Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: JdeV on November 25, 2009, 08:48:25 am
-
CBarret's test with his Arca and D3/P65+ showed a practical method of comparing sensors. I would like to see the same test done with a D3x but I suspect, based on his test done with the D3, my own experience and the DXO mark ratings, that at low ISO the best 35mm sensors are comparable with the best medium format sensors in terms of dynamic range, colour and sharpness/mm. (Though obviously there remain significant subtle differences, just as there are between different 35mm sensors and different medium format sensors).
Another extremely relevant test to do would be to hold the sensor constant and mount different lenses. I suggest that a practical test protocol would be to use a view camera with a P65+ and mount a couple of the best digital view camera lenses followed by a couple of the best 35mm lenses. This would require, say, an F-mount to Copal 3 adaptor. Anyone have any ideas? At a pinch one could do the relevant tests with flash and just get a female F-mount put on a lens panel. Of course most 35mm lenses would not cover the sensor area but one could determine comparative resolution per mm and also extrapolate resolution over a 35mm frame and compare it with the resolution of a full P65+ frame with lenses yielding the same field of view. For a more thorough comparison it would be great to also have Mamiya and Hasselblad to Copal 3 adaptors.
If CBarret's test was done more extensively along with this lens test we would have a much clearer picture of the relevant image quality issues across the different formats. Many other questions would also be illuminated. We would have a much better idea of how lens-limited sensors are, and consequently the useful theoretical ceiling in resolution for a particular sensor size, (given lens limits is there a genuine resolution gain going from a P65+ to whatever the resolution the next generation of sensors will be if the physical size of the sensor is not increased?). How much is lens resolution traded for increased coverage and as a consequence where is the sweet spot for resolution with sensor size/lens engineering limitations? This latter question is also very relevant for stitching. Which will yield more resolution, an x-part stitch with a lens with greater coverage or a single frame or stitch with lower frame count and sharper lens with less coverage? We would also get a sense of the outer parameters that are going to be possible: We aren't going to get sharper medium format or view camera lenses than the best current 35mm lenses.
None of this tells us anything about noise at higher ISOs or practical handling issues with different cameras but those matters are well known and understood already. Meandering discussions like the '3D look' one and arguments about MF versus DSLR remain very unsatisfactory with respect to basic image quality issues until good comparative sensor-to-sensor and lens-to-lens evaluations are made. CBarret's test provides a way of holding all variables constant except the sensor, I'm suggesting the same kind of thing should be done with lenses.
-
If I understand correctly, this will compare MF lenses vs 35mm lenses. Who will use in practice 35mm lenses on a MF body?
I interested in a comparison of IMAGES shoot with one complete MF system vs another MF or 35mm system. I think the gear should be different, the subject and light should be the same.
I also think the images should NOT be processed. Processing images make a big difference, no matter how much processing were added. So, the tester(s) should agree to not change the original and show us the result stright out of the MFDB.
-
If I understand correctly, this will compare MF lenses vs 35mm lenses. Who will use in practice 35mm lenses on a MF body?
I interested in a comparison of IMAGES shoot with one complete MF system vs another MF or 35mm system. I think the gear should be different, the subject and light should be the same.
I also think the images should NOT be processed. Processing images make a big difference, no matter how much processing were added. So, the tester(s) should agree to not change the original and show us the result stright out of the MFDB.
It isn't hard to take a DSLR and MF camera or view camera with MF back, shoot the same thing and compare images. What is difficult is determining the source of any differences observed. By isolating variables we can be a bit more scientific about it. This has practical consequences in terms of current usage and evaluation of realistic future possibilities. By testing lenses on their own whilst holding the sensor constant we can see lens limits and where the resolution/coverage trade-off falls. It could help understand how much room (if any) there is for increased resolution in the different formats given such limits and how we can use the lenses we have now. 35mm lenses are worth testing to see whether they are sharper than MF or view camera lenses and if so by how much.
To give one simple example: suppose we were to find that the best 35mm lenses could resolve 20% more than the best MF lenses which, in turn, could resolve 20% more than digital view camera lenses with 90mm image circles. We could then say that the lens limit on resolution for 35mm sensors was 20% higher than MF which, in turn, was 20% more than digital view cameras. Of course there are many complications to this picture, like resolution fall-off across a frame, aberrations etc. but I am sure there would still be rough generalisations that could be made.
-
I have a Aptus 75 and a 5D MK11 and their is no comparison the Aptus files are way better.
It is something everybody has to find out themselves by actually using the cameras , hearing
what others have to say is useful but nobody should be buying until you have tried them
yourself.
Regards
Terence
-
It isn't hard to take a DSLR and MF camera or view camera with MF back, shoot the same thing and compare images. What is difficult is determining the source of any differences observed. By isolating variables we can be a bit more scientific about it. This has practical consequences in terms of current usage and evaluation of realistic future possibilities. By testing lenses on their own whilst holding the sensor constant we can see lens limits and where the resolution/coverage trade-off falls. It could help understand how much room (if any) there is for increased resolution in the different formats given such limits and how we can use the lenses we have now. 35mm lenses are worth testing to see whether they are sharper than MF or view camera lenses and if so by how much.
