Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ixpressraf on November 25, 2008, 02:13:07 pm
-
-
-
Any item is only worth what people are willing to pay. I'm trying to sell a Profoto Pro7a and Pro7 head. Retails for $11000 US. I got one offer for $2000. I almost choked on my breakfast I was laughing so hard
Unfortunately, if I can't find anyone willing to pay my asking price, then my items simply are not worth my asking price, no matter what. Luckily, I can afford to sit on the equipment and wait for consumer confidence to rebound. I would rather do that than drop $2000 off my price just to get a quick sale.
-
Well, the recession is here and if I was to buy an old digital back, multishot or not, I wouldn't pay all that much for it at this point. 1 year ago, maybe. But honestly with all the new tools coming in the next 2 months to 2 years, and older digital back doesn't sound as appealing anymore. kind of one trick ponies. Its not that a digital back isn't useful, but its a very specific tool when I'm finding that the way I've been able to stay afloat is to not just specialize, but to spread out my reach a little bit and be flexible. I'm shooting products and people right now and working on a movie as a DP. That being said, I don't think its necessarily sad, but if you're trying to sell a back it might be.
-
Dear forum users, i am a bit puzzled. I am about to sell or more exact trying to sell or even putting for sale some of my wonderfull used digiback's but it seems 2nd hand market has collapsed also. I have a 528c, wich is a multishot back from hasselblad/Imacon for sale and i thought that about 6500 euro would be a realistic asking price for a back that has multishot, microstep and comes with an adapter at choice( contax 645 or hassieH ). But no! some people are convinced that it is worth only 4000 euro. They seem to forget what a back such as this cost's at the moment or what is the trade in valeu when buing a new big back.
Do other people have the same feeling about the ridiculous prices they get for fine good equipment? Or is it just me???? It really puts me down becaurse this means that also professional photography is in the downwoarts spiral as 35mm equipment is for a few years.
A sad belgian photographer....
there is a flood of the smaller ixpress on ebay now..I doubt they will get 2,00euro..good backs but over 3-5 years old now.
with no trade in anymore from manufactures.. the true resale value of these will soon be painfully evident.
I would take what you can get today for it, because it will not go up in value..sorry to say. MF Digital equipment is finally reflecting the de-inflationary reality of the photo industry.. sad but true.
-
-
-
For 4500 I will take it off your hands No kidding, I had my totally overhauled CF39 for sale for quite awhile. Nobody interested unless I would give it away. I have kept it as a backup. The inability to trade-up nowadays will have to create a 2nd hand market but at this moment I think many people are waiting until the dust clears to see what are reasonable prices.
Lastly, people are feared they are or will be affected by a recession. Not exactly the climate in which many will be making big purchases. Makes you wonder how much new sales are impacted.
Ah well, I don't really care. I am set for the moment and have focussed my investments on glass & light for the near future. I had the best year ever, don't expect next year to be as good and it doesn't have to. Would be great if it is naturally
It is amazing how many people believe you need the latest and most expensive back to get great results. There are not that many new backs that will match the quality of the 528 in 4-shot, even in single shot it delivers excellent results.
-
Dear forum users, i am a bit puzzled. I am about to sell or more exact trying to sell or even putting for sale some of my wonderfull used digiback's but it seems 2nd hand market has collapsed also. I have a 528c, wich is a multishot back from hasselblad/Imacon for sale and i thought that about 6500 euro would be a realistic asking price for a back that has multishot, microstep and comes with an adapter at choice( contax 645 or hassieH ). But no! some people are convinced that it is worth only 4000 euro. They seem to forget what a back such as this cost's at the moment or what is the trade in valeu when buing a new big back.
Do other people have the same feeling about the ridiculous prices they get for fine good equipment? Or is it just me???? It really puts me down becaurse this means that also professional photography is in the downwoarts spiral as 35mm equipment is for a few years.
A sad belgian photographer....
Do you know how much this back is worth if you trade it in for a new big H'blad? (rhetorical question obviously...)
Yair
-
For 4500 I will take it off your hands No kidding, I had my totally overhauled CF39 for sale for quite awhile. Nobody interested unless I would give it away. I have kept it as a backup. The inability to trade-up nowadays will have to create a 2nd hand market but at this moment I think many people are waiting until the dust clears to see what are reasonable prices.
Lastly, people are feared they are or will be affected by a recession. Not exactly the climate in which many will be making big purchases. Makes you wonder how much new sales are impacted.
Ah well, I don't really care. I am set for the moment and have focussed my investments on glass & light for the near future. I had the best year ever, don't expect next year to be as good and it doesn't have to. Would be great if it is naturally
It is amazing how many people believe you need the latest and most expensive back to get great results. There are not that many new backs that will match the quality of the 528 in 4-shot, even in single shot it delivers excellent results.
I would be very tempted at 4500 as well - let me know if you don't sell it to dustbak.
btw yaya suggests tradein price.. even if hasselblad would give him one at this point..instead of
getting some cash back from the intitial investment he would be looking at what 14 thousand euro to upgrade
to a new back that gives you as good as files? the manufactures love those terms - and I would love to see a direct comparison
between this multishot back against anything just released....bring it on!
-
How much is it worth when buing a Afi10????? maybe that would be an option.....
-
How much is it worth when buing a Afi10????? maybe that would be an option.....
€8,000
-
One would give 4,5k but not 6,5K euro. That means that you do not want to work one or two days extra for the back???? Maybe i better find someone who wants to buy a new expensive back and make a deal with him??
-
i havnt had many bites at my H mount valeo 22 wifi, at only 3800usd. its surprising, and its not worth selling below that amount, i might as well keep it as a back up to my aptus.
fyi, if someone is looking at buying a new p45+ or p65+, its worth 12k as a trade in.
paul
-
The 528C is a terrific back, very nice 4-shot files. Hold onto it. The 528C in 4-shot mode produces a file sharper than a one-shot 39mp back. I looked into buying a used one a year and a half ago and the going rate was around $17K with a Hasselblad one year (maybe 6 month) warranty.
-
I have discussed this with some of my peers, and while the backs seem to produce exemplary image quality, many photographers look at photos as reproduced at point-of-purchase displays, magazines, etc., etc and can not tell which camera was used to shoot what image. For example I just shot something for point-of-purchase for Bergdorf Goodman, Neimans, etc. on a 1Ds3 and it will sit right next to other advertising which was shot with 4x5 film, 39mp back, etc. And photographers go stick their noses up to the prints and can not tell what camera shot what - so why invest in the large clunky expensive stuff? I agree that the shape of 67 or 645 is nicer than 35mm, it feels good to shoot, etc. but when the client nor the consumer can percieve any advantage in terms of end-result IQ, and the economy in the sh*tter, then...no sale! Even on a reasonably priced lightly used back. I mean, I hear this time and time again from other photographers - about the lack of visible difference in the final reproduction, and I usually feel the same myself. (I have owned and rented Leaf, etc., etc.) Clients have not asked me for more pixels or higher IQ in YEARS. And I have shot for some very high end, high budget clients. I think just about the only time most of us can see which camera was used is when someone like Paolo Roversi has been shooting polaroid, or someone is using tilts with their view camera...otherwise, open up a magazine and tell me which camera shot what...for the most part, it's impossible as far as I can tell.
-
I am one of the "non-buyers" in this "unmarket". Having just waited almost 3 weeks to sell a mint Leica M8 for about 60% of what I paid for it less than two years ago, I feel all your pain.
