Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: elf on March 14, 2010, 09:14:41 pm
-
What's New: '15 March, 2010 - The Top Two Things You Can't Do On the Internet' seems to be saying a large print will show an obvious difference between MF and DSLRs. My question is: Was the author involved in the G10 vs MF test done by Michael several years ago or was he just ignoring it?
-
What's New: '15 March, 2010 - The Top Two Things You Can't Do On the Internet' seems to be saying a large print will show an obvious difference between MF and DSLRs. My question is: Was the author involved in the G10 vs MF test done by Michael several years ago or was he just ignoring it?
The original article is here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml)
Cheers,
-
Possibly you didn't notice that Anonymous wrote that the difference are visible in 16X20 and larger prints.
The prints used in the G10 comparison were quite a bit smaller than that.
Michael
-
Possibly you didn't notice that Anonymous wrote that the difference are visible in 16X20 and larger prints.
The prints used in the G10 comparison were quite a bit smaller than that.
Michael
[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=You_ve Got to be Kidding!)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE (You_ve Got to be Kidding!)[div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]"In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10."[/quote]
Hmmmm. 16x20 doesn't seem to be that much bigger when you consider the size of the G10 sensor compared to current 35mm sensored DSLRs.
I wonder how close the print comparison would be between a 400mp D3X stitched image and an MF print?
In any case, if there truly is a difference between the prints it should be quantifiable.
-
The whole idea is to compare apples to apples. So you get real comparison. Or maybe we should take a stitched file from Wolcott who I just took a class from and compare that to stitched 35mm stitch. The whole idea is that photographers whether pro or working towards that or just a very accomplished ameture is that they use the equipment they can either afford and carry. I would like to use a P45 like Michael and Tim Wolcott but I'm too small. Unless I carry very little gear. You should be more focused on creating the best images possible with the gear you have. To much emphasis is put on tech. Tech will never replace the art to SEE. I think Michael should end this stupid thread! Let's get back to the basics. JP
Hmmmm. 16x20 doesn't seem to be that much bigger when you consider the size of the G10 sensor compared to current 35mm sensored DSLRs.
I wonder how close the print comparison would be between a 400mp D3X stitched image and an MF print?
In any case, if there truly is a difference between the prints it should be quantifiable.
-
I don't get the point of the article. Has anyone been arguing that you wouldn't see "a difference" in very large prints? I don't think so.
What people were questioning was a claimed advantage of 6 full stops of usable dynamic range ... not some ineffable and sublime difference only seen in very large prints.
-
Possibly you didn't notice that Anonymous wrote that the difference are visible in 16X20 and larger prints.
The prints used in the G10 comparison were quite a bit smaller than that.
Michael
Michael, there's no doubt that that the larger format, higher pixel-count camera favours the larger print. If the the 13"x19" prints in your G10/P45+ comparison had been 24"x32", I'm sure everyone would have noticed the superior qualities in the print from the P45+, viewing the larger prints from the same distance as the A3+ print.
The interesting question is, if the viewing distance had been increased in proportion to the increase in print size, as should normally be the case in order to appreciate the composition rather than to pixel peep, would the results of your comparison, using the larger prints, have been similar? (Of course, in order to arrange this, you'd probably have to create a barrier between the viewer and the print so no-one could get closer than, say, 5ft.)
The most interesting aspect of your G10/P45 comparison was the fact that you didn't tell viewers which print was from which camera. This condition is vitally important for any comparison which claims to be objective.
We're all susceptible to some degree to the placebo effect, and none of us want to appear a bit dumb by telling the truth that we can discern no significant difference between two products that are claimed or supposed to have a quality difference.
-
I don't get the point of the article. Has anyone been arguing that you wouldn't see "a difference" in very large prints? I don't think so.
What people were questioning was a claimed advantage of 6 full stops of usable dynamic range ... not some ineffable and sublime difference only seen in very large prints.
that is suggested to us instead of the raw files to show 6 stops difference in DR, don't you get it ? if you can't show raws, if you can't beat the math - then just put some smoke, talk about prints, Mark's PhD, etc
-
For what it's worth (zero), I read most of these posts as a source of distraction, learning and entertainment – in no particular order. I have a fairly strong science background, though not anywhere near what some on these fora have, especially with regard to optics and light physics, or more particularly, science as it pertains to photographic sensors . But I must say that I feel that these past several days of "hanging people on their words" has been a bit, umm, disenchanting. It smacks of "sport-arguing" in many cases. Or worse, self-aggrandizing. Perhaps that's the goal... the game – and I'm just the dork that doesn't get it.
I read Michael's post regarding the comparison between the G10 and Phase One back when it originally posted, and even had some fun with it among friends. We all have (or I assume that we do) images which look startlingly-good for the capture device used. I know that I do – do you? Michael seemed to have such an image, got an idea to have some fun with it, and at the same time create some content for his site – giving many of us yet a new morsel of entertainment. And now some of us are attempting to hang him or his friends on the very words that provided us with a pleasant distraction. Seems odd and out of place to me.
Mark D. chose some words, and perhaps worse, shared an anecdote of dubious value to the post, that seemed a bit out of character for someone of such understanding of things technical and such. So what? Those particular passages weren't his brightest moments, but I for one, will admit to having many such moments. Jeez guys, please lighten up. Mark has shown through his imagery that he understands many things about photography. And he is willing to share his experiences with us. His experiences should be heard and added to our pool of knowledge. Let's not take ourselves too seriously.
Having said all this (of little value, I'm sure) I must admit that some of the posts in the various related threads have been either enlightening or entertaining.
I'm fortunate to have friends with whom I can share ideas about photography... like "here's an image from a Canon s300 P&S and one from a 5D, can you tell which is which..." without being hung on any words that might come up during the dialogue. We enjoy sharing observations. Sure, Michael presents his "product" as that of an expert, but he has also been friendly about it – always saying that the forum should be like one's living room. That's not been the atmosphere of late, in my opinion.
I thought the article posted by "Anonymous" was well stated. It's not for everyone, but it fits for some. Well, it fits for me, because I print. I have DSLRs and Phase One MFD and can see the differences immediately. For me, and my purposes MFD is better. Is it dynamic range? Is it resolution? Is it software, color-rendition, micro-contrast? I don't care, even though I CAN see where the differences are. It doesn't matter. There's no point in trying to push it on others. It may not show up at all in the work of others, and if that's the case, then one is really smart to avoid the expense and other shortcomings of MFD. That's not so hard, is it?
I guess I'm rambling on here because it's late and I'm tired, but I find it disappointing that so many would expend energy ranting on such things as "MFD vs. DSLRs" or whatever the issue is. We have choices. Some folks express opinions or share experiences related to various gear. That's great, but in the end, one should use what best suits their pursuit of the photograph. Or is that no longer the goal? The photograph? It is for me.
(edit: typo)
-
What people were questioning was a claimed advantage of 6 full stops of usable dynamic range ...
Oh, no please, don't put the coin in that slot!
Well, I'd thought it is now well established that such quanticized statements are a bit out of reach, and that some qualitative statements are already accepted.
Whet interests me much more in the debate is to assess a bit less hazily where is the difference ; even for me who probably won't ever touch let alone buy a MFDB, knowing the weaknesses of my images can be a great help to make them (a bit) better.
