautiful and cinematic looking than the 100 2.2.
maybe the 100 just isnt long enougth to effect the pic in the same way as the 85.
the blur from the 100 looks like it done in photoshop, clearer and "linear looking", less mushy than the 85. when i use a contax/80 i get a similar look as the canon 85, as well as the mamiya 80/1.9.

its just my opinion, i own both and im a bit disapointed in the 100 because of this aspect only .

 paul
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Chris_Brown on September 01, 2007, 03:14:29 pm
Quote
The gauntlet is thrown down to the MF back manuafacturers:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think Canon has thrown down any gauntlet, even if their marketing department wants to think they have.

Perhaps some on this forum compare camera differences at only the pixel-to-pixel level, and I don't think this is a valid argument. It's like comparing a 24x36mm rectangle of an 4x5 chrome to a 35mm slide. There's a lot more to the image capture than the size of the sensor.

Some obvious advantages of the DSLR format:Some obvious advantages of a digital back format:Perhaps others would like to add to these lists.

These things boil down to a difference in image production -- what the photographer uses and manipulates to acquire the image. They're the means to an end. However, once the image is printed on a SWOP press or posted in an 8-bit sRGB web gallery the differences at the pixel-to-pixel level are moot.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: MarkKay on September 01, 2007, 03:47:16 pm
Yes i do understand your points.  I also should add that depending on the content of the  background and distance from the focus subject, there will be a lot of subjectiveness in how one interprets the appeal of the respective  bokeh. THere are definitely differences and I can see why one may be more appealing to some. Based on some previous comments by others, I had expected there to be more substantial differences.


Quote
i find the blur from the 1.2 is stronger, more beautiful and cinematic looking than the 100 2.2.
maybe the 100 just isnt long enougth to effect the pic in the same way as the 85.
the blur from the 100 looks like it done in photoshop, clearer and "linear looking", less mushy than the 85. when i use a contax/80 i get a similar look as the canon 85, as well as the mamiya 80/1.9.

its just my opinion, i own both and im a bit disapointed in the 100 because of this aspect only .

 paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136771\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 01, 2007, 08:05:54 pm
Quote
In theory, shouldnt the "large-photosite 39mp image" also be better in high ISO? This is a statement that is always used in the 5D vs APS-C format cameras. Hence the assumption that the larger sensor and photosites automatically deliver superior image quality seem to be somewhat flawed.

Of course we all know the reality to be that at higher ISO the digibacks look like crap
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe this poor performance of MFDBs at high ISO, despite their larger photosites, is due to the differences between the CCD design and the CMOS design. Is this not so?

The CCD has a greater fill factor, holds a greater charge, produces a greater dynamic range for which it needs a greater bit depth.

The CMOS photodiode is relatively small compared with its pixel pitch, in order to make room for on-chip processors and preamplifiers. However, because each photosite has its own preamplifier, much more can be done with the weak signals resulting from a high ISO.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Graham Mitchell on September 01, 2007, 08:41:34 pm
Quote
Its weak in some technical areas, but what do you expect at f1.8?

The camera is being held back by the lens to some extent, but that's part of the reason many of us chose to use MFDB over Canon et al. The lenses are more capable. If Canon can't give you shallow DOF and sharpness at the same time, well medium format lenses can. As always, this will be important to some and not to others.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: sundstei on September 01, 2007, 09:07:50 pm
Quote
I believe this poor performance of MFDBs at high ISO, despite their larger photosites, is due to the differences between the CCD design and the CMOS design. Is this not so?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136809\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But...only Canon has really been using CMOS as the main design. Cameras such as D200 still uses CCD type sensors.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 01, 2007, 10:48:31 pm
Quote
But...only Canon has really been using CMOS as the main design. Cameras such as D200 still uses CCD type sensors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
 

That must be why Nikon has never excelled on the noise front. The recently announced D300 appears to be in a different category though. On paper at least, noise at high ISO is outstanding. The D300 has a CMOS sensor, doesn't it?

Perhaps CMOS will be the future for MFDBs.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Henry Goh on September 01, 2007, 10:57:00 pm
Quote
That must be why Nikon has never excelled on the noise front. The recently announced D300 appears to be in a different category though. On paper at least, noise at high ISO is outstanding. The D300 has a CMOS sensor, doesn't it?

Perhaps CMOS will be the future for MFDBs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I thought CMOS was supposed to be noisier than CCD.  However, Canon has been very successful in its signal processing to reduce noise in the camera and Nikon has not.  CMOS is cheaper than CCD to manufacture though.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 02, 2007, 12:18:47 am
Quote
I thought CMOS was supposed to be noisier than CCD. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136828\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
 

I think it used to be. Unfortunately there are still some out-of-date websites giving incorrect information.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: nicolaasdb on September 02, 2007, 02:28:27 am
I have to say Yiar...that what you saying might go for Leaf...but I know for a fact that Canon used a Nikon camera for one of their campaigns....year ago...how do I know...I was the model in the shot and the photographer shot (film back them..10 yrs ago) the whole campaign with a Nikon camera and a big nikon lens!!
They (canon) hired the photographer for his creative vision...and couldn't really care less how the shots were created!! And they used the images on a camera body box in an international campaign.

However nowadays this would not be possible since every camera manufacturer has their own signature (because we can't change chips, like we did film).

I recently was hired as one of the photographers for the new Nikon D2Xs worldwide campaign and YES I photographed everything with the new D2Xs.....the whole shoot was "supervised" by a Nikon tech..flown from Japan..to make sure we photographed everything with the new Nikon and within the limits of the histogram...so no creative white or black clipping.

Just saying that there is a lot possible to market you new system and I wouldn't bet my life on camera manufactures using the camera of the competition to create an image...because after all manipulation (like what Leaf does in their campaigns----> the image quality on the digital back doesn't even come close to reality!!! and you know it.....it is pure marketing!! lucky for you the phase image doesn't look much better...actually worse!..maybe you can ask your company to work on that!! wouldn't it be great to have a real jpg preview as clear as on the canon camera?? so you can actually judge your exposure and shadows on the model face....I would pay for this!)
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 02, 2007, 05:19:32 am
Quote
I have to say Yiar...that what you saying might go for Leaf...but I know for a fact that Canon used a Nikon camera for one of their campaigns....year ago...how do I know...I was the model in the shot and the photographer shot (film back them..10 yrs ago) the whole campaign with a Nikon camera and a big nikon lens!!
They (canon) hired the photographer for his creative vision...and couldn't really care less how the shots were created!! And they used the images on a camera body box in an international campaign.

However nowadays this would not be possible since every camera manufacturer has their own signature (because we can't change chips, like we did film).

I recently was hired as one of the photographers for the new Nikon D2Xs worldwide campaign and YES I photographed everything with the new D2Xs.....the whole shoot was "supervised" by a Nikon tech..flown from Japan..to make sure we photographed everything with the new Nikon and within the limits of the histogram...so no creative white or black clipping.

Just saying that there is a lot possible to market you new system and I wouldn't bet my life on camera manufactures using the camera of the competition to create an image...because after all manipulation (like what Leaf does in their campaigns----> the image quality on the digital back doesn't even come close to reality!!! and you know it.....it is pure marketing!! lucky for you the phase image doesn't look much better...actually worse!..maybe you can ask your company to work on that!! wouldn't it be great to have a real jpg preview as clear as on the canon camera?? so you can actually judge your exposure and shadows on the model face....I would pay for this!)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This post is kind of interesting.. 10 years ago?

About the last part of your post:
There's people who can really see the difference between a DB,  a Canon, and a Nikon. There's also people who will never be able to see this differences. A lot of us choose a DB because we can really see the advantages and the performance in terms of quality. For me there's no contest.
And about the jpeg preview... do you know a DB has about 12 stops DR? How much does your DX has? I understand you need to look at the preview and that you'd pay for it. For me working with the DB is like working with B&W film. No problems with the exposure.
The only way Nikon and Canon comes near to medium format is in the megapixel count, and thats because it's the only way to fool customers. "Like someone said to me: don't buy the P21, soon you'll be able to buy a 1ds MK III much cheaper. It's 22Mpx!!". UUFF, that was a good one....
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 02, 2007, 05:43:00 am
The problem is sometimes you will be shouting against a wall.

I teach alot of workshops and when I changed to MF I had some students who could not understand it, untill I showed them the pictures on the monitor in the studio, at the moment four of my students are looking into switching themself while before they were certain to get the 1DsIII.

The problem is that the 3D look of the pictures of MF and the dynamic range are often discarted as in your mind and we don't need them.
For me it was VERY CLEAR from the first shot I did with MF that there was a HUGE difference between that and a DSLR.

I think Drew Gardner said it all in his interview about the 1DsIII which he demonstrated.

If I recall correctly the interviewer asked him if this would mean he would use the 1DsIII now instead of MF.
His answer echoed EXACTLY my thoughts, for most work I will use the 1DsIII but MF is a totally different medium and will of course still be used when the job requires it.

(I hope I quoted it right).

For me the same thing goed.
I will still use my 5D for sports, ZOO visits etc.
But the MF system is with me on street photography, Studio work and even my private shots are done with it.
When you get used look of MF it's hard to swallow the lower dynamic range and flatter pictures of the DSLR.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: nicolaasdb on September 02, 2007, 07:42:11 am
let me be very clear: If your image SUCKS! no camera in the world will make it look any better.

I am shooting with a 65 and like it very much.....but when I have a model that needs a lot of exposures to get the job done...I use my ds1mkII....say what you will, but if you mis asbout 20 shots in a minute that could have been THE shot...are you going to tell the client: Look this has more dynamic range and a better 3D look....RIGHT!! Most clients do not see the difference!

I just worked on 2 images same shoot one with the leaf and one with the ds1....yes there is a difference, but is the difference big enough? In most situations it is not...especially in fashion/glamour/body photography...in product and beauty photography I completely agree, there you need all the detail, etc you can get!

I know there is a 12 stops DR...and I know I am being fooled...but a little sharper screen with a bit better image preview isn't to much to ask...I like to see if the shadows on my models face are where I want them..without downloading them first or being a dog on a leash ( I mean shooting tethered)....but what do I know? Most shooters on this forum are the best of the best..I just make ends meet!

And YES samuel for your kind of work..I would use the biggest sensor MF I could get....landscapes don't need you to shoot an emotion..you have time to setup and wait for the best time of day/light etc. You need all detail you can get!

Frank...in Nederlands....vertel je verhaaltjes durende je workshops....maar voor jouw en mijn werk is een MF camera a luxe...maar een ds1 goed genoeg. In fashion moet je het moment fotograferen en all technische nonsense kan allen maar in de weg zitten....Ik ben blij met mijn leaf 65, maar de belangrijkste reden voor deze MFDB is om de klanten te laten zien dat ze al dat geld niet voor niets betalen. En Ik ken jouw situatie niet, maar ik weet dat een heleboel fotograferen diep in de schuld zitten on een MFDB te hebben....terwijl ze eigenlijk hun oog moeten trainen om betere foto's te maken en een $20K+ en MFDB met camera en lensen etc. een andere $10K/$20K al dit geld had ze better kunnen besteden aan goede makeup/hair artists, wardrobe stylist en locaties.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Dustbak on September 02, 2007, 07:50:55 am
I can understand what Nicolaas says. Volume is exactly where I would take the DSLR as well instead of the Nikon DSLR. Sometimes you just cannot do without volume.

The great equalizer is print, an image from a MFDB looks a tremendous lot better on screen while after print the differences are often much less visible.

Still, when I get the chance I use my MFDB and leaf the Nikon at home. When I compare the difference on screen the Nikon images make me wanna cry.

My other experience is that though most clients don't see images have been taken with a MFDB but they do see they are really beautiful.

On the other hand I have clients that do not recognize a good shot from a bad one either!

I agree with the fact the preview is horrible! On my CF I cannot tell whether the images are good or not. If you put the sync speed on the back or the settings incorrect all images are magenta. No problem if you can see this on the screen, however this is virtually impossible! 2 weeks ago I came home with a bunch of magenta images which took a long time of color correcting  The only thing that I find kind of reliable is tethered on the monitor which is not always doable. The only thing that screen is good for is evaluating the overal histogram and even that is not that good (I also have not found a way of getting the histogram for the separate color channels but that might be my own inexperience).

So, no I don't think that is too much to ask. A decent screen.

Especially shooters that are not the best of the best need good screens
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: nicolaasdb on September 02, 2007, 08:06:53 am
dustbak....I have to admit that I like the output of a ds1 better than a nikon...when shooting film I hated canon and loved my nikon before I switched to mamiya (MF film) I bought a d100 first...my partner in crime (wife) forced me to start shooting digital about 5 years ago (and I hated every moment of it...actual still do...I mis my days in the darkroom etc...now everything needs to be ready yesterday etc).

When I went from the d100 to the ds1mkII I noticed a HUGE difference...but when I tested the MFDB I was actually a little dissapointed...yes there is a difference and yes I see it, but my clients don't, not even the bigger ones, most people in fashion (the jeans, swimsuit...all the more glamorous designers) actually like the more golden and a little more digitized look of the ds1mkII.

When I worked with the Nikon d2xs I noticed how real to life (lots of greens and reds) the images looked....and I don't like realisime...but this is all personal. All I am trying to say is that when I examined the Nikon images recently, compared to the canon and the leaf 65 75 and phase one 45 and 30...yes I did my research I sawa difference, but just not that much...and when shooting MF I have to give up speed in shooting and focussing and the detail of the LCD preview screen...that's all I am saying.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Dustbak on September 02, 2007, 09:27:09 am
I know what you mean. No need to try be diplomatic

I went from D1x to D200 (skipped the D2x). I must say sometimes I feel hurt because of the Canon 5D. Compare the D2 series with the 5D and I cannot say anything but Canon has a clear advantage over Nikon currently. Especially in people shots.

I came very close to switching but maybe the D3 series will close the gap somewhat. It is just that,  25 years of using one brand (since age 13) you get attached to it, even when considering equipment as mere tools. Some tools feel more comfortable than others and the rest might very well be perception, etc...
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: nicolaasdb on September 02, 2007, 02:47:19 pm
I know exactly what you mean.....i was hard for me to switch from Nikon as well....I never liked the canon...and can't give you an exact reason why.....BUT once I switched (because I had to!! you can't run a business on personal feelings) the difference was so HUGE.....it was like night and day.
But we are talking about a d100 for $1800 (back then-5yrs) and $8000 (ds1mkII). I have read good things about the D3. but for me it is too late I am not a canon junky...and yes a MF liker!! It is nice to have such a big piece of equipment with such large files....and when I have an easy job (like there are any!!) the MF is the way to go..it is like shooting film.
In the end it all depends on what you shoot! If I were a lanscape photographer I would shoot MFDB....if I were a landscape fotographer with less money I would use Nikon (because their real life colors)
If I were a product photographer I would us Phase one...amazingly sharp.
BUT I am not I shoot mostly scandely clad (half naked) women and they don't need to look real to life or extra crispy (sharp) they need to have a golden glow, no one want to see each wrinkle and poor. So the dsI and the Leaf 65 work well for me....but I can't wait for the 65s and hopefully ( in my life...but I don't think so) a better focusing system for MF and a better screen on my DB. Maybe for x-mas?? Please Santa!!
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 02, 2007, 02:58:45 pm
Hear hear on the AF system.
I do find that it varies per lens but it's much worse than my DSLR.
On the other hand it is MUCH more precise, with the 645AFDII on spotfocus I can focus on the top of the eyeball with portraits, with the 5D this was never 100% accurate.
It's one of the tradeoffs
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: rethmeier on September 02, 2007, 05:22:04 pm
One thing that people forget to mention,that you are forever cropping into the 24x36 format.
Less or none with the MFDB format!
That's my greatest dislike of the DSLR's.
Cheers,
Willem.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: nicolaasdb on September 02, 2007, 05:34:46 pm
you know what...I completely forgotten about the crop factor....this was actually one of the major desisions to go for MF!

Ofcourse you can buy (for about $125) screens that will give you a 8x10 or square crop, but you lose about 5MP when you stick to this crop.

And I am not against MFDB.....I got one and like it a lot....and there is a difference....but in the end for my kind of work..is it worth it?? probably if you can afford it.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: rethmeier on September 02, 2007, 06:04:22 pm
Nic,
I used to have and use a 10x8 camera and a 5x7 camera and a 4x5 and a 6x7 and a 35mm.
Now it's only a 5D and an eMotion-75LV.
A lot less gear in my books,
The cost involved with digital is just part of doing business these days.
Cheers,
WR.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: JeffKohn on September 03, 2007, 12:55:03 am
Quote
Recently there was a thread on DPREVIEW about the H3D39 compared to the 5D and there was one replier who did an upscaling of the 5D and claimed he could not see a difference......
Well ok what do you want to talk about than
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=136165\")
I presume you're talking about [a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=24588661]this thread[/url]? If so I find your comment puzzling, because I said nothing of the sort. Did you actually read the thread?

There's clearly a difference in the on-screen crops, and I have no doubt it would be noticeable in print. I said as much in the thread. I was a little surprised that the H3D shot needed as much sharpening, since it doesn't have an AA filter but I guess there's still the bayer filter to compensate for.

But really, comparing a 39mp image to a 12mp image I hardly think it's surprising the H3D wins. I have to wonder if there would still be such a large difference in resoluation between something like the Mamiya ZD and the upcoming Canon 21mp DSLR (or Nikon's rumoured high-megapixel FX camera that may come out next year).
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: JeffKohn on September 03, 2007, 01:00:19 am
Quote
To answer the original question, here's an exercise:

Go to the DSLR manufacturers' websites, download some of the product shots of their flagship cameras and check the EXIF data....

Many of these are shot with digital backs, which is kind of like saying "we produce a great camera but we don't think it's good enough to produce its own marketing material..."
Have you found such examples on Canon's website? Maybe they don't shoot product shots with their own DSLR's, but I kinda doubt that they leave EXIF intact testifying to that fact. I spot-checked a few images on their website and they didn't have any EXIF at all (which is what I expected).

Quote
I don't think the mentioned file is truly bad, but to download a (badly compressed) jpeg that comes up tilted 90º, can only add to my "first know them, then talk about them" belief.
Canon has a history of posting really crummy sample pictures when they release a new model. Doesn't anybody remember the awful landscape images they posted from the 5D taken with a 17-40L lens? The corner were truly atrocious, and seemed to validate everything the Nikon defenders had been saying about why full-frame may not be better.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Dustbak on September 03, 2007, 01:52:17 am
Well obviously Canon has learned from its mistakes. Only a few years ago they did leave the exif data on the images which is how people found out they didn't use their own cameras. Pretty soon after that they took out the exif data from pictures.

BTW. I found the Hasselblad 39MP CF does need a bit sharpening where my Leaf doesn't. That difference is also noticeable.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 03, 2007, 03:27:08 am
@Jeff.
It was not your post, and not that thread, it was a smaller thread it did point to that thread I believe because I also read that one.

It was someone with little text, just claiming that after upsampling the 5D file looked as good or better.

I tried the search but could not come up with it, he did not post sample pics by the way.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: rethmeier on September 03, 2007, 07:02:34 am
Can we please move on?
For most of the time the new 1DsMkIII will have to be cropped for a single page or DPS.
A 33 or 39 MFDB will still give you a lot more real estate.
The new Canon and the new D3 from Nikon are super cameras and no MFDB camera will come
close for speed etc.(Not yet)
It's horses for courses and that why I use both!
Cheers,
WR
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: nicolaasdb on September 03, 2007, 07:32:51 am
double page layouts need no crop in 35mm...they are almost right on...it is the MF that needs a crop   for double page layout (I think that is what you mean by dps, right?) MF images are to short if shot landscape and need to be cropped top or bottom. Isn't it always something! LOL
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: rethmeier on September 03, 2007, 08:44:54 am
"double page layouts need no crop in 35mm...they are almost right on...it is the MF that needs a crop for double page layout (I think that is what you mean by dps, right?) MF images are to short if shot landscape and need to be cropped top or bottom. Isn't it always something! LOL"

Nic!
It depends on which magazine!
Still I would rather crop a file from a 33-39 MFDB!
Cheers,
Willem.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: rethmeier on September 03, 2007, 08:48:47 am
Nic!
Ook een oud model?
WR
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: AndreNapier on September 03, 2007, 10:32:22 am
To me the biggest difference between MF and DSLR  is not what they do to an image but what they do to me. When I look through Rz's WLF I see a clear 3D layered set up and I compose with full awareness of the depth of field. I have the feeling of being present deep inside my image and it helps me to arrange it creatively. Looking through DSLR I am just an observer of a flat image, kind of like judging art of an oversize stamp in an album. Of course I understand that this is personal feeling based on my own lock of much experience with small finders, but the difference is SOOOOO huge. It is like going to a movie or watching it on 19" screen at home. In both cases you see the same production but each one of them leaves you with different impressions, feeling and creative thoughts.
It does not matter how many pixels will the next DSLR come with, for some of us we will never work the same with DSLR's as we do with larger mediums. ... and of course for others who are used to shooting with 35mm the sole amount of information found on a ground glass of a larger format camera might be as disturbing and as confusing.
Http://andrenapier.com (http://Http://andrenapier.com)
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 03, 2007, 11:03:26 am
I had a nice mail conversation with someone who echoes my thoughts (or I his).

DSLR's can do anything you want or need.
The difference however is what you want for yourself and as an artist.

When I look at napiers work I see alot pictures with an incredible depth to it, I think/hope they are shot with a MF system.
This is however something that most people won't notice or don't care about, it is however what you feel when making the shot.
I myself find that I'm much more inspired when I shoot with the MF system than with the DSLR which feels like a tool for work (and it delivers always).

For me as an artist it's the 3D look and DR that does it in quality, however the same shot can be made with a DSLR in 99% of the cases, but somehow to ME it than looks like a cheap imitation of what I intended.

That depth has pushed me towards the MF system and finally Leaf.
I had ALOT of shots on the web I admired and mailed some photographers what they used to get the incredible 3D look to the pictures, the ones who mailed back told me a MF system, with a few I came in contact and mailed a few times.
Almost all told me they used both DSLR's and MF.
Almost all told me that they used the MF for when it counted and personal projects and the DSLR when the job had to be done and get it over with.
The DSLR got their their pictures always without trouble, however the MF was for those personal projects and the projects that demanded the absolute best.

I think that is also the way it's supposed to be.
When you are in the market to earn money and want to shoot a billboard the 5D will do just fine, want to crop buy the 1DsIII.
But if you are like me also personally attached to the images and just plain love to shoot MF COULD be a wonderful step up.

Greetings,
Frank
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: JeffKohn on September 03, 2007, 06:38:47 pm
Quote
@Jeff.
It was not your post, and not that thread, it was a smaller thread it did point to that thread I believe because I also read that one.

It was someone with little text, just claiming that after upsampling the 5D file looked as good or better.

I tried the search but could not come up with it, he did not post sample pics by the way.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry for jumping conclusions, I must have missed that one as the only 5D/H3D comparison I recall there was the one I posted in. I do recall Roman Johnston's comparison thread, but that was H3D versus D2x (and the D2x file looked so bad people were wondering if it might have been mishandled somehow).
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jimgolden on September 03, 2007, 06:55:18 pm
"However, once the image is printed on a SWOP press or posted in an 8-bit sRGB web gallery the differences at the pixel-to-pixel level are moot"

"CMYK - the great leveler"

enduser is often the color house doing the pre-press and the printer...having worked in these environs for years, I saw what the operators did to 16bit RGB imagery, and it wasnt pretty...
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 03, 2007, 07:29:18 pm
Quote
For me as an artist it's the 3D look and DR that does it in quality, however the same shot can be made with a DSLR in 99% of the cases, but somehow to ME it than looks like a cheap imitation of what I intended.
This is exaclty the way I feel about MF. It's like the MF understands me as an artist. I'll get what I see (or very close) and I really enjoy the proccess of doing it.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: mcfoto on September 03, 2007, 09:24:29 pm
Hi
The last few days I have been going in to Sydney photographing the APEC installations. I have been using the ZD, 35 & 55-110 zoom. I was going to take a tripod but my partner said  don't draw attention to yourself & she was right as the police told me to STOP taking pictures of the fence yesterday. What is so weird about APEC to me is it is way past "1984", blocked streets, 5km of fence, no go zones, portable jails......welcome to Australia!!!!!!!! Back to the ZD it is an amazing camera for this type of shooting & I keep the iso between 50-125. Fits into a small camera bag & is light weight. When I get my new lenses for the 5D I will take it as a second body. When my ZD gets a firmware upgrade then I will use the higher iso's.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 03, 2007, 09:41:45 pm
Quote
For me as an artist it's the 3D look and DR that does it in quality, however the same shot can be made with a DSLR in 99% of the cases, but somehow to ME it than looks like a cheap imitation of what I intended.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137055\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ah! But we haven't yet seen what the 1Ds3 can do, have we? As already mentioned, the 1Ds3 sample image on Canon's site is not truly representative.

Can someone also explain to me how a 2-dimensional photograph can produce a greater sense of 3-dimensionality when it's taken by an MFDB. Is it the extra resolution; the greater dynamic range? If not, is it perhaps the placebo effect of owning such an expensive piece of equipment? A sort of subconscious justification for such excessive expenditure.

Has anyone done a scientifically rigorous comparison, you know, a sort of double blind test? For example, comparisons of scenes where the dynamic range and extra resolution is not particularly significant, because of the nature of the scene, no really fine detail and no great contrasts etc.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 04, 2007, 03:02:46 am
Hi,
It's in the sensor size.
When I switched from the 20D to the 5D I saw an increase in 3D look from my pictures.
When I shot with a Hasselblad I saw the same thing happen.
That's the reason I switched.

Some people will claim it's only the DOF and you can get the same result with a 1.2 lens or 1.8 on the DSLR but this is simply not true, even on f16 the 3D look from the MF is better.
HOWEVER it is very easily seen on the larger apertures.

Some examples done with the ZD by the way:
Take note how the subject is pushed clear from the surroundings instead of lokking 2D fixed to the surroundings.
(http://www.htforum.nl/fotofrank/albums/userpics/10001/Lommelse_zoo_serie_3_17_Juni_2007-20.jpg)

(http://www.htforum.nl/fotofrank/albums/userpics/10001/begraafplaatsen_Mol_17_Juni_2007-12.jpg)

(http://www.doorhof.nl/portfolio/albums/userpics/10001/Nora_G_1_Augustus_2007__(47_of_53).jpg)

Maybe it's the missing AA filter or microcontrast but I think it's the bigger sensor (larger circle of confussion) because I experienced the same from the 20D to 5D with exactly the same lenses.

Some people don't see it that's true but maybe that's their monitor.
I'm an ISF calibrator and know how the calibration of a monitor (and proper gamma/blacklevel) can affect the look of a picture. On all my setups (including projection) the MF files are just much more 3D.

It's not a placebo I'm afraid.
I saw the effect on the Hasselblad a while ago and have been trying to emulate the effect with my 5D and a 1DsII for almost 5 months and what ever I tried it was impossible, you can get a very nice 3D effect when EVERY element is carefully planned but when I made the switch to MF it was right on the money every shot.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 04, 2007, 04:05:32 am
Quote
Ah! But we haven't yet seen what the 1Ds3 can do, have we? As already mentioned, the 1Ds3 sample image on Canon's site is not truly representative.

Can someone also explain to me how a 2-dimensional photograph can produce a greater sense of 3-dimensionality when it's taken by an MFDB. Is it the extra resolution; the greater dynamic range? If not, is it perhaps the placebo effect of owning such an expensive piece of equipment? A sort of subconscious justification for such excessive expenditure.

Has anyone done a scientifically rigorous comparison, you know, a sort of double blind test? For example, comparisons of scenes where the dynamic range and extra resolution is not particularly significant, because of the nature of the scene, no really fine detail and no great contrasts etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 1Ds III still has a small sensor, same lenses, and smaller microns. I don't know exactly the size but more pixels in the same area means smaller pixels. That could result in maybe more noise in shadows, color rendition problems, etc... I'm not saying that the quality will be bad, but I doubt I'll be better tha the MKII or even close to MF.
I don't think a lot of people understand (specially thouse who don't use MF) that the resolution of the MKIII cannot make the pictures look like MF.  It's alot more, bit depth, sensor size, quality lenses, etc... Canon's pictures gets bigger and bigger but not better (in my opinion).

/Samuel
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Morgan_Moore on September 04, 2007, 04:12:21 am
Quote
It's in the sensor size.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Of course it is the sensor size which renders a completely different look in terms of depth of field

With less DOF the subject 'pings' off the background and the image looks more 3d - simple

Longer lenses have less depth of field (for a given aperture/focus distance etc)

So you get a 80mm DOF and a (35mmterms)50mm field of view

Even an 85 1.2 wont change this physics although it will give a minimal DOF

I dont know why people even consider MF without understanding this.

the canone premise therefore is utter baloney - of course they may make a tool that has ancceptable number of pixels/DR no doubt at all

Of course there are other factors too in favour of MF - viewing experience - smaller dust etc

S
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: eronald on September 04, 2007, 04:47:26 am
Frank,

 It's interesting to see how strong the 3D illusion is even on small web images. The face image is astonishing.

Edmund
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 04, 2007, 04:47:31 am
Quote
Of course it is the sensor size which renders a completely different look in terms of depth of field

With less DOF the subject 'pings' off the background and the image looks more 3d - simple

Longer lenses have less depth of field (for a given aperture/focus distance etc)

So you get a 80mm DOF and a (35mmterms)50mm field of view

Even an 85 1.2 wont change this physics although it will give a minimal DOF

I dont know why people even consider MF without understanding this.

the canone premise therefore is utter baloney - of course they may make a tool that has ancceptable number of pixels/DR no doubt at all

Of course there are other factors too in favour of MF - viewing experience - smaller dust etc

S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137173\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's not so simple. Even 35mm pictures taken with telephoto can look flat. It's also the color and shadow light transitions, (this is bit deph and DR) and I'm talking about the sharp part of the picture. You can emulate the DOF of a MF picture with a telephoto, buy the big problem for the 35mm is the fucused part. The flatness is there.
To see an example, look at the portrait Frank posted right here. No really blur anywere, or big telephoto feeling. No 35mm can do that. And it's a web jpg...
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jing q on September 04, 2007, 05:23:10 am
Quote
It's not so simple. Even 35mm pictures taken with telephoto can look flat. It's also the color and shadow light transitions, (this is bit deph and DR) and I'm talking about the sharp part of the picture. You can emulate the DOF of a MF picture with a telephoto, buy the big problem for the 35mm is the fucused part. The flatness is there.
To see an example, look at the portrait Frank posted right here. No really blur anywere, or big telephoto feeling. No 35mm can do that. And it's a web jpg...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137177\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree with the 3-dimensional aspect of things
You will really see the difference when you print large. I myself thought the Canon images looked better than the 39 megapixel files shot by the Hassy until I blew my print up to 4ftx6ft.

(http://superhyperreal.com/NEWS/sva2.jpg)
(please ignore the person in the center)

 There seems to be more meat and microdetail in the MF files that I don't get in the 1Ds MKII. this applies also to the files from my old 16 mp Kodak back (that's long been sold off)

There seems to be more colour information in the MF files which allow a more gradual transition among colours, whereas colours on the 1DsMkII can be flatter in terms of transition. Perhaps this also contributes to the more 3-d look of MF files?

Comparing depth of field also, I noticed that I can easily get everyone in sharp focus in one of my shots whereas even at f16 on my MF there is obvious gradiation from sharp to out of focus.

[img]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: eronald on September 04, 2007, 05:50:25 am
Quote
Comparing depth of field also, I noticed that I can easily get everyone in sharp focus in one of my shots whereas even at f16 on my MF there is obvious gradiation from sharp to out of focus.

[img]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Indeed. Maybe a crop-sensor camera makes the perfect marriage camera because it's even easier to get everyone in focus ...


Edmund
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: canmiya on September 04, 2007, 07:15:12 am
Quote
Ah! But we haven't yet seen what the 1Ds3 can do, have we? As already mentioned, the 1Ds3 sample image on Canon's site is not truly representative.

Can someone also explain to me how a 2-dimensional photograph can produce a greater sense of 3-dimensionality when it's taken by an MFDB. Is it the extra resolution; the greater dynamic range? If not, is it perhaps the placebo effect of owning such an expensive piece of equipment? A sort of subconscious justification for such excessive expenditure.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

An additional factor with respect to dimensionality, may be the lenses:  There does seem to be a difference in contrast/micro-contrast in the mf lenses and Canon lenses.  It is interesting that with Zeiss or Leica glass on Canon bodies,  images do seem to have more dimension and depth  than images taken with their Canon couunterparts out of camera.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 04, 2007, 11:23:38 am
Correct at the difference pointed out by Morgan, I have had this discussion over and over and just gave up at a certain point.

