Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Frank Doorhof on September 10, 2007, 08:23:04 am
-
Maybe it's just me or I have a bad day.
I always loved visiting this forum because it was one of the few places that talked about Medium format in a very positive way.
The last few days however I'm getting more and more the feeling the Medium format system is laughed at and the photographers using it downgraded to guys who are blind, believe in the placebo effect or just don't know what they are doing.
To be honest, it bugs me so I made this post.
I understand that most people don't use MF, for several reasons.
HOWEVER why is it so difficult to just believe the differences.
If it was IMPOSSIBLE to detect the difference between a MF system and a DSLR why do people spend so much money for an according to most inferieur system ?
Looking at the level of the MF shooters (mostly pros with great work) it can't be that they are all crazy or seeing makebelieve stories......
Just had to post this sorry.
-
Maybe it's just me or I have a bad day.
I always loved visiting this forum because it was one of the few places that talked about Medium format in a very positive way.
The last few days however I'm getting more and more the feeling the Medium format system is laughed at and the photographers using it downgraded to guys who are blind, believe in the placebo effect or just don't know what they are doing.
To be honest, it bugs me so I made this post.
I understand that most people don't use MF, for several reasons.
HOWEVER why is it so difficult to just believe the differences.
If it was IMPOSSIBLE to detect the difference between a MF system and a DSLR why do people spend so much money for an according to most inferieur system ?
Looking at the level of the MF shooters (mostly pros with great work) it can't be that they are all crazy or seeing makebelieve stories......
Just had to post this sorry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I switched to MF system from Canon 1DsmkII and I realize the difference.
However, I don't feel the same way as you do, because "[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']Life is not one way tickect[/span]" So I can't expect everybody to agree, as much as I can't expect everybody to desagree.
Your work is beautiful and that is what matters!
Let it be
BEATLES
-
Put down the bottle, Frank, take the bullet out of the chamber, and step away from the bar. We called you a cab, and it'll be here soon.
The truth is a hard thing to hear.
Now go home, get a shower, brush your teeth, get some sleep, and it'll all be fine in the morning. No one's taking away your MF camera.
-
Dear Frank
I thank you for the guts to start this thread. I too would like to see more exchange on the MFDB and the cameras and lenses. As an old Contax 645 proponent, I must admit I an intrigued by the new Hy6 and the backs. Bodes well for MF.
As far as the MF vs DSLR, the "they can't afford it so try to argue CONIKON just as good better" comments seems to be a nasty slight to people who are making genuine trade offs for business. However, in the DC area, there is still a feeling amongs the wedding BUYERS that MF is better (you use CN, no; you use hassey? good)
This may be old thinking and of course the images are important, but not the only thing.Vermeer spent hours preparing tools, otherwise the image was not 'perfect' to him.
MF has the resolution, 3D, sharpness without artifacts (actually technically this is the MAIN advantage of MF vs 135 or at least the 20 vs 39 MP argument. The sharpness is there at 25-50% without sharpening.)
I use Leica DMR as well as P45 Contax. They each have their place. I took DMR on a 12 mile 3k ft trekk and the C/P45 on a 'drive around sounthern France" Each did what is could to get the best image.
Then there is the 'touch' The reason may play Steinway. Can Beckstein'Boesen do as well? maybe, but the artist likes the touch.
SO, I appeal to the 'pro SLR will win the digi race" crowd to look at all facts (and here the MF wins! :-) and the MF crowd to recognize 30lbs extra in a backpack (or $30k extra in expenses) is not good business.
Then lets talk lens!!!!
Zeiss (even the 80mm 2.0 is GREAT only 2 stops up) Leica is the only lens optimized withing the first two stops. From and optical POV, 80mm 2.0 contax was never designed for sharpness; just to get the edge in dark, and give up some resolution(BTW, most compalins of wide-open fuzziness is likely due to small DOF and missed focus, at least in the center. I have some pretty good 2.0 center shots, by luck!)
But then again, I may be wrong ( :-)
Regards
Victor
-
I seriuosly believe that it was guys coming from the film days that already had the equipment and were used to using MF. Also they got into it about 5-7 years ago so at that time digital was not quite there, atleast in 35mm format. I started photography with Medium format and when digital came along I had to try the 1Ds. which was a great camera. Where I live the clients do not print that great and mostlly everything for magazines and Billboards is FINE with a 1DsMII.
I never have had one complaint.
I am moving towards MFDB now because I want to.
Although it is an expensive move I will do it for my own personal pleasure of shooting MF again.
Also I do not plan on printing bigger than magazine or Billboard so the 1DsMII or MIII is just fine.
I think the differnce Now a days is not ALL that different between the 2.
I think the Big time New York guys have been trapped into using the HassleBlads etc.. as a cult, not necessarily for the Quality. Unless they are printing for themselves at over 2'X4' (feet). for Gallery type prints.
For Magazines I doubt you will see any difference between the MFDB and a 1DsMII or MIII.
Another pro for MFDB is that you can probably crop in later in post and still have room to spare. Not the case on a 1DsMII.
Just my opinion but I believe most of the MFDB is hype in the Pro Market.
In any case I am moving there. Just got the AFDII and a couple of lens's.
Snook
-
i think it has a lot of sense to point out where hype starts ( of course in my opinion ) and where the reality stays.
i myself use 2 mf backs and cameras, and as described several times, i know and i share wherefore this is useful for my work and why it serves my needs.
but if i share so much in public as i do i feel responsible in some way not to create illusions, which only can be destroyed after the cheque is written or the leasing contract is signed. blind enthusiasm and lack of realism are not useful here.
and this is what i see in many posts, which create expectations which are simply of from the reality what can deliver an actual mf system.
i don`t think that praising mf as the superduper solution for people who miss magic in their images is a way which is helping anyone.
-
Especially at 100% I see a world of difference between my MFDB and any DSLR. In print, the same thing.
As long a I can remember people with 35mm systems tried to get results as good as MF. Now they feel they are getting close while things where 35mm always have excelled haven't changed (portability, speed, ease of use, AF, Tele, etc.).
Anyway. I don't think that to be particularly important.
It is much more about whether you like to work with MF or not. I love the more slow and deliberate type of working. It makes me think longer and harder. I found that significantly improved my compositional skills (and that is even without using the larger finder). Just as with film (I was always short on money in that time and always tried to use as few frames as possible to get the image I was after) I try to get 'it' in as few takes as possible. This also diminishes the amount of time needed for postprocessing (I sometimes even have to force myself to make a bit more images just for insurance or please my client that is watching over my shoulder).
Could I do the same with a DSLR? Sure, maybe, don't know but I much rather to it with my DigiFlex (no meter, only MF, great glass and the best thinkable digital imager) or other MF tool. It makes me feel good and that is the only thing that counts (plus salable images).
@Mark
ROTFLMAO
-
Nice thing about threaded forums -- you don't have to read threads you don't like, and are always free to start one you do.