-
My very fundamental question is about making comparisons or more about why there seems to be agreement things are not comparable (I'm not stating that this is something very easy to do)?
There ARE many variables in the whole chain, but in the end, NOTHING MORE and EXACTLY the pixels are going to be outputted.
-
I don't get the point of the article. Has anyone been arguing that you wouldn't see "a difference" in very large prints? I don't think so.
What people were questioning was a claimed advantage of 6 full stops of usable dynamic range ... not some ineffable and sublime difference only seen in very large prints.
I get the feeling from this article and the various discussions about the 6 stop dynamic range claim that we seem to have moved into surreal land where any point can now be conclusively proved by simply re-stating it in a louder voice.
Perhaps we should just rewind the tape a little, pretend that many of the claims originally made had been said by someone else and just get our heads down and produce some nice old fashioned data before saying anything further? Credibility seems to be the main victim of recent events, whatever the final conclusions...
-
In "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan, he gave us a fine Baloney Detection Toolkit.
The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:
* Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
* Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
* Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
* Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
* Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
* Quantify, wherever possible.
* If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
* "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
* Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
Additional issues are
* Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
* Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
* Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
* Argument from "authority".
* Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
* Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
* Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
* Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
* Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
* Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
* Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
* Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved"Eye-wink.
* Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
* Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
* Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
* Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit").
* Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
* Confusion of correlation and causation.
* Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
* Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
* Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"
Above all - read the book!
-
In "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan, he gave us a fine Baloney Detection Toolkit.
That is... uncanny: literally a minute ago I referred to the exact same book (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=42295&view=findpost&p=353392) on another thread about the article.
Great minds *mumble mumble*
-
Well, I'd thought it is now well established that such quanticized statements are a bit out of reach, and that some qualitative statements are already accepted.
Is that so? Then why did Michael choose to write this?
"Tests done by me in the past, as well as others more recently, show that DSLRs have a dynamic range of 6–7 stops while top medium format backs are in the 12-13 stop range. This is using the common definition of DR as mentioned above. The exact numbers are open to some debate because of the subjective aspect of the test, but usually a one stop differential is the most seen between testers or test runs. "
It would have been easy for Mark and Michael to say what you just said.
They didn't.
To the poster who said we all have choices ... we do ... and Michael and Mark have made some strange ones lately.
As such, many of us are eagerly awaiting the proof ...
-
Mark D. chose some words, and perhaps worse, shared an anecdote of dubious value to the post, that seemed a bit out of character for someone of such understanding of things technical and such. So what?
Sure ... so why not do what we all do when we mis-speak?
I would have said something like: "You're right, I was being hyperbolic for effect ... there is a visible difference in DR, but is it 6-7 stops? Probably not - we should do a test to quantify that number."
How hard would that have been? Instead, they dug in.
Ok ... that's all fine ... but now anyone who challenges this stubborn claim is somehow "misbehaving in the living room"?
Please.
-
Hi,
I do not own actually a Medium Format, but I've been working enough time in the recent past in advertising agencies as a designer to be able to mesure the differences between each system in real work situations.
In that jobs, you deal with any type of files, from LF to crooped dslr sensors. The pictures are taken by professional photographers and we were working exclusively in CMYK, except when we were working with Flash and derivated applications.
I fully agree with the content of this "anonymous" article.
There is a huge difference when someone is working for himself to build his portfolio or in and for little structures, than when you start to work for industrial and commercial advertising in agencies, big art galleries etc...
1) By no means, it exists the situation where you going to make a Chanel campaign with a dslr; even if it reaches the DR of MFD. It is the same for arquitecture, manufactured products, contemporary art in general etc...(it can happen, but it is not very common).
2) By no means, it exists the situation where you are going to work for a newspaper and cover a war with a 4x5 field camera either.
Each system is perfectly valid.
All this debate came from a perceived problem of exageration in DR, and the forum lines have been inundated by physics, curves, DoX, etc...in order to prove the correct information and rectifiy the heresy; not without sometimes denigration or attacks towards Marc Dubovoy and Michael Reichmann, that certainly known much more than a lot of us here and have an all life experience in photography as professionals, to at least being considered not too badly informed... I also noticed that the real experienced and professional photographers of this forum have not participated in this debate or in a very discrete form.
That was sad but very informative. It's the first time I join a Forum, I do not have the time normaly, and I stupidly put myself in this kind of thread. I did not know what it was, now at least I know what is all about.
After reading all the posts, physics ecuations and mathematics calculations, am I better informed? Not at all. Exactly like before.
Well, in fact, I know now that dslr are not that bad and MFD are not that great...and that DoX is the new religion.
Sorry, but behind the excuse of "wrong information about DR" it was indeed an hidden discution about who has got the bigger one and an open gate for provocators and as pointed, neurotic posers. I have absolutely no doubt about that these kind of thread end like that, no doubt either that this article will be severely banned but that's the way things are. I'm sure at least that some people, like it is my case, found it pertinent and appropriate.
Back in the article, the biggest difference between a dslr and a MFD I saw when I was designer is the capacity to handle severe post production process.
This is where really the gap is. Also of course in big prints (I'm talking about big prints), but that is obvious and have never been contradicted.
Well, the capacity that have the MFD files to be mistreated is simply amazing. That is required in fashion, in advertising in general, and that is the very first reason (but not the only one) why MFD is prefered for certain type of work.
It is obvious that this characteristic of MF is not and has not been measured, but the flexibility that gives you the MFD in post production, the hability to recuperate delicate situations or to be severely pushed is indeed much more important than with a dslr. There is no comparaison and it is fine.
I also heard some saying that the differences are only visible in big prints: Wrong, the differences are visible right in the web.
When we where working in Low-def for flash, every single designer was able to notice the differences between MFD files and smaller format.
The ones who claim the opposite are just not enough trained to perceive them.
Now, each system is perfect, there are just different.
Best regards,
Fred.
-
DoX is the new religion.
Fred, you have it backwards.
There is science and there is faith and you have ascribed faith to the wrong side of the argument.
You, however, have declared over and over that you will believe anything Michael says.
So, yes ... there is a new religion ... but DxO ain't part of it.
-
Fred, you have it backwards.
There is science and there is faith and you have ascribed faith to the wrong side of the argument.
You, however, have declared over and over that you will believe anything Michael says.
So, yes ... there is a new religion ... but DxO ain't part of it.
Jeremy, the article was not writen by Michael and I did not declare that they were scientificly right, what I did say yes is that I thing and I know that Michael and others are pretty well informed and are experienced enough that I give them at least good credit. And if they make mistakes and rectify, for me it's fine.
If I do not agree with Michael, and it has happened, I say it as clearly as when I do agree.
Simply, if I ask myself the question: with who would I like to do a workshop, or been trained in order to improve my technic ? Michael would be high on my list. He is not the only one, but I would certainly (and actually I do throughout this website) learn a lot from his knowledge.
If I was an executive in photographic industry and need some consulting, he would be also high on my list. I'm not the only one to consider this, as he actually do so currently. People fully involved in the industry fully trust him like people trust Mark, for a reason I guess.
So, an error or exageration (if there is) in an article for me does not affect my position.
Fred.