It's best seen when you shoot MF and only than, on paper you can post the most outrageous theories which by the way ALL are valid, but in the practice it's simply never the same.
It's like the perfect sauce with ONE very small ingredient you can make or break the sauce.

@canmiya,
Correct.
HOWEVER that is not the whole story.
I have tested alot of lenses on my 5D and the 135mm 2.0L and the 85mm 1.2L gave me the most 3D look in my pictures, however it was all slightly.
When the light was right, the exposure spoton etc. etc. it was better.

There is however a HUGE gap between MF and even the best L lens on the Canon as explained by morgan it's different pshychics.

You can see it very easily when studiying the pictures as also mentioned in this thread look at the course the sharpness follows and goes over in the bokeh of the lens, I have NEVER seen this with my Canon, there always was a digital edge in the transition which broke a big deal of the 3D look for me, and ofcourse again sensor size as Morgan explained.


Also as mentioned before when you deliver for a magazine there is ALOT lost, I have seen prints made by MF systems that looked as flat as a one dollar bill , however when you look at the inktjet prints made by myself it's very 3D and it jumps of the paper.

So for the JOB the new Canon will do just fine, and maybe even better than MF, for the artist in yourself........... it's a different story.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 04, 2007, 11:24:08 am
Quote
Of course it is the sensor size which renders a completely different look in terms of depth of field

With less DOF the subject 'pings' off the background and the image looks more 3d - simple

Longer lenses have less depth of field (for a given aperture/focus distance etc)

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137173\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You realise this is heresy in the opinion of some   . Sensor size is supposed to have nothing to do with DoF. DoF is determined by focal length, aperture and distance to subject.

Theoretically, if you make the appropriate adjustments in respect of focal length and aperture, using a shorter FL and about 1 stop wider aperture for FF 35mm, then DoF should be the same for both cameras.

The fact that some of you seem to think it isn't (and I'm assuming you all know that you have to make FL and aperture adjustments when using a different format) makes me think that your MF lenses are simply sharper at that equivalent aperture.

For example, a 75mm lens at f4 with a P45 should give you the same DoF (and FoV making allowances for the different aspect ratio) as a 50mm lens at f2.8 with a 35mm DSLR (from the same distance). But I happen to know that my Canon 50mm lenses are not particularly sharp at f2.8 and pretty awful at f1.4 and f1.8.

I guess this would have the effect of diminishing the effect of 3-dimensionality.

I agree with Edmund, BTW, that Frank's shot of the young lady is astonishingly clear, sharp and smooth.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Bruce MacNeil on September 04, 2007, 11:41:28 am
Diinemsion - there is a lot of things to consider. I mmade a lot of portraits with the 8x10 and usually found f8 to be a certain look.

The 1Ds I now use leaves loads to be desired. The images from the camera are lovely but there is a marked lack of emotional draw in some sense that is partly attributable to my frame of mind and partly to the manner in which the circlle of confusion removes ambiguity from the image.

A portrait is a portrait for sure.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Morgan_Moore on September 04, 2007, 12:37:11 pm
Quote
You realise this is heresy in the opinion of some  . Sensor size is supposed to have nothing to do with DoF. DoF is determined by focal length, aperture and distance to subject.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137234\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But some are wrong - they are also right in a way

An 80 at 2.8 (a lense I have in three formats aps, 35FF and '645')

All have exactly the same DOF at a given Focus distance and aperture

but to get the same FOV with a 35mm or APS sensor you need to move back or select a wider lense - both actions create more DOF and less definition between foreground and background

Oh well even if am am wrong my blad makes nice pictures and my APS nikon consistently frustrates

S




SMM
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 04, 2007, 02:01:04 pm
Quote
...but to get the same FOV with a 35mm or APS sensor you need to move back or select a wider lense - both actions create more DOF and less definition between foreground and background

Oh well even if am am wrong my blad makes nice pictures and my APS nikon consistently frustrates
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are not wrong. There will be greater DoF with the smaller format, which is why you have to stop up, about 1 stop.

35mm lenses can have some very wide apertures, but we kid ourselves if we think the lenses are razor sharp at such apertures.

For same DoF, MF digital lenses can be 1 stop narrower (numerically bigger) and therefore possibly sharper. Combine that extra lens sharpness with the wider pixel spacing of the larger format MFDBs, which require less lp/mm resolution from the lens because the sensor is larger, then we have higher 'net' resolution at the point of focus, and therefore a shallower DoF than we might have expected according to the DoF formulas. Am I being clear?

This shallower DoF, due principally to the greater 'system' resolution of the larger format, despite the conventional adjustments of FL and aperture to match 35mm, is possibly what creates this sense of greater 3-dimensionality.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tucker on September 04, 2007, 02:21:33 pm
I'm not an engineer. I'm not a mathematician. I'm a photographer. You guys can talk numbers til the cows come home, but just look at images shot with various formats, to SEE the difference. The problem is, at least the way I see it, all we have as digital options are 35 and 645, and sadly, they're about the same, optically. You've got to get on up to at least 6x9 or 4x5 or even 8x10 to really get this "format size thing" to be readily apparent.

Yes, you can kinda fake it by shooting the Canon 85 1.2 at 1.2, but even then, it's a different effect. I don't know how to explain it, but I know it when I see it.

So you guys can argue about 35 vs 645 all you want. Sadly, there's just not that much difference; the formats are just too close. And there's no 4x5 sensor coming down the pike.

It's about optics. That's all I know. Look at most any 8x10, and you'll instantly see it. It's that "atmospheric effect", whatever that is.

At some point, you've just got to pick your toolset and get to work. Nothing that I've seen for digital has the feeling of film shot on 6x9 or larger. It just doesn't. I wish it did. God knows I've spent enough money chasing it.

You've also got to factor in, simply, "how does the tool feel in your hands? Does it work for your style?". At some point, your style should pick the camera; not the other way around.

Just one opinion.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: feppe on September 04, 2007, 02:45:51 pm
I'm afraid this debate about the 3D-look of MFDBs starts to sound like how high-end audiophiles' claim their stereo sounds better after they lather speaker cables in organic goat urine. €700 per listening session.

There's a lot of talk and anecdotal claims, but little evidence. The examples posted are indeed striking, but without comparable shots with 35mm the critique is of the photography, lighting, post-processing, etc., not about MFDB vs. dSLR. I've seen similar impressive "3D-look" MFDB shots posted here and elsewhere, and am inclined to believe that "better" photos can be bought along with an MFDB system.

Even I tend to correctly spot the MFDB shots even on web resolution resamples, and I'm an amateur shooting a prosumer dSLR. But I have a creeping feeling that the reason why the MFDB shots jump out is - at least partly - due to the fact that those who shoot with them generally have access to nice studios, make-up artists, hairdressers, wardrobe and lighting, and know how to use their equipment. So, in the end, how much of the end result is the back, how much everything else?

Comparisons are finicky. We are left how to define comparable shots between the two systems. And herein lies the problem: while audiophiles' claims can be easily disproven by a double-blind test, it's not so easy with cameras. Different lenses, cameras, sensors, etc. just give different results, no matter how much you try to recreate the shot. So, instead of finding which system produces "better" images, the study might devolve into a "spot the MFDB shot."

Nevertheless, I'd be thrilled to hear results of a double-blind study between prints from the new high-end dSLRs and MFDBs by knowledgeable individuals. *hint hint Michael*
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tucker on September 04, 2007, 03:06:14 pm
Quote
Nevertheless, I'd be thrilled to hear results of a double-blind study between prints from the new high-end dSLRs and MFDBs by knowledgeable individuals. *hint hint Michael*
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Trust me, I have done the double-blind taste test, comparing 1ds2, 5D, P25, P45, and there's not a nickel's worth of difference in them. Especially if you're taking them to CMYK reproduction, or outputting to some shitty Epson printer. Epson and CMYK are, like someone else said, "The Great Levelers".

All this talk is mullarkey. Just buy a camera and use it every single day of the week, and really get to know it, and really process the files. I have shot a million jobs with Canon, and a million jobs with Phase; there's not an ounce of difference in them, (except that Canon is faster and easier to use, and easier to hit good color with).

If you're a product guy or architectural guy or a landscape guy, buy a P45 or an A75 and be done with it. If you're a Lifestyle guy, buy the new Canon and be done with it.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: bwpuk on September 04, 2007, 03:17:40 pm
Quote
I'm not an engineer. I'm not a mathematician. I'm a photographer. You guys can talk numbers til the cows come home, but just look at images shot with various formats, to SEE the difference. The problem is, at least the way I see it, all we have as digital options are 35 and 645, and sadly, they're about the same, optically. You've got to get on up to at least 6x9 or 4x5 or even 8x10 to really get this "format size thing" to be readily apparent.

Yes, you can kinda fake it by shooting the Canon 85 1.2 at 1.2, but even then, it's a different effect. I don't know how to explain it, but I know it when I see it.

So you guys can argue about 35 vs 645 all you want. Sadly, there's just not that much difference; the formats are just too close. And there's no 4x5 sensor coming down the pike.

It's about optics. That's all I know. Look at most any 8x10, and you'll instantly see it. It's that "atmospheric effect", whatever that is.

At some point, you've just got to pick your toolset and get to work. Nothing that I've seen for digital has the feeling of film shot on 6x9 or larger. It just doesn't. I wish it did. God knows I've spent enough money chasing it.

You've also got to factor in, simply, "how does the tool feel in your hands? Does it work for your style?". At some point, your style should pick the camera; not the other way around.

Just one opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Mark,

Once again you've nailed it in your post. I agree with everything you say. This "atmospheric effect" is indeed for me entirely due to optics. Just recently I've been collecting any old vintage lens I could find to stick on my Linhof. The older the better, most without shutters. Take off your hat and put it over the front, just like they used to do, to control the exposure.

If you want atmosphere these old lenses give it in buckets. They might not be as sharp as modern lenses but they've got the MOJO that modern optics seem to lack. A large format camera and a cheap vintage lens giving me a tonality and a bokeh to die for.  Try as I might I just cannot replicate the look on my digital gear, 35 or 645 size.

You just can't describe the look, I just know when I see it. As for handling, this gear sure feels good in my hands.

Just my 2 cents too.

Barrie Watts
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Dustbak on September 04, 2007, 03:25:38 pm
Even if it is a placebo effect. If it works for you it works for you. Fine.

Funny thing is. I use one and the same sensor on a 35mm system as well as 6x6 hasselblad and soon Hasselblad H.  If I'll remember I will try making the same shot with all 3 of them so people can start dissecting them. The only thing that will be different between the files will be the lenses they have been taken with.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tucker on September 04, 2007, 03:58:30 pm
Quote
Try as I might I just cannot replicate the look on my digital gear, 35 or 645 size.

You just can't describe the look, I just know when I see it.

You might as well give up trying. They're just two different animals.

On some level, nothing is "broken". The 35 Guys still have their Canons, and they're happy as clams. The guys who were shooting 645 before digital are happy; they've still got their same cameras.

The ones who are in a bind are the guys who were shooting 6x8 (me), or 6x9, or 4x5 or 8x10. They're the ones being forced to adjust to this New Reality.

And actually, it's not even THAT bad, because unless you're shooting for demanding advertising, you can still shoot film, in those larger formats.

The ones really in a bind are the guys who are now being forced to shoot digital, (and shoot tethered), and before, they shot large format, but now, the demands of tethered shooting are forcing them into digital 645.

Once a client goes thru a job shooting tethered, there's no going back for them. Just try handing them a funky nasty Polaroid, after they've been through a shoot looking at a 30" Apple Cinema Display. It just won't fly.

To most of the people on this board complaining, I'd respectfully suggest to going back to film and keep those great optics. I had a funky old Komura 152mm f2.8 lens that was amazing. It fit onto my Ebony 4x5. There is just NO WAY to duplicate that effect on a 645 format. I don't care how good your retoucher is.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 04, 2007, 04:35:19 pm
Quote
So you guys can argue about 35 vs 645 all you want. Sadly, there's just not that much difference; the formats are just too close. And there's no 4x5 sensor coming down the pike.
Quote

I don't know how you can say this ?
The Leaf/ZD back sensor is TWICE as big as the 5D's sensor.
That's a WHOLE lot of difference.

Also the results are NOT due to the nice studios and MUAs and models.
I have used the 5D in EXACTLY the same setups, EXACTLY the same models and MUA and were with the 5D I was getting what the camera had to offer with the Leaf I'm getting better results every shoot because I'm now learning how to handle the much greater DR in the studio.

I think the high-end audio thing works.
But I would like to refrashe that
There are ALOT of people who don't hear a difference in cables, when asking them they simply say it's not possible, however they never seriously tried.

It's NOT a placebo effect (well not for me at least), I'm not happy that I had to switch to MF, big investment, slow AF, no ISO3200, two systems to carry with me and the list goes on and on.

If the difference really was SMALL I would have stayed with my wonderful 5D which I still use and love.

On the other hand as mentioned before, it's all in what YOU as an artist want to achieve. Today I delivered a file for a billboard for a Belgium zoo which was shot with the 5D and it works great, don't need the leaf for that.
But when comparing it to the leaf files I miss so much depth and detail and dynamic range, my customer however doesn't care he loves it.

I think that's the whole story.
The 1DsIII with 22MP will serve alot of working photographers, the MF system will serve the artists who demands the very very best and are willing to do sacrifices there (in which I will not say that someone with a 1DsIII is not an artist, don't get me wrong).

Greetings,
Frank
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Morgan_Moore on September 04, 2007, 05:08:51 pm
I would add that if you are using flash and 25 ISO and maybe 800th speed in a super bright environment you get a lot less DOF than 250, 100 ISO because you cant use that 1.2 or 2 setting you are more likely to be pushed to f11

The larger chip is only part of the package for H1 users

As a beach shooter the low ISO and high synch speed is part of the unique MF package

SMM
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 04, 2007, 05:44:42 pm
Quote
So you guys can argue about 35 vs 645 all you want. Sadly, there's just not that much difference; the formats are just too close. And there's no 4x5 sensor coming down the pike.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry Mark, the problem is that YOU don't see it. For me (and others) the difference is very clear.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: sundstei on September 04, 2007, 06:20:51 pm
Quote
It's not a placebo I'm afraid.
I saw the effect on the Hasselblad a while ago and have been trying to emulate the effect with my 5D and a 1DsII for almost 5 months and what ever I tried it was impossible, you can get a very nice 3D effect when EVERY element is carefully planned but when I made the switch to MF it was right on the money every shot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am sorry Frank. I am not going to critique the photos, but I just dont see any "3D" effect in them.

I used to be a 6x7 shooter with fastest Pentax lenses, and 645 is a "mini"-medium format for me. There just isnt that big a difference between it and the 35mm fullframe.

I shoot the H1/A75 combo because its the camera that fits my style and needs the best. If its printed in A4 there is basically no difference if I do it with 1Ds2 or H1.

Svein Erik
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 04, 2007, 06:54:08 pm
Quote
There's a lot of talk and anecdotal claims, but little evidence. The examples posted are indeed striking, but without comparable shots with 35mm the critique is of the photography, lighting, post-processing, etc., not about MFDB vs. dSLR. I've seen similar impressive "3D-look" MFDB shots posted here and elsewhere, and am inclined to believe that "better" photos can be bought along with an MFDB system.
Even I tend to correctly spot the MFDB shots even on web resolution resamples, and I'm an amateur shooting a prosumer dSLR. But I have a creeping feeling that the reason why the MFDB shots jump out is - at least partly - due to the fact that those who shoot with them generally have access to nice studios, make-up artists, hairdressers, wardrobe and lighting, and know how to use their equipment. So, in the end, how much of the end result is the back, how much everything else?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just a few examples, there are three Hasselblad 503, one H1 and two rollei 6008.

(http://www.samuelaxelsson.com/temp/9.jpg)


(http://www.samuelaxelsson.com/temp/11.jpg)


(http://www.samuelaxelsson.com/temp/10.jpg)


(http://www.samuelaxelsson.com/temp/3.jpg)


(http://www.samuelaxelsson.com/temp/4.jpg)


(http://www.samuelaxelsson.com/temp/6.jpg)


I don't think I'll find a way to explain it. If you don't see it you don't see it...
No make up or expensive lights of any kind. You just need an artistic vision of the image. I'd never try this kind of images with a 35mm because I know it won't happend. There's also no afterprocessing...
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: RobertJ on September 04, 2007, 07:55:03 pm
Quote
Of course they're not playing. Just look at the famous Canon Mark III sample image:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos1dsm3/...3_sample-e.html (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos1dsm3/eos1dsm3_sample-e.html)
Everyone owning a DB will laught at this image.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136448\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh please.
You should know by now that every "sample" file from Canon has been a disaster.

Have you ever seen the 5D sample files?  Just horrible.  But guess what?  It turned out to be everyone's favorite DSLR, and the DSLR that Michael uses as a benchmark for DSLR image quality.  An incredible camera.

The 1Ds3 sample file is taken at f/1.8.  Probably not processed correctly.  Good lord, I can only imagine a portrait taken with the 135L or 100 macro at f/4 processed in C1.

Oh by the way, the Phase One sample files were also incredibly awful, so your Canon bashing isn't really justified by your amusement with how a sample file looks.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 04, 2007, 08:12:56 pm
Quote
Oh please.
You should know by now that every "sample" file from Canon has been a disaster.

Have you ever seen the 5D sample files?  Just horrible.  But guess what?  It turned out to be everyone's favorite DSLR, and the DSLR that Michael uses as a benchmark for DSLR image quality.  An incredible camera.

The 1Ds3 sample file is taken at f/1.8.  Probably not processed correctly.  Good lord, I can only imagine a portrait taken with the 135L or 100 macro at f/4 processed in C1.

Oh by the way, the Phase One sample files were also incredibly awful, so your Canon bashing isn't really justified by your amusement with how a sample file looks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137352\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not bashing Canon. I'm just saying it's not comparable to medium format. That's all.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: paul_jones on September 04, 2007, 09:34:59 pm
Quote
I'm not bashing Canon. I'm just saying it's not comparable to medium format. That's all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137355\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


i own both canon and medium format. have a look at my website -www.pauljonesimages.com(its sa bit slow to download), a quarter of my shots are shot with medium format, can you pick any out?

ive tested this out with a friend of mine, they couldnt.

i bet you cant (dont cheat and use exif data!). and i shoot some stuff with the tiny dof as well.

paul
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: RobertJ on September 04, 2007, 10:22:25 pm
Oh it's definitely "comparable."  It's absolutely "comparable," I'm sorry to say.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 04, 2007, 11:38:18 pm
Quote
I don't think I'll find a way to explain it. If you don't see it you don't see it...
No make up or expensive lights of any kind. You just need an artistic vision of the image. I'd never try this kind of images with a 35mm because I know it won't happend. There's also no afterprocessing...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Samuel,
Feppe is right. If you don't show the same shots with 35mm, adjusting FL and aperture so DoF is the same, then of course we can't see it.

Whilst I recognise that some of these examples are very interesting and very artistic, superb lighting and tonality etc, they don't really answer the question.

I'm reminded of questions about 35mm lens performance. Is the Canon EF 300/f4 IS as sharp as the non-IS version. Someone answers by posting an image from the IS version that looks remarkably sharp. Doesn't really answer the question.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: dkeyes on September 05, 2007, 03:02:38 am
Quote
Trust me, I have done the double-blind taste test, comparing 1ds2, 5D, P25, P45, and there's not a nickel's worth of difference in them. Especially if you're taking them to CMYK reproduction, or outputting to some shitty Epson printer. Epson and CMYK are, like someone else said, "The Great Levelers".

All this talk is mullarkey. Just buy a camera and use it every single day of the week, and really get to know it, and really process the files. I have shot a million jobs with Canon, and a million jobs with Phase; there's not an ounce of difference in them, (except that Canon is faster and easier to use, and easier to hit good color with).

If you're a product guy or architectural guy or a landscape guy, buy a P45 or an A75 and be done with it. If you're a Lifestyle guy, buy the new Canon and be done with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137287\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And if your an artist shooting outside the studio, buy a MF like the MamiyaZD. BTW, just like cameras, there are levels of quality in the output. Not all are shitty. Some of the best if not the best output you will ever get is with an Epson or HP or Canon inkjet. Likewise, I've seen printing presses with 200+ lpi that produce photoprint quality images. But I agree, for the majority of "hi-end" photo work, the quality of the various formats are equalized/brought down to the same level in the final printed or displayed image.

On a side note, I found it humorous that someone on this thread mentioned that they've even done billboards and the images looked great. If you've ever looked at a billboard image up close (as a designer, I've seen plenty), it's the lowest resolution image one can print. Maybe 30-40 lpi. When looking at any image from 100's of feet away, it's going to resolve into a reasonably decent image (assuming it was that to start with).
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: rainer_v on September 05, 2007, 04:55:19 am
Quote
i own both canon and medium format. have a look at my website -www.pauljonesimages.com(its sa bit slow to download), a quarter of my shots are shot with medium format, can you pick any out?

ive tested this out with a friend of mine, they couldnt.

i bet you cant (dont cheat and use exif data!). and i shoot some stuff with the tiny dof as well.

paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137363\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

thats a nice idea. i am going to participate.
go to my website, there you find 4x5" drumscanned film, as well as 22 + 33 Mp shots
with the best lenses, as well as canon and kodak 35mm digital shots, several of them stitched.
which is shot with which camera?
i am looking forward to see the results.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Camdavidson on September 05, 2007, 06:14:26 am
Quote
I'm sorry Mark, the problem is that YOU don't see it. For me (and others) the difference is very clear.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I once learned a very important lesson as a young photographer.  

My very first picture editor at a widely respected magazine gave me this advice when I was twenty-three years old.

"Always leave your ego at the door" and  "Always know who you are talking to."



I'd suggest that you may want to reconsider your comments directed to Mark Tucker.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tucker on September 05, 2007, 06:54:41 am
Quote
"Always leave your ego at the door" and  "Always know who you are talking to."
I'd suggest that you may want to reconsider your comments

That's good advice to live by, but hey, we're just talking here. Nothing serious. Everyone here has a right to their own opinion. I try to always put a disclaimer on my notes that says, "Hey this is just my opinion. It might not apply to your style of work". I think everybody ought to do that, especially when they make blanket statements like "this camera is the best" or "this technique is the best".

I also think, in this particular thread, that we might be talking about two or three different things:

* Resolution, between MF and 35.
* Spacialocity, (which is my word by the way), about the optical spacialocityness between MF and 35.
* Mojo-ness, which is closely related to Spacialocity.

It's important that it stay clear what we're talking about.

My garage tests, regarding RESOLUTION, showed that the 1ds2 and the 5D, with proper SmartSharpening or USM, could clearly hold their own with the Phase backs. (The only one that they can't run with is the P45, which is just a monster of tight resolution and detail).

But then again, the P45 is somewhat limited to what you can do with it, due to slow recycle, especially when shooting tethered. I found it very frustrating to shoot PEOPLE with; it simply couldn't keep up, due to the amount of data transmitted. (I shoot People, so every comment I make is related to shooting People).

I also find the whole B.S. Factor, (my word too), of MF compared to 35, to be much larger. More gear, more heavy, not as elegant a design, multiple battery chargers, etc. The Canon is just EASY. I told a friend the other day: I could buy the 1ds3, the 50 1.2, the 85 1.2, and the 35 1.4, and just be DONE with it. Two bodies, three lenses, throw them in a bag, walk on the plane -- super light, super easy. That is very tempting.

If Canon truly does make the viewfinder larger, this time around, and the LCD is as nice as its reported to be, and they calmed down the AA Filter on it, and the USB cord doesn't fall out of the side of the body when you tether with it, then Canon 1ds3 is certainly going to make a potential MF customer think twice. I've long felt -- Hasselblad doesn't need to be afraid of Phase or Sinar; they need to be afraid of CANON. Canon is the one that'll take them all down, even with that funky 24x36 shape. It's just THAT easy to work with, and the files are THAT good.

Again, related to Spacialocity, yeah, you might get a little more mojo with 645 over 35, but still, it's not going to get that Magical Feeling until you get to 4x5, and there are no digital options for that, (for shooting people). So, if that's the case, 35 and MF, they're both the same -- just take your pick. No difference.

To get a taste of space, check out Richard Renaldi or Alec Soth, both shooting 8x10. If you want some Liquid Love, just shoot a few sheets of that. Sweet, like no other.

http://www.renaldi.com/ (http://www.renaldi.com/)

http://www.alecsoth.com/ (http://www.alecsoth.com/)

or Nicholas Nixon, or Sally Mann.

8x10 is what separates the men from the boys. (But again, we're talking about Personal Work, here, not Commercial Money Tethering). It's important here too, to make that distinction.

Just one opinion. Anyone might not agree, (and that's just fine). The important thing is TEST FOR YOURSELF, so you know inside your own gut.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Dustbak on September 05, 2007, 07:41:34 am
8x10 is indeed still sort of the holy grail. I find it very hard to distinguish images on tiny weeny web resolution. Having said that, the scanned 8x10 images I see from time to time from various people are always really interesting even on the web.

For commercial tethered work it would not be my primary choice either

I would like to introduce another great equalizer next to CMYK, the Internet. It is becoming very hard to distinguish images taken with various formats at such extremely low resolutions.

Ah well. I guess everyone has his or her reasons to choose for a specific solution. I for one am very glad I work digital MF. I like the slower work pace, the fact it forces me to think more about what I am doing. For the same reasons I only work with primes (no matter what format I am using). My current system is on the verge of being unusable commercially but I can cope with it. When I would be using a 10FPS system and some clients find out, I fear they will make me work twice as hard  

It is nice to see so many different opinions and find out how other people are thinking about what works and what not.

Pinhole is another thing I see a lot of people turning to lately. Either with 4x5, 8x10 or MFDB. I see some really beautiful images now and than.

Sometimes that high-end scanner is starting to become really appealing
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 05, 2007, 09:37:16 am
Quote
The frustrating thing about threads like this is we just don't get any direct comparisons demonstrating the superior qualities of MFDBs, where each shot in the comparison has been expertly processed without bias and in accordance with the best methodology and practice for the respective formats.

It would be very strange if a large-photosite, 39mp image were not superior in some way to a small-photosite, 16mp or even 22mp image.

But it would be interesting to see just how significant the differences are, at base ISO. At high ISO I guess there would be no contest. The Canon would blow the MFDB out of the water   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136671\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I used a H3-39 recently and the light simply vanished as I went to take my shot.
So I had to shoot at 400ISO and the results were to be frank, awful. Blotchy and nasty looking. Not what I expect off a £20,000 camera. At all.  
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 05, 2007, 09:50:06 am
Quote
wouldn't it be great to have a real jpg preview as clear as on the canon camera?? so you can actually judge your exposure and shadows on the model face....I would pay for this!)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh and the LCD preview on the 39M back was worse than on a Ixus 2.1m camera I used 5yrs ago.
I spoke to someone on a Hasselblad stand a couple of years ago about the shocking image quality on the LCD and was given some marketing BS, which was complete nonsense. Not a good way to talk to customers who will need to invest a lot of money on your kit.

Oh and as an aside, some of the most popular images in my [A3] portfolio were taken on that Ixus.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 05, 2007, 10:08:05 am
Quote
I once learned a very important lesson as a young photographer. 

My very first picture editor at a widely respected magazine gave me this advice when I was twenty-three years old.

"Always leave your ego at the door" and  "Always know who you are talking to."
I'd suggest that you may want to reconsider your comments directed to Mark Tucker.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137419\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One thing you didn't learn is to keep your nose near your body, if you know what I mean...

Maybe I'll start using icons to express my opinions more acurately. As Mark says: "We're just talking  here", and if I have to say something to him to to anyone here I will if I need to. I don't have any problems communicating with people and I don't have any problems talking at different (volume) levels.... Don't be so sensitive
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: rainer_v on September 05, 2007, 10:32:24 am
Quote
Oh and the LCD preview on the 39M back was worse than on a Ixus 2.1m camera I used 5yrs ago.
I spoke to someone on a Hasselblad stand a couple of years ago about the shocking image quality on the LCD and was given some marketing BS, which was complete nonsense. Not a good way to talk to customers who will need to invest a lot of money on your kit.

Oh and as an aside, some of the most popular images in my [A3] portfolio were taken on that Ixus.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=137456\")

your link doesnt work.
its:
[a href=\"http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com/]http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com/[/url]

nice images, nice page.....
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 05, 2007, 10:43:49 am
Guys, I'm not triying to convince you. Of course is very difficult to see the format used to take a certain image. What I'm talking about is a personal experience I supose. It's the way I see my photographs that makes me choose MF. I normally have a "preview" in my mind before I take the picture. Sometimes, when I was using my 1Ds this feelig of getting what I was imaging was very close. The images were very real to a point and I was pleased with the results, but, when comparing the to the MF I saw that there was something more, like another dimension. I supose this "dimension" it's only a small step between "almost there" and the image I was waiting for.
I never do too much retouching or processing to my images so maybe I'm more demanding and want better impression from the beginning.




Quote
i own both canon and medium format. have a look at my website -www.pauljonesimages.com(its sa bit slow to download), a quarter of my shots are shot with medium format, can you pick any out?

ive tested this out with a friend of mine, they couldnt.

i bet you cant (dont cheat and use exif data!). and i shoot some stuff with the tiny dof as well.

paul
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=137363\")


Quote
thats a nice idea. i am going to participate.
go to my website, there you find 4x5" drumscanned film, as well as 22 + 33 Mp shots
with the best lenses, as well as canon and kodak 35mm digital shots, several of them stitched.
which is shot with which camera?
i am looking forward to see the results.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Quote
That's good advice to live by, but hey, we're just talking here. Nothing serious. Everyone here has a right to their own opinion. I try to always put a disclaimer on my notes that says, "Hey this is just my opinion. It might not apply to your style of work". I think everybody ought to do that, especially when they make blanket statements like "this camera is the best" or "this technique is the best".

I also think, in this particular thread, that we might be talking about two or three different things:

* Resolution, between MF and 35.
* Spacialocity, (which is my word by the way), about the optical spacialocityness between MF and 35.
* Mojo-ness, which is closely related to Spacialocity.

It's important that it stay clear what we're talking about.

My garage tests, regarding RESOLUTION, showed that the 1ds2 and the 5D, with proper SmartSharpening or USM, could clearly hold their own with the Phase backs. (The only one that they can't run with is the P45, which is just a monster of tight resolution and detail).

But then again, the P45 is somewhat limited to what you can do with it, due to slow recycle, especially when shooting tethered. I found it very frustrating to shoot PEOPLE with; it simply couldn't keep up, due to the amount of data transmitted. (I shoot People, so every comment I make is related to shooting People).

I also find the whole B.S. Factor, (my word too), of MF compared to 35, to be much larger. More gear, more heavy, not as elegant a design, multiple battery chargers, etc. The Canon is just EASY. I told a friend the other day: I could buy the 1ds3, the 50 1.2, the 85 1.2, and the 35 1.4, and just be DONE with it. Two bodies, three lenses, throw them in a bag, walk on the plane -- super light, super easy. That is very tempting.

If Canon truly does make the viewfinder larger, this time around, and the LCD is as nice as its reported to be, and they calmed down the AA Filter on it, and the USB cord doesn't fall out of the side of the body when you tether with it, then Canon 1ds3 is certainly going to make a potential MF customer think twice. I've long felt -- Hasselblad doesn't need to be afraid of Phase or Sinar; they need to be afraid of CANON. Canon is the one that'll take them all down, even with that funky 24x36 shape. It's just THAT easy to work with, and the files are THAT good.

Again, related to Spacialocity, yeah, you might get a little more mojo with 645 over 35, but still, it's not going to get that Magical Feeling until you get to 4x5, and there are no digital options for that, (for shooting people). So, if that's the case, 35 and MF, they're both the same -- just take your pick. No difference.

To get a taste of space, check out Richard Renaldi or Alec Soth, both shooting 8x10. If you want some Liquid Love, just shoot a few sheets of that. Sweet, like no other.

[a href=\"http://www.renaldi.com/]http://www.renaldi.com/[/url]

http://www.alecsoth.com/ (http://www.alecsoth.com/)

or Nicholas Nixon, or Sally Mann.

8x10 is what separates the men from the boys. (But again, we're talking about Personal Work, here, not Commercial Money Tethering). It's important here too, to make that distinction.

Just one opinion. Anyone might not agree, (and that's just fine). The important thing is TEST FOR YOURSELF, so you know inside your own gut.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137425\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 05, 2007, 10:44:27 am
Quote
I'm afraid this debate about the 3D-look of MFDBs starts to sound like how high-end audiophiles' claim their stereo sounds better after they lather speaker cables in organic goat urine. €700 per listening session.
A friend of mine changed the phono leads he got with his [good] stereo to some ones he made from bits bought at Maplin. It made a big, big difference. He didn't tell me what he'd done before asking me. It simply sounded better.
I've also spent time listening to, and auditioning high end hifi and the difference between gear can be amazing. Even when you are comparing £10k systems. If you cannot hear the difference with such things, maybe you should get your ears syringed.


