Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: rainer_v on December 05, 2009, 07:55:51 pm
-
following the former tread where MFHA posted a comparison, finally i wanted to find out for myself, at which point the canons with the recent shift lenses stands , compared to the top notch rodenstock HR lenses. i hate pixel peeping comparisons, but in this case to see clearer where are the limits, it even made sense for me to try out some motifs side by side. my conclusion is similar than MFHA`s. i find the results more closed together, i dont have so much image degradation at the outer image zones than his photo shows. i have used for all shots f11. sample variation? unfortunately it exists independent from the manufactor and also of the price point and i think its just unacceptable.
i will go on in the next days comparing the 24tse, ( also together with the 1,4extender ) against the rodenstock digital 45mm lens and the 45tse against the 60HR.
to read the tests together i post here the links to the other lens tests:
35 HR against the 24 TS-E :
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=39887 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39887)
what jumped at first in my eye is how good corrected the 17tse is. better than the 23HR, although the ALPA software plugin does a very very good job in correcting shifted lenses. image shows the uncorrected image version, followed by the alpa correction.
secondly the vignetting of the 17tse is stunning, to reach similar good results with the HR lens white shadings have to be applied with the falloff correction, set at the offset point in eXposure of 50%.
i did not postad a comparison of the sharpness of the 17tse to the 23HR at the left upper extreme corner, cause the result would be misleading. i shifted the 23HR a bit over its image circle and this caused to a degraded image at the extreme edge, normally the HR is extreme sharp even at the outer edges, i dont want to show this kind of artifact ( caused by my mistake )
for not giving a wrong impression of this outstanding lens. although i posted the outer edge to show that the 17tse still is very sharp even closed to the end of its image circle.
dynamic range of the sensor seems to be very similar. maybe a half stop advantage for the sinar e75, but the canon recovers highlights with less prone to color casts, so they will end up with a similar range, the e75 wants to be exposed with more care for its more aggressive highlight clipping.
sharpness of both lenses is clearly limited by the sensors, so a P65 will resolve way more detail with the HR lenses and will disqualify the canon far more, but i dont see the point for which use are this extreme resolutions. even my very big prints which exceed 2 meters look very great with the e75, i have very little desire for needing more. maybe if the prices are affortable thats ok for me, but just now i dont want to spend so much money for a feature i dont desire that much.
the next generation of canons probably will come very close to the e75 with its 33mp, ofcourse it will not scratch the p65 or the aptus10.
color rendition is "cooler" with the e75, which i prefer, although the canon gives under even the worst light conditions still good colors, where it can happen that the e75 fails ( certain types of fluorescent lights mixed with tungsten ).
my conclusion: the e75 is sharper, but not that much ( this would look different as described with higher resolution sensors ).
i printed out with very good results the canon till A1, which is for working situations more than enough and i wouldnt care to upinterpolate with photozoom much bigger sizes ( not forgetting to add grain ).
handling of the canon is great for its live view with grid, but sharpness has to be checked very careful at 10x magnification, and battery consumption is high with the canon and live view. for a day of work one better goes with 4 batteries, meanwhile with the e75 rarely i need more than 2.
the artec handles great too for smooth composition on the groundglas, sharpness control is not necessary if the object and the lenses are well adjusted,-
the workflow with it is much more on the 4x5" side,- which may like architectural shooters who come from film, as i hope.
i sharpened the e75 with 150% and 0,4 radius and the canon ( a bit more for its AA filter ) with 200% and 0,5 radius.
all images taken with f11.
17tse, 12mm up, canon 5dmk2,
[attachment=18372:2_17TSE.jpg]
23HR, 12mm up, sinar e75lv, artek , distortion with ALPA plugin corrected
[attachment=18373:2_23HR.jpg]
23HR, 12mm up, sinar e75lv, artek , ( without distortion correction )
[attachment=18374:2_23HR_alpa.jpg]
crop, center detail, image at the bottom is the e75 with the 23HR, at top the 17tse
[attachment=18382:2_unten_23HR_crop2.jpg]
crop2 only the 17tse, left upper corner
[attachment=18377:2_17TSE_crop3.jpg]
image 2:
in this image i up-interpolated the 22mp canon in photoshop to app. the same size than the 33mp e75 image,
to be able to compare a bit better the "Real" detail difference between the two systems.
i uprezzed the canon to the same horizontal size of 6666 pixels.
as in image 1 i sharpened the e75 with 150% and 0,4 radius and the canon ( a bit more for its AA filter ) with 200% and 0,5 radius.
17tse with the 5dmks
[attachment=18378:1_17tse.jpg]
23hr with the e75
[attachment=18379:1_23HR.jpg]
and two crops, one time from the left side to the right side, the image at the bottom is the 23HR again,
and the second image from top to bottom. in the brass at the botttom i.m.o. the sharpness diffeence is mostly visible.
right image is the 23HR.
[attachment=18380:1_unten_23H_crop1.jpg]
[attachment=18381:1_rechts...HR_crop2.jpg]
-
Cut it out, Rainer. I had a very nice day with my view camera and you're ruining it!
: )
-
One can clearly see more 3D effect with the 23HR -
You know I'm mostly just kidding around with that comment - mostly!
Thank for doing the tests and sharing your results. The files are closer than I would have guessed.
-
The 23 looks a little nicer, but if you never saw the images side by side the Canon looks better then I thought it would. I am evaluating if I am going to stay with my Leaf Aptus. It's been such an up hill battle with lines, color cast, lens falloff, ect..... I am sick of all the time spent fixing what should have been fixed from the start.
I shoot a lot with the 24xl, but not sure the 17tse would offer the same coverage?
-
Excellent comparison Rainer.
-
Very interesting comparison. The Canon images look very good, you clearly have an excellent copy of the 17 T/S.
I guess after a comparison like this, with its very close IQ results, the open question is when to use what. Do you always use the Canon because it is easier to work with, or do you always use the arTec because it is nicer (?) to work with, or do you use both, and if so, when do you use each? Do you move up to something larger, like a P65+? Can you see the extra resolution in a 2m print?
-
Rainer: Same here. I never thought the 17Ts would be THIS good despite all the raving reviews it has gotten. I knew I was going to get the 2 new TS's from Canon while I wait for the right time to jump to a digital back. Now, I don't know.
I'd love to see the TS 17 and 24TSII used with a 7D under such a fine comparo like the one you just did in order to see if these fine lenses are at their limit or not. If these lenses can show better pixel level resolution than this, I may never make it to DMF. The prices are unreal.
One question: Why does the 75 shows more noise?
Thanks so much for such enlighting post. I almost feel sorry for the digital back makers.
Eduardo
-
This is the beginning of the end! LOL
-
Great comparison Rainer, thanks. You're making me think hard about whether to continue with MF. I love the results from my Hasselblad but the new canon lenses look pretty amazing.
I have followed many of your posts and I feel you keep trying the canons to see if you can make them your main tool. I wonder, are you thinking of using the canons for just about everything?
-
Do you always use the Canon because it is easier to work with, or do you always use the arTec because it is nicer (?) to work with, or do you use both, and if so, when do you use each? Do you move up to something larger, like a P65+? Can you see the extra resolution in a 2m print?
i am not sure if its easier to work with the canon, more the opposite. i like the ground-glass based work with the artec, i have more lenses and a more complete setup for it and i dont have experience to make whole jobs with the canon. i will try it out, but i am a bit careful in changing systems.
i am sure the extra resolution of the p65 is visible in such big prints, the question is if it has any useful impact to the image, means if it makes the image looking better.
u know that the viewing distance isn't the same as with smaller prints and that is even difficult to go so close to such big prints neing it even only for interest. on the other hand, with some inches of distance ( really still very close ), an up-interpolated ( photozoom plus grain ) image from the emotion75 looks absolute stunning and no-one never showed any desire for having more details, so for what is it good? in this case the motif itself but also how it is rendered is by far more important than if you get more micro details in it or not.
of course i would have more room for cropping with higher resolution , but i rarely do it much.
on location work, which is most of my work, i dont want bigger files as i already have. i edit most of the time on my laptop, even i have two eizos which are sent behind me to my hotels , one is in us and one in europe. if i work with laptop on several layers i am not so keen on doubling the size of the files and so the time spent in editing.
it costs my nerves and my clients money, so if no-one needs what for i do? further i like a lot the workflow from the eXposure architecture plug in with its btach white file and vignetting correction, so very little interest ( no interest ) in changing here to C1.
the price deterioration is fast, so if its this time the same than the last years i prefer to catch my p65 in two years for $10.000 having two generations faster laptops too at that time.
the canon looks excellent, but it still is a bit inferior in terms of sharpness. i am not sure how the impact will be on such big print sizes.
it could be that there the e75 is minimum quality for this and everything else will get an un-appetizing look.
so i havent decided what to do now, i will keep on trying and thinking.
one important point is dust. although the canon has this shaky sensor dust removement it dosnt work good enough. there always remain some spots which is very time consuming.
the e75 with the artek is an incredible good couple herein. sometimes i work several weeks (!!!) without one dust spot to remove or any sensor cleaning.
thats fantastic and a big plus.
The 23 looks a little nicer, but if you never saw the images side by side the Canon looks better then I thought it would.
i think its more the e75 which looks nicer for showing somehow colder colors, with less yellow in it.
if you layer the two images of the ugly yellow house, you will see how different is the distortion INSIDE the frame. the 23HR is much more rounded than the 17tse.
in the end i think the 17tse looks better than the 23HR, but the sensor of the emotion has advantages over the canon, but not in all aspects. ( highlight rendering ).
i prefer the less saturated deep shadows o f the canon.
I'd love to see the TS 17 and 24TSII used with a 7D under such a fine comparo like the one you just did in order to see if these fine lenses are at their limit or not. If these lenses can show better pixel level resolution than this, I may never make it to DMF. The prices are unreal.
One question: Why does the 75 shows more noise?
Thanks so much for such enlighting post. I almost feel sorry for the digital back makers.
Eduardo
i bet that there is enough room for higher resolution sensors. i would estimate till 40 -60 mp for sure.
the saturation in the shadows is higher with the e75 ( which is a software question ). also i cant expose so heavy the highlights than with the canon and loose maybe one stop therefor. both together results in a bit higher noise level, but i dont care because the results look very good in regard of noise if used base iso.
but for sure there is no mf advantage ( see our 16bit legend here in LL ) over the canon.
-
i am not sure if its easier to work with the canon, more the opposite. i like the ground-glass based work with the artec, i have more lenses and a more complete setup for it and i dont have experience to make whole jobs with the canon. i will try it out, but i am a bit careful in changing systems.
Hmm, so if the arTec is easier to work with, and your system more complete, and you have more experience with the arTec to do every job perfectly, and the e75 gets you more resolution and generally better colours, and your laptop handles your existing workflow, then I guess my question reverses itself: why use the Canon at all, even if it is good?
i am sure the extra resolution of the p65 is visible in such big prints, the question is if it has any useful impact to the image, means if it makes the image looking better. u know that the viewing distance isn't the same as with smaller prints and that is even difficult to go so close to such big prints neing it even only for interest. on the other hand, with some inches of distance ( really still very close ), an up-interpolated ( photozoom plus grain ) image from the emotion75 looks absolute stunning and no-one never showed any desire for having more details, so for what is it good? in this case the motif itself but also how it is rendered is by far more important than if you get more micro details in it or not. of course i would have more room for cropping with higher resolution , but i rarely do it much. on location work, which is most of my work, i dont want bigger files as i already have(...)
In this case, I can see only one reason for using the P65+: moiré. Do you spend a lot of time fixing moiré? If not, I guess there simply is no reason to get one.