Me, I'm still waiting to hear if Mamiya is going to pull their heads out of their... uh, fix the overly-aggressive noise reduction on the ZD Back firmware. Although some of the talk of ISO25 backs has really got my interest piqued. Most of my shooting is at ISO100 but I'd be happy to go lower -- often I just can't get shutter speeds fast enough to expose well (yeah, yeah ND filter yeah yeah).
-
Maybe it's just me or I have a bad day.
I always loved visiting this forum because it was one of the few places that talked about Medium format in a very positive way.
The last few days however I'm getting more and more the feeling the Medium format system is laughed at and the photographers using it downgraded to guys who are blind, believe in the placebo effect or just don't know what they are doing.
To be honest, it bugs me so I made this post.
I understand that most people don't use MF, for several reasons.
HOWEVER why is it so difficult to just believe the differences.
If it was IMPOSSIBLE to detect the difference between a MF system and a DSLR why do people spend so much money for an according to most inferieur system ?
Looking at the level of the MF shooters (mostly pros with great work) it can't be that they are all crazy or seeing makebelieve stories......
Just had to post this sorry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frank, there's a lot of people here that aren't using DB or even a MF camera, and still like to make comparisons without having enought experience of the system. The MF experience happens when you take that camera you like so much in your hands, in the field, or in the studio when you see the results, not comparing web jpegs. You know that and that what counts
-
Frank,
I got serious into photography with F100 and Velvia 50. I am sure you remember the small waterfall I shot here in Korea with my ZD camera. One week ago, from same shoot I (finally) got my Velvia 50 from my Mamya 7II back. Wow! Awesome. 6x7 slides.... my first Velvia from my 7. Awesome. 6x7. They really looks awesome. From such small light camera with a BIG hole in it for film. Shocks... so simple thing... a film box with great lens.
ZD? You know my situation, so of course my mind keeps going... MF vs. DSLR. I need something I can depend on for 5, maybe 8 years. I am only a hobbyist. What is 1Ds Mk III? How much dynamic range? Ah... but D3... suprice, some new technology can make difference. Only 12MP, does not interest me... yet ... the rumored Nikon high resolution to compete with 1Ds Mk III... but... is it close enough to MF? Well... if Nikon as impressive done their homework there.. speculations... torturing brain... Puh... ZD... DR, exposure latitude... but... on other hand DSLR... flexibility... AND... cheaper to replace sensor in five years if it breaks!
Mmm... Canon focus problems... Nikon banding... hm. Image matters, but for me much image quality, and being able to capture. Now I am all confused truthfully. Yet, the ZD camera, it has the best controls, menus, buttons of any digital camera I read of, seen or held, really bright finder. In end... perhaps come down to money... we shall see.... perhaps what happens happen.
Medium format throws out of focus more rapid than the 135 based digital, does it not? because of the different multiplication factor or... angle from sensor for "equal" lens? That makes difference also...
Definently I do not want back to DX for real serious photography though. Because DX ***really sucks***.... (at least to me)
Anders
Edit: I should add.... from D200 to ZD... colors, DR, exposure latitude... pleasure work with files. The feeling of being back to PHOTOGRAPHING AGAIN , a real upgrade to my F100, not the crappy D50 or D200.... feeling of focuse on photographing instead of gear... then ZD issue... and D3... Mmmm.... can 1Ds Mk III or D3??? high resolution of 20-24MP be same??? Any comment????
Edit #2: Looking throught my near 500 selection of images from my grand photographic journey in 2003: travel round the world for 2.5 months with my F100. That is when I picked up Velvia 50. Awesome. Most of those photos I could have made with a medium format and to higher quality (of course now I propably have more skills in photography ). Yet, parts of photos I would have not been able to capture with medium format. It is all trade offs. The added quality is nice... but all tradeoffs... The question is what is right tool for our needs. Digital has really throwed me off there. F100 and Velvia was simple, but too small now. AND, it took me months full time to scan the slides from that trip... 80 rolls.... although not all photos at full resolution. That journey though is what taught me photography. Before and after it I read John Shaw and others. It was amazing what I had learnt on the run... Now though I try be more slective in photos:P
Truth is, in some ways I should have stayed FILM. Digital makes me more consider gear. What I really enjoy is taking photo; PHOTOGRAPHY. Now lets see... what FILM?? Velvia in my Mamiya 7 for sure. Then SENSOR... ZD, Nikon 20+ MP, Canon 1Ds Mk III... or does it really matter... as long as solid for many years????
-
Maybe it's just me or I have a bad day.
I always loved visiting this forum because it was one of the few places that talked about Medium format in a very positive way.
The last few days however I'm getting more and more the feeling the Medium format system is laughed at and the photographers using it downgraded to guys who are blind, believe in the placebo effect or just don't know what they are doing.
To be honest, it bugs me so I made this post.
I understand that most people don't use MF, for several reasons.
HOWEVER why is it so difficult to just believe the differences.
If it was IMPOSSIBLE to detect the difference between a MF system and a DSLR why do people spend so much money for an according to most inferieur system ?
Looking at the level of the MF shooters (mostly pros with great work) it can't be that they are all crazy or seeing makebelieve stories......
Just had to post this sorry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frank,
I guess I am amongst those who have antagonised you. Sorry if I've offended you. My intention is really just to get at the truth.
Let me explain my position. I have no doubt that a larger sensor with more pixels will tend to produce clearer, sharper, smoother and generally more impressive results, especially when coupled with a lens that is at least the equal of the 35mm equivalent.
You've shown some impressive images in that other thread but I'm not so inexperienced as to believe that 'impressive' means better than an unseen image from another camera that is not yet available.
The placebo effect is a very real effect. It's estimated that around 30% (on average) of the efficacy of tried and tested antibiotics is due to the placebo effect. Those who have complete faith in acapuncture can undergo major operations without an anesthetic.
When people who are used to shooting with MF equipment and who find it easier to be creative when looking at a screen with both eyes instead of squinting through a viewfinder with one eye, and who can afford to buy the best equipment without much deliberation, then I don't necessarily expect them to be able to demonstrate those subtle differences between the lower end MFDB and the higher end 35mm DSLR.
But it would be nice if they would try .
-
LOL at Mark,
Still waiting for that bloody cab
Don't feel I'm angry or antagonised, I'm not.
I do find it strange however that there is so much doubt and discussion.
Or maybe it's just me I guess.
Maybe my 5D sucked
I'm not afraid my MF will be taken away, although I will guard it with my life now untill the cab arrives that is (can you trust a cabbie over there ?)
I was just stunned by the explosion I witnessed the last few days, never thought it could happen with a subject like this.
-
Maybe it's just me or I have a bad day.
I always loved visiting this forum because it was one of the few places that talked about Medium format in a very positive way.
The last few days however I'm getting more and more the feeling the Medium format system is laughed at and the photographers using it downgraded to guys who are blind, believe in the placebo effect or just don't know what they are doing.
To be honest, it bugs me so I made this post.
I understand that most people don't use MF, for several reasons.
HOWEVER why is it so difficult to just believe the differences.