Quote
There's a lot of talk and anecdotal claims, but little evidence. The examples posted are indeed striking, but without comparable shots with 35mm the critique is of the photography, lighting, post-processing, etc., not about MFDB vs. dSLR. I've seen similar impressive "3D-look" MFDB shots posted here and elsewhere, and am inclined to believe that "better" photos can be bought along with an MFDB system.

Even I tend to correctly spot the MFDB shots even on web resolution resamples, and I'm an amateur shooting a prosumer dSLR. But I have a creeping feeling that the reason why the MFDB shots jump out is - at least partly - due to the fact that those who shoot with them generally have access to nice studios, make-up artists, hairdressers, wardrobe and lighting, and know how to use their equipment. So, in the end, how much of the end result is the back, how much everything else?
Your skill as a photographer doesn't alter physics. No matter how good you are.  
Besides I don't think the 2 critters in the shot above needed much makeup!  

Quote
Comparisons are finicky. We are left how to define comparable shots between the two systems. And herein lies the problem: while audiophiles' claims can be easily disproven by a double-blind test,
or proven, which is my experience. Hi-fis can sound enormously diffferent and more expensive is not always better. If one cannot tell the difference, it doesn't mean there is no difference, especially if others can easily discerne a difference.
Personally  I cannot tell whether someone speaking French has say, a Northern or Southern French accent. This is because my French is not good enough. But to a native French such difference are very obvious.

Quote
it's not so easy with cameras. Different lenses, cameras, sensors, etc. just give different results, no matter how much you try to recreate the shot. So, instead of finding which system produces "better" images, the study might devolve into a "spot the MFDB shot."[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And as the point is to tell the difference, it's not an issue that different results are produced. That's the point of having different kit, you simply use the best tool to produce the image that you want from those circumstances.
For me -  35mm sized sensors do the job most of the time. Other times larger formats are better. And a 5D is way different [better in my eyes] than a 20/30/40D as other people above have commented. And a 5D is better than a 1DsIII for my needs a lot of the time as I don't want such a big heavy camera. And even the 5D is a bit big for someone like me, who used to use Olympus OMs. Half the size of a 5D and with a bigger viewfinder.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 05, 2007, 10:49:17 am
Quote
your link doesnt work.
its:
http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com/ (http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com/)

nice images, nice page.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137470\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A typo snuck in!   Corrected Now.
Thank you for picking that up and the comments.
cheers jjj
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Camdavidson on September 05, 2007, 11:17:44 am
Quote
One thing you didn't learn is to keep your nose near your body, if you know what I mean...

Maybe I'll start using icons to express my opinions more acurately. As Mark says: "We're just talking  here", and if I have to say something to him to to anyone here I will if I need to. I don't have any problems communicating with people and I don't have any problems talking at different (volume) levels.... Don't be so sensitive
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137464\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


“I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.”
 Socrates quotes (Ancient Greek Philosopher, 470 BC-399 BC)
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 05, 2007, 11:52:55 am
@Mark,
Love your work, very creative and striking (just had to say this )

The reason I called up a billboard is to prove that as a tool you can use anything with 8 MP or more, billboards are VERY low DPI and you can shoot it with a 1DsII and crop

My portfolio is A2 printed on the 3800 and there I can really see a difference in the 5D shots and the Leaf aptus shots.
Not on a total look, but when you look at the structure of clothes and especially when looking at eyes in a 3/4 body shot it's VERY obvious.

However I don't know anymagazine that prints at the same resolution as the 3800 on A2
That's more the story I was trying to tell.
For WORK every good DSLR will never dissapoint.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 05, 2007, 01:23:15 pm
Quote
“I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.”
 Socrates quotes (Ancient Greek Philosopher, 470 BC-399 BC)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137480\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

...
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on September 05, 2007, 03:52:15 pm
OK, based on the "dimensionality" and DOF of this image, let's see if the hi-fi conoisseurs here can correctly guess the camera format used to create this image, and for extra bonus points, the focal length and aperture of the lens used. All exif, including profile tag, have been stripped; if you want to look at it in PS, assign Gray Gamma 2.2.

Some interesting claims have been made, I'm curious to see if they can be substantiated by those making them.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: eronald on September 05, 2007, 04:16:09 pm
Hand anybody on this forum a Canon 1Ds3 or a a 5D and the right lens, give them a type of job they have aready done before, and they will get it done.

I think the question isn't what you *have* to use, it's what you *like* to use

Edmund
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: AndreNapier on September 05, 2007, 04:54:13 pm
Quote
OK, based on the "dimensionality" and DOF of this image, let's see if the hi-fi conoisseurs here can correctly guess the camera format used to create this image, and for extra bonus points, the focal length and aperture of the lens used. All exif, including profile tag, have been stripped; if you want to look at it in PS, assign Gray Gamma 2.2.

Some interesting claims have been made, I'm curious to see if they can be substantiated by those making them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My best guess is Canon 5D, 50mm/1.4 @ 1.8 sec. cropped mostly on the left side from horizontal image.

Andre
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: David Blankenship on September 05, 2007, 05:05:06 pm
Quote
My best guess is Canon 5D, 50mm/1.4 @ 1.8 sec. cropped mostly on the left side from horizontal image.

Andre
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


My guess 35mm dslr with 50mm f1.2 or f1.4 lens  1/30 sec wide open and lit with portable strobe.

db
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: psp on September 05, 2007, 05:30:59 pm
This is a silly argument... one will never tell the difference looking at jpgs.

Shoot for a transit shelter or magazine - MF will, at the moment, always produce better results. All things being equal, do you really think a canon will produce quality files comparable to a multi-shot 39MP back on a view camera with Schneider optics? The difference is obvious and quite astonishing.

Shoot a billboard or transit shelter for an ad agency on a 10MP camera and that'll likely be the last job you get from them. Shoot it using a 39MP multi-shot with Schneider optics and they'll come back raving about the georgeous, sharp, detailed and wicked colour files.

That doesn't mean MF is best suited for all situations, nor DSLR is best suited for all situations.



Cheers!
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: awofinden on September 05, 2007, 06:39:32 pm
I've owned a Mamiya 645 AF with a P21 and a sinarback 54M, sinar p2, Nikon N90, canon 1ds mark 2, powershot s70 and I think any of them could have produced that shot with the right lens, film, light,  combination. If it were printed 8 * 10  then it would be different...  (I hope).
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 05, 2007, 10:22:54 pm
Jonathan,
It certainly doesn't have an MFDB look. I'd say you probably took this shot with a P&S digicam.

I don't think there can be any doubt that an MFDB like the P45 with a sensor size and pixel count double that of FF 35mm, coupled with one of the new Digitar lenses which appear to be better than most Canon lenses (perhaps all Canon lenses), will produce a clarity and sharpness that FF 35mm cannot match.

The question now being debated seems to be, is their some magical quality associated purely with sensor size that imparts a greater sense of 3-dimensionality to MFDB images? I doubt it.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 05, 2007, 10:36:35 pm
Quote
OK, based on the "dimensionality" and DOF of this image, let's see if the hi-fi conoisseurs here can correctly guess the camera format used to create this image, and for extra bonus points, the focal length and aperture of the lens used. All exif, including profile tag, have been stripped; if you want to look at it in PS, assign Gray Gamma 2.2.

Some interesting claims have been made, I'm curious to see if they can be substantiated by those making them.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have to say that I really do not care what camera it was taken on as it looks like an average snapshot that a parent may coo over and no-one else will give a second glance. Sorry, just my opinion. Besides, you can take an indifferent picture [like this one] with any camera and also a good picture with any camera - as long as you know how and when to use it. But different cameras will give different end results with the same subject. Some differences are significant, some quite subtle. Once again we have a single shot, which tells us nothing about anything really.
Apart from anything else, the lighting will have a major effect on the modeling and hence 3D-ness of any image. You could photograph the child with front lighting instead of side lighting and that will have a huge impact on the 'dimensionality' of the image
Would you expect an audiophile, even with excellent ears to tell what kit is used if you play an 128k mp3 through it esp. with no reference to any other equipment playing the same reference signal.
The only relevent/worthwhile test is for someone to post images taken with several cameras of the same subject with the same lighting, camera settings, perspective etc and then let people work out which is which.
I don't have a MF camera to hand. I rent one if I need one and won't be using one for a while as I'm working through images from several big jobs at the moment. So if anyone else can oblige.....
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: awofinden on September 05, 2007, 11:00:50 pm
Quote
I have to say that I really do not care what camera it was taken on as it looks like an average snapshot that a parent may coo over and no-one else will give a second glance. Sorry, just my opinion. Besides, you can take an indifferent picture [like this one] with any camera and also a good picture with any camera - as long as you know how and when to use it. But different cameras will give different end results with the same subject. Some differences are significant, some quite subtle. Once again we have a single shot, which tells us nothing about anything really.
Apart from anything else, the lighting will have a major effect on the modeling and hence 3D-ness of any image. You could photograph the child with front lighting instead of side lighting and that will have a huge impact on the 'dimensionality' of the image
Would you expect an audiophile, even with excellent ears to tell what kit is used if you play an 128k mp3 through it esp. with no reference to any other equipment playing the same reference signal.
The only relevent/worthwhile test is for someone to post images taken with several cameras of the same subject with the same lighting, camera settings, perspective etc and then let people work out which is which.
I don't have a MF camera to hand. I rent one if I need one and won't be using one for a while as I'm working through images from several big jobs at the moment. So if anyone else can oblige.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137599\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thats a very long post from someone who doesn't care.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on September 05, 2007, 11:42:18 pm
Quote
Would you expect an audiophile, even with excellent ears to tell what kit is used if you play an 128k mp3 through it esp. with no reference to any other equipment playing the same reference signal.

That's pretty much the claim made by several people earlier in this thread, that the MFDB "difference" is so great that it is easily noticeable even in web-sized JPEGs. And let's just say I'm skeptical of that claim, for pretty much the reasons you mention.
 
Quote
The only relevent/worthwhile test is for someone to post images taken with several cameras of the same subject with the same lighting, camera settings, perspective etc and then let people work out which is which.

I agree, but I would alter that just a bit to say identical physical aperture size, so when the images are sized down to match each other that DOF is identical across the board.

I have no doubt that the increased resolution of a MFDB will make a significant difference when printed poster-sized, and that the additional bits per pixel make for smoother tonal gradations and allow for extra resilience when applying curves and other edits. I also believe that designed-for-MF-digital lenses have better resolution than not-necessarily-designed-for-digital 35mm format lenses. And (fairly) basic math shows that the larger the format, the easier it is to achieve shallow DOF.

But I'm very skeptical of the claim that such differences are easily discernible in properly processed web-sized JPEGs (600-800 pixel), or even printed typical magazine page size, for most subject matter.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: nicolaasdb on September 06, 2007, 12:08:16 am
8 PAGES!!!!

It is a fact that the MF backs produce better/higher quality images...it is a fact...you can't even argue this fact!!

The whole point is that after all the manipulation and the downsizing from 16bit to 8bit and the printing process...is it still visible? And it is...because if you start out with a better quality image, even after f'ing it up you will still have a good image in the end (this compaired to the same process you will put your 35mm thru!)

You don't have to be an audiophile to see the difference. BUT...IF YOU ARE A SHITTY PHOTOGRAPHER.......A 1 MILLION DOLLAR CAMERA WILL NOT SAVE YOUR IMAGE!! And if you can't get the shot with your MF....you will not get the shot!!! and you will not get paid! So you have to always make sure you get the shot!! and sometimes you got to give up quality (and luckily the quality you have to give up shooting with a Ds1MkII or a MF back (any manufacturer!!) isn't that big! IT IS VISIBLE!!.....but your client needs the shoot and if you can deliver with a 35mm he will take it......NOW with the 65s around the corner (and the P30+) we might be able to catch up in getting the shot with the MF (and again this only goes when you are shooting expressions, emotions in sport fashion beauty etc) when shooting landscape or product I would NEVER use 35mm...simply because there IS a difference!! and your tree is not going to go anyware, and neither is your lamp, keychain etc ( I am not trying to talk down on product or landscape photography!!! I wich I had the vision and the skills to shoot both!)

Just another of my 2 cents......
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: EricWHiss on September 06, 2007, 01:09:30 am
I think DR is an important factor for getting the subject to pop out that hasn't been yet discussed in this thread.  MFDB sensors have more DR range than even the new canons by 1.5 stops maybe more.  That's the big reason I made the change to MF from 35mm.  Maybe this is less important for people or for images destined for B&W or maybe not?

The magnification factor is important too because it changes the rate at which things go from in focus to out of focus.  The bigger the film plane or sensor the quicker this happens.   I don't know the hows and whys but some lens designs differ and appear to have faster transitions than others.

Dunno if I can see DR differences in images resized and converted to 8bits for the web or not but it sure looks like I can at full rez. I thought I could see the diff between MF and 35 but maybe I can't?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: AndreNapier on September 06, 2007, 01:47:24 am
Two quick samples of the 3D from Aptus75s/Rz67 combo from my last shoot before vacation.
If this talk is still alive by Sunday I will shoot side by side with Canon and post the difference for these that still doubt it.[attachment=3168:attachment][attachment=3169:attachment][attachment=3169:atta
chment][attachment=3170:attachment][attachment=3171:attachment][attachment=3172:a
ttachment]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: thsinar on September 06, 2007, 01:54:47 am
I would be glad to see this anyway!

Thanks,
Thierry

Quote
If this talk is still alive by Sunday I will shoot side by side with Canon and post the difference for these that still doubt it.

[attachment=3168:attachment][attachment=3169:attachment][attachment=3169:attachm
ent][attachment=3170:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137627\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 06, 2007, 02:33:18 am
Quote
It is a fact that the MF backs produce better/higher quality images...it is a fact...you can't even argue this fact!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is a fact. It is a fact that some MF backs produce better quality images than other MF backs. And it's a fact that some FF 35mm DSLRs produce better images than other 35mm DSLRs, especially if one of them has a better lens.

The thread began by trying to find out if the 21mp 1Ds3 could rival in image quality a 22mp MFDB, such as the Mamiya ZD which has a sensor twice the size.

I would say it mostly depends on the quality of the lens. For the smaller format to rival the quality of the larger format, with same pixel count, the smaller format needs a better lens. Not just one that is equally good but one which is higher resolving at the same MTF. You can't take a picture with just a camera body or just an MFDB, without a lens. Image quality is always a result of sensor performance plus lens performance (excluding artistic sensibility and technical prowess of course).
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: paul_jones on September 06, 2007, 03:55:00 am
Quote
Two quick samples of the 3D from Aptus75s/Rz67 combo from my last shoot before vacation.
If this talk is still alive by Sunday I will shoot side by side with Canon and post the difference for these that still doubt it.[attachment=3168:attachment][attachment=3169:attachment][attachment=3169:atta
chment][attachment=3170:attachment][attachment=3171:attachment][attachment=3172:a
ttachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137627\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

that would be good to see andrei. please use a 85 1.2 at 1.2 as a fair comparison to the rz67/a75/110 2.8 at 2.8.

i like the look of that fast rz lens. i just dont the look of my 100 2.2 hc.

i make no bones about the quality of medium format backs- but mainly because of the strength of the tone and colours of the files, not nessarly the sharpness (i use a p25- 22 mp). the canon just needs a little careful sharpening to keep up.

cheers paul
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 06, 2007, 07:07:33 am
Quote
that would be good to see andrei. please use a 85 1.2 at 1.2 as a fair comparison to the rz67/a75/110 2.8 at 2.8.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137642\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 85/1.2 is not particularly sharp at f1.2. Might be better at f2. Theoretically DoF should be closer at f2.

I can't find any MTF charts for the Z110/2.8. Is this a lens that is almost as sharp wide open as at f8?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: JeffKohn on September 06, 2007, 11:43:50 am
Quote
I don't think there can be any doubt that an MFDB like the P45 with a sensor size and pixel count double that of FF 35mm, coupled with one of the new Digitar lenses which appear to be better than most Canon lenses (perhaps all Canon lenses), will produce a clarity and sharpness that FF 35mm cannot match.
I don't think anybody in their right minds would disagree with you on that. But I think a more relevent question is how 35mm cameras such as the upcoming 1DsMk3 compare to the lower end of the MDFB range (such as the Mamiya ZD). Both cameras have about the same pixel count, both are supposedly 14-bit. The question is whether the larger photosites improve image quality to any signficant extent. I think one possible advantage would be dynamic range, but given the noise performance of the ZD I'm not sure that's a foregone conclusion. Of course there's also the matter of lenses. Canon isn't exactly known for stellar wideangle lenses, so it remains to be seen what kind of results can be achieved shooting wideangle shots with the 1DsMk3. I suppose using third-party lenses/adapters is an alternative here if you can live with manual focus.

Quote
The question now being debated seems to be, is their some magical quality associated purely with sensor size that imparts a greater sense of 3-dimensionality to MFDB images? I doubt it.
The folks claiming this seem to portrait photographers for the most part, who value shallow DOF. It's certainly going to be easier to get a shallow DOF with the larger format, due to the longer focal lengths needed for a given field of view. And maybe the MF lenses have better bokeh for whatever reason, I don't know.

But for some people, lack of DOF is a disadvantage, not a benefit. For landscapes, the goal is often to maximize DOF and it seems MFDB may be at a disadvantage here.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: paul_jones on September 06, 2007, 03:59:53 pm
Quote
that would be good to see andrei. please use a 85 1.2 at 1.2 as a fair comparison to the rz67/a75/110 2.8 at 2.8.

i like the look of that fast rz lens. i just dont the look of my 100 2.2 hc.

i make no bones about the quality of medium format backs- but mainly because of the strength of the tone and colours of the files, not nessarly the sharpness (i use a p25- 22 mp). the canon just needs a little careful sharpening to keep up.

cheers paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137642\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

ive found my 85 1.2 pretty sharp at 1.2 in the center, it just has a slight difusion blur over the top of the sharp detail (does that make sense?). its starts going by 1.4.

by closing the lenses down will only test the sharpness (which med format will win), but we are talking about the look of the two. the "3d ness" ( imo) is due to the small depth of feild that that the format/lens can produce.


paul
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: AndreNapier on September 06, 2007, 05:55:23 pm
Quote
The 85/1.2 is not particularly sharp at f1.2. Might be better at f2. Theoretically DoF should be closer at f2.

I can't find any MTF charts for the Z110/2.8. Is this a lens that is almost as sharp wide open as at f8?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137662\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Cropped from the image above:
110mm at 2.8 ISO 200
Judge for yourself
[attachment=3185:attachment]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 06, 2007, 06:22:56 pm
Ok here's my try:

1.
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/Charissa_6_September_2007__(56_of_60).jpg)

2.
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/Charissa_6_September_2007__(31_of_60).jpg)

3.
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/Charissa_6_September_2007__(22_of_60).jpg)

4.
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/Charissa_6_September_2007__(58_of_60).jpg)

Especially the last one, DOF is just wonderful here, 105-210 wide open.

MvrGr.
Frank
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: eronald on September 06, 2007, 06:26:58 pm
Frank -

I'm signing up for one of your workshops as soon as my back gets delivered.
And then I'll have to figure out how to do the same thing without flash

Edmund
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 06, 2007, 06:34:45 pm
We have just arranged all the models for the 27-28 October in LA.
It will be GREAT fun
Hope to see alot of people there of course.

If you want to visit please mail me.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 06, 2007, 08:35:08 pm
Quote
ive found my 85 1.2 pretty sharp at 1.2 in the center, it just has a slight difusion blur over the top of the sharp detail (does that make sense?).[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137752\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes. That's a euphemistic way of saying 'not sharp'   . It's not sharp, but hey! I like it. My lens has become a 'soft focus' lens; ideal for portraiture and keeping those skin blemishes down.

There has been a lot of discussion of DoF issues on this forum over the years, some folks insisting that DoF is affected only by the FL of the lens, aperture and distance to the subject. My own view is that it is also affected by the sharpness of the lens at the plane of focus and this factor is very difficult to incorporate into the DoF formulas.

For example, the 85/1.2 at f2 on 35mm should have the same DoF as the Z110/2.8 at f2.8 on the Aptus 75 (at same distance to subject). The background blur should be very similar in both cases, allowing for differences in bokeh between the two lenses. However, if the Z110 is as sharp or sharper at f2.8 (MTF wise) as the Canon 85/1.2 at f2, then the shot from the 33mp Leaf with a 48x36mm sensor will be perceptibly sharper at the plane of focus.

The backgrounds of both shots should be equally blurred, but the points of focus will be sharper in the MF shot, hence a sense of greater 3-dimensionality. Stopping up with the Canon lens to f1.4 or f1.2 will not solve the problem. The background will then become more out-of-focus and more unrecognisable and the plane of focus will also become more blurred due to the lower MTF of the lens at wider apertures.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 06, 2007, 09:15:14 pm
Quote
Especially the last one, DOF is just wonderful here, 105-210 wide open.

MvrGr.
Frank
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137778\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Lovely shot! The question probably arises as to whether or not the lady on the road is wearing any knickers. However, the blurred foreground and enlarged white marker tend to distract the eye from that critical part of the lady's anatomy. Very tasteful! You are a true gentleman, Frank   .
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 06, 2007, 09:27:33 pm
By the way, the old Photodo MTF tests of MF lenses reveal that it's quite common for some of the better MF lenses (with a rating above 4) to have nearly as good performance at full aperture as at f8. But this is a very rare phenomenom with Canon lenses. One Canon lens that appears to be an exception is the EF 400mm f2.8L II (the non-IS version) which appears to have better performance at full aperture than at f8.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 06, 2007, 09:49:22 pm
Quote
Cropped from the image above:
110mm at 2.8 ISO 200
Judge for yourself
[attachment=3185:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andre,
Looks reasonably sharp but I see jpeg artifacts here. I take it this is not a 100% crop of a RAW conversion with maximum quality jpeg compression?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: joern_kiel on September 06, 2007, 10:06:22 pm
I just did nearly the same post processing to the Canon 1Ds III sample file as i would do to my own 1Ds II files to correct the colors for my taste.

http://www.atelier-kiel.de/down/portrait_mod_jk.jpg (http://www.atelier-kiel.de/down/portrait_mod_jk.jpg)

The Canon 1Ds is a workhorse for nearly every photographic situation. I don´t love this camera but i know what i can get from after developing a workflow and fine tune it from job to job. From super wide to close ups, from tilt/shift to extreme tele this system has many options. The key for me is post production. I never sold a pict without editing in PS. As long as i am not specialized in one category i need a universal system.

I have sold my Contax 645/P25 combo after my clients did not recognize the difference to the Canon in print and never looked back. Instead i bought the Leica M8 with a couple of lenses and THIS camera rocks. A small camera with some issues but it surprises me every time i use it.

Back to the posted image. I did some quick color adjustment and some sharpening with two third party plugins. It could be done better with a calibrated/profiled raw file or 16bit tif. But for me it looks much better then the original file. What do you think?


Cheers
jørn
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 07, 2007, 03:27:46 am
Well, now that Joern has given us a processed version of that laughably amateurish sample image from the 1Ds3 on Canon's website, removing the aberrations on the pearls and correcting the slightly greenish color cast, we are now in a position to do a comparison between the Leaf Aptus 75 with Z110/2.8 lens (Andre's image), and the 1Ds3 with 85/1.2 lens at f1.8.

Since the aspect ratio of the Aptus image is different to 35mm, I took the liberty of cropping the width to 2:3 aspect ratio. This reduces the effective 33mp size of the Aptus image somewhat but tips the advantage in favour of the Aptus with regard to subject size within the frame.

For those who demand complete precision, the distance between the outer edges of the models' eyes in the cropped Aptus frame is 16/87ths of the width of the frame. In the 1Ds3 shot it's just over 11/87ths of the width of the frame. Perhaps I shoud have cropped the height of the 35mm image instead, but as you can see from the following 'maximum quality jpeg' 100% crops (assuming that's what Andre gave us), the 1Ds3 appears to be at least as sharp.

[attachment=3186:attachment]  [attachment=3187:attachment]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 07, 2007, 03:33:22 am
With all respect to napier but his shot looks slightly oversharpned (I'm very very sorry I did not mean it with disrespect).

(http://www.htforum.nl/fotofrank/albums/userpics/10001/Esther_H_29_Augustus_2007__(5_of_49)100crop.jpg)

This is a 100% crop straight out of the camera.

(http://www.htforum.nl/fotofrank/albums/userpics/10001/Esther_H_29_Augustus_2007__(5_of_49).jpg)

This is the Leaf aptus 22
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 07, 2007, 03:50:28 am
Quote
With all respect to napier but his shot looks slightly oversharpned (I'm very very sorry I did not mean it with disrespect)..........

This is the Leaf aptus 22
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What a stunning close-up of an eye. Which lens, Frank? Judging by the fact that the pores of the skin around the region of the eye appear slightly out-of-focus this must have been a fast lens with excellent performance at wide apertures.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 07, 2007, 04:13:24 am
Quote
With all respect to napier but his shot looks slightly oversharpned (I'm very very sorry I did not mean it with disrespect).

(http://www.htforum.nl/fotofrank/albums/userpics/10001/Esther_H_29_Augustus_2007__(5_of_49)100crop.jpg)

This is a 100% crop straight out of the camera.

(http://www.htforum.nl/fotofrank/albums/userpics/10001/Esther_H_29_Augustus_2007__(5_of_49).jpg)

This is the Leaf aptus 22
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is what I've been talking about the hole thread. And still, we will keep hearing that MF isn't any better than Canon, and that the advantages are minimal. Well, I'd like to se someone posting a Canon sample like this one ...
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Willow Photography on September 07, 2007, 04:14:43 am
Shooting a models face only, you will not see difference between a good DSLR and a MFD.
Shooting full figure - you will see a difference.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 07, 2007, 04:20:48 am
Quote
but as you can see from the following 'maximum quality jpeg' 100% crops (assuming that's what Andre gave us), the 1Ds3 appears to be at least as sharp.

[attachment=3186:attachment]  [attachment=3187:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137830\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, but the canon has no detail in the skin, specialy the forehead... not mention to the color...

Time for me to retire from this thread I think... It's Friday...
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: juicy on September 07, 2007, 04:27:41 am
Hi!

Thanks for all of you sharing these fine images.

Question to Mr Doorhof: what does
Quote
a 100% crop straight out of the camera
mean? It seems it has at least some sharpening applied? Well, anyway it doesn't exactly look like coming out of a ps-camera!  

Cheers,
J
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: sundstei on September 07, 2007, 04:37:18 am
Quote
Yes, but the canon has no detail in the skin, specialy the forehead... not mention to the color...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137839\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Because its out of focus....
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: sundstei on September 07, 2007, 04:55:09 am
Quote
[attachment=3186:attachment]  [attachment=3187:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137830\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Looking at the two photos next to each other i cant help still saying that the Canon shot looks beautiful and with nice tones. It has a smooth "film-like" look to it. The other photo looks very "digital". No disrespect to Andre.

I am just commenting on what they look like, irrelevant of the reason behind (f-stop, format, lenses, technical issues, etc).
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 07, 2007, 05:58:23 am
I believe there is a smart sharpen from 75 on 0.9 but I don't remember exactly.

The files from the back itself are razorsharp.

Lens is the 120mm macro.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: awofinden on September 07, 2007, 09:50:01 am
When I look at those 2 examples they are perfectly indicative of the differences I have seen between my 1ds mark 2 and P21. The problem isn't sharpness, it's the look, there tonal response is just different, you pays your money and you make your choice. ( I know what my choice is everytime).
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 07, 2007, 11:40:57 am
Quote
Because its out of focus....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137841\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So the girl has a deep valley between the eyebrowns?  Because it's on focus on the sides...  
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: sundstei on September 07, 2007, 11:55:16 am
Quote
So the girl has a deep valley between the eyebrowns?  Because it's on focus on the sides... 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What are you talking about?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 07, 2007, 12:50:13 pm
Quote
Thats a very long post from someone who doesn't care.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not liking the image in the post, doesn't mean I don't care about the argument, which is actually quite interesting.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 07, 2007, 01:10:49 pm
Quote
I agree, but I would alter that just a bit to say identical physical aperture size, so when the images are sized down to match each other that DOF is identical across the board.
But that wouldn't be realistic as you would use the same aperture in reality to get the same exposure. The image differences between differing film formats and differeing sensor size is a result of that variation in physical aperture size.

Quote
And (fairly) basic math shows that the larger the format, the easier it is to achieve shallow DOF.
And that is exactly why images look different from larger sensors/film types

Quote
But I'm very skeptical of the claim that such differences are easily discernible in properly processed web-sized JPEGs (600-800 pixel), or even printed typical magazine page size, for most subject matter.

....That's pretty much the claim made by several people earlier in this thread, that the MFDB "difference" is so great that it is easily noticeable even in web-sized JPEGs. And let's just say I'm skeptical of that claim, for pretty much the reasons you mention.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=137608\")
There's a demo online showing the difference bewteen 35mm film imaging and DV imaging and online it is very, very obvious. Both films were shot with the same DV camera but one used a 35mm lens with a convertor so the DV camera filmed the larger image produced by the larger optics.
Just did a quick look for the demo and the site has been overhauled and no longer has the footage shot in a bar with a DV sensor and then with the 35mm adaptor.
A shame as it illustrates exactly what people have been arguing about so very well.
Go here for the website [a href=\"http://www.redrockmicro.com/focus2.html]http://www.redrockmicro.com/focus2.html[/url] the footage may be elsewhere, I don't have time to look all through site at moment. A colleague of mine used this kit or similar and his short looked so much more cinematic than is normal with DV. It looked like a  much bigger budget piece than it actually was. Simply through the [optical] look of the footage due to using a larger efective sensor. And nothing to do with the pixel count!
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 07, 2007, 04:11:02 pm
Quote
What are you talking about?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137902\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi, look carefully which parts of the image are on focus. I don't think is a focus probem, is more a lens resolution problem. In general, I think the Leaf image is much better. Natural skin color, 3D feeling, very nice and clear.
Just compare the Canon with Frank's shot. It's what I call medium format.
But again, this is just how I see it.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 07, 2007, 04:35:04 pm
The funny thing is.
Look at the eyes and the eye lashes.
On the canon this is flat, on BOTH MF systems you can see much more depth.
Maybe some people don't see depth the way I see it, but for me that's a give away.
Oversharpening and jpeg artifacts with large compression will mask this somewhat but if napier would post a non processed sample I think it will be even better visable.

My wife said when I showed her a close up of an eye, "The eye ball is round, with your other photo this never drew my attention".
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: RobertJ on September 07, 2007, 05:01:12 pm
Hi Frank,
What aperture did you use on the 120mm for that eye closeup?  Wide open?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 07, 2007, 05:24:10 pm
F10
So not wide open.
In the studio wide open is a problem with DOF if I shoot the Macro wide open that close the top of the eyeball will be in focus but the eyelashes will not
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Gary Ferguson on September 07, 2007, 06:10:00 pm
Quote
There has been a lot of discussion of DoF issues on this forum over the years, some folks insisting that DoF is affected only by the FL of the lens, aperture and distance to the subject. My own view is that it is also affected by the sharpness of the lens at the plane of focus and this factor is very difficult to incorporate into the DoF formulas.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137791\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree with you.

Some time ago Zeiss's Marketing Manager used to post regularly on photo.net, and he made a similar point. His position was that all lenses of the same focal length do not deliver the same depth of field, but that there was a long standing agreement amongst lens manufacturers never to engrave more than a specific amount of depth of field on their lenses, and not to publically claim a DOF advantage. They were free to engrave less (as Leica did, using a DOF scale on their lenses based on a 25 micron circle of confusion instead of the 30 micron COC used by virtually all other 35mm lens manufacturers), but no one could claim or engrave more.

He gave the example that the Hasselblad 38mm Biogon had a particularly deep effective depth of field, which tallies with my own experience of using this lens alongside the 40mm Hasselblad IF. He also said that a number of extremely high resolution modern lenses achieved their outstanding performance in the plane of focus (the only part of the image measured on the MTF charts) at the cost of the image quality in the out of focus areas. Again, something my own observations tends to support.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 07, 2007, 06:56:12 pm
Quote
I agree with you.

Some time ago Zeiss's Marketing Manager used to post regularly on photo.net, and he made a similar point. His position was that all lenses of the same focal length do not deliver the same depth of field, but that there was a long standing agreement amongst lens manufacturers never to engrave more than a specific amount of depth of field on their lenses, and not to publically claim a DOF advantage. They were free to engrave less (as Leica did, using a DOF scale on their lenses based on a 25 micron circle of confusion instead of the 30 micron COC used by virtually all other 35mm lens manufacturers), but no one could claim or engrave more.