-
Hmm, so if the arTec is easier to work with, and your system more complete, and you have more experience with the arTec to do every job perfectly, and the e75 gets you more resolution and generally better colours, and your laptop handles your existing workflow, then I guess my question reverses itself: why use the Canon at all, even if it is good?
In this case, I can see only one reason for using the P65+: moiré. Do you spend a lot of time fixing moiré? If not, I guess there simply is no reason to get one.
moiree is very very rare an issue with the e75. in the few cases i got it i shot a second shot with f22 or higher, which eliminates 90% of the
moiree for diffraction and layer it erasing the moiree zones.
why i bought them ?
well ... i use the canon for nearly every shot with long lenses for details and i was very interested in these new tse lenses, so i bought them in a weak moment.
after they came i realized how good they are, i explained that i will explore for what i will use the canon in future and for what not.
there will be a lot of stuff where it will fit. e.g. i want to use them for moonlit shots of industry, i will use it for some travelling work,
but i will do after i made enough experience with it. so it can be too that i will use it much more in the future than i was planning, but its too early to state this.
at all this does not make the artek worse nor its workflow, but i want to show with this posting too that the canon is everything else than a 2.class tool.
most things come down for me to the workflow, so image composing, convenience of develloping the files,
weight and lens ranges will be the important facts which system will be with me on my work.
in any case the canon is a fantastic backup system, but i think i will use it much more.
-
Reading this I think I will never use anything else but a 35mm SLR.
The D3x I have does a great job on architecture but also in the evening at 1600 to 3200 asa when I portrait musicians and artists at 1.4 if I like.
Using 4x5 inch in the past I am now at 1/2of the quality in one shot and shift-stiched at about that quality.
In the future things will only become better.
The only borders I see are the quality of the optics and the optical diffraction border.
On the first I can see Nikon and Canon bringing out better lenses than ever before that really address the 20+MegaPixell cameras; on the latter I do not know at how many MP that border is reached but well over 30MP I guess.
-
Hi Rainer, thanks for sharing your test. I also use e75 on view camera and 1Ds MKII for details (furniture and interior shots). Same as you I'm not a pixel peeping, I never look at the details at 100% because when I compare the Canon and the Sinar files I see a different world in terms of tonal gradation: the sinar's are much rounded and smoohness, more film like wich gives me more space using curve in PS.
Looking at your test my question is: do you find this new canon generation (starting from 5D MKII) has reached the MF performance about tonal gradation? do you still notice a gap between them? looking at this test I'm quite confused.
Thanks
-
Very interesting comparison. The Canon images look very good, you clearly have an excellent copy of the 17 T/S.
Or he simply knows how to take a photo properly.
While many Canon lenses have sample variation that is unacceptable, these results are in line with mine, another photog I know, and every report and review I've seen.
-
Or he simply knows how to take a photo properly.
Being a great photographer does not give sharp corners. This was a comparison, so no funky stuff.
While many Canon lenses have sample variation that is unacceptable, these results are in line with mine, another photog I know, and every report and review I've seen.
You are reading more into my sentence than I wrote. His copy *is* great.
-
Rainer, thanks for the comparison. However, I was not really impressed with the images from the 17tse. If two photographers came to me, one presenting the images such as those here from the 17tse and the other photographer presenting images such as those here with the 23HR, I would hire the photographer who showed me the images that look like the ones from the 23HR and not the ones from the Canon. The Canon images did not have enough snap to them, and I notice lack of fine details, probably due to the smearing of the AA filter. Lack of details in an image often (subliminally) translates into lack of concern for detail by the photographer, which I think could hurt his/her reputation.
I guess it would come down to cost. If it was a budget constrained job, where some quality could be sacrificed, then I guess I might buy the Canon-type results, but the work would have to be a heck of a lot cheaper. How much less would you offer your services by using the Canon? And, if my client's job was worth $$$$, there is no way I would risk losing such a job by buying the Canon images.
-
Hey Rainer, I was wondering about the "using Canon for long lens shots"... how long are you talking about? I carry a 135mm as my longest lens for the Arca, but have used my 180 even on occasion.
-
Nice comparison, and a little bit surprising. The 17 TS-E holds up quite well. Out of curiosity, how good is the 23 HR compared to other lenses in the HR lineup? As interesting as this comparison is, I'm wondering if the extremely wide FOV is stacking the deck in favor of the Canon, relative to the results you would get at more moderate focal lengths.
-
Rainer, thanks for the comparison. However, I was not really impressed with the images from the 17tse. If two photographers came to me, one presenting the images such as those here from the 17tse and the other photographer presenting images such as those here with the 23HR, I would hire the photographer who showed me the images that look like the ones from the 23HR and not the ones from the Canon. The Canon images did not have enough snap to them, and I notice lack of fine details, probably due to the smearing of the AA filter. Lack of details in an image often (subliminally) translates into lack of concern for detail by the photographer, which I think could hurt his/her reputation.
I guess it would come down to cost. If it was a budget constrained job, where some quality could be sacrificed, then I guess I might buy the Canon-type results, but the work would have to be a heck of a lot cheaper. How much less would you offer your services by using the Canon? And, if my client's job was worth $$$$, there is no way I would risk losing such a job by buying the Canon images.
There will be very,very view customers who can see this difference. How many customers are pixelpeeping with a 100% file?
I like to have these customers so I have a good excuse to buy a MF system. :-)
-
Looking forward to when Michael reviews the Hartblei Cam with Canon 17mm and 24mm TSE-II lenses,
hopefully onto P65+ digital back. Then, we'll see how good the Canon lenses really are.
Thank you, Rainer, for your comparison.
-
2 weeks ago I did a shot for a friend of mine, who is a graphic designer and has got a Canon 5D2 with a 17 TSE lens. I did my shot with my Sinarback 54H and a 24 mm Schneider Apo-Digitar.
First file is with the Sinar, second is with the Canon. The third file is a 100% detail; on the left side the Sinar file, on the right side the Canon file. Both are sharpenend with NIK RAW Presharpener at 50%.
The 4th file is a detail from the left side of the image. The Canon shows purple fringing, the Sinar not.
We did a few comparisons, but some of the Canon files were not really sharp. Focusing with the Canon is difficult.
-
Or he simply knows how to take a photo properly.
While many Canon lenses have sample variation that is unacceptable, these results are in line with mine, another photog I know, and every report and review I've seen.
My 17TS sample also appears to be excellent, although I've only shot it with a 5D so far. Lloyd Chambers has documented the only poor sample I've heard of, which had some left to right focus non-uniformity.
-
My 17TS sample also appears to be excellent, although I've only shot it with a 5D so far. Lloyd Chambers has documented the only poor sample I've heard of, which had some left to right focus non-uniformity.
There was a guy on FM who wasn't really happy and sold it, although he didn't document the problem, and I think the guy at the front of this thread has a copy which is okay, but not as good as Rainer's. In general they do seem to be very good, with just a few people being unhappy. Early after the release I heard a few people who were not, but as time passes the odds appear to be settling down a bit more in favour of the 17 T/S.
-
There was a guy on FM who wasn't really happy and sold it, although he didn't document the problem, and I think the guy at the front of this thread has a copy which is okay, but not as good as Rainer's. In general they do seem to be very good, with just a few people being unhappy. Early after the release I heard a few people who were not, but as time passes the odds appear to be settling down a bit more in favour of the 17 T/S.
Thanks for the additional details. I got my copy only a couple of weeks ago when Adorama received some new stock, so you may be right about the QC improving with time.
-
Rainer, thanks for the comparison. However, I was not really impressed with the images from the 17tse. If two photographers came to me, one presenting the images such as those here from the 17tse and the other photographer presenting images such as those here with the 23HR, I would hire the photographer who showed me the images that look like the ones from the 23HR and not the ones from the Canon. The Canon images did not have enough snap to them, and I notice lack of fine details, probably due to the smearing of the AA filter. Lack of details in an image often (subliminally) translates into lack of concern for detail by the photographer, which I think could hurt his/her reputation.
I guess it would come down to cost. If it was a budget constrained job, where some quality could be sacrificed, then I guess I might buy the Canon-type results, but the work would have to be a heck of a lot cheaper. How much less would you offer your services by using the Canon? And, if my client's job was worth $$$$, there is no way I would risk losing such a job by buying the Canon images.
and i would hire the one who gives me 1.: the best perspective, 2. the best light.
i dont have issues with the prices cause i own both and of course my time isnt cheaper if i use the canon than if i use the artek.
i dont sell megapixels i sell images. i take which i think is more convenient and best for the job. thanks god i dont have client who asks me if i work with red dots, 16 imaginated bits or with whichever camera or resolution. most clients expect the best images i can make for them and this is what i try to do.
if i dont see sense for delivering 400% percent more resolution than ever needed i usually dont do and they even dont like to get 100 or 200mb files, on the other hand i am not shy to discuss if i can hire a helicopter or a truck crane or 10 helpers at the weekend if shades have to be opened or closed 10 times to get the right look, if ithink this will result in good and/or usefull images.
i dont want to be harsh, but doing such comparisons for me goes far beyond comparing prices/ megapixels,- although i wouldnt advise to photo students to invest/ lease a 50.000$ camera system which is in certain circumstances a bit better than a 10.000$ system.
i am pretty sure i will use both systems in the future, but i am glad that the 35mm had went so far, its so convenient to carry a small bag.
btw.:
copy the two files of the yellow house one over the other and look at the geometrical distortion INSIDE the frame. than write again which camera ( i dont say which photographer ) u would hire. for me this is the strongest argument in favor of the 17TSE,- its so well corrected, and this pops up even more in the center than in the borders.
Hey Rainer, I was wondering about the "using Canon for long lens shots"... how long are you talking about? I carry a 135mm as my longest lens for the Arca, but have used my 180 even on occasion.
even in film days i used long lenses, with 35mm cameras too. there was a time where i really liked leica .... .
i love the compressed look of details especially in larger buildings if using 100, 200, 300, 400 or even sometimes 600 mm lenses.
Nice comparison, and a little bit surprising. The 17 TS-E holds up quite well. Out of curiosity, how good is the 23 HR compared to other lenses in the HR lineup? As interesting as this comparison is, I'm wondering if the extremely wide FOV is stacking the deck in favor of the Canon, relative to the results you would get at more moderate focal lengths.
the 23mm is the best in their wide angle range. better than the 28HR and also better than the ( slightly older ) 35HR design. especially its a bit better corrected than the 28HR.
sharp are all three at all apertures, even wide open.
There will be very,very view customers who can see this difference. How many customers are pixelpeeping with a 100% file?
I like to have these customers so I have a good excuse to buy a MF system. :-)
i would not like to have them, cause as said above i sell images not megapixels.
some long lens shots for CB. lens range here is ( in 35mm terms ) from 100 to 400mm :
[attachment=18408:091019_0...Dmk2_ret.jpg][attachment=18407:ht100.jpg]
[attachment=18402:Brandhor...dit_Edit.jpg][attachment=18404:o_hare_03.jpg]
-
My feeling is that people don't test as Rainer has shown - which is to say stopped down enough so the far edges of the IC remain sharp, exposed and processed properly.
It's not an easy lens to use. F8 and below will not be sharp with large shifts. You must focus using live view at 10x for optimum results.
Also if the tilt is not properly centered and locked the edges will have uneven sharpness.
Because it is so extremely wide, or should I say short, it will really test the cameras sensor alignment.
I have seen the green edge CA as the previous poster has shown, but only on dark objects that are very strongly backlit. Lightroom and C1 don't do as good of a job fixing this as DPP does.
This is a specific use lens, not a general wide. It's not AF and won't magically make photos better. It has a huge IC, but to take advantage of that it must be stopped down.