Next month I hope to take my 1DsMk3 and 5Dmk2 and compare with the new Leica S2 and a Phase One P45 or 65. I'm going to use one of my Leica lenses on my Canons and shoot a few sample landscapes. That should really put and end to the debate in my mind. I will post the results. I have recently looked at a sample printed landscape shot from a H3D-50 and was blown away from the detail. I have no doubt the MF will trounce the Canon's as far as detail in large prints. I am very curious how the S2 will perform against the Phase P65. I think the bottom line will be the quality of the optics in the MF category.
I was recently at a demo for the new Phase camera and had the opportunity to talk directly with a representative about the optics. He said with the kind of work I do, I would not be happy with the Phase optics and would need to use the back on a tech camera to achieve the highest quality results. I was a bit shocked at his honesty. I would love to hear what others have to say about it.
-
I have a Aptus 75 and a 5D MK11 and their is no comparison the Aptus files are way better.
It is something everybody has to find out themselves by actually using the cameras , hearing
what others have to say is useful but nobody should be buying until you have tried them
yourself.
Regards
Terence
I've shot about 15,000 frames on a D3x and about the equivalent number with either a P65+, P45+ or an H3D39 on H-series backs and view cameras. I have a good general idea of the differences. What I couldn't honestly say is what the lens-limited maximum sensor resolutions are for the different formats nor how much you win by stitching a Rodenstock HR-W lens versus a single frame with an HR lens versus a Hasselblad H lens nor a host of other questions that are of practical working relevance and also significant for purchase decisions. Sometimes careful experiment is much more time efficient than rough try-outs.
-
I interested in a comparison of IMAGES shoot with one complete MF system vs another MF or 35mm system. I think the gear should be different, the subject and light should be the same.
I also think the images should NOT be processed. Processing images make a big difference, no matter how much processing were added. So, the tester(s) should agree to not change the original and show us the result stright out of the MFDB.
The complete system includes the lens correction software.
-
I doubt this is going to be the end all say all end of this argument. And any way, its all about personal preference what type of camera you emotionally prefer to work with. Yes I said emotionally, we are professional artist and need to be emotional about our work.
-
Nadav Kander is fond of saying that when he's shooting, he always thinks about the end goal: ink on paper.
I've done my own informal tests between MFDB and small format. MFDB is clearly a better file. The problem is that by the time you get to ink on paper, the difference is lost. There's too much that goes on from capture to final output to show the difference. Even if you forego post-production to the file, you still have interpolation by printer drivers, the spread of ink on paper and even the tooth of the paper to contend with.
So, we can do a test here by looking at files on our computers, but that's like judging a game by looking at the scores at halftime. It's nice to know and it's interesting, but it tells us little about the final outcome. The true measure is prints sitting side by side. As professionals, our work is ultimately judged in print form - whether it's in our portfolios or in the final printed pages produced by the client. Unfortunately, that's kinda tough to compare online.
Equally unfortunate, the argument will never end.
John
-
Very nice. This post is lucid and straightforward. I don't own a MF digital camera and I've only seen just 2 or 3 prints made from MF digital in my life. But from all posts I've read here and there for years, I've conclude the following:
1. DMF files are better than D35
2. Inkjet printing makes DMF lose most of the advantage it has over D35
3. DMF files show its advantage only when printed really big.
4. DMF files can be tweaked further
5. Is there an advantage when printed double page in standard glossy magazine?
If the answer is: "Some, slightly, Barely or None", then I see no point in spending a patrimony over a camera. Carefully exposed pictures need less tweaking anyway.
This dispute will probably never get set. The only thing we can do is to listen to those photogs that use both systems extensively provided their are honest and unbiased.
Thanks all for some terrific posts
Eduardo
Nadav Kander is fond of saying that when he's shooting, he always thinks about the end goal: ink on paper.
I've done my own informal tests between MFDB and small format. MFDB is clearly a better file. The problem is that by the time you get to ink on paper, the difference is lost. There's too much that goes on from capture to final output to show the difference. Even if you forego post-production to the file, you still have interpolation by printer drivers, the spread of ink on paper and even the tooth of the paper to contend with.
So, we can do a test here by looking at files on our computers, but that's like judging a game by looking at the scores at halftime. It's nice to know and it's interesting, but it tells us little about the final outcome. The true measure is prints sitting side by side. As professionals, our work is ultimately judged in print form - whether it's in our portfolios or in the final printed pages produced by the client. Unfortunately, that's kinda tough to compare online.
Equally unfortunate, the argument will never end.
John
-
Quite often i hear the people say that you cannot see the difference on a DPS , but now if your work is printed
really large and at high resolution which is happening a lot now you really can see the difference , especially
as the 2x3 format of the 35mm based digital cameras has to be cropped to reach the more common poster
formats.
Please note i am not wanting to argue the point here just state what i can see and the fact that my customers
always say "please quote using the large camera " when the posters are going A3 and upwards , recently did
a job where the images where going up in a retail warehouse and some images were 10 meters tall and needed
to be printed at a fairly high resolution , no 35mm camera would have cut it.