-
This whole discussion is highly reminiscent of what was talked about regarding high-end audio components and the transition from analogue to digital some two decades ago. The crux of the problem is objective engineering measurements versus subjective perception. The objectivists point to data that shows two things (digital sensors, amplifiers, you name it) to be either equal to or very close in specifications. The subjectivist says that there is a real difference in the output (image or sound). The subjectivists spend lots of money on things that either show real improvement (medium format cameras) or things that don't (gold interconnect cables, amplifiers costing tens of thousands of $$$ but show no difference in blind testing). Claims are made by people with PhDs after their name (I have one but don't make any claims!! ) and those that have many years of experience with the technology (but not possessing a technical degree). Some of the claims are correct, some are not.
Neither side is right or wrong as it's always difficult to reconcile these differing approaches. I think we have to take pleasure in the work that we do and accept both the criticism and plaudits from those that view the images, because after all that's what it's all about.
As an aside, doing any kind of scientific research on subjective end points is extraordinarily difficult. Even if one can design an appropriate protocol, it will still be criticized for some reason (it's why nobody from the subjective camp has accepted blinded listening tests of audio components).
Finally, as one who is willing to listen and learn, I find that these discussions are very informative.
-
Hmm well I'm not grasping the article myself. It was more along the lines of "trust me I know what I'm talking about", and a nicely worded rant.
In fact I'm not demanding anything, esp not pointless numbers.
But..
"You can't determine the absolute quality of a digital camera"
True, I agree, but you
"Can go outside and take a shot with a MF and DSLR" and show us the difference in DR, very very easily! Thus the heated debate might end at this point.
I'm sure there are some very good reasons why MF digital is desired by some and that it has a very real difference in bigger prints and quality. But we're not talking about that..we're on DR, and that alone. I suspect there might be a DR advantage to MF, but that it's not that much..and in the real world less than obvious. But we'll wait for those shots..
-
I have stayed out of this fray until now, but I have read all of the posts in this and the related articles and threads, hoping for some useful information (as opposed to fervent, unsupported opinion). I have a fair amount of experience with various film formats in the film era (35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5, 8x10 primarily). I have zero experience with MF or LF in the digital world (my digital cameras have included Canon S60, G10, 10D, and 5D).
A number of individuals whom I respect highly have weighed in on the current issues (MF vs 35mm digital and especially the "amount" of dynamic range in each). And all I've learned so far is that some individuals consider the differences "obvious" while others admit that the differences are "obvious" only to "trained observers" and still others claim that there is no difference whatever (except in "price of equipment"). Except for "price of equipment", which can be verified by anyone on numerous websites (B&H for example), I have seen no evidence whatever to support any of the other positions.
IMHO, the only posts that have advanced this whole discussion are three in the current thread: Post #9 by DFAllyn, #13 by Ronny Nilsen, and #21 by Barry Fitzgerald. My thanks to DF, Ronny and Barry!
Eric
-
This whole discussion is highly reminiscent of what was talked about regarding high-end audio components ..
***********
I hope we aren't going in the direction of degaussing plastic CDs, exotic wood pucks and $10k interconnects...:>)
Steve
-
OF COURSE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!!!
Who's arguing that? There is no way that an image from a Digital Rebel is going to match that from a a MFDB. But then again, there are no two MF Digital Backs the same either. Would you care to enlighten us on the differences between them?
To make things even more chaotic: There is a difference in images between cameras of a single brand and sensor size. The Canon 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D and 7D all have different native curves. The 5D and 5Dmk2 are no where identical. The Nikons are the same way in that no two models produce the same images.
Almost without exception, every DSLR is using CMOS sensors. Like lemmings, we forced them into that because ONE manufacturer happened to figure out how to get better noise levels from CMOS than CCD. (CMOS good, CCD baaaaad). Even though, "industry experts" have, for years, said that CCD is superior in image quality, we, the buyers, have chosen ONE imaging characteristic over all others and we've done this to ourselves.
Back in the "film days" (which some of us still live in for quantifiable reasons), no two films were the same. Some used Provia, others Velvia, while Ektachrome and Kodachrome had their followers and users. For some professional applications, C41 ruled the day and we have the Portra and Fujifilms to choose from.
I mention that because it's absolutely silly to make a comparison between a 35mm Provia 100F picture and a Hasselblad Portra 160NC shot blown up to 16x20. No matter how you post-process them THEY WILL LOOK DIFFERENT!!! Depending on the application, one will be superior to the other, but it's obvious that the Hasselblad shot will be superior. Or will it? Which is better? Why is it better? What is the application? (I still laugh at the Provia/Digital comparisons--Provia 100F being one of the lowest resolving transparency films on the market).
Each film has a specific way of "seeing"--just as each digital imager has a specific way of "seeing". I've asked this question before, but what "film" does YOUR camera's imager most closely match? Don't give me that "whatever I want it to, I adjust it in post" nonsense because to do that you are bending bits (adjusting gamma, contrast, saturation, etc) far away from what the sensor itself is actually doing. The less bending you have to do, the better. (It's most likely the case that MFDB image data needs less bending to get to the usable form). The dirty little secret is that a lot of this bending is accomplished in-camera BEFORE the RAW file is written. You think those high-power processing chips are just there for JPEG files???? Riiiight.
We KNOW that MFDB images look different than DSLR images. That's a given. But we've been reading all this self-grandizing pontification from the "experts" but absolutely no explanation as to why. There are too many variables involved that haven't been nailed down for an accurate comparison.
So we have this essay from an anonymous "industry insider and expert". Yeah, fine. I got absolutely nothing from it and it contributes absolutely nothing to the advancement of photography. Basically, all it said was "those who write the big checks are smarter than you."
You know what? I DON'T write big checks for THIS technology--I'm an industry insider and expert in something else, but while selecting and approving technology in my industry, we go about a time-consuming process of quantifying what exactly are the differences between products and WHY those differences exist. I've been doing the scientific method for over twenty years in the business world with high-tech products and know when somebody is blowing smoke.
So in other words, don't get so high and mighty on yourself. Until you pony up the facts and give me specifics as to what is going on between the technologies, I'm going to assume that you really don't know squat. (which is unfortunate, because it is obvious that you SHOULD know the facts)
In the last three threads on this, I'm the only one who has done any form of testing on anything and published it. Granted, it was a quick-and-dirty and offers no opinion to speak of, but of all the very very smart people that hang out here, I'm appalled that NOBODY else has done the same. Shame on us!
I guess it's just easier to write a "I'm smarter than you" essay.
-
I've read a lot of posts and work by anonymous and my conclusion is that he is not a very reliable writer.
-
A camera is tool. Nothing less, nothing more.
A tool is an instrument destined to help an operator to acheive properly a task, acording to his aims and desires.
Talking about photography, it results that the tool has a technical aspect, and the purpose is esthetic and artistic.
Tools have different shapes, power, and complexities that sirve different styles, goals and operators.
The crafstman that use the tool is not there to tell how the tool has been built, but to master the tool itself.
All these DxO comparaisons, numbers and scientific evidences are boring like hell and pretty much meaningless.
Fred.
-
All these DxO comparaisons, numbers and scientific evidences are boring like hell and pretty much meaningless.
I think there is no single test comparison possible, for different characteristics different type of tests are needed in order to compare two different devices, and the DxO contributes here as well. The question is what one makes out of it.