He gave the example that the Hasselblad 38mm Biogon had a particularly deep effective depth of field, which tallies with my own experience of using this lens alongside the 40mm Hasselblad IF. He also said that a number of extremely high resolution modern lenses achieved their outstanding performance in the plane of focus (the only part of the image measured on the MTF charts) at the cost of the image quality in the out of focus areas. Again, something my own observations tends to support.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Talking about Zeiss, I just found this scanned picture. It was taken with a Zeiss CFi 120 makro. Wide open. Pretty good performance I think. The film was kodak trix 400 so a lot of grain. I think the resolution is spectacular but is in some way masked by the grain. I supose it can be worked out a little bit more...  
This is a very advantage in the DB, almost noise free.

Full image:

(http://www.samuelaxelsson.com/temp/Full.jpg)

100% crop 1

(http://www.samuelaxelsson.com/temp/crop1.jpg)

100% crop 2

(http://www.samuelaxelsson.com/temp/crop2.jpg)

Alot of detail in the skin... but not as clean as a DB in the eyelashes. But this was wide open at f4...
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: mmurph on September 07, 2007, 07:20:21 pm
No offense to anyone, but this has *not* been one of the better LL threads in this forum.    

I think it started off completely on the wrong foot with some marketing hyperbole.  Usually the pros here ignore that type of bait. This time everyone jumped in.

I was scanning 4x5 slides and negatives yesterday while reading this.  I used to use 6x7 film, gave that up, but still find a place/need for the 4x5. We have *always* had multiple tools in our kit.  As pros we balance all of the pros and cons - technical, financial, etc., to choose the correct tool.

I can tell you that 4x5 film is *much* more expensive than I like!      At $4 a sheet, I have spent $1,200 on film and developing over the last 2 months for a personal project. That is almost the depreciation cost of using a 1DsII or 1Ds3 for 1 year.  If I keep going the total will be $5,000 this year. Ouch.    

But sometimes no other tool will fit - not for subtle lens or DOF effects in my case, but for the sheer amount of detail and complexity that I need to capture.

Still, I have to say that the 1DsII is one of my all-around favorite cameras that I have ever owned. The Mamiya 7II is a close second. I like my Toyo AII, and my Cambo Wide.  My old Bronica ETRSi, on the other hand, is a POS.   Worst camera I have owned, very sloppy. I'd rather use my Holga than that thing.

Use the tools. Share your learning - it is financially impossible for all of us to test every tool nowadays.  But don't recreate the old Nikon v. Canon, or PC v. Mac, wars in this forum, of all places.

Best,
Michael
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 07, 2007, 07:22:01 pm
I just did another scan at 4800. Just playing....  
You can actually see the flowers that were beside the window in the reflection on the eye. I'll miss my Imacon, just sold it on Ebay  

Here's the 100% crop:

(http://www.samuelaxelsson.com/temp/4800.jpg)
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: paul_jones on September 07, 2007, 07:31:41 pm
Quote
I agree with you.

Some time ago Zeiss's Marketing Manager used to post regularly on photo.net, and he made a similar point. His position was that all lenses of the same focal length do not deliver the same depth of field, but that there was a long standing agreement amongst lens manufacturers never to engrave more than a specific amount of depth of field on their lenses, and not to publically claim a DOF advantage. They were free to engrave less (as Leica did, using a DOF scale on their lenses based on a 25 micron circle of confusion instead of the 30 micron COC used by virtually all other 35mm lens manufacturers), but no one could claim or engrave more.

He gave the example that the Hasselblad 38mm Biogon had a particularly deep effective depth of field, which tallies with my own experience of using this lens alongside the 40mm Hasselblad IF. He also said that a number of extremely high resolution modern lenses achieved their outstanding performance in the plane of focus (the only part of the image measured on the MTF charts) at the cost of the image quality in the out of focus areas. Again, something my own observations tends to support.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137952\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

that interesting. when i tested the contax f2 80 against the HC 100 2.2, i would have thought that the longer and almost as fast hc100 would have a smaller depth of feild and more blur than the contax. but the contax was way nicer. the head and shoulders shots i took, on the contax the shelves in the background was complete mush, but you could see all the sheves quite clearly with the hc100.

paul
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 07, 2007, 10:56:12 pm
I'm getting a sense of desperation amongst some of you MF aficionados.  

The thread started off with the suggestion that the 1Ds3 might be able to challenge the image quality from some of the more expensive MFDBs.

We can't really get a resolution of that issue until the 1Ds3 is released and available to those of you who already own MFDBs, so you can make proper comparisons of the identical model in the identical pose with identical lighting using a lens of equivalent focal length and f stop to provide equivalent DoF with both cameras.

The comparisons that I've knocked up from Andre Napier's image and Canon's one and only sample image of the 1Ds3 provide only a rough guideline as to the similarity of quality.

In these examples it's easy to pick out differences because the subject, lighting and circumstances are different. If someone makes the comment the girls forehead in the 1Ds3 shot is not sharp, it's a fair bet that it's due to different focussing between the two images. The girls nose in the 1Ds3 image seems more in focus to me than the model's nose in the Aptus shot.

[attachment=3191:attachment]

Someone made the comment that the eyeball in the Aptus shot had greater depth.  Well, you might have noticed that the model has her face turned (more)away from the camera (in the Aptus shot) and is looking away from the camera instead of at it. The eye is being photographed from a different angle.

Another issue is the pixel count difference between the two crops. We are here comparing a crop from a 33mp image with a similar crop from a 21mp image. It so happens that the models' faces are approximately the same size within the frame, at least close enough to make the comparison reasonably valid.

But the Aptus crop is definitely comprised of more pixels. In the earlier comparison I interpolated the 1Ds3 crop so both crops were the same size. Perhaps I shouldn't have done that. Here are the uninterpolated crops.

[attachment=3192:attachment]

Finally, the difficulty of getting equivalent DoF between different formats with different aspect ratios has to be considered. Which dimension are you going to choose? I get the impression that the 4/3rds aspect ratio of most MFDBs is preferred for portraiture and fashion, so perhaps we should be comparing a 24mm wide format with a 36mm wide format, ie. 1.5x the width.

If we do this, both the focal length and f stop should be multiplied by the same factor for equivalent DoF, so an 85mm lens at f1.8 on 35mm format should be equivalent to a 127mm lens at f2.7 on 48x36mm format. This approach will give an edge to the MF format. If we use the height for comparison, the FL and f stop is slightly different and 35mm gets the edge.

It's easy to see differences between images of different scenes, images which actually are different. What is more difficult is assigning and attributing such differences to a particular camera and format when one doesn't already know which camera was used to take the shot.

I used to be very interested in audio hi fi matters several years ago. I used to read hi fi magazines strong on advertising and subjective impressions but short on objective analysis. I always remember the occasion when one such magazine reported on a serious attempt to test the objectivity of audio experts who claimed they could always tell the difference between an exotic system with oxygen-free copper cables, ultra-expensive amplifier etc, and an ordinary but good hi fi system.

They each brought their own music, every nuance of which would have been familiar to them. They were asked to identify which system was in use as the music was switched between various system, some systems employing expensive amplifiers, some with cheap amplifiers. The speakers were always the same though.

The results were astounding. They were about as accurate as tossing a coin. However, there was one respect in which the results were consistent, but unfortunately consistently wrong. One particular system with a cheap Pioneer amplifier was consistently confused with another system employing a terribly expensive Mark Levinson hybrid amplifier which most hi fi enthusiasts would have drooled over.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: thsinar on September 07, 2007, 11:17:50 pm
Well Ray,

the initial and starting point wasn't at all about suggesting that the Canon could compete on a quality level or challenge the MF world: there was no word about this in the initial post and published "Canon statement".

It was question of compatibility, support in the future (mid- and long term), while suggesting that with Canon it was a "clear future" and with MFDB manufacturers not at all.

The tread has then (logically) switched to a quality comparison/discussion.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
I'm getting a sense of desperation amongst some of you MF aficionados.   

The thread started off with the suggestion that the 1Ds3 might be able to challenge the image quality from some of the more expensive MFDBs.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 08, 2007, 12:07:01 am
Quote
Well Ray,

the initial and starting point wasn't at all about suggesting that the Canon could compete on a quality level or challenge the MF world: there was no word about this in the initial post and published "Canon statement".

It was question of compatibility, support in the future (mid- and long term), while suggesting that with Canon it was a "clear future" and with MFDB manufacturers not at all.

The tread has then (logically) switched to a quality comparison/discussion.

Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're right Thiery. I jumped in about halfway through the thread and seem to be at least partly responsible for steering the issue towards image quality comparisons. Sorry about that   .

Your concerns are about continuity and compatibility of MF equipment. I guess mine are about the possibility of achieving 22mp MF quality through the purchase of a 1Ds3 which is a camera normally way above my budget...

....and at ISO 800 possibly greater quality than a P45+     .
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: thsinar on September 08, 2007, 12:16:05 am
We understand each other, Ray!  

I'm obviously following the debate about quality and comparison, won't however jump in it, since too many factors are involved to make a right and fair comparison, if at all possible.

For me, and like many said it here: know what you want, know your gear and how to use it the right way and for the right job, that's the most important.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
You're right Thiery. I jumped in about halfway through the thread and seem to be at least partly responsible for steering the issue towards image quality comparisons. Sorry about that   .

Your concerns are about continuity and compatibility of MF equipment. I guess mine are about the possibility of achieving 22mp MF quality through the purchase of a 1Ds3 which is a camera normally way above my budget...

....and at ISO 800 possibly greater quality than a P45+     .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137980\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: AndreNapier on September 08, 2007, 01:16:27 am
When I posted my image in this topic my intention was just to illustrate the 3D effect that I see in MF DB and that in My opinion is missing in Dslr. This picture was just a handy example that I had ready in my MacBook. It was post processed, color corrected, PS and over sharpened as it was ready for  Teens magazine cover print this week . On paper all the digital art effects will disappear leaving just sharp enough image also without the exaggerated blue tone.
Since then I went back and reprocessed the Raw with disabled sharpening without any corrections in just as shot form. In PS I just saved it to Jpg Max and resized it. The close up is actual pix. It does not look nothing in the web as it does on the screen in original form , but we all know that. At least I hope you guys are using Safari and not Firefox which even farther destroys the quality. Please do not forget that it was shot freehand wide open with HMI lighting at 1/60sec  and that the intention was not to achieve the sharpest image but rather character and separation.
  I have seen the work of others and shot myself thousands and thousands of frames with Canons and Nikons digital. Some of the work I have seen is superb in all respects. Some of the work is much better than I can dream of achieving with all DB ever. There is so many variables to make a great shot and camera is just a tool. Since I have very extensive background and all my young years as a hair stylist with the international power houses I can easily assume that at anytime I can do a better haircut with a piece of glass from broken beer bottle than any of you with $1500 scissors. Having said that if given a choice I always prefer to cut using the best scissors as they give me the confidence and ability to go beyond the ordinary and would never become a limiting factor in my creativity.  Same thing applies to photography. I know my very limitations and every day I struggle to overcome them. Camera is just as good as we are. Great camera however is as good as we ever desire to become.

Http://AndreNapier.com (http://Http://AndreNapier.com)[attachment=3193:attachment][attachment=3194:attachment]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 08, 2007, 03:14:49 am
@Ray,
That's what the whole thread is about (or at least for me), people claiming they will get MF quality files with the 1DsIII or something close.

Probarbly the only thing you will get with the 1DsIII is the megapixels that SOME digital backs have

And we all know by now that MP's are not that important for the final quality of a shot.

As Napier also said it's the photographer that in the END will make the picture, however for me and that's personally the 5D was limiting me in what I wanted, near the end of using the 5D I was frustated that it would not give me the lattitude I needed, it did not give me the shadow detail I wanted and it did not give me the smooth gradiants.

I did not switch for the MP's.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Dustbak on September 08, 2007, 04:58:23 am
How long before we get discussions about cell phones with 10MP rivalling the 5D in IQ?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 08, 2007, 05:03:40 am
If you search you can find a review about that, and the cellphone won because of the price/quality
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: feppe on September 08, 2007, 06:19:15 am
Quote
How long before we get discussions about cell phones with 10MP rivalling the 5D in IQ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hehe. Although tongue-in-cheek, that gets to the root of this discussion, at least for me. The Big Question is whether a ~22MP MFDB produces results which are enough to justify the high purchase price compared to a ~22MP dSLR. As has been showed, a fair and objective comparison of the quality is very difficult, even if we set up a true double-blind study.

Even if we were able to overcome those limitations - and people have presented promising ideas here -, it'll still be subjective. How much is a marginally more striking "3D-look," tighter DOF, slightly improved bokeh, or less noise in the shadows worth? The answer of course depends on the photographer. For me the bokeh and less noise is worth much more than a 3D-look or DOF. But is it worth the price of 2 or 3 dSLRs? As a "serious amateur," hell no. I could buy a complete pro-glass 22MP dSLR system, best printer, and a safari or a week-long LL workshop for that price. But if I was a pro, the cost of an MFDB would most probably not be an issue, and even a marginal improvement in quality - if it exists - would be worth it.

Now, if only MFDB manufacturers would embrace the idea that slashing their prices would open the whole serious amateur market to them. Although it would cut margins, it would also drive up sales dramatically, leading to a very possible positive net income increase... But that's another discussion.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 08, 2007, 07:24:30 am
Well you can also look at it even more extreme.

I tested both the 1DsII and the 5D and bought the 5D.
I found the 5D to perform slightly better than the 1DsII on what I used (skintones)

With the 5D vs 1DsIII it's also a 4x price difference.
If people are willing to pay that who are now shooting a 5D.
There will be people paying 2x the price of the 1DsIII when they now shoot a 1DsII.

Hope that makes sense.

In audio terms.
When going from a 100.00 setup to a 200.00 setup it's often a more than twice improvement, however when going from a 10.000 setup to a 20.000 setup it's often in small gains and NEVER twice the performance.
Still there are alot of people upgrading.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tucker on September 08, 2007, 09:28:12 am
I just finished a Lifestyle job here in New York, last night. Shot it tethered to my P21+. I must say, the files are sweet and tight. And tethering to a Phase back seems so much more solid that tethering to the "sports camera Canon". Canon can talk all they want about challenging Medium Format, but until they improve the tethering conditions, and improve their tethering software, they're still a long way off.

There are endless facets to the topic of this thread. There is no "one best answer". You've just got to try them out til you find the one that fits.

What I will find interesting is how the P21+, (or the Leaf equivalent), will compare to the 1ds3. The P21+ shoots super fast; as fast as the Profoto packs turned down low. You never wait on it. The files are plenty big. It's about as close to a Canon experience as anything I've found. In the studio, tethered, it's very hard to beat. I've got mine mated to a Contax, and the lenses are scary good, even the wide 45 and 55.

When that Amazon thing leaked, the day before the Canon announcement, I read something somewhere, from Canon, that made some kind of mild challenge to "medium format in the studio". We'll see how well they fare, come December. But right now, for heavy duty studio work, that little P21+ is very very hard to beat. It's about as close to "the best of both worlds" as any solution I've found. And it delivers rock solid software, which is something that Canon can't even come close to saying.

Just one opinion. This might not apple to everyone.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: SecondFocus on September 08, 2007, 09:57:58 am
Quote
This is the Leaf aptus 22
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Frank...

Can I ask why you chose the Leaf Aptus 22 for example over the Leaf Aptus 65?

The trade off being 22 mpx and a full frame sensor as compared to 28 mpx and a smaller sensor. And the 22 is more expensive.

Thanks.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 08, 2007, 10:02:13 am
I wanted a non crop back (or the smallest crop possible).
I LOVE to shoot wide open outside and the DOF with a full frame sensor is just stunning.

Also over here the Aptus 22 is cheaper than the 65
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on September 08, 2007, 10:58:15 am
I find it interesting that in this discussion so far, shallow DOF seems to be presented as an always-preferable thing, when it's clearly not. Many landscapes, group portraits, product shots, and other images can benefit from fairly wide DOF. It certainly would be incorrect to say wider DOF is always better, but it is equally incorrect to say that narrower DOF is always better or "more artistic" or whatever.

And then there's the issue of low-light capability. Can any MFDB perform well shooting a concert or stage performance sans flash where ambient light is 1/60-f/2.8-ISO1600 and the action is fast and furious in terms of what the performars are doing and the distance to subject constantly changing? Can any MFDB match a Canon 1-series DSLR when it comes to accurately focus tracking moving subjects in such low light? I doubt it. Under such conditions, I'd venture that the 1Ds-II would outperform any MFDB currently made, and the 1Ds-III will do even better.

In a studio with proper lighting, I would expect the MFDB to do better than the 1Ds-III. But I still haven't seen any evidence to suggest that anyone can consistently distinguish between MFDB and DSLR images shot with equivalent DOF and perspective comparing web-resolution JPEGs or typical magazine pages in a blind comparison.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tuttle on September 08, 2007, 11:18:08 am
Quote
There is no "one best answer". You've just got to try them out til you find the one that fits.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138015\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Truer words were never spoken.

Now, is someone going to finally buy a pitcher of beer at this table?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: nicolaasdb on September 08, 2007, 01:08:34 pm
AND IT GOES ON AND ON AND ON...and we will never come to a conclusion.....it is almost like the US senate about the Iraq war! or healthcare or anything else they yap about.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: MarkKay on September 08, 2007, 01:22:51 pm
THere is more certainty with the Iraq war than the conclusion under question here .. the only problem is there is only two people really in support of the war and they overrule the rest. Or at least I can say there is an overwhelming majority with the same or similar conclusion and they are overruled by two.

Quote
AND IT GOES ON AND ON AND ON...and we will never come to a conclusion.....it is almost like the US senate about the Iraq war! or healthcare or anything else they yap about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138041\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: AndreNapier on September 08, 2007, 02:17:36 pm
I have to agree that this topic has nowhere else to go and no amount of examples is going to change  nobodies mind. We all use camera differently, we all see things differently. If one can not see the difference between DB and Dslr he does not need it. Last year during Expo I showed 15 exhibition prints 16x20  to Steve Hendrix and told him that just one was shot with Canon. He had no problem to pick it up. Chance for guessing was 1/15.
I am signing off. Enjoy your cameras.
Andre
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jing q on September 08, 2007, 02:28:49 pm
Quote
I find it interesting that in this discussion so far, shallow DOF seems to be presented as an always-preferable thing, when it's clearly not. Many landscapes, group portraits, product shots, and other images can benefit from fairly wide DOF. It certainly would be incorrect to say wider DOF is always better, but it is equally incorrect to say that narrower DOF is always better or "more artistic" or whatever.

And then there's the issue of low-light capability. Can any MFDB perform well shooting a concert or stage performance sans flash where ambient light is 1/60-f/2.8-ISO1600 and the action is fast and furious in terms of what the performars are doing and the distance to subject constantly changing? Can any MFDB match a Canon 1-series DSLR when it comes to accurately focus tracking moving subjects in such low light? I doubt it. Under such conditions, I'd venture that the 1Ds-II would outperform any MFDB currently made, and the 1Ds-III will do even better.

In a studio with proper lighting, I would expect the MFDB to do better than the 1Ds-III. But I still haven't seen any evidence to suggest that anyone can consistently distinguish between MFDB and DSLR images shot with equivalent DOF and perspective comparing web-resolution JPEGs or typical magazine pages in a blind comparison.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138030\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think as photographers we want to have the highest quality of the images we take
Even if it's just for a magazine I'm still going to use the highest quality files. When your pictures are side by side with other photographers' work, it's your name on the line

and regarding depth of field...it's not really a consideration for me.even though I'm not getting as much depth of field as when I was shooting with my 1Ds MkII, people still seem to prefer the MFDB image.
Good for you if the people you show can't distinguish between both images, but I can and I value my work enough to want to have the highest quality files for it and am willing to spend for it. Maybe I'm just too idealistic...

Sure the backs are way overpriced to me, but buying 3 1DsMkIIIs is not going to make an image that's of a higher quality than my Leaf.

(I'm still slightly on the fence regarding 33mp compared to 6x7 film...but definitely a big step up from the Canon)

To the doubters, I suggest you test it yourself, get a MF back and a Canon and test them side by side and do a nice large print and ask yourself which one you prefer. That's the easiest way to come to your own conclusions.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: uaiomex on September 08, 2007, 02:53:49 pm
Well, I've read most posts in this thread and looked to all pics (I think).

My conclusions (yes, only my own):

Definetely, there is more quality in dmf over dslr

3D look is real. I've seen it in Leica's film blown to 8X10"

DMF shows 3D (not always) often. DSLR's not that quite and diminished.

Photographs here
To my eyes:

In the comparison between the 1DS-3 and DMF, DMF wins.
The eyelashes tips in 1Ds-3 are fuzzy. Those in DMF,  are not.

Frank's eye/eyelashes crop is a new benchmark for sharpness.
Andre's girl portrait, quite possibly the portrait picture with most 3D I 've seen.

Tucker, seems to me a very savy and professional photographer talking with honesty. I kept reading his posts with the hope to convince myself that dslr's are good enough to compete with dmf. Sorry, to say... not yet.  As the old saying goes: A picture tells more than a thousand words.

Eduardo
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 08, 2007, 03:18:10 pm
To conclude my participation on this thread...(again  ) I just have to say that I clearly see the advantages of medium format and that's the reason I choose this platform... I don't think is  sincere to say "I don't use MF bacause it isn't better", bacause to my eyes, it's at this point very superior. They should say: "I don't use MF  because I don't need it" or because "other type of camera is better for my job". Because the files.... well, we all have seen them here....

Have a nice weekend!  
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: eronald on September 08, 2007, 03:39:15 pm
Quote
Tucker, seems to me a very savy and professional photographer talking with honesty. I kept reading his posts with the hope to convince myself that dslr's are good enough to compete with dmf. Sorry, to say... not yet.  As the old saying goes: A picture tells more than a thousand words.

Eduardo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138066\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah, I don't understand why Mark is painting himself into that corner. Of course, he is a very very good photographer, and can get superb results with any camera.

Edmund
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tucker on September 08, 2007, 05:44:03 pm
My point was, and continues to be: You can't make absolutes in this argument. If I was the arguing type, which I am, I could say this about these precious medium format files that you guys are so insistent on defending:

1. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you're shooting a camera body like the H1, that's got mirror slap like an angry ex-wife? You spend your thousands of dollars, and then you realize that the design of the H1 body forces you to shoot ambient or HMI at no less than 1/125th? I've shot tests, on the tripod, where I've got mirror slap at 1/125. Does the Canon do that? No.

2. What good are your precious 16 bits, if the back that you've bought recycles so slow that you miss good frames, (good facial expressions), when you're shooting people? You write a check for that P45 and you're waiting waiting waiting for the back to recycle, and pushing the shutter release, and having nothing happen. How frustrating is that? Does the Canon do that? No.

3. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you realize that the light is dropping, and then you reach and move the ASA up to 400 or 800, and the whole damn file falls apart? Does the Canon do that? No.

4. What economic sense does is make, really, to choose medium format, when back number one costs $27k, and then you realize you've got to have a back up? What are you gonna do then? Write another $27k check? Because what kind of a pro walks into a paying job without a backup system? And then, if you buy Canon for backup to MF, are you gonna drag around TWO camera systems and two sets of lenses? Maybe you, but not me.

5. For those landscape guys out there worried about megapixels, you can always stitch multiple frames together, with the Canon, to, in effect, double your megapixels, without writing the check for the MF back.

6. For what I read about what some of the guys on this board are shooting, can you economically justify writing a MF check for personal work? What kind of sense does that make? Are you all trust fund babies? For a lot of what I see here, why not shoot film and have it scanned, if you're after every ounce of detail on that tree branch?

---

I write all this in the spirit of hopefully assisting another photographer, who might get caught up in all the hype about medium format, when the Canon might just do just fine. We have to stop our old mindset of thinking of Canon as "35" and thinking of Hasselblad as "120", because now, they're clearly merging, in terms of file sizes. With proper sharpening and file prep, the Canon file can hold its own with MF any day of the week, if your deal is CMYK reproduction. Yes, maybe the P45 or A75 will be a little tighter, but unlike many people on this board who are so insistent about the superiority of MF, the differences, after reproduction, or on an Epson print, can be quite small.

Just one opinion. TEST FOR YOURSELF, in your style, before you write the check. It's a drag to waste money. I should know.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: BlasR on September 08, 2007, 06:13:24 pm
I have canon 1ds and I have H1 with p45+.  

 I love the canon for speed, just to go to bosque del apache, but other them that ,"hum"maybe to use the 400do for the moon or others animals

you can't say you going to istitch multiple frames together, with the Canon and look the same,as the p45+ and it's not going to be any different ,
is like night and day in favor of the p45+,

Well "cada loco con su tema"

BlasR






Quote
My point was, and continues to be: You can't make absolutes in this argument. If I was the arguing type, which I am, I could say this about these precious medium format files that you guys are so insistent on defending:

1. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you're shooting a camera body like the H1, that's got mirror slap like an angry ex-wife? You spend your thousands of dollars, and then you realize that the design of the H1 body forces you to shoot ambient or HMI at no less than 1/125th? I've shot tests, on the tripod, where I've got mirror slap at 1/125. Does the Canon do that? No.

2. What good are your precious 16 bits, if the back that you've bought recycles so slow that you miss good frames, (good facial expressions), when you're shooting people? You write a check for that P45 and you're waiting waiting waiting for the back to recycle, and pushing the shutter release, and having nothing happen. How frustrating is that? Does the Canon do that? No.

3. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you realize that the light is dropping, and then you reach and move the ASA up to 400 or 800, and the whole damn file falls apart? Does the Canon do that? No.

4. What economic sense does is make, really, to choose medium format, when back number one costs $27k, and then you realize you've got to have a back up? What are you gonna do then? Write another $27k check? Because what kind of a pro walks into a paying job without a backup system? And then, if you buy Canon for backup to MF, are you gonna drag around TWO camera systems and two sets of lenses? Maybe you, but not me.

5. For those landscape guys out there worried about megapixels, you can always stitch multiple frames together, with the Canon, to, in effect, double your megapixels, without writing the check for the MF back.

6. For what I read about what some of the guys on this board are shooting, can you economically justify writing a MF check for personal work? What kind of sense does that make? Are you all trust fund babies? For a lot of what I see here, why not shoot film and have it scanned, if you're after every ounce of detail on that tree branch?

---

I write all this in the spirit of hopefully assisting another photographer, who might get caught up in all the hype about medium format, when the Canon might just do just fine. We have to stop our old mindset of thinking of Canon as "35" and thinking of Hasselblad as "120", because now, they're clearly merging, in terms of file sizes. With proper sharpening and file prep, the Canon file can hold its own with MF any day of the week, if your deal is CMYK reproduction. Yes, maybe the P45 or A75 will be a little tighter, but unlike many people on this board who are so insistent about the superiority of MF, the differences, after reproduction, or on an Epson print, can be quite small.

Just one opinion. TEST FOR YOURSELF, in your style, before you write the check. It's a drag to waste money. I should know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: awofinden on September 08, 2007, 06:24:06 pm
Quote
My point was, and continues to be: You can't make absolutes in this argument. If I was the arguing type, which I am, I could say this about these precious medium format files that you guys are so insistent on defending:

1. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you're shooting a camera body like the H1, that's got mirror slap like an angry ex-wife? You spend your thousands of dollars, and then you realize that the design of the H1 body forces you to shoot ambient or HMI at no less than 1/125th? I've shot tests, on the tripod, where I've got mirror slap at 1/125. Does the Canon do that? No.

2. What good are your precious 16 bits, if the back that you've bought recycles so slow that you miss good frames, (good facial expressions), when you're shooting people? You write a check for that P45 and you're waiting waiting waiting for the back to recycle, and pushing the shutter release, and having nothing happen. How frustrating is that? Does the Canon do that? No.

3. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you realize that the light is dropping, and then you reach and move the ASA up to 400 or 800, and the whole damn file falls apart? Does the Canon do that? No.

4. What economic sense does is make, really, to choose medium format, when back number one costs $27k, and then you realize you've got to have a back up? What are you gonna do then? Write another $27k check? Because what kind of a pro walks into a paying job without a backup system? And then, if you buy Canon for backup to MF, are you gonna drag around TWO camera systems and two sets of lenses? Maybe you, but not me.

5. For those landscape guys out there worried about megapixels, you can always stitch multiple frames together, with the Canon, to, in effect, double your megapixels, without writing the check for the MF back.

6. For what I read about what some of the guys on this board are shooting, can you economically justify writing a MF check for personal work? What kind of sense does that make? Are you all trust fund babies? For a lot of what I see here, why not shoot film and have it scanned, if you're after every ounce of detail on that tree branch?

---

I write all this in the spirit of hopefully assisting another photographer, who might get caught up in all the hype about medium format, when the Canon might just do just fine. We have to stop our old mindset of thinking of Canon as "35" and thinking of Hasselblad as "120", because now, they're clearly merging, in terms of file sizes. With proper sharpening and file prep, the Canon file can hold its own with MF any day of the week, if your deal is CMYK reproduction. Yes, maybe the P45 or A75 will be a little tighter, but unlike many people on this board who are so insistent about the superiority of MF, the differences, after reproduction, or on an Epson print, can be quite small.

Just one opinion. TEST FOR YOURSELF, in your style, before you write the check. It's a drag to waste money. I should know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is a little bit of a sad state of affairs when were looking for something that might "do just fine" for the sake of convenience. Also with regard to people who justify writing a check for a MFDB for personal work, have you forgotten that photography isn't just about economics?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Morgan_Moore on September 08, 2007, 06:46:10 pm
Quote
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=138077\")

De ja vue .. [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=12193&hl=]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=12193&hl=[/url]

but you still cant do 25ISO, 800th and flash with a canon

and a big chip DOES give less depth of field for a given aperture

S
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Craig Lamson on September 08, 2007, 06:47:44 pm
Quote
......If I was the arguing type, which I am,...... [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Me too    I knew there was something I liked about you Mark, aside from your photography
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: feppe on September 08, 2007, 06:55:17 pm
Quote
It is a little bit of a sad state of affairs when were looking for something that might "do just fine" for the sake of convenience. Also with regard to people who justify writing a check for a MFDB for personal work, have you forgotten that photography isn't just about economics?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not just about economics? Plonking as much on a single piece of photographic equipment as a good car, diamonds for the missus and around-the-world trip is, indeed, all about economics for amateurs. Spending 1/10 of that on a dSLR instead is not about convenience, it's about using your head. For the vast majority of us the marginal improvement MFDB offers is just not worth it, and it never will.

Us amateurs without the aforementioned trust fund have to think about the economics every time we invest in our hobby. And before you say "it's all about priorities," there's not that many working people who can afford a good car, diamonds for the missus and around-the-world trip, let alone to forgo those for our passion.

Sad state, perhaps, but I prefer to live in reality.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Bruce MacNeil on September 08, 2007, 07:02:59 pm
Compromise -

Photography is in many respects the art of the compromise.

In my perfect world every picture would be captured in sublime spontaneity on 8x10 film with perfect waning light and heart rendering emotion. Rich in detail and subtle range of tones with saturation and contrast where appropriate. Every actor in the image a perfect mix of engagement and unaffect.

These features never exist together. We need compromise.

The Canon is an appropriate compromise in many instances as is the 8x10 view camera in others. A balance between what we are wiling to carry: who we are wiling to hire: how far we are wiling to travel or whose home we wish to invade.

I have shot an awful lot of large format film over the years (decades?) and always compromised. When someone would ask how I decided whether to shoot colour or black and white the most honest answer was always - when I have colour film in my camera I shoot colour and when I have B&W film I shoot B&W.

Also spent a lot of time kicking down doors with the view camera and way too many lights. Compromise. Then some bastard stole my view camera and I kind of bonded with the Canon. Now, that is a compromise. A teeny little sensor and some sanitary digital chip. No soul, no variance, no nothing - some sucking little thing that always yielded some sucking version of life.

Then after a while you figure out how that compromise works and a few decent images begin to appear to the extent that this is a pretty good choice for lots of kinds of pictures. Pretty good. Not terrific but it works. And, I am certainly not going to carry the Deardorff on the back of a horse in the middle of the Atlantic as  have with my Canons.

A problem people - hobbyists - have with cameras is that they are afraid to drop them in the water or let a lens hit the ground or throw the entire rig at a wall. Try that a few times - the repairs are usually not terribly expensive and what you lose in water-loggedness you usually make up in compelling images. So, what is a compelling image? Another thing that digital has done is inoculated a large portion of the populace against any molecule of empathy.