Mine is one of the first samples in NYC (got it in early Aug). It is as sharp as Rainer's when I use it properly. The other copy I know is exactly as mine. I'd still really like to see examples of poor QC 17's (and I'm not a canon fan per se - had to go through 5 45tse's before finding a good one, my 24-105 came to me new and uncentered, all the 24 tse vI I have used were marginal to iffy, my 24 tseII had a small problem that they corrected under warranty).
-
I think my personal "take home" from your comparison here (and some others in this and other threads) is not that there are no differences, but just how small the differences appear to be... to the point that they could be negated by a "margin of error", to borrow the term from the world of statistics, or even by the butterfly effect.
Given the inherent differences between the two formats, two types of sensors, lens sample variations, light and exposure variations, tripod vibrations, raw processor variations (even within the same raw processor, different sensors might require different default parameters) etc., etc., it is hard to argue that the visible differences stem from an inherent superiority of one format over another. It appears they can be rather explained by variations between two test shots... who knows, maybe a butterfly somewhere in the world flapped its wings, which resulted in tripod vibrations between the shots?
Thanks for the review, btw.
-
i sell images not megapixels.
I appreciate Ranier's comparison because he wasn't really comparing to prove a point to anyone but himself. He looked at one new system to see if it would work against his current system and reached his own conclusions which is the way it should be.
I can almost see the wheels turning in Ranier's brain*, when he starts thinking about real world work. Standing on a raining roof waiting or that one moment of sun and knowing he only has 12 seconds to get the shot he is obligated to shoot. Thinking about how inexpensive it is to carry two dslrs, vs. two medium format backs and the ability to check focus in camera rather than on a laptop. (*maybe that's not his brain maybe that's my brain).
Someday I would like to see a comparison between almost medium format and a dslr evolve to more than a few pixels on the edge, a bit of ca, or 10% difference in detail.
We've had these comparisons for 7 years, with the sans aa filter guys saying see, see it's sharper and the other guys saying see, see, it looks good, works faster and cost 1/4 of the other guys.
One guy always shows a lens sample that is sharp the other, shows one that is 10% softer and the comparisons go on.
I would love to see the same high pressured project shot twice with different systems, but I doubt if that will ever happen because whose gonna spend the money to do it twice? I know I won't.
If digital photography is going to interfere in the taking photos for a living business, (and yes at this stage I don't use the term transformation, I use the term interfere), then I'd love to see one single company go all out and skip the incremental upgrade path and make something that rocks.
Why not a medium format camera with a huge lcd, in camera processing, all the lens in place (including tilt shifts) and the ability to to have live view and video in camera?
Why not a dslr, with real 3k or 4k video, and a way to easily add or take away the aa filter, depending on subject and lighting.
Why not something we haven't even asked for yet, that improves the art and the commerce for photographers, not just camera makers.
I know we're all different but when I go to work the one thing I notice between almost medium format and a dslr is with the bigger camera I spend a lot of time thinking about the bigger camera and it's process, with the smaller camera I spend more time thinking about what's in front of the lens.
Personally I don't think it's always a one camera world, for anybody and as much as I believe the camera doesn't matter I find it's interesting that when I sit down to select images for self promotion, a large percentage of the images I select come from a Leica M8, which is even more surprising because I only shoot it 1/1000th of the time compared to my "commercial" cameras.
[attachment=18420:leicam8.jpg]
[attachment=18421:leicam8_2.jpg]
JR
-
thinking about real world work. Standing on a raining roof waiting or that one moment of sun and knowing he only has 12 seconds to get the shot he is obligated to shoot. Thinking about how inexpensive it is to carry two dslrs, vs. two medium format backs and the ability to check focus in camera rather than on a laptop. (*maybe that's not his brain maybe that's my brain).
I have been shooting both Canon 5dmk2 and the Sinar/Alpa combo on the same jobs for a while. This year I gave away the Sinar completely for commissions because clients had consistently been 'selecting' final images from the 5d2 over the Sinar (only I knew the difference). I worked out that I just shot better and with the extra freedom of the DSLR and the files got where I wanted them to be in post much faster.
I am in the process though of buying a P65 with the sole purpose of replacing my 10x8 system which I had been using for the exhibition work. The only time I now feel the MFDB is 'needed' (warning loaded word) is for excessively large prints.
Why not a medium format camera with a huge lcd, in camera processing, all the lens in place (including tilt shifts) and the ability to to have live view and video in camera?
Why not a dslr, with real 3k or 4k video, and a way to easily add or take away the aa filter, depending on subject and lighting.
Sounds like a RED (lets see if RED gets things right with their new releases...
I know we're all different but when I go to work the one thing I notice between almost medium format and a dslr is with the bigger camera I spend a lot of time thinking about the bigger camera and it's process, with the smaller camera I spend more time thinking about what's in front of the lens.
Exactly -
We have reached a point where everything on the market is 'good enough' technically. We know the images will be sound on that level with any current system...I think that happened with the 1ds mk1
Murray
-
Since the 1DsII (16mp) we all started hearing that D35 was aproaching its limits in resolution because its size. 5-6 years later Canikson are showing this limit is not even close. Technology is relentless. Without doubt (because of funds) Dslr's are advancing Five times faster than dMF. We can see that optics can be improve tremendously. New Features and bells&whistles are endless. Ergo will always be improved one step at the time.
At current pace D35 will probably catch up in IQ in very few years. In order for DMF to survive, someone has to figure it out how to come with more realisitic retail prices. If this is a deadend, then a breakthrought in sensor manufacturing must happen soon, otherwise I don't see much for DMF. Niche format of course, but how small can the niche get before it ceases to exist?
In the film days a pro 35 body used to cost 1K against the MF body costing 4K. Same with lenses and accesories of all kind. So it was a difference of 4X the price for 2X the image quality. Somehow, it worked just fine for everybody.
Now in digital the difference is 8X the price in exchange of 1.3X the IQ.
Everybody knows from my posts here and there that I'm always the first to chime in to say that I can usually see the difference between formats even from jpg's on the internet. But man, it is getting harder and harder to see by the hour!
thx f-r
Eduardo
-
OT: Rainer, about the third image of your tele-lens series. It reminds me of the works of Sauerbruch Hutton, feature of the next issue of 2G. Am I right? What building is that? Would you share more images with us?
Cheers,
Pedro
-
OT: Rainer, about the third image of your tele-lens series. It reminds me of the works of Sauerbruch Hutton, feature of the next issue of 2G. Am I right? What building is that? Would you share more images with us?
Cheers,
Pedro
its the brandhorst museum in munich, the detail shot above was cover in architecture review.
following u see the back view, the front view u can see than in 2g ( issue 52 ) .
-
its the brandhorst museum in munich, the detail shot above was cover in architecture review.
following u see the back view, the front view u can see than in 2g ( issue 52 ) .
If ever there was a building to confound anti-moire filters! May I ask which camera you employed for this last shot? And do you think the format had an impact on you being a bit out of square?
Then again, maybe I don't want to know the answer to that.
-
In the film days a pro 35 body used to cost 1K against the MF body costing 4K. Same with lenses and accesories of all kind. So it was a difference of 4X the price for 2X the image quality. Somehow, it worked just fine for everybody.
Now in digital the difference is 8X the price in exchange of 1.3X the IQ.
It is probably even more painful if you measure the gap in absolute terms...
- 3K$ in film days,
- 20+K$ now.
...or look at the price of the lenses...
...or relative to the usage that is reasonnably done with these equipments... a 5DII does basically everything better than MF used to... and the pages of the magazines have not become any larger.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ok so it's been shown that the 17tse + a good canon sensor is so close to the quality achievable with a MF and good WA lens that, on IQ alone, it makes little sense for those on a limited budget to even consider going down the MF route when starting out.
My question is... [sorry wrong forum I know, but..] How much of a game changer is the 17 tse in the Nikon / Canon choice ?
Until a few months ago 24mm tse was the widest available for either, and by most accounts the MkI canon t/s weren't the greatest.
So for Architectural Photographers [AP's] that were using 35mm for most of their work before, were you happily getting by with the 24mm t/s and the 14mm normal lenses?
For AP's that mostly shoot MF, do you regularily get the 23mm out, and use it's shift capabilities? were you even considering 35mm as an option proir to the availabilty of the 17mm tse?
I currently shoot for Real Estate with a Nikon dx crop sensor and a 10-20mm WA. And prior to the 17mm tse my upgrade path on the route to higher end work was simple... get a FF Nikon with the 14-24 and save for the 24mm t/s.
Now it's not so simple, especially with all you MF AP's saying it takes a pixel peeping extravaganza to tell the difference. But I've got a whole bunch of Nikon gear that I've accumulated, and I'm generally happy with it too, until the 17tse the thought of switching never even occured to me.
Thoughts?
-
If ever there was a building to confound anti-moire filters! May I ask which camera you employed for this last shot? And do you think the format had an impact on you being a bit out of square?
Then again, maybe I don't want to know the answer to that.
u are lucky this time, cause i used the arTek with e72 back and- if i remember well -the 28HR lens.
the format resulted too from the fact that left hand still the construction site was very visible,
but i adapted also in it the overall form of the building.
My question is... [sorry wrong forum I know, but..] How much of a game changer is the 17 tse in the Nikon / Canon choice ?
Until a few months ago 24mm tse was the widest available for either, and by most accounts the MkI canon t/s weren't thegreatest.
So for Architectural Photographers [AP's] that were using 35mm for most of their work before, were you happily getting by with the 24mm t/s and the 14mm normal lenses?
For AP's that mostly shoot MF, do you regularily get the 23mm out, and use it's shift capabilities? were you even considering 35mm as an option proir to the availabilty of the 17mm tse?
Thoughts?
no, i did not consider it the last years.
although i worked with the early 35mm digital cameras, starting with the kodak 14n and slrn ( which were by far best cameras in the market in iso6 mode ) it was very complicate stitching images, using the zoerk adapter and e.g. the pentax 35af lens. it was only possible to use this set together with 4x5".
the older canon 24tse, nikon28 pc and leica/schneider 28pc have been too bad for me to use them,
i bought all wides which i could get and sold most after 3 days in ebay.
i got later an adapted olympus 24pc, this lens was a bit better.
first real good corrected ultrawide was the ( believe it or not ) sigma 12-24.
but hard to find a sharp sample and not enough resolution headroom to correct perspectives.
the kodak 35mm cams showed the typical color casts with shift lenses, as all aa-free sensors and most the kodak sensors.
in this days i created an action to invert white files in ps and to subtract the color info from the image, ( similar later stefan hess and me adapted this in brumbaer tools but automated ).
after the appearance of the schneider 24xl and a bit later the rodenstock 28HR mf was the way to go for serious and reliable digital architecture work, except that there were centerfolds, horrible and slow softwares for color cast corrections and complicate thought cameras for ground-glass composing as the alpas/cambos and so on.
i asked mr gottschalt to modify one of his cameras for my needs, adding a sliding back which was able to work with the new wide angle lenses.
thanks to my friend stefan hess the completely nasty and incurable centerfold was cured, at least with the sinar 33mp sensors, and we created together the brumbaer workflow, which was the first more or less well thought batch workflow for architecture location shootings. this hard and software experiences resulted later in the artek and in the architecture plugin from exposure.
so after that works for me it was not thinkable to do to serious architecture work with 35mm, mainly for the absence of usable lenses.
i did not expect at all some new stuff in the class of these new tse lenses. the 35mm companies have had so many years time and never have felt enough market to make even better than mediocre shift lenses. all of them.
also i am afraid that canon will not bring out the tse lenses which still would be needed for a really usable architecture system. something like a 35tse, a new 45tse, a 60 tse and a new 90tse. if they will do that they will catch up the market, but its questionable if its big enough ( and if they think good enough ).
i heard the nikon 24pc is very good as well, but for me not wide enough for many situations.