There are three things behind this, as far as I can tell. (i) the economical climate is awful at the moment (be it perception or reality, it matters little) which makes everyone leery of high-dollar value purchases of rapidly depreciating capital items; (ii) 35mm FF has dropped from the 'stratospheric' heights of $8K for a body to the very walkable hilltops of $3K. So, for $3K I can have 22-24MPs, at 3-5fps, with dead-clean images up to 800 and usable up to 3200...... and (iii) many people think Nikon is about to enter the quasi-MF market with an innovative camera in the vein of the Leica S2, but at a price which will blow the MF camera and back makers out of the water. While it's all still vapourware, if Nikon actually lands a 30+MP, more-than-35mm camera for around $10K, the whole game will change. One would expect dead-quick and accurate AF, decent frame-rates, clean high-ISO, and seemless back-body integration. None of which any of the existing MF systems can offer, at any price.
So we are all waiting.....
Might as well go shooting, no?
- N.
-
I have discussed this with some of my peers, and while the backs seem to produce exemplary image quality, many photographers look at photos as reproduced at point-of-purchase displays, magazines, etc., etc and can not tell which camera was used to shoot what image. For example I just shot something for point-of-purchase for Bergdorf Goodman, Neimans, etc. on a 1Ds3 and it will sit right next to other advertising which was shot with 4x5 film, 39mp back, etc. And photographers go stick their noses up to the prints and can not tell what camera shot what - so why invest in the large clunky expensive stuff? I agree that the shape of 67 or 645 is nicer than 35mm, it feels good to shoot, etc. but when the client nor the consumer can percieve any advantage in terms of end-result IQ, and the economy in the sh*tter, then...no sale! Even on a reasonably priced lightly used back. I mean, I hear this time and time again from other photographers - about the lack of visible difference in the final reproduction, and I usually feel the same myself. (I have owned and rented Leaf, etc., etc.) Clients have not asked me for more pixels or higher IQ in YEARS. And I have shot for some very high end, high budget clients. I think just about the only time most of us can see which camera was used is when someone like Paolo Roversi has been shooting polaroid, or someone is using tilts with their view camera...otherwise, open up a magazine and tell me which camera shot what...for the most part, it's impossible as far as I can tell.
if you shoot with a lot of light (usually flash), or slower setups, more static imagery with a lot of post production manipulation medium format has it's place.
anything past that, continuous light, especially low or challanged light, fast moving subjects, quick changes and setups then I agree a 1ds3 is probably going to out perform nearly any medium format back. on my desk are two covers, one from harpers and the other from vanity fare and I know one was shot with a canon I assume the other also, given the photographer's history.
they both look fine, they both are printed reasonably well and the photographs and the photographers are well respected. shooting them with anything beyond a dslr would have been a waste of time and money.
right now, regardless of the new mf price reductions I believe the medium format still camera business is in for a tough ride.
the companies have been slow to respond to their customers main requests, the prices, even reduced are high and most importantly in this economy clients are demanding twice the output in 1/2 the time. this holds true for high profile and under the radar clients.
I also like the feel of a medium format camera and when shot properly it's a pleasure to use, but for commerce, even editorial in today's business climate we have to perform at a very fast pace and the dslrs are made for that.
we just finished a studio shoot that was perfect for medium format, but still just went with the canons. bottom line it was easier and faster, for me and for the client.
I own mf camera backs and don't see the point of selling them at a reduced, bargain basement rate, but it would take a very special project of circumstance for me to upgrade my backs to higher priced options and as lisa r says, nobody is asking for more file size.
clients are asking for more return on their investment. as photographers we have to do the same.
-
I met someone who sold a aptus 22 for $11K.
-
I have discussed this with some of my peers, and while the backs seem to produce exemplary image quality, many photographers look at photos as reproduced at point-of-purchase displays, magazines, etc., etc and can not tell which camera was used to shoot what image. For example I just shot something for point-of-purchase for Bergdorf Goodman, Neimans, etc. on a 1Ds3 and it will sit right next to other advertising which was shot with 4x5 film, 39mp back, etc. And photographers go stick their noses up to the prints and can not tell what camera shot what - so why invest in the large clunky expensive stuff? I agree that the shape of 67 or 645 is nicer than 35mm, it feels good to shoot, etc. but when the client nor the consumer can percieve any advantage in terms of end-result IQ, and the economy in the sh*tter, then...no sale! Even on a reasonably priced lightly used back. I mean, I hear this time and time again from other photographers - about the lack of visible difference in the final reproduction, and I usually feel the same myself. (I have owned and rented Leaf, etc., etc.) Clients have not asked me for more pixels or higher IQ in YEARS. And I have shot for some very high end, high budget clients. I think just about the only time most of us can see which camera was used is when someone like Paolo Roversi has been shooting polaroid, or someone is using tilts with their view camera...otherwise, open up a magazine and tell me which camera shot what...for the most part, it's impossible as far as I can tell.
yeah I hear you on all that BUT; when I pick up my 1 dsmk3 for a job, i dont feel any excitement. when i pick up my contax / Phase back i feel good. plain and simple. the canon feels lame in my hands. the contax feels like a professional camera. when you have to use a tool 3 days a week it feels good to have a great tool. the finished images DO look better with a zeisss lens or whatever med. format you use. the canons all feel very homogenous to me. so in the end it just comes down to how it makes YOU feel, not how it makes your client feel. if you can afford that warm fuzzy feeling then great, if not, then dont worry about it.... it wont matter to your client in the end.
-
I just sold a Mac G5 dual tower for $800 that cost me over $4k with the memory and graphics card. That's technology for you! Obsolete in like 6 months!
I think you'll find that your non-electronic laden gear such as lenses will hold their value better. The sad thing is that for a lot of these backs, the IQ in the studio is about the same.
-
yeah I hear you on all that BUT; when I pick up my 1 dsmk3 for a job, i dont feel any excitement. when i pick up my contax / Phase back i feel good. plain and simple. the canon feels lame in my hands. the contax feels like a professional camera. when you have to use a tool 3 days a week it feels good to have a great tool. the finished images DO look better with a zeisss lens or whatever med. format you use. the canons all feel very homogenous to me. so in the end it just comes down to how it makes YOU feel, not how it makes your client feel. if you can afford that warm fuzzy feeling then great, if not, then dont worry about it.... it wont matter to your client in the end.
Have to agree with this. I use a Leaf on a Cambo that is the most pleasant way for me to work so i do my best work that way.
-
Hi
I have my ZD camera on ebay for $3800.00 USD item 160300020107 with more than a day to go with no bids? There are a few watchers & I think this is market value but things seem to be changing by the week these days. On another topic I have been to two major MFD launches here in Sydney & the number of people attending has been really low.
Denis
-
I think a lot of us have to reconsider their job-choice. Photo hobbyists and amatuer photographers, even the boss of the " company" you are working for will be doing a lot of work some of us used to do. When he sees you coming with a amatuer camera such as a 5d(Mk2) he thinks" why pay that man so much when i can get me the tools myself". A great deal of the "mystery", hocus pocus about photography is gone and it became just a job like any other. This is certainly not thrue for all of us but to those who at the moment are having difficulties with extremely lower priced competition.
-
Hi
I have my ZD camera on ebay for $3800.00 USD item 160300020107 with more than a day to go with no bids? There are a few watchers & I think this is market value but things seem to be changing by the week these days. On another topic I have been to two major MFD launches here in Sydney & the number of people attending has been really low.
Denis
I checked out your auction... all the "Hi" in the description could be scaring people off.
-
Hi
I have my ZD camera on ebay for $3800.00 USD item 160300020107 with more than a day to go with no bids? There are a few watchers & I think this is market value but things seem to be changing by the week these days. On another topic I have been to two major MFD launches here in Sydney & the number of people attending has been really low.