When i bought the 5D MK11 i thought to myself that maybe i could get rid of the Aptus because the file size is not
that far off and nobody would notice , well i can see a big difference and i would be short changing my customers
to give them anything but the best i can do.
And do not say the way D3X is way better :-) because this would soon digress into a DP Review type slanging match.
Back to lurking mode.
Regards
Terence
-
how often is apearing this discussion is really funny.
do anybdy seriously think or remember that in film days it appeard also similar often the question
if 35mm would be equal than 4x5" or the bigger mf formats as 6x7 ? ( except from leica fans )
and why didnt it be questioned in the same way ?
i think because the differences have been quite obvious and VERY big in film, in terms of resolution but also in terms of "look".
in comparation this huge differences have been marginalized ( imo ) meanwhile the price differences between the systems have multiplied itself.
but this eternal mf-35 discussions wont stop, even they might increase cause the gap will be already smaller and smaller.
-
Maybe I use MF system because I like using them, you know, the large view finders and leaf shutters etc. Maybe we focus too much on IQ these days, especially as any caerma or back released to pro's these days is usually pretty good (IQ) by default (high iso being a area where we have seen much recent improvement though).
-
(http://yaflamingalah.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/yawn.jpg)
just use whatever floats your boat ...
why the incessant drive/desire to convince the next guy of your choice
... peace
-
do anybdy seriously think or remember that in film days it appeard also similar often the question
if 35mm would be equal than 4x5" or the bigger mf formats as 6x7 ?..................... the gap will be already smaller and smaller.
This is just a money conversation, always has been.
In the film days a larger format system might costs five times as much but didn't costs $44,000 Vs. $3,500.
That's where this comes from, that and the fact the $44,000 camera doesn't have as many features as the $3,500 one.
If the top line medium format camera only costs $7,000 these conversations would be 1/100th of the volume we see now.
In the film days the difference between the film size of a hand camera vs a large format camera was huge, same with the image quality, but now 645 vs. 35mm isn't that much of a difference.
That's why you hear this 3d look talk, or sharpness talk because in reality 22mpx is still 22mpx and even then it's a larger file than required for most printed pages.
Also in the film days every view camera had swings, tilts, movements that we're almost impossible to do with a smaller camera. Now with dslr tilt shift lenses that isn't true.
Then again in the film days, regardless of price you bought a camera for a decade not 18 months.
But basically, It's just a money thing,
IMO
BC
-
This is just a money conversation, always has been.
In the film days a larger format system might costs five times as much but didn't costs $44,000 Vs. $3,500.
That's where this comes from, that and the fact the $44,000 camera doesn't have as many features as the $3,500 one.
If the top line medium format camera only costs $7,000 these conversations would be 1/100th of the volume we see now.
In the film days the difference between the film size of a hand camera vs a large format camera was huge, same with the image quality, but now 645 vs. 35mm isn't that much of a difference.
That's why you hear this 3d look talk, or sharpness talk because in reality 22mpx is still 22mpx and even then it's a larger file than required for most printed pages.
Also in the film days every view camera had swings, tilts, movements that we're almost impossible to do with a smaller camera. Now with dslr tilt shift lenses that isn't true.
Then again in the film days, regardless of price you bought a camera for a decade not 18 months.
But basically, It's just a money thing,
IMO
BC
agreed.
i just bought a setup of these new shift lenses for the canon and shot the first job with it, to try it out. its soooo convenient for travelling, and its fantastic to have a real live view. workflow is very good on site and postpro is fast too.
just printed out a shot done with the 17mm tse at 60/90 cm and there is no millimeter of detail to desire.
in the few cases i will go bigger the prints are big enough that no one puts its nose on them, and even if, upinterpolated right and added some grain ( same is necessary with any mf file ) there will be absolutely nothing to desire, at least this is what i think at this moment, i will see it soon.
i will see how my personal workflow will go on in future, i have the luxury to own two complete setups, so its up to me which i`ll find more convenient
( and better!! ). at this moment i am just more than surprised how these two new shift lenses from canon have changed the game in my working field.
-
I am afraid there is no end to this argument.
At the end of the day, everyone makes his/her own decision on the gear he/she wants and/or can afford to use.
-
Quite often i hear the people say that you cannot see the difference on a DPS , but now if your work is printed
really large and at high resolution which is happening a lot now you really can see the difference , especially
as the 2x3 format of the 35mm based digital cameras has to be cropped to reach the more common poster
formats.
Please note i am not wanting to argue the point here just state what i can see and the fact that my customers
always say "please quote using the large camera " when the posters are going A3 and upwards , recently did
a job where the images where going up in a retail warehouse and some images were 10 meters tall and needed
to be printed at a fairly high resolution , no 35mm camera would have cut it.
When i bought the 5D MK11 i thought to myself that maybe i could get rid of the Aptus because the file size is not
that far off and nobody would notice , well i can see a big difference and i would be short changing my customers
to give them anything but the best i can do.
And do not say the way D3X is way better :-) because this would soon digress into a DP Review type slanging match.
Back to lurking mode.
Regards
Terence
Terence,
How do you differentiate your pricing between MF & SLR, ie. what percentage extra do you factor in when quoting. This is an important consideration, as we have to quickly recover our "investment" in these disposable cameras.