-
At MarcusNewey:
Really if you use Nikon and the 17 TSE is something you can't live without,it's very simple.
Just get a 5D2 body and a 17 TSE and keep the Nikon for the rest of your shots.
-
its the brandhorst museum in munich, the detail shot above was cover in architecture review.
following u see the back view, the front view u can see than in 2g ( issue 52 ) .
Thank you, Rainer. I'm looking forward to this issue ... and it'll surely be worth it.
Pedro
-
erased
-
.
-
I used to get them too but with an Aptus. And the colors where more funky. Like an early 90s rave party or something.
-
Yaya posted this:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=329874 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=39286&view=findpost&p=329874)
I can't wait to see th results.
Ed
-
following the former tread where MFHA posted a comparison, finally i wanted to find out for myself, at which point the canons with the recent shift lenses stands , compared to the top notch rodenstock HR lenses...
Thanks for taking the time to do this and to post it.
one important point is dust. although the canon has this shaky sensor dust removement it dosnt work good enough. there always remain some spots which is very time consuming.
the e75 with the artek is an incredible good couple herein. sometimes i work several weeks (!!!) without one dust spot to remove or any sensor cleaning.
thats fantastic and a big plus.
The dust is still an issue with the Canon. The dust cleaning mode helps but is not perfect. Get yourself a Visible Dust Arctic Butterfly (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/566313-REG/Visible_Dust_4051360_Visible_Dust_Arctic_Butterfly.html) and also get their HDF Sensor Brush (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/450392-REG/Visible_Dust_3139657_HDF_Sensor_Brush.html). The brush that comes with the Arctic Butterfly is made for 1.6x sensors. The HDF brush is for 1.0x sensors. Pop the HDF brush onto butterfly. I clean with this before almost every job in addition to running Canon's cleaning mode. Shooting architecture jobs at f/11, f/16, etc. I rarely see any dust.
Also, interesting to note your comment on batteries - the 1DsM3's is higher capacity than the one in the 5DM2. You can shoot all day on the 1DsM3 using Live View to focus and the battery will still be 1/3-1/2 full.
--
Site (http://www.jonroemer.com/) | Blog (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/)
-
This dust issue with the Canons I don't understand unless it is related to humidity. I have yet to have a single piece of dust stick to the sensor on my 5DII since I bought it last Christmas. That is with heavy professional use here and a few long out of town trips to places like las Vegas and Chicago and withconstant lens changes outside in the field. Not one piece of dust. Maybe dust doesn't stick as much here in the SW because of low humidity?
-
This dust issue with the Canons I don't understand unless it is related to humidity. I have yet to have a single piece of dust stick to the sensor on my 5DII since I bought it last Christmas. That is with heavy professional use here and a few long out of town trips to places like las Vegas and Chicago and withconstant lens changes outside in the field. Not one piece of dust. Maybe dust doesn't stick as much here in the SW because of low humidity?
That's amazing.
In the spirit of pixel peeping... I propose an experiment. I'll bring my cameras and stay at your place in Albuquerque for six months, you can stay here in NJ. Send me a PM, we'll work out the details.
--
Site (http://www.jonroemer.com/) | Blog (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/)
-
That's amazing.
In the spirit of pixel peeping... I propose an experiment. I'll bring my cameras and stay at your place in Albuquerque for six months, you can stay here in NJ. Send me a PM, we'll work out the details.
--
Site (http://www.jonroemer.com/) | Blog (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/)
Thanks but.....
Let me be clear. I have had dust on the sensor but it shortly comes off without any effort on my part. This was certainly not true of my 5D, so it must be the sensor shaking deal on the 5DII. I suspect low humidity makes the dust less sticky or something here in the SW. We do have tons of static electricity here in the winters however so I don't think it is related to that.
-
Very interesting comparision, Rainer. I hope next time you are in good old germany we will compare our 17´s (Yours seems to be slighly better).
I made my test shoots to look wether I will buy the 17.
[attachment=18445:test4.jpg]
[attachment=18446:test5.jpg]
Michael
-
Very interesting comparision, Rainer. I hope next time you are in good old germany we will compare our 17´s (Yours seems to be slighly better).
I made my test shoots to look wether I will buy the 17.
Michael
What am i looking at here? ( i see moiré in the left sided image ... )
-
Left side e75/23HR, right side 17/5DII
-
Left side e75/23HR, right side 17/5DII
You surely have problems with your 17TS, you should send it back to be adjusted or replaced.
It is not suppose to look like this at all - your sample looks more like the old 24TS.
-
Thanks for taking the time to do this and to post it.
The dust is still an issue with the Canon. The dust cleaning mode helps but is not perfect. Get yourself a Visible Dust Arctic Butterfly (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/566313-REG/Visible_Dust_4051360_Visible_Dust_Arctic_Butterfly.html) and also get their HDF Sensor Brush (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/450392-REG/Visible_Dust_3139657_HDF_Sensor_Brush.html). The brush that comes with the Arctic Butterfly is made for 1.6x sensors. The HDF brush is for 1.0x sensors. Pop the HDF brush onto butterfly. I clean with this before almost every job in addition to running Canon's cleaning mode. Shooting architecture jobs at f/11, f/16, etc. I rarely see any dust.
Also, interesting to note your comment on batteries - the 1DsM3's is higher capacity than the one in the 5DM2. You can shoot all day on the 1DsM3 using Live View to focus and the battery will still be 1/3-1/2 full.
--
Site (http://www.jonroemer.com/) | Blog (http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/)
thanks for the tip. i still have two sensor brushes which have been voted quite good, but i havent tried them with the canon but it looks as i have to do.
good to hear that you dont have dust specs after using these brushes.
-
Rainer, thanks for the comparison. However, I was not really impressed with the images from the 17tse. If two photographers came to me, one presenting the images such as those here from the 17tse and the other photographer presenting images such as those here with the 23HR, I would hire the photographer who showed me the images that look like the ones from the 23HR and not the ones from the Canon. The Canon images did not have enough snap to them, and I notice lack of fine details, probably due to the smearing of the AA filter.
David, under what circumstances does a photographer present 100% crops in order to land a job? ;-)
In the above scenario, let's say you were looking at prints (as opposed to looking at what are effectively 10' prints from 12" away as you are doing when looking at 100% crops on your monitor.) That is where the rubber really meets the road - prints, and where you might have a hard time justifying spending more money in order to get the non-Canon output...
Just a hunch.
-
This dust issue with the Canons I don't understand unless it is related to humidity. I have yet to have a single piece of dust stick to the sensor on my 5DII since I bought it last Christmas. That is with heavy professional use here and a few long out of town trips to places like las Vegas and Chicago and withconstant lens changes outside in the field. Not one piece of dust. Maybe dust doesn't stick as much here in the SW because of low humidity?
I have found that dust is almost always there to some extent on my Canons, but apertures wider than around f/22 do not show them. So, 95% of my shooting (mixing daylight and strobes, etc.) does now show even pretty serious dust. If I then stop down to f/22 and shoot with strobes, the dust shows...
-
Lisa, I agree with your previous statement about the Canon vs. MF. I've never had a potential client ask for a file to view and enlarge. Nor has anyone ever complained about Canon file quality. The only kind of half assed complaint I have gotten, even from big national firms, is that my files are too large....native tiffs from a 5DII. I'm not kidding. As far as that goes, nor have I been asked to show a portfolio in 3-4 years. II is sitting in a corner with a half inch of dust on it. The website and little JPEGS seem to do the trick. Now part of that is I am well established and new clients assume I know what i am doing, but not entirely I think.
Sorry about every bodies dust issues, but where are you located? I still think there is something about humidity related to this. Since my last post still not a single piece of dust that has stayed on the 5DII. That is just short of a year now of heavy shooting and outdoor lens changing.
-
Re dust and the 5D2, I shoot on a big, dusty construction site most weeks, have done since I got the camera (losing track of time - whenever it came out), change lenses quite often but have never seen any dust. I just checked my skies and not a speck anywhere.
-
There will be very,very view customers who can see this difference. How many customers are pixelpeeping with a 100% file?
I like to have these customers so I have a good excuse to buy a MF system. :-)
I'd use this lens on a quick and dirty job that required a camera that had high ISO sensitivity. Otherwise I wouldn't be OK with the barrel distortion or the file quality. Canon has definitely come out with a winner lens for them but their sensors don't really compete against a phase back for quality, especially now that phase can do high ISO. This debate seems to never end; people with 35mm formats trying to prove their systems are just as good as MF. It's like saying my subaru is as good as your porsche. Bigger sensors with German glass in general produces higher results hands down. It's a fact that can not be escaped. Last year I went out and purchased a P45 back with 2 Hasselblads, 9 prime lenses, a 1.4 tele, cambo wide ds, and 2 lenses for that because I was tired of Canon. I had always been LF or MF and I did the switch to Canon like so many other professional photographers and at the end of the day I noticed many shots looked a tad mediocre. This week I shot a job for "anonymous client" and it was nice for everyone there seeing those big clean files showing up on the screen. To me, If the job is burning through $70,000 a day in production costs, why not use the very best? I just can't mess around.
On a side note i had each of my assistants bring their 5d mk II's with them as backups and we rented the 14mm canon (i had never heard of the 17tse) We did a comparison shot with a 5d mkII 14mm against the phase back with a schneider 24mm. It was a kind of a sad moment because my aspiring assistants were so excited about their cameras but yikes it looked like complete crap in comparison; blown highlights, less shadow detail, fuzzy corners, cyan and red fringing at the edges. It was kind of a mess but I had to remind them hey don't try to expect your $3000 camera to compare to this $40000 camera. It still looks good but it's not going to cut it on an ad job like this. But my question is: is the 17 tse a whole different animal to the canon 14mm in terms of quality? I have a feeling it is but would like to hear stories of actual comparisons.
Jesse
JESSE GOFF PHOTOGRAPHY
358 Brannan Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
415 777 3700 Tel
415 777 3730 Fax
Advertising Photography:
http://www.jessegoff.com/ (http://www.jessegoff.com/)
Architectural Photography:
http://architecture.jessegoff.com/ (http://architecture.jessegoff.com/)
-
Well Jesse, first of all the 17 TSE is a LOT better than the 14mm which I think is crap. Pretty big crap. However, do you have actual proof of how superior the Phase files is ? Don't get me wrong I do believe that, my P65 deliveres better files than my 5Dmk2, but with right processing and as long as you don't print large there nearly is no big difference.
One could say the following to your statement: "This debate seems to never end; people with 35mm formats trying to prove their systems are just as good as MF. " Often it could be the other way around, people who spend 40k on a system have to prove again and again, that there money was wisely spend and their file is much better, much more magical and so on.
