Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: teddillard on December 24, 2009, 09:07:07 am
-
It's been a while since I've played with the big-chip cameras, and we got hold of a Hassey 31 and 39 for our Fashion/Portrait Shootout stories... I was just processing files for the MFDB part, and just got blown away again, by this stuff. Blog post here: AKA "There's no substitute for Horsepower!"
http://www.h2hreviews.com/blog/MFDB-vs-DSL...sepower---.html (http://www.h2hreviews.com/blog/MFDB-vs-DSLR--or---There-s-no-substitute-for-horsepower---.html)
...I'll post the complete review later this week.
-
Good grief! Have you not been reading LL the past couple of days? We get it! We know it! MFD is a better file. We understand that! Nobody denies that! I hope they all don't go out of business...
-
Appreciate the brief review and I agree there is something different that is difficult to put an exact finger on.
While they are tools with different target audiences, when your using them in the same context then a side-by-side compare is necessary.
Maybe the lenses, maybe the FOV, CoC, bit-depth, raw processor, or even color rendering, but "it" is more than just pixel count. Even amoung MFDBs I can tell my shots from the Leaf vs. others.
regards,
-
Compare the H files to the M8 files. Not 100%, not up rezed, just the look of processed tiffs. They are very similar on screen and on A4 sized prints. Same look. Maybe it's that Kodak CCD's all look alike at defaults. Whatever it is, it's not just horsepower.
It's been a while since I've played with the big-chip cameras, and we got hold of a Hassey 31 and 39 for our Fashion/Portrait Shootout stories... I was just processing files for the MFDB part, and just got blown away again, by this stuff. Blog post here: AKA "There's no substitute for Horsepower!"
http://www.h2hreviews.com/blog/MFDB-vs-DSL...sepower---.html (http://www.h2hreviews.com/blog/MFDB-vs-DSLR--or---There-s-no-substitute-for-horsepower---.html)
...I'll post the complete review later this week.
-
...
-
Compare the H files to the M8 files. Not 100%, not up rezed, just the look of processed tiffs. They are very similar on screen and on A4 sized prints. Same look. Maybe it's that Kodak CCD's all look alike at defaults. Whatever it is, it's not just horsepower.
Just curious, have you done this? I'd love to see the results, we're working on the M9 testing... should have some results soon.
@ pcunite- funny, that's what my Editor said too... seems he wants some sleep.
-
Comparing shots informally from my M8 and my Sinar e54LV I find them similar in sharpness and feel, perhaps, but there are still differences. The Sinar files have more subtlety in them, more tones perhaps. Perhaps this is due to the unusual compression scheme of the M8. I would be curious to see a more rigorous test between MF and the M9.
-
Just curious, have you done this? I'd love to see the results, we're working on the M9 testing... should have some results soon.
@ pcunite- funny, that's what my Editor said too... seems he wants some sleep.
Not a formal compare-o, but I've seen thousands upon thousands of P30+ files and thousands of thousands of M8 files, and lots of H3d-31 files. The images end up printed CMYK (less and less), on the web and mainly as stills in a motion project. The M8 looks sharper out of the box, I guess because the 31MP Kodak chips have micro lenses and the smaller M8 chip gives deeper focus.
The super sharp look is a little difficult with clients, because everyone wants (without articulating it) soft, natural, organic. They want the vibe or mood of a piece to look like a French Romance movie from 1975, all washed and bleached out on Agfa, lots of flair, maybe even some grain, but I digress. What they want is film without the wait, but that company stopped making peel apart film.
-
Ted,
Thanks again for your work.
Just to follow up the 2nd topic in the thread. A while back I compared the leica DMR, Phase p20 on 6008, and canon 5D. The DMR and Phase p20 produced images that were similar to each other perhaps because they both shared Kodak CCD chips, but the Phase had more DR. I think while a lot of discussions center on sharpness, DR is an important component for rendering real looking images.
In your test I was able to pick out the hasselblad shot on the basis of DR alone even in a small size on screen. I can't understand why this wouldn't also be visible in a print of any size.
Eric
-
Personally, I find these comparisons useful and interesting. Not only to show how 35mm has progressed in the last few years but to still see that MF still has that "something" that 35mm can't quite reach. Namely the price. Just kidding. MF still looks better to me, just not thousands better.
The problem with this test which to me is pretty useless because all the images are lit differently, shot differently and cropped differently. Naturally the MF shot looks best here is because it was lit better (sort of) and looks like a bit of time was taken with it. The 35mm ones look like an after thought.
Oh well keep trying.
-
Personally, I find these comparisons useful and interesting. Not only to show how 35mm has progressed in the last few years but to still see that MF still has that "something" that 35mm can't quite reach. Namely the price. Just kidding. MF still looks better to me, just not thousands better.
The problem with this test which to me is pretty useless because all the images are lit differently, shot differently and cropped differently. Naturally the MF shot looks best here is because it was lit better (sort of) and looks like a bit of time was taken with it. The 35mm ones look like an after thought.
Oh well keep trying.
I don't know much, I spent a year or so using medium format and 4x5 years ago and the photos on my wall from back then still look better than any 35mm I have seen. They are not big prints, 8x10 and 11x14 but the tonalities and the fine job I did making silver prints make them stand out compared with 35mm. I have not seen any 35mm format film/sensor prints equal them. Indeed, digital printing seems to have some limitations re. dynamic range (including micro dynamic) seems lacking. But I really don't care anymore after reading the rants (all seeming from 35 format fans). I will continue to shoot my 35mm full format dSLR (no not Canon or Nikon) and be satisfied that this is the best I can do and afford. It all makes me glad I'm not a professional or even an amateur with an axe to grind. I am also glad I could also choose a dSLR that is not NicCan, since I don't need the expensive pro support. I will always have a preference for prints made from MF and LF and don't need to justify my liking it because of being able justify it commercially. I am just an amateur and can appreciate something I no longer have access to. I really appreciate this site because it does offer a perspective that isn't confined to one brand or format or another. Its just about the print. Are rants mostly the product of testosterone? Perhaps that would explain it.
-
Testosterone and imagination I'd ask.
Eduardo
I don't know much, I spent a year or so using medium format and 4x5 years ago and the photos on my wall from back then still look better than any 35mm I have seen. They are not big prints, 8x10 and 11x14 but the tonalities and the fine job I did making silver prints make them stand out compared with 35mm. I have not seen any 35mm format film/sensor prints equal them. Indeed, digital printing seems to have some limitations re. dynamic range (including micro dynamic) seems lacking. But I really don't care anymore after reading the rants (all seeming from 35 format fans). I will continue to shoot my 35mm full format dSLR (no not Canon or Nikon) and be satisfied that this is the best I can do and afford. It all makes me glad I'm not a professional or even an amateur with an axe to grind. I am also glad I could also choose a dSLR that is not NicCan, since I don't need the expensive pro support. I will always have a preference for prints made from MF and LF and don't need to justify my liking it because of being able justify it commercially. I am just an amateur and can appreciate something I no longer have access to. I really appreciate this site because it does offer a perspective that isn't confined to one brand or format or another. Its just about the print. Are rants mostly the product of testosterone? Perhaps that would explain it.
-
It's been a while since I've played with the big-chip cameras, and we got hold of a Hassey 31 and 39 for our Fashion/Portrait Shootout stories... I was just processing files for the MFDB part, and just got blown away again, by this stuff. Blog post here: AKA "There's no substitute for Horsepower!"
http://www.h2hreviews.com/blog/MFDB-vs-DSL...sepower---.html (http://www.h2hreviews.com/blog/MFDB-vs-DSLR--or---There-s-no-substitute-for-horsepower---.html)
...I'll post the complete review later this week.
Very nicely done. I think it shows pretty well, that the MFDB still has the edge, but it also shows how close 35mm has become. (close =! equal)
-
Very nicely done. I think it shows pretty well, that the MFDB still has the edge, but it also shows how close 35mm has become. (close =! equal)
Thanks Christopher... you're right, it certainly does show that.
I have this quirky test board I always shoot with everything, and I have shots from MFDBs starting from around 2000. (whoa, remember Y2K? ) I picked up a Canon G9 a few years back and for yuks, shot the board... I'd hold that file up against more than one Y2K vintage MFDB. Seriously. (Oh boy, if my editor reads this he's gonna want me to do a Head-2-Head on THAT one... I better start looking for the files now.)
I was installing a Leaf system into a studio that had an old DCB II, they picked up a Canon 20D and a Leaf 22, I think it was. We again were just goofing around, but we shot the DCB II against the 20D, and the 20D slammed the old "Brick".
I've been of the opinion that, for a few years now, MFDBs have lost ground to the DSLRs, and they have, but the one thing I'm getting from this comparison is they still have a place in the arsenal... the trick is to know just where that place is.
-
FINALLY!
...the last installment of the Fashion/Portrait shoot is up, with the Hassey comparisons and a full write-up. (Jeesh, this editorial stuff is like giving birth!)
Honestly, I was really shocked to see the aliasing- I shouldn't be, by now, but like I said, it's been a while. I'd be realy interested in you response, especially the "Mechanics of the Pixel" video. (Is there some way to post that here?)
Here's the linky (http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/Professional-Head-to-Head-Digital-Camera-Review-Pro-DSLR-and-Medium-Format-Comparison-Canon-5D-Mark-II-vs-Nikon-D3s-vs-Hasselblad-H3DII-31/Introduction-The-Matchup.html).
-
I speak daily with agency designers, those who spend their life in front of a computer to make advertisings, catalogues etc... from the pics they receive.
I can tell you that all say that, in preference order: very happy when they receive drum scanned from LF, in second MFD, and ultimately 35mm FF.
They all regret that LF is less and less used.
Fred.
-
FINALLY!
...the last installment of the Fashion/Portrait shoot is up, with the Hassey comparisons and a full write-up. (Jeesh, this editorial stuff is like giving birth!)
Honestly, I was really shocked to see the aliasing- I shouldn't be, by now, but like I said, it's been a while. I'd be realy interested in you response, especially the "Mechanics of the Pixel" video. (Is there some way to post that here?)
Here's the linky (http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/Professional-Head-to-Head-Digital-Camera-Review-Pro-DSLR-and-Medium-Format-Comparison-Canon-5D-Mark-II-vs-Nikon-D3s-vs-Hasselblad-H3DII-31/Introduction-The-Matchup.html).
Hey Ted,
Looks like you will have to rewrite it with an H4D40.
Thanks for the test.
David
-
Hey Ted,
Looks like you will have to rewrite it with an H4D40.
Thanks for the test.
David
...no rest for the wicked, as my grammy used to say...
I've got a shoot lined up for mid-April, hope to used the 40 on that one...
-
I speak daily with agency designers, those who spend their life in front of a computer to make advertisings, catalogues etc... from the pics they receive.
I can tell you that all say that, in preference order: very happy when they receive drum scanned from LF, in second MFD, and ultimately 35mm FF.
They all regret that LF is less and less used.
Fred.
Fred, seriously?
What market are you working in? Around Boston there aren't any designers left that even know what film is... much less 4x5. I'd LOVE to find a client who has creatives old enough to miss film...
-
Fred, seriously?
What market are you working in? Around Boston there aren't any designers left that even know what film is... much less 4x5. I'd LOVE to find a client who has creatives old enough to miss film...
I could ask the same question to you.
For example,
I spoke a week ago with one the best (and oldest) publicity designer in Madrid. They have a big japanese brand (start with T...) for south Europe market. She told me that just few years ago, they still received drumed scans from LF for their cars campaigns but since then all is MFD. The designers where "complaining" of the additional work they have to acheive in order to get the same quality, specialy when FF 35mm.
I've heard constantly these comments for steel objects.
We had an international light company that sent us before LF scans, now we have FF, and designers are complaining all the time since then.
I'm not a designer so I would walk with precautions in this terrain because it might be a "corporation attitude" . But what I report is the reality. Maybe in europe we are still outdated
Fred.
-
I could ask the same question to you.
'cept I told you. I'm in Boston.
Seriously, though, I find that fascinating... I heard from a guy shooting in Japan, saying they will NOT accept digital files at all. I haven't heard that corroborated anywhere. So you work in all of Europe, or just a specific region?
edit: duh, looked at your tag- change that to "...just Madrid".
-
In my city no client can afford better than FF. However it works for them. The same magazines that used to pay photographers for MF trans now happily pay for FF digital files. Same quality (+/-) plus they all save the scanning expenses.
Eduardo
Fred, seriously?
What market are you working in? Around Boston there aren't any designers left that even know what film is... much less 4x5. I'd LOVE to find a client who has creatives old enough to miss film...
-
'cept I told you. I'm in Boston.
Seriously, though, I find that fascinating... I heard from a guy shooting in Japan, saying they will NOT accept digital files at all. I haven't heard that corroborated anywhere. So you work in all of Europe, or just a specific region?
edit: duh, looked at your tag- change that to "...just Madrid".
I have works in France too.
It is true that youngest generation don't even know what a drumscan is. There has been a lot of people, with the recent crisis who have been fired. Advertising agencies have reduced a lot their staff. The oldest and most experimented ones has stayed ( because of their experience and also because in Europe it cost much more to fire a long-time worker.)
We are seeing that FF is implementing step by step, but for costs reasons, not because of the quality.
Now, there are many niches (like fashion) where there is no way you gonna have FF if the brand is minimally important. It is 100% MFD.
For your information, in Paris there is still a huge demand and a lot more LF photographers than here in Madrid. Highly regarded. A new generation of very young LF users as well.
"...just Madrid" maybe not be the case, or "Boston only?"
Ps: nice city Boston by the way.
Cheers,
Fred.
-
Surely it must be obvious to everyone on this forum that the larger sensor (as was the case with the larger film format) has a qualitative advantage over the smaller format.
You don't even have to hire an MFDB to check this out. All you need to do is compare a Canon APS-C format with full frame 35mm.
The camera with which I've taken more photos than any other, is the Canon 5D. I've been considering getting the 18mp 7D because of its advanced features such as fast frame rate, good autofocussing, higher resolution, Live View etc, not to mention the video capability.
However, from the perspective of sheer quality of image with regard to tonal range, color sensitivity and SNR, this latest offering from Canon, the 7D, 5 years after the 5D was released, is still not on a par with the 5D, except with regard to dynamic range at ISOs below 800.
Surprisingly, the technological developments of the past 5 years has enabled an APS-C sensor to have slightly greater DR than an older full frame. But perhaps not so surprising because we should all know by now that the Nikon D3X has slightly higher DR than most MFDBs.
Here's the link to the 'DXO Mark' comparisons of the 5D, 7D and 5D2. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image.../(brand3)/Canon (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/329%7C0/(appareil2)/176%7C0/(appareil3)/305%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Canon)
The questions that people who are thinking about getting an MFDB should be asking themselves is; How much better is the MFDB? In what respects is it better? At what print sizes are the improvements obvious? Do the improvements justify the significantly increased costs of the MFDB, especially in view of the disadvantages such as extra weight, slower frame rates and significantly worse high-ISO performance?
Another important consideration is the availability of high quality lenses for the format. It doesn't matter how good the camera is if the lenses you want are not available.
-
Thanks! Boston has changed a lot in the last decade... we're very proud of the city, it has not always been the case. Madrid is a city I long to visit, but travel isn't really in the plan right now. In France, do you work the Paris market?
I'm VERY interested in the specific qualities that these people prefer from drum scanned LF. I hesitate to ask the question, I've seen discussions go bad in a flash at the slightest hint of "film vs. digital", but what parts of the process do they say they like better? Is it simply getting a good quality product from a drum scan facility, standardization, resolution, color depth, familiarity?
Interesting... here, the reaction to cutting staff is to cut the older, more expensive ones and hire kids out of school. But don't get me going on THAT one...
Also interesting, and predictable- the resurgence of LF in young photographers- I called that back in 2000, I almost started collecting and storing enlargers and darkrooms. I read somewhere that TriX film sales in 2009 were back on the rise, and a dramatic rise at that.
Ted
I have works in France too.
It is true that youngest generation don't even know what a drumscan is. There has been a lot of people, with the recent crisis who have been fired. Advertising agencies have reduced a lot their staff. The oldest and most experimented ones has stayed ( because of their experience and also because in Europe it cost much more to fire a long-time worker.)
We are seeing that FF is implementing step by step, but for costs reasons, not because of the quality.
Now, there are many niches (like fashion) where there is no way you gonna have FF if the brand is minimally important. It is 100% MFD.
For your information, in Paris there is still a huge demand and a lot more LF photographers than here in Madrid. Highly regarded. A new generation of very young LF users as well.
"...just Madrid" maybe not be the case, or "Boston only?"
Ps: nice city Boston by the way.
Cheers,
Fred.
-
Surely it must be obvious to everyone on this forum that the larger sensor (as was the case with the larger film format) has a qualitative advantage over the smaller format.