Harold
-
This is just a money conversation, always has been.
In the film days a larger format system might costs five times as much but didn't costs $44,000 Vs. $3,500.
That's where this comes from, that and the fact the $44,000 camera doesn't have as many features as the $3,500 one.
If the top line medium format camera only costs $7,000 these conversations would be 1/100th of the volume we see now.
In the film days the difference between the film size of a hand camera vs a large format camera was huge, same with the image quality, but now 645 vs. 35mm isn't that much of a difference.
That's why you hear this 3d look talk, or sharpness talk because in reality 22mpx is still 22mpx and even then it's a larger file than required for most printed pages.
Also in the film days every view camera had swings, tilts, movements that we're almost impossible to do with a smaller camera. Now with dslr tilt shift lenses that isn't true.
Then again in the film days, regardless of price you bought a camera for a decade not 18 months.
But basically, It's just a money thing,
IMO
BC
It's a money thing combined with an ignorance thing. It's actually very hard to know in detail what is going on with these systems without laying out a lot of cash and shooting a lot. In film days most working pros and even people behind counters in shops new what shooting with a different equipment meant in terms of quality and look. I think there were two reasons for that: 1) Film was constant across formats. 2) Equipment and materials were around a long time and only changed incrementally.
Fortunately we now have forums though...right?
-
I am afraid there is no end to this argument.
At the end of the day, everyone makes his/her own decision on the gear he/she wants and/or can afford to use.
My original post was simply an attempt to show how one could clarify facts in order to make decisions. I think the facts are rather murky now.
-
agreed.
i just bought a setup of these new shift lenses for the canon and shot the first job with it, to try it out. its soooo convenient for travelling, and its fantastic to have a real live view. workflow is very good on site and postpro is fast too.
just printed out a shot done with the 17mm tse at 60/90 cm and there is no millimeter of detail to desire.
in the few cases i will go bigger the prints are big enough that no one puts its nose on them, and even if, upinterpolated right and added some grain ( same is necessary with any mf file ) there will be absolutely nothing to desire, at least this is what i think at this moment, i will see it soon.
i will see how my personal workflow will go on in future, i have the luxury to own two complete setups, so its up to me which i`ll find more convenient
( and better!! ). at this moment i am just more than surprised how these two new shift lenses from canon have changed the game in my working field.
I'm interested you say this. In the Spring I shot an editorial architecture job with the Nikon 24mm and 45mm shift lenses on a D3x and I would not do it again for double magazine spreads. The shifts compared with a view camera were inadequate and the sharpness just wasn't there. When I didn't need shifts the 24-70mm was fine so it wasn't a sensor issue.
However, maybe the new Canon lenses are significantly superior to Nikon's most recent offerings.
-
However, maybe the new Canon lenses are significantly superior to Nikon's most recent offerings.
A thread comparing MFdigital to 35MMdigital and now you want to go Nikon v Canon too
-
how often is apearing this discussion is really funny.
do anybdy seriously think or remember that in film days it appeard also similar often the question
if 35mm would be equal than 4x5" or the bigger mf formats as 6x7 ? ( except from leica fans )
and why didnt it be questioned in the same way ?
i think because the differences have been quite obvious and VERY big in film, in terms of resolution but also in terms of "look".
in comparation this huge differences have been marginalized ( imo ) meanwhile the price differences between the systems have multiplied itself.
Good point. These discussions appear endlessly because of the unreasonnable belief that MF digital has some magic qualities going beyond the difference in resolution and look. Nobody disagrees with these 2.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Terence,
How do you differentiate your pricing between MF & SLR, ie. what percentage extra do you factor in when quoting. This is an important consideration, as we have to quickly recover our "investment" in these disposable cameras.
Harold
Harald i am in quite a tough market in Durban South Africa and sometimes my only advantage is that having the DB swings me the job ,and the %
factor is only about 8%.
Best photographic business practices are very hard to apply here because i would be the only one and business would soon dry up.
Regards
Terence
-
I think the argument will never end, because it's another "horses for courses" situation.
IQ is just one aspect, look and feel (like Bernard pointed out) is another but then there's weight, convenience, AF speed, ergonomics and a zillion other factors which sometimes makes a MF preferred and sometimes a DSLR (and sometimes film, P&S, webcam, cell-phone, holga or other means to produce a picture)
Let's not try to end the argument, let's be happy with the diversity in choices we have to execute our job or hobby.
-
It's indeed a never ending argument and people forget it's more than IQ indeed:
1. Being able to sync higher than 1/125 (on most MF cameras)
2. Being able to drop down to ISO50 or ISO25
3. Bigger sensor so a more shallow DOF when using lots of lights (combined with 1-2 gives you option you DON'T have with a DSLR).
and:
4. being able to shoot film
5. being able to use a TC
6. working with a WLF (which I love)
It's indeed horses for courses.
When shooting bands or groups I will use a DSLR to get every member sharp in the image without going for lots of light.
When I'm shooting a single person I love the shallow DOF of MF combined with strobes.
When I'm shooting natural light I love the high ISO no noise of my 5DMKII.
There really is no argument to stop.
People having the argument don't have the knowledge about the difference between the two systems.....