-
..adding to what Fred said, there is also careful application of technique. Getting the most from what the tool can deliver, and today's tools are delivering quite a lot, if at least enough to make the job work. As a professional I only care what I put in front of the client, and not how the H E double hockey sticks I went through to get it. I'm very happy with my 40D for quick returns, and still love my MAM M645 for the extra "pop" I get from it.
Lenses have a lot to do with and so does post processing and printing. Maybe with DXO, and after following some advice on these forums I too can become a expert at shooting and getting high quality shots of paper targets. However, clients pay me to shoot other things....
-
Talking about photography, it results that the tool has a technical aspect, and the purpose is esthetic and artistic.
All these DxO comparaisons, numbers and scientific evidences are boring like hell and pretty much meaningless.
These statements are only true only for a limited audience i.e. for some (most?) members of this forum and readers of this site.
There are lots and lots of people for whom "numbers and scientific evidences" are VERY meaningful : Scientific photography, documentary photography, law enforcement, surveillance.......
Personally, I find these discussions interesting and lean towards the "I don't care which camera I use" camp. But that's only because my photography is purely recreational.
So, please, someone make those measurements and record those numbers!
-
Maybe with DXO, and after following some advice on these forums I too can become a expert at shooting and getting high quality shots of paper targets. However, clients pay me to shoot other things....
Hey Pete - not much detail in the sky in your avatar - maybe should have used the 645 <grin> - just kidding.
Rory
-
Hi,
Without science and knowledge we wouldn't have DSLR,
or MFDBs,
or Velvia,
or any other film,
nor would we have a camera to put the film into,
nor a lens to put in front of it.
Neither would we have nuclear power,
electric light
or electricity at all.
Horsepower would be the power of the horse
and torque would be nothing to care about at all.
We would not have DDT, BBC, CIA, IBM
but also no penicillin.
Life expectancy would be short, even if we survived birth.
Science and technology may matter, after all.
Best regards
Erik
A camera is tool. Nothing less, nothing more.
A tool is an instrument destined to help an operator to acheive properly a task, acording to his aims and desires.
Talking about photography, it results that the tool has a technical aspect, and the purpose is esthetic and artistic.
Tools have different shapes, power, and complexities that sirve different styles, goals and operators.
The crafstman that use the tool is not there to tell how the tool has been built, but to master the tool itself.
All these DxO comparaisons, numbers and scientific evidences are boring like hell and pretty much meaningless.
Fred.
-
A camera is tool. Nothing less, nothing more.
And tools have specs ... and when people exaggerate the specs on their tools to try and impress , people in the know call BS ...
All this tooing and froing about craft and art and commerce and whatnot ... all interesting ... for another discussion ...
-
Jeremy, the article was not writen by Michael and I did not declare that they were scientificly right, what I did say yes is that I thing and I know that Michael and others are pretty well informed and are experienced enough that I give them at least good credit. And if they make mistakes and rectify, for me it's fine.
If I do not agree with Michael, and it has happened, I say it as clearly as when I do agree.
Simply, if I ask myself the question: with who would I like to do a workshop, or been trained in order to improve my technic ? Michael would be high on my list. He is not the only one, but I would certainly (and actually I do throughout this website) learn a lot from his knowledge.
If I was an executive in photographic industry and need some consulting, he would be also high on my list. I'm not the only one to consider this, as he actually do so currently. People fully involved in the industry fully trust him like people trust Mark, for a reason I guess.
So, an error or exageration (if there is) in an article for me does not affect my position.
Fred.
Fred
if Michael or anyone else whose expertise you trust said: "medium format backs have 286 stops more dynamic range than the Hubble space telescope" would you automatically assume they were right? A small number of people seem to be mis-understanding the unease that is being expressed. Many people have publically stated they are content to accept that medium format backs can offer superior overall image quality to 35mm sensors but they are surprised by the scale of the supposed advantage in dynamic range. They would like to see some evidence of the claim. If this can be produced, everyone will go away happy; end of debate. But we haven't really seen any evidence. Instead, we get claim and more claims and a bit of weasel words to fudge the issue. Why can't we see the evidence if is so clear cut? More words are not really necessary. The cynic might suspect that the evidence can't be found and that a bit of a face-saving operation is being mounted. I'm glad to say that not being a cynic, I look forward with confidence that the evidence will be collected and made into a nice article - then we can all switch to arguing how it is achieved...
-
I endorse the idea of applying Occam's razor, a.k.a. the Principle or Parsimony, or KIS: favor the simplest explanation that is consistent with the facts.
Or from a different perspective: favor a neutral position or null hypotheses like there are no significant difference in DR between MF and 35mm digital unless there is evidence that contradicts it.
The one central observational fact offered in the essay is that people can tell the difference between DMF over 35mm format digital when they view sufficiently large prints; specifically, larger than 20"x16" [corrected], which means that current 35mm files are being displayed at less than 250PPI [corrected] when cropped to that shape.
The simplest explanation that comes to mind is greater spatial detail (or resolution or sharpness or whatever).
That is, the larger images delivered by the MF lenses have more detail (more "lines per picture height", achievable even with equal or slightly less "lines per mm" thanks to the larger size of the image formed on the larger sensor) and the higher pixel count MF sensors can record more spatial detail, so putting it all together gives more spatial detail in the files, and on the prints. On the second part of sensor resolution, it has been shown that sharp eyes can see the difference between 250PPI prints and higher PPI prints, when dealing with Bayer CFA sensors.
This proposed explanation is minimal in that it really relies only on a clear, measured, uncontroversial difference (pixel counts and measured sensor resolution in lines per picture height), and also has the virtue of explaining the other half implied by the claim, that differences are less visible or not visible at all in smaller prints.
I do not see any reason to introduce any hypothesis about dynamic range differences in order to explain the phenomenon mentioned by Anonymous. Dare I mention that the visibility of dynamic range differences should not be affected so much by print size? And I am glad that no-one has talked about "micro-contrast" yet!
So I see nothing in the Anonymous essay that leads me to reject the null hypotheses stated above about DR differences.
By the way, I do see elsewhere evidence pointing to some DR advantage for MF over 35mm format in equal sized prints of base ISO images, due to the measurements I have seen of higher per pixel S/N ratio at base ISO for the FF CCD's of MF, and the ditherering effect of printing at higher PPI on perceived DR. And MF might have other advantages, like lower lens aberrations due to working at a less low f-stop to get a given DOF. But I am only discussing the evidence raised in the essay.
-
I think it would be good for members of the Forum to recognize that the sentence in Mark Dubovoy's article causing pages and pages of commentary has been removed. Furthermore, there was a commitment to undertake further work on this issue. Therefore, I think it only makes sense to put that part of the discussion to rest until we see the further work.
As for the current discussion about the contribution from "Anonymous", I agree with that person's basic point that it's best to print the pictures to appreciate overall IQ differences between MF and DSLR images, especially if we are talking about using professional printers (e.g. an Epson 3800 or better) on high quality non-matte papers. This combination produces more resolution and finer tonality than are visible on most of our displays, and because the differences in these qualities between high-end DSLRs and MF, while they exist, can be somewhat subtle, what we see of them may well reside within the difference between a display medium and a fine print medium. I don't quite agree that the differences only begin to show at 16*20 inches. I think they are apparent at least down to 13*19 as well, but the question of the dimensions at which size begins to matter I think depends very much on the characteristics of the image, the quality of post-processing and how trained is the observer looking at such comparisons.