The questions that people who are thinking about getting an MFDB should be asking themselves is; How much better is the MFDB? In what respects is it better? At what print sizes are the improvements obvious? Do the improvements justify the significantly increased costs of the MFDB, especially in view of the disadvantages such as extra weight, slower frame rates and significantly worse high-ISO performance?
The first part, not in every case. See my issues with aliasing, file size, etc. The second point... exactly the point of my review. They are significantly different tools, use the right tool for the job, but to do that, understand what each tool does best, as well as the disadvantages.
It seems like these comparisons get this kind of reaction fairly often- but it's not about "better", and there is no "best". It's about "best for the use".
...and great point on the lenses as well. Don't forget the weight of the things. I've shot some pretty big systems, but I can't remember a lens as big and heavy as that Hassey zoom!
-
It seems like these comparisons get this kind of reaction fairly often- but it's not about "better", and there is no "best". It's about "best for the use".
Best for the use? Are you referring to factors such as faster flash sync and better tethering? Please itemise the features, other than higher resolution and qualitative features in general, which make the MFDB easier to use or better for a specific job.
As regards ease of use and flexibility, I would have thought the 35mm wins hands down.
-
Thanks! Boston has changed a lot in the last decade... we're very proud of the city, it has not always been the case. Madrid is a city I long to visit, but travel isn't really in the plan right now. In France, do you work the Paris market?
I'm VERY interested in the specific qualities that these people prefer from drum scanned LF. I hesitate to ask the question, I've seen discussions go bad in a flash at the slightest hint of "film vs. digital", but what parts of the process do they say they like better? Is it simply getting a good quality product from a drum scan facility, standardization, resolution, color depth, familiarity?
Interesting... here, the reaction to cutting staff is to cut the older, more expensive ones and hire kids out of school. But don't get me going on THAT one...
Also interesting, and predictable- the resurgence of LF in young photographers- I called that back in 2000, I almost started collecting and storing enlargers and darkrooms. I read somewhere that TriX film sales in 2009 were back on the rise, and a dramatic rise at that.
Ted
Ted,
I think you point something interesting.
What really happens, according to me (but I do not have a huge technical qualification so it is more of observing and speaking with the pros involved), is that it is not specially about real IQ performance.
Let's say you are in Paris and you are a good fashion photographer. Why would you shoot MFD? Why not FF Nikon for example? Because there is a pressure, because there is a "standard" that defines some "minimums".
Remember that just recently 35mm FF has made some progress, but the pros had invested years ago in MFD, so that is the common standard. Also, there is a evidence that if you are contracted by Chanel for a campaign that you are supposed to shoot with the best tools availables. That is just the way it is. Maybe you could acheive icual or closed result with your 35mm FF, but Chanel (for example) is wanting you to work with Hasselblad.
Same happens in architecture and steel objects: you shoot with LF and digital back, because of perspective corrections etc...
It is all about the best tools possible.
My works in Paris are not reaching that point because it is a small agency where campaigns are much more modest, but having relations with bigger ones, it is just the way it works.
The top-class photographers in advertising, arquitecture, fashion etc... are all working with MDF or LF in team, and I'm not sure is going to change soon.
Is it for IQ reasons or elite mentality? I think a little bit of both.
Cheers,
Fred.
-
Best for the use? Are you referring to factors such as faster flash sync and better tethering? Please itemise the features, other than higher resolution and qualitative features in general, which make the MFDB easier to use or better for a specific job.
As regards ease of use and flexibility, I would have thought the 35mm wins hands down.
...that would be exactly what the review is about.
Ease of use and flexibility for example, are pretty vague ideas, by themselves. I remember shooting with the Kodak 645 ProBack, for example, for the first time on the street. It was the first camera I could shoot with a MF sensor that shot to CF cards, and the ease of use and flexibility, for a MFDB, was simply unheard of at the time. But that is in the context of the other advantages of the format... if I don't need the resolution, for example, the ease of the camera operation becomes immaterial.
Much as it makes everyone more comfortable to come out and make definitive statements, it just isn't that clear. We do very disciplined and data-based testing on everything we review, but the fundamental point of these hands-on "shoot diary" stories is to show that it's not all about metrics.
But, to give you a very straightforward answer, the camera handling of the Hasselblad H system I find without equal. I love it. It's balanced, it fits my hand and shooting style like a glove. The autofocus, again, for my shooting style, works better than any DSLR I've shot with. Period. ...and the richness and depth of the files is something that you see even at small final image sizes- almost an intangible quality, but something I've seen repeatedly. So, for uses where these aspects are required, I'd pick the MFDB.
-
I agree, and I think you do a much better job stating the case than the common thread I've seen- implying that you need to shoot a particular format to lend yourself credibility. ...something I just hate to see people say. It's a slippery slope indeed, but I've always believed that your images should speak for you, not your equipment.
FWIW, although many of the photographs in my 4 books were shot with MFDB, a great many weren't. One entire book was shot with the Canon G9. There are several shots, reproduced at almost a double page spread, that were even shot with an Olympus E10... but, and here's the point, I didn't have a client hanging over my shoulder when I was shooting. The production people were consistently happy with the files I gave them, regardless of the source. (Nobody has yet been able to identify the cameras the photographs were shot with... )
Ted,
I think you point something interesting.
What really happens, according to me (but I do not have a huge technical qualification so it is more of observing and speaking with the pros involved), is that it is not specially about real IQ performance.
Let's say you are in Paris and you are a good fashion photographer. Why would you shoot MFD? Why not FF Nikon for example? Because there is a pressure, because there is a "standard" that defines some "minimums".
Remember that just recently 35mm FF has made some progress, but the pros had invested years ago in MFD, so that is the common standard. Also, there is a evidence that if you are contracted by Chanel for a campaign that you are supposed to shoot with the best tools availables. That is just the way it is. Maybe you could acheive icual or closed result with your 35mm FF, but Chanel (for example) is wanting you to work with Hasselblad.
Same happens in architecture and steel objects: you shoot with LF and digital back, because of perspective corrections etc...
It is all about the best tools possible.
My works in Paris are not reaching that point because it is a small agency where campaigns are much more modest, but having relations with bigger ones, it is just the way it works.
The top-class photographers in advertising, arquitecture, fashion etc... are all working with MDF or LF in team, and I'm not sure is going to change soon.
Is it for IQ reasons or elite mentality? I think a little bit of both.
Cheers,
Fred.
-
Ease of use and flexibility for example, are pretty vague ideas, by themselves. I remember shooting with the Kodak 645 ProBack, for example, for the first time on the street. It was the first camera I could shoot with a MF sensor that shot to CF cards, and the ease of use and flexibility, for a MFDB, was simply unheard of at the time.
This is the key phrase, It was the first camera I could shoot with a MF sensor that shot to CF cards, and the ease of use and flexibility, for a MFDB, was simply unheard of at the time.
On balance, the 35mm format is far more flexible than MFDB. If you want to make an issue of 'the best camera for the job', then you should specify the features (other than general image quality) in which the MFDB excels. Flash sync speed and ease of tethering are the only features that spring to mind.
Can you mention a few others?
-
This is the key phrase,
On balance, the 35mm format is far more flexible than MFDB. If you want to make an issue of 'the best camera for the job', then you should specify the features (other than general image quality) in which the MFDB excels. Flash sync speed and ease of tethering are the only features that spring to mind.
Can you mention a few others?
Format aspect flexibility.
Prestige.
Owner service-attention.
-
This is the key phrase,
On balance, the 35mm format is far more flexible than MFDB. If you want to make an issue of 'the best camera for the job', then you should specify the features (other than general image quality) in which the MFDB excels. Flash sync speed and ease of tethering are the only features that spring to mind.
Can you mention a few others?
Sorry, thought I did, both above and in detail in the story... I guess I'm not understanding your question.
-
Format aspect flexibility.
Prestige.
Owner service-attention.
Format aspect flexibility? Nonsense. That applies to all cameras without exception.
Prestige? Yes. The number one feature of any camera that costs as much as a luxury car.
Owner service-attention? Sounds like gobbledegook. Can you rephrase that?
-
Format aspect flexibility? Nonsense. That applies to all cameras without exception.
Prestige? Yes. The number one feature of any camera that costs as much as a luxury car.
Owner service-attention? Sounds like gobbledegook. Can you rephrase that?
I'm fine with gobbledegook but can write it in french if you like.
Regards,
Fred
-
I'm fine with gobbledegook but can write it in french if you like.
Regards,
Fred
I'm requesting real attributes, not variations on the same theme. Greater format flexibility equates to greater pixel count. We know that larger formats tend to have greater pixel count and therefore tend to exhibit greater resolution on large prints.
The 18mp 7D has greater format flexibility than the 12.7mp 5D because it has greater pixel count.
So we're left with prestige. That's what it's all about. I'd agree with that.
-
On balance, the 35mm format is far more flexible than MFDB. If you want to make an issue of 'the best camera for the job', then you should specify the features (other than general image quality) in which the MFDB excels. Flash sync speed and ease of tethering are the only features that spring to mind.
Can you mention a few others?
depends on what you call "flexible".
With MFDB you can...
- exchange finders fast and easy
- exchange screens fast and easy
- work with a format that works both in landscape and portrait mode
- use different sensors (DBs) with different resolution and/or sensor size on the same camera
- use the same sensor (DB) on different cameras
...
-
I'm requesting real attributes, not variations on the same theme. Greater format flexibility equates to greater pixel count. We know that larger formats tend to have greater pixel count and therefore tend to exhibit greater resolution on large prints.
The 18mp 7D has greater format flexibility than the 12.7mp 5D because it has greater pixel count.
So we're left with prestige. That's what it's all about. I'd agree with that.
Not sure why i am even replying to this nonsense.
I can take my P40+ back today put it on a DF body( AFD, AFDII, AFDIII) from 28mm to 300mm plus shift( Plus a hundred old Mamiya manual lenses). Than within 5 seconds have it on a Horseman , Cambo, Silvestri, Arca or almost any full tilt and shift solution. Than take that same back hand it to a friend grab a leaf back in any flavor or a Phase back in any flavor and run it through all the same cams that I want and have options that I could never get with a 35mm because i have a sensor that can move around you can't do that with a 35mm. Not to mention I can take any V lens, Zeiss lens , Rodenstock, Schnieder and move them around to different systems maybe not all but some at least. I can go from a 22mpx , 31, 39 mpx, 40 mpx and 60 mpx sensor between all of them also if they are handy or on a workshop with all these things in place. You have a Canon your stuck with a Canon but you can adapt Zeiss and leica glass . I know i was the grandfather of that trick but you are stuck with a sensor that cannot move around to different systems like a back can. I need prestige of system as much as I need a sex change so drop that one for sure. I need gear that works and can adapt to different shooting environments . Plus all that and shift,tilt and stitch to almost anything needed until the cows come home. But Ray you already knew that so why continue down this path that never ever freaking ends. All systems have there place . I own MF because I like to shoot it and my clients love the files why do we MF shooters need to defend it past anything but that is beyond logic. It is a system we chose to work with or not. As a working Pro we are after tools that gets a check in our hands, end of story. For some 35mm is it and for others we use MF or other systems that work for the photographer. Why all this arm chair quarterbacking is beyond any logic at all. Did I mention beyond any logic at all. Just wanted to make sure because it is the same bullshit everyday day in day out about this versus that . End of day Ray no one gives a rats ass that works in this profession. It's all about our business and what makes it profitable or not. I almost deleted this all but it just had to be said . THIS IS STUPID CONVERSATION
-
I'm requesting real attributes, not variations on the same theme. Greater format flexibility equates to greater pixel count. We know that larger formats tend to have greater pixel count and therefore tend to exhibit greater resolution on large prints.
The 18mp 7D has greater format flexibility than the 12.7mp 5D because it has greater pixel count.
So we're left with prestige. That's what it's all about. I'd agree with that.
Although it kind of feels like I'm being baited, I think it's a fair question, and maybe is a good one to put into the context of actual shooting. Here's a very brief set of examples of scenarios that I'd use particular cameras for- it's about as specific as I can get, and it's very, very subjective, but it's based on the specific characteristics of the various cameras.
A couple of caveats. First, the premise is that the cost of the equipment is immaterial. Before you howl, this is more of a business plan issue than an equipment issue, and it's a result of the cost of digital cameras. As of around the mid-90s I do not own the equipment I shoot with, period. I rent everything. The rental cost is billed to the client, and is a line item. Thus, I don't carry the overhead of the gear, and I use gear that's appropriate for the assignment. (I do the same with the car- every location job has a car rental- it's the best way to expense travel, IMO, and to date, I've not had a single client even ask about it. Again- this is a different subject, but the core issue is it frees me to use the right tool for the job.)
Second, not for a long time have I identified any part of my work with the camera I shoot with. I am not a Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad or Sinar "shooter". I know many cameras pretty well, and thus I'm pretty comfortable shooting with almost anything in a work environment. That said, I read the manual.
Let's go through some stuff that's on my table right now...
I have a 2-day shoot for a furniture designer. (REALLY nice stuff.) I want to shoot with the Hasselblad HD40D, simply because it's in the studio, on a tripod, we shoot a fair amount but narrow it down to a few takes and delete the rest. We then have to do a fair amount of post to straighten perspective and fix up the obvious prototype issues. We deliver images typically sized to a double page spread, but mostly they're used for a web site. This is a case of trying to cover any possible usage, so if we were to shoot it with anything less than a Canon 5DM2 for example (which we use as B/U) it may create problems down the road. Keep in mind his investment for these shoots is huge- he only wants to shoot this stuff once.
We have had problems with aliasing on these products- but the bit depth and resolution of the files, plus the small number of finals makes it a good tradeoff.
I have a model shoot, for the girl's headshots and card. I probably will shoot that with a full-frame camera, just to allow for a little more than I really need. I really like shooting that work with an APS sensor, just because of the crop factor- I can use shorter, faster lenses for the same "tele" effect that I like on models. (My fave all-time lens/camera for that stuff is my old Nikon F2AS and the 105 f2.8 Nikkor...) I wouldn't use MFDB for that for a few reasons- first, the files are just too big. Second, I like to be able to shoot faster if I need to. Third, the camera itself is just massive, and I'm getting old.
That said, I recently had a model shoot that may be, at some future point, used for big repro, double page spreads or even signage. Not as a CYA, but as a "cover your future use revenue", I shot that with MFDB. The client got the files prepped for exactly what they wanted, but if they come back to me for something they didn't anticipate but I did, then I'm covered (and they WILL be billed...).
I shoot stuff for website sales constantly. I use the Nikon D5000, the only camera I actually own. It's cheap, it paid for itself in one job. It's a permanent setup, so its truly drop-and-pop, and it tethers to my laptop. That stuff gets ripped down to 600px immediately.
I could go on, but maybe this helps. In a sense I get your point- most of this just gets back to the essential facets of MFDB, but the devil is in the details- how those basic characteristics of the tools change how you use it, and what it's good at, is where it gets interesting.
-
Ray don't take my comments personal really not meant to be but these topics are boring as hell and make absolutely no sense unless someone is trying to justify there expensive systems in there head. Which 9 times out of 10 is the reason. I gave up on all that buy reasonable than forget about it WHY you bought it , just go shoot with it.
-
Ray don't take my comments personal really not meant to be but these topics are boring as hell and make absolutely no sense unless someone is trying to justify there expensive systems in there head. Which 9 times out of 10 is the reason. I gave up on all that buy reasonable than forget about it WHY you bought it , just go shoot with it.
well I for one am glad you didn't delete your post...
I'd only say that for people who are trying to make the decision to use, not even buy, but use, these systems, this kind of discussion does seem to be appreciated. Only when it doesn't turn into a "my dog is better than your dog" discussion, though, which it often does...
-
well I for one am glad you didn't delete your post...
I'd only say that for people who are trying to make the decision to use, not even buy, but use, these systems, this kind of discussion does seem to be appreciated. Only when it doesn't turn into a "my dog is better than your dog" discussion, though, which it often does...
I agree Ted why and what situations are the questions that should be asked not the my dog is better than your dog which these always without fail turn into. Frankly as a workshop owner, instructor, working pro and forum owner if these type of questions that don't get into that makes my life a blessing because i am always willing to help people make rational decisions on there purchases and I hate the e-mails that say oh shit I just spent 40k and made a big mistake. My heart falls to the ground when I get those and I get them a lot. Rather people be well informed and make great decisions out of the gate for sure.
-
I think Guy and also Ted pointed right.
It is time to overcome the debate "who's the best beast" between FF and MFD.
These are 2 different animals. Each one has is strength.
To me, FF has
better portability,
better for low-light very high iso
and video.
but in terms of versatility-flexibility, it all depends what we understand by that.
There is no more flexible than a MFD back.
In controled situation MFD is by far more powerfull.
But as Michael pointed several times here, you need a very good tech in order to take advantage of MFD and being able to see the difference.
In other words, if I use an Hasselblad or a Nikon D3, you won't see the difference...because I do not have today enough technical skill and knowledge to exploit all the potential of MFD. That is why we see sometimes surprising test results.