OR and don't get me wrong on the first line because there are some VERY good photographers out there switching from MF to DSLR.
They simply can do their work best with a DSLR and than there's indeed for them no reason to switch based on IQ alone.
IQ is better on MF, but in magazine print you will probably not see it in 90% of the cases, unless again you want to do something that you can't with a DSLR.
For people still in doubt and owning both system, just try to shoot f22 on a 22MP 5DMKII and on an Aptus22 and I think you will see the difference.
There simply are things that both systems do equal or slightly better/worse, if you fall in that group go with a 5DMKII it rocks.
There are simply put also photographers out there that push the limits of a DSLR with strobes and ambient and those people will be much better off with a MF.
I've made shots that I would have never been able to pull off with a DSLR without getting to much DOF or a too soft image (or I would have to work with lots of ND filters)
Horses for courses, no argument.
-
This is just a money conversation, always has been.
In the film days a larger format system might costs five times as much but didn't costs $44,000 Vs. $3,500.
That's where this comes from, that and the fact the $44,000 camera doesn't have as many features as the $3,500 one.
lets compare "top of the line" to "top of the line"
p65+ $41,990
Nikon D3x $7499
Looks like just about 5.5 times to me. Still a lot of money.
For most photographers, I think that this $ difference is simply too much to overcome, but for those of us who need it, MFD is simply worth the difference. It's more than a money conversation. For the type of work I do, my 1dsmkIII simply doesn't cut it. Nor would a D3x. Nor will (probably) the 1dsMkIV.
Finally, Michael has put a very clear description in this forum of what it is, and is not:
"This forum is intended exclusively for the discussion of medium format digital backs, large sensor photography and related topics. Users of all brands and models are welcome, as are all photographers interested in learning more about this equipment."
I can't figure out why there is this continued attempt by some users to negate the value of MFD in a forum exclusively for those who use or have an "interest" in it. If your only "interest" is in saying its a waste of money....then maybe there's a better place than here to say it. I'm just sayin....
-
lets compare "top of the line" to "top of the line"
p65+ $41,990
Nikon D3x $7499
(snip)
a forum exclusively for those who use or have an "interest" in it. If your only "interest" is in saying its a waste of money....then maybe there's a better place than here to say it. I'm just sayin....
I have this conversation a lot lately with a lot of photographers. Not the medium format vs. the 35mm conversation, because most photographers are over that one, but the way the photography world is now conversation and like it or not it's changed.
I never thought it would take two days of staring into a teevee screen for every day I shoot, but that's the way it is . I never thought I'd even dream of paying $30,000 for a film back, but once again that's the way it is and we all know the toothpaste isn't going back.
In fact if you want to talk to a client about camera formats, the only format they know is a 24" lcd, they figure the black (or silver thing) tied to the computer is up to the photographer.
This forum covers a lot of territory, but mostly it's just gear talk by people that like to talk about gear.
We also have a lot of talk where the rubber meets the road and depending on whether your an amateur or a professional, depending on what you shoot, who you shoot for, the road can go from smoking the tires to cruising, but the only real honest fact of what camera is best "for you" comes when you write the check.
If you write the check you've proved your commitment. If not, it's just talk. Also the only validity in these conversations is if you shot the same gig, with different cameras and seen the results, not just of image quality (that covers a lot of territory) but of client acceptance.
I don't care what any camera anybody buys, I just know that it's not about the camera, it's what you do with it and what you produce.
But taking a page from my friend Master Gwitif's (I can never spell his name) book, the most important choice is either Pepcid AC or Priolosec.
BC
-
I'm interested you say this. In the Spring I shot an editorial architecture job with the Nikon 24mm and 45mm shift lenses on a D3x and I would not do it again for double magazine spreads. The shifts compared with a view camera were inadequate and the sharpness just wasn't there. When I didn't need shifts the 24-70mm was fine so it wasn't a sensor issue.
However, maybe the new Canon lenses are significantly superior to Nikon's most recent offerings.
I have shot dozens of double page spreads for architecture magazines, even with the old Canon T/S lenses. A simple flat stitch gives me all the resolution I need. The new Canon 24 lens does seem to be better than the Nikon based on comparing files of the same subject shot months apart (I no longer have the ability to do an actual side by side test with the Nikon).
-
I have shot dozens of double page spreads for architecture magazines, even with the old Canon T/S lenses. A simple flat stitch gives me all the resolution I need. The new Canon 24 lens does seem to be better than the Nikon based on comparing files of the same subject shot months apart (I no longer have the ability to do an actual side by side test with the Nikon).
I'm considering kitting out my D3 to be a serious backup solution. Kirk, you're bringin me down, man!
-
But the only real honest fact of what camera is best "for you" comes when you write the check. If you write the check you've proved your commitment.
so it's still about the money? Resolution, image malleability, sharpness, quality of skintones (and conversely low-light performance, capture speed, autofocus)...so these things are not honest facts? I don't want to belabor the point...but is your argument that what camera you use isn't important, that if you commit to buying at a certain price well then congrats you have a great camera, but that doesn't affect your photography, or "what you produce"?
I don't care what any camera anybody buys, I just know that it's not about the camera, it's what you do with it and what you produce.