-
[quote name='Christopher' date='Dec 19 2009, 10:22 AM' post='334018']
Well I don't think I'm trying to justify the money I spent because I have invested in my MF kit (P45 Cambo Wide, 503CW, 501CM, 13 lenses), because it is a small amount of total money invested in relation to the total money invested in my studio. Also, I have so many other camera systems so it's not like I'm stuck with my phase back. I also have Xpan & 3lenses, Seitz 220 VR & 5 lenses, Canon 1D mkII & 6 lenses, Sinar 4x5 & 7 lenses. Plus there all the printers, the studio, the vehicles, the employees. So no I don't think it really goes the other direction, at least for me. I just pick the right camera for the job and so I have all of the cameras I could need. Sometimes I use Canon, sometimes I use Phase, etc. I don't know about what people think out there but it's pretty common knowledge among ad shooters here in California that Zeiss glass is superior to Japanese glass. That's a reason why I use the V system with Zeiss glass instead of the new Hasselblads with Fujinon glass. I also used to own a GX680 system. The glass sucked compared to Zeiss. And yes I have done tests and phase definitely looks better and I only have the regular P45. But if I'm going to shoot a record cover with a girl dancing around in my studio I'm going to use my Canon. If I'm shooting a hotel for "anonymous client" on location with 5 models, a gaffer, a key grip, 2 assistants, MA stylists, stylist assistant, prop stylist, ciient, art director, copywriter, and account manager all standing around watching me blow $100,000 daily production budget I'm not going to whip out a Canon... In a nutshell I think most canon glass was not designed to handle the resolution available today. In other words the resolution of the cameras are exceeding the resolution of the glass. It's hard for me to understand how a professional photographer could not see this. But moving forward canon realizes this and is now designing new lenses to deal with this. This 17tse is a new lens built to resolve higher resolutions. But it still does not solve the problem that CCDs perform better when there is more real estate for the pixels to lay on. Bunching them together tightly is not as good for quality. I wish I could use my canon all the time. It costs me more to bring my phase system on the plane than my plane ticket costs. :-)
-
"This debate seems to never end; people with 35mm formats trying to prove their systems are just as good as MF. " Often it could be the other way around, people who spend 40k on a system have to prove again and again, that there money was wisely spend and their file is much better, much more magical and so on.
Sorry Christopher, but this is simply nonsense.
For the most part working pros purchase their equipment based on hard practical realities. If a $3,000 DSLR could deliver equivalent image quality to a $30,000 MFB few such systems would be purchased. But the reality is that thousands of pros purchase medium format digital backs because they do deliver what is expected and required, and they don't need to prove the wisdom of this to anyone except themselves (and maybe their business managers / accountants / bankers).
About 30% is MFB sales are to wealthy amateurs and fine art photographers, and some 70% to working pros. There wouldn't be a MFB business if the products didn't deliver what's promised. But there is and they do, and notwithstanding the poor global economy over the past 18 months, my sources inside the industry tell me that sales are coming back very strongly in recent months, especially in the Pro segment.
Since this forum is unique in that it is home to a great many of the world's leading commercial photographers who use medium format digital, it's insulting to them to suggest that they have anything to prove by their purchases. For most of us these are tools, not toys.
Michael
-
Sorry Christopher, but this is simply nonsense.
For the most part working pros purchase their equipment based on hard practical realities. If a $3,000 DSLR could deliver equivalent image quality to a $30,000 MFB few such systems would be purchased. But the reality is that thousands of pros purchase medium format digital backs because they do deliver what is expected and required, and they don't need to prove the wisdom of this to anyone except themselves (and maybe their business managers / accountants / bankers).
About 30% is MFB sales are to wealthy amateurs and fine art photographers, and some 70% to working pros. There wouldn't be a MFB business if the products didn't deliver what's promised. But there is and they do, and notwithstanding the poor global economy over the past 18 months, my sources inside the industry tell me that sales are coming back very strongly in recent months, especially in the Pro segment.
Since this forum is unique in that it is home to a great many of the world's leading commercial photographers who use medium format digital, it's insulting to them to suggest that they have anything to prove by their purchases. For most of us these are tools, not toys.
Michael
Well Michael, I never said a "$3,000 DSLR could deliver equivalent image quality to a $30,000 MFB". I clearly stated that I prefer the quality of my P65 files to my Canon files. However, it's nothing magical. A huge part is post work. Here I only stated that when done right, the difference in SMALLER print sizes is not that big. I am honest, that if I only needed files for a magazine spread or similar, I would not take the hassle of shooting with a LF camera and P65. A d3x would do just fine for most jobs. The biggest difference still is RESOLUTION, that is what MFDBs deliver mostly. (Besides pretty crappy usability compared to modern DSLRs ;-) )
I think I really need to point out again what my mine point is. The files are not equal, but many people really underestimate how well a d3x or similar can actually do when shot right. I think Reiner's comparison and conclusion shows that quite well.#
edit, just a note on the quote:
Well as pro's we don't have to justify anything, we have to make our living using the stuff. So in the end it does not matter whether we do that with a 3000 or 40000 camera, as long as it works for us. However, the statement, that MFDBs are playing in a different universe than DSLRs are made often not by pros owning a MFDB system, but by rich amateurs.
And I think here we can end it, because it could go on and on. We won't really have any actual proof, because as most I don't feel like shooting any side by side test just to prove something. I know what I have in my Canon, Leica and P65 and each does a great job at certain things.
-
Why are people like Ryan Schude, Annie Leibovitz, and Rainer Viertlböck making use of Canon 35mm systems? I think it is insulting to say that MFD is needed when your customer can't tell the difference if shot in good (appropriate to the system) light and the output is not large.
Why aren't all of you absolute quality only people using 8x10s? Because of workflow. One reason DSLR is preferred is... workflow! ... and the fact that you can smash 10 of them for fun and not touch the cost of MFD. When MFD gets its act together and starts thinking about workflow (real LiveView, real LCD screen, real performance) then I will beat the drum that it is truly superior.
Until then MFD produces a better file with diminishing returns that are lost on all but the most demanding printed outputs and $4,000 monitors.
-
So in the end it does not matter whether we do that with a 3000 or 40000 camera, as long as it works for us. However, the statement, that MFDBs are playing in a different universe than DSLRs are made often not by pros owning a MFDB system, but by rich amateurs.
And I think here we can end it, because it could go on and on. We won't really have any actual proof, because as most I don't feel like shooting any side by side test just to prove something. I know what I have in my Canon, Leica and P65 and each does a great job at certain things.
"Rich amateurs" are easy targets, but they have a role to play. We should not disparage their motives.
I agree with those who say we are hard wired to appreciate technology, and an analogy can make it more clear. In the Victorian era, the microscope was fairly equivalent to the computer of today. It was the epitome of personal technology and was in widespread use by professionals and better-off amateurs. The professionals tended to look at workflow and did not usually obsess about the tools. Darwin's microscope, for example, was a rather pedestrian instrument. The amateurs were much more involved with resolution and "composition". They would spend a week arranging tiny sea creatures (diatoms) to make an attractive geometric pattern, and the finest points of this pattern could only be resolved with the finest optics of the day, set up to a fare-thee-well. They traded these things about, sent drawings, had contests, published books. Sound familiar?
This apparently irrelevant tool using comes into play when we have enough food that we can think about more than killing it. Fine cars, horses, cameras, bonsai, etc. None of them matter except that they give us a channel for tool use. Let's give that need to use tools some credit, as it has done much to create our technological society - and it is the wealthy amateur that often drives the most frivolous technologies. Really, who needs an HR lens or the entire fashion industy? The people back home just want you to bring in the meat.
We can respect a pro for making money at photography, and for creating fine images, and for using tools well. We can respect the amateur (or bankrupt pro) for making fine images and using his tools to the limits of their ability. Difference is the pro still has to eat with his tools, and so is less obsessed with them. The amateur - and some wealthy pros - have leisure to see the tools themselves as part of the art. I regard that as valid.
Clearly, I have too much time on my hands.
-
In this very forum I've seen far more "insulting" posts about dslr's than mfdb's.
Eduardo
Sorry Christopher, but this is simply nonsense.
For the most part working pros purchase their equipment based on hard practical realities. If a $3,000 DSLR could deliver equivalent image quality to a $30,000 MFB few such systems would be purchased. But the reality is that thousands of pros purchase medium format digital backs because they do deliver what is expected and required, and they don't need to prove the wisdom of this to anyone except themselves (and maybe their business managers / accountants / bankers).
About 30% is MFB sales are to wealthy amateurs and fine art photographers, and some 70% to working pros. There wouldn't be a MFB business if the products didn't deliver what's promised. But there is and they do, and notwithstanding the poor global economy over the past 18 months, my sources inside the industry tell me that sales are coming back very strongly in recent months, especially in the Pro segment.
Since this forum is unique in that it is home to a great many of the world's leading commercial photographers who use medium format digital, it's insulting to them to suggest that they have anything to prove by their purchases. For most of us these are tools, not toys.
Michael
-
.
-
Sorry Christopher, but this is simply nonsense.
But the reality is that thousands of pros purchase medium format digital backs because they do deliver what is expected and required,
Michael,
Yes, but that depends on genre and market and quite honestly a lot of "pros" find it easier to invest in cameras than new work, or better put work in a new way that might be uncomfortable.
There might be 10,000 medium format users but for money making professionals their are about 50,000 whose medium format cameras sit on the shelf in 2009 and bought a 5d2. (probably 50% of them live in Brooklyn and Silverlake).
Someone here mentioned workflow and hit the nail on the head.
Workflow is king.
On set and in post production, the dslr rules, the specialty cameras are just slow and cumbersome. They're fine for the amateur but in commerce and editorial the numbers have been ramped up so far, so fast that you'd have to be on a masochist to use anything that slows you down.
All this talk about the "camera" is nice but nostalgic. Today the camera is about 1/4 of the equation, what we do in front of the camera, in front of the client and after the shoot is what drives our art and our business.
If you shoot for a living, you have to turn a profit, be efficient, get it done and go on to the next sessions, gig, city, country.
It's all about time. Time on set, time management, time to deliver.
You have to have files that fit on portable drives and can be backed up on the fly. You have to have software that is dead stable and will run on laptops, Imacs and towers and do it without fail. You have to have a virtually universal file format that can go to multiple retouchers and you have to have a camera that just makes all of this easy (easier), which means the ability to move iso, see the image on an in camera lcd screen, focus through live view (quickly) and a system that is adaptable to video.
You have to be able to travel with one camera case, not 4 and if both bodies go down, be able to walk into any store from Delhi to Little Rock and buy a camera body so you can keep working.
2009 proved it was a no excuse world. If your in the communications/commercial arts business and turned a profit in 2009 you worked fast, probably for tighter budgets and produced no excuses content. Nothing can get in the way.
2009 put the same pressure on everyone and nobody escaped easily. The rich and famous down to the beginning student all saw the crunch and most of them reached for the appropriate tool.
I own a lot of equipment, in multiple studios and cities and can tell you that the most profitable equipment I own are the Canons, (well next to my laptop I do business on).
These forums can compare the difference between a 24tse and a 35mm rodenstock until the lcd's dim out on their Eizos, but at the end of the day it's not about the camera, it's what you shoot with the camera or better put what camera doesn't get in your way of shooting.
They're is no nostalgia left in the industry, at least not with digital. A pentax is not a pentax it's a computer with a lens, a "film" format is a 24" computer screen and today the most adaptable systems are the ones that will continue. The others will be marginalized.
This will be more true in 2010 than 2009. 2009 shook a lot of people and made them run lean, 2010 will see an increase in business, but the demands to produce more content, faster, better, easier even more intense.
I wouldn't have dreamed to try to produce the level and quality of work I did this year with slow cameras.
It's all about speed AND quality with no excuse and just as the news cycle has changed from 24 hours to 4 minutes, the advertising cycle has changed from 3 weeks to 3 days, sometimes 3 hours.
It also about allocating your resources where it has the most effect. $40,000 in personal work, building a video reel, broadening your repertoire, has a lot more positive effect on your business than any piece of camera equipment.
There is no going back and not just for the specialty camera makers also Canon and Nikon. Canon shook everyone with a 22mpx $3,500 still camera that shot video (probably surprised themselves) and if you don't believe me look at the price of last years $7,000 1ds3's, because they're going for 1/2 the price today and sitting on shelves.
This one is a no brainer. The 5d2 does more, costs less, so it sells more, is used more often.
IMO
JR
-
Nice work rainer.
As to: "the canon looks excellent, but it still is a bit inferior in terms of sharpness"
Did you mention which software you used to convert the Canon files?
(I have found that recent versions of DPP are the best with Canon files in terms of sharpness, detail, noise...better than C1 I.M.H.O.)
Thanks again for the very useful and rational test.