If it was IMPOSSIBLE to detect the difference between a MF system and a DSLR why do people spend so much money for an according to most inferieur system ?
Looking at the level of the MF shooters (mostly pros with great work) it can't be that they are all crazy or seeing makebelieve stories......
Just had to post this sorry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frank,
I may get skewered for this but here it goes: I would not call the dslr system inferior- it is different. Perhaps this is one of the problem that is fueling the debate. Essentially you have told people on several forum boards that the 645afd2ZD, and now the Mamiya-Leaf combo "smokes" Canon. You also indicated that the 3D look of mf digital was a major reason for you making the switch. There are plenty of people who feel that with either "exotic " glass (which you acknowleged you had not tried) or with appropriate post processing and adjustments to things like micro contrast and contrast among others, using Canon lenses, that they can or have been able to achieve greater dimensionality in their images. I don't remember it, but nowhere in those early post where you were singing the praises of Mf digital was the concept of lighting as it related to the sense of dimension mentioned.
The discussion regarding the 1ds3 sample has also been interesting but imo meaningless, as images and crops taken with the stellar 110 RZ lens, and the outstanding 645 af 120 macro , are pitted against a shot that is 1) less than optimal and 2) was taken with a wonderful lens at an aperture which was not meant to show the greatest detail.
You have in this forum have equated artistry with Mf digital: Mf digital equals artist, dslr equals photographer. Some may agree with that, and some may find that notion pretty elitist. There are plenty of artist out there who use a variety of formats and media--like film. There are also plenty of people out here for whom the cost of admission to MF digital is unacceptibly high, unaffordable, or impractical for multiple reasons. While I applaud your enthusiasm and your willingness to share your experiences as you try new tools, I can't help but wonder whether some of the reactions which are bothering you are the cumulative effects of dialogue (some of which may have been taken out of context) that you have been in part and or directly responsible for over the past three or so months.
The fact is that none of these formats are "the be all, end all" and the cameras aren't either. The EOS system may be more versatile, but it is not perfect, nor are the MF options. It comes down to choosing the appropriate system which your wallet will support and will allow you to achieve your vision. Too often the discussion between digital formats, mirror the discussions within formats: 1.5 or 1.6 vs. full frame, with no definitive conclusion and with some people feeling some of what you have articulated .
What difference does it matter what other people think about what you are shooting with? If it makes you happy and you are able to satisfy your clients, that's all that matters.
And as for people not being able to see the difference between the dimensionality of a mf digital and dslr image: people see different degrees of things when they look at anything. Take an image of a reclining woman: Some people see a pretty woman in the image and that's all they see. Other people may be able to see beyond that and notice the folds in the fabric which gives dress shape or how the light falls on the hair and makes it pop. On the other hand, some people may not even think the woman is pretty, or find the pose is flattering or even interesting. We are different people with different ideas and different vision.
Regards.
-
I was just stunned by the explosion I witnessed the last few days, never thought it could happen with a subject like this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
Frank, In reality I think you may inadvertantly started the MF/DSLR war with your earlier comparison of the 5D to the ZD (something akin to the guy with his mystical WMDs). I'm still tickled you got a (albeit 14 bit) A22.
Mark T, I've looked at your website. Had your work been done with polaroid as in (2) 600 SEs I would have been suitably impressed, I actually mean that in a nice way, just to give you something to think about other then DMF.
In the meantime, we are all doomed to read these MF/DSLR rants until us MF'ers sign either sign-off, or until October 18th (US time) when the real business of the Hy6/AFi warms up. I'm optomistic that we all have allot to look forward to.
David
-
Put down the bottle, Frank, take the bullet out of the chamber, and step away from the bar. We called you a cab, and it'll be here soon.
The truth is a hard thing to hear.
Now go home, get a shower, brush your teeth, get some sleep, and it'll all be fine in the morning. No one's taking away your MF camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138378\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark is one of only a handful of photographers who could make superb images with a Hoga or Quaker Oats pin hole camera, not to mention a Canon 1DS. For the rest of us we may well indeed need the advantage of MFDB affords.
What keeps me interested in Medium Format is the real estate in the viewfinder, it slows me down and I think a little clearer about what I am trying to create. The slightly greater quailty doesn't hurt either.
db
-
I have to say that for most work, in final print or on the screen you might not see a difference.. nor would you see a difference between a film 2-and-quarter and 8x10 film, resolution-wise..but in original form, how I see it, how it is delivered, a good art director, production manager, art buyer, etc.. how they will see it, there is a difference..if mfdb gives me a superior image for my portfolio then I want it..and it does, period.
most guys don't need it if thinking only about final media by that client on that day..but I think that is short sighted for photographers who do work which ranges from 72dpi web stuff to spead ads or larger pos pieces to shoot one format and that a small one.
I was once shooting a job for the web and the client came back in 6 months and wanted it for
sales brochure and trade show display... well my then d1 and tiny little tiffs were not up for the task, my now leica/dmr would make it..with help.. more suited for my rollei and mfdb..
-
Medium format throws out of focus more rapid than the 135 based digital, does it not? because of the different multiplication factor or... angle from sensor for "equal" lens? That makes difference also...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=138397\")
Just for comparison, here is a silly little personal project I did several years ago. No idea what camera it was; probably the original 1ds. But the lens was the 85 1.2, shot wide open. Streetcorner, available light. Dimension and fall-off is appealing to me. It ain't 8x10, but those people never would have waited for me to stumble around and load holders:
[a href=\"http://www.marktucker.com/07faces/]http://www.marktucker.com/07faces/[/url]
Could this have been shot with the Hasselblad 100mm 2.2, or the Contax 80 at f2, with medium-format? Certainly. But clearly, this one Canon lens has a unique look to it, and unlike other fast Canon lenses, at wide open, it's still tack sharp.
-
MF has the resolution, 3D, sharpness without artifacts (actually technically this is the MAIN advantage of MF vs 135 or at least the 20 vs 39 MP argument.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138379\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I used a H3 with the 39M back and was appalled by the nasty artifacting at 400 ISO. Yuck. So not quite the case.
As for the software Hasselblad provide. FlexColour is one of the worst bits of software I've ever used. I'm sure the name is a misprint. Surely it's Flexcolour 0.47, not 4.7, judging by the interface and 'usability'. I'm just using it now, what an awful programme.
-
Just for comparison, here is a silly little personal project I did several years ago. No idea what camera it was; probably the original 1ds. But the lens was the 85 1.2, shot wide open. Streetcorner, available light. Dimension and fall-off is appealing to me. It ain't 8x10, but those people never would have waited for me to stumble around and load holders:
http://www.marktucker.com/07faces/ (http://www.marktucker.com/07faces/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138419\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I like it. Nice. Real people. Great idea!
I have done something similar but with the 503 with WLF. I noticed people on the street react very positively on being photographed that way. Maybe the (in their eyes) big antique-looking camera takes the edge of being photographed. Like they think you are less threatening and just a silly person (which might be not too far fram the truth).