But if Javier Vallhonrat uses an Hasselblad, I garantee you will see a huge difference.
Michael has been sharp clear about that fact, a minimal error or lack of serious technique with MFD is transforming your potential image into a normal FF 35mm...
and I trust him.
Fred.
-
I always remember hanging out at the local cabinetmaker's shop when I was a kid- these guys taking a break, starting to argue about which was a better tool- the table saw or the radial arm saw... the boss finally stood up, brushed himself off and said, stop your yabbering, ya bums, and get back in there and make me some money!
-
I always remember hanging out at the local cabinetmaker's shop when I was a kid- these guys taking a break, starting to argue about which was a better tool- the table saw or the radial arm saw... the boss finally stood up, brushed himself off and said, stop your yabbering, ya bums, and get back in there and make me some money!
oh, it's definitely the table saw Ted...
Nice work on the tests.
Rick
-
I think Guy and also Ted pointed right.
It is time to overcome the debate "who's the best beast" between FF and MFD.
These are 2 different animals. Each one has is strength.
To me, FF has
better portability,
better for low-light very high iso
and video.
but in terms of versatility-flexibility, it all depends what we understand by that.
There is no more flexible than a MFD back.
In controled situation MFD is by far more powerfull.
But as Michael pointed several times here, you need a very good tech in order to take advantage of MFD and being able to see the difference.
In other words, if I use an Hasselblad or a Nikon D3, you won't see the difference...because I do not have today enough technical skill and knowledge to exploit all the potential of MFD. That is why we see sometimes surprising test results.
But if Javier Vallhonrat uses an Hasselblad, I garantee you will see a huge difference.
Michael has been sharp clear about that fact, a minimal error or lack of serious technique with MFD is transforming your potential image into a normal FF 35mm...
and I trust him.
Fred.
A lot comes from post production and obviously lighting and great techniques but being very proficient with raw processing is a must to draw the absolute best from these backs. Totally agree this is a package system and to gain the most from it it has to work together just like any great car out there. My BMW is knocking because it got some bad fuel in it and my wife is bitching about it. Great analogy if you ask me. Garbage in garbage out
-
I would like to add the same occurs within any format. Years ago I read in a photo magazine that one of the reasons 120 film pictures looked superior to 35mm was the care involved with MF camera shooting. The advice was "shoot your 35mm camera as you do with your MF camera". I followed this advice. My 35 Velvia slides improved in quality. You know the works: tripod, careful composition, acurate focus, check dof, MLU, etc., re-ckeck, etc.
Of course, nowadays I "treat" my 5DII as it was an RZ67. My 5DII thinks is a RZ67
Best, Eduardo
you need a very good tech in order to take advantage of MFD[/u] and being able to see the difference.
In other words, if I use an Hasselblad or a Nikon D3, you won't see the difference...because I do not have today enough technical skill and knowledge to exploit all the potential of MFD. That is why we see sometimes surprising test results.
But if Javier Vallhonrat uses an Hasselblad, I garantee you will see a huge difference.
Michael has been sharp clear about that fact, a minimal error or lack of serious technique with MFD is transforming your potential image into a normal FF 35mm...
and I trust him.
Fred.
-
oh, it's definitely the table saw Ted...
Nice work on the tests.
Rick
I wouldn't know. They won't let me play with power tools (anymore).
Thanks Rick!
-
I agree Ted why and what situations are the questions that should be asked not the my dog is better than your dog which these always without fail turn into. Frankly as a workshop owner, instructor, working pro and forum owner if these type of questions that don't get into that makes my life a blessing because i am always willing to help people make rational decisions on there purchases and I hate the e-mails that say oh shit I just spent 40k and made a big mistake. My heart falls to the ground when I get those and I get them a lot. Rather people be well informed and make great decisions out of the gate for sure.
Well, I have to say I'm rather surprised at how sensitive some of you guys are. I've already admitted that the larger sensor, by virtue of the fact it gathers more light, will always tend to produce smoother tones and less noise than the smaller sensor. If the larger sensor has more pixels, it will also produce higher resolution than the smaller sensor. That's a given. No need to argue about that.
The principle of using the best camera for the job is a principle I appreciate. I'm reminded of a story from David Bailey who was asked by a client who was particularly impressed with the quality from 4x5 film, if David would use that format for the job he was being offered. Not wishing to engage in complicated discussions as to why 4x5 was not the best tool for the job, and presumably not wishing to risk losing the job to someone else, David agreed, but used 35mm anyway because he knew it was the best tool for the job. The final images that appeared in the client's magazine were all from 35mm. The client was very pleased.
If you are going to make a case that the MFDB system is more flexible than 35mm and allows you to shoot a particular type of scene or job with greater ease or precision than 35mm would allow, then I'm all ears.
Give me some specific examples. If you wish to make the point that you already own hundreds of lenses that fit a number of different camera bodies and that a single DB can be used on all those camera bodies, thus giving you access to all those lenses, then that's fine. I understand that. It's a bit like someone who prefers Nikon because he has accummulated lots of Nikon lenses over the years that still fit a modern Nikon DSLR even though some of the auto features might not work.
Ultimately, the technical quality of the result is dependent upon the lens at one end and the sensor at the other end. What's in between is just stuff to hold the lens and sensor in place.
Perhaps you could make a point that the 'tilt, shift and swing' options of some technical cameras are more flexible than the limited movements of the Canon TS-E lenses?
-
If you wish to make the point .....
Ray
What exactly is YOUR point? You drop into this forum (a forum where people by and large wish to talk about medium format) once every few months, and tell a bunch of people who make a living with medium format that they are "sensitive".
A more unkind person than I would call you a troll.
I am thrilled that you are happy with the DR of your 5D and whatever else you have gleaned from the graphs at DXO, but would you be kind enough to take your drum and bang it elsewhere.
Thanks ever so much.
Nick-T
-
Thanks for the considered response... I'm afraid I still don't quite understand what you're getting at, though.
Well, I have to say I'm rather surprised at how sensitive some of you guys are. I've already admitted that the larger sensor, by virtue of the fact it gathers more light, will always tend to produce smoother tones and less noise than the smaller sensor. If the larger sensor has more pixels, it will also produce higher resolution than the smaller sensor. That's a given. No need to argue about that.
The principle of using the best camera for the job is a principle I appreciate. I'm reminded of a story from David Bailey who was asked by a client who was particularly impressed with the quality from 4x5 film, if David would use that format for the job he was being offered. Not wishing to engage in complicated discussions as to why 4x5 was not the best tool for the job, and presumably not wishing to risk losing the job to someone else, David agreed, but used 35mm anyway because he knew it was the best tool for the job. The final images that appeared in the client's magazine were all from 35mm. The client was very pleased.
If you are going to make a case that the MFDB system is more flexible than 35mm and allows you to shoot a particular type of scene or job with greater ease or precision than 35mm would allow, then I'm all ears.
Give me some specific examples. If you wish to make the point that you already own hundreds of lenses that fit a number of different camera bodies and that a single DB can be used on all those camera bodies, thus giving you access to all those lenses, then that's fine. I understand that. It's a bit like someone who prefers Nikon because he has accummulated lots of Nikon lenses over the years that still fit a modern Nikon DSLR even though some of the auto features might not work.
Ultimately, the technical quality of the result is dependent upon the lens at one end and the sensor at the other end. What's in between is just stuff to hold the lens and sensor in place.
Perhaps you could make a point that the 'tilt, shift and swing' options of some technical cameras are more flexible than the limited movements of the Canon TS-E lenses?
-
Ray
What exactly is YOUR point? You drop into this forum (a forum where people by and large wish to talk about medium format) once every few months, and tell a bunch of people who make a living with medium format that they are "sensitive".
A more unkind person than I would call you a troll.
I am thrilled that you are happy with the DR of your 5D and whatever else you have gleaned from the graphs at DXO, but would you be kind enough to take your drum and bang it elsewhere.
Thanks ever so much.
Nick-T
Sorry Ray but I have to agree here.
-
Ray
What exactly is YOUR point? You drop into this forum (a forum where people by and large wish to talk about medium format) once every few months, and tell a bunch of people who make a living with medium format that they are "sensitive".
A more unkind person than I would call you a troll.
I am thrilled that you are happy with the DR of your 5D and whatever else you have gleaned from the graphs at DXO, but would you be kind enough to take your drum and bang it elsewhere.
Thanks ever so much.
Nick-T
You seem confused. It's not me who's banging a drum, but you.
I ask for some specific examples of how the use of an MFDB system will produce better results because of its greater flexibility (rather than its greater resolution and smoother tonality), and all I get is a lot of drum banging and boasting about how many different camera bodies a DB can be attached to.
-
You seem confused. It's not me who's banging a drum, but you.
I ask for some specific examples of how the use of an MFDB system will produce better results because of its greater flexibility (rather than its greater resolution and smoother tonality), and all I get is a lot of drum banging and boasting about how many different camera bodies a DB can be attached to.
Ray,
You just don't sound like you are interested in listening to answers.
If you are 100% sure that 35mm is better than why are you here on the first place?
Alex
-
Ray,
You just don't sound like you are interested in listening to answers.
If you are 100% sure that 35mm is better than why are you here on the first place?
Alex
Where did I write I was 100% sure that 35mm is better than MFDB. Try reading my comments in this thread. I've already stated that larger sensors tend to have better tonality and higher resolution than smaller sensors. Did you miss that?
They also tend to have higher dynamic range, although there are exceptions such as the Nikon D3X which appears to have higher DR than even the P65+, at same print sizes.
I'm very interested in answers, but real answers, not waffle and drum banging.
I'm genuinely interested in the specifics of any particular shoot which could be handled more easily, more efficiently, more precisely and with greater control to achieve the desired result, through use of MFDB equipment as opposed to 35mm equipment.
-
When it comes to 35 vs. MFD comparisons if you take the cost and time metrics out of the discussion it is MFD all the way. I think we all know and understand that. Current Nikon/Canon 35mm offerings are good enough for all but the most persnickety of customers. I think we all understand that. The fact that we are still talking about this when the facts have proven over and over that commercially you can go with either system can only mean one thing. People are emotionally invested in their decisions and purchases and logic is not needed anymore.
If you say you need to use MFD then I believe you and so do your customers who listen to you. If you say you need to use 35mm then I believe you and so do your customers...
-
Beforehand I'm going to say it again: I'm the first to say that I usually can tell the superiority of MF files over FF dlsr's right on the net. Here in this forum I've read numerous posts from MF users practically trashing 35 dlsr's results. D35 is amazing, practical and unexpensive (all with very). Some MF users are so sensitive!- Jeeeezuz!
When it comes to 35 vs. MFD comparisons if you take the cost and time metrics out of the discussion it is MFD all the way. I think we all know and understand that. Current Nikon/Canon 35mm offerings are good enough for all but the most persnickety of customers. I think we all understand that. The fact that we are still talking about this when the facts have proven over and over that commercially you can go with either system can only mean one thing. People are emotionally invested in their decisions and purchases and logic is not needed anymore.
If you say you need to use MFD then I believe you and so do your customers who listen to you. If you say you need to use 35mm then I believe you and so do your customers...
-
Ok, to put it simple. My idea is that if one doesn't feel that his current equipment, for instance a DSLR, limits technical, creative or commercial qualities of his/her work than that person doesn't really need an upgrade to MFDB. When you start hitting those barriers, whether it's the dynamic range, color quality, resolution, lens quality, viewfinder, sync speed etc. etc., than it would be the time to look into other systems.
No point in arguing if you don't see and feel the benefits of MFDB or if you see but don't need them.
Regards,
Alex
-
I speak daily with agency designers, those who spend their life in front of a computer to make advertisings, catalogues etc... from the pics they receive.
I can tell you that all say that, in preference order: very happy when they receive drum scanned from LF, in second MFD, and ultimately 35mm FF.
They all regret that LF is less and less used.
Fred.
Sheesh! I read this post about drum scanned LF film and had a nightmare last night thinking I was shooting film again! Woke up in a cold sweat!
No more film. Ever. Please. No matter how homesick I get for my 503's and Horsemans.
-
Ted,
I think you point something interesting.
What really happens, according to me (but I do not have a huge technical qualification so it is more of observing and speaking with the pros involved), is that it is not specially about real IQ performance.
Let's say you are in Paris and you are a good fashion photographer. Why would you shoot MFD? Why not FF Nikon for example? Because there is a pressure, because there is a "standard" that defines some "minimums".
Remember that just recently 35mm FF has made some progress, but the pros had invested years ago in MFD, so that is the common standard. Also, there is a evidence that if you are contracted by Chanel for a campaign that you are supposed to shoot with the best tools availables. That is just the way it is. Maybe you could acheive icual or closed result with your 35mm FF, but Chanel (for example) is wanting you to work with Hasselblad.
Same happens in architecture and steel objects: you shoot with LF and digital back, because of perspective corrections etc...
It is all about the best tools possible.
My works in Paris are not reaching that point because it is a small agency where campaigns are much more modest, but having relations with bigger ones, it is just the way it works.
The top-class photographers in advertising, arquitecture, fashion etc... are all working with MDF or LF in team, and I'm not sure is going to change soon.
Is it for IQ reasons or elite mentality? I think a little bit of both.
Cheers,
Fred.
Last I shot anything in Paris it was all 6x7 film. That was 2005-2007. Fashion editorials. I noticed for commercial work I saw H3 systems, as well as . . . 6x7 film.
-
BS
Why, after all these years of desperately seeking answers in the great DMF vs. DSLR debate, have you never made the effort to test them yourself? You seem to know the best way to perform these comparisons. I'm sure there's a pro shop or DMF-toting fellow LL'er in your part of the world you could meet up with and satisfy your quest for answers. With all the time you've spent on this topic on these boards, you could have worked a part-time job at McDonalds, saved up enough dough for a rental, done your tests and have your answers.
Hi Allen,
I think the reason that Ray hasn’t ever tried a MFDB himself is that he is a bit like Sheldon on the sitcom “The big bag”. He wouldn't be able to admit that my be there are some advantages over 35mm digital.
Nikon D3x and Leaf Aptus 75 owner.
Cheers
Simon
-
BS
Why, after all these years of desperately seeking answers in the great DMF vs. DSLR debate, have you never made the effort to test them yourself? You seem to know the best way to perform these comparisons. I'm sure there's a pro shop or DMF-toting fellow LL'er in your part of the world you could meet up with and satisfy your quest for answers. With all the time you've spent on this topic on these boards, you could have worked a part-time job at McDonalds, saved up enough dough for a rental, done your tests and have your answers.
I've never tested any camera before buying. It shouldn't be necessary. We have the internet and now DXO Mark. I can always find sufficient information about a camera's performance in order to make a decision whether or not to buy it. If I can't find the information I need to make a decision, I figure I'm not missing much and don't buy the camera.
Since I have a general academic interest in photography and techniques, I was simply curious about the benefits of this so-called greater flexibility of the MFDB system which some of you claim.
There's absolutely nothing desperate about my enquiries. Can't help wondering how you got that idea.
-
I've never tested any camera before buying. It shouldn't be necessary. We have the internet and now DXO Mark.
I agree! Likewise I've never test-driven a car before buying. It shouldn't be necessary. We have lots of car review magazines and now Consumer Reports infallible and universally applicable ratings.
(http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/resources/rd08/images/cars/car_expert_car_ratings.gif)
After all everyone's driving style is the same, and we all drive in the exact same scenarios, and handling isn't subjective. Moreover everyone values the same attributes in cars, so their judgments are perfect proxies for my own. The opinion of the car review guy from NYC who drives in snow in heavy Manhattan traffic will surely apply equally well to my own leisurely drives to the Florida Keys in the Florida summer. Of course his recommendations differ from my friend Stephen Gilbert who enjoys watching land-speed-record events in the desert. So I'll probably have to go with consumer reports rating - just like dXo it is a single rating which fully and wholly encompasses every attribute of car quality. It's science you know!
----
There is absolutely no substitute for extended real world testing of a camera. Put the camera in your hands - shooting the things you shoot in the style you shoot them (allowing perhaps some slight changes when changing types of platforms - don't try to shoot a 4x5 camera the same as a P+S digicam) and see what happens. Extensive research of the available reviews, tests, and user-feedback is great due-diligence - but until you shoot it yourself and look at your own images it's all just academic.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
I agree! Likewise I've never test-driven a car before buying. It shouldn't be necessary. We have lots of car review magazines and now Consumer Reports infallible and universally applicable ratings.
Exactly
-
I agree! Likewise I've never test-driven a car before buying. It shouldn't be necessary. We have lots of car review magazines and now Consumer Reports infallible and universally applicable ratings.
Doug,
Sarcasm aside, it just goes to show the difference of attitude between us. For me, a car is just a tool to get me from A to B in an efficient, comfortable and safe manner, carry my gear in the back and sometimes 3 or 4 passengers. However, I realise that for many people a car is a status symbol. Some people actually appear to 'be in love with' their car. I can imagine them test-driving cars as they would window shop, drooling over the quality of the suede upholstery. For me, I'll select the car based on features, size, fuel economy, luggage space, leg room, appearance (I like a bit of styling; many small cars look like biscuit boxes), price and warranty period.