So now I think - MFD or more film or both? What the hell - the most tragic compromise of all is the unwillingness to be embarrassed or put out or simply use the dam,n thing on a regular basis.

Mark Tucker is right - the MFD is a pretty slight imitation of what would be possible with something about 8 times larger. And, why do we try so hard with the distressed image and film like quality when a few bucks in film basically give you a very filmic quality.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: eronald on September 08, 2007, 07:08:49 pm
Hehe Mark, you make a clear and compelling argument.

 Let me summarize: Canon is lighter, faster, and more flexible that the MF gear and this HUGE usability advantage means it will deliver consistently in many situations where MF will stumble. And Canon is *very considerably* cheaper.

 But the above applied equally well to Hassy vs Nikon in the olden days.

 So what's changed ? Why would it have been worthwhile to shoot MF then but not now ?

Edmund

Quote
My point was, and continues to be: You can't make absolutes in this argument. If I was the arguing type, which I am, I could say this about these precious medium format files that you guys are so insistent on defending:

1. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you're shooting a camera body like the H1, that's got mirror slap like an angry ex-wife? You spend your thousands of dollars, and then you realize that the design of the H1 body forces you to shoot ambient or HMI at no less than 1/125th? I've shot tests, on the tripod, where I've got mirror slap at 1/125. Does the Canon do that? No.

2. What good are your precious 16 bits, if the back that you've bought recycles so slow that you miss good frames, (good facial expressions), when you're shooting people? You write a check for that P45 and you're waiting waiting waiting for the back to recycle, and pushing the shutter release, and having nothing happen. How frustrating is that? Does the Canon do that? No.

3. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you realize that the light is dropping, and then you reach and move the ASA up to 400 or 800, and the whole damn file falls apart? Does the Canon do that? No.

4. What economic sense does is make, really, to choose medium format, when back number one costs $27k, and then you realize you've got to have a back up? What are you gonna do then? Write another $27k check? Because what kind of a pro walks into a paying job without a backup system? And then, if you buy Canon for backup to MF, are you gonna drag around TWO camera systems and two sets of lenses? Maybe you, but not me.

5. For those landscape guys out there worried about megapixels, you can always stitch multiple frames together, with the Canon, to, in effect, double your megapixels, without writing the check for the MF back.

6. For what I read about what some of the guys on this board are shooting, can you economically justify writing a MF check for personal work? What kind of sense does that make? Are you all trust fund babies? For a lot of what I see here, why not shoot film and have it scanned, if you're after every ounce of detail on that tree branch?

---

I write all this in the spirit of hopefully assisting another photographer, who might get caught up in all the hype about medium format, when the Canon might just do just fine. We have to stop our old mindset of thinking of Canon as "35" and thinking of Hasselblad as "120", because now, they're clearly merging, in terms of file sizes. With proper sharpening and file prep, the Canon file can hold its own with MF any day of the week, if your deal is CMYK reproduction. Yes, maybe the P45 or A75 will be a little tighter, but unlike many people on this board who are so insistent about the superiority of MF, the differences, after reproduction, or on an Epson print, can be quite small.

Just one opinion. TEST FOR YOURSELF, in your style, before you write the check. It's a drag to waste money. I should know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: rainer_v on September 08, 2007, 07:31:51 pm
here are to many words written from people who  try to improve their results  with better equipment,- and for the lack of knowledge they believe that "you get what you pay for it ".
you will never get the desired results if you think you can pay for being a good artist ... or that one could pay enough money and the results would be good or even just better images.
there is NO problem to make good photographs with nearly any camera out there if you know to use it and if you are willed to accept its shortcomings and to use these shortcomings creative.
if you do not know to do this not any **mp sensor with **bit dynamic might help you,- just the opposite because it will cut the time which better is invested in trying and learning what the tools you already own can give you.

i am coming back to this discussion although i did not saw sense to do this before, following the arguments which are discussed here,-  the main ( and only ? ) thing i fully agree is that it has been stated that different kinds of photography need different tools....  you also could hardly compare film work between the systems,-
it would have been just ridiculous to  say that a leica M6 is better than a linhof technikardan or vice versa.

 i myself have good reasons to work with mf backs, although i am able to create with my 35mm canon equipment images which can not be differentiated in normal usage ( prints ) from that ones i take with my mf  backs.

this comes mainly because i know to use my tools and my files,
i spent many 100 hours in learning how to use digital cameras and their files.
after being experienced with drum-scanning  i worked a lot in trying to press out the best possible result from 35mm digitals as the quirky kodak 14n and slrn,- but also from fuji s2 and canon 1ds,1ds2 and 5d,- together with all possible shift solutions which i could find. most lenses i sold immediately again, some i still hold. never i was content 100% because the lenses have not been enough free of distortion or showed other shortcomings,- compared to the 4x5" lenses i was used to use.
but i learned to correct unsymmetric distortions, to create noise-free sky colors and shadows, to add grain, to de-saturate partially, to stack and to stitch images.
most i did with critical eyes, which means i was not searching average results.
i started using digital cameras in my work, after i realised with my first digicam - the fuji s2 - that it allowed me an image language, esp. colors , which i could hardly get out of film.
this was interesting for me, so i bought a FF 35mm kamera, a kodak, and slowly by slowly i integrated digital images in my work. beginning with fast jobs or details, i improved my lenses and my knowledges how to treat the files.
i stitched, inverted color shifts, corrected moustache distortions and others , and shot digital for certain light situations and 4x5" film for others.
was very complicate but i could not leave digital capturing anymore- it brought so many new possibilities to me that i decided to learn for which it is good and for which not. and 4x5" work was complicate also, because i was one of the few architecture guys in germany who did not deliver chromes to the clients but files which i made with my scanmate 5000 scanner.

at the moment i am working, digital only, with an emotion22 and an emotion 75 as well as with a canon. the mf backs with shiftable lenses from 28 to 100mmand with a contax 645 with lenses from 35 to 210mm.
the canon with a set of shift lenses starting from nikon fisheye, 12-24mm sigma lens, 300 +  400mm manual nikon  teles over the olympus 24PC and a bundle of pentax 645 lenses with the zoerkendorf shift adapter.
with the canon 5d the shift lenses allow me to take images between 20 and 30 mp  ( stitching two or three frames). the workflow is not bad, esp. after the new PS3 release with its fabulous stitching possibility although i use mainly my mf equipment, because its more practical and delivers still better results or it delivers them more easy cause i do not have to stitch and the dynamic is somehow better.
 at the moment i "learn" to handle HDR images or i try out till which degree this technik fits in my style,- and which motifs cannot be treated in this way.

i have had enough publications where my shots have been mixed, 22 or 33mp backs together with images from the 35mm cameras ( which at the moment is i.m.o. the best ff 35mm camera out in the market ).
till now no one could see the difference between these images,- and you might believe it or not, these publications have been reviewed from many very critical people with critical eyes, but as i said before- i know also why my main used gear are the mf backs.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: vgogolak on September 08, 2007, 07:38:34 pm
well, since so many have piped in after 12 pages, I thought I would share a top down perspective:

Products and pricing are like the stock market- not perfectly efficient, but close enough that fighting it is a losing game.

I also remember a sage friend ; he was about my age, 64, and I was about 30 when he told me this- and it has helped me deal with what so many here are dealing with-what you want, what you can afford.

He said there is 10 to 20 times difference between the 'best' of anything and something that 'just barely does it"

In cars, 15-20k (honda civic, etc) will get you a car (not Jugo!) and 150k to 200kwill get you the best (whatever that might mean. (like a top MB or a Bentley) [and sure, you can go higher with Maybach, Ferrari etc, but those are different animals. we are talkingt basic family like car] HOEVER, you will NOT get 10x in any measurable way like speed, longevity, capacity etc. - it will include a lot of intagibles. (remember these 'intangibles' when I discuss cameras below)

Along the way, $50-70k mercedes looks pretty good to most of us. No Honda, or Hundai no matter how luxurious is gonna be as good as a Merces. Lifve with it!
If you want but can't afford a MB, save, sacrific, or live with something less .

Now we have the 'Canon DSLR is as good as MF',  on and on....issue. Whaere does THAT fit?

I have seen the "Canon 5D is better than the Leica DMR. "L" or "MNOP" Canon lenses are good or better than Leica.


Sorry (and I know you will think this is elistist, but it is just reality) MF, $30k backs and Zeiss lenses are going to beat the pants off the Conikn stuff. Just as Leica lenses and M8 and DMRs will. They cost more, are better overall INCLUDING INTANGIBLES, (that we owners have a hard time explaining!) and yes, some of you can make a great living with Canikon gear. just as Hertz and cabs make a lot of money with Chevies. Only Paris cabs are smart enough to know a MB is best in the long run KNow why? They get to use them as family cars!

I can afford a MB, not a Bentley. I can afford a P45+, not a LF system with all the folderall (good folderall, I might add!  :-)

You know what I find? It is effortless! MF Contax 645 P45+ doesn't take hours - images are there- little sharpening, with C1 the product is great. Like any good tool, it feels GOOD in my hands. I may not take the best images from an artistic point of view, but the craft quality is there. GREAT resolution, color, 3D etc.

(Same with Leica and their dig cameras)

So, I have read all the comments, and fail to see why anyone would go so deep into someything that is so simple- in a relatively efficient world, and the camera MF/135 is, you will NOT get 2x or 5x quyality when you pay 2x or 5x. You will get that indefinable 'better' that lasts. Contax on my last trrip to europe still stopped people for comments (the , "I had contax-great stuiff etc) curiously they did not comment on the phase back just saying 'oh yes, good back. Works well with these lenses.,,,,)

You notice I provided no facts or figures. This is not a technical argiument, but a social  and historical one.

Those of you who paid $20-30k for a camera have little to fear from the under $10k camera, except if you expect  to be 'measureably' 2-3 times better. Better you are. And like me you should be deleriously happy that you can afford it.

best regards
Victor
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 08, 2007, 08:46:42 pm
Quote
My point was, and continues to be: You can't make absolutes in this argument. If I was the arguing type, which I am, I could say this about these precious medium format files that you guys are so insistent on defending:

1. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you're shooting a camera body like the H1, that's got mirror slap like an angry ex-wife? You spend your thousands of dollars, and then you realize that the design of the H1 body forces you to shoot ambient or HMI at no less than 1/125th? I've shot tests, on the tripod, where I've got mirror slap at 1/125. Does the Canon do that? No.

2. What good are your precious 16 bits, if the back that you've bought recycles so slow that you miss good frames, (good facial expressions), when you're shooting people? You write a check for that P45 and you're waiting waiting waiting for the back to recycle, and pushing the shutter release, and having nothing happen. How frustrating is that? Does the Canon do that? No.

3. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you realize that the light is dropping, and then you reach and move the ASA up to 400 or 800, and the whole damn file falls apart? Does the Canon do that? No.

4. What economic sense does is make, really, to choose medium format, when back number one costs $27k, and then you realize you've got to have a back up? What are you gonna do then? Write another $27k check? Because what kind of a pro walks into a paying job without a backup system? And then, if you buy Canon for backup to MF, are you gonna drag around TWO camera systems and two sets of lenses? Maybe you, but not me.

5. For those landscape guys out there worried about megapixels, you can always stitch multiple frames together, with the Canon, to, in effect, double your megapixels, without writing the check for the MF back.

6. For what I read about what some of the guys on this board are shooting, can you economically justify writing a MF check for personal work? What kind of sense does that make? Are you all trust fund babies? For a lot of what I see here, why not shoot film and have it scanned, if you're after every ounce of detail on that tree branch?

---
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark, let me answer:

1.- This is false. The H1 (or H2 or H3) is a wonderful camera, with great lenses a very practical design. This mirror problems are personal to you I think. I've never had this limitations. It has a powerfull mirror slap (love the sound with the shutter actually) but never interfered in terms of quality or sharpness of any kind.

2.- You don't buy a MF if you need a lot of speed. If in any case you need both, the speed and the quality, you buy a P21 for example. Great portraits has been taken with the V system too. My camera never decides when the picture is taken so a million frames per second does nothing to me.

3.- As I've been photographing 20 years I'll know when the light will drop. I've been using film a very long time to know the there's other options than changing the ISO. I don't think I'll never miss a shot because of an ISO changing. In any case, the best solution is to use your creativity the best you can.

4.- Flexibility is the history of medium format, and not compromise like someone said before. If the back fails you can use film. And is apropiate to have two bodies, actually cheaper than two Canon bodies. Anyway most of us have a car and take  a lot of equipment with us.... and there's also assis...  

5.- Why shoud I stitch exposures when my back can do it with one shot? This not an effective solution for some situations. The last seconds of a sunset? Water? or anyting moving.... You can stitch MF shots too...

6.- People (both proffs and amateurs) can buy what their money can buy. I don't see any problem with that. Also film is kind of history if you do proff assingments. Depending on what you do of course. But I can tell you, scanning and editing 10 rolls of portraits on film like I was doing a few months ago was not funny. And it's a nonsense if you can afford a DB. Also, more job comes today when the client knows that the files are almost for instant delivery and that they are not paying for film and developing and scanning...


But there's more, a lot more. A lot of us that use MF think in this way... Why should I buy a canon? A camera that delivers less quality than a DB? That won't let me put a film back if  I want? That has bad lenses that are outperformed by the sensor? That has a diminute viewfinder? That has way more speed that most of us need? That has millions of menus, settings and options that I'll never use? Than won't allow me to change the back when it's obsolete? Etc...

It's personal needs, but not anyone need to compromise.

Again, only my opinion.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: william on September 08, 2007, 08:48:56 pm
Quote
6. For what I read about what some of the guys on this board are shooting, can you economically justify writing a MF check for personal work? What kind of sense does that make? Are you all trust fund babies? For a lot of what I see here, why not shoot film and have it scanned, if you're after every ounce of detail on that tree branch?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I recently took the route Mark suggested.  When I was running my own studio, I could (just barely) justify purchasing the Phase One P30+.  Since I've closed the studio and am no longer regularly taking paying jobs, I had to ask myself whether it made sense to keep the Phase.  The answer -- for ME -- was no.  Here was my thought process, FWIW:

(1) For the sporadic paid gig, the P30+ would be overkill in terms of megapixels (notice that I said megapixels, not "image quality" or "look").  The average client just won't see the difference.  If I were getting paid to shoot every day and could recoup the cost of the back fairly quickly, then I could justify a digital MF back if for no other reason than my personal satisfaction.  But absent that, it didn't make economic sense to have that much capital wrapped up in a tool that wouldn't present me with any tangible economic gain versus a cheaper tool.  Since I am most definitely not independently wealthy, an item of this magnitude needs to be financially justifiable for me.

(2) If in the course of my now mostly personal shooting, I get a paid job where I really think that digital MF would be required, I can just rent a back for that job.  Or, if its not a job that really requires medium format, I'll just shoot my 5D.  (Or Nikon D3, when I get my hands on one!)

(3) Despite the economics, I as a photographer really enjoy shooting medium format for my personal work.  It changes the way I compose and shoot and I prefer the look (not necessarily the "sharpness") of medium format lenses compared to most 35mm lenses.  But then I realized, I can still have those two things -- different shooting style and MF lenses -- by using film!  Since I started as a film shooter, this shouldn't have been a terribly radical realization.  But the last 6 years of shooting digital has really blinded me to even considering film for commercial or personal work.  (Again, for commercial work, the reality is that shooting digital is now the norm and I would therefore either rent a back or shoot 35mm digital for paid work).

So, I sold my P30+, but kept the Contax system and have been running some film through it recently and enjoying it.  I also picked up a small Hassy system as well. And since I still have my Nikon 9000 scanner, I'm good to go.

PS: You know what I miss most about shooting MF digital versus MF film?  The ability to change ISO at will.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: awofinden on September 08, 2007, 09:09:02 pm
Quote
Not just about economics? Plonking as much on a single piece of photographic equipment as a good car, diamonds for the missus and around-the-world trip is, indeed, all about economics for amateurs. Spending 1/10 of that on a dSLR instead is not about convenience, it's about using your head. For the vast majority of us the marginal improvement MFDB offers is just not worth it, and it never will.

Us amateurs without the aforementioned trust fund have to think about the economics every time we invest in our hobby. And before you say "it's all about priorities," there's not that many working people who can afford a good car, diamonds for the missus and around-the-world trip, let alone to forgo those for our passion.

Sad state, perhaps, but I prefer to live in reality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138086\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Of course it depends on everyones economic status as to whether they can afford a back or not but it's not entirely a return on investment decision. There is that little not unimportant idea of craft involved too. Many decisions in life aren't made from an economical ROI angle and this is obviously the case for a lot of keen amateurs and why should it?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 08, 2007, 10:30:44 pm
Quote
Let me summarize: Canon is lighter, faster, and more flexible that the MF gear and this HUGE usability advantage means it will deliver consistently in many situations where MF will stumble. And Canon is *very considerably* cheaper.

 But the above applied equally well to Hassy vs Nikon in the olden days.

 So what's changed ? Why would it have been worthwhile to shoot MF then but not now ?

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138089\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Edmund,
Can I make a few suggestions as to the differences between Hassy film versus Nikon film situation, and the 1Ds2/3 versus MFDB situation.

(1) With both film systems you needed the body (and/or back) to hold the film plus a number of lenses. The Hassy system with lenses would probably have been significantly more expensive than the Nikon.

The price of the 35mm DSLR body has increased dramatically compared with a 35mm film body, but not so much that the cost of the lenses that people accumulate over the years is not of far greater value.

However, US$30,000 for an MFDB which basically just replaces a very simple and inexpensive device which used to hold the film, seems a bit excessive.

I think you could buy a Hassy body with a few good lenses for less than $30,000. If that's true, the MFDB becomes the jewel in the crown.

(2) The difference in sensor area between an MFDB and FF 35mm is just double. That's a relatively small step-up regarding format size. The difference in area between Nikon 35mm film and Hassy 6x6cm film is 4x.

(3) The nature of film is such that any increase in format size resulted in less noise, equating grain with noise. The larger the format, the lower the noise, the smoother the result. What's more, this improvement was proportional to format size, assuming the same film type was used. There was no 'law of diminishing returns' at work. With each step up in format size, the effective grain size was reduced relative to the image size.

It's probably true that there's a sense of slightly lower noise and smoother skin tones in the MF digital shot, at base ISO. I can accept that. But it seems to me you are paying an awful lot for such a subtle effect.

Please show me the differences between the Canon 5D skin tones, which you prefer, and the 1Ds2 skin tones so I can get an idea of the magnitude of the differences   .
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on September 09, 2007, 01:58:33 am
Quote
Good for you if the people you show can't distinguish between both images, but I can and I value my work enough to want to have the highest quality files for it and am willing to spend for it. Maybe I'm just too idealistic...

I'm NOT talking about clients, I'm talking about people like YOU; participants in this thread who claim that the differences between DSLR and MFDB are sufficiently great that they can consistently distinguish the difference even in web JPEGs. And when it comes to actually demonstrating that claim, there has been an overwhelming silence from the people making the claims, even though several "guess the format" images have been presented in-thread, and a web site with a mixture of DSLR and MFDB images has been posted for interested participants to pick out the MFDB shots and explain how they were able to tell the difference.

Looking at full-res files at 100% in Photoshop, or 16x20 inch or larger Epson prints, yeah, you should be able to tell easily. But in web JPEGs, or even a typical issue of Vogue? Show me. Anybody.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: AndreNapier on September 09, 2007, 02:10:47 am
Quote
here are to many words written from people who  try to improve their results  with better equipment,- and for the lack of knowledge they believe that "you get what you pay for it ".
you will never get the desired results if you think you can pay for being a good artist ... or that one could pay enough money and the results would be good or even just better images.


[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=138091\")

Rainer,
I did sign off on this topic but really felt compelled to respond to this statements of yours.
I have red the whole topic again and just tried to make sens what made you jump to this conclusion which is quite offensive to say the least. First of all I could not find one compelling reason which would make you a good judge of what an artist is or is not. Drum scanning and 100's of hours of digital training certainly are not qualifying factors. Granted, you are a very good photog in your field, great technition but I am not certain that neither knowledge is widely recognized as art expertise.
I am privilege to know  few great artists who strugle everyday to define themselves and the definition of an art. Every piece of their creation is born in pain and in doubt and luck of self confidence.
Before you will close this topic I would like to know who said these... too many words. I would like to know whom did you address.
People are on this board because they have love and passion for photography. There are countless man/hours spent to respond and share. I do not believe that ones higher status in photographic hierarhy is any indication of having always the right answers.
When I was nine my dad put his almost annual income in Poland to buy me a Pentacon6 for my first communion. By the age of 14 I was spending most of my folks money to shoot human face expressions on 8x10 film. Of course 35mm would do as fine but my parents wanted my to work with what was the best same way like other parents were buying fortepians for their kids while struggling to buy food for themselves.
When I came to age I decided that making money from photography would be like prostituting love of my life. I choose to ern money from different fields and in retrospect made a lot great investment choices that never interfered with photography. Throughout the years I was lucky enough to always be able to afford best tools at will. I took photography professionally  recently and very late in my life when I got board and burned with other fields. Although it will be long time before I will make my 51% of income from photography to truly qualify as a pro according to APA, in just first year I made enough money not only for the DB but also for the Big Benz to carry it and than some.
It really does not matter if one is a pro or amature. If you love to play violin buy the best that you can afford and practice. Don't let anyone tell you that at your level you should be playing with wooden box. Time and only time can tell. Remember if someone think that he is an artist, he is most likely not.

[a href=\"http://andrenapier.com]http://andrenapier.com[/url]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: rainer_v on September 09, 2007, 05:46:43 am
i agree, its offensive written,- offensive because here in LL are many photgraphers whose work i appreciate very much .......
to say names now is not fair also,  because its not my intention or wish and also not my role to judge or to hurt here anybody personally.
but reading again and again arguments as this 16bit thing <(*) makes me nervous.
here is so much dogmatism and "believe" in the game that i thought it isnt that bad to provoce a little bit.
i do not want to flame here blindly,- but i just could not find better words to express the impression which comes to me reading this 13-pages topic,- so full of speculations and believes.

ofcourse good images are not the domaine of "pros" or "amateurs" .
but i do not like dogmatism. and this discussion for me shows in many aspects a kind of "believe" in the more expansive technik, regardless for what its used and how its used.
also i resist myself very much to the frequently made statement, that people who think they are able to create images with "lower" end equipement as the canons ( or other cameras ), are somehow less critical or have less demand or a miss of "eyes".
users of canons have not to be sport shooters or people with less approach. to claim this  (direct or indirect) is b.s. and it makes me angry to read it so often. ..... as it would be a qualification to have a mf back,- mf backs used as a way of getting an entry card to some higher level of photography with hi approach.
it is not in this way.
eyes and knowledge are the basics, not mf backs.

personnally i doubt that a bigger car is such a better or more intelligent investment than a mf back ( or some expansive audio equipment ). also i do not have so big problems with the pricing of the mf gear, more upset makes me if the products are not ready or if the products are manufactored and sold with heavy issues and the manufactors negate these and go on selling.

(*)
 (not any mf back has real 16bit processing- all backs work with 14bit )
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: thsinar on September 09, 2007, 07:20:36 am
For knowing Rainer well, I can tell that its intention was not to hurt, never, nor to pretend being an artist in comparison to others.

I understand well what he is trying to express. It is very simple, and it comes to what I have said here in this tread earlier, or in different other treads earlier and since month:

it is not important to speak about the gear you are shooting with. A good photographer will produce great images with any of it. "Good" means here for me "knowing" its material perfectly: its camera, its lenses or its digital back. Knowing its possibilities, BUT (more importantly perhaps) also its limitations. We all know that each system, each camera, each brand has its limitations, but to know them excatly and where or when those limitations are hindering your work, that is another story.

The best camera in the world, the best lens, the best DB will not create any acceptable or good image, or let's say better than another system, as long as you have not full knowledge of it.

To make a comparison: I am a motorcycle driver. When I'd got my license, years back, all my friends told me that I could now drive a motorcycle. My answer was "No, it will take me at the very least 15 to 20'000 kms to know my machine and to claim that I am a driver. I need to know the limits of this machine, and I need to know my own limits on this machine". And I can tell it know: it really took me these 20'000 kms until I felt "secure", until I knew excatly what I could do with it (due to its limitations or my own).

The same with a camera or any other equipment: test it, spend hours to test it, learn to work with it, learn all possible technics involved. This is where I fully agree with Rainer: it needs hours and hours of time spent with the camera and its digital back (or dsrl), with the files produced and how those files should be handled, post-produced, output, etc ... to give the best out of it.

Just buying the "stuff" (expensive or not, high-end or not) won't do the "thing", and that's Rainer's message, IMO.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
Rainer,
I did sign off on this topic but really felt compelled to respond to this statements of yours.
I have red the whole topic again and just tried to make sens what made you jump to this conclusion which is quite offensive to say the least. First of all I could not find one compelling reason which would make you a good judge of what an artist is or is not. Drum scanning and 100's of hours of digital training certainly are not qualifying factors. Granted, you are a very good photog in your field, great technition but I am not certain that neither knowledge is widely recognized as art expertise.
I am privilege to know  few great artists who strugle everyday to define themselves and the definition of an art. Every piece of their creation is born in pain and in doubt and luck of self confidence.
Before you will close this topic I would like to know who said these... too many words. I would like to know whom did you address.
People are on this board because they have love and passion for photography. There are countless man/hours spent to respond and share. I do not believe that ones higher status in photographic hierarhy is any indication of having always the right answers.
When I was nine my dad put his almost annual income in Poland to buy me a Pentacon6 for my first communion. By the age of 14 I was spending most of my folks money to shoot human face expressions on 8x10 film. Of course 35mm would do as fine but my parents wanted my to work with what was the best same way like other parents were buying fortepians for their kids while struggling to buy food for themselves.
When I came to age I decided that making money from photography would be like prostituting love of my life. I choose to ern money from different fields and in retrospect made a lot great investment choices that never interfered with photography. Throughout the years I was lucky enough to always be able to afford best tools at will. I took photography professionally  recently and very late in my life when I got board and burned with other fields. Although it will be long time before I will make my 51% of income from photography to truly qualify as a pro according to APA, in just first year I made enough money not only for the DB but also for the Big Benz to carry it and than some.
It really does not matter if one is a pro or amature. If you love to play violin buy the best that you can afford and practice. Don't let anyone tell you that at your level you should be playing with wooden box. Time and only time can tell. Remember if someone think that he is an artist, he is most likely not.

http://andrenapier.com (http://andrenapier.com)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: rainer_v on September 09, 2007, 07:55:33 am
some years ago i used 35mm mostly for taking details aside my 4x5" work, i used a leica r8 with some lenses and,- as private "little" camera because i like them,  a M4p and later a M7.
sometimes i visited leica forums in the net.
in this forums i felt often some attitude, which seems to me very similar what i review now here. ofcourse this attitude was not expressed by all the members of these forums, or even not the most,- but it was there,- some style i could find in the conversations in these (leica) forums which i think i find it here now also...

in some way between the letters allways i could read that if you have a leica you qualify yourself to be a good photographer, or at least you are part of some leica world.
 if you use a nikon or a canon.... well thats another world, not worth to discuss with these people seriously because they do not see and they cannot valuate the true and only quality which you owned with your fantatisc sharp and coma-free leica lenses.
it made me angry to read this b.s. and i expressed that sometimes. now i see a similar thing here,
and i do not like it more than in that time and i think it is not less ridiculous.
maybe i am wrong and just oversensitive, but this is what i see in this topic. ofcourse not in all answers and replies,- but for me this elite attitude is here in some degree that i do not like it.

and for me its too much if it is claimed repeated that its just a miss of good eyes if someone cannot see in any case how superior is a mf print. or how much more 3D are mf images or how much more plasticity they have. using 1 average or sub-average image which is posted from canon as a reference, shot at f1,8 with a 85/1,2 lens.
and telling people who have compared prints and gear and use both regardless of its price ( as me and others here are doing ) that they just dont see enough or are not enough critical.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Chris_Brown on September 09, 2007, 09:29:19 am
It ain't whatcha got, it's whatcha do with it that matters.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 09, 2007, 09:45:51 am
Quote
Mark, let me answer:

3.- As I've been photographing 20 years I'll know when the light will drop. I've been using film a very long time to know the there's other options than changing the ISO. I don't think I'll never miss a shot because of an ISO changing. In any case, the best solution is to use your creativity the best you can.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138098\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can never know for certain re the weather. Ever!
I rented a H3 with a 39M back recently for a shot which I knew a 35mm Digital camera was unable to deal with that well. It was a group shot of seven hundred people and I needed every ounce of quality to resolve people as best as I could.
It was taken in July at 7.30 in Sweden, which from past experience has lots of light at that time. Even so I booked a couple of big flash heads and soft boxes, for fill light just in case. At tea time it started to rain and got heavier and heavier and heavier, but at 7.15 it started to ease off and out of the woodwork about 4-500 people appeared. I then had to wait a few minutes for the trio of VIPs to arrive and then the light vanished. Almost completely, it was like instant sunset.  So I had to set camera to 400 ISO, grabbed a couple of shots without even time to fine tune exposure and then it rained again. I had about 30secs to get the shot.
And I got the shot. But and it's a big but, the quality was abyssmal, for a £20,000 [$40,000] camera, the results were $%$ing awful.

What is the point of having an ISO setting that is so bad it's near unusable?

Not the sort of shot I normally do, but next time I may simply use a smaller sensor that can actually do decent high ISO images and then do a stitch instead.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 09, 2007, 10:13:00 am
Quote
You can never know for certain re the weather. Ever!
I rented a H3 with a 39M back recently for a shot which I knew a 35mm Digital camera was unable to deal with that well. It was a group shot of seven hundred people and I needed every ounce of quality to resolve people as best as I could.
It was taken in July at 7.30 in Sweden, which from past experience has lots of light at that time. Even so I booked a couple of big flash heads and soft boxes, for fill light just in case. At tea time it started to rain and got heavier and heavier and heavier, but at 7.15 it started to ease off and out of the woodwork about 4-500 people appeared. I then had to wait a few minutes for the trio of VIPs to arrive and then the light vanished. Almost completely, it was like instant sunset.  So I had to set camera to 400 ISO, grabbed a couple of shots without even time to fine tune exposure and then it rained again. I had about 30secs to get the shot.
And I got the shot. But and it's a big but, the quality was abyssmal, for a £20,000 [$40,000] camera, the results were $%$ing awful.

What is the point of having an ISO setting that is so bad it's near unusable?

Not the sort of shot I normally do, but next time I may simply use a smaller sensor that can actually do decent high ISO images and then do a stitch instead.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138163\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was talking about light, not weather, but I live in Sweden so this things about intant changes are very normal to me, believe me. In this case It seems to me that the problem was people not beign there at the time they should not the back. And if you're in Sweden, this just doesn't happen so often, specially if it's linked or depending on the weather. Always have a plan B here because the rain can appear in two seconds... But I see you point, if you've had a Canon.... But in the way  I see photography the problem had been the shot being taken i bad light conditions. If you see the  sky turning black what do you think? "I need 800 maybe 1600 ISO to fix this" or "this light won't work for this shot".  I don't know what the work was about but did it work to shoot 500 people under a very grey sky? I understand you trusted the back because it was given it'd be a sunny day... and that you knew 400 ISO in the P45 isn't the nicest option...
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 09, 2007, 10:13:57 am
Quote
I used to be very interested in audio hi fi matters several years ago. I used to read hi fi magazines strong on advertising and subjective impressions but short on objective analysis. I always remember the occasion when one such magazine reported on a serious attempt to test the objectivity of audio experts who claimed they could always tell the difference between an exotic system with oxygen-free copper cables, ultra-expensive amplifier etc, and an ordinary but good hi fi system.

They each brought their own music, every nuance of which would have been familiar to them. They were asked to identify which system was in use as the music was switched between various system, some systems employing expensive amplifiers, some with cheap amplifiers. The speakers were always the same though.

The results were astounding. They were about as accurate as tossing a coin. However, there was one respect in which the results were consistent, but unfortunately consistently wrong. One particular system with a cheap Pioneer amplifier was consistently confused with another system employing a terribly expensive Mark Levinson hybrid amplifier which most hi fi enthusiasts would have drooled over.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
More expensive is not always better. I helped a friend buy some hifi gear and there were big differnces between the gear, even at the lower end she could afford. And just for the hell of it I also tried a CD player outside her budget - and it didn't sound as good as the less expensive players. Which made her happy. But I've also tried high and low end stuff and the amount of detail and quality of sound improvement you can get by getting better gear is phenomenal. You can hear instruments and sounds that are simply absent on lesser Hi-Fi. As for the test you mentioned, some gear simply doesn't work well together, even if the individual bits are good. A bright amp and bright speakers may well sound awful but a cheaper, but less bright amp and bright speakers may be a great combination. And sometimes less expensive gear is simply brilliant.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: eronald on September 09, 2007, 10:25:24 am
I have tested and used several generations of digital from phones to digital backs. I have made exhibition-quality non-digital looking prints from my Nokia N93 (3.2 MP) phone images, and frankly think I if necessary I could do full-page fashion magazine work with the new phones, with some Photoshop post, it's just a question of getting enough light, and converting to black and white.