-
I have to say that for most work, in final print or on the screen you might not see a difference.. nor would you see a difference between a film 2-and-quarter and 8x10 film, resolution-wise..but in original form, how I see it, how it is delivered, a good art director, production manager, art buyer, etc.. how they will see it, there is a difference..if mfdb gives me a superior image for my portfolio then I want it..and it does, period.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138417\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Some of the most popular images in my folio were taken on an Ixus II. That's a 2.1m auto everything camera. So what was your point again?
Obviously for billboards/car photography A MF back will be better from a quality point of view, but better images... that's another issue.
I do think the fact that with MF DB, your shoot rate is lower and the usually cameras are clumsier and slower to work with is what makes for a different picture taking experience. Shooting slower can be a very good thing. It makes for a more considered photograph. I always found my hit rate for my Pentax 6x7 was as good per roll as it was for a roll of 35mm. I had less shots, so I took more care per shot. Making MF DBs as fast as a DSLR may not be a good thing.
-
The last few days however I'm getting more and more the feeling the Medium format system is laughed at and the photographers using it downgraded to guys who are blind, believe in the placebo effect or just don't know what they are doing.
To be honest, it bugs me so I made this post.
I understand that most people don't use MF, for several reasons.
HOWEVER why is it so difficult to just believe the differences.
If it was IMPOSSIBLE to detect the difference between a MF system and a DSLR why do people spend so much money for an according to most inferieur system ?
Whoa, Frank, you're blowing this way out of proportion. Nobody is disputing whether a P45 will outperform a 1Ds-II head to head in the studio looking at the files at 100%. If that wasn't a given, anyone doing business with Phase would have to be absolutely retarded. But when you claim that the differences are so great that they are obvious even in web JPEGs, somebody's gonna call bulls**t, because that's what that claim is.
MFDBs are great in studio where light is plentiful, the pace of shooting is deliberate, huge prints are demanded, and budgets are large. But switch over to a concert where strobes are verboten, ISO 1600 or higher is necessary, the action is frenetic, and fast-reacting and highly accurate autofocus is a necessity to keep the action in focus, and I guarantee that a 1Ds-II or -III will beat the P45 like a red-headed stepchild. Each system has its strengths and weaknesses, and touting either one as being unequivocally superior is wrong-headed.
-
I believe a lot of it has to do with incredulity and experiences from other mediums. I made the comparison to high-end audiophiles in another thread. They are reviled by anyone outside that clique - and for a good reason, as their claims don't hold up in double-blind studies, and even the ones do are so marginal as to be meaningless in the real world. I'm afraid some MFDB owners are (probably inadvertently) aligning themselves as the kooks of the camera world. The "cause" is hurt by people who make unsubstantiated or unfalsifiable claims, such as the oft-repeated "3D-look," or who claim they can consistently tell the difference from a web-sized JPEG.
My experience shooting MF (6x6 Provia out of my Mamiya C220 which is about my age) is somewhat limited, and I have zero experience with MFDB. I'd shoot a lot more, but I've come to the conclusion that spending money on travelling and dSLR glass is a better long-term photography investment than film for me. But the scans I have are absolutely stunning, and 35mm film or 30D doesn't come even close. So I have little doubt that MFDBs produce superior results.
And another biggie is the price: for the vast majority of shooters - whether they're pros or not - justifying a massive investment on a tool that's quite specialized and offers just a marginal quality improvement doesn't make sense.
-
Sensor vs sensor in a studio environment (most likely 50 or 100ISO), which is what the new 1DsMkIII is purporting to compete in as stated in the original thread,
medium format backs are still going to take the cake in terms of image quality alone.
All of us who use MF know that MF (slower) works differently from 35mmm but there are compromises made.
I don't know why there are so many people who are so worked up
I wonder if half the people have even used a MF camera before.
And I would never make a judgement on the quality of a file from a camera without actually having TESTED the camera+file myself.
Feels abit like dpreview right now...
-
Somehow what I say is not understood correctly I'm afraid.
I'm not meaning it in a harsch way, I also did not realise that with the 5D vs ZD I started it, hope not any way
I love my 5D and will not let go of it, indeed for all those sessions I need higher ISO more portability, but I shot both side to side in a few sessions and somehow the 5D is just flatter that was what I was getting at.
I don't want to start a war, let alone be in the middle of it.
When I made the switch I thought that the people using it saw the same things I did, even on webformats. Than again I have to admit that I see it because I know exactly what my 5D gives me and comparing it to the Aptus or the ZD I saw the difference.
Giving just a picture is indeed incredibly difficult to judge, let alone on webformat. However even in the survey posted on this forum some shots jumped out to me as having incredible depth, I would love to see which ones were actually shot with MF and which with DSLRs
Again I'm not offended, I'm not defending, I was just curious and a little bit overwhelmed with what happens to be a DSLR vs MF while I'm more a photographer that sees it as horses for courses, I would not think of bringing the MF to a concert, however with a wedding I would bring both.
I can't pick one favorite camera to be honest, I do know what I like in good light
Sorry to have started this, I never meant to make the cut on photographers and artists but somehow it got picked up like that and that's is actually not what I meant. What I meant was that I know alot of people who are seeing photography soley as WORK I would also in that case NEVER EVER upgraded to MF.
However I have a passion for what I do and I'm in many ways someone that wants to have the best quality it can be even if I'm publishing for web, so it was more a crime of passion
By the way, the Aptus 22 is as far as I know a 16 bit system not a 14 bit system.
-
While some of the veterans around here may have started to find the thread under discussion to be contentious, I found it fascinating and informative.
As a relative newby to digital, (although I've been a portrait photographer mainly with Hasselblad and 4x5 for 30 years) I welcome the discussions and the comparisons to help me make some of my difficult decision which direction to head in the digital maze.
Presently I scan 6x6, and shoot personal stuff with a Nikon D200, but I am now planning to buy the new 1Ds Mk3 when it comes out. I have been debating for some time whether to get a digital back for my Hasselblad, or buy a ZD camera but with the announcement of new Canon I think that would be my best choice.
That being said, I still plan on buying a digital back within the next year or so because I too can see, on large prints that there is indeed a quailty that MF has over DSLR.
So thank you, and keep up the discussions.
Michael
-
I believe a lot of it has to do with incredulity and experiences from other mediums. I made the comparison to high-end audiophiles in another thread. They are reviled by anyone outside that clique - and for a good reason, as their claims don't hold up in double-blind studies, and even the ones do are so marginal as to be meaningless in the real world. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've auditioned high end hi-fi and the differences and extra information you can hear with good systems compared to less expensive kit is very, very noticeable. Just like when you use a 10x8 compared top a point and shoot camera.
But then I have good hearing and have looked after it, which may be a big factor in my ability to hear differences in hi-fi kit. Maybe you should get your ears syringed and go and have a listen for yourself, rather than base claims on spurious tests.
This is not to say inexpensive hi-fi cannot sound good or even better than more expensive kit as it can. Daft claims are made by salespeople in all industries so are all industries 'reviled'?