Denis
(Hi) You need to better name your auction, it is not shown in the search engine, and reconsider the price, at least the start price, better with no reserve, and ever free shipping, if your lovely gear really wants to find a new home.
(Hi)
-
Hi
I have my ZD camera on ebay for $3800.00 USD item 160300020107 with more than a day to go with no bids? There are a few watchers & I think this is market value but things seem to be changing by the week these days. On another topic I have been to two major MFD launches here in Sydney & the number of people attending has been really low.
Denis
Not to be unkind, but you'd have to be mad to buy this camera at that price when you have the 5DII already here which I have no doubt will be better in practically every aspect. I myself have a collection of old or outdated cameras that I haven't bothered selling.
Edward
-
I think a lot of us have to reconsider their job-choice. Photo hobbyists and amatuer photographers, even the boss of the " company" you are working for will be doing a lot of work some of us used to do. When he sees you coming with a amatuer camera such as a 5d(Mk2) he thinks" why pay that man so much when i can get me the tools myself". A great deal of the "mystery", hocus pocus about photography is gone and it became just a job like any other. This is certainly not thrue for all of us but to those who at the moment are having difficulties with extremely lower priced competition.
In 2000 you had a priviledge to shoot with a 2 megapixel camera, which were sell for $2000.
Industry changed the world and jobs, that's the "mystery" hocus pocus.
-
In 2000 i shot with a 6Mp back ( leaf cantare) and a zillionpixel phase one scanback. No amatuer or hobby-man had acces to equipment like that. In my opinion backs should never have dropped in price, on the contrary. Now all equipment is available for every nitwit with some cash. It's like that formula 1 cars would become available for lets say 35000 euro..... when that happens I will become an Undertaker and funeral bureau.
-
.
-
" But let's be honest, out of 100 ad jobs, how many are shot at f1.4? And how many are shot at f11? Let's be real here. "
I THINK I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN HERE BUT PLEASE EXPLAIN JUST INCASE
I think Phase and Leaf and even Hassy sorta blew by not concentrating more on customer loyalty and customer relations. They make it pretty easy to just walk away, and migrate to 35.
I TOTALLY AGREE. I CAN CALL CANON ON THE PHONE AND BE TALKING TO SOMEONE IN 3 MINUTES FOR TECH SUPPPORT..... AND THEY ARE REAL NICE AND VERY HELPFUL. WITH PHASE I HAVE TO CREATE A WEB TICKET AND WAIT BACK FOR A USUALLY USELESS REPLY WITH SOME LINK TO A ONLINE "ANSWER" TO MY QUESTION THAT 3 OUT OF 4 TIMES TOTALL MISSED THE MARK AND JUST CONFUSED AND IRRITATED ME MORE. THE WORST CUSTOMER SERVICE EVER, BESIDES QUICKBOOKS, THEY ARE TERRRIBLE.
That 5DII is supposedly shipping today. It will be interesting if it actually creates a revolution. I wonder how many MF guys will simply take the bait and bolt from MF. I'd never use the video function but it is a sexy Feature List. Makes a boxy old Phase back with a bad LCD seem very 1990.
SO SIMPLE, JUST MAKE A GREAT LCD. THEY WERE TRIPPING WITH THE P65 COMING OUT AND LOOKING JUST LIKE THE PREVIOUS BACKS.
-
Do you think the Vanity Fair cover would have looked appreciably different if it were shot on the P65 instead of a Canon? If so, would anyone other than photographers notice? Sure, if Paolo Roversi did some of his twisty lens stuff it would look different, but we're not talking about that...
And speaking of feeling the camera magic, I have owned many cameras, and I did feel it with the original 5D for some reason. Even though it feels comparably cheap, not great view finder, etc. It had something which resonated with me. Maybe it's because it's small enough to bring everywhere with a 50mm attached, unlike my hasselblad, 1Ds3, etc. Almost like a P&S, but with great IQ.
-
There is more than just magazine photography. Most of the time magazines don't pay that well in my experience so it might also be hard to commercially justify medium format for that. Aside from the part that it sometimes might not even be the right choice of instrument. So how flattering it might be to have your image on the cover of some glossy magazine it is not by any means indicative of a common denominator for maximum needed quality. There is a lot of work that can be done with MF backs where clients can see the difference and do appreciate it, even if they don't always know what it is that they are seeing.I can see it which I sometimes find even more important.
The other part of the equation is that some people, apparently an ever diminishing group, is enjoying the use of these clunky, expensive, error prone, last centuryish stuff. Again, this group seems to be getting smaller by the day.
The one size fits all tool Canon has become the great equalizer... It makes me wonder how many of these people will trade-in their 5DII for a Sony Ericsson cell when that hits 21MP (it is already at 12MP so can't be that long anymore). With a good retoucher you will probably not see the difference between those 2 on a glossy magazine either. Now that is what I call portability
Ah well. it is the same discussion as ever and really quite irrelevant. As soon as the Canons or the Nikon of this world really can deliver the same joy that I experience when I see my medium format files (certainly multishot files) I will gladly use nothing else.
Maybe, I should focus more on retouching. It seems this market will be growing much larger at the expense of good photography.
-
Some cameras have a different feel and put you in a special mood for making photographs. That is what I feel about LF. It is very cumbersome, heavy, slow, almost disfunctional in an operational way, but in the end it puts me in this photomaking psychic mood that inspires me. Canon 1Ds cameras don´t have that for me. The 5D did have it, at least for some jobs. Old Hasselblads have it for sure, especially for the square. Composing in a square is a wonderful experience, though a difficult one when coming from 35mm.
-
Ah well. it is the same discussion as ever and really quite irrelevant. As soon as the Canons or the Nikon of this world really can deliver the same joy that I experience when I see my medium format files (certainly multishot files) I will gladly use nothing else.
Maybe, I should focus more on retouching. It seems this market will be growing much larger at the expense of good photography.
it is the same discussion that has gone on for 5 years and for some reason the message just doesn't seem to be getting through to the people that make these cameras. medium format is great if everything is smooth, easy and usually still. if that is their intended market then they're fine and should just keep it going.
the thing is if you shoot people, once you put a medium format back on a "film" camera like the contax, it changes. The small but useable viewfinder gets cropped, the shooting speed drops and the responsiveness sometimes is dead on quick and other times dead slow, probably depending on the computer, the software, the ram, the digital tech, barometric pressure, etc. etc. I find myself using the p21 more than the p30 just because it was more responsive and faster, but at some point you begin to ask yourself why.
there is a reason that when you view an annie video she is shooting a canon and zoom. You push the button and it fires, you turn off the strobes and you can shoot in twilight, you shoot somebody running and it will actually focus on them.
medium format has dug a huge hole and climbed in. first they started that silly business model of buy today, get your upgrade in a week, month or year, and once it is delivered get ready to open your wallet again because the newest upgrade is announced the moment your handed the box. everything in medium format is priced and sold like buying a buick (and we all know what's happened to them), with time stamped specials and dealers with specific sales zones that make no sense in an internet world.
In the last few years, mf has found ways to lock down their systems and even marginalize the format further. you needed an actuary to write a schematic to understand what back works on what camera.
medium format made the mistake of trying to sell these camera backs like lcd televsions where every year or so a new bigger one comes out. the problem is lcd tv's go down in price not up and any photographer can only absorb so much money and time.