From my subjective tests, I would say that the best of the current generation of digital backs is 2-3 generations ahead of the current digital full-frame (1Ds2), when used in decent light, and at least three generations ahead of the crop-frame prosumer cameras. In other words, about 4-6 years. The backs are not "better" than the dSLRs, they are just ahead on the color quality and resolution curve. Whether this translates into "better" images is anybody's guess: as my phone photographs demonstrate, postprocessing and art are great equalizers.

Edmund
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 09, 2007, 10:43:20 am
Quote
I was talking about light, not weather, but I live in Sweden so this things about intant changes are very normal to me, believe me. In this case It seems to me that the problem was people not beign there at the time they should not the back. And if you're in Sweden, this just doesn't happen so often, specially if it's linked or depending on the weather. Always have a plan B here because the rain can appear in two seconds... But I see you point, if you've had a Canon.... But in the way  I see photography the problem had been the shot being taken i bad light conditions. If you see the  sky turning black what do you think? "I need 800 maybe 1600 ISO to fix this" or "this light won't work for this shot".  I don't know what the work was about but did it work to shoot 500 people under a very grey sky?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Light outside is dependent on weather, so if you are talking about light outdoors, you are talking about weather. The main problem was not people not being there, it was the weather being so unusually awful and the abscence of decent light, people were sheltering and waiting for a break in the deluge and then stood in the rain as it eased off. I was lucky to get the few moments I had in between downpours.
Sometimes you cannot have a plan B, especially as weather is simply outside your control and fitting in 700+ people severely limits you, especially as the building in background in this case, was a major feature of the image, so couldn't be missed out. This was the only oportunity for the shot too, no second chances as people were leaving the next day.
I spend every July in Sweden at the same location and have never seen the weather so severe or the light so limiting at that time. I only had the flash as a safety measure, not as a light source.

Even now with hindsight there is nothing I could have feasibly done to make things easier with the H3. Bar renting way more flashes than the budget permitted. Besides, rigging them above the crowd and out of shot was next to impossible anyway. Even then, I wouldn't have had the time to set them up, as the rain eased off for such a pathetically short time. I don't even know what setting I used with the flashes I did have, as there was that little time to shoot, with the light vanishing as I took first image.

And no a 39M Hasselblad back at 400ISO was simply not up to the job,  I was very dissapointed with the results.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: feppe on September 09, 2007, 10:48:49 am
To settle this issue once and for all (not), I set up a quiz (http://s-9i160-15679.sgizmo.com/) - 50 MFDB shots, 50 dSLR shots, you be the judge! Here's the announcement thread (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19420), please move any discussion on the quiz there so we won't take this even farther away from the already blurry point.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 09, 2007, 10:49:35 am
Quote
From my subjective tests, I would say that the best of the current generation of digital backs is 2-3 generations ahead of the current digital full-frame (1Ds2), when used in decent light, and at least three generations ahead of the crop-frame prosumer cameras.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138170\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A back that needs 'decent' light to produce a good image is quite frankly a bit crap for many photographers' needs and several generations behind, not in front of a Canon. I certainly won't waste money on a DB until it can do 1600ISO better than a Canon. Not everyone shoots in a studio or wants to light a scene.
One of the supposed advantages of large sensors is less noise etc, not more.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 09, 2007, 10:53:46 am
Quote
To settle this issue once and for all (not), I set up a quiz (http://s-9i160-15679.sgizmo.com/) - 50 MFDB shots, 50 dSLR shots, you be the judge! Here's the announcement thread (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19420), please move any discussion on the quiz there so we won't take this even farther away from the already blurry point.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138175\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For this to have any real relevence you need to have shots shot with both camera types with the same lighting, subject. The variables in the shoot may otherwise outweigh any format differences.
Good effort though.  
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: feppe on September 09, 2007, 10:58:50 am
Quote
For this to have any real relevence you need to have shots shot with both camera types with the same lighting, subject. The variables may otherwise outweigh any format differences.
Good effort though. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138177\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yep, and there's about a million other reasons why the quiz is entirely invalid, incorrect and inconclusive. So what's stopping you?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tucker on September 09, 2007, 11:08:04 am
OK, Andre has convinced me that Canon is lesser-than. I'll stick with the larger formats now. Can anyone tell me how to cancel my eBay ad?

http://tinyurl.com/36734n (http://tinyurl.com/36734n)
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 09, 2007, 11:12:43 am
Quote
Yep, and there's about a million other reasons why the quiz is entirely invalid, incorrect and inconclusive. So what's stopping you?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138180\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Err, it's not valid, therefore it doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
Too many of the shots could have been easily produced by either camera type. And you'd only tell the difference when seeing big prints and if you are producing big prints, you shoot accordingly.
I clicked through to see the pics though.

The same shot produced on both types of camera with same settings and then compared, would be more informative.

EDIT - I reckon in many cases it would be more akin to using different film types as different sensors will have differing characteristics and therefore produce a different quality of image. That's not better or worse, just different.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: feppe on September 09, 2007, 11:26:03 am
Quote
Err, it's not valid, therefore it doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's exactly the point. It's fun. Jeesh.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 09, 2007, 11:42:13 am
Quote
Light outside is dependent on weather, so if you are talking about light outdoors, you are talking about weather. The main problem was not people not being there, it was the weather being so unusually awful and the abscence of decent light, people were sheltering and waiting for a break in the deluge and then stood in the rain as it eased off. I was lucky to get the few moments I had in between downpours.
Sometimes you cannot have a plan B, especially as weather is simply outside your control and fitting in 700+ people severely limits you, especially as the building in background in this case, was a major feature of the image, so couldn't be missed out. This was the only oportunity for the shot too, no second chances as people were leaving the next day.
I spend every July in Sweden at the same location and have never seen the weather so severe or the light so limiting at that time. I only had the flash as a safety measure, not as a light source.

Even now with hindsight there is nothing I could have feasibly done to make things easier with the H3. Bar renting way more flashes than the budget permitted. Besides, rigging them above the crowd and out of shot was next to impossible anyway. Even then, I wouldn't have had the time to set them up, as the rain eased off for such a pathetically short time. I don't even know what setting I used with the flashes I did have, as there was that little time to shoot, with the light vanishing as I took first image.

And no a 39M Hasselblad back at 400ISO was simply not up to the job,  I was very dissapointed with the results.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138173\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The weather-light relationship can be interpreted in many different ways. I supose the P45 wasn't up to the way you work. And that's normal because the Canon's aren't up, or maybe I should say, don't fit in the way I work. But I don't think you should judge a entire system like the P45 because of a extreme situation. That happens with every system.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on September 09, 2007, 11:43:31 am
Quote
Err, it's not valid, therefore it doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
Too many of the shots could have been easily produced by either camera type. And you'd only tell the difference when seeing big prints and if you are producing big prints, you shoot accordingly.

We have a bit of a contradiction here. The whole point of the "test" was to explore the notion that there is "something" about an MFDB image that is so superior to a DSLR image that the difference is distinguishable even in a web JPEG. if "too many of the shots could have been easily produced by either camera type" then perhaps the MFDBphiles have been exaggerating just a hair, and the test has disproved the hype.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 09, 2007, 01:53:59 pm
I've got sixty correct.
But alot of pictures show so little depth due to the lighting etc. that's it's impossible to judge.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Craig Lamson on September 09, 2007, 02:20:14 pm
Quote
I've got sixty correct.
But alot of pictures show so little depth due to the lighting etc. that's it's impossible to judge.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138211\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As I asked on the
other thread...

So now its the light that is creating the '3d' look and not the back?

If the backs are so far superior to a dslr than that '3d' effect should be visable regardless of the quality of the light.

So which is it?  The light or the back?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: nicolaasdb on September 09, 2007, 02:26:55 pm
I am quiting photography all together.....I am selling all my equipment.......I give up.....everybody here convinced me I am not good enough...snif snif
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: joern_kiel on September 09, 2007, 02:31:45 pm
Quote
OK, Andre has convinced me that Canon is lesser-than. I'll stick with the larger formats now. Can anyone tell me how to cancel my eBay ad?

http://tinyurl.com/36734n (http://tinyurl.com/36734n)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138182\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LOL
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: samuel_js on September 09, 2007, 02:41:43 pm
Quote
OK, Andre has convinced me that Canon is lesser-than. I'll stick with the larger formats now. Can anyone tell me how to cancel my eBay ad?

http://tinyurl.com/36734n (http://tinyurl.com/36734n)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138182\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Quote
I am quiting photography all together.....I am selling all my equipment.......I give up.....everybody here convinced me I am not good enough...snif snif
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138218\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Time to close the door here.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tucker on September 09, 2007, 02:43:55 pm
Quote
I've got sixty correct.
But alot of pictures show so little depth due to the lighting etc. that's it's impossible to judge.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138211\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The problem is, dear people, is that Life is pretty much like this. If we all shot jobs where it was Magic Hour for twelve hours a day, we'd all be in good shape. But as we all know, sometimes we get lucky, and other times, we show up to grey skies, or even worse, white seamless. A medium-format back is not going to save your butt from bad light. It is not a magician; no matter how many bits it has. Of course, Sinar and Phase and Leaf would love you to believe that, but I think it's any experienced person's responsibility to separate marketing copywriter hype from actual Reality.

Having said that, it does seem silly to try to judge Canon from MF, from a tiny JPG. But you guys were the ones that laid down the claim. So it's time for you to lie in your bed.

I also get the sneaking suspicion that there are some Unrealistic People posting on this board, who are too lazy to want to do any post-processing, or Adjustment Layers, or much of anything else to their images. They just want to snap their fingers, and use the file right out of the camera, without tweaking it in any way. I will suggest that's simply unrealistic, if you're trying to squeeze out every last ounce of detail and color and feeling from any file, whether it be Canon or MF. Do you think a Master Woodworker would expect this from any tool? A master gardener? A master architect? The file will only get you so far -- at that point, it's time to roll up your sleeves, and really put your own personal touch on your images, in the form of Adjustment Layers, Burning and Dodging, and Selective Color. If a man's not willing to carry his end of the load, you can't realistically turn and blame the tool. The tool only gets you so far.

I'd suggest that any man would be much further along if he bought a Canon, took the eighteen grand in savings, then bought a few weeks at the Santa Fe Workshops, taking post classes, and then used the rest of the money to buy gas, and then hit the road to shoot hundreds and hundreds of images, and practice what he learned in Santa Fe. The camera alone does make the man.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: awofinden on September 09, 2007, 03:12:03 pm
I used to find that my canon files needed a lot more post work to get them to where I wanted them as compared to my phase one.

The MF vs slr debate is a little silly, one is good for one thing and one is good for another. To my mind there is one obvious answer to this big PIA buying decision: Instead of buying a P25 or P45, buy a P21 for 13 grand or whatever and a canon for 8 and for 21 grand you have the transvestite of solutions. (the best of both worlds). I was half thinking of getting one of those canon d40 or whatever it's called for when it's dodgy light. Supposedly its as good as the 5d which was supposedly better than the 1ds mark 2. Sounds like a good option to me. One thing I've learned about digital is actual resolution is not really that big of a deal.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: eronald on September 09, 2007, 03:35:51 pm
When I started to shoot fashion, I met an old guy who had been AD for zillions of hi-end  mags including glamour. He agreed that my images were usable, but told me I should get a pretty-looking male assistant (with no skill necessary) and take him along to the shoots to keep the models happy as I didn't have "it" as far as looks and style go. Guess what ? He was right. I did it and it worked. Sometimes brutally honest advice is ... helpful.

Edmund.

Quote
I'd suggest that any man would be much further along if he bought a Canon, took the eighteen grand in savings, then bought a few weeks at the Santa Fe Workshops, taking post classes, and then used the rest of the money to buy gas, and then he hits the road to shoot hundreds and hundreds of images, and practice what he learned in Santa Fe. The camera alone does make the man.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tucker on September 09, 2007, 04:32:57 pm
Quote
Instead of buying a P25 or P45, buy a P21 for 13 grand or whatever and a canon for 8 and for 21 grand you have the transvestite of solutions. (the best of both worlds).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=138227\")

If it was only that easy, (and that inexpensive). You are not making note of the two sets of lenses, two sets of chargers, two sets of accessories, two sets of camera bodies, etc. That alone adds another potentially tens of thousands of dollars to the investment, when you're talking about medium-format.

I suggest that most anyone reading this could get by just fine with two 1ds3 bodies, five or six lenses, and that's it. Walk on the plane with one carry-on bag. That's very hard to do with Contax/Phase solution, especially with many of the smaller planes now in use, with smaller overheads.

Now that TSA won't let you Zip-Tie your checked luggage, it makes it very hard to think about checking backup bodies and lenses. My second assistant just flew out west, two weeks ago, and someone at TSA took his 5D and two zooms. When he got to Albuquerque, the slots were wide open, where the 5D and two zooms had been. And since you can't Zip-Tie your cases, there's no way to prevent this. Yet another reason to keep your kit small.

Since a few of you here seem to be independently wealthy and not concerned with economics, this part is for the rest of the crowd here: When you read stories about massive layoffs at both Corbis and Getty, and you realize that even the Stock business is in the tank, it does make a prudent person wonder whether it's wise for a young photographer to invest tens of thousands of dollars in MF bodies and backs, when they're depreciating at a very rapid pace. I got an email request from a major NY magazine last week that I worked for about ten years ago, and the editorial job offer was for $300 a day, plus a measly digital prep fee, and maybe a tiny amount for an assistant. It was all I could do to hold my tongue, and not write a nasty email back to her. If any bean counter did the math, and realized how much gear a photographer takes to a job, compared to a normal editorial fee, they'd have a heart attack, and immediately recommend you moving toward a career in Insurance or Appliance Sales. If I was a young photographer, just starting out, it simply is hard to justify investing in medium format, given the total cost investment, no matter how good the files are. At some point, the rent comes due...

Just one opinion. But my point is, in the Real World, there's a hell of a lot more involved in this decision than 12 bits versus 16 bits, or focus fall-off.

MT, [a href=\"http://www.marktucker.com]http://www.marktucker.com[/url]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: eronald on September 09, 2007, 04:48:03 pm
Quote
Now that TSA won't let you Zip-Tie your checked luggage, it makes it very hard to think about checking backup bodies and lenses. My second assistant just flew out west, two weeks ago, and someone at TSA took his 5D and two zooms. When he got to Albuquerque, the slots were wide open, where the 5D and two zooms had been. And since you can't Zip-Tie your cases, there's no way to prevent this. Yet another reason to keep your kit small.


MT, http://www.marktucker.com (http://www.marktucker.com)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138242\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Obviously, now they X-ray all luggage they know exactly which ones to open.

Edmund
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Morgan_Moore on September 09, 2007, 05:02:59 pm
50lense   35sensor   3m focus   1.2aperture   0.26DOF   0.282COCat5m
80lense   p45sensor   3m focus   2.8aperture   0.33DOF   0.291COCat5m

http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/barnack/ (http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/barnack/)

Is a depth of field calculator

This example show an 80at2.8 on a p45 has greater DOF while blurring the background more compared to a 50 at 1.2 on a 35mm chip.

IMO the 3d effect is about getting 2point of subject sharp and the back being thrown more

----

Mark you seem big on checkin weight.

I wonder how you compare the wieght of say elinchrom rangers Vs 2qflashes and three Qturbos packs - about a quarter?

That is my 'flying' lighting kit - made possible by fast synch of my MF kit which cuts the required light output by a factor of roughly four if filling against a fixed ambient level

----

The economics of a 5d are of course fabulous and those of MF pretty poor - compared with what that money can buy - lighiting - and a great book - model hire client dining budget etc

I went MF when it would pay for itself in 'film' in 6 months - and the biggest non MF solution was 6 or 8mp - would I do the same now - who knows??

Times have moved indeed

S
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 09, 2007, 05:44:28 pm
Hi,
Maybe you don't get how depth works (I don't mean disrespect).

Let's make it very simple.

When you photograph a white piece of paper lying on the floor front straight above no human soul can see the difference between a DSLR, P&S, MF etc.

HOWEVER
When you go in the forest in the goldenhours and make a picture with some nice fog and the light hitting the trees I think the story changes alot and alot of people will see much more depth in the MF capture.

It's not ONLY the light, it's not ONLY the MF backs.
It's the combination of both.

But actually that's 101 photography
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: mmurph on September 09, 2007, 05:51:25 pm
.. duplicate ..
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: awofinden on September 09, 2007, 05:54:57 pm
Quote
If it was only that easy, (and that inexpensive). You are not making note of the two sets of lenses, two sets of chargers, two sets of accessories, two sets of camera bodies, etc. That alone adds another potentially tens of thousands of dollars to the investment, when you're talking about medium-format.

I suggest that most anyone reading this could get by just fine with two 1ds3 bodies, five or six lenses, and that's it. Walk on the plane with one carry-on bag. That's very hard to do with Contax/Phase solution, especially with many of the smaller planes now in use, with smaller overheads.

Now that TSA won't let you Zip-Tie your checked luggage, it makes it very hard to think about checking backup bodies and lenses. My second assistant just flew out west, two weeks ago, and someone at TSA took his 5D and two zooms. When he got to Albuquerque, the slots were wide open, where the 5D and two zooms had been. And since you can't Zip-Tie your cases, there's no way to prevent this. Yet another reason to keep your kit small.

Since a few of you here seem to be independently wealthy and not concerned with economics, this part is for the rest of the crowd here: When you read stories about massive layoffs at both Corbis and Getty, and you realize that even the Stock business is in the tank, it does make a prudent person wonder whether it's wise for a young photographer to invest tens of thousands of dollars in MF bodies and backs, when they're depreciating at a very rapid pace. I got an email request from a major NY magazine last week that I worked for about ten years ago, and the editorial job offer was for $300 a day, plus a measly digital prep fee, and maybe a tiny amount for an assistant. It was all I could do to hold my tongue, and not write a nasty email back to her. If any bean counter did the math, and realized how much gear a photographer takes to a job, compared to a normal editorial fee, they'd have a heart attack, and immediately recommend you moving toward a career in Insurance or Appliance Sales. If I was a young photographer, just starting out, it simply is hard to justify investing in medium format, given the total cost investment, no matter how good the files are. At some point, the rent comes due...

Just one opinion. But my point is, in the Real World, there's a hell of a lot more involved in this decision that 12 bits versus 16 bits, or focus fall-off.

MT, http://www.marktucker.com (http://www.marktucker.com)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138242\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I shoot the mamiya 645 afd which can be had for 2500 dollars with lenses and how many lenses do you need for the canon, a 24-70mm zoom pretty much does the job, thats actually 3200 dollars.
My advice to young photographers is to think of nothing but the images, do all you can to make the best images and for some visions that means a digital back. You do need to keep a roof over your head. Call me a romantic but it's a sad state of affairs when your advice to a new photographer hinges on ROI calculations.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: mmurph on September 09, 2007, 05:55:27 pm
Quote
a few of you here seem to be independently wealthy and not concerned with economics, this part is for the rest of the crowd here..... 

...and the editorial job offer was for $300 a day...

Thanks Mark - I thought at least *you* were beyond such nonsense offers by now.    

I closed my studio 1 year ago due to chronic pain problems.  I already have $70K  worth of equipment. Rather than go to $100K with a MFDB, I would be better off selling it all and making an average 12% in the markets without having to work.

The economic realities of trying to make a living in this field really help you  decide when "good enough" is - enough. And, aside from commerical work, how often do you really need to do 40x60 inch prints? Are your images *worth* making large prints that large? And, really, who in the world **cares** about your personal work?       For me, the answer is "nobody".

Still, I tried to go back to film. Even at 4x5, I miss the clean, clear colors of digital.   I first saw that in a 2MP digital image a friend made at my sons BD party 6 years ago.  I was shooing 6x7 at the time and I liked his images better than mine - I *knew* I had to go digital to get that color!    

Plus the depreciation on a 1Ds3 is less than the cost of film per year, so that seems to be the sweet spot. Unless you can bill like Mark or some others here. I am just too old and tired to make a living in this field any more. Maybe a 40D is enough for me?  

Best,
Michael
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: awofinden on September 09, 2007, 06:11:59 pm
Quote
Thanks Mark - I thought at least *you* were beyond such nonsense offers by now.   

I closed my studio 1 year ago due to chronic pain problems.  I already have $70K  worth of equipment. Rather than go to $100K with a MFDB, I would be better off selling it all and making an average 12% in the markets without having to work.

The economic realities of trying to make a living in this field really help you  decide when "good enough" is - enough. And, aside from commerical work, how often do you really need to do 40x60 inch prints? Are your images *worth* making large prints that large? And, really, who in the world **cares** about your personal work?       For me, the answer is "nobody".

Still, I tried to go back to film. Even at 4x5, I miss the clean, clear colors of digital.   I first saw that in a 2MP digital image a friend made at my sons BD party 6 years ago.  I was shooing 6x7 at the time and I liked his images better than mine - I *knew* I had to go digital to get that color!   

Plus the depreciation on a 1Ds3 is less than the cost of film per year, so that seems to be the sweet spot. Unless you can bill like Mark or some others here. I am just too old and tired to make a living in this field any more. Maybe a 40D is enough for me? 

Best,
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey I've been hearing great things about the 40D, best thing of all is it's only a thousand dollars. Nice and light too. Now thats progress.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: mmurph on September 09, 2007, 06:25:09 pm
Quote
Call me a romantic but it's a sad state of affairs when your advice to a new photographer hinges on ROI calculations.

Mark offered his creative advice in his post about Santa Fe.  I think he offered very good *business* advice in that post.  I have both a degree in photography and an MBA, and I would agree. Most photogs are sorely lacking in business acumen.

If a photographer has images that actually have important content - as opposed to the formal characteristics this thread has been about until now - their work will show through whatever they do, and they will find the means to make that work.

I remember a well known photographer showing his own 4x5 large format work, and then showing the work some 15 year old kids did with P&S's in a "Shooting Back" -type program he led.  The kids work blew his away, it was so vital and alive, v. his static, traditional, *boring* B&W LF images. So much for DOF and Bokeh.  
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: mmurph on September 09, 2007, 06:29:08 pm
Quote
Hey I've been hearing great things about the 40D, best thing of all is it's only a thousand dollars. Nice and light too. Now thats progress.

Yeah, reality check.  Time for me to stop thinking I am Alec Soth.        

Plus the dog got hit by a car and just had $3,500 in medical fees. I think my life has shifted to be more about my son and family than my obsessions.  Time for the nursing home.  

Best,
Michael
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Craig Lamson on September 09, 2007, 06:29:16 pm
Quote
Hi,
Maybe you don't get how depth works (I don't mean disrespect).

Let's make it very simple.

When you photograph a white piece of paper lying on the floor front straight above no human soul can see the difference between a DSLR, P&S, MF etc.

HOWEVER
When you go in the forest in the goldenhours and make a picture with some nice fog and the light hitting the trees I think the story changes alot and alot of people will see much more depth in the MF capture.

It's not ONLY the light, it's not ONLY the MF backs.
It's the combination of both.

But actually that's 101 photography
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138253\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You are trying to pee up a rope Frank.  You and others laid down this "the backs have a more 3d look" stuff and when called on it you defaulted to "its the bad light."  Gosh I do love watching people do the backstroke.  You do it like a gold medal champion.  I looked at those images in question and I failed to see that white seamless.  Where did I miss it.

But hey, what do I know about light and shadow, and creating the illusion of 3d in a 2d photograph?  I mean I've only been creating complicated lighting sets in the studio for 30 years.  

And if this 3d look is so special from a 645 sensor, then dang it must be amazing from a Betterlight back...right?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 09, 2007, 07:52:12 pm
Quote
This example show an 80at2.8 on a p45 has greater DOF while blurring the background more compared to a 50 at 1.2 on a 35mm chip.

IMO the 3d effect is about getting 2point of subject sharp and the back being thrown mor

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Morgan,
I haven't tested the Canon 50/1.2 at f1.2 but I would expect the performance to be abysmal at that aperture. The DoF is so extreme with such lenses that people tend to ignore the fact that the resolution at the plane of focus is plain lousy. Compared to the blurred background, it might seem okay though.

I have no doubt that a good MF 80mm lens at f2.8 would be sharper, especially with a P45.

Canon also used to make a 50/f1. Wow! F1! I guess it was just too expensive for the resolution it produced at F1 because it's no longer made, having been replaced by the 50/1.2 which would presumably be at least a little sharper at full aperture than the 50/1.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tucker on September 09, 2007, 08:12:46 pm
I own the Contax 80mm f2, and it's awful wide open. You have to get down to f4 for it to get sharp. It's so pronounced that f2 clearly renders this "summers eve" quality that, on some occasions, with some content, can be accidentally appealing, in this "Barbara Walters Diffusion Filter" kind of way. It renders like some old funky view camera lens with tons of abberration. Most of the time, though, it's not appealing; it's just bad.

I also owned the Canon 50mm f1.0, and it was awful too. I never sent it off to Canon Irvine to get calibrated, but I'd almost think that every 1.0 lens should be sent off for calibration to a particular body, because the DOF is so tiny. Even when you accidentally got it accurately focused, the DOF was so slight that, at first glance, everything simply looked out of focus. Even the "in focus" areas were full of nastiness. This is one lens that I sold too cheap; I could have gotten much more, due to the hype around it. Sadly, the hype was highly overrated. There are reasons that lenses are discontinued; that one clearly deserved it. A truly awful lens.

The 85 f1.2 wide open is a jewel. I have not shot the new 50 1.2, and don't plan to.

The lesson to learn here is, just because a company makes a lens to shoot at a wide fstop, it doesn't mean that it's anywhere near sharp at that fstop. Not even close.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jpjespersen on September 09, 2007, 08:19:54 pm
This seems like an argument between people who can afford MFDB and those who cannot and want to make themselves feel better.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Chris_Brown on September 09, 2007, 08:21:58 pm
Quote
My second assistant just flew out west, two weeks ago, and someone at TSA took his 5D and two zooms. When he got to Albuquerque, the slots were wide open, where the 5D and two zooms had been.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138242\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This makes me both nauseous and pissed.

I check everything. My strobes, cables, tripod, soffboxes and cameras all go through the portal. I carry on my data. Perhaps I should check the laptop and carry on the cameras.

"Excuse me. Sorry for bashing your shins with this hard-ass Pelican case. I hope it doesn't pop out of the overhead."
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: mmurph on September 09, 2007, 08:42:06 pm
Quote
This seems like an argument between people who can afford MFDB and those who cannot and want to make themselves feel better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138283\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Personally, I *can* afford it.  But I also understand cost/benefit analysis. And I don't want to do the work required to pay for the back.

I used to be fast track, type A, pagers and laptops. I'd read my e-mail at 6am before I even got out of bed.  Always connected, always turned on.

Ain't worth it anymore.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 09, 2007, 08:45:58 pm
Quote
More expensive is not always better. I helped a friend buy some hifi gear and there were big differnces between the gear, even at the lower end she could afford. And just for the hell of it I also tried a CD player outside her budget - and it didn't sound as good as the less expensive players. Which made her happy. But I've also tried high and low end stuff and the amount of detail and quality of sound improvement you can get by getting better gear is phenomenal. You can hear instruments and sounds that are simply absent on lesser Hi-Fi. As for the test you mentioned, some gear simply doesn't work well together, even if the individual bits are good. A bright amp and bright speakers may well sound awful but a cheaper, but less bright amp and bright speakers may be a great combination. And sometimes less expensive gear is simply brilliant.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

JJJ,
I should have made it clear in my audio analogy that the comparison was not between whole systems of different quality and expense, but between exotic and expensive components such as amplifiers which, on paper, might all have differences, but which differences could be considered either inaudible to the human ear or completely masked by other imperfections of a far greater magnitude in the chain, such as the imperfections of loudspeaker and room acousticts.

In order to sell such components and persuade people to upgrade from a perfectly adequate amplifier to one costing perhaps 4x the price, it was necessary to bestow upon the equipment magical properties.

It was necessary for salesman and those in the audio industry to promulgate the notion that the scientific specifications don't tell the whole story; that there are great subtleties to be heard, extra 3-dimensionality etc that would flow on merely from the fact that the wiring might be made from oxygen-free copper in the more expensive amplifier, for example.

When I come across the frequent references in this thread to the extra 3-dimensionality of MFDBs, I'm reminded of this audio analogy.

If there's a sense of extra 3-dimensionality in MF digital photography, it's because of one or more or a combination of the following properties:

(1) MF sensors are higher resolving (more pixels).

(2) Are usually less demanding on the lens due to wider pixel spacing.

(3) MF lenses are probably sharper at the equivalent aperture and focal length required for equivalent DoF to 35mm. Ie. an MF 120mm lens at f2.8 is probably sharper than a 35mm format 85mm lens at f1.8.

To test whether I'm right or not, you would need to find two lenses of roughly equal performance at their respective FLs and apertures for equivalent DoF, but ensure that the MF lens exhibited slightly less resolution at a particular MTF in order to compensate for the wider pixel spacing of the DB.

If you were to use two lenses of exactly equal resolution capability at the same MTF %, the larger sensor would capture greater contrast at the plane of focus and therefore look sharper, even though the pixel count is the same. That greater contrast might well account for a greater sense of 3-dimensionality.

My audio analogy:
Quote
I used to be very interested in audio hi fi matters several years ago. I used to read hi fi magazines strong on advertising and subjective impressions but short on objective analysis. I always remember the occasion when one such magazine reported on a serious attempt to test the objectivity of audio experts who claimed they could always tell the difference between an exotic system with oxygen-free copper cables, ultra-expensive amplifier etc, and an ordinary but good hi fi system.

They each brought their own music, every nuance of which would have been familiar to them. They were asked to identify which system was in use as the music was switched between various system, some systems employing expensive amplifiers, some with cheap amplifiers. The speakers were always the same though.

The results were astounding. They were about as accurate as tossing a coin. However, there was one respect in which the results were consistent, but unfortunately consistently wrong. One particular system with a cheap Pioneer amplifier was consistently confused with another system employing a terribly expensive Mark Levinson hybrid amplifier which most hi fi enthusiasts would have drooled over.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: nicolaasdb on September 09, 2007, 08:51:27 pm
I drive a Porsche...do I need it? NO!!.  I also got a BMW X5...did I need 15K in extra's? NO!! Did I need that diamond covered Breitling watch? NO a timex tell's me the same time and digital!! BUT damn if you can afford it life is so f'ing NICE! At least you know what you are doing it all for....for about 3 minutes and than you realize:
Can I do without it?? SURE...do I want to? NO! Does it really make my life nicer?? NO!!

Can I live without my MFDB? EASILY!! But it feels so nice to "whip it out!" and have the client drewling...and understanding why he got to pay you the big bucks.
Having larger files that are about 4bit nicer and no (or hardly no) crop factor is also nice.

What I am trying to say is that this debate can go on and on and on....for another 300000000 pages and it will never stop.

In the end the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS:::::: GETTING "THE" IMAGE!!!! Terry Richardson shoots with a 'throw-a-way-camera"...Peter Lindberg with an old shitty 35MM camera...just to name 2 pretty damn good photographers (making millions!)

IT IS ALL IN THE EYE!!! And it is only the dumb ones....like myself....who need to prove themselves with the big"guns" (MFDB)....

Your image is only as good as your eye is!!          

And I sense that people are getting nasty......but just take an honest look at your work!! Do you really think that the images would have looked better with the MFDB?? or do you really think your images would have looked so much worse with a 35MM??? You know that if your images suck...you got to work harder and train your eye...trying to find the excuse in the equipment is BS!!      
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jpjespersen on September 09, 2007, 09:09:17 pm
I don't want to sift through the 15 pages of text here to see if this has been brought up, but I think it is relevant to bring up the customer service issue.  I know that when my Nikon breaks or has a problem it usually takes 2-3 weeks for it to be sent in fixed and sent back.  Now with my new P45+ I will have a loaner back within 24 hours.
Also the fact that phase one offers upgrades to the newest and best for what I think is a reasonable price, is huge to me.  
I feel like DSLR's depreciate extremely quick, then when you go to sell them they are worth nothing,  this may change now that the megapixels are starting to level out.  But still I have never received the customer service from cannon or nikon that I get from Phase One, and for a professional with a lot of work lined up this is very important and worth the extra money alone.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tucker on September 09, 2007, 09:45:52 pm
Quote
I know that when my Nikon breaks or has a problem it usually takes 2-3 weeks for it to be sent in fixed and sent back.  Now with my new P45+ I will have a loaner back within 24 hours.
Also the fact that phase one offers upgrades to the newest and best for what I think is a reasonable price, is huge to me. 
I feel like DSLR's depreciate extremely quick, then when you go to sell them they are worth nothing,  this may change now that the megapixels are starting to level out.  But still I have never received the customer service from cannon or nikon that I get from Phase One, and for a professional with a lot of work lined up this is very important and worth the extra money alone.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I swear to God I'm not being argumentative, but again, let's think about this:

Say that you're starting a job, and it's 10 oclock in the morning, and you're on Shot #2, of a planned eight shots for that day. It's 10 oclock am, and your Phase back goes down, and you're not shooting in Manhattan. Say you're shooting in Dallas, or any city where there's not a Phase dealer. So, your back goes down, and you turn to your client, and you say, "Uh, sorry, but our camera just broke, but we can get one sent to us by tomorrow, (if he happens to have that brand of camera body, ie Contax version or H version, in stock, on the shelf)". Your client turns to you, knowing that there are models booked, support crew booked, studio booked, catering booked, motor homes booked, so basically, at 10am, the day is over, and all that crew and support would have to be cancelled for that day.