-
A serious photographer does not need to know how much point DR have this or that.
He just need to know that it has enough,
and as an experiment user that I respect have mentionned: what to do with it.
None profesional photographer that I know is preocupated by numbers, excepted the ones in their bank account...
I leave you with your DRs, DoX and high-end science essays.
Let me know when you publish in the Cambridge's journal.
I'll read with great pleasure.
-
There's nobody else in the block right now - the neighbours have gone off to Bahrain for the bum end of winter, so I am able to turn the music up to proper distortion levels and I have played Kid Rock's All Summer Long perhaps seven times in a row; great video and those girls and those boats just embody all that is my particular version of the American Dream. I shall never be back there, I don't expect, and the Dixie flag I bought years ago in Miami has long vanished.
Does anybody know whether anybody manufactures stick-on, plastic/transfer versions of it - the flag - that can be put onto a car? It would save me doing a roof respray which, on an eleven year old rusty and scarred Ford makes little sense, and I could get away with just getting rid of some oxidation which I could then overlay with the plastic. I was tempted to paint flames, but that would, in turn, just tempt the local tontos and an old car is better than no car.
Rob C
-
Does anybody know whether anybody manufactures stick-on, plastic/transfer versions of it - the flag - that can be put onto a car? It would save me doing a roof respray which, on an eleven year old rusty and scarred Ford makes little sense, and I could get away with just getting rid of some oxidation which I could then overlay with the plastic. I was tempted to paint flames, but that would, in turn, just tempt the local tontos and an old car is better than no car.
Rob,
Is this your way of stating that you'd rather buy a new car than an MFDB system?
It seems clear to me that a lot of the fuss about this DB versus 35mm DSLR issue is due to the sharp increase in cost for what is probably a very disproportionately small increase in quality, coupled with some serious disadvantages of the MFDB regarding weight, high-ISO performance, slow frame rate and a few other nice features which the latest DSLRs offer.
I have to say that I very much appreciate the concept of using the right tool for the job. Just recently, after taking delivery of my new chaise longue for my new house, I was surprised to find included with the chairs, packets of short, squat, timber legs with self-tapping screws.
I always prefer to use my very portable, Panasonic 12 volt drill with rechargeable battery for such jobs. It's just so handy. Alas! It wasn't powerful enough to drive those 4" self-tapping screws into the timber base of the chaise longue. I had to bring out my heavy, 750 watt, two-handled Ryobi electric drill with attached power cord that needed plugging into an extension cord which needed plugging into a power socket.
I couldn't help thinking to myself at the time, 'This must be just like using an MFDB. The right tool for the job'.
-
...Claims are made by people with PhDs after their name (I have one but don't make any claims!!
Um, you claim to have a PhD after your name...
-
Hey Pete - not much detail in the sky in your avatar - maybe should have used the 645 <grin> - just kidding.
Rory
Rory, it pains me that I cannot have a 645 pointed at me all the time... ) Alas, I'm just another dude with his hat on backwards and pissing people off in the front row of life. Aside from the pun, there is some truth to your comment. I do like playing with digital bracketing, but find the one click -details in both shadows and highlights -approach with MF a bit easier on the post processing. Sure you can run one of several methods to mix bracket digital shots to gain DR, and even though there is improvement, none of mine looked better than the straight MF shots with simple LR adjustments.
-
We all have eyes and a brain. The best advice I have is to use those tools and make your own decisions. If I can or can't see the difference in a lens, printer, sensor, monitor, etc etc etc that is the only information I need. Mr. "A" telling me that study X proves the product Y is better than product T is a moot point if I can't see it. Trust yourselves. Generally speaking that will provide you with the only answer you need.
-
I endorse the idea of applying Occam's razor, a.k.a. the Principle or Parsimony, or KIS: favor the simplest explanation that is consistent with the facts.
Or from a different perspective: favor a neutral position or null hypotheses like there are no significant difference in DR between MF and 35mm digital unless there is evidence that contradicts it.
The one central observational fact offered in the essay is that people can tell the difference between DMF over 35mm format digital when they view sufficiently large prints; specifically, larger than 20"x16" [corrected], which means that current 35mm files are being displayed at less than 250PPI [corrected] when cropped to that shape.
The simplest explanation that comes to mind is greater spatial detail (or resolution or sharpness or whatever).
That is, the larger images delivered by the MF lenses have more detail (more "lines per picture height", achievable even with equal or slightly less "lines per mm" thanks to the larger size of the image formed on the larger sensor) and the higher pixel count MF sensors can record more spatial detail, so putting it all together gives more spatial detail in the files, and on the prints. On the second part of sensor resolution, it has been shown that sharp eyes can see the difference between 250PPI prints and higher PPI prints, when dealing with Bayer CFA sensors.
This proposed explanation is minimal in that it really relies only on a clear, measured, uncontroversial difference (pixel counts and measured sensor resolution in lines per picture height), and also has the virtue of explaining the other half implied by the claim, that differences are less visible or not visible at all in smaller prints.
I do not see any reason to introduce any hypothesis about dynamic range differences in order to explain the phenomenon mentioned by Anonymous. Dare I mention that the visibility of dynamic range differences should not be affected so much by print size? And I am glad that no-one has talked about "micro-contrast" yet!
So I see nothing in the Anonymous essay that leads me to reject the null hypotheses stated above about DR differences.
By the way, I do see elsewhere evidence pointing to some DR advantage for MF over 35mm format in equal sized prints of base ISO images, due to the measurements I have seen of higher per pixel S/N ratio at base ISO for the FF CCD's of MF, and the ditherering effect of printing at higher PPI on perceived DR. And MF might have other advantages, like lower lens aberrations due to working at a less low f-stop to get a given DOF. But I am only discussing the evidence raised in the essay.
I suspect that in a blind test, most people will pick the image with the highest resolution. In other words a 35mm format stitched image would be preferred over an MF image if it had a higher resolution. The G10 test, even though skewed to show the G10 at its best, showed that a smaller sensored camera can equal the MF sensor in some cases. A stitching test will likely show a smaller sensor camera can also equal or better an MF camera in even more cases. It would be interesting to see if an HDR stitched image from a smaller sensor camera also can equal or better an MF camera.
-
Hi,
Yes we need to look at the whole imaging chain. Much can be improved in processing but much can also be destroyed.
Historically, it has always been the case that larger formats had advantages. This is certainly still the case as long as all other parameters are kept constant.
Some questions remain.
1) If we say that the cost of and advanced MFDB is ten times the cost of a FF DSLR (Canon 5DII or Sony Alpha 900) do we get ten times the quality or twice the quality?
2) If we opt for a lesser back, (not full frame 645, lower resolution) do we still have a significant benefit over an FF DSLR?
Now, having twice the quality for ten times the price is not necessarily a bad idea. If you go somewhere once in your life there would certainly be an incentive to come home with the best pictures.
I was once on Iceland with a first generation DSLR and a very good friend, I wish I had a better camera at that time. I can go back to Iceland, no problem, but not sure I can repeat the great trip and experience I had with my friend.