Any serious issues with the handling or comfort of a particular model of car would be picked up by reviewers. Since I'm a very flexible and adaptable sort of person with no physical peculiarities that would require a special type of design, that is, I'm neither short like a dwarf nor tall like basket-ball player, I've never found the handling of any car I've selected to be a problem.
There is absolutely no substitute for extended real world testing of a camera. Put the camera in your hands - shooting the things you shoot in the style you shoot them (allowing perhaps some slight changes when changing types of platforms - don't try to shoot a 4x5 camera the same as a P+S digicam) and see what happens. Extensive research of the available reviews, tests, and user-feedback is great due-diligence - but until you shoot it yourself and look at your own images it's all just academic.
If I were to adopt that approach, I would hardly have time to take my usual non-test photos. There are dozens of models of cameras out there. I rely upon reviewers to save me the time, trouble and expense of hiring gear to test. They provide an invaluable service. Once again, my approach is that you should decide upon the performance level of the tool you require/desire, and if you're sensible like me, you should realise that using a 4x5 technical camera is a lot different from a P&S, and you adapt accordingly.
The last two pieces of equipment I bought were a Nikkor 14-24/2.8 zoom, and a Nikon D700, sight unseen. Both were bought over the internet. I didn't feel the need to fondle them in the shop before making a decision.
My general impression is that 35mm equipment is far more flexible than MFDB equipment. When I read comments that is not the case, I'm curious.
Can you give me just one example of a type of image that might not be possible, or at least more difficult to take using 35mm instead of MFDB, apart from the higher flash syc of some MFDBs which might be necessary in certain conditions.?
-
Can you give me just one example of a type of image that might not be possible, or at least more difficult to take using 35mm instead of MFDB, apart from the higher flash syc of some MFDBs which might be necessary in certain conditions.?
Multiple strobe hits without building ambient exposure (e.g. interiors with lighting where the power of the pack cannot build enough exposure in one hit but there is enough undesirable ambient light that you cannot simply exposure for multiple seconds and fire the flash multiple times). This can be done with a Phase One back (explanation (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/03/04/multiple-exposures/)).
True multiple exposures (the exact equivalent of doing it on film where the medium remains actively exposing while the camera body allows exposure independently). One can try to simulate the effect in post, but both technically and creatively many would prefer to do it in camera. Haven't seen this on a dSLR lately (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Triggering an exposure with zero mechanical movement (for extreme macro (http://www.captureintegration.com/2009/08/25/extreme-macro/) work where registration is measured in fractions of a mm). This can be done with a Phase One back using a simple wakeup cable.
Sync speed (as you mentioned) - the 1/1600 sync speed of a Phase One P40+/P65+ is the highest in the world.
High resolution single-capture images. Stitching may be an option for some types of images (assuming you don't mind sitting at the computer running stitching programs all day), but some types of images MUST be captured in a single frame.
Multi-purposed images in a commercial environment - it is very common for our customers to report back to us that (long after a shoot ends) an Art Director has asked them for a very small crop of a frame. With a P65+ you can crop in very very tight and still end up with a magazine sized image that will look sharp in print. It's very hard to produce those crops after the fact with a dSLR - and even if it would have been better to
The "look" from Alternative lenses. As one example you can buy a Holga lens for a Canon (I have one (http://www.doug-peterson.com/holga-reincarnation-as-a-canon-lens/)) - but the smaller sensor really fails to look of that lens that you got used to with 120 film. Or take the Canon 85mm f/1.2 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/771979) lens used on a Mamiya body - again, the look from the MFDB cannot be accomplished via a dSLR. (Maybe if you got a kubric lens (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm) - hey I wonder if that would cover 645!?)
While not an "image you produce" - working with a traditional view camera, or a particular medium format body may provide you tools (e.g. a waist level finder, ground glass, swing/tilt/shift with any lens) that allow you to create images differently.
Friends just arrived or I would continue. Also came to mind just now but don't have time for:
True B+W capture (available on the Phase One Achromatic sensor)
Very long exposures (some dSLRs are surprisingly good at this - but none can match a P45+)
And of course these are just things that are nearly impossible with a dSLR and ignores the higher overall image quality etc etc.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
Personal Work (http://www.doug-peterson.com/)
-
This kind of thread gets really boring and negative.
-
Not sure why i am even replying to this nonsense.
I can take my P40+ back today put it on a DF body( AFD, AFDII, AFDIII) from 28mm to 300mm plus shift( Plus a hundred old Mamiya manual lenses). Than within 5 seconds have it on a Horseman , Cambo, Silvestri, Arca or almost any full tilt and shift solution. Than take that same back hand it to a friend grab a leaf back in any flavor or a Phase back in any flavor and run it through all the same cams that I want and have options that I could never get with a 35mm because i have a sensor that can move around you can't do that with a 35mm. Not to mention I can take any V lens, Zeiss lens , Rodenstock, Schnieder and move them around to different systems maybe not all but some at least.
Guy, if you have an old Horseman LS or LX 4x5 view camera (which are very cheap now) with a removeable rear frame, you can buy a conversion kit, which is basically a wide angle bellows that's attached to a Canon EOS or Nikon F mount, then it attaches in place of the rear frame.
Have you ever shot a 5D2 at ISO 50 with a Rodenstock 100mm f/4 HR?
Not to mention the camera has REAL live view on a high res LCD, with 10x zoom, while the digital backs are a pain in the a$$ to work with in this manner.
I'm not saying DSLRs are better, but contrary to what you believe, there are ways to use 35mm digital with the Schneider/Rodenstock digital lenses along with movements. You can also use RZ67 lenses, and V lenses with Cambo systems (X2 Pro, Ultima 35, etc).
Canon and Nikon DSLRs can be moved around to different systems, because these companies have made solutions for them. The MF DSLR cameras such as the Leica S2, Mamiya ZD, and the upcoming Pentax 645D DO NOT have this flexibility.
Anyway, 8x10 for the win!
-
Guy, if you have an old Horseman LS or LX 4x5 view camera (which are very cheap now) with a removeable rear frame, you can buy a conversion kit, which is basically a wide angle bellows that's attached to a Canon EOS or Nikon F mount, then it attaches in place of the rear frame.
Have you ever shot a 5D2 at ISO 50 with a Rodenstock 100mm f/4 HR?
dSLR solutions for view cameras solutions are severely limited in their options for wide-angle which makes them very hard to use for most landscape, architecture, and interior shooting and the maximum movements are somewhat limited by the mirror box.
-
@Ray,
You admitting you only drive your opinion by internet and Dxo gives me LOTS of insights on your posts.
When users that use BOTH systems on a daily basis, like myself tell you that there is a difference why not believe them over some site that only does measurements that for MF.
It's very simple, MF is a totally different system than a DSLR.
Yes it's not that good at 1600ISO as a good DSLR, it's not as fast.
But quality simply is a lot better.
Look at files if you can shot with both cameras and I'm afraid that you will be ashamed of what you have posted over the last few months
And yes on print you won't see a difference.
But bring me a DSLR that can shoot outside with strobes on 1/400 or up, still has a nice DOF and gives me the dynamic range I need and for me I will switch to DSLR
As long as the sensors are totally different from what is used in the DSLRs you really never can tell which is better.
Both are DIFFERENT, one person will be better off with a DLSR, the other with a MF.
When I calibrate both systems I find my 5DMKII still lacking in skintones (overtendency to love red), my Leaf Aptus is very natural.
Because I mainly shoot people that can be a reason to not switch to DSLR.
In a magazine print you won't see a difference, that is true.
But what most people that say this don't realize is that you first have to get the shot, and in some cases a DLSR will do just fine and in some you need a MF camera.
Try it out yourself and than continue your quest (but I think the quest will be over by then).
-
I agree that this kind of debate can get pretty boring after a while.
Thanks, Doug, for that list, it brought up some stuff I wasn't aware of, and some I'd forgotten...
One of the aspects of this whole thing that fascinates me, however, and something I try to put my discussion in the context of, in my reviews, is the way different cameras literally dictate the style and process of shooting. This isn't a film/digital or DSLR/MFDB discussion, it's been the case since the first camera was made, and it started, for me, when I began shooting 4x5. Because the tool is so different, the process is different, and consequently the style of work is different too.
MFDB, especially back when it was just tethered, is a different animal and I'd argue, one that you can only really understand in the context of your own style by using it. When the ProBack 645 first came out, I went around doing what I called "large-format handheld street photography". The prints looked like they were shot with a 4x5, yet the camera was like shooting with an SLR. Well, more like that than the tethered studio cameras I'd used before...
Recently, before it blew up, I was shooting constantly with my Canon G9 using the LCD exclusively. One thing I loved about it was the feeling that I was peering into a ground glass, much like my old Hassey 500CM, except it wasn't inverted. It was a different way of shooting than peering through the viewfinder of a DSLR, or any SLR for that matter. Now I shoot with a D5000 a lot, and on a tripod with the swivel LCD at horizontal, it's just like back in the studio with the 'blad.
Throughout this transition from film to digital, it's been, for me at least, a really exciting period where, rather than fit my old style of work into a new set of tools, I've explored how this new set of tools can push my work into new directions. I realize a lot of photographers have a lot at stake in keeping to a style or look, it's their stock in trade. For me, and others, though, I'm always, well, a little bored with what I've done in the past... some form of OCD, or ADD I guess. heh.
Rather than versatility, I'm a lot more interested in unique capabilities. What makes this tool special? What makes it able to do what no other tool can do?
-
Main Entry: cur·mud·geon
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)kər-ˈmə-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1568
1 archaic : miser
2 : a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man
— cur·mud·geon·li·ness \-lē-nəs\ noun
— cur·mud·geon·ly \-lē\ adjective
Main Entry: con·ten·tious
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈten(t)-shəs\
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 : likely to cause contention <a contentious argument>
2 : exhibiting an often perverse and wearisome tendency to quarrels and disputes <a man of a most contentious nature>
synonyms see belligerent
— con·ten·tious·ly adverb
— con·ten·tious·ness noun
Main Entry: troll
Pronunciation: \'troll\
Function: noun
Etymology: unknown
1. A large, brutish creature of European myth, often lacking in intelligence. Sometimes compared to the Japanese oni.
2. A dumbass who makes idiotic posts in message boards newsgroups for the sole purpose of pissing people off, remarks usually showing lack of intelligence.
-
now wait one minute, there fella. Troll is one thing, but curmudgeon? I wear that with PRIDE! Cantankerous old FART, too, but still...
Main Entry: cur·mud·geon
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)kər-ˈmə-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1568
1 archaic : miser
2 : a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man
— cur·mud·geon·li·ness \-lē-nəs\ noun
— cur·mud·geon·ly \-lē\ adjective
Main Entry: troll
Pronunciation: \'troll\
Function: noun
Etymology: unknown
1. A large, brutish creature of European myth, often lacking in intelligence. Sometimes compared to the Japanese oni.
2. A dumbass who makes idiotic posts in message boards newsgroups for the sole purpose of pissing people off, remarks usually showing lack of intelligence.
-
2. A dumbass who makes idiotic posts in message boards newsgroups for the sole purpose of pissing people off, remarks usually showing lack of intelligence.
Or maybe there's an alternative motivation, like trying stirring up emotion in order to drive people to your website or your workshop?
Some of these posts, you wonder if they ought to be paying Display Ad Rates for their posts?
-
now wait one minute, there fella. Troll is one thing, but curmudgeon? I wear that with PRIDE! Cantankerous old FART, too, but still...
Good point! I guess by itself, curmudgeonliness (?) can be an endearing trait. But probably not so endearing when it's combined with a contentious disposition on internet forums
-
curmudgeonliness
(new favorite word)
-
Multiple strobe hits without building ambient exposure (e.g. interiors with lighting where the power of the pack cannot build enough exposure in one hit but there is enough undesirable ambient light that you cannot simply exposure for multiple seconds and fire the flash multiple times). This can be done with a Phase One back (explanation (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/03/04/multiple-exposures/)).
True multiple exposures (the exact equivalent of doing it on film where the medium remains actively exposing while the camera body allows exposure independently). One can try to simulate the effect in post, but both technically and creatively many would prefer to do it in camera. Haven't seen this on a dSLR lately (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Triggering an exposure with zero mechanical movement (for extreme macro (http://www.captureintegration.com/2009/08/25/extreme-macro/) work where registration is measured in fractions of a mm). This can be done with a Phase One back using a simple wakeup cable.
Sync speed (as you mentioned) - the 1/1600 sync speed of a Phase One P40+/P65+ is the highest in the world.
High resolution single-capture images. Stitching may be an option for some types of images (assuming you don't mind sitting at the computer running stitching programs all day), but some types of images MUST be captured in a single frame.
Multi-purposed images in a commercial environment - it is very common for our customers to report back to us that (long after a shoot ends) an Art Director has asked them for a very small crop of a frame. With a P65+ you can crop in very very tight and still end up with a magazine sized image that will look sharp in print. It's very hard to produce those crops after the fact with a dSLR - and even if it would have been better to
The "look" from Alternative lenses. As one example you can buy a Holga lens for a Canon (I have one (http://www.doug-peterson.com/holga-reincarnation-as-a-canon-lens/)) - but the smaller sensor really fails to look of that lens that you got used to with 120 film. Or take the Canon 85mm f/1.2 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/771979) lens used on a Mamiya body - again, the look from the MFDB cannot be accomplished via a dSLR. (Maybe if you got a kubric lens (http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm) - hey I wonder if that would cover 645!?)
While not an "image you produce" - working with a traditional view camera, or a particular medium format body may provide you tools (e.g. a waist level finder, ground glass, swing/tilt/shift with any lens) that allow you to create images differently.
Friends just arrived or I would continue. Also came to mind just now but don't have time for:
True B+W capture (available on the Phase One Achromatic sensor)
Very long exposures (some dSLRs are surprisingly good at this - but none can match a P45+)
And of course these are just things that are nearly impossible with a dSLR and ignores the higher overall image quality etc etc.
Thanks for taking the trouble to itemise these advantages of the MFDB, Doug. I would not dismiss them as trivial. I've certainly experienced the limitation of the flash syc speed with my 5D, when photographing a performer doing a somersault on stage, for example. A 200th, or 250th with the latest DSLRs, is not fast enough to freeze the motion.
The fact that you can extend the flash range with multiple strobe hits, in a fill-flash situation, is also interesting. But I wonder how heavy, elaborate and expensive the equipment is to achieve this advantge over 35mm format.
I'm reminded of an occasion when photographing that marvelous architecture at Angkor Wat with my 5D. I regret I didn't use fill flash more often. But when I did, it seemed adequate, with the 580EX Speedlite.
Here's a shot without fill flash, showing the horrible noise in the shadows.
[attachment=20377:Ta_Prohm...ut_flash.jpg] [attachment=20378:Ta_Prohm...ut_flash.jpg]
And here's a perhaps less appealing shot, because of the different angle, but which shows very clean shadows as a result of the fill flash.
[attachment=20379:Ta_Prohm...th_flash.jpg] [attachment=20380:Ta_Prohm...th_flash.jpg]
Even the shadows at the furthest point in the scene are no too bad.
[attachment=20381:Ta_Prohm...th_flash.jpg]
The other issue that occurs to me is that many of these so-called advantages of the MFDB are actually expensive and elaborate procedures to overcome the disadvantages compared with 35mm. For example, if you need to shoot an architectural interior at 1 sec exposure, you may well need those multiple strobe hits to overcome the disadvantages of MFDB with respect to lower sensitivity and less DOF, compared with 35mm.
For example, the Nikon D3x has a base ISO of 200. The P65+ base ISO is 50. A 1 sec exposure with the P65+ at base ISO is equivalent to 1/4th sec exposure with the D3x. If you equalize DOF, presumably very important for interior archtectural shots, then that 1/4th sec becomes 1/8th sec with the D3X.
The facility of multiple strobe hits may simple not be necessary with 35mm format. I'm just speculating here. It would be interesting if we could have some carefully conducted comparison images, instead of the usual resolution and 3D comparaisons. It's a given that the larger sensor tends to provide better tonal range and higher resolution. 35mm format has 2.6x the sensor area of a Canon cropped format. I own several cropped format cameras and a couple of full frame 35mm cameras. I can see the qualitative difference. I don't need to be convinced in that respect. My complaint would be that the additional price of the MFDB system, compared with the additional price of 35mm FF in relation to the cropped format, is out of kilter with the additional benefits.
-
Ray,
My take on this issue is that pro photographers investing in MFDBs do it for a reason. No doubt that DSLRs (especially full frame DSLRs) can more often than not do the job, but those authors who own both kinds of system say there is a significant advantage to MFDBs in many situations.