I remember being told this in school, and for the most part I agree with you in a very general way. It's a great way to teach people the value of technique, ideas, and creativity over tools, resources and opportunity. On the other hand, I know that when I made my first true "professional" leap into digital...a Canon 10D...that I was not producing work that was as strong technically, but also creatively as I was on 120 film. There were simply too many compromises in the system at that point, and my work (whether my clients knew it or not) suffered. Today, the range of compromises in photographic systems of varying prices has certainly narrowed. A canon g10 can be used to produce files of a highly refined and indeed commercial and artistic nature, yet it is no replacement for the H3D I use in the work that I do. (fashion for retail clients--yesterday alone I enlarged nearly a dozen images at sizes from 2x3 ft. to 5.5 x 6.5 ft.)
I have a friend who is a cabinet maker, and he recently plunked down about 20 grand for a new "edge-bander" (which puts wood veneer down the edge of a panel). Now cabinetry is a craft that is certainly much older and traditional than photography. And edge banding, while a relatively new technique, has probably been practiced for at least the past 60 years or so. This technique can be accomplished with little more than a table saw and some spray glue, so why would someone spend easily 10 times that amount on a machine that does what "some" would say is exactly the same as the low-fi technique. Well, Dave would tell you that not only is the machine faster (and therefore cheaper)...but that it does the job better than one of his guys could do with a simpler tool. And because of this expensive machine...they can work successfully with a greater variety of materials and thus create less compromises to the artistic vision of their clients and themselves. For him...it's about so much more than the money he spent on the damn thing.
I work with a lot of fabricators, in wood, steel, concrete, plastics etc... and I can tell you that most of the ones who do the best work, simply have the best equipment...and that it goes along side their commitment to quality...not just a commitment to the equipment because they have money burning holes in their pockets.
I spent some time with the photographers from VII in Cambodia a few years back. Gary Knight was carrying around an old Leica, and a 500c/m. Alexandra Boulat had a 1ds, and Antonin Kratochvil an Olympus OM-20! It was funny, Gary hated DSLR's because they're too big and heavy (he's about 6'5" and pretty solid), Alexandra was about half his size, but would come back from a days shooting with a couple thousand images..which you could never do on Gary's Leica....Antonin was usually just flirting with the girls and making sure he was in everyone else's shots...then once it a while he'd pick up his beat-up camera and fire off a round or two. The thing is...these photographers all could afford whatever cameras they wanted, but chose the tools that worked best for them. Their work reflects that choice. Today in advertising there is a huge demand for work that is big, sharp and technically precise. Medium Format gives you that. In the art world there has certainly been one trend towards large, technically precise imagery...Thomas Struth, Gregory Crewdson come to mind. Medium Format gives you that. It doesn't give you Antonin's grainy, shakey, scary, amazing, haunting beautiful images. That's his eye and some crazy magic doing that. Yet it's hard to imagine Crewdson's elaborate film sets captured on Antonin's OM-20 instead of the 8x10 he typically uses. Sure you could do it...but it wouldn't be the same...and certainly not be a good match for Crewdson's vision. It's hard to imagine Avedon's "In the West" portraits being as successful if shot on a 5dmarkII (yet I know from many years of imitating and emulating him that my hasselblad is up to the challenge (and that none of my Canon's is).
So when you say "it's not about the camera"...I have to say, that in a very specific way..:~), I respectfully disagree.
-
The wife and I are watching Closeup : Portraits on Ovation and it's featuring Bruce Davidson. He's working with a 500 CM. I love those old 'Blads, man! The camera DOES totally influence the way you work. I have 35mm shots I treasure and never could of gotten with medium or large format.
Take that statement, keep switching the formats around and it will always hold true.
Unrelated: Why is Albert Maysles so friggin cool?!!!!
-
I totally and absolutely believe it!
Years ago, I bought this cool sports car. One day a friend of mine and I rode to a joint where we parked the car. The car coud be seen by many people. We stepped out of the car and while going inside my friend told me: "God, you walk differently". To which I responded: "Yes I noticed but I can't help it"
Eduardo
He's working with a 500 CM. I love those old 'Blads, man! The camera DOES totally influence the way you work.
-
Sure cameras influence the way we shoot. But a camera can't compose a shot, direct a subject nor come up with a great idea.
And a super sharp, hi res but crappy photo shot on MFDB is still a crappy photo.
In the midst of a recent shoot, my Leaf back decided to go south after a little tumble. So I switched to my 5DMII. In the final piece which is a composite of six or seven different shots - half taken with the 5D and half with the Hassie/Leaf combo - there's no way to tell what was shot with what. Believe me, I wish I could tell the difference between my fancy MFDB setup and my 5D that every wannabe photographer and their mother owns. But I can't.
John
-
The wife and I are watching Closeup : Portraits on Ovation and it's featuring Bruce Davidson. He's working with a 500 CM. I love those old 'Blads, man!
hasselblad ... schmasselblad
some of his most compelling work was done with 35mil
-
The wife and I are watching Closeup : Portraits on Ovation and it's featuring Bruce Davidson.