I think we all know if the leaf afi II or 7 or whatever it's called, really had clean high iso, had a great lcd, (great not semi good), had real wireless that didn't require a computer and had a clear and definate delivery date of lenses, finders, rotating backs and didn't cost $45,000 for a full kit, there would be a lot more of them sold, even in today's time. if it was built, sold and delivered as the camera of a lifetime then it's worth the money, but does anyone believe any digital camera you buy is going to last even 1/20th of your career. same holds true for all the makers, but they are always late on something vital, usually software, which is beyond belief considering these things live off their software to function properly.
the crazy thing is a lot of people, myself included, would love just a full frame 645 camera that went to high iso, fired when the button is pushed, didn't require waiting for firmware, software upgrades and fixes and most of all didn't come with a system of first announce all the upgrades, secondly deliver the camera with only 2/3's of the promised upgrades or accessories and to add insult to injury before all the bugs are worked out try to sell the buyer a new camera and/or back at a $15,000 bump, which will have all the upgrades and usability promised in the previous version.
now the mf makers are all offering discounts, trade ins, different pricing schemes and while they're busy reshuffling the balance sheets and making strategic alliances here comes Canon with a 21 mpx camera that shoots stills and video for $3,000, 1/10th of the price of a new medium format back, 1/15th of the price if you buy lenses and build a complete system.
think about that one for a moment and wonder why nobody on the sale section is buying used medium format backs at even 1/2 of the original retail price.
then think about this (go to the movie on the far right) and tell me where the world of images is going.
http://journeys.louisvuitton.com/vuitton.h...n_US&shop=1 (http://journeys.louisvuitton.com/vuitton.htm?l=en_US&shop=1)
-
T
My vote for ultimate camera: A P65 on an H body. But it'll never happen. Or a P65 on a vastly redesigned Mamiya body.
Time is ticking -- can these MF companies get it together before Canon/Nikon sweep the world, and own everything? The time to act is now.
whats stopping you putting a p65 h-mount onto a h1 or h2?
there will be an H-mount
http://forum.phaseone.com/En/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5934 (http://forum.phaseone.com/En/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5934)
-
The other side of this, two of my friend just bought their first digital backs. One bought a P30 for a H1, used, $5400. The other bought an Aptus-22 for the Mamiya, used, $7500. Both are happy with the files. Both are professional photographers and do this for a living. The depreciation of digital backs is extreme, but it does flatten out. With some smart shopping there are great values out there - and depreciation isn't much a risk. And these 2-3 year old backs have their kinks worked out - including the software. Add a 5DII to the mix, and it can do all the high-ISO work and those ad-hoc situations where a digital back isn't the best choice. I look forward to the day a used P65+ is on Ebay for ~$7500 in about 5 years.
-
whats stopping you putting a p65 h-mount onto a h1 or h2?
there will be an H-mount
http://forum.phaseone.com/En/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5934 (http://forum.phaseone.com/En/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5934)
It will be available in the H,V,PhaseOne/AFD and Contax mounts , then you could use an RZ or PROIID and many other systems via adapters.
L
Lance Schad
Capture Integration - Miami/Atlanta
Direct: 305-534-5701 x1 | Cell: 305-394-3196
Capture Integration (http://www.captureintegration.com)
()
-
Hi
In the past 15 months there have been some really big changes especially from Canon ( 1DsMKIII & 5DII ), Nikon D3 ( very high iso ) & RED. With MFD there are new backs that are larger in chip size from Leaf & Phase. I am very curious about this new RED (645 chip) that will take Mamiya lenses. At the moment we are shooting mostly Canon & really enjoying it. I think another way to get more photographers using MFD is to reduce the rental price of the backs.
Denis
-
Denis! Hi!
You got a bid!
Cheers,
Willem.
-
while we are on the topic of bargain backs, my valeo 22 h-mount is on ebay now. 3600 start price.
Item number: 220319480506
cheers paul
-
h-mount
lot of items for H... and good price for buyer... I'd go for a Mam mount.
-
lot of items for H... and good price for buyer... I'd go for a Mam mount.
although h-mount is a system that wont be updated as far as cameras and other backs go, the h1/2 is a far better camera for many things than a mamiya. ive used mamya quite a few times, and it has a long way to go to keep up with hasselblad. im not sure of the numbers, but hasselblad would be by far the most used and rented systems still professionally.
its also the most proven and complete system.
paul
-
I just sold a Mac G5 dual tower for $800 that cost me over $4k with the memory and graphics card. That's technology for you! Obsolete in like 6 months!
a G5 hasn't been state of the art in over 2 years...first mac pros were on the market in mid 2006 if I remember correctly...lets be realistic
things are only worth what people are willing to pay...
-
a G5 hasn't been state of the art in over 2 years...first mac pros were on the market in mid 2006 if I remember correctly...lets be realistic
things are only worth what people are willing to pay...
Jim I think he was making a blanket statement about technology, not a direct reference to the age of the machine
-
I'm amazed at all of the banter about Canon and Nikon being even remotely comparable to medium format digital. Try shooting fine art repro or a still life with lots of shadows, highlights and subtle, sharp detail with a Canon or Nikon and compare it to the output of a medium format camera, especially one that does 4-shot. I wouldn't even think of taking a medium format camera out to do handheld low light photography where the Canon and Nikon offerings shine. Comparing medium format digital backs to Nikons and Canons is like comparing a Minox to an 8" X 10" view camera. Either tool is a good tool provided that it is used for the right task.
-
A lot of photographers never shoot high demanding stuff such as advertising, still life, landscape etc. As you see here in the image gallery images that attract the most people are those of fashion and girls. as if there is nothing else in a professionals work. Doing high end reprography is a lucrative business if done well. Only you will never be able to do that with a 1dsmk3 or alpha900. For the one or the other reason people solely shooting dslr never get that. A back is a tool that needs to be used for the wright job. And laws of optics and physics still apply to us, so a technical camera such as a p3 or x-act will always stay nesessary.
-
A lot of photographers never shoot high demanding stuff such as advertising, still life, landscape etc.
....
And laws of optics and physics still apply to us, so a technical camera such as a p3 or x-act will always stay nesessary.
Good Point!
Well Said!
-
[quote name='ctz' date='Nov 27 2008, 04:11 AM' post='239864']
Good Point!
Well Said!
[/quote
That is about the same thing as we had over here a few month's ago when people who never used a MFDB came telling me that a DSLR had the same image quality, even a higher one, them my hasselblad back. Well I use back's eversince the mid 90ies and i still haven't seen a dslr that beats my Leaf Cantare image file ( a back from 1997). The spectrum of professional photographe reaches much further than fashion and portraiture. It is not about the insane amount of pixels, it is about how they are reproduced on paper in all its smoothness, transitions and detail. And then there is the " money factor" people always seem to justify choises linked to their personal wallet: in the 80ies we had over here in europe a lot of people driving "Lada" cars. These were rusian replica's of early seventies Fiat models. Now for one, the Fiat cars were crap, and the russion Lada was even worse. But it drove from place A to place B. And when in a survey people got asked about car fidellity and happiness with their cars they always scored best. Unfortunately that had nothing to do with their lada car but everything with their financial situation, perception of their ' angry living world" and the fact that one does not likes to admit that the money one spent could have been used more wisely. In the 90ies a lot of those people again where asked about their Lada they drove mid 80ies and now it was a complete different story.
-
In the past, i.e. film days, it was never debated to my knowledge that a 35mm could do all a LF camera could do or vica versa. It was generally accepted that they were different tools used for different things.
Saying that a dslr will equal in performance a MFB on a view camera or good MF camera is just wishful thinking. I don't take a view camera to an event shoot and don't take a dslr on a food shoot.