Are YOU going to write that check for those cancellations for that day? (The answer is no).

So what do you do? You either own TWO phase one backs, or you whip out your Canon, (but the files and the workflow will be different).

Or, you just buy TWO 1ds3's for the price of one P21+, and when the camera breaks, you quietly reach into the Pelican and whip out Canon body #2, before the client ever notices.

I had the shutter go out in my 1ds2, and I fedexed it to Irvine, and I had it back in 48 hours, and I"m not even a CPS member. I'm not saying everyone would get that service, but in the real world, I did. And I didnt call in any favors either.

I've never had the courage to go into a job with only one Phase back in my bag. Even with their advertised claims, I know that there are "claims" and there is "the real world". Sometimes, in the real world, even with the most well intentioned dealer, someone like Dave Gallagher in Atlanta, there might come a time when he might not have a backup loaner P21 or P30 in Contax mount, to send me. He might, but he might not, but I'll never take that chance.

I never want to look a good client in the eye, and say, "Uh, our camera broke, but we're on the phone, trying to find another one. But we need to cancel all the shots planned for today".

These backs rarely break, but I don't want to be the guy that has his only back go down, in the middle of a multi-day job.

So again, either write the BIG check, ie two Phase (or Leaf) backs, or buy two Canons.

Just a thought. All I'm suggesting is, when you go Medium Format, you reach for the Big Checkbook. Two 1ds3's, for less than the price of one P21+, and that's not counting the camera body for the front end of the P21+.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Morgan_Moore on September 10, 2007, 01:57:57 am
Quote
Morgan,
I haven't tested the Canon 50/1.2 at f1.2 but I would expect the performance to be abysmal at that aperture. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My point was just to demonstrate the differenct DOF characteristics of MF v 35mm and hence a more 3d effect

I find my nikkor 50 1.2 useable at 2, my blad 80 a 2.8 or preferably 4

----

In terms of cameras I also really enjoy my D80

So light

So small

So cheap

What I really am after is a camera light small and cheap enougth for me to give it to a kitesurfer to attach to thier kite etc

S
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: AndreNapier on September 10, 2007, 02:28:50 am
Mark,
The LOL in the morning was really funny. It is hard not to like you.
I hope you can cancel that ebay listing. In any case if you get to be forced to sell I still have my
baby Lancaster 12x15 circa 1888. You have seen it and with bit of work it will still shoot.
I can trade you this beauty for you P21 with body and lenses. It is a great deal as always. I can even throw 3 sheets of glass as added value.

Rainer,
 I understand and fully accept.

Finally, since we are all about saving I will add to all the great advices that workshops are great but if the new talents can also  skip reading this technical meaningless discussion and SAVE this time to study and practice the craft they will be much better photographer very soon.
Alternatively Save the time wasted on reading about superiority of one system over the other, get a part-time job and soon you will be able to shoot with whatever you desire. Also invest your savings in good marketing of your services. It is more important than your talent. How can you expect editors or AD's to know better if even your own peers can not tell apples from oranges.

Economy is hard nowdays. Photography is a business. I do not know of any business that you can open with less that 100K and hope to make it in profit in one year. Why would it be different in our field.  Hey, Rz67 with all lenses still under 3K. A22 around 9K.
12 thousand for complete MFD system beats the Canon offerings.
Finally, finally I have to admit that as a businessman it was really stupid of me to try to perswade anyone of superiority of DB's or show the files. Canon is superior in every respect. Honesty is honesty but I need to make a living.

Http://AndreNapier.com (http://Http://AndreNapier.com)
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 10, 2007, 03:12:55 am
@infocuinc,
I did not mean any disrepect, I never do.
However it's my opinion that most of the shots can be made with both.

The way you use your MF or DSLR will greatly influence the outcome.
But I will shut op now.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Henry Goh on September 10, 2007, 03:34:05 am
Quote
Finally, finally I have to admit that as a businessman it was really stupid of me to try to perswade anyone of superiority of DB's or show the files. Canon is superior in every respect. Honesty is honesty but I need to make a living.

Http://AndreNapier.com (http://Http://AndreNapier.com)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andre,

I think that has been the missing element I was looking for in all these threads.  At the end of the day, if you do photography as a business, you need to market and sell your services successfully more than anything else.  Leave the Artist at the door until you can well afford the luxury of not shooting for your meals again.  Thanks for bringing things back to earth.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Dustbak on September 10, 2007, 03:45:02 am
From a business perspective I have chosen to use a MFDB. For one of my largest clients I shoot almost exclusively shoes (some bags & belts & some interior shots now and than).

I work for them about 4 months a year. In those 4 months they make 12 issues of 3 magazines (they do more magazines but I just happen to work for 3 of them). A magazine for B2B in the shoe industry and 2 magazines for fashion (men & women, also B2B).

On an  average working day I do about 500 shots, after that day I can bill them 2 hours of post production. I have tweaked my setup and workflow so I am able to do this (sometimes when there are a lot of white laquer or white shiny things it is more difficult).

I used to do this with my A17 and recently the CF39. The competition uses the MKII. The last 6 issues my client has seen his ads income gone up dramatically, all magazines have grown around 10 pages on average.

Their clients/advertisers clearly see the different quality in print. They do not know anything about equipment (other than most consumers). Remarks we get are: colors are spot on (those people are really vicious towards the colors of their products), shoes look like you can just grab them of the pages and other nice things.

Naturally these remarks can come because I am great at photographing shoes  

Anyway is it just me or the gorgeous files I get out of my MFDB or a combination of the 2?. Could I get the same results when using a MKIII? I don't know, I have not tried but this works for me and because I can work quickly with it I can earn it back within a year.

Now. This just applies to me and might be different for other people or other forms of photography. My point is that it sometimes might be worth the money to use a MFDB. Having said that, naturally I try to get those things at the lowest possible pricepoint  (so are my clients).
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Henry Goh on September 10, 2007, 04:37:51 am
Quote
Now. This just applies to me and might be different for other people or other forms of photography. My point is that it sometimes might be worth the money to use a MFDB. Having said that, naturally I try to get those things at the lowest possible pricepoint  (so are my clients).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138344\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What is important is you have a client who is using your services because they like your work.  How you arrive at making those images is less important to them than to you.  By using the right tool, in this case you choice of MFDB, you are probably more productive and consistent in production of those images.  I'm sure your skills and experience have as much to play in making those quality images.

Would love to see some of those shoes as I always feel product shots that are well done must have the kind of appeal that makes the consumer want to "eat" them like good food.

Henry
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Dustbak on September 10, 2007, 07:54:43 am
I have no problems with that. Below is a link to an image I took last week. One of a batch of about 150 shoes. I have downscaled this image to a dimension a bit more friendly for web purposes.

I can only spend about a minute per image on average, this one was a bit harder because of the reflective areas. Especially the white parts. This one is part of the 2008 summer collection.

http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/gerryweber0002.jpg (http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/gerryweber0002.jpg)
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: rainer_v on September 10, 2007, 08:02:13 am
during my last larger work my clients liked the images they saw meanwhile the shooting ( it went over several weeks on location ). they decided  to make an exhibition of 18 selected motifs and to take over the images later. as size they thought in something around 70x90" ( 180x220 ), some motifs even somehow larger.
i would not have liked to see this images made from 5d ( nor from 1ds2 ) images, stitched or not, regardless how good corrected they would have been. i simply would not have made them so big from canon images and i certainly would have had to sell them in this case much cheaper as i could do in its size and in a quality which was really good,- even so big. ( although this was a lot of post-pro work to get them clean enough in every detail and to up-size them good enough to print them in this sizes,- for an exhibition where the people could put their nose on the images ).
Jobs as this one  justify for me to use  the best resolution and quality i can get from the hardware side, even if this just happens rare.
the things depend  where is your position in the market and for which needs are the images you make.
but of course its also important to know where you want to go, because your wishes decide which switch you make, if the (rare) moments come where you can take decisions in your life. but this is not determined by equipment, in contrary i think its hindered by too much trust and thoughts in technik.

in general my believe is, as i expressed clear enough before, that at first have to be learned the skills,- money or expansive systems never will compensate a lack of them.
i have no opinion about product or fashion ...
but i think any  classification of colleagues,- based on with which system they work,- makes similar sense as a classification of your competitors which is based on the car they drive.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Dustbak on September 10, 2007, 08:14:40 am
Sure, I can second that. I am trying to learn every day. I see progress in my work every year (though it tends to go slower now than before).

I spend many many hours in training myself to get better and faster in post processing. Train myself in better understanding light and how to use it, etc..etc..

When looking at the images of some others I see there still is a long way to go which is good. No, the tools are only so much in the equation. It is a total package that you need to address.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tucker on September 10, 2007, 08:14:51 am
Quote
Their clients/advertisers clearly see the different quality in print. They do not know anything about equipment (other than most consumers). Remarks we get are: colors are spot on (those people are really vicious towards the colors of their products), shoes look like you can just grab them of the pages and other nice things.

Naturally these remarks can come because I am great at photographing shoes  
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138344\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think anyone here is saying that there are a few segments of the business where, of course, you'd want medium-format, if you were a working pro -- Still Life, Architecture, or Product/Catalogue. You're shooting things that don't move, and generally, under controlled conditions. No one is arguing that.

The questions about 35 vs MF come up in those other grey areas -- Fashion and Lifestyle, where you might need super fast recycle; no moire; portability; and a large usable LCD if you didn't have the luxury of shooting tethered. That's where the valid questions begin.

My point, again, is to not get caught up in the hype of medium-format, thinking that all of a sudden your pictures will be three times better, (to justify the three times cost). Because in low-light situations on locations, or in action situations, many times I'm betting that the 1ds3 will hold its own to any MF brand. If the 1ds2 did it, then for sure, the 1ds3 will do it, especially if they've calmed down the AA filter.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Dustbak on September 10, 2007, 08:17:28 am
I agree,

When I work I make damn sure I can use my MF equipment. If not or if in doubt I will most certainly take the DSLR and just get the job done. I much rather have a bit less quality but the shots that are needed than turn up with no images because I cannot cope that situation with my MF setup. In those situations most of the time there isn't any reference with MF either because nobody (in its right mind) does it. For fun I tried to cover a marathon once with my MF setup, I made about 300images of which 90% was completely unusable. This would be totally unacceptable for a commercial assignment.

Good thing with the DigiFlex setup is that I only need to carry 1 set of lenses and a small backup body (D200).
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 10, 2007, 08:17:44 am
Quote
The weather-light relationship can be interpreted in many different ways. I supose the P45 wasn't up to the way you work. And that's normal because the Canon's aren't up, or maybe I should say, don't fit in the way I work. But I don't think you should judge a entire system like the P45 because of a extreme situation. That happens with every system.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138193\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think one should judge posts without reading them.  
I wasn't using a P45 I was using a H3 with the 39M back.
Besides, I would hardly call using 400 or even 800 ISO extreme. I'd call that fairly normal myself. And I actually used the camera for a situation that was different from how I normally work and chose a H3 as that should have been ideal for the job. It wasn't. Its 400ISO performance was appalling
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 10, 2007, 08:53:56 am
Quote
I drive a Porsche...do I need it? NO!!.  I also got a BMW X5...did I need 15K in extra's? NO!! Did I need that diamond covered Breitling watch? NO a timex tell's me the same time and digital!! BUT damn if you can afford it life is so f'ing NICE! At least you know what you are doing it all for....for about 3 minutes and than you realize:
Can I do without it?? SURE...do I want to? NO! Does it really make my life nicer?? NO!!

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
 

Ah! Now all is clear! I think I've doscovered the source of this extra 3-dimensionality attributed to the larger sensor of the MFDB.

When arriving at the studios, you park your Porsche in a prominent position viewable from the studio windows. As you are setting up your MF gear and lighting for the shoot, the models are passing time ogling at your beautiful Porsche, oohing! and aahhing!, eyes popping.

You're ready to start shooting, the girls settle down, but their eyes are still popping. Hence the 3D effect    .

Sorry! Couldn't resist!  
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: thsinar on September 10, 2007, 09:02:06 am
that's a good one, but how then to make popping a pair of shoes?!

 

Thierry

Quote
Ah! Now all is clear! I think I've doscovered the source of this extra 3-dimensionality attributed to the larger sensor of the MFDB.

When arriving at the studios, you park your Porsche in a prominent position viewable from the studio windows. As you are setting up your MF gear and lighting for the shoot, the models are passing time ogling at your beautiful Porsche, oohing! and aahhing!, eyes popping.

You're ready to start shooting, the girls settle down, but their eyes are still popping. Hence the 3D effect    .

Sorry! Couldn't resist! 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138385\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: rainer_v on September 10, 2007, 09:16:15 am
Quote
that's a good one, but how then to make popping a pair of shoes?!

 

Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
erased, for beeing a tooooo stupid comment
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 10, 2007, 10:07:06 am
Quote
that's a good one, but how then to make popping a pair of shoes?!

 

Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

With a dazzling white background it's rather difficult not to pop out   .
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 10, 2007, 10:35:50 am
Quote
JJJ,
I should have made it clear in my audio analogy that the comparison was not between whole systems of different quality and expense, but between exotic and expensive components such as amplifiers which, on paper, might all have differences, but which differences could be considered either inaudible to the human ear or completely masked by other imperfections of a far greater magnitude in the chain, such as the imperfections of loudspeaker and room acousticts.
The quality of an image or of the sound coming from a speaker is always dependent upon the weakest link in the chain. But then you wouldn't buy a £4000 amp and use a £200 Cd player. But also with audio certain combinations of kit work better together than other as they complement each other, which I explained above. You do not get the same thing in imaging. So the analogy falls down there a bit.
Plus you buy an expensive hi-fi to match your room's acoustics. A good hi-fi shop will usually let you test it in situ. A friend of mine altered a room to complement his hi-fi.

I've listened to expensive hi-fi and very expensive hi-fi. There can be a huge difference. Some people may not notice or care, just look at the popularity of mp3s. Worse sound than CD and more expensive to buy compared to full CDs. And no packaging, manufacturing or distribution costs either, yet people lap them up. No wonder Apple are so flush with money these days.  
Also not all expensive things are the best. That's the case in any field. I've ridden £3000 bicycles that felt awful and £300 ones that felt great, but by and large the more you pay the better the bike. But not always. And if a bike doesn't fit you and your specific proportions and isn't set up correctly, it'll be crap, no matter what the price is.

Quote
In order to sell such components and persuade people to upgrade from a perfectly adequate amplifier to one costing perhaps 4x the price, it was necessary to bestow upon the equipment magical properties.

It was necessary for salesman and those in the audio industry to promulgate the notion that the scientific specifications don't tell the whole story; that there are great subtleties to be heard, extra 3-dimensionality etc that would flow on merely from the fact that the wiring might be made from oxygen-free copper in the more expensive amplifier, for example.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just because some spurious sounding claims are made by some salesmen, doesn't mean some products aren't noticeably better. Cables can actually make a big difference. I've heard it.  It's just like little details in sensor design can say affect noise performance in the shadows or Chromatic aberation....
Besides if you buy a more 4x expensive amp without listening to it you're an idiot.
Then there are plenty of 'idiots' around   , look at how popular flat screen TVs are. Which are way inferior to CRTs.

As you brought up 'a perfectly adequate amplifier' A Canon IXUS is perfectly adequate camera. So why even buy a 5D let along say a P45? After all the claims about sensor sensitivity, well depth and Chromatic Aberation must be hype simplyto justify the 10x or 100x cost of the bigger cameras.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jpjespersen on September 10, 2007, 03:36:03 pm
I think the bottom line is there are different cameras for different jobs and different people.  Only you yourself knows which camera is best for your kind of work.  I personally know that I need a 39 megapixel camera for my work, and that I make a lot more money than I did with my canon.  
Some types of work benefit from using DSLR and these photographers may make more money with their DSLR.  They just don't look as cool as us with our MFDB's.  LOL
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: nicolaasdb on September 10, 2007, 10:29:40 pm
I think you are right RAY.....that is exactly what I do....and that is why even my ds1 gives the 3D effect! Shit...I should have known this beforehand and saved myself 35K for the MFDB....or I could have just bought the back and saved 100grand by buying the MFDB and not the car...mmmmmm....wel I never said I was smart!
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on September 10, 2007, 11:35:13 pm
That's 1Ds, not DS1. A thing someone who owns the camera should probably know...
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: nicolaasdb on September 11, 2007, 04:07:19 am
RIGHT!! and who cares??
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 11, 2007, 04:20:39 am
Quote
The quality of an image or of the sound coming from a speaker is always dependent upon the weakest link in the chain. But then you wouldn't buy a £4000 amp and use a £200 Cd player. .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138408\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would, especially if I already owned the CD player, and I might feel a bit dubious about the benefits of a 1000 pound CD player.

Generally, the factors that have the greatest effect on any recording and its playback are; the acoustics of the auditorium where the recording was made; the skill of the sound engineer in placement of mics and later mixing of tracks if required; the loudspeakers used during playback, and the acoustics of the listening room.

These are the critical factors that have to be got right for good results. Everything else is basically secondary and even irrelevant, within reason of course. The amplifier has to have sufficient power to drive the speakers. The copper interconnects have to be of a sufficient gauge to pass the current with negligible resistance. The CD player needs to be at least of basic quality. (A bottom of the range portable CD player designed for listening to music whilst jogging would probably compromise quality.)

It's also understood the mics and digital tape recorder used for the recording would be of standard, professional quality.

The issue here is, if you believe that $500 interconnects, $5,000 CD players and/or $10,000 exotic amplifiers improve the sound quality to a clearly identifiable and audible extent, can you demonstrate it with a double blind test?

If you can, then goodonya. You've got remarkable hearing   .
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jing q on September 11, 2007, 07:09:57 am
You guys not finished yet?
*goes get more popcorn*
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Morgan_Moore on September 11, 2007, 07:17:44 am
Quote
You guys not finished yet?
*goes get more popcorn*
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=138601\")

You could also try posting [a href=\"http://forum.hifichoice.co.uk/]here[/url]

enjoying my H1 and my D80 and looking forward to my D3 - only missing a replacement for my contax T2 - each tool has its place

S
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: nicolaasdb on September 11, 2007, 11:39:49 am
Morgan you got a way with words...--- EACH TOOL HAS ITS PLACE!!!----why couldn't I come up with this!
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: johnkraus on September 11, 2007, 11:47:26 am
You guys are a bit silly, but then I've just spent over an hour reading 16 pages, so who's silly now?
To add my own silly comments:
I've found that SO much depends upon your attitude to your equipment. If you love your gear while accepting its strengths and weaknesses you'll get different images than if you're not really happy with your gear. Don't know how this works but its true. At some point, whatever you're shooting with, love it, enjoy it, and make it work for you.
Along the same lines, if you spend real time with your system, whatever it is, you'll come up with wildly different imagery than trying to make it work out of the box, or the first week. Choice of Raw Converter, sharpening, post work- it takes a while to learn how to play your horn as someone near Carnegie Hall must say.
Aside from obvious differences (Canon for speed and low-light, MF for dynamic range and 16-bit color), etc I keep discovering unique plusses and minuses of any system. I shoot a 5D and P30+ at the moment, and there are ongoing discoveries, such as (in no particular order)- the P30+ loves blue tones, so magic hour and post magic hour shots that fall apart with the Canon are amazingly rich with the 30. On another note... Canon color through DPP is astounding. Not very slick software but the color and conversions... gorgeous. Color out of the P30+ in C1Pro with Phase profiles- often not my favorite. P30+ color through Raw Developer- astoundingly rich and subtle.
I don't think there's a winner take all answer. As someone else says here, use the gear that works to your style. And whatever system you currently have- appreciate the great things in CAN do for you. And if its more frustrating then inspiring- move on.
p.s.- Mirror slap on the H system is MUCH less of a problem with the new firmware. Huge difference.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: vgogolak on September 11, 2007, 12:47:25 pm
Well, with so many particpants, thought I would ask;

Not to change the subject, but I need a Contax 645 55mm 3.5 for my set (35 to 80mm too big a jump

will pay premium for extra clean glass. If it works well body cosmetics unimportant to me

thx
Pls pass the word. I have had good luck buying from colleagues here

regards
Victor
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 11, 2007, 12:49:23 pm
Quote
[jjj-But then you wouldn't buy a £4000 amp and use a £200 Cd player] I would. , especially if I already owned the CD player, and I might feel a bit dubious about the benefits of a 1000 pound CD player.
Well that's an idiotic attitude. Go listen to it and if it sound better then buy. If it doen't don't. Not a difficult concept really.

Quote
Generally, the factors that have the greatest effect on any recording and its playback are; the acoustics of the auditorium where the recording was made; the skill of the sound engineer in placement of mics and later mixing of tracks if required; the loudspeakers used during playback, and the acoustics of the listening room.
And the amp, cabling and player make no real difference then? I've heard the difference and it can be significant.
Plus it's blindingly obvious [you'd think] that if it was a duff recording then a good hifi won't improve it. Oh BTW, Speakers are part of the hifi in case you missed that class.

Quote
These are the critical factors that have to be got right for good results. Everything else is basically secondary and even irrelevant, within reason of course. The amplifier has to have sufficient power to drive the speakers. The copper interconnects have to be of a sufficient gauge to pass the current with negligible resistance. The CD player needs to be at least of basic quality. (A bottom of the range portable CD player designed for listening to music whilst jogging would probably compromise quality.)
CD players vary enormously in sound quality. As does every component. That's like saying all lenses on SLRs are good enough/the same. Which is an obviously dumb thing to say.

Quote
The issue here is, if you believe that $500 interconnects, $5,000 CD players and/or $10,000 exotic amplifiers improve the sound quality to a clearly identifiable and audible extent, can you demonstrate it with a double blind test?

If you can, then goodonya. You've got remarkable hearing   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138586\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've listened to expensive gear and have been quite taken aback at the difference in sound even between very pricey gear. And good hi-fi makes a huge difference. Unless you have crap hearing, as then it's a waste of money. And as I said before, more expensive is not always better. Besides better sound quality is as nebulous as better picture quality in one sense and then there's the law of diminising returns you get with any very high end stuff, which is what you are talking about here.
You may need to spend an extra 30K to get your track car to go a fraction of a second faster than the already silly speed it goes even, though it only cost say 10K to get it tweaked up up to the current fast speed, but to some people it's money worth spending. Most people would laugh at a £2k camera let alone the £6k- £20K+ camera people are talking about here. It doesn't mean there is no point in spending that money. If you can tell the difference, if you can afford it and think the difference [in speed, efficiency, quality...] is worth spending on, then spend it. And ignore those carping ignoramuses who cannot tell the difference. My guess is you cannot tell the difference with good hifi and you seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about those who can. If so get over it. It's not as if it affects you in any way.

If all hifi sounds the same to a purchaser, he/she can buy cheap goods, but if your hearing isn't damaged and you really do appreciate the difference, spend whatever you like/can afford.
Same for a DB, if you cannot appreciate or need what a DB can do, don't buy one. If a 1DsIII doesn't do the job for you don't buy one of them. Anyway the cameras are ultimately only as good as the photographer.


How's the pocorn jing q?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: ronno on September 11, 2007, 05:44:10 pm
Hate to break up all the bickering, but some dude posted some more snap shots at ISO 1600 from the new Canon and the Ef17-40/4L:

http://www.fotofile.net/board/userpix/2007...03_071A9928.jpg (http://www.fotofile.net/board/userpix/20070909_1189353203_071A9928.jpg)

http://www.fotofile.net/board/userpix/2007...04_071A9900.jpg (http://www.fotofile.net/board/userpix/20070909_1189353004_071A9900.jpg)

http://www.fotofile.net/board/userpix/2007...67_071A9913.jpg (http://www.fotofile.net/board/userpix/20070909_1189353067_071A9913.jpg)

http://www.fotofile.net/board/userpix/2007...41_071A9910.jpg (http://www.fotofile.net/board/userpix/20070909_1189353141_071A9910.jpg)

http://www.fotofile.net/board/userpix/2007...29_071A9891.jpg (http://www.fotofile.net/board/userpix/20070909_1189355129_071A9891.jpg)

http://www.fotofile.net/board/userpix/2007...46_071A9923.jpg (http://www.fotofile.net/board/userpix/20070910_1189420746_071A9923.jpg)
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: pixjohn on September 11, 2007, 06:47:07 pm
Is the first image even sharp?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Craig Lamson on September 12, 2007, 07:11:23 am
Sometimes we get caught up in the small things in life and forget the big and important stuff.  Life happens fast and can end just as quickly.

Yesterday a peer of mine was killed doing some marine photography.  May he rest in peace.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/content/news/...a8-6a87cdb8124e (http://www.abcactionnews.com/content/news/breakingnews/story.aspx?content_id=2687e2bc-0a75-4f80-bea8-6a87cdb8124e)
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 12, 2007, 07:12:58 am
Oh my,
I wish you all the best
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: ronno on September 12, 2007, 08:27:28 am
Nikon D3 samples:

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/di...r/d3/sample.htm (http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/digitalcamera/slr/d3/sample.htm)
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Willow Photography on September 12, 2007, 06:03:06 pm
Quote
You guys are a bit silly, but then I've just spent over an hour reading 16 pages, so who's silly now?
To add my own silly comments:
I've found that SO much depends upon your attitude to your equipment. If you love your gear while accepting its strengths and weaknesses you'll get different images than if you're not really happy with your gear. Don't know how this works but its true. At some point, whatever you're shooting with, love it, enjoy it, and make it work for you.
Along the same lines, if you spend real time with your system, whatever it is, you'll come up with wildly different imagery than trying to make it work out of the box, or the first week. Choice of Raw Converter, sharpening, post work- it takes a while to learn how to play your horn as someone near Carnegie Hall must say.
Aside from obvious differences (Canon for speed and low-light, MF for dynamic range and 16-bit color), etc I keep discovering unique plusses and minuses of any system. I shoot a 5D and P30+ at the moment, and there are ongoing discoveries, such as (in no particular order)- the P30+ loves blue tones, so magic hour and post magic hour shots that fall apart with the Canon are amazingly rich with the 30. On another note... Canon color through DPP is astounding. Not very slick software but the color and conversions... gorgeous. Color out of the P30+ in C1Pro with Phase profiles- often not my favorite. P30+ color through Raw Developer- astoundingly rich and subtle.
I don't think there's a winner take all answer. As someone else says here, use the gear that works to your style. And whatever system you currently have- appreciate the great things in CAN do for you. And if its more frustrating then inspiring- move on.
p.s.- Mirror slap on the H system is MUCH less of a problem with the new firmware. Huge difference.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138640\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thank you for telling me about Raw Developer.
I thought I had to use C1 until Adobe Raw 4.2 was ready for the P30+.

Tried Raw Shooter for my P30+ files and loved it!!!
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: mcfoto on September 12, 2007, 06:52:16 pm
Hi
You have to wait to see files when the Canon & Nikon are released. Yes there are a few cameras out there but they will not be the same as the final production models. For example there will be some firmware upgrades before then. I can't wait to get my 1DsIII!
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Aboud on September 12, 2007, 07:19:30 pm
Quote
The gauntlet is thrown down to the MF back manuafacturers:

"...Consider, too, the question of continuity, a matter of considerable relevance when the
purchase of an $8,000-or- more camera is on the table. Where the EOS-1Ds MarkIII is
completely compatible with virtually all vast EOS System, and can be expected to
remain compatible—and supported—for decades to come (note the current software
support for the D6000 and D2000), today’s medium format digital backs often do not fit
even recent products from the same manufacturer. Will a newly-purchased component
be compatible with same-brand software and hardware in the not-too-distant future?
Betting on, and investing in, the EOS-1DsMarkIII isa sure thing."
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/news/pro...-Whitepaper.pdf (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/news/pro...-Whitepaper.pdf)
So is this a valid point or just marketing spin? I'm sure Contax owners (not a digital back manufacturer I realise, but a warning none the less?) can relate to this. Are Mamiya owners feeling nervous? Pentax fans have just had their hopes dashed. What about those who bought the Fuji MF back? Or the Kodak backs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Continuity is a concern, but open platforms like the Phase One are good choices as well. I use a Phase One P25 back on my Contax 645. I am considering an upgrade to the P45+ and I can do that for about 16K plus my old back. If I decided to switch platforms, like to the Hassy H2D - because the H3D is a closed platform, I could trade my back for the Hassy version for only about 2K. (That is cheaper than the move I am about to make from my 5D to the 1Ds MkIII). The point I am trying to make is that Canon doesn't have an upgrade path, and perhaps they do not need it because of their original cost and reasonable resale value. But for high end equipment, like the Phase One, a path for the next generation does exist. I do not know about Leaf, I would assume they have a competitive program as well.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: vgogolak on September 12, 2007, 08:03:25 pm
I often can't travel with MF so the last trip was a chance; little trekking abnd a car. I have not tried Conon, but regularly use Leica R9/DMR even Kodak SLR/c with leica and zeiss lenses.
It is difficult to express the 'being there feeling of looking at these 220MB files in ACDSEE color managed on two side by side 24" calibrated Samsungs. It is a different world. Yes, many still want printing, but I think in a few years large screen displays will be more the norm. Then these MF backs will really shine.

The first shot I could easily reproduce with a 10MP Leica, so a 20 MP Canon (and I have liked the 5D with Leica R lenses a lot when I borrowed) would have no problem.

However, in the second shot the detail would stand two 30" monitors from these files.

No sharpening, no Nuthin. The workflow is trivial

C1 exposure/WB to Tif That is IT. Print file dye sub, view on screen or send to jpg (as here, to annoy people !  :-)

The 100% crop is not something the canon will do, and I doubt that the depth of the full frame would be achieved.
[BTW Contax 645/P45+ and contax glass]
Victor
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jpjespersen on September 12, 2007, 08:07:28 pm
Quote
Continuity is a concern, but open platforms like the Phase One are good choices as well. I use a Phase One P25 back on my Contax 645. I am considering an upgrade to the P45+ and I can do that for about 16K plus my old back. If I decided to switch platforms, like to the Hassy H2D - because the H3D is a closed platform, I could trade my back for the Hassy version for only about 2K. (That is cheaper than the move I am about to make from my 5D to the 1Ds MkIII). The point I am trying to make is that Canon doesn't have an upgrade path, and perhaps they do not need it because of their original cost and reasonable resale value. But for high end equipment, like the Phase One, a path for the next generation does exist. I do not know about Leaf, I would assume they have a competitive program as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not to mention the positive effects of recycling your camera with the camera manufacturer.  There will be a lot of shitty broken DSLR's out there in the future that will not be worth fixing and no way to recycle, this means that all the materials used to make them will eventually be wasted and end up in a landfill.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: canmiya on September 12, 2007, 09:26:57 pm
Quote
Continuity is a concern, but open platforms like the Phase One are good choices as well. I use a Phase One P25 back on my Contax 645. I am considering an upgrade to the P45+ and I can do that for about 16K plus my old back. If I decided to switch platforms, like to the Hassy H2D - because the H3D is a closed platform, I could trade my back for the Hassy version for only about 2K. (That is cheaper than the move I am about to make from my 5D to the 1Ds MkIII). The point I am trying to make is that Canon doesn't have an upgrade path, and perhaps they do not need it because of their original cost and reasonable resale value. But for high end equipment, like the Phase One, a path for the next generation does exist. I do not know about Leaf, I would assume they have a competitive program as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes,  Leaf does have an upgrade program which is similar to the Phase program.  When you consider that the digital technology is integrated within the body of dslr products, vs mf, with the exception of the Zd camera, where the digital technology is an "add on component", it is easy to understand why Canon and all dslr's upgrade path is tied to giving the consumer a reason to buy a  new body. But as I look at some of the features which are beginning to appear on dslr's, like face recognition and greater in camera processing, it seems that dslr's are becoming more like high prices point and shoots!  
The one thing that Nikon has done in the past that I really admire is to offer firmwear updates to some of the existing cameras which gives them some of the new model functionality.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jpjespersen on September 13, 2007, 12:30:08 am
Quote
That's 1Ds, not DS1. A thing someone who owns the camera should probably know...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I personally think that Wienke is a wanker.
Have you ever heard of a typo.  I am sure that being in the military you are familiar with mistakes.
Your language and attitude on these posts is very indicative of the top officers I met while I spent a month with the US Marines in Africa.  You act like you know everything and there is no other way.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 13, 2007, 01:06:21 am
Quote
Well that's an idiotic attitude. Go listen to it and if it sound better then buy. If it doen't don't. Not a difficult concept really.