On either that show, or one of the ones following it, on Photo Night, the segment shows Brigitte LaCombe shooting a portrait in the studio with a handheld H camera. David Grover should watch that segment, in order to see, in a very graphic way, why the H camera needs a Vertical Grip. The segment shows her holding the H, with some giant lens on it, and she's shooting a vertical, but she's holding the camera like she's shooting a horizontal, but she's literally bending over sideways, with her weight to the extreme left, trying to lay her body over to get the H body into a vertical orientation. I literally burst out laughing when I saw the segment. I searched around, at that very moment, for Grover's home phone number, to try to get him to turn on the TV, but then realized that he lives in hiding.
I can't imagine how long Ms. LaCombe could hold that position, while holding that H body. And I imagine every single frame had weird horizon lines, and she tried to lean over to shoot verticals.
A later segment shows her finally giving up, and throwing the body onto a tripod.
http://www.ovationtv.com/programs/FRAMED/ (http://www.ovationtv.com/programs/FRAMED/) (click on "Close Up: Portraits")
(Unrelated: Fascinating, compelling show on that same night -- interview with Charis Wilson, regarding her time with Edward Weston).
-
Is there an option for us Europeans to "download" or buy that series ?
-
The wife and I are watching Closeup : Portraits on Ovation and it's featuring Bruce Davidson. He's working with a 500 CM.
I loved one of his quotes: "I go into the darkroom every day and start printing at 5am, and I finish at 2pm, and that's it", and he said it as if he thought some people might consider 5am-2pm to be a Slacker Darkroom Day.
-
On either that show, or one of the ones following it, on Photo Night, the segment shows Brigitte LaCombe shooting a portrait in the studio with a handheld H camera. David Grover should watch that segment, in order to see, in a very graphic way, why the H camera needs a Vertical Grip. The segment shows her holding the H, with some giant lens on it, and she's shooting a vertical, but she's holding the camera like she's shooting a horizontal, but she's literally bending over sideways, with her weight to the extreme left, trying to lay her body over to get the H body into a vertical orientation. I literally burst out laughing when I saw the segment. I searched around, at that very moment, for Grover's home phone number, to try to get him to turn on the TV, but then realized that he lives in hiding.
Ok my number is...
+44 7980 .....
Oh, hand on a sec. Not a good idea. ;-)
Plus I would have been asleep as, crazy as it may seem, I do not live in the US.
Anyway, would be nice to know if it is possible, as Frank says, for us lowly Europeans to download it?
There was a poll over on hasselbladdigitalforum.com and it wasn't a white wash for the vertical grip.
D
-
There was a poll over on hasselbladdigitalforum.com and it wasn't a white wash for the vertical grip.
D
We did indeed run a poll to try and establish what demand there was for a vertical grip. 50% of respondents were prepared to pay up to $500 and another 25% or so up to $1000.
I don't think Hasselblad are going to invest in the tooling and R&D for a vertical grip to sell at $1000. Getting the shutter release and aperture dial working on a vertical grip is a non trivial exercise, the fact that Mr Tucker wants it doesn't make it easy to do sadly.
Nick-T
-
We did indeed run a poll to try and establish what demand there was for a vertical grip. 50% of respondents were prepared to pay up to $500 and another 25% or so up to $1000.
I don't think Hasselblad are going to invest in the tooling and R&D for a vertical grip to sell at $1000. Getting the shutter release and aperture dial working on a vertical grip is a non trivial exercise, the fact that Mr Tucker wants it doesn't make it easy to do sadly.
Nick-T
Personally, a rotating back/sensor would make more sense than a vertical grip on the Hasselblad.
-
David,
I don't know how to get it to you. See if your cable service offers Ovation, or maybe it's on zulu or whatever it's called. If not, I can easily pick up my 5D2 and play the video on my tv and take a picture of the screen, as she bends over sideways, and throws out her back.
Go ahead and slap some popcorn in the microwave, grab the remote control, and get ready. You're gonna love this.
-
Personally, a rotating back/sensor would make more sense than a vertical grip on the Hasselblad.
Alex
I don't see how that would work within a 645 gate?
Nick-T
-
Personally, a rotating back/sensor would make more sense than a vertical grip on the Hasselblad.
Sorry, but a rotating back on a 645 Camera doesn´t make sense as the sensor would be larger than the camera format. Coming from the RZ I miss that option though.
So please make that vertical grip, and don´t forget it should work with the older bodies and none HB-Backs as well, if you don´t want to be flamed again.
Cheers, Ulf
-
I think that the Hasselblad V system remains unbeatable, that is, until Canikon chimes in.
Eduardo
Sorry, but a rotating back on a 645 Camera doesn´t make sense as the sensor would be larger than the camera format. Coming from the RZ I miss that option though.
So please make that vertical grip, and don´t forget it should work with the older bodies and none HB-Backs as well, if you don´t want to be flamed again.
Cheers, Ulf
-
I think that the Hasselblad V system remains unbeatable, that is, until Canikon chimes in.