'Reviled', what a ridiculous claim. Anyone who is not interested and therefore outside 'that clique', couldn't care less would be a more sensible and less hyperbolic phrase.
People who use 10x8 + 5x4 - are they also a clique who are reviled for their claims that they see more details in images created by their esoteric cameras?
My experience shooting MF (6x6 Provia out of my Mamiya C220 which is about my age) is somewhat limited, and I have zero experience with MFDB. I'd shoot a lot more, but I've come to the conclusion that spending money on travelling and dSLR glass is a better long-term photography investment than film for me. But the scans I have are absolutely stunning, and 35mm film or 30D doesn't come even close. So I have little doubt that MFDBs produce superior results.
Your limited experience is showing you up. You are making assumptions based on poor analogies.
36x24mm film = 864mm square
60x60mm film = 3600mm square
So MF film is over 4 times bigger and therefore much better.
48x48mm Sensor = 2304mm square the biggest current MF sensor size I believe which is just over 2.6 times the size, many are only twice the size.
Your view also ignores the fact that film cameras can use the same capture medium. Digital cameras have different sensors and some designs are superior. So if Canon or Nikon or Sigma...have the best sensors, they don't need to be as big as Hasselblad or Phase or leaf or...
I have used both A 48x48mm sensor [not too much admittedly] and a 35mm sensor. And you know what, I'm very underwhelmed by the quality. Even at 200 IS0 there is a nasty mottling like as if I used a tacky PS filter on the out of focus areas. The sharp bits are quite nice, but the background ugh! Add a bit of grain and it looks lovely, but that's not what most people want from a high res camera.
-
I've auditioned high end hi-fi and the differences and extra information you can hear with good systems compared to less expensive kit is very, very noticeable. Just like when you use a 10x8 compared top a point and shoot camera.
But then I have good hearing and have looked after it, which may be a big factor in my ability to hear differences in hi-fi kit. Maybe you should get your ears syringed and go and have a listen for yourself, rather than base claims on spurious tests.
This is not to say inexpensive hi-fi cannot sound good or even better than more expensive kit as it can. Daft claims are made by salespeople in all industries so are all industries 'reviled'?
'Reviled', what a ridiculous claim. Anyone who is not interested and therefore outside 'that clique', couldn't care less would be a more sensible and less hyperbolic phrase.
People who use 10x8 + 5x4 - are they also a clique who are reviled for their claims that they see more details in images created by their esoteric cameras?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138448\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree, dismissing an entire group of people because of your ignorance is the hight of arrogance. Really the fact that you can't tell the difference between high and low end audio is o.k. but it does mean you dont really have a valid opinion about it because your ears really can't be that good, the differences aren't small.
-
What keeps me interested in Medium Format is the real estate in the viewfinder, it slows me down and I think a little clearer about what I am trying to create. The slightly greater quailty doesn't hurt either.
db
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Believe me: I have trained myself to make this a non-factor. I surely miss my MF cameras, especially my 680, but I have become a very effective shooter with those bastard Canons, shooting both landscape & life style images. Prior to my "digital change over" I rarely shot 35 format. I mean RARELY. Sure the new III with a promised larger viewfinder is going to make me run to get one but the thought of using MF day-in/day-out in what I do scares the hell out of me. And with the ever changing landscape of technology I am not going to stayed married to any gear, thus my collection will remain at a minium from here on. I just don't see a MFDB fitting this policy of mine, regardless of the final product it produces.
I will say that many who have stated the case for a DB on a MF camera have probably chosen the right tools for their situation. If you have the type of jobs that need MF and allow you to pay for the gear in a 12-18 month period (I mean pay for it - no "funny photographer's numbers - like it paid for itself in one job - BS") then you have made the right choice. No need to sweat this issue.
Great stuff everyone - best threads I have read here in a long time.
Ken Gehle
-
I've auditioned high end hi-fi and the differences and extra information you can hear with good systems compared to less expensive kit is very, very noticeable. Just like when you use a 10x8 compared top a point and shoot camera.
But then I have good hearing and have looked after it, which may be a big factor in my ability to hear differences in hi-fi kit. Maybe you should get your ears syringed and go and have a listen for yourself, rather than base claims on spurious tests.
This is not to say inexpensive hi-fi cannot sound good or even better than more expensive kit as it can. Daft claims are made by salespeople in all industries so are all industries 'reviled'?
'Reviled', what a ridiculous claim. Anyone who is not interested and therefore outside 'that clique', couldn't care less would be a more sensible and less hyperbolic phrase.
People who use 10x8 + 5x4 - are they also a clique who are reviled for their claims that they see more details in images created by their esoteric cameras?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=138448\")
I fell for one of my own pet peeves: don't use comparisons as you end up debating the comparison instead of the issue at hand. Oh well...
I wasn't clear enough: I was comparing high-end audiophiles to audiophiles - in camera world that would translate to 1Ds owners vs. P45 owners.
I shoot guns so my hearing is shot. But I challenge you to produce a valid double-blind study showing that difference between a €5.000 and €50.000 audio system is discernible to anyone but a few pairs of golden ears in a listening room.
And yes, I stand by the claim that high-end audiophiles are [a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A58447-2001Jun12]reviled pretty much everywhere[/url].
-
I fell for one of my own pet peeves: don't use comparisons as you end up debating the comparison instead of the issue at hand. Oh well...
I wasn't clear enough: I was comparing high-end audiophiles to audiophiles - in camera world that would translate to 1Ds owners vs. P45 owners.
I shoot guns so my hearing is shot. But I challenge you to produce a valid double-blind study showing that difference between a €5.000 and €50.000 audio system is discernible to anyone but a few pairs of golden ears in a listening room.
And yes, I stand by the claim that high-end audiophiles are reviled pretty much everywhere (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A58447-2001Jun12).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One sensational and contradictory article is not exactly 'pretty much everywhere' and when journalists are talking about specifics they often show how little they know, so I take even less notice than usual. Having said that, it does not claim there is no difference as you do. The reporter admits the one kit sounds 'amazing' and this is another quote "Can you hear it? It's amazing, isn't it? It feels relaxed. People can't believe all that sound is coming from these speakers."
He's right. The music sounds like it's coming from everywhere. It feels round, vibrant and alive. The experience sort of tickles and is a little eerie; it seems like there's a pianist and a drummer in the room and you can't see them. All this tickling and eeriness, by the way, costs $50,000.
The journalist is not exactly 'reviling' the systems and listeners here. The only negative comments were by a bitter chap who'd been hard done by in that business.
A good example of newspaper 'accuracy', last week many of the national British papers including the quality press printed pictures taken by some cute animal in the zoo [I forget which one]. A big picture with the camera the critter used, with animal sitting on it was also shown and this gifted animal managed to get several shots onto the memory card, despite the camera used being very obviously a film camera.