-
... don't take a dslr on a food shoot.
but many clients are happy with food shot on a DSLR - shame but true
the whole thing is most clients think DSLRs are 'good enough' and most photographers equip themselves to a level that is good enough for thier clients
S
-
but many clients are happy with food shot on a DSLR - shame but true
the whole thing is most clients think DSLRs are 'good enough' and most photographers equip themselves to a level that is good enough for thier clients
S
You are quite correct of course. The point for me though is not is it good enough for the client but for me. It is my job to do work in such a way that the client will choose me instead of another person. My clients trust me to be the expert and tell them what will be best for there needs.
Anyway my position is that I believe that MF is better than DSLR for some things and for those things that is what I use. I think the extra cost is worth it. It creates a barrier to entry. It separates me from my wealthy clients who have the money to buy top equipment, and do, but who lack the technical expertise to use a view camera. It allows me to justify a higher charge out rate to visual illiterates who are only impressed by expensive gear. It cheers me up and calms me down to use view cameras.
-
I'm amazed at all of the banter about Canon and Nikon being even remotely comparable to medium format digital. Try shooting fine art repro or a still life with lots of shadows, highlights and subtle, sharp detail with a Canon or Nikon and compare it to the output of a medium format camera, especially one that does 4-shot. I wouldn't even think of taking a medium format camera out to do handheld low light photography where the Canon and Nikon offerings shine. Comparing medium format digital backs to Nikons and Canons is like comparing a Minox to an 8" X 10" view camera. Either tool is a good tool provided that it is used for the right task.
Keep in mind I was referring to the end result (i.e., prints, catalogs, magazines, billboards, etc...) - not 100% pixel peep.
To that end, it would be cool if people pointed to images which clearly show the superiority of the MF backs *in final repro.* For the copy work which is referenced here, where does it end up? In museum catalogs? Elsewhere? How large are they printed?
Not trying to pull anyone's chain, just really curious about where the differences show in the real world. (I can personally see the differences when in front of the computer looking at full-size TIFFs, but that is not what I am talking about.)
-
To be honest Lisa, there is actually no visible difference. A DB is just a toy to let people see that our business is dong fine. In the old days we had the guys shooting hasselblad and mamiy RZ67. That was a joke, they were just showing off. I was talking lately with a photographer who used to work with Ansel Adams and he told me that even he was fooling us by making it look he took pictures at least with a 4'by5' camera, mostly 5'by7' and bigger when he could have done that with a Laika or Nokin. There is actually no reason why you should go MFDB unless you have a huge pile of unused dollar bills. I myself have never seen a difference between a picture shot with a Canon 5d and one shot with a Phase one or hasselblad. People say there is a difference but i never saw it. In the old days to me there also was no difference between landscape shot with 35mm tri-x and a 8'by10' polaroid or panatomic-x ( unless they where enlarged to more then 15 foot wide).
-
I do a lot of LP covers in my line of work - the difference, especially on a gatefold is quite apparent.
-
Keep in mind I was referring to the end result (i.e., prints, catalogs, magazines, billboards, etc...) - not 100% pixel peep.
To that end, it would be cool if people pointed to images which clearly show the superiority of the MF backs *in final repro.* For the copy work which is referenced here, where does it end up? In museum catalogs? Elsewhere? How large are they printed?
Not trying to pull anyone's chain, just really curious about where the differences show in the real world. (I can personally see the differences when in front of the computer looking at full-size TIFFs, but that is not what I am talking about.)
Here's one example: London by Richard Bryant and Peter Ackroyd (http://www.amazon.com/London-Peter-Ackroyd/dp/0847831531/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227805530&sr=1-1) which happens to be launched tonight at Somerset House, London (http://www.somersethouse.org.uk/visual_arts/795.asp)
If you see the book (done on 4-colour offset print) and the 7'-12' Lambda prints you will be able to tell the differences between a high end digital back and anything else.
Yair
-
Deleted...
-
I can tell almost always what has been shot lf digital in magazines and catalogs. The principles of dof and the dof plane still exist, dslrs did not change that.
-
I can tell almost always what has been shot lf digital in magazines and catalogs. The principles of dof and the dof plane still exist, dslrs did not change that.
Yes, I completely agree. Given a choice, I'll shoot medium format for this "benefit" if conditions permit.
-
I've been shooting a Canon G10 these days. It's easier to carry round than my Mamiya+Phase back, actually works when I take it out of my pocket, and has huge depth of field. I print 44 inches wide from it with no problems.
In practice between a tripod for the MF@F11 in winter light, and ISO 100 handheld @5.6 with the built-in stabilizer for the G10 the G10 still wins in my street shots due to environmental vibration. I think it's time the MF guys and gals improved their product. Hi ISO and a decent screen please ?
Edmund
-
I used to use an 8" X 10" view camera strapped around my neck for street photography. But now I'm so stooped that the view camera drags against the ground. The Minox sure comes in handy now.
-
I used to use an 8" X 10" view camera strapped around my neck for street photography. But now I'm so stooped that the view camera drags against the ground. The Minox sure comes in handy now.
Hehe. But the G10 sure is providing some very good images, as long as there is a lot of light.
I wish there were a digital equivalent of the Plaubel Makina, or the Fujis, with the rangefinder focus.
Edmund
-
Thanks Yair, I'll try to find that book here in New York.
And guys, I still shoot with backs and Hasselblad equipment. And Mamiya on occasion. Just making a point about print quality and resolution of paper, etc.
I do want to see actual prints/printed material - like Yair has indicated here. Anyone else point to something specific which I can find at the bookstore?
-
Here's one example: London by Richard Bryant and Peter Ackroyd (http://www.amazon.com/London-Peter-Ackroyd/dp/0847831531/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227805530&sr=1-1) which happens to be launched tonight at Somerset House, London (http://www.somersethouse.org.uk/visual_arts/795.asp)
If you see the book (done on 4-colour offset print) and the 7'-12' Lambda prints you will be able to tell the differences between a high end digital back and anything else.
Yair
I don't think anyone would dispute for static, slow moving, even people images with heavy strobe lighting a medium format back without an aa filter will produce a "technically" superior result. artistically superior is in the eye of the beholder.
the subject is about the cost and viability of a medium format back. medium format has moved at a much slower pace than the dslrs and for much of advertising and editorial people photography it's just not as viable as the dslrs.
right now I have 10 very large in-store posters and 3 double truck magazine ads shot with a 1dsIII from a campaign that I shot the previous year with medium format and the client is not complaining. in fact I find it hard to tell the difference in print.
personally, I'd rather use a medium format camera, especially in the vertical orientation, but clients this year are asking for what is essentially two days of production in a day and these are high visibility well paying clients. I can't imagine what they will be asking for next year and to do this takes more than megapixels, or leaf shutter lenses, it takes a camera system that works in a lot of different situations and is fast.
regardless of what clients are "asking" for the real point of all of this is getting the shot. if you chose medium format and it works for you then your all set, buy the backs stay with them and have success.
as I mentioned, I own both medium format and dslrs but in this years (and I'm sure next year also) economy I find the backs stay in the case, the 35mm cameras get all the use.
in my world looking at glossy 11x14 books are nice but the last time I saw a book publisher's contract it paid about $42.
I hope richard and peter make more than that.