And I agree gwhitf, all this should be taken in the context of that article you linked to (and others like it.)
Michael, it might be interesting if you are to comment on that article...
re:
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml)
"The Results
In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.
In fact it was the H2 system's narrower depth of field that occasionally was the only clear give-away. Some viewers eventually figured out that the prints with the narrower depth of field were from medium format, while other photographers chose the G10 images because with its wider depth of field it created an overall impression of greater sharpness."
-
Since this forum is unique in that it is home to a great many of the world's leading commercial photographers who use medium format digital.
Michael
Michael,
I am still waiting to see "world leading commercial photographers" posting under real name here at LL.
Please name commersial photographers from PDN top 100 list who post in this forum.
Please name LL fine art photographers, presented at Paris Photo 2009.
This is a great and unique forum, thanks to some very high standard commercial photographers, who are willing to share their knowlege, and this is absloutly fine for me.
-
Michael,
I am still waiting to see "world leading commercial photographers" posting under real name here at LL.
Please name commersial photographers from PDN top 100 list who post in this forum.
Please name LL fine art photographers, presented at Paris Photo 2009.
This is a great and unique forum, thanks to some very high standard commercial photographers, who are willing to share their knowlege, and this is absloutly fine for me.
hmm........Michael can speak for himself, but in my field, architectural photography, there are. As I teach architectural photography at the university level, I make it my business to know of the work of world class architectural photographers. There are two contributors here who's work I followed before I joined this forum because they are two of the best, and who I consider world class in their field, Rainer Viertlböck and Christopher Barrett. Whether they make the PDN list is irrelevant to me. It is who they photograph for, the projects they shoot and their unique styles that matter.
-
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml)
I just checked out this link: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml). This is not a very clever test if the point is to compare the quality potential of two cameras. The author concedes that he/she just used photoshop. To see the quality you would have to process each file with the software best suited to it. Photoshop can barely output quality from a Phase file. You have to use capture one. So if you use Photoshop to process a Phase file and compare it to a G10 file and say "look, they are almost the same!", it is, no offense, completely ridiculous. It would be like trying to compare the clarity of different pieces of glass but they all have mud caked on them. Why even write the article? I like to think I can get useful info from this site but I guess sometimes not. I guess there are not too many pros here. To make my point I just processed two different P45 files in both Photoshop and Capture One. I did each in Capture One first. I just hit auto to keep it simple. Then I opened the same file in Photoshop and matched the settings. It looks like garbage. On one of them I hit the auto button in Photoshop too. It looks bizarre. It has to really ratchet up the exposure even the the sensor was exposed within a quarter stop accuracy in-camera. A G10 would blow away a P45 using this flawed method of a comparison. But who in their right mind would buy a P45 and use the wrong software to process the files? It would be like putting cheap tires on a Porsche. I posted the results for you to see. One of the files was for a job and was crisp so I also put in a 100% sample.
Download the files and open in PS to really see. Here is the link:
http://www.jessegoff.com/luminous/ (http://www.jessegoff.com/luminous/)
-
.
-
Exactly. Michael get's it. Maybe the two systems look close to some eyes but not to mine. If there is a $100k budget to produce two shots for worldwide advertising I'm going to use the P45. If the budget is $2k to shoot a ton of corporate PR shots I'm going to use the Canon.
Sorry Christopher, but this is simply nonsense.
For the most part working pros purchase their equipment based on hard practical realities. If a $3,000 DSLR could deliver equivalent image quality to a $30,000 MFB few such systems would be purchased. But the reality is that thousands of pros purchase medium format digital backs because they do deliver what is expected and required, and they don't need to prove the wisdom of this to anyone except themselves (and maybe their business managers / accountants / bankers).
About 30% is MFB sales are to wealthy amateurs and fine art photographers, and some 70% to working pros. There wouldn't be a MFB business if the products didn't deliver what's promised. But there is and they do, and notwithstanding the poor global economy over the past 18 months, my sources inside the industry tell me that sales are coming back very strongly in recent months, especially in the Pro segment.
Since this forum is unique in that it is home to a great many of the world's leading commercial photographers who use medium format digital, it's insulting to them to suggest that they have anything to prove by their purchases. For most of us these are tools, not toys.
Michael
-
.
-
That kind of thinking is what keeps Phase One in business. Yet you don't even mention what the content is in each of those illustrations above. What if the "worldwide advertising" was sports, or something requiring autofocus, or high ASA? You'd just blindly get out the expensive camera because the budget was more?
Eh, obviously the kind of shoot where you spend all day trying to get one or two perfect shots that have been comped by an ad agency and that have been signed off by the client in advance. You probably set up the day before. You use a tape measure to measure your focus. You have marks on the ground. You train the talent to hit their marks. You have a gaffer, a key grip, a digital tech, a couple of assistants and you shoot it over and over again with small variations until you get the perfect shot. This isn't documentary, photojournalism, or sports photography. Who would use a Hasselblad for that? Did you really think I was entertaining the idea of a guy with a hasselblad on the side of a football game trying to pull focus on a runner catching a ball? That is a kind of a silly question/comment. If an ad campaign uses sports photography they license the photo from the sports section at Getty and it was probably shot by a Canon and that is perfectly appropriate for that. Think Tiger Woods - Accenture (now in the toilet). As for low light- there Canon had something on MF for sure, until now. But it looks like that advantage is going to be lost soon due to new MF sensor technology. You can now squeeze clean 3200 ISO out of a P65+ back at 16mp. and I'm very excited about it to say the least. Phase One stays in business because if you are working for a company that spends millions of dollars on their media buys, then you will know that they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of year on their photography budgets. And if you happen to have one of those accounts, you don't show up to the job with a camera designed for photojournalism. You show up with the best camera in the world. because the extra cost of it is completely inconsequential the relative budget. Besides, the camera pays for itself pretty quickly anyways.
-
There are two contributors here who's work I followed before I joined this forum because they are two of the best, and who I consider world class in their field, Rainer Viertlböck and Christopher Barrett. Whether they make the PDN list is irrelevant to me. It is who they photograph for, the projects they shoot and their unique styles that matter.
And of course, Kirk Gittings.
I joined to pick up the pearls these guys drop.
-
Why are people like Ryan Schude, Annie Leibovitz, and Rainer Viertlböck making use of Canon 35mm systems? I think it is insulting to say that MFD is needed when your customer can't tell the difference if shot in good (appropriate to the system) light and the output is not large.
Why aren't all of you absolute quality only people using 8x10s? Because of workflow. One reason DSLR is preferred is... workflow! ... and the fact that you can smash 10 of them for fun and not touch the cost of MFD. When MFD gets its act together and starts thinking about workflow (real LiveView, real LCD screen, real performance) then I will beat the drum that it is truly superior.
Until then MFD produces a better file with diminishing returns that are lost on all but the most demanding printed outputs and $4,000 monitors.
I saw that spread of the queen in VF. I wonder if Annie Leibovitz regretted using a canon on that job. The lighting looked great but the file did not look too impressive, especially for shooting the queen. Looked like it was shot with a zoom too. Weird. Definitely a step down from the r67. Maybe it was her financial problems. In the 90's I shot all my jobs on ectachrome with Hasselblad primes of course. Pretty common to have $5k or more line items per day for film and processing. I got an Imacon 848 and held out on digital till 05. Everyone was all about Canon and I bought in to the hysteria. I sold all my hassy stuff and shot canon only for 3 years. Then I looked back at my portfolio of the last 7 years and thought what happened? 3 years ago quality went down a bit... At the same time some quality in other ways was going up. I was catching more moments because I was getting more shots due to digital and had more to choose from. Instead of shooting 500 frames a day I was shooting 1200. So in 08 I bought a P45 and 12 lenses. Definitely the right thing to do. A step up for sure. And my in-house retoucher seems to be happier about it too. A lot less problems to deal with. I see a lot my contemporaries in the ad world coming to the same conclusion now. It's amazing the german engineering from the 60's is still so good. I still use the canon for jobs that need autofocus, fast shooting, or are just not that important. But I find myself using primes more like my 85 1.2. Zooms look crappy, especially the 16-35. What a piece of junk.
What's up with all the haters on this forum? Is anyone shooting jobs that are in the $20k and up range or is this site dedicated to bitter sideliners?
-
There was a controversial video made, I believe, showing the talent attempt to explain why she wanted to display her favorite head decoration, not quite making her voice heard, and subsequently removing herself from the august presence of the photographer. It would appear that some US-based photographers would profit from a course on anthropology and tribe symbolism before venturing among the savages - or maybe some advice from kindergarten kids
Edmund
I saw that spread of the queen in VF. I wonder if Annie Leibovitz regretted using a canon on that job. The lighting looked great but the file did not look too impressive, especially for shooting the queen.
-
There was a controversial video made, I believe, showing the talent attempt to explain why she wanted to display her favorite head decoration, not quite making her voice heard, and subsequently removing herself from the august presence of the photographer. It would appear that some US-based photographers would profit from a course on anthropology and tribe symbolism before venturing among the savages - or maybe some advice from kindergarten kids
Edmund
You are right, that was a bad call to try and get a disarming portrait of the queen of England. But in reality some of the best photographic portraits of our time came from that same tactic. Avedon was the master of it, or at least the forefather. It failed for Leibovitz on this occasion but at least she tried. Although I agree with Edmund that Americans can be quite lacking in deference and tact, it is a unique American trait to disbelieve in royalty; that one human is so much more special than another they deserve such special treatment. Leibovitzs' attempt as a portrait photographer to show the real human of the queen, rather than a puppet, is at least admirable to some, although offensive to many traditional Europeans. In any case, to view the photographer as a fool is to discount the whole reason she became successful; she is a good portrait photographer. Portraits are interesting when they are real... Duh.
Besides, my only comment was about why in the world did she try to get a disarming portrait of the queen of england with a less than perfect photojournalistic canon camera. It seriously watered it down.
-
moiree is very very rare an issue with the e75. in the few cases i got it i shot a second shot with f22 or higher, which eliminates 90% of the
moiree for diffraction and layer it erasing the moiree zones.
Just re-reading this thread. This technique of shooting a second shot at a small aperture to help later in eliminating moire is a *really* good idea!
-
hmm........Michael can speak for himself, but in my field, architectural photography, there are. As I teach architectural photography at the university level, I make it my business to know of the work of world class architectural photographers. There are two contributors here who's work I followed before I joined this forum because they are two of the best, and who I consider world class in their field, Rainer Viertlböck and Christopher Barrett. Whether they make the PDN list is irrelevant to me. It is who they photograph for, the projects they shoot and their unique styles that matter.
Dear Kirk
Lets go into your field of architectural photography and have a look at world leading photographers.
The question is how to recognize these photographers.
Here are a few parameters (there might of cause be others to add):
1. A unique artistic and photographic style (not a decisive point but it does help) – In other words, they have to be excellent photographers with an international style.
2. A client list of world leading Architects (Hadid, Foster, Liebeskind, Zumthor, etc.) or world leading magazines.
3. Solo exhibitions at major international art museums and galleries (not local college or university museums, local galleries, coffee shops etc). Also represented in major international public collections (again not local museum and university collections).
4. Monographs published by international publisher like Steidl, Phaidon etc. Self published books, or books by architects do not apply here.
5. Awards – is not taken into account since these photographers do not even apply. Only shortlisting to awards like Deutsche Börse Photography Prize will work.
I will state that a yes to 4 out of 5 parameters, will hide a word leading architectural photographer. I am talking about names like Polidori, Höfer, Niedermayr, etc.
A level below you will find photographers like Suzuki, Halbe, Bryant, Binet, to mention a few.
I am sure that Rainer and CB who both are excellent photographers will agree that they still need a few steps to get into this league of world leading.