The newpaper articles are still online
There are huge differences in sound between 2 different £5,000 systems, so another more expensive one will also probably sound different. As to better, that's another and completely different matter. I can tell them HiFis apart, but as your hearing is shot, you will simply have to take my word for the fact there are big differences.
-
I fell for one of my own pet peeves: don't use comparisons as you end up debating the comparison instead of the issue at hand. Oh well...
I wasn't clear enough: I was comparing high-end audiophiles to audiophiles - in camera world that would translate to 1Ds owners vs. P45 owners.
I shoot guns so my hearing is shot. But I challenge you to produce a valid double-blind study showing that difference between a €5.000 and €50.000 audio system is discernible to anyone but a few pairs of golden ears in a listening room.
And yes, I stand by the claim that high-end audiophiles are reviled pretty much everywhere (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A58447-2001Jun12).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If your hearing is shot how can you have opinions about high end audio? I'd stick to things you know something about if I were you. (are we getting a little off topic here?)
-
If your hearing is shot how can you have opinions about high end audio? I'd stick to things you know something about if I were you. (are we getting a little off topic here?)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138465\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Double-blind studies.
-
I will be honest, I only read a few post, and skipped the rest on this thread and the other thread. I could careless what the canon/nikon guys have to say about MFDB. They should spend less time around here and more time at DPreviw. They are just like religious people telling me I have to convert or go to hell. If you would just stop reading and responding to the trash, it would all end. I know the quality of my work with a MFDB is far superior to other photographers shooting the same type of work with DSLR.
P.S. I am also an Audiophile, so I guess I am going to hell.
-
It will be a happy place in hell
I'm a videophile and audio lover
-
let's throw a little more gas on the fire
I really feel my Audio Research SP-10, D-79, D 200 , Linn and Infinity SRS Betas are jsut about as much better than a Bose and Bang and Olafsen as Contax 645/P45+ and Zeiss lenses are than Conikon stuff.
It seems many of the high end audio, and Photo MF owners hear feel the same.
If we are wrong about it being better, it almost doesn't matter, 'cause guess what
1. we have it
2. we use it
3. we appreciate it
It's not really about the image, it's about #3
If the DSLR people feel the same about their gear, then we are ALL winners
Victor
PS. and if the DSLR peopel DON'T feel the same about their gear, maybe time to start saving
:-)
-
I too am very much interested in DMF and I know the diff. I'm waiting on N&C to show their latest and greatest big guns. This as well as Mamiya contribution with the ZD are quickly driving used backs down to reasonable levels. Don't get me wrong, I'll keep a DSLR system for it's versatility. But I also want those big fat no anti aliasing filter files for the fine art in me.
By the way here's a shot from a 4 mp camera that in my eyes shows plenty of the 3d effect. I think lighting and glass plays as much a part as format.
davidbogdan
http://i.pbase.com/u46/davidbogdan/upload/29483201.h2.jpg (http://i.pbase.com/u46/davidbogdan/upload/29483201.h2.jpg)
-
I will be honest, I only read a few post, and skipped the rest on this thread and the other thread. I could careless what the canon/nikon guys have to say about MFDB. They should spend less time around here and more time at DPreviw. They are just like religious people telling me I have to convert or go to hell. If you would just stop reading and responding to the trash, it would all end. I know the quality of my work with a MFDB is far superior to other photographers shooting the same type of work with DSLR.
P.S. I am also an Audiophile, so I guess I am going to hell.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
surrender
-
Now go to my website and listen to the intro music. Was this a cheap or a very very expensive spanish guitar? Please don't count the web quality....
IT WAS A JOKE , IT WAS A JOKE!!! JUST KIDDING ok? Don't do it !!
-
Now go to my website and listen to the intro music. Was this a cheap or a very very expensive spanish guitar? Please don't count the web quality....
IT WAS A JOKE , IT WAS A JOKE!!! JUST KIDDING ok? Don't do it !!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
very expensive. this guitar sounds so 3D as if there would be more than one !!!! phantastic.
good night .....
-
Just for comparison, here is a silly little personal project I did several years ago. No idea what camera it was; probably the original 1ds. But the lens was the 85 1.2, shot wide open. Streetcorner, available light. Dimension and fall-off is appealing to me. It ain't 8x10, but those people never would have waited for me to stumble around and load holders:
http://www.marktucker.com/07faces/ (http://www.marktucker.com/07faces/)
Could this have been shot with the Hasselblad 100mm 2.2, or the Contax 80 at f2, with medium-format? Certainly. But clearly, this one Canon lens has a unique look to it, and unlike other fast Canon lenses, at wide open, it's still tack sharp.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138419\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
Very nice example. It shows it is about vision, does it not? Vision and making into art. Few DSLR users use such lenses, while at MF it is at hand. Finders in MF are much larger, perhaps forcing more vision, and format to slow and think. Yet... either MF / DSLR is compromise and the important is the artist and vision.
Anders
-
For what it's worth, the viewfinder image on the 1ds2 is larger than the viewfinder on the Contax 645. The viewfinder image on the Hasselblad H is larger than Contax, but it's distorted in the corners. Who knows, the 1ds3 viewfinder image might even challenge the size of the Hassie H series.
I'm having fun disputing all the hype about medium format; the list of folklore is long. Yet, after all that, I'm shooting my Phase/Contax every day and loving it.
-
Horses for courses, I just have found that my style and desires in photography are taking me towards the MF course.
If I loved sports and PJ I would be taking a different course.
-
Okay Dutchie.....
I LOVE MY MFDB......A LOT!!!!.....I THINK AND KNOW IT IS BETTER THAN MY DS1MKII
But sometimes I feel the need for speed and got to got to got to DO IT with my canon!
But really who cares what others say or think!! If you see the difference that should be enough.
I see the difference...so I am with you! Bu then again I am Dutch to..eventhough I HATE the Netherlands and the people living in this shitty country...except for my parent of course!! BUT that is my personal opinion! So don't start a tread about this!!LOL
-
As A very long time shooter with every format, I look at peoples work before I put to much credence in there words. Nuff said. How about a used 4X5 a few good lenses and a great new epson scanner. About $2000 total. More Mega pixels than any company will have in 20 years. Im talking landscapes and such of course.
-
Not True, The cost of Film, processing and Polaroid I paid my digital back and camera off with 18 months of digital capture fees.
As A very long time shooter with every format, I look at peoples work before I put to much credence in there words. Nuff said. How about a used 4X5 a few good lenses and a great new epson scanner. About $2000 total. More Mega pixels than any company will have in 20 years. Im talking landscapes and such of course.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138566\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
and 600 hours in post, I would be out of business. But,I understand, Im just talking Quality here, Not numbers of shots or anything like that. This is not a fashion rig. Just another tool in the box. But, were talking HUGE quality here Not 39MP for $30,000. Huge Bit depth, Monster prints. Whole other world. Problem is it doesn't look real cool hanging around your neck. Your friends wont go OOO and Ahhh . Always something. My old hassy 501 with a Vback P45 works pretty good for the other stuff and so does my D2X. Im just talking Big MP and big prints with Major sharpness. for $2000, My job is products. Thats it. Back to you guys.