Also, I'm a bit surprised that "crop factor" is never discussed with MFDBs. MF photographers don't need wide angle lenses?
The way I see it:
- It's essential to learn our tools and make good use for them, that applies to all tools
- If you need an MFDB and can afford it, that's just fine
- If you want an MFDB and can afford it also fine, after all it's your money and your pleasure
Can an MFDB improve your picture taking skills? Probably! If you invest in something you have an incentive utilize it to optimum. A new and possibly more limited equipment is also a learning experience.
Best regards
Erik
Lenses have a lot to do with and so does post processing and printing. Maybe with DXO, and after following some advice on these forums I too can become a expert at shooting and getting high quality shots of paper targets. However, clients pay me to shoot other things....
-
A serious photographer does not need to know how much point DR have this or that.
He just need to know that it has enough, [...]
Ed Weston measured his exposures by gut feeling, while his friend Ansel Adams developed Zone System (which is just about knowing how many DR one can have BTW)...
It seems both approaches can yield good results, doesn't it?
-
Resolution, dynamic range, micro-contrast, all this stuff which of course is important (but mainly only to photographers, not the audience), all of this - has very little to do with the making of a great picture. Great light, great subject, and good composition are all far more fundamental qualities. Without those, all the resolution and DR in the world is not going to help you much.
In the museum here in Truro, we currently have an exhibition of James Ravillious' work (James was a brilliant photographer based in North Devon who documented a rural society in the process of change). The prints are mostly 20x16 ins, all B/W, and very beautiful. If I didn't know what format camera James used I would find it very hard to tell by looking at the prints, but when you look closely they are actually quite soft. Does this matter? Not at all. As a photographer I am even more amazed by his printing because the tonal qualities are quite exceptional. Am I thinking about DR, resolution or micro-contrast when I am looking at the exhibition? Well, I could be I suppose, but in practice I am drawn in by the light and the subjects. I have a lovely book of Edward Weston's work, and oddly enough I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what equipment he used - it really is of no importance, either.
John
-
Resolution, dynamic range, micro-contrast, all this stuff which of course is important (but mainly only to photographers, not the audience), all of this - has very little to do with the making of a great picture. Great light, great subject, and good composition are all far more fundamental qualities. Without those, all the resolution and DR in the world is not going to help you much.
In the museum here in Truro, we currently have an exhibition of James Ravillious' work (James was a brilliant photographer based in North Devon who documented a rural society in the process of change). The prints are mostly 20x16 ins, all B/W, and very beautiful. If I didn't know what format camera James used I would find it very hard to tell by looking at the prints, but when you look closely they are actually quite soft. Does this matter? Not at all. As a photographer I am even more amazed by his printing because the tonal qualities are quite exceptional. Am I thinking about DR, resolution or micro-contrast when I am looking at the exhibition? Well, I could be I suppose, but in practice I am drawn in by the light and the subjects. I have a lovely book of Edward Weston's work, and oddly enough I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what equipment he used - it really is of no importance, either.
John
Yes, but he chose 'old' uncoated Leica lenses precisely because of the look that they gave his pictures; that it was his olde M that allowed him to get what he did is a moot point - we never can ask him now and I would suggest that personality had far more to do with the look of his work than did hardware.
It's odd that so many war photographers started with Ms and then moved to Nikon even though they didn't seem to stand any further away from the action... I read somewhere that they shifted over because of better contrast from the Japanese lenses which, in turn, led to better results on paper. Yet, at the same time, I was always taught that too much contrast effs a pic for press since you can always add contrast but not remove it successfully.
In photography, nothing, believe it or not, is completely black and white all the time - there are always sly ways out of any stance.
;- )
Rob C
-
Rob,
Is this your way of stating that you'd rather buy a new car than an MFDB system?
Well yes and no, Ray. I don't want to buy a new car any more than I do another camera of any kind. I feel I have spent far more on photography since I retired from it than I should have done. The reward for all that expense has been very small, even in satisfaction terms. It seems to me that photography is some kind of curse - an addiction worse than cigarettes, which I dumped relatively easily. For some strange reason I can't seem to get out of the photographic mindset, even now when I realise that it will for ever cost me more than it will return to me. In this life, at any rate.
Regarding the car, each time I get steeled up to changing it, the pound collapses again and I laugh all the way from the showroom and back home. Alternatively, I wander out to the carpark and glance down at all those multi-coloured vertical stripes that grace both sides and I think once more of the careful drivers and passengers that are all around me, either driving or parked. Another incentive to buying something new is the beautiful, gratuitous artwork that comes from the Spanish garage mechanics: they wear overalls that have a huge zipper up the front. Since they never learned to cover the front wings with blankets, you can guess the rest.
Today is a good day.
Rob C
-
Yes, but he chose 'old' uncoated Leica lenses precisely because of the look that they gave his pictures; that it was his olde M that allowed him to get what he did is a moot point - we never can ask him now and I would suggest that personality had far more to do with the look of his work than did hardware.
Yes, Rob, James himself may have been quite hung up on hardware (as most photographers seem to be, myself included) - but my point was that this does not concern us at all now, just looking at his pictures. I love the look of his photographs, but although I am tempted, I shall not be rushing out to get a Leica M3 and some of the old silver lenses in the hope that they will somehow turn me into a great photographer.
John
-
We all have eyes and a brain. The best advice I have is to use those tools and make your own decisions. If I can or can't see the difference in a lens, printer, sensor, monitor, etc etc etc that is the only information I need. Mr. "A" telling me that study X proves the product Y is better than product T is a moot point if I can't see it. Trust yourselves. Generally speaking that will provide you with the only answer you need.
Hello Gary,
The quality of the images on your website well underscores the basic point you are making here. By and large I agree with you. I can read and hear any amount of explanation about why X is better than Y, but in the final analysis when I see X and Y reproduced at their potential, what I've seen is determinative.
This of course is a different point from that being made by some that knowing and understanding the technology (at some level) is secondary to just making good photographs. That variant I do not agree with, because photography is a marriage of technology and vision. Depending on one's vision and the kind of photographs one wishes to make, understanding the technical limitations and potential of the equipment is important, (and I'll say in brackets that despite all the quibbling and nitpicking surrounding each of these articles comparing equipment, that is one of the fundamental contributions which this website makes to the photographic community - let us not lose sight of its value).
Here one needs to draw a line between cost and capability. I think it makes most sense to understand capability and quality first, then consider the cost. It is very clear to me that there is no proportionate relationship between incremental cost and incremental capability between say a 30K MFDB system and a 10K DSLR system. The former costs 3x the latter, but however measured I think it very unlikely one will derive 3x the DR or 3x the resolution. It simply doesn't work that way. For reasons totally independent of outcomes (i.e. measured specs), the unit cost of designing/producing/marketing/supporting these high-end MF systems seems to be much higher than that of DSLRs. Whether the price difference is worthwhile depends on the taste of the photographer and the kinds of images he/she will be making.
But now Pentax is introducing a new variable to the discussion - an MF camera roughly at high-end DSLR pricing. We have yet to see exactly how that will impact the price/quality/features discussion.