-
I don't think anyone would dispute for static, slow moving, even people images with heavy strobe lighting a medium format back without an aa filter will produce a "technically" superior result. artistically superior is in the eye of the beholder.
the subject is about the cost and viability of a medium format back. medium format has moved at a much slower pace than the dslrs and for much of advertising and editorial people photography it's just not as viable as the dslrs.
right now I have 10 very large in-store posters and 3 double truck magazine ads shot with a 1dsIII from a campaign that I shot the previous year with medium format and the client is not complaining. in fact I find it hard to tell the difference in print.
personally, I'd rather use a medium format camera, especially in the vertical orientation, but clients this year are asking for what is essentially two days of production in a day and these are high visibility well paying clients. I can't imagine what they will be asking for next year and to do this takes more than megapixels, or leaf shutter lenses, it takes a camera system that works in a lot of different situations and is fast.
regardless of what clients are "asking" for the real point of all of this is getting the shot. if you chose medium format and it works for you then your all set, buy the backs stay with them and have success.
as I mentioned, I own both medium format and dslrs but in this years (and I'm sure next year also) economy I find the backs stay in the case, the 35mm cameras get all the use.
in my world looking at glossy 11x14 books are nice but the last time I saw a book publisher's contract it paid about $42.
I hope richard and peter make more than that.
Hi
We are in the same situation here in Sydney. We just did two shoots for a new editorial client & we shot with the Canon. For Make Me A Super Model we shot with the Canon. Gay & I love MFD and just for practical purposes for these projects we choose the Canon 1DsMKIII. I find tethered with the Canon bullet proof, no crashes. When we did MMASM TV reality show we had to perform to a tight time frame. We find the file depth not as good as MFD and the Canon does the job. The big bonus is FAST capture plus FAST AF.
Denis
-
I don't think anyone would dispute for static, slow moving, even people images with heavy strobe lighting a medium format back without an aa filter will produce a "technically" superior result. artistically superior is in the eye of the beholder.
the subject is about the cost and viability of a medium format back. medium format has moved at a much slower pace than the dslrs and for much of advertising and editorial people photography it's just not as viable as the dslrs.
right now I have 10 very large in-store posters and 3 double truck magazine ads shot with a 1dsIII from a campaign that I shot the previous year with medium format and the client is not complaining. in fact I find it hard to tell the difference in print.
personally, I'd rather use a medium format camera, especially in the vertical orientation, but clients this year are asking for what is essentially two days of production in a day and these are high visibility well paying clients. I can't imagine what they will be asking for next year and to do this takes more than megapixels, or leaf shutter lenses, it takes a camera system that works in a lot of different situations and is fast.
regardless of what clients are "asking" for the real point of all of this is getting the shot. if you chose medium format and it works for you then your all set, buy the backs stay with them and have success.
as I mentioned, I own both medium format and dslrs but in this years (and I'm sure next year also) economy I find the backs stay in the case, the 35mm cameras get all the use.
in my world looking at glossy 11x14 books are nice but the last time I saw a book publisher's contract it paid about $42.
I hope richard and peter make more than that.
Yes, they do and the lambdas at the exhibition are also for sale at an average of £6K...
Yair
-
To be honest Lisa, there is actually no visible difference. A DB is just a toy to let people see that our business is dong fine. In the old days we had the guys shooting hasselblad and mamiy RZ67. That was a joke, they were just showing off. I was talking lately with a photographer who used to work with Ansel Adams and he told me that even he was fooling us by making it look he took pictures at least with a 4'by5' camera, mostly 5'by7' and bigger when he could have done that with a Laika or Nokin. There is actually no reason why you should go MFDB unless you have a huge pile of unused dollar bills. I myself have never seen a difference between a picture shot with a Canon 5d and one shot with a Phase one or hasselblad. People say there is a difference but i never saw it. In the old days to me there also was no difference between landscape shot with 35mm tri-x and a 8'by10' polaroid or panatomic-x ( unless they where enlarged to more then 15 foot wide).
dripping with sarcasm....
Geoff
-
Thanks Yair, I'll try to find that book here in New York.
And guys, I still shoot with backs and Hasselblad equipment. And Mamiya on occasion. Just making a point about print quality and resolution of paper, etc.
I do want to see actual prints/printed material - like Yair has indicated here. Anyone else point to something specific which I can find at the bookstore?
These big posters (http://www.redbox.de/news/latest_news/detail.php?nr=13475) from the new Mercedes GLK campaign are hanging all over europe's airports and motorways.
Especially at the airports you can look at them up close (they are about 24' wide). I doubt anything but a high-end MF back could produce these smooth gradations and lines at this size.
Yair
-
Gay & I love MFD and just for practical purposes for these projects we choose the Canon 1DsMKIII. I find tethered with the Canon bullet proof, no crashes. The big bonus is FAST capture plus FAST AF.
How are you tethering your Mark III? I held off even trying to tether it since I heard such horror stories. Now that C1 4.5 is out I've been trying to get it to work, but so far it's completely unusable for anything I need to use it for. I need settings applied and file names set as the images come in, so JPEGs to computer and RAWs to card won't work for me. Is that what people are doing who are happy with it tethering?
My experience has been that the Mark III is unusable tethered- you can shoot 10-12 frames as fast as you want, and then the camera hits the buffer and goes completely unresponsive and unpredictable. You can maybe sneak a frame or two in here or there, but until the buffer is cleared you're sitting there like an idiot missing shots. I bought the latest and greatest glossy powerbook hoping to avoid this- everybody on the internet said it has faster USB, but no luck avoiding hitting the buffer. It takes about 60 seconds on this machine to completely clear the buffer of 12 shots. I tried an USB express card to see if that would improve it, same results.
Since everybody on the internet said it's a Mac OS problem, I figured I would just work around it by using Windows. So I installed BootCamp, installed XP pro SP2, updated it to SP3, installed C1 4.5, and got better but still unusable results. Buffer gets clear in 45 seconds instead of 60, but I still hit the wall after 10-12 frames. If I watch the clock and click off one frame per second, I can get to 15 frames before I start missing in Windows, 12 with Mac OS- unusable with either platform. And when I say unresponsive, I mean really unresponsive, like will not fire for 10-15 seconds at a time.
When I just lock it down on continuous for 60 seconds, I get 19 captures booted into Mac and 29 booted into Windows. Neither platform is useable after those first 12-15 frames though- it's like 15 frames, wait 8-10 secs, 2 frames, wait 6 secs, one frame, wait 10-12 secs, 2 frames... like that. For comparison, a P30+ on the same machine gave me 34 captures in 60 seconds at a completely constant rate of just under 2 secs/capture.
Are those of you who are tethering the Mark III getting substantially better results than that with DPP? Or are you all just shooting JPEGs to the computer? Does using a Windows machine rather than a Mac running Windows improve RAW tethering greatly or something? Are my standards just too high or something? Could somebody with a Windows machine (laptop if possible) do the same test- lock it down for 60 seconds and tell me how many RAW captures you get in a minute and how many before the camera becomes unresponsive?
-
When I just lock it down on continuous for 60 seconds, I get 19 captures booted into Mac and 29 booted into Windows. Neither platform is useable after those first 12-15 frames though- it's like 15 frames, wait 8-10 secs, 2 frames, wait 6 secs, one frame, wait 10-12 secs, 2 frames... like that. For comparison, a P30+ on the same machine gave me 34 captures in 60 seconds at a completely constant rate of just under 2 secs/capture.
Are those of you who are tethering the Mark III getting substantially better results than that with DPP? Or are you all just shooting JPEGs to the computer? Does using a Windows machine rather than a Mac running Windows improve RAW tethering greatly or something? Are my standards just too high or something? Could somebody with a Windows machine (laptop if possible) do the same test- lock it down for 60 seconds and tell me how many RAW captures you get in a minute and how many before the camera becomes unresponsive?
I bought an dell 17" studio expressly for tethering the 1ds Mark III's and there is a difference between the usb drivers, or maybe the computer, running vista compared to a mac.