-
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
-
Why MFD?
Because I like to make strong and lasting impression in the eyes of my models.
Shot this Sunday.
http://AndreNapier.com (http://AndreNapier.com)[attachment=3220:attachment][attachment=3221:attachment]
-
Actually, this to me would be the fairest MFD/DSLR shoot out. To see which system gets the cleanest photog image in the pupil. Andre, is that a 100% or 200% blow up? Looks soft.
Why MFD?
Because I like to make strong and lasting impression in the eyes of my models.
Shot this Sunday.
http://AndreNapier.com (http://AndreNapier.com)[attachment=3220:attachment][attachment=3221:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138757\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Nice shot , great website and wonderful work. The lips are what draws my attention. Maybe your not done with it yet but there badly cracked. None of your other models have that issue, I teach retouching so I could be to critical. Nice work though, Mostly your personal stuff.
-
I recently upgraded my H1D to H3D-31, but not having a chance to test the new equipment yet.
Captured with H1D and HC 50-110mm lens:
[attachment=3222:attachment]
-
I think the dslr only shooters are missing the point. MF has a big beautiful viewfinder, if you have spent most of your career composing photos with a big bright screen to see with, the switch to a dslr would be a major change on how someone works and very disappointing. Also with only a 1/250 sync speed on dslrs, a location shooter who uses flash is left (with compared to the new sinar and leaf cameras) two stops less of flash sync speed. Lastly MFdb files have more meat on them for tweaking, see how much you can crank contrast via curves and how far you can take a blue sky without noise issues on a mfdb file compared to a dslr file. The extra 8 grand is worth it.
-
Why MFD?
Because I like to make strong and lasting impression in the eyes of my models.
Shot this Sunday.
http://AndreNapier.com (http://AndreNapier.com)[attachment=3220:attachment][attachment=3221:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138757\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Superb images on your website Andre!!
-
just to add in...just did a shoot with my 75s last weekend...lovelovelove the meatiness of the images now
I push my curves quite strongly so it's an real eyeopening to have so much more colour information now before the image posterizes.
-
just to add in...just did a shoot with my 75s last weekend...lovelovelove the meatiness of the images now
I push my curves quite strongly so it's an real eyeopening to have so much more colour information now before the image posterizes.
image (http://superhyperreal.com/leaf1.jpg)
100% (http://superhyperreal.com/leaf1up.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139080\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think when fooling heavily whith curves the 16Bit attribute really starts to show as a major positive for MFDBs
jing - your work makes me laugh - a very good thing
S
-
The argument that using a MFDB is more creative as they slow you down dosn't cut it. put a 5d or any other 35mm dslr on a big tripod with a geared head, attach a ts-e lens to it, tether it to a computer and you have very slow. of course having it in green mode with a standard zoom attached handheld lacks all the conrol you might need or wish for, but it gives you a spontaneity which is near impossible with a large MF camera.
-
How about a used 4X5 a few good lenses and a great new epson scanner. About $2000 total.
Assuming the $2000 figure is true, that's before you take your first photo. Film is MORE expensive than digital. Why do you think digital took off before the quality even compared to film?
I live in a country without a 5x4 film retailer and I'm not sure about development. So I'll look at UK prices:
1 pack of 10 sheets of 5x4 film: ~$40 (Robert White)
Development, per sheet: ~$4.50 (The Vault)
So the cost of shooting just 1000 images per year is $8,500 and that doesn't include the cost of many trips to the lab and back, and many hours spent scanning, etc. Clearly this gets expensive quickly. I shoot more like 10,000 images per year. Ouch.
More Mega pixels than any company will have in 20 years. Im talking landscapes and such of course.
Well some people have already compared a 39MP digital back to 5x4 film and there isn't a big difference. Scanning backs are already up to 139MP - ahead of 5x4 quality. I'm fairly confident that the next jump up from 39MP in one shot backs (60MP?) will match 5x4 quality, and it won't take 20 years to happen.
-
I think the dslr only shooters are missing the point. MF has a big beautiful viewfinder, if you have spent most of your career composing photos with a big bright screen to see with, the switch to a dslr would be a major change on how someone works and very disappointing. Also with only a 1/250 sync speed on dslrs, a location shooter who uses flash is left (with compared to the new sinar and leaf cameras) two stops less of flash sync speed. Lastly MFdb files have more meat on them for tweaking, see how much you can crank contrast via curves and how far you can take a blue sky without noise issues on a mfdb file compared to a dslr file. The extra 8 grand is worth it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agreed
-
just to add in...just did a shoot with my 75s last weekend...lovelovelove the meatiness of the images now
I push my curves quite strongly so it's an real eyeopening to have so much more colour information now before the image posterizes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139080\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very good example. nice catch. It shows me a real spaciousness in the full shot that none of the DSLR example have, and of course, the crop
But you all know that. Instead, look at how effortlessly the trees in background are defined.
A bit saturated for me, but no sharpening artifacts to get the clean outlines.
If you tell me that was really a 5D, I will eat,..... well no, maybe I will ask Graham to eat it
:-)
BTW Graham has excellent points from someone who really exploits MF.
regards
Victor
-
Interesting discussion, I'm enjoying it. I've got a Contax 645, Cambo Wide DS (w/ P25) and a 5D. They all have very different looks to them, I'd hate to be limited to just one, particularly the 5D. When it comes to perspective control, I've tried most of the Canon solutions, and let me tell you, nothing comes close to large format lenses and a digital back. Like the Brits say, horses for courses....
On a side note, in the last 2 weeks, I've been on 2 different jobs where the art director (2 different art directors) pulled out a 5D and started taking snaps to evaluate composition, etc. Sure was glad I could pull out something a little more "professional" looking.
-
On a side note, in the last 2 weeks, I've been on 2 different jobs where the art director (2 different art directors) pulled out a 5D and started taking snaps to evaluate composition, etc. Sure was glad I could pull out something a little more "professional" looking.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139113\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If any of you guys here think you're being hired because of the type of camera that you shoot, instead of the sum total of your production abilities, lighting skill, people skills, composition skills, etc, you've got much larger issues. In a successful career, the camera used is about two percent of the equation.
-
On a side note, in the last 2 weeks, I've been on 2 different jobs where the art director (2 different art directors) pulled out a 5D and started taking snaps to evaluate composition, etc. Sure was glad I could pull out something a little more "professional" looking.
Interesting........no offense but.......whether I pull out a 5D, a Hassleblad or a 4x5, no one questions my choice, because they know I will use the right tool for the job. As the leading professional in my field in my region for 29 years, I inform my clients what camera I need to use. I don't buy cameras to try and look more professional than my clients or in fact to impress my clients at all. I have had many clients and students over the years that had better cameras than I do. It doesn't mean they know what to do with it.
-
can not find me delete botton.
-
Assuming the $2000 figure is true, that's before you take your first photo. Film is MORE expensive than digital. Why do you think digital took off before the quality even compared to film?