-
I suspect that in a blind test, most people will pick the image with the highest resolution. ... A stitching test will likely show a smaller sensor camera can also equal or better an MF camera in even more cases. It would be interesting to see if an HDR stitched image from a smaller sensor camera also can equal or better an MF camera.
Interesting questions, and one occurred to me after I posted:
why did some people choose medium format over 35mm format for film cameras, where the same emulsions were used, which is equivalent to using sensors with identical "per pixel" characteristics and just having more of them in the larger format? Why do people see differences between 35mm film and MF film images on sufficiently large prints when the same film was used in each case?
My conjecture is primarily more and finer detail recorded by the film, and then thanks to using a lower degree of enlargement to get the same print size improved DR, fineness of tonal gradations, fineness of grain and so on, thanks to the greater "dithering" effect of that lower degree of enlargement.
I see no reason to blame any inferiority of prints from smaller format SLRs on sensor choice, especially since SLR makers could probably have Kodak or Dalsa CCDs if they wanted them (remember the Contax N digital with its Philips/Dalsa CCD, and the early Olympus 4/3 DSLRs with Kodak CCDs.)
-
1) If we say that the cost of and advanced MFDB is ten times the cost of a FF DSLR (Canon 5DII or Sony Alpha 900) do we get ten times the quality or twice the quality?
2) If we opt for a lesser back, (not full frame 645, lower resolution) do we still have a significant benefit over an FF DSLR?
Erik
Erik, based on what I've seen the answer to (1) is No, and the answer to (2) can be Yes, it depends. Take for example the Phase-1 P40+ and P65+ backs on a Phase 645-DF camera. The camera is configured so that the P65+ provides a 1:1 crop factor - i.e. no cropping. If you put a P40+ back on the same camera there is a 30% crop factor, so they provide a focus screen with a rectangular frame engraved in it showing the active image area for owners of the P40+. The backs are technically identical except that one has 40 MP and the other 60. Hence for any given PPI, up to the size limit of the P40 the image quality should be identical to that from the P65, all else equal. Of course not all else is equal, as the crop uses a smaller portion of the lens than a full-frame, but I'm not equipped to detect what difference that makes to edge and corner resolution for any of their lenses.
-
Hello Gary,
The quality of the images on your website well underscores the basic point you are making here. By and large I agree with you. I can read and hear any amount of explanation about why X is better than Y, but in the final analysis when I see X and Y reproduced at their potential, what I've seen is determinative.
This of course is a different point from that being made by some that knowing and understanding the technology (at some level) is secondary to just making good photographs. That variant I do not agree with, because photography is a marriage of technology and vision. Depending on one's vision and the kind of photographs one wishes to make, understanding the technical limitations and potential of the equipment is important, (and I'll say in brackets that despite all the quibbling and nitpicking surrounding each of these articles comparing equipment, that is one of the fundamental contributions which this website makes to the photographic community - let us not lose sight of its value).
Here one needs to draw a line between cost and capability. I think it makes most sense to understand capability and quality first, then consider the cost. It is very clear to me that there is no proportionate relationship between incremental cost and incremental capability between say a 30K MFDB system and a 10K DSLR system. The former costs 3x the latter, but however measured I think it very unlikely one will derive 3x the DR or 3x the resolution. It simply doesn't work that way. For reasons totally independent of outcomes (i.e. measured specs), the unit cost of designing/producing/marketing/supporting these high-end MF systems seems to be much higher than that of DSLRs. Whether the price difference is worthwhile depends on the taste of the photographer and the kinds of images he/she will be making.
But now Pentax is introducing a new variable to the discussion - an MF camera roughly at high-end DSLR pricing. We have yet to see exactly how that will impact the price/quality/features discussion.
Hi Gary,
You introduce (like most of the latest posts) some interesting points IMO.
What surprises me is that we are talking about profesional gear for profesional purposes. It means that these MFD are made and thought to get incomes in return of the investment made. In that sense, The cost of MFD system is absolutly normal for a profession. A carpenter for example, will need to invest more money in machines than a current photographer in his gear. We are talking more or less about the cost of a car and in any craft industry the cost of profesional machines are really much more expensive than the numbers a photographer is dealing with.
Now, if we are talking about amateur, it is obvious than MFD is reserved to the healphy amateur, or the very purist who is willing to spend all his money in such gear. MFD makes sense if you will have some advantages in return, if not it is just a mirage.
Now, don't you think that passion has always been like that? See these bikers, they spend all their money in tuning their Harley, I know some people who have spent much more in their bikes than a complete Phase system with P65...and they have no money back for their investment. So I do not get the point about the "crazy" prices we tend to beleive photography has.
Each one in his needs and with his possibilities.
When I could not afford Mamiya or Hasselblad in fine arts, I worked with a 150 euro Russian 6x6 and it did the job. It was much cheaper than my Nikon F3 but capable of reaching the sizes I needed that the F3 was not.
It is not really cost-capability but cost-efficiency. The russian gear was capable, it was just not efficient for a pro and then not a good investment compared to more expensive gear.
Regards,
Fred.
-
Here one needs to draw a line between cost and capability. I think it makes most sense to understand capability and quality first, then consider the cost. It is very clear to me that there is no proportionate relationship between incremental cost and incremental capability between say a 30K MFDB system and a 10K DSLR system. The former costs 3x the latter, but however measured I think it very unlikely one will derive 3x the DR or 3x the resolution. It simply doesn't work that way. For reasons totally independent of outcomes (i.e. measured specs), the unit cost of designing/producing/marketing/supporting these high-end MF systems seems to be much higher than that of DSLRs. Whether the price difference is worthwhile depends on the taste of the photographer and the kinds of images he/she will be making.
The ONLY relevant argument in favor of the system costing 3X as much, for a businessman, is whether or not it yields a significant increase in REVENUE to offset the additional investment. For the hobbiest who has tons of money to waste, it matters not what they choose.
Just an observation for what it's worth... The vast majority of professional photographers I know are mom-and-pop operations that may use humble equipment, have just barely big enough studios and work 80+ hours per week, but have or will be in business for 30+ years. Through the years, I've seen big operations come and go. It's very very hard to find many big commercial operations survive beyond five or ten years. They rise with a big client or two and fail when that big client fails. The biggest cause for business failure is two-fold: Failure to diversify the client base and too high of an expense basis. These "gold-plated" studio operations have a massive nut to make every month and when times are great you're eating steak and lobster, but in two months time you can lose it all.
The point is, if you want to convince the vast majority of professional photographers to buy the ultra-good MFDB, you've got to prove the worth through the potential of increased revenue. For most of us, we're hamstrung by our marketplace we work in and spending an extra $40,000 on a pair of MFDB cameras makes no sense whatsoever. On the rare occasion when what I have isn't enough for some commercial account, I can make a phone-call and have a rental MFDB system delivered the next morning and I pass 100% of this cost onto the client.
The entire imaging "system" of a MFDB camera is different than a DSLR camera. It's not just the sensor, but the lenses, the format, the processing chain and also the operating method. We know the image will look different in the final print, no question about that, but until we determine the specifics of what is causing the difference we'll blindly spend money without knowing why. It may be possible that to achieve that "MFDB Look", we just have to dig out our old Kodak 14N cameras that have been shelved for years. But then again, maybe not. Without testing, benchmarking and careful analysis we really don't have a clue what is behind the imaging differences.