DSLRs have many advantages, good high ISO capability, excellent autofocus, high frame rate, long lenses, short lenses, zooms. They are tools of all trades. MFBDs are different. To begin with, they have no optics. The gear you put the MFDB on is more specialized. Many of the advantages of DSLRs go away in specialized shooting situations, like shooting in studio. In studio, high ISO is not really an advantage but low ISO capability is. If you are shooting scenics DOF is often not an issue, but resolution and freedom from flare is of outmost importance.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for taking the trouble to itemise these advantages of the MFDB, Doug. I would not dismiss them as trivial. I've certainly experienced the limitation of the flash syc speed with my 5D, when photographing a performer doing a somersault on stage, for example. A 200th, or 250th with the latest DSLRs, is not fast enough to freeze the motion.
The fact that you can extend the flash range with multiple strobe hits, in a fill-flash situation, is also interesting. But I wonder how heavy, elaborate and expensive the equipment is to achieve this advantge over 35mm format.
I'm reminded of an occasion when photographing that marvelous architecture at Angkor Wat with my 5D. I regret I didn't use fill flash more often. But when I did, it seemed adequate, with the 580EX Speedlite.
Here's a shot without fill flash, showing the horrible noise in the shadows.
[attachment=20377:Ta_Prohm...ut_flash.jpg] [attachment=20378:Ta_Prohm...ut_flash.jpg]
And here's a perhaps less appealing shot, because of the different angle, but which shows very clean shadows as a result of the fill flash.
[attachment=20379:Ta_Prohm...th_flash.jpg] [attachment=20380:Ta_Prohm...th_flash.jpg]
Even the shadows at the furthest point in the scene are no too bad.
[attachment=20381:Ta_Prohm...th_flash.jpg]
The other issue that occurs to me is that many of these so-called advantages of the MFDB are actually expensive and elaborate procedures to overcome the disadvantages compared with 35mm. For example, if you need to shoot an architectural interior at 1 sec exposure, you may well need those multiple strobe hits to overcome the disadvantages of MFDB with respect to lower sensitivity and less DOF, compared with 35mm.
For example, the Nikon D3x has a base ISO of 200. The P65+ base ISO is 50. A 1 sec exposure with the P65+ at base ISO is equivalent to 1/4th sec exposure with the D3x. If you equalize DOF, presumably very important for interior archtectural shots, then that 1/4th sec becomes 1/8th sec with the D3X.
The facility of multiple strobe hits may simple not be necessary with 35mm format. I'm just speculating here. It would be interesting if we could have some carefully conducted comparison images, instead of the usual resolution and 3D comparaisons. It's a given that the larger sensor tends to provide better tonal range and higher resolution. 35mm format has 2.6x the sensor area of a Canon cropped format. I own several cropped format cameras and a couple of full frame 35mm cameras. I can see the qualitative difference. I don't need to be convinced in that respect. My complaint would be that the additional price of the MFDB system, compared with the additional price of 35mm FF in relation to the cropped format, is out of kilter with the additional benefits.
-
Here's a shot without fill flash, showing the horrible noise in the shadows.
I think I agree with another poster here, you should rent a MFDB for a while. Really, files are looking more "natural". How the colors are naturally looking better is a huge advantage for the backs.
-
The fill shots just look so un-natural, particularly with the dense shadow that the fill failed to rectify. All the fill has achieved is to flatten the image.
Hey! I didn't notice any dense shadows that the fill failed to rectify, unless you are referring to the most distant shadows, about 40 or 50 metres away.
The point about having clean shadows is that it increases your options. If the image looks better with near black shadows, then you have that option, just as you have the option to reveal the the full detail in the shadows, if that's what you want.
-
The other issue that occurs to me is that many of these so-called advantages of the MFDB are actually expensive and elaborate procedures to overcome the disadvantages compared with 35mm.
looking at your samples one of the "so-called" advantages of MFDB come to mind: clean blacks and a high differentiation in dark tonal values without noise.
You really should try it ...
-
looking at your samples one of the "so-called" advantages of MFDB come to mind: clean blacks and a high differentiation in dark tonal values without noise.
You really should try it ...
Compared with the Nikon D3X? Have you looked at DXO Mark? The 5D is very old technology.
-
Have you looked at DXO Mark?
no. Why would I?
Have you ever seen an actual MFDB capture?
-
no. Why would I?
Have you ever seen an actual MFDB capture?
Of course I have. There have been lots of botched 35mm v MFDB comaprisons on this site.
-
Of course I have. There have been lots of botched 35mm v MFDB comaprisons on this site.
There is almost zero chance that someone is going to post on the board after having spent what MFD costs and say "35mm is actually not that bad, I could use this" because they have convinced themselves and the public that MFD is required for their current task. And MFD is indeed the proper choice for still life studio applications and printing art gallery large prints.
I laugh out loud when the HasselBlad H4D-40 was advertised as having better image quality and tonality over its predecessor. Then what in the world was the quality of its predecessor?!
This relentless pursuit of image quality at the expense of usability is digging their own grave. What is sad is that the large hunk of plastic grayness that is the H4D won't even be desirable as a collectors item because it is just so ugly.
Think of MFD manufactures (if you can call them that) as a bunch of AutoCAD guys who spec out a camera and then order parts from siliconforless.com and then assemble them in their basement. Their innovation comes when one of their parts suppliers (the real lab coat guys) make something new. The rest of the time the AutoCAD guys are playing solitaire. They can't make the camera we want because they don't make the parts.
-
No, they're right there in the foreground, you'd be hard pressed to miss them.
The result is you've got deep, deep shadows in a scene with no direct sunlight. Most un-natural.
Ah1 I think I see what you are referring to. There are narrow bands of flash shadows which are totally black because the fill flash was obstructed. Is that what you are refering to?
-
[quote name='Frank Doorhof' date='Feb 19 2010, 08:47 AM' post='348023']
"And yes on print you won't see a difference."
"In a magazine print you won't see a difference, that is true."
Frank, don't you think this sort of make the whole thing pointless then?
Seems to me that it is probably much like the old days when you often selected the Nikon or the Hass because of the shape of the final print that you had to come up with, both formats being otherwise perfectly capable of producing work for most normal purposes. With digital, I suspect that the improved performance from 35mm digi allows even greater sized images to remain perfectly acceptable from the smaller system for even more purposes.
But of course, there will be requirements where the choice is different and for those who face those choices, go for it if you can afford it. But for the rest, why bother if MF value, as you indicated, ends at the monitor?
Rob C
-
I've had double page spreads with the D200 in mags that look about as good as Aptus 22 files. The look is different, of course, and there was more post on the Nikon file, but the MFD advantages are mostly lost in a typical magazine print. Big Epson/HP prints, on the other hand, really show the difference. In my printed portfolio (which no one wants to see, they like the web) the MFD images do look better, sort of, next to 1ds2/5D/1ds3/D2x/D200 images at 11x14. The film images, on the other hand, look different than the digital, but on par or better than the MFD files. In any case, yeah, I think for commercial work all thse extra pixels are wasted. The web press is the great equalizer.
Fine art/big prints, different story. I can't really speak to that, but big prints from a MFD, even older P20 files, look really good.
Frank, don't you think this sort of make the whole thing pointless then?
Seems to me that it is probably much like the old days when you often selected the Nikon or the Hass because of the shape of the final print that you had to come up with, both formats being otherwise perfectly capable of producing work for most normal purposes. With digital, I suspect that the improved performance from 35mm digi allows even greater sized images to remain perfectly acceptable from the smaller system for even more purposes.
But of course, there will be requirements where the choice is different and for those who face those choices, go for it if you can afford it. But for the rest, why bother if MF value, as you indicated, ends at the monitor?
Rob C
-
looking at your samples one of the "so-called" advantages of MFDB come to mind: clean blacks and a high differentiation in dark tonal values without noise.
You really should try it ...
First, I should have mentioned that I lightened the shadows in the crops deliberately so the noise would be more apparent. There's no difficulty in making a noisy shadow black, even with a P&S.
The 5D is rather old technology. If I were to choose a camera based on its ability to differentiate dark tonal values without noise, it would be the Nikon D3X which appears to be even marginally better than the P65+ in that respect.
The main advantages of the MFDB, compared with the best that 35mm currently has to offer, would appear to me to be higher resolution and faster flash sync. Multiple strobe hits duing a single, long exposure also sound useful.
For me personally, the significantly additional cost of MFDB combined with the significantly extra weight (taking lenses into consideration), offset by a significant lack of flexibility with regard to performance at high ISO and its much slower frame rates, do not make the MFDB package attractive to me, in my circumstances and for my purposes.
I still have, sitting on my shelves, an old Mamiya RB67 with Sekor C 65mm, 90mm, 150mm and 360mm lenses. I used to scan the film on a Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED before I bought my first DSLR, the Canon D60. Even though 6mp cannot be compared with scanned 6x7 film in terms of detail and resolution, the sheer convenience and flexibility of the Canon DSLR system was worth far more to me. I've never used the Mamiya since.
-
@Rob,
My remark is I think the whole basis for this discussion.
When you are shown an internet version or a cover of a magazine you can't 100% sure tell which camera is used, especially in this time of photoshop.
Although in some cases you can.
HOWEVER....
There is much more.
Think about how to get the shot, how the image holds it's own in postprocessing, how the image is on a large print for a gallery etc.
Billboards are low quality, but gallery or fineart prints are a different story.
Let's go back to the cover.
You can't tell by the cover if you needed a MF or DSLR, however if you would have started at the very beginning of the process with a MF or a DSLR and would have take the whole workflow the same way you will see a difference in the cover.
The tonality of the MF will be different, as will the perceived sharpness, DOF and dynamic range be.
I'm just back from Belgium were I taught a workshop in a Castle were we mixed a lot of ambiant with strobes.
Because I'm shooting straight to a laptop on location people can see what's going on.
The think almost everyone notices during all this kind of sessions is that even on the laptop it's clearly shown that the MF camera holds the shadows and highlights much better than the DSLRs.
For example were in my shots the feet are still barely visible from the shadows and the highlights on the wall from the ambiant light are close to clipping but still show detail, the same setup on the DSLRs (a mix of Canon and Nikon) was different in these areas.
The remark I made was that in the FINAL product both will look great on a cover, and you will deliver a good product.
However when knowing the whole process you will see there is a difference.
You can make the DSLR shot look the same by just opening up the shadows a bit with a filler at let's say 3.5 stops under the mainlight but that's the point, with the MF camera I don't need to.
So I did not meant is as there is no difference on print, but I meant both are delivering awesome options and people in these kind of comparisons are often comparing one finished result to another but not from exact the same setup with exact the same workflow.
@Ray,
What strikes me as odd is that you do respond to people on topics that DSLRs wins like high-iso, better displays etc.
But you TOTALLY ignore the facts like higher sync speeds, waste level finders, changing backs, cameras etc.
In other words you have your mind set and are stuck in a one way street and ignoring all the answers you ask for, except the ones you can turn the other way.
When I think about it I will do a side by side shoot with the 5DMKII and the Leaf AptusII 7 when we're on location again, but it can take a while, we have a lot of demos etc. coming up so little time to play.
-
Almost forgot.
Somewhere it was mentioned (I believe by Ray) that he loved the fact that Nikon had it's base ISO at 200 and MF at 50.
This is also such a point that takes the discussion into an area of turning the facts to your own favor and not thinking about the other side of the story.
I HATE a base ISO of 200, and I love 50 or even 25.
Simply because I use a lot of strobes on location and with a base ISO of 200 I have to bring so much power that it's simply not possible to do what I want, also not for the camera.
I've shot several times in California in the blistering sun and with a MF camera dropped down to ISO25 I could use a strobe on full power and have a wonderful setup with still a good DOF, from the top of my head the settings were ISO25 f16 1/125.
Please try to calculate that back to your precious Nikon
I will do that for you.
It's ISO200 f64, I don't know what lenses you are using but they must be different from mine
Talk about diffraction at f64 by the way......
-
Nice discussion... Just my 2 Cent: I rented a Sinar Hy6 with 75LV back for a weekend. Weather was bad, so only studio session - but the result simply are stunning. I cannot get such files (tonality and sharpness) from my Sony A900 (with excellent glas, i.e. Minolta 1,4/85 and Zeiss 135, not a really bad combination...). That's a fact for me, end of discussion
On the other side: Sinar would not work for me (don't have MAC, switching would be OK but - because of hard- and software - much too expensive), so Leaf AFI. An AFI-II 7 with basic set of lenses is not below 20k€ - that's simply too much (I'm not professional, so I don't have to compare investment to additional income, but I have to compare with bank account...). AFI 7 could be in range, but I do much shots in portrait mode, and taking off and remounting the back might be OK in the studio, but is not the best idea on location. So unless winning in Lotto, I will have to stay with my A900... And maybe rent a Hy6 for very special days?
Andreas
-
Nice discussion... Just my 2 Cent: I rented a Sinar Hy6 with 75LV back for a weekend. Weather was bad, so only studio session - but the result simply are stunning. I cannot get such files (tonality and sharpness) from my Sony A900 (with excellent glas, i.e. Minolta 1,4/85 and Zeiss 135, not a really bad combination...). That's a fact for me, end of discussion
On the other side: Sinar would not work for me (don't have MAC, switching would be OK but - because of hard- and software - much too expensive), so Leaf AFI. An AFI-II 7 with basic set of lenses is not below 20k€ - that's simply too much (I'm not professional, so I don't have to compare investment to additional income, but I have to compare with bank account...). AFI 7 could be in range, but I do much shots in portrait mode, and taking off and remounting the back might be OK in the studio, but is not the best idea on location. So unless winning in Lotto, I will have to stay with my A900... And maybe rent a Hy6 for very special days?
Andreas
Try www.keh.com and buy a AFD/III (or 2) mamiya with some glass.
Mount an Aptus22 to it from ebay and you would be in business for less than 10K.
-
Just a fact on ISO range any landscape shooter out there is going to want a base ISO of 50. You cannot shoot water with ISO 200 and slow the shutter down enough to get that velvet look many do with water . Can't be done without a ND filter. Even ISO 100 just 1 stop difference can be a shot that requires a 4 second shot done to 2 seconds and you won't get the same look. Sure have fun with those ND filters in the field when you half sitting in the water trying to work and you need to open your bag. It's just not fun screwing around with that stuff. Also with strobe work in the studio you can open up more for a certain look with a lower base ISO. Some strobes can't get down in power enough to shoot ISO 200
-
Here is a quick example of the range and adjustment potential of medium format digital.
First, a shot with a wide range of shadow to highlight with heavy shadow areas:
[attachment=20388:dark_shadow.jpg]
Next, a quick adjustment in Photoshop using the shadow/highlight adjustment:
[attachment=20390:rainy_da..._mondays.jpg]
Now a 100% crop of the adjusted file to show a lack of heavy noise even with the shadows lightened heavily.
[attachment=20389:shadow_detail.jpg]
This simply cannot be done with 35mm digital.
-
Almost forgot.
Somewhere it was mentioned (I believe by Ray) that he loved the fact that Nikon had it's base ISO at 200 and MF at 50.
This is also such a point that takes the discussion into an area of turning the facts to your own favor and not thinking about the other side of the story.
I HATE a base ISO of 200, and I love 50 or even 25.
Simply because I use a lot of strobes on location and with a base ISO of 200 I have to bring so much power that it's simply not possible to do what I want, also not for the camera.
I've shot several times in California in the blistering sun and with a MF camera dropped down to ISO25 I could use a strobe on full power and have a wonderful setup with still a good DOF, from the top of my head the settings were ISO25 f16 1/125.
Please try to calculate that back to your precious Nikon
I will do that for you.
It's ISO200 f64, I don't know what lenses you are using but they must be different from mine
Talk about diffraction at f64 by the way......
Frank,
My D700 has a base ISO of 200, but I think most 35mm DSLRs have a base ISO of 100. The Nikon D3X which rivals the dynamic range of most DBs has a base ISO of 100 and a Lo-1 mode of ISO 50.
That sure must have been bright sunlight if you were using 1/125th at F16 and ISO 25. The 'sunny 16' rule implies a shutter speed of 1/25th at ISO 25.
But let's suppose that you were using 1/125th at ISO 25. With D3X you could drop to ISO 50 in Lo-1 mode and use a 250th sec exposure at F16 which can still sync with a TTL flash unit. Alternatively, if you wanted slightly better resolution than F16 provides with its small degree of diffraction, you could stop down to F11, still retain the same DoF as your MFDB at F16, and use an ND filter to keep the exposure at 1/250th.
Another issue which you seem to have overlooked is that a less powerful flash can sometimes be sufficient with a higher ISO sensitivity.
-
For me personally, the significantly additional cost of MFDB combined with the significantly extra weight (taking lenses into consideration), offset by a significant lack of flexibility with regard to performance at high ISO and its much slower frame rates, do not make the MFDB package attractive to me, in my circumstances and for my purposes.
With all sincerity, I for one am happy that Ray in has finally arrived at the decision that MF is not necessary for his style of photography, at least for him personally. Congrats Ray!