I didn't do the stop watch timed test, but shooting fast you get about 24 frames before you hit the buffer (faster than a p21+) and the previews are about 2 seconds a full screen rez preview.
After approx 20 frames there is a buffer but it starts to clear in 2 seconds or so and in three seconds it's cleared up to 5 frames so you can keep shooting.
If you shoot to the speed of most studio flash or just to my standard shooting speed, it never hits the buffer and will always be ahead of the previews as you can shoot much faster than 1 fps. the previews build as fast as the p21+ on 3.78, probably faster and definatley more detailed.
Now this is all through eos utility and dpp, which lets you name files as they come in, or rename files, apply settings to the camera or apply settings at a later date. You can also shoot tethered and to cards but the names coming into the computer will specificially named and the files on the cf card will be camera numbered.
Still, if you have a lot of cards I guess it's a good safety measure, though I have never needed to pull an image off a card when tethering.
I don't dislike eos utility, though more simple than c-1 it does the job and the previews are nice and the learning curve is quick. Same with vista, which is about 15% different than working the mac and it runs programs like cs3 and light room very fast.
I did load c-1 4.5 into the dell but as far as I know 4.5 doesn't tether in vista for canon or my phase backs. I don't know for sure, but I don't think phase has written 4.5 to tether through vista.
I actually find the dell faster than my new macbook 17" for just about every function. The last job we shot tethered I just used the Canons rather than the p-30+ or the p21+. It was just easier.
You might want to read this as Nikon is promising fast tethering speed on their new D3x. I don't know if it applies to apple or vista but this is interesting.
http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/...081128-0006.jpg (http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/scan-081128-0006.jpg)
-
You might want to see if you can find someone with a new MacBook or MacBook Pro, and see how it performs there, since the USB in these is meant to be dramatically improved over the old Macs, and are a tiny bit faster than Windows machines, at least in some tests.
-
Anton,
I have come to the same conclusion. I think the Canon 1Ds mark III is a great camera but slow tethered. Half the time the photographer chooses CF cards or alternatively goes with the Leaf Aptus 54S.
I have always applied the same 60 second standard to the number of frames the camera shoots and how many images are viewable on the computer.
The hands down winner is the Leaf Aptus 54S on a H2: 76 frames in 60 seconds and no hitting the buffer at any point.
(for anybody interested, I have a Aptus 54S for sale ): LINK (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29810)
All the best,
Esben
-
How are you tethering your Mark III? I held off even trying to tether it since I heard such horror stories. Now that C1 4.5 is out I've been trying to get it to work, but so far it's completely unusable for anything I need to use it for. I need settings applied and file names set as the images come in, so JPEGs to computer and RAWs to card won't work for me. Is that what people are doing who are happy with it tethering?
My experience has been that the Mark III is unusable tethered- you can shoot 10-12 frames as fast as you want, and then the camera hits the buffer and goes completely unresponsive and unpredictable. You can maybe sneak a frame or two in here or there, but until the buffer is cleared you're sitting there like an idiot missing shots. I bought the latest and greatest glossy powerbook hoping to avoid this- everybody on the internet said it has faster USB, but no luck avoiding hitting the buffer. It takes about 60 seconds on this machine to completely clear the buffer of 12 shots. I tried an USB express card to see if that would improve it, same results.
Since everybody on the internet said it's a Mac OS problem, I figured I would just work around it by using Windows. So I installed BootCamp, installed XP pro SP2, updated it to SP3, installed C1 4.5, and got better but still unusable results. Buffer gets clear in 45 seconds instead of 60, but I still hit the wall after 10-12 frames. If I watch the clock and click off one frame per second, I can get to 15 frames before I start missing in Windows, 12 with Mac OS- unusable with either platform. And when I say unresponsive, I mean really unresponsive, like will not fire for 10-15 seconds at a time.
When I just lock it down on continuous for 60 seconds, I get 19 captures booted into Mac and 29 booted into Windows. Neither platform is useable after those first 12-15 frames though- it's like 15 frames, wait 8-10 secs, 2 frames, wait 6 secs, one frame, wait 10-12 secs, 2 frames... like that. For comparison, a P30+ on the same machine gave me 34 captures in 60 seconds at a completely constant rate of just under 2 secs/capture.
Are those of you who are tethering the Mark III getting substantially better results than that with DPP? Or are you all just shooting JPEGs to the computer? Does using a Windows machine rather than a Mac running Windows improve RAW tethering greatly or something? Are my standards just too high or something? Could somebody with a Windows machine (laptop if possible) do the same test- lock it down for 60 seconds and tell me how many RAW captures you get in a minute and how many before the camera becomes unresponsive?
The beta version of Mac OSX 10.5.6 is allowing the 1dsmk3 to tether and shoot super quick according to someone on another thread on LL, I am gonna wait for that to come out and then use phase V4
-
What's the cause?
Is it USB2? But, didn't Canon 1Ds2 have buffer issues even with Firewire?
Are the DSLR's buffer not large enough?
Does Nikon's buffer upgrade cure it?
http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin...qid=25465&p (http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nikoneurope_en.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=25465&p)
Is this why Leica's S2 and Phase's P65+ have 1GB buffer?
I guess James Russell is saying MacOS X is the cause?
-
What's the cause?
Is it USB2? But, didn't Canon 1Ds2 have buffer issues even with Firewire?
Are the DSLR's buffer not large enough?
Does Nikon's buffer upgrade cure it?
http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin...qid=25465&p (http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nikoneurope_en.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=25465&p)
Is this why Leica's S2 and Phase's P65+ have 1GB buffer?
Most people in the still photography business go into catatonic fits at the thought of using anything windows, or microsoft but honestly vista is not that big of a leap from mac os and the cinema biz goes from pc to mac all the time and doesn't break a sweat.
It's more about what works than brand names and I feel the same way about cameras. Each has a use, each camera has a look and I really don't care what the name on the front of the machine says.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIKxJlh_RMo...feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIKxJlh_RMo&feature=related)
I just want things to work, work fast, not break and be usable.
I don't like the glossy screen of the dell but after buying a new macbook pro with a glossy screen (the only one I could find available) I realized it's just as bad as the dell, maybe worse, so at this stage they are all just boxes to me.
The Canons even with the dell will hit the buffer tethered or non tethered if you hold your finger on the trigger, but they also are more responsive and shoot a hell of a lot faster than any medium format camera. Also when I yank the cord to walk across the street I can actually see something on the cameras lcd and actually shoot with continuous lights without 6 generators the size of a peterbuilt.
Don't underestimate the continuous light use as more and more video (motion) will become a part of a still session, whether the still photographer is responsible for it or not.
I actually find shooting to cards and then between sets dropping the images into a program like photomechanic to be a better way to work, because the client's/AD's aren't just staring into the computer they are actually watching the set and when you do preview the images it gives everyone a moment to reflect on what has been shot, rather than look at the computer and give suggestions while shooting and interrupting the flow and the buzz.
It's just about getting the shot, not about anything else.
Nobody hires a photographer for what camera or computer they use.
-
I used to use an 8" X 10" view camera strapped around my neck for street photography. But now I'm so stooped that the view camera drags against the ground. The Minox sure comes in handy now.
best. comment. ever.
LMAO
-
You might want to see if you can find someone with a new MacBook or MacBook Pro, and see how it performs there, since the USB in these is meant to be dramatically improved over the old Macs, and are a tiny bit faster than Windows machines, at least in some tests.
This was with a brand new glossy unibody MacBook Pro, as I said. I haven't tested it vs. one of my older MacBook Pro's, but the speed with the Mark III is not good enough under either Mac OS or Windows.