There are other excellent architectural photographers here at LL like Adam Mork, Christopher Hauser and Marc Gerritsen and I am sure that they have the talent to climb up the ladder.
LL is a great forum for exchange, and I like the way photographers here are open to all kinds of discussion.
Kirk this is not against you, but I am challenging Michaels statement that this forum is home to many of the “world leading photographers “
Michael, I covered architectural photography – now it is up to you to stand by your statement.
-
I think Tim Griffith should be added to that list of top Archi shooters.
http://www.timgriffith.com/ (http://www.timgriffith.com/)
His stuff is world class too!
-
Well as usual I seem to be going against the grain
The general feel here seems to be that MF is super slow... ironically for very fast paced shoots I always rent a DMF just so I can have fast tethering.
Standing at the computer and waiting for the images to render in C1 from a 1Ds3/5D2 or D3X is nothing but torture for me personally. (USB tethering)
Even better on certain shoots we rent H3D2-31 and use phocus's auto import to spit out 1200 (ish) Pixel high Jpegs of every capture as they come in.
the second the look is done, the client can instantly go into photomechanic and do selects before the next model has even walked on set.
again USB tethering of the DSLRs just don't cut it for me!
am
-
Well as usual I seem to be going against the grain
The general feel here seems to be that MF is super slow... ironically for very fast paced shoots I always rent a DMF just so I can have fast tethering...................snip
again USB tethering of the DSLRs just don't cut it for me!
am
Spend 40 minutes learning eos utility and dpp.
If your running osx at least 10.5.8 the usb is fast and if your shooting at the same speed as pro 7's at 1/2 power you'll never hit the camera buffer.
The previews are almost instant and full screen and what you set for color and tone stays with the raws.
You can name the files going in to the computer, let it tether jpegs and RAW to the computer and also at the same time to a card for backup, or just use the card for jpegs and let raws and jpeg go to the computer and without having to walk over to the computer can scroll through the full session on the camera for review.
We recently tethered over 10,000 files this way to a macbook pro and a 24" monitor and only had one crash which was user error.
BC
-
From what I read Annie Leibovitz was respectful of the queen. Through editing a news video was made to make it look as though the queen was angry at being asked to remove her headpiece. That news organization had since admitted what they had done. Actually the queen wasn't angry she just said that she had spent hours getting her hair set for it and couldn't remove it. Then they went and took photos for an hour or more.
Bill
There was a controversial video made, I believe, showing the talent attempt to explain why she wanted to display her favorite head decoration, not quite making her voice heard, and subsequently removing herself from the august presence of the photographer. It would appear that some US-based photographers would profit from a course on anthropology and tribe symbolism before venturing among the savages - or maybe some advice from kindergarten kids
Edmund
-
Besides, my only comment was about why in the world did she try to get a disarming portrait of the queen of england with a less than perfect photojournalistic canon camera. It seriously watered it down.
Annie comes from a PJ background. She likes to move around, she likes to see a shot that is unscripted and take it. She could mostly do this with the RZ and film, not so much with digital because she is constrained by tether cables, techs, the need for lots of light, reliance on software that may or may not work. So she shoots with a ds2 when she really wants to get the shot. Shooting the queen is high pressure, she uses what will work, no questions, no excuses. Would two extra bits and 4 extra Mega pixels have made such a difference when shooting under strobes, and the file goes straight to the Box and is then printed on a web press? I think not.
-
Spend 40 minutes learning eos utility and dpp.
If your running osx at least 10.5.8 the usb is fast and if your shooting at the same speed as pro 7's at 1/2 power you'll never hit the camera buffer.
The previews are almost instant and full screen and what you set for color and tone stays with the raws.
You can name the files going in to the computer, let it tether jpegs and RAW to the computer and also at the same time to a card for backup, or just use the card for jpegs and let raws and jpeg go to the computer and without having to walk over to the computer can scroll through the full session on the camera for review.
We recently tethered over 10,000 files this way to a macbook pro and a 24" monitor and only had one crash which was user error.
BC
BC
Thank you for the input
I know Eos utility well as we've used it both for tethering and doing Time Laps projects.
But even then specially on the MBP I still find it painfully slow...
I don't find MFDB any slower in studio than DSLR's for what I shoot.
Either way all of this is a bit of a moot point for me as I believe one should use the right tool that works for them and their clients.
anyways
am
-
BC
Either way all of this is a bit of a moot point for me as I believe one should use the right tool that works for them and their clients.
anyways
am
I agree
BC
-
Annie comes from a PJ background. She likes to move around, she likes to see a shot that is unscripted and take it. She could mostly do this with the RZ and film, not so much with digital because she is constrained by tether cables, techs, the need for lots of light, reliance on software that may or may not work. So she shoots with a ds2 when she really wants to get the shot. Shooting the queen is high pressure, she uses what will work, no questions, no excuses. Would two extra bits and 4 extra Mega pixels have made such a difference when shooting under strobes, and the file goes straight to the Box and is then printed on a web press? I think not.
Yes it is true that 35mm is much more conducive to capturing moments. But I wasn't talking about shooting style, I was talking about image quality and the drop in it is pretty clear to me. I'm surprised you can't see the difference at tabloid size TMARK. But it's not about the camera, it's the glass. People on this forum seem pretty hung up on megapixels and bit depth. At this point the Nikon and Canon full frame 35mm cameras are adequate in this regard when shot at a low ISO. But the image still has to go through glass and except for some of the primes most of it is not that great, especially the zooms. It looked like Leibovitz was using a zoom. It's also not always necessary to shoot tethered.
-
Yes it is true that 35mm is much more conducive to capturing moments. But I wasn't talking about shooting style, I was talking about image quality and the drop in it is pretty clear to me. I'm surprised you can't see the difference at tabloid size TMARK. But it's not about the camera, it's the glass. People on this forum seem pretty hung up on megapixels and bit depth. At this point the Nikon and Canon full frame 35mm cameras are adequate in this regard when shot at a low ISO. But the image still has to go through glass and except for some of the primes most of it is not that great, especially the zooms. It looked like Leibovitz was using a zoom. It's also not always necessary to shoot tethered.
You know, I tested all my V system glass on my (then) 1DsMKII prior to selling it to see if it made any sense to keep it. Sadly for the V glass, it fared no better than the Canon ZOOM's it was tested against, and in some cases was worse.
Of course your mileage and testing may vary.
-
Yes it is true that 35mm is much more conducive to capturing moments. But I wasn't talking about shooting style, I was talking about image quality and the drop in it is pretty clear to me. I'm surprised you can't see the difference at tabloid size TMARK. But it's not about the camera, it's the glass. People on this forum seem pretty hung up on megapixels and bit depth. At this point the Nikon and Canon full frame 35mm cameras are adequate in this regard when shot at a low ISO. But the image still has to go through glass and except for some of the primes most of it is not that great, especially the zooms. It looked like Leibovitz was using a zoom. It's also not always necessary to shoot tethered.
I think the loss of quality in Annie's stuff comes down to how its retouched and printed on a web press.
I've only seen the Queen images on a screen at full rez, where it looked nice, and printed in a magazine on a web press, where it looked like everything else printed on a web press: crappy.
I don't like how Annie's stuff is retouched. Even when she does shoot with a back, like in VF, the file treatment is not to my liking.
When I had dslr gear my Canon 24-70 was exceptional. It went back to Canon three times and each time it returned it was a better lens. The 70-200 was also fantastic. I mainly shot the 35L, 85L, and 135L.
I think the advantage MFD has with glass is really in the look. Nothing looks like the RZ 110, nothing looks like the Blad. 110 F2. The 80mm lenses for Mamiya and Contax look different than anything else.
-
I think the loss of quality in Annie's stuff comes down to how its retouched and printed on a web press.
I've only seen the Queen images on a screen at full rez, where it looked nice, and printed in a magazine on a web press, where it looked like everything else printed on a web press: crappy.
I don't like how Annie's stuff is retouched. Even when she does shoot with a back, like in VF, the file treatment is not to my liking.
When I had dslr gear my Canon 24-70 was exceptional. It went back to Canon three times and each time it returned it was a better lens. The 70-200 was also fantastic. I mainly shot the 35L, 85L, and 135L.
I think the advantage MFD has with glass is really in the look. Nothing looks like the RZ 110, nothing looks like the Blad. 110 F2. The 80mm lenses for Mamiya and Contax look different than anything else.
You must mean 24-70 is exceptional as a zoom lens. I think I have 24 lenses in all my outfits and the 24-70 is 2nd to last in quality. The 16-35 is the worst. Nope, it's easy to tell on four color offset magazine quality what the image was shot with.
-
You must mean 24-70 is exceptional as a zoom lens. I think I have 24 lenses in all my outfits and the 24-70 is 2nd to last in quality. The 16-35 is the worst. Nope, it's easy to tell on four color offset magazine quality what the image was shot with.
1. Yes, for a zoom. I think it was exceptional for its model. At 24 it was middling, at 35 it perked up and was fantastic. Yes, the 16-35 is a piece.
2. Nope, it's not easy to tell on four color offset magazine quality what the image was shot with, after post, and depending on the mag. W? Interview? SOMA? Unlikely, if shot under lights. V? Another? Numero? French? Maybe, just maybe because they use good paper and an old union press operator.
But look, I'm not going to convince you, in fact, I don't want to convince you. I am convinced of my position, and you with yours, and thats groovy. You see the difference in web press printed matter, great. I'm glad you like your back. I like my back, too, although I don't use it much.
I guess I have an agenda, and its to counter the message that you are subhuman/inferior/ripping off your clients if you use anything less than a back. I say this because I get so many questions from assistants about medium format digital, and they look at this forum, at the GETDPI forum, and they stretch to buy a back and they are broke, can't afford to produce their portfolio and are left in a bad spot. They end up buying back the Canon they sold to buy the back, all at a very big loss. These are people living three to a room in Bushwyck eating Raman and drinking 22s of Bud as a nutritional supplement. They are buying a pitch, and suffering for it.
-
I guess I have an agenda, and its to counter the message that you are subhuman/inferior/ripping off your clients if you use anything less than a back. I say this because I get so many questions from assistants about medium format digital, and they look at this forum, at the GETDPI forum, and they stretch to buy a back and they are broke, can't afford to produce their portfolio and are left in a bad spot. They end up buying back the Canon they sold to buy the back, all at a very big loss. These are people living three to a room in Bushwyck eating Raman and drinking 22s of Bud as a nutritional supplement. They are buying a pitch, and suffering for it.
So true... and I will add that when someone sees your excellent work from the Canon they will rent the MFD for you if *they* need it.
-
So true... and I will add that when someone sees your excellent work from the Canon they will rent the MFD for you if *they* need it.
Exactly! The only reason I own a back is because I got nit for a song from a friend who was going out of business. Its much easier to rent from a tech if you feel you need, or more liukely, THEY feel you need THE BEST CAMERA IN THE WORLD. Just make sure you bring a Canon too.
-
Exactly! The only reason I own a back is because I got nit for a song from a friend who was going out of business. Its much easier to rent from a tech if you feel you need, or more liukely, THEY feel you need THE BEST CAMERA IN THE WORLD. Just make sure you bring a Canon too.
:-)
I am wondering what happened with the D3x in the commercial world. Is it just DOA because it's $7500 and the 5D is $2500? The dudes I know who work at Calumet say they are selling none of those D3xs.
-
Who cares about the Dudes at Calumet.
The D3x is outselling the 1Dsm3 and the price is pretty equal.
There are a lot of Canon guys that are happy with their 5D2 and why not?
It's a pretty cheap camera,however you can't compare it with a D3x.
I had a 5D2 before I got the D3x and I know what I rather shoot with!