-
Just a fact on ISO range any landscape shooter out there is going to want a base ISO of 50. You cannot shoot water with ISO 200 and slow the shutter down enough to get that velvet look many do with water . Can't be done without a ND filter. Even ISO 100 just 1 stop difference can be a shot that requires a 4 second shot done to 2 seconds and you won't get the same look. Sure have fun with those ND filters in the field when you half sitting in the water trying to work and you need to open your bag. It's just not fun screwing around with that stuff. Also with strobe work in the studio you can open up more for a certain look with a lower base ISO. Some strobes can't get down in power enough to shoot ISO 200
I've never had any problem fitting an ND filter to any of my lenses. It's not as though waterfalls catch you by surprise. "Look! There's a waterfall. Must shoot it quickly before it disappears".
-
Here is a quick example of the range and adjustment potential of medium format digital.
First, a shot with a wide range of shadow to highlight with heavy shadow areas:
[attachment=20388:dark_shadow.jpg]
Next, a quick adjustment in Photoshop using the shadow/highlight adjustment:
[attachment=20390:rainy_da..._mondays.jpg]
Now a 100% crop of the adjusted file to show a lack of heavy noise even with the shadows lightened heavily.
[attachment=20389:shadow_detail.jpg]
This simply cannot be done with 35mm digital.
That depends on which 35mm digital camera you have. Apparently the Nikon D3X boasts a higher dynamic range than the P65+ (about 2/3rds of a stop higher on equal size prints). That means that the shadows, in your examples above, would likely be marginally cleaner if you'd used a D3X.
However, just to demonstrate how unbiased I am, I'd agree that the P65+ has a marginally better tonal range and color sensitivity than the D3X, according to DXO Mark's test results.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image...d2)/Phase%20One (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/287%7C0/(appareil2)/318%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Phase%20One)
-
That depends on which 35mm digital camera you have. Apparently the Nikon D3X boasts a higher dynamic range than the P65+ (about 2/3rds of a stop higher on equal size prints). That means that the shadows, in your examples above, would likely be marginally cleaner if you'd used a D3X.
However, just to demonstrate how unbiased I am, I'd agree that the P65+ has a marginally better tonal range and color sensitivity than the D3X, according to DXO Mark's test results.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image...d2)/Phase%20One (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/287%7C0/(appareil2)/318%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Phase%20One)
I have shown an example of real world use. Show me an example where a d3x can do this and I will believe you.
-
However, just to demonstrate how
-
-
With all sincerity, I for one am happy that Ray in has finally arrived at the decision that MF is not necessary for his style of photography, at least for him personally. Congrats Ray!
Of course I'm referring only to the current crop of MFDBs, Jack. If either Canon or Nikon were to produce an affordable, lightweight MF system, perhaps removing the mirror, providing a LiveView finder but retaining all the advantages of the 35mm format such as fast frame rate and excellent high ISO performance, I might change my mind.
-
Here is a quick example of the range and adjustment potential of medium format digital.
This simply cannot be done with 35mm digital.
Same applies to Hasselblad. It has at least two stops of full quality image above and below its already high dynamic range shown on a histogram.
Nikons and Canons (I have a hasselblad and a nikon and I tested different models, from D2X to D3X) they let you do the same but in reality they have only 1/2-1 stop of recovery and that recovery of a much lower quality. You lose highlights and/or lose colors in highlights. Shadow areas are pretty bad noisy and not accurate as well. So you are not really increasing the dynamic range by recovering an image on a 35mm camera, maybe only a little.
On a Hasselblad the recovered shadows and highlights are of the same good quality as within the histogram and you don't add any noise or lose any colors.
Alex
-
Hi, it's me again.
I'm pretty new in the forum and really surprised about this kind of comparaisons.
what I see so far, is that 35mm guys are "attaking" MFD users, never the opposite...
you know, a lion does not need to proove anything.
and they do it with what, numbers? DXO?
So this tend to a testosterone debate about who's got the bigger one?
Any woman that uses MFD ?
Do you really think that a Javier Vallhonrat is reading DXO???!!!
If so, you fool yourself.
what's wrong with MFD? There are the highest photographic tools (with LF) available.
They are exiting, they deliver the best IQ and they are serious tools for a large range of photographic styles.
In the film age, LF, MF were co-existing with smaller format and it was fine.
What the duck is happening now?
Have I missed something?
Fred.
-
Just a fact on ISO range any landscape shooter out there is going to want a base ISO of 50. You cannot shoot water with ISO 200 and slow the shutter down enough to get that velvet look many do with water . Can't be done without a ND filter. Even ISO 100 just 1 stop difference can be a shot that requires a 4 second shot done to 2 seconds and you won't get the same look. Sure have fun with those ND filters in the field when you half sitting in the water trying to work and you need to open your bag. It's just not fun screwing around with that stuff. Also with strobe work in the studio you can open up more for a certain look with a lower base ISO. Some strobes can't get down in power enough to shoot ISO 200
As a landscape shooter I disagree. Uness all you shoot is milky-smooth water, the higher base ISO is beneficial. If I want a slow shutter speed for whatever reason, I can easily add a polarizer or ND filter. On the other hand, with a lower base ISO even a gentle breeze is going to be problematic for the times when you don't want motion in your shot. And sometimes even when shooting water you want a fast shutter speed.
-
I have shown an example of real world use. Show me an example where a d3x can do this and I will believe you.
Why do you have reason to disbelieve DXO Mark? These guys at DXO labs are very experienced at testing cameras. They have to be because they are in the business of developing and selling a very sophisticated RAW converter.
I can only form an opinion upon the evidence presented. Whenever I've carried out my own tests and comparisons with my own cameras, and once comparing a Nikon D3 with my 5D because I couldn't believe the hype about the high ISO performance of the D3, I've found that my results, at least in respect of DR and SNR, agree remarkable well with DXO Mark's results.
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of DXO's test procedures. Nor have I seen any real world comparisons between the P65+ and the D3X demonstrating that the DXO test results are flawed.
-
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of DXO's test procedures. Nor have I seen any real world comparisons between the P65+ and the D3X demonstrating that the DXO test results are flawed.
nor have anyone posted any real world comparisions demonstrating that the DXO results are correct!
I've once compared a Sony A900 to a P21+ because I was looking for something to shoot with at ISO400 handhold (with my P45 that's actually impossible).
I ended up buying the P21+ for... well, for many reasons.
DR? I don't know... I only know that the P21+ "saw" much more, especially in shadow areas.
Here on the forum there was a comparision D3x with AA Filter, D3x with AA filter removed and P21+... unfortunately the link is not available anymore.
The P21+ was clearly suprior if (!) you like that clean and clear, bold look MFD produces.
That having said the RAWs I've seen from the D3x look very, very good. But simply not as good as MFD.
-
I'm pretty new in the forum and really surprised about this kind of comparaisons.
what I see so far, is that 35mm guys are "attaking" MFD users, never the opposite...
...SKIP...
Have I missed something?
Yes, but the 35mm users were provoked . It is insulting to be told that MFD is superior (which it is at the file level) for business reasons when so many are doing just fine with 35mm. Talented folks using 35mm for commercial work, Rainer Viertlböck, Annie Leibovitz, Ryan Schude, and on and on. I may buy into MFD when the prices are reasonable but to be told I am somehow shortchanging my customers because I don't buy and use the BEST file creator is a bit ridiculous.
-
@Ray,
Try triggering a studio strobe on 1/250th....
I hardly ever use TTL strobes, only accupacks.
And yes the days in LA are very bright..... especially when you shoot outside in the middle of the day next to some glass and concrete
Trust me.... it was not possible with a base of ISO200.
And even than, the DOF on the MF system is totally different than on a DSLR, and I don't want sharpness front to end in my photography.
-
@PCunite,
A lot of the talented folk are using both.
And they understand why, horses for courses.
Most of what I do can be done with a DSLR also and will give customer satisfaction, however not my satisfaction.
And some of what I do can't be done with a DSLR the way I want it.
-
(deleted. ted gives up. )
-
And they understand why, horses for courses.
Most of what I do can be done with a DSLR also and will give customer satisfaction, however not my satisfaction.
And some of what I do can't be done with a DSLR the way I want it.
Frank you are totally right, I did not want to list all the types that MFD is best suited for... just pointing out that you can be successful and please customers with either system. When MFD (autocad) companies find someone to build the tech I want I hope to buy in. I would prefer MFD for some things to please myself and who knows maybe the Pentax will deliver and scratch that itch.
-
That having said the RAWs I've seen from the D3x look very, very good. But simply not as good as MFD.
I think they are quite close.... my assistant, she is developing most of my files, keeps claiming that she can push the files more from my D3x than from my Aptus 75 before noise and other unpleasant stuff appears. And she is normally right
I'm still using the back for a least 75% of my work, 100% architecture, but that is because of the Alpa's and Digitar's in front of the back.
/adam
-
As a landscape shooter I disagree. Uness all you shoot is milky-smooth water, the higher base ISO is beneficial. If I want a slow shutter speed for whatever reason, I can easily add a polarizer or ND filter. On the other hand, with a lower base ISO even a gentle breeze is going to be problematic for the times when you don't want motion in your shot. And sometimes even when shooting water you want a fast shutter speed.
I think you forget we have ISO 200 as well on the MFD backs , so if you need the speed you have it . So a 6 stop ND filter combo with Polarizer is the most ideal way . Hmmm let's see , nice looking through that finder for sure.
Obviously you missed the point as well as Ray but whatever.
-
Why do you have reason to disbelieve DXO Mark? These guys at DXO labs are very experienced at testing cameras. They have to be because they are in the business of developing and selling a very sophisticated RAW converter.
I can only form an opinion upon the evidence presented. Whenever I've carried out my own tests and comparisons with my own cameras, and once comparing a Nikon D3 with my 5D because I couldn't believe the hype about the high ISO performance of the D3, I've found that my results, at least in respect of DR and SNR, agree remarkable well with DXO Mark's results.
I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of DXO's test procedures. Nor have I seen any real world comparisons between the P65+ and the D3X demonstrating that the DXO test results are flawed.
Ray very simply question about DXO. Does DXO raw converter support ANY MF back at all. Next question do they sell DXO software for Nikon camera's
Conclusion. You decide.
I'm with Ted . I give up too. Not worth my time for sure the Olympics are on much more fun to watch.
-
I think you forget we have ISO 200 as well on the MFD backs , so if you need the speed you have it . So a 6 stop ND filter combo with Polarizer is the most ideal way . Hmmm let's see , nice looking through that finder for sure.
Obviously you missed the point as well as Ray but whatever.
I've got to add... the tests I shot at ISO 800 and tungsten light were FAR better than what I'd seen only a few years ago at ISO 400 and even 200. Way better than what I'd expected to see, and, although not really on par with DSLR, certainly a step forward.
-
my assistant, she is developing most of my files, keeps claiming that she can push the files more from my D3x than from my Aptus 75 before noise and other unpleasant stuff appears. And she is normally right
I can't judge about the D3x files but I'd say what she is saying makes sense when the reference of each file is a shot at native ISO. MFDBs are excellent at base ISO but the more you push them the more noise will be increased (the same goes for the D3x but it is still relatively clean at higher ISO). However from my (rather limited) experience MFD files tolerate much heavier editing with curves/levels/colors within the captured range of tonal values (... if it hopefully makes sense what I am trying to say ).
-
I've got to add... the tests I shot at ISO 800 and tungsten light were FAR better than what I'd seen only a few years ago at ISO 400 and even 200. Way better than what I'd expected to see, and, although not really on par with DSLR, certainly a step forward.
Ted the new P40+ back and P65 just smoke any of the 6.8 sensors of the past on the ISO front. I would imagine the Hassy 40 and Leaf 40 you will see similar results. Off to the Olympics. Have fun. Bottom line shoot whatever turns your jets on. Really all that counts anyway is what you like to shoot.
-
For me personally, the significantly additional cost of MFDB combined with the significantly extra weight (taking lenses into consideration), offset by a significant lack of flexibility with regard to performance at high ISO and its much slower frame rates, do not make the MFDB package attractive to me, in my circumstances and for my purposes.
I CANNOT believe I missed this. Brought a tear to my eye. After much soul searching many graphs and much learned comment Ray has at last come to realise he doesn't need Medium Format.
Would the last person out of the forum please get the lights.
Nick-T
-
I CANNOT believe I missed this. Brought a tear to my eye. After much soul searching many graphs and much leaned comment Ray has at last come to realise he doesn't need Medium Format.
Would the last person out of the forum please get the lights.
Nick-T
I can believe you missed it because you also missed my reply to Jack where I stated that a more affordable, lighter and less disadvantaged digital MF would be appealing.
In the days of film, not only was the price difference between 35mm format and MF not nearly as great as it is between the DSLR and the DB, but we also had more substantial differences in quality between the formats. Quite often the additional resolution provided by the larger piece of film was not required, but the smoothness, the greater tonality and the freedom of grain were always apparent at any reasonable print size.
It's difficult to imagine that it might be impossible for viewers to guess which camera was used when comparing two A3 size prints of the same scene, one taken with 35mm film and the other taken with 6x7 format. However, such difficulty in seeing the difference between the Canon G10 and the P45+ on A3+ prints was recently demonstrated by Michael.
You probably also missed in this thread the fact that I've admitted (and in fact have never denied on any thread) that the larger sensor always tends to have some qualitative advantage over the smaller sensor, whether it be higher resolution, greater DR or better tonal range. My complaint is that the qualitative differences between the formats are now not as great as they used to be in the days of film, especially using the D3X as a benchmark, but the price difference certainly is.
I get the impression that those who extoll the virtues of the current MFDB systems are engaging in a bit of hyperbole to justify the outrageous prices.
-
Hello,
Well Ray I never thought I would say this but I agree with you.
The difference between my Nikon D3x and my Leaf Aptus 75 on either my Mamiya 645 or RZ is marginal.
Also in this current economic recession I won’t be buying a P65 back for $45,000.00 US = $64,400.00 NZ dollars as my advertising clients wouldn’t even notice the difference and at the end of the day its all printed at 300dpi or less.
All they are interested in is creating the image they commissioned me to do, not what cameras I used.
Cheers
Simon
Harper Photographics Limited
Email: simon@harperphoto.co.nz
Website: http://www.harperphoto.com (http://www.harperphoto.com)
Phone: +64 9 444 1148
Fax: +64 9 444 1148
Mobile: +64 29 444 1148
-
I get the impression that those who extoll the virtues of the current MFDB systems are engaging in a bit of hyperbole to justify the outrageous prices.
I paid less for my P21+ than for a D3x. You can get a nice MFD Kit below 10K
-
I paid less for my P21+ than for a D3x. You can get a nice MFD Kit below 10K
Sure! You can always pick up second hand gear at a much lower price. DXO Mark do not show any test results for the P21+, but I think I'd almost certainly prefer a D3X. I think the D3X would be better in almost all respects, including resolution.
-
Hello,
Well Ray I never thought I would say this but I agree with you.
Hello,
Thanks for your honesty and common sense.
-
Ray very simply question about DXO. Does DXO raw converter support ANY MF back at all. Next question do they sell DXO software for Nikon camera's
Conclusion. You decide.
I'm with Ted . I give up too. Not worth my time for sure the Olympics are on much more fun to watch.
Give up by all means. You don't want to inconvenience yourself with a bit of truth, do you?
I can tell you, if owned a P65+, I would be very, very interested in the fact that a reputable organisation like DXO had produced some test results indicating that a recent 35mm DSLR model (namely the Nikon D3X) actually had slightly better DR and only very marginally worse tonal range.
If I thought that DXO were misrepresenting the situation, I'd take the trouble to at least hire a D3X and a good lens, if I didn't already own any Nikkor lenses, and do my own tests to see in what way DXO might be misrepresenting the situation and by how much.
I'm reminded of the occasion when Nikon released the D3. There was great excitement about its high-ISO performance. Claims were made that its high-ISO images were not only better than Canon, but up to 2 stops better than any other 35mm DSLR available. I found that difficult to believe. I was in Bangkok at the time and took the trouble to check this out for myself. I wasn't able to hire a D3 because they were in such short supply, but I was able to use the Nikon demonstration model in the shop, shooting into a dark corner of the shop with both the D3 and my Canon 5D. I simulated ISO 6400 and 12,800 with the Canon by underexposing appropriately at ISO 3200.
What I found was that the high-ISO advantage of the D3 was far less than 2 stops. At best, according to my test results, it had half a stop advantage at ISO 3200 and even less than 1/2 a stop advantage above ISO 3200.
Guess what! A year or two later when DXO Mark began publishing its test results, they approximately confirm these results of mine with respect to DR at high ISO. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of DXO tests. If you doubt them, then you are the one who should be making your own DX3/P65+ comparisons, not me.
-
I think you forget we have ISO 200 as well on the MFD backs , so if you need the speed you have it .