And the amp, cabling and player make no real difference then? I've heard the difference and it can be significant.
Plus it's blindingly obvious [you'd think] that if it was a duff recording then a good hifi won't improve it. Oh BTW, Speakers are part of the hifi in case you missed that class.

 CD players vary enormously in sound quality. As does every component. That's like saying all lenses on SLRs are good enough/the same. Which is an obviously dumb thing to say.

I've listened to expensive gear and have been quite taken aback at the difference in sound even between very pricey gear. And good hi-fi makes a huge difference. Unless you have crap hearing, as then it's a waste of money. And as I said before, more expensive is not always better. Besides better sound quality is as nebulous as better picture quality in one sense and then there's the law of diminising returns you get with any very high end stuff, which is what you are talking about here.
You may need to spend an extra 30K to get your track car to go a fraction of a second faster than the already silly speed it goes even, though it only cost say 10K to get it tweaked up up to the current fast speed, but to some people it's money worth spending. Most people would laugh at a £2k camera let alone the £6k- £20K+ camera people are talking about here. It doesn't mean there is no point in spending that money. If you can tell the difference, if you can afford it and think the difference [in speed, efficiency, quality...] is worth spending on, then spend it. And ignore those carping ignoramuses who cannot tell the difference. My guess is you cannot tell the difference with good hifi and you seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about those who can. If so get over it. It's not as if it affects you in any way.

If all hifi sounds the same to a purchaser, he/she can buy cheap goods, but if your hearing isn't damaged and you really do appreciate the difference, spend whatever you like/can afford.
Same for a DB, if you cannot appreciate or need what a DB can do, don't buy one. If a 1DsIII doesn't do the job for you don't buy one of them. Anyway the cameras are ultimately only as good as the photographer.
How's the pocorn jing q?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138658\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You've so completely missed the point, JJJ, I don't know what else I can say.

Of course all hi fi systems do not sound the same. Where have I written that they do? My own hi fi system is supposed to have a reasonably flat response from 16Hz to 20kHz (+/- 3db), although in practice room acoustics will play havoc with that response. The 200 watt RMS amplifier dedicated to the stereo pair of subwoofers is really not powerful enough for certain recordings with 'show-off' amounts of bass that cause loose things in the room to rattle.

Once again, whilst the differences in the sound from loudspeakers can vary enormously, the add-on jewelery such as silver-plated cables, oxygen-free copper cables, expensive and exotic designs of amplifiers with the same RMS rating as much cheaper amps, and (I suspect) ridiculously expensive CD players, have such a subtle effect on the over-all sound quality, that they apparently cannot be heard during double blind tests.

Outside of double blind tests, there's no doubt of course. Once you've been told which amplifier, whatever, is supposed to 'sound' better, then human vanity ensures that you hear the difference so you don't reveal yourself as a complete fool to either the salesman or yourself.

But it's also true that, when comparing complete systems, expensive loudspeakers will often be coupled with equally expensive auxilliary equipment. It's the job of the salesman to convince you that the amplifier is the heart of the system and that silver cables will transmitt the signal better because silver has lower electrical resistance than copper, etc etc. And it's true, silver does have a lower electrical resistance than copper. But a thin length of sliver cable does not have lower resistence than a thick, or heavier gauge, copper cable.

Most people fall for it. People are often very gullible, you know.  
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jing q on September 13, 2007, 03:57:41 am
Quote
You've so completely missed the point, JJJ, I don't know what else I can say.

Of course all hi fi systems do not sound the same. Where have I written that they do? My own hi fi system is supposed to have a reasonably flat response from 16Hz to 20kHz (+/- 3db), although in practice room acoustics will play havoc with that response. The 200 watt RMS amplifier dedicated to the stereo pair of subwoofers is really not powerful enough for certain recordings with 'show-off' amounts of bass that cause loose things in the room to rattle.

Once again, whilst the differences in the sound from loudspeakers can vary enormously, the add-on jewelery such as silver-plated cables, oxygen-free copper cables, expensive and exotic designs of amplifiers with the same RMS rating as much cheaper amps, and (I suspect) ridiculously expensive CD players, have such a subtle effect on the over-all sound quality, that they apparently cannot be heard during double blind tests.

Outside of double blind tests, there's no doubt of course. Once you've been told which amplifier, whatever, is supposed to 'sound' better, then human vanity ensures that you hear the difference so you don't reveal yourself as a complete fool to either the salesman or yourself.

But it's also true that, when comparing complete systems, expensive loudspeakers will often be coupled with equally expensive auxilliary equipment. It's the job of the salesman to convince you that the amplifier is the heart of the system and that silver cables will transmitt the signal better because silver has lower electrical resistance than copper, etc etc. And it's true, silver does have a lower electrical resistance than copper. But a thin length of sliver cable does not have lower resistence than a thick, or heavier gauge, copper cable.

Most people fall for it. People are often very gullible, you know. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139060\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

let's get back to the topic...enough of the sound system analogy.

I hope you realise that the people who actually buy MFDBs do quite alot of research and they also test the equipment first before they actually decide on it.
It's not like a Canon where you read a review in a magazine and rush out to buy it and then start arguing about Nikon Vs Canon.
It is irritating to hear somebody tell me that I'm extolling the virtue of a product based on a delusion.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on September 13, 2007, 09:11:37 am
Quote
I personally think that Wienke is a wanker.
Have you ever heard of a typo.  I am sure that being in the military you are familiar with mistakes.
Your language and attitude on these posts is very indicative of the top officers I met while I spent a month with the US Marines in Africa.  You act like you know everything and there is no other way.

Thank you for calling me a p-e-n-i-s.

Yes, I'm familiar with that sort of typo, it is usually made by Nikon owners (whose cameras have the letter first, and then the number (D1x, D200, D3, etc.) as opposed to Canon's naming convention of number first, then letter (1D, 10D, 20D, 300D). It's an atypical typo for a Canon owner to make.

As to my attitude, I consider myself a practical realist. I call spades spades, and BS BS. I've never disputed that under the right conditions, (mainly low ISO) a MFDB can outperform any DSLR. And I've never questioned the convenience of the larger viewfinder, or the usefulness of a body that can do tilts and shifts for additional focusing flexibility, or the value of the additional megapixels a MFDB has to offer over a DSLR. When MFDB owners have cited those advantages, I haven't questioned those statements, because I know those statements are true.

But when the MFDB evangelists feel the need to go beyond the obvious and easily demonstrated advantages of MFDB over DSLR and start talking about "dimensionality" and making claims that the difference between systems is obvious even in web JPEGS, I'm going to call the BS what it is, BS. And Feppe's little quiz proved that the claims made were significantly exaggerated.

You jumped into the quiz thread and ridiculed Feppe for the pointlessness of his quiz, when you didn't even understand what was going on, or why. If you're busy and don't want to read the voluminous back story behind the quiz, that's fine, but common sense should suggest that ridiculing something whose purpose is unclear to you is a bad idea, a good way to look silly, and usually rude as well. When I pointed out your lapse in judgment and suggested that you read the back story behind the quiz because it did have a constructive purpose, you continued in your rudeness. And you've continued it here.

I have no aversion to the vigorous debate of a topic, but there's no reason whatsoever to engage in childish ad hominem name calling. If you think I'm wrong, disprove my argument if you can instead of throwing verbal rotten tomatoes at me. If you don't have the emotional maturity to engage in a civilized discussion even when your pet paradigms are being questioned, then these fora are probably not the right place for you.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jpjespersen on September 13, 2007, 12:52:59 pm
Jesus Christ.  I don't have time to read your pointless ramblings.  
Do you have a job or a life.  almost 4% of total forum posts!  Classic example of somebody who has everything to say, but nothing to show for it.  Why don't you stop typing and get out there to actually test some of what you say,  you might realize that you are wrong a lot of the time.
Have fun writing an essay response to this one.


Quote
Thank you for calling me a p-e-n-i-s.

Yes, I'm familiar with that sort of typo, it is usually made by Nikon owners (whose cameras have the letter first, and then the number (D1x, D200, D3, etc.) as opposed to Canon's naming convention of number first, then letter (1D, 10D, 20D, 300D). It's an atypical typo for a Canon owner to make.

As to my attitude, I consider myself a practical realist. I call spades spades, and BS BS. I've never disputed that under the right conditions, (mainly low ISO) a MFDB can outperform any DSLR. And I've never questioned the convenience of the larger viewfinder, or the usefulness of a body that can do tilts and shifts for additional focusing flexibility, or the value of the additional megapixels a MFDB has to offer over a DSLR. When MFDB owners have cited those advantages, I haven't questioned those statements, because I know those statements are true.

But when the MFDB evangelists feel the need to go beyond the obvious and easily demonstrated advantages of MFDB over DSLR and start talking about "dimensionality" and making claims that the difference between systems is obvious even in web JPEGS, I'm going to call the BS what it is, BS. And Feppe's little quiz proved that the claims made were significantly exaggerated.

You jumped into the quiz thread and ridiculed Feppe for the pointlessness of his quiz, when you didn't even understand what was going on, or why. If you're busy and don't want to read the voluminous back story behind the quiz, that's fine, but common sense should suggest that ridiculing something whose purpose is unclear to you is a bad idea, a good way to look silly, and usually rude as well. When I pointed out your lapse in judgment and suggested that you read the back story behind the quiz because it did have a constructive purpose, you continued in your rudeness. And you've continued it here.

I have no aversion to the vigorous debate of a topic, but there's no reason whatsoever to engage in childish ad hominem name calling. If you think I'm wrong, disprove my argument if you can instead of throwing verbal rotten tomatoes at me. If you don't have the emotional maturity to engage in a civilized discussion even when your pet paradigms are being questioned, then these fora are probably not the right place for you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139125\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Bruce MacNeil on September 13, 2007, 01:42:28 pm
Quote
Jesus Christ.  I don't have time to read your pointless ramblings.


Well, said - I felt the same way for decades.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Mark_Tucker on September 13, 2007, 02:44:33 pm
Quote
(jpjespersen @ Sep 13 2007, 11:52 AM)
Jesus Christ.  I don't have time to read your pointless ramblings.

Well, said - I felt the same way for decades.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139189\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sooner or later, it always gets back to that main question, (that got us kicked out of Galbraith):

"Would He have used MediumFormat, or Canon?"

No matter the forum, it always gets distilled to that one question.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on September 13, 2007, 03:06:30 pm
Quote
"Would He have used MediumFormat, or Canon?"

What would Jesus shoot? ROTFL!
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: eronald on September 13, 2007, 03:21:44 pm
Quote
Sooner or later, it always gets back to that main question, (that got us kicked out of Galbraith):

"Would He have used MediumFormat, or Canon?"

No matter the forum, it always gets distilled to that one question.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139205\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Let's not go there again

Edmund
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Dustbak on September 13, 2007, 03:27:48 pm
Pinhole ?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: feppe on September 13, 2007, 03:33:24 pm
Quote
Sooner or later, it always gets back to that main question, (that got us kicked out of Galbraith):

"Would He have used MediumFormat, or Canon?"

No matter the forum, it always gets distilled to that one question.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=139205\")

Jee... I laughed.

Is that the photography equivalent to [a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law]Godwin's Law[/url]?
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: AndreNapier on September 13, 2007, 04:31:40 pm
deleted
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: michael on September 13, 2007, 06:42:59 pm
This has gotten out of hand.

Everybody chill and stop the rude repartee. This is not that type of forum and such behaviour will not be tolerated.

Michael
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jpjespersen on September 13, 2007, 06:54:14 pm
Thanks Michael,
Your like our father figure.  It all seems light hearted anyway.  We are just having fun with each other.
Quote
This has gotten out of hand.

Everybody chill and stop the rude repartee. This is not that type of forum and such behaviour will not be tolerated.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: mmurph on September 13, 2007, 08:58:21 pm
Quote
Sooner or later, it always gets back to that main question, (that got us kicked out of Galbraith):

Mark,

Would you or someone else be willing to share a short history of what happened at the end at RG?  

Probably in a clean post rather than this one, assuming Michael does not mind. I think I was in Mexico or somewhere at the time, came back, the forum was down.  I heard rumors, but was never clear how it all *actually* went down.      

Too bad, really. If RG had kept it together, most would have been willing to give him $10 or so to keep that forum going. Then he could have gotten the funding in place, transitioned in the background, announced a "transfer" months or a year later, etc. (Geez, I hope Michael doesn't get any ideas.   Oh yeah, B&H. I will use the link!   )

He really lost all of his built up "goodwill" at the end there. And I mean that in business terms too - goodwill is what goes on the books as an asset to account for the value of a business that exceeds pure "bricks and mortar" assets.

Too bad. But, while I am at it - thanks Michael for this MF forum!!  And also for keeping it polite and under control.    

Best,
Michael
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: nicolaasdb on September 13, 2007, 10:24:49 pm
I am glad someone else "gave it" to Wienke.....I did a little research on him and felt bad...so left it alone.....but he had it coming.

You got to be kidding when you attack someone (me in this case) about calling a 1Ds MarkII a DS1...I have been shooting with that "thing" since it first came out (what over 3 years ago) and love the camera.

I also shoot with a Leaf A65 (or is it 65A?....Wienke?) and like it too..it is slower and the focusing isn't that great(compared to the canon Ds1 I mean 1Ds ..I am confused..let me drive to my studio and check it out to please Wienke....okay I am back it says 1Ds...pfffff 30miles just to please Wienke).
But the A65 is not to blame for the focusing...Mamiya (in my case) or Hasselblad are the "everdo-ers" they don't want to put money into that area I guess.

There is a difference...but today I got a magazine with my fashion editorial in it...and the printer was possesed by the devil at the time of printing and felt that he had to up the contrast and add A LOT OF RED.....so shooting with a 20K back and another 25K in camera's lenses and light equipment, retouching the story for 4 days and proofing the images......doesn't matter when there is an IDIOT somewhere with his H up his A!

So in the end it is about the right tool for the right job!! And the 2 formats are close...and both at a very high level.....just different...not better not worse...DIFFERENT!
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Misirlou on September 13, 2007, 11:08:38 pm
You know, this whole debate has proved something to me that I hadn't realized before. Right now, there is a monstrous penalty to be paid for making the wrong choice in equipment. Even just a few years ago, you could afford to experiment with all sorts of camera gear in different formats without incurring much cost.

I got interested in 4X5 and MF in 1996. So I bought about four different kinds of 4X5 cameras, which I won't go into here. I started MF with a Rolleicord, then a Rolleiflex, then a Mamiya Press, then two different RB67s, two different Hasselblads, and finally another Rolleifllex. All of that stuff was used, and any of it that I sold, I sold for as much or more than I paid originally (except for the second RB67, which I traded for a new Canon DSLR).

Now if I go out and pay $25k for a new MF digital back, and spend a year learning that it's not really working for me, what will happen? I'll lose about $10k getting rid of it. New DSLRs aren't quite that bad, but the depreciation curve on digital equipment is orders of magnitude worse than it is for old Hasselblads, eh?

So I suppose a "vigorous" debate is pretty worthwhile for me. I don't relish any $10k mistakes. I'd rather let everyone else do the experimenting, and learn from their experience.

Anyone have a cheap used digital back for a Hasselblad V? (Ha!)
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: mcfoto on September 13, 2007, 11:45:53 pm
Hi
I have seen the new Live View on the Canon 1D MKIII & with 14 bit , the new 1DsMKIII looks pretty impressive. When I get one I will be comparing this camera to the ZD. Canon is really going after the MFD with this camera.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: David WM on September 14, 2007, 02:37:25 am
Do you really think Canon is worried about a few of us buying MFDB's? Their own market for a high end fast 35mm system is probably very lucrative. If they really thought the MF market was really worth going after they could probably target it with a more tailored system, but they're probably doing well enough anyways. The 35mm offering will continue to improve, and hopefully so will MF.
David
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Dustbak on September 14, 2007, 03:15:23 am
Indeed why would they want to go after a market that is so tiny it isn't even a drop on a glowing plate for them from a turn-over perspective?

Maybe, MFDB manufacturers might get a bit worried but I don't think even that much.

Currently around 22MP on 24x36 seems to be the limit due to several factors (including glass). I don't see Canon redesigning all of their glass as well just to get more out of the 24x36 surface. They are already at a level of quality unheard of for that imaging surface.

On the other hand if 22MP is about the limit for 24x36 so would around 40MP be the limit for 48x36. Where MF still has room to get a little bigger sensors (645 that is) but not all that much.

The only ones that might be worried are photographers. The ones that own MFDB might be worried that they could be working with equipment costing a lot less keeping their costs lower and remaining competitively priced. The others worried whether they should have bought MFDB instead of Canon.

The bright ones just have both so they can opt for whichever systems suits their purposes best. (sofar I seem not too bright hanging on to my Nikons      )
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jjj on September 14, 2007, 05:45:46 am
Quote
What would Jesus shoot? ROTFL!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139213\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Contact sheets!
The Turin Shroud  was one of his later works  


Quote
Thank you for calling me a p-e-n-i-s.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139125\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's not what the word means. It's more about what you do with it!!  
It's sometimes used in American magazines with much unintentional amusement factor for the Brits.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on September 14, 2007, 10:35:11 am
Quote
That's not what the word means. It's more about what you do with it!!  
It's sometimes used in American magazines with much unintentional amusement factor for the Brits.

Interesting, you learn something every day...
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: uaiomex on September 14, 2007, 01:01:42 pm
OK, let's get poised again and back to the original theme in this thread (Michael said so)

I am waiting and waiting for dbacks to drop in price to become affordable (to me). Noy yet.
In the meantime Canon and Nikon keep releasing these fantastic new cameras

In this thread some photographers convinced to keep waiting for my back (mainly Andre and Frank). I wanted to believe in what Mark Tucker said about - why bother with dmf?

I've decided to wait and bother. But just now, I ran into these pictures by photog M. Alexandru working with a 400D. Unbelievable quality and 3D.

This picture shows 3D like many in those well executed dmf takes.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6224797 (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6224797)
A sensor just 1/4 in size in those in dmf and just 12bit.

Which takes me back to a question storming my mind for long:
Is the quality truly superior (from dmf) to dslr, or is it just high skills from the photographer?

Same logic applies for when I look at Canon L glass samples:
Is the quality superior to non L glass, or is it just the high skills of the shooter?

If one (Alexandru) can extract some much detail and 3D from the lesser of Canon cameras, why bother with the complexity of dmf? Is it worth it?

Or it could be: Imagine what alexandru can achieve with FF dsrkr or DMF!

Back to the drawing board

Eduardo
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 14, 2007, 01:20:38 pm
With all due respect but that picture is not 3D for me.
It's processed with Lucisart if I can trust my eyes  this filter will give you a semi HDR-hypersharpened look and it will add some 3D like look to the shot.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: BJL on September 14, 2007, 01:21:55 pm
Quote
Indeed why would they [Canon] want to go after a market that is so tiny it isn't even a drop on a glowing plate for them from a turn-over perspective?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed, it seems likely that Canon will only go so far as seeking the highest level of lens and sensor performance that it can achieve without extraordinary new investments such as changing to a larger format and destroying backward compatibility with its current huge 24x36 format assets. Canon has done relatively little to upgrade its lens system; just two lenses at the weakest point of the L range(16-35mmm and 14mm).

That seems to leaves MF with a viable high end niche, based on keeping its sensors and lens designs in larger formats (up to maybe 36x48 or 42x56) ahead of what can be done in a format one half or one third the size. MF just has to look at how LF survived in film.

The smaller scale MF market naturally moves more slowly in technological development (look at AF!), but as sensors approach the physical performance limits of a given sensor and pixel size, gaps in "performance per unit area" will close up, and then two or three times the sensor area will have a natural advantage, for those willing to pay some thousands more for both the larger sensors and the longer, state-of-the-art lenses to go with them.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 15, 2007, 10:52:18 am
The 1Ds3 is not yet available but comparisons between it and MFDBs have generated so much hot air and b/s, one wonders what will eventuate when the camera is released. Will the sparks really start flying? Maybe not. Perhaps bull shit and hot air appear in inverse proportion to the facts.

It always amazes me when such issues as which is bettter than which arise, that some people do their best to massage an image to its best advantage to create an impression that massaged A is better than unmassaged B.

Such lack of objectivity is astounding.

Frank Doorhof's crop of an amazing eye is a good example of what I'm talking about. The pores of the skin under the eye appear out of focus, yet the whole of the eye itself is remarkably sharp. One's first impresssion is, whatever lens was used it would have been at a wide aperture.

But we learn from Frank that this was not the case. The lens used was 120mm at f10. Frank used 'smart sharpening' to sharpen the eye but not the skin pores. Perhaps he even blurred the pores. Perhaps what he really did is a trade secret.

[attachment=3247:attachment]

When you are trying to get to the truth of the matter, such an approach does not help.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 15, 2007, 11:08:09 am
Wrong my friend, I blurred NOTHING, welcome to DOF of a MF system
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 15, 2007, 11:21:28 am
Quote
Wrong my friend, I blurred NOTHING, welcome to DOF of a MF system
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139570\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Frank,
But you used f10 and selective sharpening, or 'smart' sharpening. F10 is about the limit on any lens before diffraction rears its ugly head. At f10 the pores should be as sharp as the eye.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: juicy on September 15, 2007, 11:45:40 am
Hi!

To my eyes the upper eye-lashes and brows are the part that is in focus in Frank's eye-picture, lower lashes are not and the skin pores are even more oof. Nothing un-natural there. 120mm lense has a very shallow dof at close distance. Skin over the eye-brow has very sharp texture.  

Cheers
J
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 15, 2007, 12:14:40 pm
Quote
120mm lense has a very shallow dof at close distance. Skin over the eye-brow has very sharp texture.  
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139574\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This shot is not at a particularly close distance. It's equivalent to a 35mm shot of a full face portrait with 85mm lens at around f7.

Now, if someone can keep this thread in mind and, in a couple of month's time when the 1Ds3 is released, take a similar shot with the 85/1.2 at f7 to f8 , we might have something real to talk about.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: juicy on September 15, 2007, 01:51:34 pm
Hi Ray!

I appreciate your quest for the truth and your analytical approach. It's correct that the really valid comparison will be made in the same shoot with the both cameras, otherwise the comparison will be somewhat arbitrary. However I think we don't need to wait for the 1Ds3 to be able to say something about the dof in the eye-shot.

Quote
This shot is not at a particularly close distance.

Frank might tell us the shooting distance but for me it seems it has been taken at a distance of less than 1m (if the original picture in post 172 has not been dramatically cropped), maybe something like 80cm. Also, to see the aprox dof in a similar Canon shot we don't need the 1Ds3, just the 85mm lens (which I don't have) and any FF Canon unless we want to compare the shots pixel by pixel. The overal feel will be seen in your 5D in case you have the 85mm.

Comparing the eye-shot with my own experiences with 100mm Canon in both FF- and crop-bodies using different f-stops and shooting-distances I don't doubt the dof in Frank's picture at all.

Cheers,
J
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: D White on September 15, 2007, 04:52:21 pm
I do not get this endless debate about MF verses Canon and the constant negative comments to Canon lenses. They are two different formats and do different things, as it has always been. As always, if you want speed of handling, wider lens range, faster apertures, easier backpacking, the most responsive AF systems, etc then one picks a 35mm based system. If squeezing out maximum quality for larger reproduction needs is your requirement then you will put up with the limitations, cost, slower handling, generally bulkier nature of larger formats. There is nothing new here.

As image capture is now a function of proprietary electronics rather than film, the traditional gap may ebb and flow over time. What may have an advantage today may be less so tomorrow.

My one and only digital camera is a DsII with a DsIII on order. The extensive L series lens collection I have has never been better and is constantly evolving to new levels with new introductions. I get so much more detail now, with much greater ease, than I did hauling my 50lbs of Blad V-series around with 7 lenses and Velvia film. I would not consider a MF back for my current Blad system given the considerable chromatic aberrations these outdated lenses deliver. The 40mm CF can be a dog and the 500 CF "APO" is definitely a dog. Only the 250 super-achromat gives a clean aberration free result. if if I can see all these faults so clearly on film, I can only imagine how bad it would be on digital.

Unless the new H-series Blad, Mamiya, Contax, etc and vastly better than these classic V-series lenses, I just do not get it. I only see this MF thing working really well on a technical camera with process quality lenses.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 16, 2007, 04:18:33 am
Quote
I do not get this endless debate about MF verses Canon and the constant negative comments to Canon lenses. They are two different formats and do different things, as it has always been. As always, if you want speed of handling, wider lens range, faster apertures, easier backpacking, the most responsive AF systems, etc then one picks a 35mm based system. If squeezing out maximum quality for larger reproduction needs is your requirement then you will put up with the limitations, cost, slower handling, generally bulkier nature of larger formats. There is nothing new here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139627\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm no expert on MF gear, but as I recall a few years ago the top of the range MFDBs were 16mp with sensors around the size of 35mm. That was well before the 16.7mp 1Ds2 was available.

We now have an interesting scenario whereby the soon to be released 1Ds3 will have the same pixel count as the lower end, but still more expensive, MFDBs, so it's quite understandable that people want to know what they are getting for the extra money.... an elusive sense of extra 3-dimensionality that the 1Ds3 cannot match?

When Nikon produced the 12mp D2x, about as different in format to the Canon 1Ds as the 1Ds3 is to a Leaf 22mp MFDB, I don't recall Canon devotees claiming the larger sensor of the 1Ds produced a greater sense of 3-dimensionality.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 16, 2007, 04:46:20 am
Quote
Also, to see the aprox dof in a similar Canon shot we don't need the 1Ds3, just the 85mm lens (which I don't have) and any FF Canon unless we want to compare the shots pixel by pixel. The overal feel will be seen in your 5D in case you have the 85mm.

Comparing the eye-shot with my own experiences with 100mm Canon in both FF- and crop-bodies using different f-stops and shooting-distances I don't doubt the dof in Frank's picture at all.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139590\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't doubt the DoF either. With the same lighting and model, same accurate focussing, same 'smart' sharpening, same color balance etc, I would be very surprised if the 1Ds3 with 85mm lens at f7.1 would not produce equally impressive results.

I don't believe one could get an idea of the differences by comparing a 12.8mp 5D with a 22mp MFDB. The resolution differences are simply too great. If one were to compare a 5D with a 1Ds3, same close-up of a face, using the same lens, say 85/1.2 at f7.1, one would expect the 1Ds3 shot to be sharper at the plane of focus, but not sharper away from the plane of focus. In other words, the 1Ds3 shot would exhibit a slightly shallower DoF despite use of the same lens at the same f stop and the same distance to subject.

The difference might be subtle but possibly sufficient to produce that sense of greater 3-dimensionality.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: jing q on September 16, 2007, 10:25:58 am
Quote
I don't doubt the DoF either. With the same lighting and model, same accurate focussing, same 'smart' sharpening, same color balance etc, I would be very surprised if the 1Ds3 with 85mm lens at f7.1 would not produce equally impressive results.

I don't believe one could get an idea of the differences by comparing a 12.8mp 5D with a 22mp MFDB. The resolution differences are simply too great. If one were to compare a 5D with a 1Ds3, same close-up of a face, using the same lens, say 85/1.2 at f7.1, one would expect the 1Ds3 shot to be sharper at the plane of focus, but not sharper away from the plane of focus. In other words, the 1Ds3 shot would exhibit a slightly shallower DoF despite use of the same lens at the same f stop and the same distance to subject.

The difference might be subtle but possibly sufficient to produce that sense of greater 3-dimensionality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

just thought I'd post an image from a very old shoot using a kodak pro back (16 megapixels) on a mamiya 645AF (girl's face)

This image was then cropped down by a quarter so it's about 12 megapixels.
Up till today I still feel that the image has a very different dimensional feel to it compared to anything I can produce with my 1ds MkII.
However I sold off the Kodak back because it was just too inconvenient to try and focus with square crop

I've attached a mkii image also, as much as I like the image I still think there would be a very different feel with MF (guy's face)
[attachment=3266:attachment][attachment=3266:attachment]
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: D White on September 16, 2007, 12:05:04 pm
The different feel in dimensionality, in my opinion, is the result of lens focal length. There is a difference in feel to a portrait on the Blad with say a 120/150/180 focal length, at any given aperture, than with a 35mm based system and a similar range of focal lengths. You can never get the exact same combination of perspective and selective focus to a portrait--although I am sure the technically savvy guys can quote equivalent combinations that would match results between the two formats.

It is for this one reason that I may some day add a MF back, for formal portrait sittings.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 16, 2007, 01:08:21 pm
Hi,
The distance was app 1 mtr from the model.
AGAIN NO BLURRING, only a little bit of smart sharpen GLOBAL.

Diffraction on f10 ??
I have shot my 5D on f16 and higher numerous times because I had no choice, and can say that anything above and on f16 was noticably softer that f8-f11 which seems to be the sweet spot for the 5D.

With the Leaf I have shot several shots on f11 and f22 and cannot say I see ANY form of diffraction, or at least not as noticable as with the 5D.

Do you have experience with MF or are you just guessing (with all due respect).
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Ray on September 17, 2007, 03:28:32 am
Quote
Do you have experience with MF or are you just guessing (with all due respect).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139774\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hi Frank,
I have a couple of MF film cameras, the Mamiya RB67 and the Fuji fixed lens 6x9, GSW69II (or some name like that). I also have a Nikon 8000ED MF scanner.

Unfortunately, I've been sort of spoiled by the sheer convenience of digital cameras and I never used those MF film cameras nearly as much as I thought I would have at the time I bought them. Another waste of money I'm afraid.

As regards diffraction at f10, it really depends on the quality of the lens. The higher the quality (or resolving power) of the lens, the wider the aperture at which diffraction becomes noticeable. Most 35mm lenses seem to peak at f5.6 to f8. With a medium quality zoom like the Canon 24-105 IS, I find there's no significant difference in resolution between f8 and f16 on the 5D, but the very slight softness at f16 is noticeable. At f22, it's pretty obvious.

I'm guessing that a very good MF lens used with a high pixel density sensor such as the Leaf 22mp (with pixel pitch hardly greater than that of the 5D) would begin to reveal the effects of diffraction at f stops numerically greater than f10.

I also doubt that it's possible to manufacture a lens that is as sharp at f10 as the Canon 85/1.2 is at f7.1. This is why I think a comparison between the Leaf 22mp with 120mm lens at f10 and the 1Ds3 with 85mm lens at f7.1, would be ideal.

The 1Ds3 needs a sharper lens because of it's higher pixel density. If you use a lens with the MFDB that is as sharp or sharper than the 35mm equivalent, then there's no contest. The larger sensor, despite equal pixel count, will produce superior results, at least at base ISO and maybe ISO 200.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 17, 2007, 04:39:47 am
The problem with diffraction is that you can actually never give a fixed number, it all depends on the resolution of the lens vs the pixelsize (distance) of the sensor, when lines overlap we have diffraction (in short).

I can honestly say that with all lenses I have tested now with the Leaf and Mamiya AFD/II I cannot see diffraction of f16 which I normally use in the studio alot for my normal work, for my free work I love to work with a very shallow DOF and use f10 or f8, when looking at 1:1 crops of the eyes all are about equal sharp.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: BJL on September 17, 2007, 12:31:28 pm
Quote
I can honestly say that with all lenses I have tested now with the Leaf and Mamiya AFD/II I cannot see diffraction of f16 ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139899\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is with a 22MP Leaf back, and so 9 micron pixel pitch, correct?
If so, your observation further confirms a trend in real world observations on diffraction effects with digital cameras: the effect is not noticeable until aperture ratio is about twice the pixel pitch in microns or more, so around f/18 in this case. (Another example: f/11 for the Nikon D2X and its 5.5 micron pixels, according to Thom Hogan.)

This is about half the aperture diameter or two stops higher than the hard-line theoretical claims bases on limiting Airy disc diameter (diffraction spot size) to about the same as pixel spacing.
Title: Valid MF criticism or not?
Post by: Frank Doorhof on September 17, 2007, 12:46:24 pm
With the Aptus 22 indeed.