-
:-)
I am wondering what happened with the D3x in the commercial world. Is it just DOA because it's $7500 and the 5D is $2500? The dudes I know who work at Calumet say they are selling none of those D3xs.
I spoke earlier this March to a small dealer that said he had sold 23 d3x'. I asked how many to professionals and he said 0.
It seems the straw poll concensus was most people that needed higher megapixels had already invested in the 1ds3, and/or some type of medium format back and didn't see the need to start with whole new lenses and workflow.
Then of course the 5d2 came out for 1/2 price, shot video and in a somewhat down economy it just didn't make sense to keep upgrading for small incremental improvements. The 5d2 was the only new camera I bought this year, where previously I would have bought two or three much higher priced cameras.
I know this year for our studios we saw a lot of changes. The year started slow, picked up, though at first production numbers moved down, volume moved up.
For us it turned out to be a good year and ended with a bang, but with all the back and forth it just didn't seem that moving to any new system made sense or was worth the usual learning curve, or risk. This was a very risk adverse year.
I know what it allowed me to do was zone in one one camera system like I haven't done since the film days. The 1ds3, just covered a lot of territory from lifestyle to fashion, to beauty and once I got it down with eos utility and dpp (and Apple upped the speed of their usb drivers) I just kept on going and never looked back.
I felt the 1ds3 was/is as ground breaking a camera as the original 1ds1 and was everything the Mark II should have been.
I did go off track a little bit this year and used the medium format back for two small gigs that were somewhat static and slower paced but did so just because it was kind of fun, not out of any client or file quality demands.
Now had the d3x had video, maybe a few more features like a removable prism, or was a high iso king I might have looked at it in a different way.
Same with medium format. When I heard Phase was moving to a "new technology" and higher iso etc. I was really hoping for a cmos sensor, which might give live view and even video, but that wasn't the case and though I am sure the new phase backs are good, from the people I know they didn't see that huge of a difference between a p40+ to p30+, so for the expense it just made sense to invest in our business in a different direction.
I think all of this stuff is kind of leveling out. Already we're sending out files sizes that are larger than required and honestly I find no clients that demand anything in the way of file or camera preference, unless they have a deal with a digital tech company and even then all have been open to allowing the photographer his/her choice.
In fact this year when it came to investment, we put our money into facilities and in front of the lens.
BC
-
Who cares about the Dudes at Calumet.
The D3x is outselling the 1Dsm3 and the price is pretty equal.
There are a lot of Canon guys that are happy with their 5D2 and why not?
It's a pretty cheap camera,however you can't compare it with a D3x.
I had a 5D2 before I got the D3x and I know what I rather shoot with!
It's not just Calumet. I've spoken to 2 other major pro dealers in NYC, they're barely selling D3x's. When I asked why they shrugged and said it was a great camera. They sell every 5dmk2 they can get their hands on. Rental places say the same. They have d3x's but they mostly sit on the shelf. Maybe NYC is just a Canon market.
I know many pros here. Only 1 has a D3x (it's his first "real" digital camera, he was a film guy until this year and always used Nikon). The rest overwhelmingly use 5d2's or 1ds3's (most own MFDB and/or rent when needed).
Had coffee today with a friend/fellow pro here who shoots major advertising stuff. We went over the past year and what we see coming next year. Both of us have Alpa's and MFDB systems and neither seem to get used much anymore as much as we like them. The 5d2's are doing almost everything.
When you see pros come on here and say the Canon just works, it's because that's the reality now. And until there's something to replace it "the Canon" = 5d2 and not the old 5d or 1ds2.
-
What makes me smile about the never ending discussion on wich is better between medium format and 35mm is a job a did last week. We had a very simple visual: a young guy into a train looking in the window... We had no time and had no good train for location; we ended up buying a photograph from Fotolia. I shoot the talent in the studio end then, god bless Photoshop I used a phaseone back for the talent, but because the photo of the train was very small (it was from a nikon D80) i had to decrease the quality of my phase back... and you know what? The result was great, the client was absolutely happy and when we printed it, it was amazing. I don't even know how many megapixels the D80 has...but the job was very important and as many pros know, the most important thing is the look, the appeal, the mood, the capability of bringing into a photograph the visual of the art director and of course the check you get for the job
-
It's not just Calumet. I've spoken to 2 other major pro dealers in NYC, they're barely selling D3x's. When I asked why they shrugged and said it was a great camera. They sell every 5dmk2 they can get their hands on. Rental places say the same. They have d3x's but they mostly sit on the shelf. Maybe NYC is just a Canon market.
I know many pros here. Only 1 has a D3x (it's his first "real" digital camera, he was a film guy until this year and always used Nikon). The rest overwhelmingly use 5d2's or 1ds3's (most own MFDB and/or rent when needed).
Had coffee today with a friend/fellow pro here who shoots major advertising stuff. We went over the past year and what we see coming next year. Both of us have Alpa's and MFDB systems and neither seem to get used much anymore as much as we like them. The 5d2's are doing almost everything.
When you see pros come on here and say the Canon just works, it's because that's the reality now. And until there's something to replace it "the Canon" = 5d2 and not the old 5d or 1ds2.
I totally believe you, and yet my friends in the industry confirm that N has been outselling the pro C (D3x against 1DsIII) 2 to 1. The C body has a nasty rep for needing service adjustment; I was warned of this by my pro dealer in Germany. Another interesting datapoint is that the 5DII sale for video use are continuing to go through the roof - as confirmed from the fact that Canon keeps adding features to this model by firmware, which they never did before. Another interesting fact is that the marriage/event guys are going for the crop bodies as much for the added DOF as for the cheaper price point. On a final note, I own both - and I guarantee you that the D3x is the one that gets used. The 5DII is nice - but it's nowhere in the same "drop in bag, shoot and forget, focus spot on, use the Jpeg" class - the 5DII is more "pack carefully, stop down a bit, check focus, use the Raw, recover the shadows, sharpen with care". However the 17TSE obviously overrides those differences, and obviously MF shooters are not looking for a fast-focusing Hi-ISO camera, LOL
Edmund
-
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Kirk. World leading? Maybe if I keep busting my butt for the next ten years.
And I agree, Willem, Griffith's work is really quite nice.
I have a simple test to determine whether someone has ascended to this level:
Google their name. If your results reveal pages upon pages of articles, galleries representing them, various exhibits and publications while not actually leading you to their own website... BINGO!
I've stated all my personal preferences here before. I prefer to work with a view camera, that means I use a digital back. It allows me to shift independently of rise, swing independently of tilt, have several really excellent lenses with no gaps in the focal lineup and all of this actually makes my work faster than if I was using a dslr. When trying to work the way that I am used to, I have actually found dslrs / pc lenses to hinder my workflow. Maybe if I was required to make a lot of pictures on my shoots and if I got used to the little cameras I would eventually be more productive/comfortable with them. But until circumstances require me to change, I'm still going to shoot with the system that gives me the best files achievable.
I'm really happy with my current system. For me, it all just works. None of us are the same, though, and this end-all-be-all argument is superfluous.
Merry Christmas, People. Have a great holiday and then get out there and shoot, with whatever gets your pictures!
-C Barrett
-
I have a simple test to determine whether someone has ascended to this level:
Google their name. If your results reveal pages upon pages of articles, galleries representing them, various exhibits and publications while not actually leading you to their own website... BINGO!
-C Barrett
i agree once more.
but i want to state also that digital leaded some ( many ) of the formerly great film photographers to speed up their working process and to shoot now 50 or 100 projects a year when shooting formerly 10 or 20. this is not leading in all cases to the same quality the same people had archived with film.
meanwhile some of these shooters can be found in every second issue of ar or similar magazines this does not mean that they are "world leading" in terms of quality, although in terms of quantity they might be. this sums up to be commercially a very good biz for these guys but lets see where the ball runs in longer terms.
the cards have been mixed new in the last years and i believe there is MUCH to expect from the new generation of photographers who grew up with digital and did not simply replace the film working style with digital to speed up the process of shooting or to reduce shooting costs, but not creating a similar interesting aesthetic as the same people had done formerly using film.
its very interesting: in general the budgets went down as a result from a kind of price dumping also from some of the names tes claimed in this second class of "world leaders ", interestingly the number of photographers who have been straight enough to hold on with an own style of shooting, which is not only dictated by an "good enough" view of the things mixed with an "as cheap and fast enough" shooting process, decreased by a big number, which leads to the strange effect that, although the competion became much stronger in general in this architecture biz, there seem to be more space on the top than it was some years ago. the top architect is here not only the biggest name and the biggest building, its also an architect who is willing to work close together with a photographer and who is willed to pay for this, and not the ones ( which are many of the famous ones ) who buy as cheap as possible from an increasing number of photographers the images which may fit best the daily needs of a project, but not creating a comprehensive portfolio.
the individuality of these photowork often gets lost and i.m.o. this has a lot of to do with making good business but nothing with "top class" in the sense of aesthetic which might surpass the daily publication or archival needs.
in result this could be even a good situation for young shooters, as long they have the strong energy and wish to go to the top ....
-
:-)
I am wondering what happened with the D3x in the commercial world. Is it just DOA because it's $7500 and the 5D is $2500? The dudes I know who work at Calumet say they are selling none of those D3xs.
Nikon was too late to the full frame party for the NYC market. Everyone had Nikon in the film days, and loads of lenses, but then their digicams failed to deliver, until the D3. But by that time everyone had sold their lenses and bought a full frame Canon and lots of lenses. There is no incentive to switch back to Nikon, although I think the D700, D3 and D3x are better than their Canon counterparts, but only at the margins.
-
TMARK,
you nailed it on the head.
Nikon was to late to get of the mark with full frame DSLR.
However,that has changed now and there has been migration from Canon to Nikon(Like me)
When I bought the D3x it was(is) the best Pro DSLR out there.
Canon's new 1dsMk4 will out do the D3x and Nikon's new D4x will out do the Canon again.
At the end of the day,both Nikon and Canon make excellent DSLR's
I prefer Nikon (at the moment)
Best,
Willem.
-
In any case, the 5D2 seems to be outselling both the D3x and the 1Ds3 by about 300:1.
Wondering if the prices on new flagship dslrs will ever come down...their sales really seem to have slowed way down.
-
Till they both come with a FF dslr with pro feautures at a sensible price.
In that I concour with K Rockwell.
Merry xmas all.
Eduardo
In any case, the 5D2 seems to be outselling both the D3x and the 1Ds3 by about 300:1.
Wondering if the prices on new flagship dslrs will ever come down...their sales really seem to have slowed way down.
-
In any case, the 5D2 seems to be outselling both the D3x and the 1Ds3 by about 300:1.
Wondering if the prices on new flagship dslrs will ever come down...their sales really seem to have slowed way down.
Well hello?
How many more Golfs do they sell compared to Porches?
Of course a camera that cost $2500 will outsell a camera that cost 3 times more.
Also the 5D2 is aimed for a broader audience.
The new 1DSmk4 will still be around the $7K mark and so will the 4Dx etc.
It just cost more to make a full pro body.
-
It just cost more to make a full pro body.
I agree with pretty much everything you said except this part. If the price premium were just due to the rugged pro body, that wouldn't explain why the 1D bodies have always been so much cheaper than the 1Ds when it's really just the sensor and imaging pipeline that differs.
The 1Ds and D3x are priced for market positioning. They're meant to be premium cameras showcasing the pinnacle of camera technology for their prospective brands. Nikon and Canon _could_ sell these cameras at a lower price point, but they don't want to. Which kind of sucks for Nikon users since there's only one camera in the lineup with more than 12mp resolution.
-
TMARK,
you nailed it on the head.
Nikon was to late to get of the mark with full frame DSLR.
Best,
Willem.
I also think they are grossly late with a second High Megapixel body that's around the $4k mark, sort of like a 5D2 price range.
am