I live in a country without a 5x4 film retailer and I'm not sure about development. So I'll look at UK prices:
1 pack of 10 sheets of 5x4 film: ~$40 (Robert White)
Development, per sheet: ~$4.50 (The Vault)
So the cost of shooting just 1000 images per year is $8,500 and that doesn't include the cost of many trips to the lab and back, and many hours spent scanning, etc. Clearly this gets expensive quickly. I shoot more like 10,000 images per year. Ouch.
Well some people have already compared a 39MP digital back to 5x4 film and there isn't a big difference. Scanning backs are already up to 139MP - ahead of 5x4 quality. I'm fairly confident that the next jump up from 39MP in one shot backs (60MP?) will match 5x4 quality, and it won't take 20 years to happen.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Using 4X5 solely for the resolution improvement is missing the point. The real advantage is having complete control of perspecitive and focal plane using movements. You can do things with view cameras built 60 years ago that are simply not possible with the latest DSLR, or the vast majority of MF cameras, including the newer ones designed specifically for digital.
And I bet there aren't very many view camera users who shot 1,000 frames of 4X5 in a year (maybe some architecture specialists, or fine art landscape guys). You just don't pull out your 4X5 and start shooting away blindly. Takes too long to consider all the possibilties, unless you're endowed with the talent and experience of St. Ansel or something. You may even spend a whole day looking for a great shot without ever setting up the camera. At least that's the way I work with them.
And there's the rub. If you only use a 4X5 to take a few dozen shots per year, it's going to be a long, long time before some sort of digital capture process can be justified in economic terms. I think rinderart is absolutely right.
Having said that, if someone comes up with a way to do full movements on a digital camera, for under about $7000, and without requiring some hyper exotic and expensive solution for wide angle lenses, I'll be all over it. But I'm not holding my breath either.
-
Very good point, Mark! i am always amazed by photographers overestimating the client's knowledge about cameras! it might be the work i am doing, but never in my whole carreer the choice of camera came up before we were in deep discussion about the project, so usually after they hired me. usually the only thing they know is the MP figure. and 39 must be better than 13 or 16, right?
-
And I bet there aren't very many view camera users who shot 1,000 frames of 4X5 in a year (maybe some architecture specialists, or fine art landscape guys).
The point is that someone suggested the 4x5 as a cheaper alternative to a digital camera, which means you have to compare based on the same usage.
-
Interesting........no offense but.......whether I pull out a 5D, a Hassleblad or a 4x5, no one questions my choice, because they know I will use the right tool for the job. As the leading professional in my field in my region for 29 years, I inform my clients what camera I need to use. I don't buy cameras to try and look more professional than my clients or in fact to impress my clients at all. I have had many clients and students over the years that had better cameras than I do. It doesn't mean they know what to do with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very nice 'Sante Fe' work on your site Kirk..
Gary.
-
The point is that someone suggested the 4x5 as a cheaper alternative to a digital camera, which means you have to compare based on the same usage.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139341\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But you wouldn't use it in the same way, so not realistic.
Besides the main reason people shoot so many frames now, is because it doesn't cost in the same way to take more pictures.
Machine gun photography does not make you a better shooter.
The argument that using a MFDB is more creative as they slow you down dosn't cut it. put a 5d or any other 35mm dslr on a big tripod with a geared head, attach a ts-e lens to it, tether it to a computer and you have very slow. of course having it in green mode with a standard zoom attached handheld lacks all the conrol you might need or wish for, but it gives you a spontaneity which is near impossible with a large MF camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139084\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not about more creativity, it's about taking more care over the few frames you have when using MF or the fact that with MFDB, the camera is slower compared to a 1D3, so you cannot just machine gun away and hope to get a nice pic, which is what some people do. By taking more care over each shot, you get less duff shots and maybe more good shots than the rapid shooter with motordrive on. Spontaneity is good for some shots, but not all.
Just use the appropriate tool for the job. Just like Kirk mentioned above.
Besides in a studio where you tend to find MFDBs, waiting for lights to recycle is probably the limit to shooting quickly, not necessarily the camera.
-
If any of you guys here think you're being hired because of the type of camera that you shoot, instead of the sum total of your production abilities, lighting skill, people skills, composition skills, etc, you've got much larger issues. In a successful career, the camera used is about two percent of the equation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139122\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark, I agree with you. Having seen your work, I'd guess you could probably make some really compelling images with a point and shoot. I can count the number of times I'be been asked what I'm shooting with on one hand. But I'm just saying that, as pros, we are expected to have professional tools. When the client uses the same camera as you use on location to shoot the family snaps at Disney World, you've just lost some creditability in the eyes of the client. It's just my opinion, and I'm not trying to agrue with you, but small as it may be, it is a factor.
ps - I am a fan of your work, very nice stuff on your web page
-
If any of you guys here think you're being hired because of the type of camera that you shoot, instead of the sum total of your production abilities, lighting skill, people skills, composition skills, etc, you've got much larger issues. In a successful career, the camera used is about two percent of the equation.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=139122\")
Well Mark I guess it depends on where you look and who you ask.
In this article
[a href=\"http://www.news.com/underexposed/8301-13580_3-9771378-39.html]http://www.news.com/underexposed/8301-1358...9771378-39.html[/url]
on CNET by a writer praising the value of the microstock market , an astute reader offered this amazing comment:
"Especially about the elitist comment. The only true difference between an "amateur" and a "pro" in the pre-digital age really was the ability to afford the equipment. Having the financial means to buy the equipment, learn the craft and to develop countless photos in the darkroom to hone your skills gives you an invaluable edge over someone has the artistic ability, but not the financial means. Now digital photography is drastically reducing the barriers to entry in this long overpriced field. Physicists ARE elite because they possess real, valuable, measurable analytical skills that the average person does not possess -- and this can be quantified by all sorts of tests.
"Pro" photographers are distinguished solely by their ability to afford "pro" equipment. The market is bearing this out as we speak. Good!"
-
The issue about art directors is complicated by the fact that many of the are failed or real artists. They have compositional talent, ability to judge colour etc. Give them a point and shoot and a vacation and they will make some very interesting images. Give them Photoshop and they can probably run circles around most of the members of this forum. So exactly how can you impress them ? The ability to deliver repeatable consistent quality is a skill one, that any true artist despises
And thn I have a question: How many of you have actually tried a point and shoot with studio strobes ?
Edmund
-
And thn I have a question: How many of you have actually tried a point and shoot with studio strobes ?
I have. A Pocket Wizard or 550EX on an Olympus SP-550 looks rather silly, but makes a huge difference in the resulting images. I don't have the files handy, but it's surprising how well a cheapo digicam can perform when you can optimize the lighting to get good exposure at the lowest ISO setting. The biggest reason digicam shots usually look horrible is lighting; weak, red-eye inducing on-camera flash combined with high ISO setting and the accompanying noise. Studio lighting drastically reduces both of those issues, leaving the lens as the greatest image quality bottleneck.