-
The beta version of Mac OSX 10.5.6 is allowing the 1dsmk3 to tether and shoot super quick according to someone on another thread on LL, I am gonna wait for that to come out and then use phase V4
That will be a welcome change if it turns out to be true, but people on other threads on LL also said that these new MacBook Pros were supposed to be dramatically faster, and that running in Windows rather than Mac OS would solve any USB speed problems with the Mark III.
-
I bought an dell 17" studio expressly for tethering the 1ds Mark III's and there is a difference between the usb drivers, or maybe the computer, running vista compared to a mac.
I didn't do the stop watch timed test, but shooting fast you get about 24 frames before you hit the buffer (faster than a p21+) and the previews are about 2 seconds a full screen rez preview.
After approx 20 frames there is a buffer but it starts to clear in 2 seconds or so and in three seconds it's cleared up to 5 frames so you can keep shooting.
If you shoot to the speed of most studio flash or just to my standard shooting speed, it never hits the buffer and will always be ahead of the previews as you can shoot much faster than 1 fps. the previews build as fast as the p21+ on 3.78, probably faster and definatley more detailed.
Now this is all through eos utility and dpp, which lets you name files as they come in, or rename files, apply settings to the camera or apply settings at a later date. You can also shoot tethered and to cards but the names coming into the computer will specificially named and the files on the cf card will be camera numbered.
Still, if you have a lot of cards I guess it's a good safety measure, though I have never needed to pull an image off a card when tethering.
I don't dislike eos utility, though more simple than c-1 it does the job and the previews are nice and the learning curve is quick. Same with vista, which is about 15% different than working the mac and it runs programs like cs3 and light room very fast.
I did load c-1 4.5 into the dell but as far as I know 4.5 doesn't tether in vista for canon or my phase backs. I don't know for sure, but I don't think phase has written 4.5 to tether through vista.
I actually find the dell faster than my new macbook 17" for just about every function. The last job we shot tethered I just used the Canons rather than the p-30+ or the p21+. It was just easier.
You might want to read this as Nikon is promising fast tethering speed on their new D3x. I don't know if it applies to apple or vista but this is interesting.
http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/...081128-0006.jpg (http://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/scan-081128-0006.jpg)
Thanks for the response James. What model of Dell is it you bought? And the C1 problem was just with 64bit Vista right? 32bit works? It seems to tether fine for me in XP pro with both Canon and Phase, and the preview rendering in 4.5 is much faster than 3.7 was.
With the Canons, I need them to tether much faster and with a much bigger buffer than I've been able to get so far. We don't use them on studio jobs where we're waiting on the strobes, we use them on location jobs where we're shooting ambient, so 10-15 frames and then wait for the buffer doesn't cut it. Does Dell have a money back if not satisfied type deal? This new MBP is very nice and is now my new personal laptop, but I don't want to get stuck with a Dell I don't need if the speed is still not cutting it.
I've been following the Nikon rumors and will probably add Nikon in once the D3x ships if in fact it can tether successfully to C1. Nikon tends to shoot themselves in the foot with some sort of proprietary thing, so I'll wait and see on that. I don't want to add in DPP or Nikon NX or Lightroom or Photo Mechanic or Aperture or anything else- I currently have a lot of camera systems but only one software to worry about, and I'd like to keep it that way.
-
What's the cause?
Is it USB2? But, didn't Canon 1Ds2 have buffer issues even with Firewire?
Are the DSLR's buffer not large enough?
Does Nikon's buffer upgrade cure it?
http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin...qid=25465&p (http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nikoneurope_en.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=25465&p)
Is this why Leica's S2 and Phase's P65+ have 1GB buffer?
I guess James Russell is saying MacOS X is the cause?
I think most of the problem it is the much bigger RAW file the Mark III produces. The Mark II tethered fine over firewire, and the 5D tethered fine over USB.
-
Yair,
What accounts for the speed of the AFi-5
I thoroughly enjoyed using it for four days recently.
The hands down winner is the Leaf Aptus 54S on a H2: 76 frames in 60 seconds and no hitting the buffer at any point.
-
.
-
Thanks for the response James. What model of Dell is it you bought? And the C1 problem was just with 64bit Vista right? 32bit works? It seems to tether fine for me in XP pro with both Canon and Phase, and the preview rendering in 4.5 is much faster than 3.7 was.
With the Canons, I need them to tether much faster and with a much bigger buffer than I've been able to get so far. We don't use them on studio jobs where we're waiting on the strobes, we use them on location jobs where we're shooting ambient, so 10-15 frames and then wait for the buffer doesn't cut it. Does Dell have a money back if not satisfied type deal? This new MBP is very nice and is now my new personal laptop, but I don't want to get stuck with a Dell I don't need if the speed is still not cutting it.
I've been following the Nikon rumors and will probably add Nikon in once the D3x ships if in fact it can tether successfully to C1. Nikon tends to shoot themselves in the foot with some sort of proprietary thing, so I'll wait and see on that. I don't want to add in DPP or Nikon NX or Lightroom or Photo Mechanic or Aperture or anything else- I currently have a lot of camera systems but only one software to worry about, and I'd like to keep it that way.
Your welcome.
I have the dell studio 17" It's big and heavy but it works.
There is a buffer but probably not much different than shooting to cards, it just depends on how fast you shoot. Hold the button down at 5fps and it will hit the buffer but so will anything and medium format doesn't go near that fast anyway. If I shot the Canons to the speed of my p30+ shot on small compressed the Canons would never hit the buffer either.
I didn't want to buy a Dell either though I needed to tether to the Canons for a gig and needed higher iso than 400 so I bought it and kind of like it. I don't find it any better or worse than the macs other than the weight.
As far as learning eos utility it takes 4 minutes to learn it and in a lot of ways is much easier than c-1 of any version. For quick processing you can always use c-1 so I don't see any real issues there other than eos utility has a much nicer preview than c1 3.78.
In fact we use a lot of programs because I shoot a lot of different cameras. I use I-view to drag and drop files and rename, photomechanic is excellent for quick editing, in fact it it's amazing for quick editing, especially on a fashion gig where the AD wants to edit on the fly, but maybe that's just the clients I'm working with and maybe it's just that time of year but most of the jobs I've done have required speed and less hanging around the monitor so I guess the Canons and Nikons are the cameras of choice for me right now. Then again I just did a gig where it was slower and in studio and I still went with the Canons because I thought the look on the monitor for the previews was prettier and less brittle looking than 3.7 and until 4.5 gets ALL the bugs worked out of it, I'm not putting any original files in it.
I do believe that eventually a lot of us are going to have to include motion into our work and that is either going to require double lighting or shooting higher iso faster still cameras so I get the feeling I had better get use to the 35mm world.
I think anyone that works as a digital tech will also have to learn some kind of motion/video workflow if only to collect and backup the original files.
I just got the 5dII and with only a two minute walkaround in the studio, playing with focus and high iso I can see where this is going to be a real ground breaking device.
-
That might be your best option: Don't offer the 1ds3 for location-tethering. Just offer the 5DII.
gw, aren't they the same 21 megapixels?
In short, I think if you want to tether professionally, there is only one answer, and you already know that: Phase backs to Capture One. Everything else is WannaBee.
With Leaf Capture, one doesn't have to wait to check focus.
-
With Leaf Capture, one doesn't have to wait to check focus.
deleted
-
Yair,
What accounts for the speed of the AFi-5
I thoroughly enjoyed using it for four days recently.
22MP, dual readout, FW800, clever compression and optimisation of the drivers etc.
Yair