So which is more likely to negatively impact image quality: adding a polarizer when you need the slower shutter speed, or boosting your ISO by two stops when you need a faster shutter speed (especially on an MF back)?
So a 6 stop ND filter combo with Polarizer is the most ideal way.
Now you're just spouting nonsensical hyperbole. Why would I need 7-8 stops of filtration to make up for a two stop difference in base ISO?
Obviously you missed the point as well as Ray but whatever.
I didn't miss anything. I'm not arguing whether 35mm is as good or better than MFD, I think both have their advantages and disadvantages. And I can certainly see why somebody who mostly shoots with strobes would want a lower base ISO.
But you said it was a fact that a lower base ISO is preferable for landscape shooters. That's not a fact, not even close. It may be your personal preference, but that's hardly the same thing as a fact since you don't speak for all landscape shooters (or even majority of them).
-
I admit that 35mm is lightweight small and easy to use.
But file quality is no way to match MDF.
35mm DSLR always lack of micro details, no sparkling, muddy shadow.
It is very hard or no way to get razor sharp from 35mm DSLR.
Only leica M8 has MDF quality but hard to get perfect focus.
It may be difficult to judge this from monitor.
But you will see it on print.
I notice on web or youtube we see a lot of professional use DSLR more and more eg. sportillustrated, pirelli 2010 calendar.
I don't know it is advertisment or not?
I don't know they are using mix camera but we saw only DSLR?
But 35mm DSLR files is much like painting to me, smooth soft.
It require a lot of post process.
IMHO
-
DXO Mark do not show any test results for the P21+
but it does exist. And it can capture images. Crazy world!
-
So which is more likely to negatively impact image quality: adding a polarizer when you need the slower shutter speed, or boosting your ISO by two stops when you need a faster shutter speed (especially on an MF back)?
Now you're just spouting nonsensical hyperbole. Why would I need 7-8 stops of filtration to make up for a two stop difference in base ISO?
I didn't miss anything. I'm not arguing whether 35mm is as good or better than MFD, I think both have their advantages and disadvantages. And I can certainly see why somebody who mostly shoots with strobes would want a lower base ISO.
But you said it was a fact that a lower base ISO is preferable for landscape shooters. That's not a fact, not even close. It may be your personal preference, but that's hardly the same thing as a fact since you don't speak for all landscape shooters (or even majority of them).
Here is a article that explains ND and Polarizers http://nyfalls.com/article-photographing-2.html (http://nyfalls.com/article-photographing-2.html). Also you have to remember your shooting a 35mm at Base ISO 200 with a AA filter to start now your going to add a filter or even more than one filter which is adding more glass to the front end that cause more degradation to the image. Bright sun at F16 is 1/250 at base ISO 200. You can't stop down any further with 35mm without diffraction so to get it down to a number that can blur maybe up to 6 stops that means now you just added two filters. 2 stops for a Polarizer and many folks will buy a 4 stop ND so they have 2, 4 and 6 stops to work with, I know people that buy a 6 stop ND . Take 6 stops off and you are at 1/4 of a second which maybe not enough to get a effect you may desire some yes depending on water flow but you just added a lot of stuff on the front end of your lens. Now i should have not said the word fact so forgive me but shooting water under different varies lighting and movement of water sometimes you want to get to even 6 seconds or more. I have done 30 at F22 ISO 50 in the very early predawn,
Second part of your question . Very little difference on a P40 between 50 and 200 very little difference which BTW is the same sensor for the P65. They are rated at 12.5 stops which is a half stop better than there past backs and the noise levels have gotten so good from previous backs. On my S2 review with the P40+ we actually did noise tests under tungsten which is the worst noise offender when it comes to light full review here http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12243 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12243) 100 percent samples here
-
Ray you did not answer the question but went off on some other path. Bottom line is they sell to Nikon does it pay to show a P65 better. Makes you wonder. I never trusted DXO numbers first it is not real world and that is fine if you do . Not here to debate them but i can tell you I could not get this detail in the foreground with 35mm period. I would maybe even get it with a P25+ a P45+ I would say pretty much but after a lot of testing the P65 and P40 smoke those 2 backs on DR. This is a P40+ shot which without any work to it I don't believe shooting into a sunset this detail would show. This is the stuff I go by. If you want to go by DXO numbers great but I go by direct comparisons of known backs and real world situations. With that I have work to get done. But go out and test. I do it all the time with public results . If I wanted a D3X i would buy one without concern I know it is a good cam. That is not the point though. I can buy anything I want, it's all a write off anyway.
You also admit that cost is a concern and i hear that everyday and totally understand it but there is a lot to MF that many just want to blank out as well because they simply want to avoid paying. Which in turn makes there 35mm chose the best thing going. Sorry folks i own a forum too but i see this everyday in a Canon or Nikon forum. Defending it until the cows come home, which is fine but if your really interested in MF than you should go demo it and work with the files. There is a lot to it than just simple DR , noise levels. Honestly i don't care what folks buy all I care about is they have the correct information before they buy anything.
-
Ray you did not answer the question but went off on some other path. Bottom line is they sell to Nikon does it pay to show a P65 better. Makes you wonder. I never trusted DXO numbers first it is not real world and that is fine if you do . Not here to debate them but i can tell you I could not get this detail in the foreground with 35mm period. I would maybe even get it with a P25+ a P45+ I would say pretty much but after a lot of testing the P65 and P40 smoke those 2 backs on DR. This is a P40+ shot which without any work to it I don't believe shooting into a sunset this detail would show. This is the stuff I go by. If you want to go by DXO numbers great but I go by direct comparisons of known backs and real world situations. With that I have work to get done. But go out and test. I do it all the time with public results . If I wanted a D3X i would buy one without concern I know it is a good cam. That is not the point though. I can buy anything I want, it's all a write off anyway.
You also admit that cost is a concern and i hear that everyday and totally understand it but there is a lot to MF that many just want to blank out as well because they simply want to avoid paying. Which in turn makes there 35mm chose the best thing going. Sorry folks i own a forum too but i see this everyday in a Canon or Nikon forum. Defending it until the cows come home, which is fine but if your really interested in MF than you should go demo it and work with the files. There is a lot to it than just simple DR , noise levels. Honestly i don't care what folks buy all I care about is they have the correct information before they buy anything.
Thank you for this beautiful picture Guy.
We can see the MFD touch even at this reduced size and resolution.
-
bigalbest thanks but you ought to put a 35dslr image (i.e to directly compare) so the viewers can see what you mean by the claim. KR!
-
bigalbest thanks but you ought to put a 35dslr image (i.e to directly compare) so the viewers can see what you mean by the claim. KR!
that would be what I did in the review, yo.
-
Maybe "one" should first master the tools before debating the tools.
I can't see myself selling either one.
There is no one does it all beter solution.
-
Maybe "one" should first master the tools before debating the tools.
I can't see myself selling either one.
There is no one does it all beter solution.
IMO if they at least just demoed the tools in some serious fashion before they debated them, it would lend some credence to their summations. As it is, the debate seems just tilting at windmills...
-
As it seems that it is impossible to 35mm and MFD reaching a consensus in image quality,
(if we going this way the Canon G10 will of course soon at the same level than MFD as I saw here one day in an entry)
I focus in this post about design, feeling, desire, organic...
What to say, aren't they beautifull?
[attachment=20417:mfd.jpg]
Fred.
-
bigalbest thanks but you ought to put a 35dslr image (i.e to directly compare) so the viewers can see what you mean by the claim. KR!
That's alright, I really don't care if you agree with me or not. I also don't know how I let myself get sucked into this pointless discussion and probably won't comment on 35mm vs. MF again. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
-
Here is a article that explains ND and Polarizers http://nyfalls.com/article-photographing-2.html (http://nyfalls.com/article-photographing-2.html). Also you have to remember your shooting a 35mm at Base ISO 200 with a AA filter to start now your going to add a filter or even more than one filter which is adding more glass to the front end that cause more degradation to the image. Bright sun at F16 is 1/250 at base ISO 200. You can't stop down any further with 35mm without diffraction so to get it down to a number that can blur maybe up to 6 stops that means now you just added two filters. 2 stops for a Polarizer and many folks will buy a 4 stop ND so they have 2, 4 and 6 stops to work with, I know people that buy a 6 stop ND . Take 6 stops off and you are at 1/4 of a second which maybe not enough to get a effect you may desire some yes depending on water flow but you just added a lot of stuff on the front end of your lens. Now i should have not said the word fact so forgive me but shooting water under different varies lighting and movement of water sometimes you want to get to even 6 seconds or more. I have done 30 at F22 ISO 50 in the very early predawn
Sunny 16 exposure rarely comes into play when shooting water features though, at least for me. I don't usually try for that "smooth" waterfall/creek shot under full midday sun. I have a Vari-ND, which lets me dial in anywhere from 2-8 stops of filtration with a single high-quality filter. But to be honest I almost never use it, usually a polarizer gives me slow enough shutter speeds when shooting that sort of stuff, and I sually want at least some polarizing effect for those types of scenes anyway. Getting a long shutter speed during twilight/dusk hours, or in a heavily shaded forest canopy on an overcast day, just isn't a problem even at ISO-200.
I shoot with a D3x now, so my base ISO is 100. But after previously shooting with a base-ISO of 200, I miss it. More often than not, a fast shutter speed is preferable to avoid wind-induced movement in foliage and trees. So for me, adding extra filtration on those rare occasions when I need a slow shutter speed is preferable to having to bump ISO when I need a faster shutter speed.
-
Different strokes but I rather have a base ISO at 50 my last back was 100 the P30+ and there are times I wished for a slower shutter without resorting to a Polarizer. ISO 200 on the P40+ is just a no brainer now if I need it. But I can tell ya that is all I have in my bag , there is no need for a ND at all. Besides all that i don't want anything ever in front of my sensor that includes AA filters. To me it's like shooting through a screen door. One of the main reasons I shot Leica's for a long time with the DMR and M8 was no AA filters , going to MF was a natural progression up in sensor. But many feel that the DSLR's are enough for them and I am not here to argue that point at all. We all make choices on gear and I have no regrets spending the money on MF and actually end of day think it was a good investment for what i do. Even though I will lose my shirt on resale that is just the way MF is it seems. I went from the P30+ to P40+ in a upgrade and i tested it 3 times before I made that decision which is way more than I normally would but I wanted to see what that upgrade actually did for me. Anyway not everyone wants to buy into MF as well and totally understand that but people need to try it before beating it down the hill because there is so much more to them than just general argument points. No question they have there limits as well. There is no perfect solution and NEVER will be. Anything you buy is a compromise on something what the buyer needs to figure out is what they can live with.
-
Off to the Olympics.
yeah, I'm going to go argue somewhere about ski wax.
I remember when I bought my first $100 an ounce Cera F glide wax in what, 1986? That was **great** wax!
of course now I am 40 pounds heavier and have not skied in 6 years.
I also remember the 5 pound jars of hydroquinine from mixing my own developer 30 years ago, my first $2,500 (home) medium format film scanner from 1998, etc.
Guess I should have paid more attention to content and ideas. Might have somehing to show for all that .....
I do appreciate the review Ted, and the informed discussions. It all just gets so tedius......
Cheers,
Michael
-
You wonder why I don't visit the Canon and Nikon forums. LOL
-
Hi!
Much depends on how big you print, but also on subject selection. The experiment you mention with the P45+ and the G10 was just one case.
I have done some testing recently, essentially looking into Full Frame vs. APS-C. I a sense this is similar to the DSLR vs. MFDB. There are also differences as both formats in this case use very similar basic technology. The basis of my comparisons was A2-size prints. In all the tests I have made the FF images were much better when scaled to the same size and seen at actual pixels, in print however much smaller difference could be seen. In one of the tests no difference could be seen.
The processing chain obviously plays a major role here. Would I print larger like A1 the differences would be more obvious.
Another observation I may make is that an FF DSLR at optimum aperture (around f/8) would perform like an MFDB with lens stopped down to f/16 or f/22, due to diffraction.
Of course, there are other factors than MTF and resolution.
I also have a comment on the DR figure. MF sensors have larger pixels, so they can store more electrons. That essentially means that they will have less stochastic noise. Now, DxO-mark measures DR defined as
(maximum signal)/(signal at SNR=1)
noise here is defined as read noise in the sensor. But, for normal photography an SNR of 1 is not really useful. At larger SNR photon noise would play a larger role. Therefore an MFDB may perform better regarding DR/noise characteristics compared to DSLRs with smaller pixels. The DxO definition of DR is the technically correct generally accepted definition, by the way.
A good thing about this discussion may be that some people may save some money. In my view it's quite obvious that MFDBs have some advantages, but some folks may assume that they need MFDBs to make sellable images. That need may be smaller than perceived by many.
Finally, whatever technological advantages one tool, like MFDBs, may have it may be quickly destroyed by sloppy technique.
Best regards
Erik
I can believe you missed it because you also missed my reply to Jack where I stated that a more affordable, lighter and less disadvantaged digital MF would be appealing.
In the days of film, not only was the price difference between 35mm format and MF not nearly as great as it is between the DSLR and the DB, but we also had more substantial differences in quality between the formats. Quite often the additional resolution provided by the larger piece of film was not required, but the smoothness, the greater tonality and the freedom of grain were always apparent at any reasonable print size.
It's difficult to imagine that it might be impossible for viewers to guess which camera was used when comparing two A3 size prints of the same scene, one taken with 35mm film and the other taken with 6x7 format. However, such difficulty in seeing the difference between the Canon G10 and the P45+ on A3+ prints was recently demonstrated by Michael.
You probably also missed in this thread the fact that I've admitted (and in fact have never denied on any thread) that the larger sensor always tends to have some qualitative advantage over the smaller sensor, whether it be higher resolution, greater DR or better tonal range. My complaint is that the qualitative differences between the formats are now not as great as they used to be in the days of film, especially using the D3X as a benchmark, but the price difference certainly is.
I get the impression that those who extoll the virtues of the current MFDB systems are engaging in a bit of hyperbole to justify the outrageous prices.
-
Ray you did not answer the question but went off on some other path. Bottom line is they sell to Nikon does it pay to show a P65 better. Makes you wonder. I never trusted DXO numbers first it is not real world and that is fine if you do . Not here to debate them but i can tell you I could not get this detail in the foreground with 35mm period. I would maybe even get it with a P25+ a P45+ I would say pretty much but after a lot of testing the P65 and P40 smoke those 2 backs on DR. This is a P40+ shot which without any work to it I don't believe shooting into a sunset this detail would show. This is the stuff I go by. If you want to go by DXO numbers great but I go by direct comparisons of known backs and real world situations. With that I have work to get done. But go out and test. I do it all the time with public results . If I wanted a D3X i would buy one without concern I know it is a good cam. That is not the point though. I can buy anything I want, it's all a write off anyway.
You also admit that cost is a concern and i hear that everyday and totally understand it but there is a lot to MF that many just want to blank out as well because they simply want to avoid paying. Which in turn makes there 35mm chose the best thing going. Sorry folks i own a forum too but i see this everyday in a Canon or Nikon forum. Defending it until the cows come home, which is fine but if your really interested in MF than you should go demo it and work with the files. There is a lot to it than just simple DR , noise levels. Honestly i don't care what folks buy all I care about is they have the correct information before they buy anything.
Guy, I thought I'd answered you pretty clearly. I tend to base my opinions on the evidence. If I have reason to doubt the impartiality or accuracy of the evidence presented, I'll do my own tests, if I'm able to without too much expense and inconvenience, and if I have the time.
When the 15mp Canon 50D was realeased over a year ago, an upgrade from the 10mp 40D, I decided the upgraded features were significant enough to justify the purchase of the camera even though I already owned a 40D.
One point that was raised by many folks on this forum and elswhere, was that the 50% increase in pixel count of the 50D meant that the camera would provide no resolution benefit (compared with the 40D) at apertures smaller than F8 because the effects of diffraction would negate any potential increase in resolution. Such opinions seemed to be based on theories relating to the diffraction spot size or Airey disc at F stops greater than F8, compared with the 50D pixel size.
Owning both cameras, I decided to check this issue for myself, using one of my best prime lenses, the Canon 50/1.4, using the LiveView feature on both cameras to achieve accurate focussing, using tripod remote cord and MLU enabled, as well as employing in all respects the usual flawless technique for which I am famous. I confirmed for myself that F22 was the stop at which no resolution benefit was gained from the 50D. At F16, the resolution of the 50D images is about the same as the resolution of the 40D at F11, and the resolution of the 50D images at F11 is about the same as that of the 40D at F8.
Now theories should always be tested against reality. DXO Mark's data are not theory. They are practical results flowing from highly specialised and carefully conducted test procedures. The idea that DXO Labs are in the pocket of Nikon, deliberately exagerating the impressiveness of the D3X test results, and/or deliberately diminishing the P65+ test results to make the D3X results appear more impressive, is just preposterous, unless you are into conspiracy theories.