Eduardo
Hi Eduardo,
we used the V-System and changed to the RZ many years ago. We suddenly had a 6x7cm frame and to be honest, from the V-Blads we almost never used more than 4.5x6cm finally - but that was on film that days. Haven´t missed the Blads one second. Today we are with Hasselblad again, use the H System, because of leaf-shutter, size, autofocus and overall speed. It´s not too bad but still heavy and definitly missing the vertical grip. But I´m sure the vertical grip will only work with Hasselblad digital backs because of strange integration issues (politics).
We didn´t find a serious way to use "Canikon" in our work. We simply love the way to work with MFDB, on MF-cameras and on view cameras.
Cheers, Ulf
-
I don't think Hasselblad are going to invest in the tooling and R&D for a vertical grip to sell at $1000. Getting the shutter release and aperture dial working on a vertical grip is a non trivial exercise, the fact that Mr Tucker wants it doesn't make it easy to do sadly.
Nick-T
Nick, I think he realized that there'd never be a Vertical Grip brought to market. Not that David didn't give it his best shot.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=39486 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39486)
-
Hi Ulf:
What I meant is that if Nikon or especially Canon would decide to go into MF, either one or both would corner this segment in no time. The RZ is without doubt a dream system for studio work but as long as sensors remain ultra expensive we won't see sensors bigger than 6X6. In the meantime (possibly 7-10 more years?), Hasselblad V is perfect for slow pace studio work, landscape and location portraiture. I don't own a digiback yet, so, for the time being I'm happily shooting out of a humble 5DMk2.
Hi Eduardo,
we used the V-System and changed to the RZ many years ago. We suddenly had a 6x7cm frame and to be honest, from the V-Blads we almost never used more than 4.5x6cm finally - but that was on film that days. Haven´t missed the Blads one second. Today we are with Hasselblad again, use the H System, because of leaf-shutter, size, autofocus and overall speed. It´s not too bad but still heavy and definitly missing the vertical grip. But I´m sure the vertical grip will only work with Hasselblad digital backs because of strange integration issues (politics).
We didn´t find a serious way to use "Canikon" in our work. We simply love the way to work with MFDB, on MF-cameras and on view cameras.
Cheers, Ulf
-
Nick, I think he realized that there'd never be a Vertical Grip brought to market. Not that David didn't give it his best shot.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=39486 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39486)
Ill line you up for an H4D50 then.
-
Heres a quickie(15 minute) side by side P21+(18mp DF) + D3X(24mp FF)
Fairly low light, just florescent under cabinet lights. Not trying to get fancy.
Tried to keep the perspective as close as possible. Both on F8 Aperture priority (should have done full manual)
The D3X was in raw and the P21+ was output in Tiff.
I only have the camera for a couple days and don't have a manual for the P21+
Used minor USM on all files and auto tone in LR to start
The Dx3 Is pretty much spot on WB and the P21 had to tweak it a bit
D3X for colors is very close to the real thing if not perfect
P21+ Had to really pump it up and there is a green cast still, but not showing the true vivid green the D3X does
Take it for whats it's worth, if it's worth anything.
Either way I have the D3x as my main camera and am hopefully going to get a P40+ in a few days
D3X
[attachment=18278:House_f8..._1_of_1_.jpg]
P21+
[attachment=18279:P21_house.JPG]
D3X
[attachment=18280:house_f8..._1_of_1_.jpg]
P21+
[attachment=18281:house_f8..._1_of_1_.jpg]
-
<deleted> I'm going to make a new years resolution to avoid all these topics for a whole year, maybe longer.
Heres a quickie(15 minute) side by side P21+(18mp DF) + D3X(24mp FF)
Tried to keep the perspective as close as possible. Both on F8 Aperture priority (should have done full manual)
The D3X was in raw and the P21+ was output in Tiff.
I only have the camera for a couple days and don't have a manual for the P21+
Used minor USM on all files and auto tone in LR to start
The Dx3 Is pretty much spot on WB and the P21 had to tweak it a bit
D3X for colors is very close to the real thing if not perfect
P21+ Had to really pump it up and there is a green cast still, but not showing the true vivid green the D3X does
Take it for whats it's worth, if it's worth anything.
Either way I have the D3x as my main camera and am hopefully going to get a P40+ in a few days
D3X
[attachment=18278:House_f8..._1_of_1_.jpg]
P21+
[attachment=18279:P21_house.JPG]
D3X
[attachment=18280:house_f8..._1_of_1_.jpg]
P21+
[attachment=18281:house_f8..._1_of_1_.jpg]
-
With taking into account not setting the white balance on the P21 and the basically crappy full size images, which was not the purpose....
The closeups look surprisingly similar in detail, but in different ways.
The D3X has 30% more pixels and the P21+ more sensor area.
-
What were the lenses? There's a huge difference in depth of field. Nice hilight detail in the P21+.
-
Despite that, the P21 is definitively sharper.
With taking into account not setting the white balance on the P21 and the basically crappy full size images, which was not the purpose....
The closeups look surprisingly similar in detail, but in different ways.
The D3X has 30% more pixels and the P21+ more sensor area.
-
What were the lenses? There's a huge difference in depth of field. Nice hilight detail in the P21+.
D3X had the 24-70
P21+ 80mm
Tried to keep the image width close, but not being used to the veiwfinder on the P21 it was a little off. Same tripod mounting for both. The height of the D3X from base to lens centerline is a little taller also