DXO Labs produce a RAW converter for many brands of cameras, Pentax, Canon, Sony, Panasonic etc. How do you think those other manufacturers would feel, as well as DXO customers, if they thought Nikon was getting special treatment which was not deserved?
The D3X appears to be the only 35mm camera that exceeds the image quality of MFDB in some respects, but not in any significant way. A half stop increase in DR, compared with the P65+, on same size prints, is no big deal, but it's better than 1/2 a stop worse DR. Of course there are other areas in performance where the P65+ is at least slightly better than the D3X, such as marginally better tonal range, marginally better color sensitivity and marginally lower noise at 18% grey, not to mention the obvious improvement of increased resolution on very big prints. Anyone who owns an Epson Stylus 9900 or 11880 would find the additional pixel count of the P65+ very useful.
So, once again, I have no reason to suspect that the DXO test procedure is flawed. If you do have reason to suspect it is flawed with respect to the P65+, then please do us all a favour by demonstrating this with evidence.
If you do decide to do this, a few words of advice; make sure the lighting is the same for both shots and that both shots are truly and equally exposed-to-the-right; try to get the focussing exactly on the same spot in both shots, and always adjust focal length and aperture for equal FoV and DoF.
The P65+ sensor is slightly larger than most DBs which means there'll be slightly more than a stop difference for same DoF. F8 on the P65+ should be equivalent to F5 on the D3X, and F13 on the P65+ should be equivalent to F8 on the D3X.
Although your sunset shot with dark foreground is a lovely shot, it cannot demonstrate the qualities of MFDB. You need a comparison of the same scene. In any case, you must have read of Michael's comparison between the P45+ and the Canon G10 P&S. After showing A3+ prints of both images, experienced photographers found it impossible to tell which print was from which camera, until it was realised that the slightly shallower DoF in one of the prints was a clue that the print was probably made for the MFDB image. Your web image is smaller than A3.
I've also got a sunset shot with a dark foreground which is reasonably clean, taken many years ago with my first DSLR, the very limited 6mp cropped-format Canon D60.
[attachment=20431:Sunset_at_Karumba.jpg]
-
Ray honestly I could care less what ANY 35mm does at all been there done that have the gold T shirt. It's not what I want to shoot again if I can help it. You can continue to pick everything in the world apart that is your right for sure. I have been doing this for 35 years and digital since 1990 that's 20 years in Digital alone. If I am shooting MF digital that sort of tells you something does it not.
Answering any more of your comments is seriously just flat out insane to do . Your better served on any Canon forum where people actually may listen to you. Sorry bud I don't need your advice on photography. Let's be very clear on that one. Bye Bye
-
Hi!
Much depends on how big you print, but also on subject selection. The experiment you mention with the P45+ and the G10 was just one case.
I have done some testing recently, essentially looking into Full Frame vs. APS-C. I a sense this is similar to the DSLR vs. MFDB. There are also differences as both formats in this case use very similar basic technology. The basis of my comparisons was A2-size prints. In all the tests I have made the FF images were much better when scaled to the same size and seen at actual pixels, in print however much smaller difference could be seen. In one of the tests no difference could be seen.
The processing chain obviously plays a major role here. Would I print larger like A1 the differences would be more obvious.
Another observation I may make is that an FF DSLR at optimum aperture (around f/8) would perform like an MFDB with lens stopped down to f/16 or f/22, due to diffraction.
Of course, there are other factors than MTF and resolution.
I also have a comment on the DR figure. MF sensors have larger pixels, so they can store more electrons. That essentially means that they will have less stochastic noise. Now, DxO-mark measures DR defined as
(maximum signal)/(signal at SNR=1)
noise here is defined as read noise in the sensor. But, for normal photography an SNR of 1 is not really useful. At larger SNR photon noise would play a larger role. Therefore an MFDB may perform better regarding DR/noise characteristics compared to DSLRs with smaller pixels. The DxO definition of DR is the technically correct generally accepted definition, by the way.
A good thing about this discussion may be that some people may save some money. In my view it's quite obvious that MFDBs have some advantages, but some folks may assume that they need MFDBs to make sellable images. That need may be smaller than perceived by many.
Finally, whatever technological advantages one tool, like MFDBs, may have it may be quickly destroyed by sloppy technique.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
You make some good points which need further investigation.
Much depends on how big you print, but also on subject selection. The experiment you mention with the P45+ and the G10 was just one case.
I know. I'm surprised Michael published this test. It raises a few unanswered questions. It's true that the nature of the subject was not suitable to reveal DR differences, for example, because there was a blown sky in both shots. But what intrigues me is the possibility that the use of an appropriate aperture with the P45 to equalise DoF, which instead of the F11 which was used, should have been something like F18, might not only have truly made it impossible to distinguish between the two prints, but the two prints could have been slightly larger because of the slightly reduced resolution of the P45 at F18.
I have done some testing recently, essentially looking into Full Frame vs. APS-C. I a sense this is similar to the DSLR vs. MFDB. There are also differences as both formats in this case use very similar basic technology. The basis of my comparisons was A2-size prints. In all the tests I have made the FF images were much better when scaled to the same size and seen at actual pixels, in print however much smaller difference could be seen. In one of the tests no difference could be seen.
I can believe that's true. I've done my own tests in this regard and found that none of my cropped-format DSLRs have quite the same tonal range and freedom from noise as my full frame cameras.
However, again one should be wary about exaggerating the differences. Different format cameras require different focal length lenses and different apertures for the same FoV and DoF.
If your purpose is to get the shallowest of DoFs with the lowest possible noise and the greatest DR, then the larger format does have a clear advantage. For example, cropped-format or APS-C lenses do not have wider maximum apertures than full frame lenses. An equivalent to the 85/1.2 for cropped-format would need to be a 50/0.75. There's no such lens. The closest is the 50/1.2, equivalent to an 85mm (or more precisely 80mm, but let's not quibble) at F2.
Now I don't have any MTF charts to present, but I'm pretty sure the 85/1.2 at F2 is sharper than the 50/1.2 at F1.2. Since the cropped-format tends to have a higher pixel density, its lenses at whatever aperture used, need to be sharper, not less sharp.
However, at the other end of the spectrum, the situation is markedly different. The smaller format tends to have the advantage, especially when you take shutter speed into consideration.
There have been many comments in this thread about the MFDB advantages of low ISO and long shutter speeds. You don't need to use an ND filter with MFDB, which we all know are terribly inconvenient, terribly difficult to fit to the lens and really require a special training course to get the hang of it, unless of course you are terribly adept and have natural talent like me.
However, consider the consequences whenever a high shutter speed is required to freeze any motion in the scene. Your F11 at 1/200th sec and ISO 100 with the cropped-format, becomes F18 at ISO 250. In these circumstances, the full frame 35mm has a much smaller advantage. In fact, very marginal according to my own tests.
I also have a comment on the DR figure. MF sensors have larger pixels, so they can store more electrons. That essentially means that they will have less stochastic noise. Now, DxO-mark measures DR defined as
(maximum signal)/(signal at SNR=1)
noise here is defined as read noise in the sensor. But, for normal photography an SNR of 1 is not really useful. At larger SNR photon noise would play a larger role. Therefore an MFDB may perform better regarding DR/noise characteristics compared to DSLRs with smaller pixels. The DxO definition of DR is the technically correct generally accepted definition, by the way.
My understanding is that photon noise is generally insignificant at base ISO, unless the format is really small, as in P&S cameras. At smaller SNR, not larger, photon noise plays a larger role
-
Ray honestly I could care less what ANY 35mm does at all been there done that have the gold T shirt. It's not what I want to shoot again if I can help it. You can continue to pick everything in the world apart that is your right for sure. I have been doing this for 35 years and digital since 1990 that's 20 years in Digital alone. If I am shooting MF digital that sort of tells you something does it not.
Answering any more of your comments is seriously just flat out insane to do . Your better served on any Canon forum where people actually may listen to you. Sorry bud I don't need your advice on photography. Let's be very clear on that one. Bye Bye
What a terribly arrogant attitude to have. I'm not hurt one bit that you want to pick up your ball and go home, but surely you must realise that such an attitude simply reinforces any perception out there that that the MFDB advantage over 35mm is a bit of a con.
-
And you post that time and again on a MFDB FORUM !!!!
It's like posting time and time again on a Volvo forum that an Opel is better, but also saying you never ever drove a Volvo yourself.
Ray,
you never gave a good answer to my remarks about things a DSLR can't do, but keep preaching your believes.
This shows me that you are just a techhead without any idea about real world applications.
To be honest I couldn't care less if a MFDB had 1 stop less dynamic range than a D3X, as long as I can shoot f16 on ISO50 with strobes and still get a wonderful DOF instead of using f32 on a base 200 ISO machine and getting terrible diffraction and DOF from begin to end the story is nul and void for me.
When do you realize that both systems take photos, both systems can take breathtaking photos when operated by a good photographer.
But both systems are also different in approach and possibilities.
There is NO WINNER.
That said.
The pure IMAGE quality of MF beats any 35mm DSLR I've seen when viewed straight out of the camera, with the Leica in a close second.
-
And you post that time and again on a MFDB FORUM !!!!
It's like posting time and time again on a Volvo forum that an Opel is better, but also saying you never ever drove a Volvo yourself.
Ray,
you never gave a good answer to my remarks about things a DSLR can't do, but keep preaching your believes.
This shows me that you are just a techhead without any idea about real world applications.
To be honest I couldn't care less if a MFDB had 1 stop less dynamic range than a D3X, as long as I can shoot f16 on ISO50 with strobes and still get a wonderful DOF instead of using f32 on a base 200 ISO machine and getting terrible diffraction and DOF from begin to end the story is nul and void for me.
When do you realize that both systems take photos, both systems can take breathtaking photos when operated by a good photographer.
But both systems are also different in approach and possibilities.
There is NO WINNER.
That said.
The pure IMAGE quality of MF beats any 35mm DSLR I've seen when viewed straight out of the camera, with the Leica in a close second.
No! no! no!, Frank,
You've got me all wrong. I'm not into belief systems. I form an opinion based only on the evidence. I know that 100% crops of MFDB files are sharper and more detailed than 100% crops of any FF 35mm files, provide the MFDB has a greater pixel count, which is usually the case.
It's the print that counts. If the production of large prints, 4'x6' and larger, is your speciality, then the MFDB, especialyy the P65+, is the obvious choice. I wouln't argue with that. I'm not silly.
-
The ignore button works wonders in cases like this where a single individual continues to instigate with no real interest or use in the answers. He has stated he never plans to buy use or test any MF gear. Basically he's got time to kill and he's burning up yours. And the very worst part of it all is in just a month or two he's going to do the same thing all over again because he can and someone always takes the bait.
-
Hey there Ray. Just one simple question, you think you could answer it for me?
...you ever actually shot with a MFDB?
-
Hey there Ray. Just one simple question, you think you could answer it for me?
...you ever actually shot with a MFDB?
No. Show me how much better it can be. Have you ever shot with a D3X? Let's see the difference. Remember the adage, a picture is worth a thousand words.
An honest comparison is worth ten thousand words.
-
I've never seen such a thread like this!!!
I think Ray will not rest till someone can post a same subject taken in the same conditions with both D3x and a MFD at 100%.
-
Show me how much better it can be.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets...57614936120567/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dos-chin/sets/72157614936120567/)
Well, even those photgraphers here who own and use both and prefer DSLRs for the vast majority of their business (or even do not use MFD anymore at all) admit that the absolute file quality (under appropriate conditions) of MFD is superior. They just don't think they need that little extra more IQ for their business (at least not at that price and especially not if they take the slow workflow and the final size of the image into account) ... and that's certainly an entirely legitimate point of view. Of course it is, as it is based on their daily experience.
But you ... you are the only one who claims there is no noticeable difference. Solely based on your reading of DXO numbers.
And when I tell you the P21+ smokes the A900 at base ISO (yes, even with regard to resolution) you don't belive it because you can't find any numbers about the P21+ at DXOmark.
The point is: you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You are just drawing conclusions from numbers on a web page.
-
This seems to sum up this thread.
(http://i21.tinypic.com/2mza8b8.gif)
And Ray counter to what you said, you do have a belief system, one that says reading other people's opinion on a camera you have never seen or touched can tell you how good it is for you.
I believe I need to handle kit to to be able to judge it properly, as tech specs are only a small part of the equation whether something is any good or not. As cameras are hand held tools how they fit in the hand and how the UI is designed is incredibly important, as it directly affects how you take photos.
-
This seems to sum up this thread.
(http://i21.tinypic.com/2mza8b8.gif)
And Ray counter to what you said, you do have a belief system, one that says reading other people's opinion on a camera you have never seen or touched can tell you how good it is for you.
I believe I need to handle kit to to be able to judge it properly, as tech specs are only a small part of the equation whether something is any good or not. As cameras are hand held tools how they fit in the hand and how the UI is designed is incredibly important, as it directly affects how you take photos.
You could at least post a warning on that gif, I really did almost spit coffee all over my screen when I scrolled down and saw it. I'm a little confused as to why someone who's happy with a 50D is even posting in the MFDB forum to begin with if it's not to instigate shit. It's sort of like posting how you don't like big women on a jenny craig forum. Just isn't going to lead to good things.
-
jjj,
Wow that is gory!
I think Ray wants to hear a MFD user say that they use MFD for other reasons than absolute image quality and then he wants to argue that point maybe in favor of 35mm.
Hey Ray, I use 35mm and it is not because of the image quality! But I would rather use a MFD that was more like 35mm handling if one existed for the simple reason that when you look through the viewfinder for slow paced work it would be such a pleasure. Is that wrong to want that? Of course when LiveView with really nice LCD screens come out the point will be moot.
-
I'll give Ray one thing --- he's elevated being an MF antagonist almost to an art form!
I've watched him do this now for what, maybe 3 or 4 years? His tactic has evolved to where he now strings it out over a week or so. He asks what appears to be an honest question with the implication he really wants to hear perspectives from real world users -- of course that is the bait. Then the kinder real world users begin offer their views and Ray usually strings this out with thank yous or follow-on questions to get and keep as many helpful folks involved as possible. Only then he starts to indicate his doubts, and begins asking for proof. Proof is offered and always rejected, sometimes politely and sometimes not so, until such point the helpful start to get frustrated. Then his truer form begins to show and he strikes, spewing the same demand for comparative proof of a file from whatever MF back you are using and a D3x... And that exchange always comes down to a comment like, "your example means nothing until you show me a carefully executed direct comparison taken with your back and a D3x," then he usually adds, "haven't you seen the D3x review at DxO?" -- and posts the link. Every time. And every time it works...
The good part is we finally have his comment from this thread where he's clearly admitted that MF is not attractive to his circumstances -- so all we have to do the next time he invades an MF thread is link back to his comment here:
For me personally, the significantly additional cost of MFDB combined with the significantly extra weight (taking lenses into consideration), offset by a significant lack of flexibility with regard to performance at high ISO and its much slower frame rates, do not make the MFDB package attractive to me, in my circumstances and for my purposes.
PS: Did you note that everything is "significant" to him except his circumstances and purposes?
Cheers,
-
Against my better judgement, I read this whole entire thread. I did learn something new: apparently, the Nikon D3X craps out golden eggs.
-
WOW! That ignore user button really shortened this thread and at the same time made it some how better.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet))
-
ted gives up.
again.
-
I also have a comment on the DR figure. MF sensors have larger pixels, so they can store more electrons. That essentially means that they will have less stochastic noise. Now, DxO-mark measures DR defined as
(maximum signal)/(signal at SNR=1)
noise here is defined as read noise in the sensor. But, for normal photography an SNR of 1 is not really useful. At larger SNR photon noise would play a larger role. Therefore an MFDB may perform better regarding DR/noise characteristics compared to DSLRs with smaller pixels. The DxO definition of DR is the technically correct generally accepted definition, by the way.
Eric,
Your point about the cutoff for shadow noise in determining dynamic range is a good one, but MFDBs do not necessarily have larger pixels than DSLRs. For example, the Phase One P65+ has 6 μ pixels, while the Nikon D3s and D3x pixel sizes are 8.34 μ and 5.95 μ respectively. For a given sensor size, increasing the pixel count will decrease the per pixel DR as defined above, but the DR for a given print size will often not suffer, since downsizing of the higher pixel count image will decrease noise through pixel averaging. This factor is taken into account in the DXO normalization for print size and is discussed at some length by Emil Martinec (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#pixelsize).
For dynamic range in the print at a given size, the number of photons collected over the entire image is the main determinant of total shot noise. The P65+ has a sensor area of 53.9 x 40.4 mm, about 2.5x the area of the full frame Nikon D3x. If fill factor and read noises were comparable between the two sensors, the P65+ would collect 2.5 times the number of photons as the D3x. Since SNR varies as the square root of the number of photons collected, the SNR ratio would be sqrt(2.5) = 1.5 times better for the P65+. This difference in sensor area is significant, but would not lead to the astoundingly greater DR claimed by some for MFDBs. The greater image quality claimed by these proponents is likely related to factors other than DR.