It's the old high-noon, prints at 10 paces shoot-out.
Ken Norton
www.zone-10.com
-
What surprises me is that we are talking about profesional gear for profesional purposes. It means that these MFD are made and thought to get incomes in return of the investment made. In that sense, The cost of MFD system is absolutly normal for a profession.
I thought we were talking about how different cameras work and the differences - real and imaginary - between them.
-
Depending on one's vision and the kind of photographs one wishes to make, understanding the technical limitations and potential of the equipment is important.
The former costs 3x the latter, but however measured I think it very unlikely one will derive 3x the DR or 3x the resolution. It simply doesn't work that way.
Mark,
Sorry to disagree but I am with Gary. The longer I shoot the less I rely on technical anything it all becomes second nature and the results in a professional environment must be guaranteed or the client goes elsewhere. Eliminating variables and pitfalls that can affect quality is important but certainly a background issue. The primary focus is producing the best result in a given situation.
This whole idea of 3x cost needing to be justified is another fallacy. The reality is many MF systems are purchased for business reasons. It is highly likely that when one factors in tax savings the true cost is more like 2x (yes you can buy another DSLR but if you already have a brace and a dozen primes what would be the point) and a MF system provides another capability entirely.
It is also likely given the reality of clients that purchasing a MF system will result in a significant increase in income. The truth is the big boys want big files for many reasons some rational, and some stylistic. When you start thinking in terms of mid to high five figure budgets just a few of those type projects make the business decision to buy a P65+ much easier to swallow.
Finally, the choice is up to the individual so trying to rationalize why someone else buys something is folly as far as I am concerned.
I do shoot both types of systems and each has it's place and value. My studio is better and more successful because I have both options at my disposal.
I say shoot what you like and worry about making great pictures. I know that has always been enough for me.
-
I thought we were talking about how different cameras work and the differences - real and imaginary - between them.
Jeremy,
I assume now that you have a personal repulsion with me or my posts, because you would have noticed that my last post was in response to others that also have deviated from the main subject (and are free to do so), as it happens normaly in the forum, and as if the subject belongs to you but that is another story. If you targeted me is just because you do not like at all my positions, and it's fine, no problem with that, I did noticed so far that you are very very selective to choose your target. Maybe in a bad day?
But if you are going to hate me, let me at least first explains you a little more about the reasons of my position, then you'll keep going hating me as you want
First of all, in that all topic about this famous DR heresy, english is not my native language and I unfortunately do not have all the vovabulary I would like to express some ideas without mistakes. I just do my best with what I have.
Some of my points have been completly misunderstood and I just blame my lack of precision in my english writing, not the posters. So I will try to clear them here.
The first time I saw the Mark's article, when come to this famous DR differences and 10 meters distance, the first thing I thought in my head was: "he exagerates a little bit no?".
From how much? could not tell, but yes I could tell there was an exageration in mumbers that I took or understood as a way to express "clear difference". I did agree with clear differences, certainly not in the real numbers as many expressed here.
So why did I blindness defend Mark ?
Because when I started to read the thread posts, I really found that the tone and extreme passion that has emerged from this "mistake" was by far even more disproportionate that the article in itself. I decided to defend Mark's position not even knowing if it was scientificly right or wrong and for how much. Yes I did it! And I'll do it again for sure. The exact numbers seemed to me meaningless in front of the overall tone of many pretentious repplies.
You acused me so to be blind and follow Michael's position even when he's "wrong", but at that time as was defending Mark's article, Michael was not yet involved, and the fact that he joined Mark's position in an editorial letter, then here we go. He could have been Michael or anyone else. My point was that I was in strong disagreement with the tone, sometimes even agressive answers and personal attacks to them, independently if the posters where right or wrong. Actually nobody is more advanced.
If you think that I follow any kind of Michael's statement, let me tell you that you are completly wrong. Michael is not god, (or yes we all are gods) but yes I respect him as a knowledgable profesional and I have good reasons for that, and I certainly respect more his statements than the DoX ones, that's true!
That is perfectly true, I do not like DxO very much as you know, or more exactly, I do not like the way it is used and abused everytime these topics show up. Now, I can of course be in strong disagreement with him, there are actually subjects where I am totally opposed to Michael's thoughts (MFT is one), but disagreements in a gentleman and constructive way and manners, and the heresy topic IMO had lost completely the measure, it was not a gentleman discution any more, it was not fun. And when you loose fun, it's not good.
So, in my position, I ve been trying to express that the ones who where claiming exageration, where precicely the one's who falled into extreme passion, agresivity and sometimes even depreciation: we want Mark and Michael's head, you know like in the french revolution: let's cut heads...
I did it with cynism? yes I probably did it makes me improve my english...
As I told you, I disagree with Michael a lot as well: His choice for a BMW for example. I would have kept the Lambo for sure!
You are free of course to think what you want and makes you confortable.
Now you can hate me as much as you want, I'll always keep manners and respect with you anyway.
Regards,
Fred.
Ps: I saw Jeremy's film works and they have truly moved me. In fact, photography, art, is the very best terrain where differences are pointless and where we finaly all meet. And that is good indeed.
-
Mark,
Sorry to disagree but I am with Gary. The longer I shoot the less I rely on technical anything it all becomes second nature and the results in a professional environment must be guaranteed or the client goes elsewhere. Eliminating variables and pitfalls that can affect quality is important but certainly a background issue. The primary focus is producing the best result in a given situation.
The reality is many MF systems are purchased for business reasons.
Finally, the choice is up to the individual so trying to rationalize why someone else buys something is folly as far as I am concerned.
I don't know who or what you are disagreeing with because I too agree with Gary's point.
If "eliminating variables and pitfalls that can affect quality is important" and you rely on your knowledge and the use of technology to do that, it cannot be a background issue - it is part of the art and craft of photography. Vision and technology both underly "the best result". There is no escaping this. And if I'm going to "worry about making great pictures" I also need to think about what I'm making them with.
I've made the point that what people buy depends on their needs and taste, so I don't know who the "folly" in your comment is addressed to. It is also a reality that many MF systems are NOT sold for "business reasons". Professionals and amateurs buy these systems for a number of reasons, some related to income potential, but ohers not.
-
I would have to argue that drinking a few beers while on the internet is not only possable, but advisable.
Roman
-
I don't know who or what you are disagreeing with because I too agree with Gary's point.
If "eliminating variables and pitfalls that can affect quality is important" and you rely on your knowledge and the use of technology to do that, it cannot be a background issue - it is part of the art and craft of photography. Vision and technology both underly "the best result". There is no escaping this. And if I'm going to "worry about making great pictures" I also need to think about what I'm making them with.
I've made the point that what people buy depends on their needs and taste, so I don't know who the "folly" in your comment is addressed to. It is also a reality that many MF systems are NOT sold for "business reasons". Professionals and amateurs buy these systems for a number of reasons, some related to income potential, but ohers not.
Mark,
You clearly stated that you disagree with the position that understanding the technology is secondary to making Photos. I say it is secondary or even tertiary.
The only time technology is an issue is when it does not work. Even then, there are people to fix that and let me know when shooting can resume. So yes it most definitely is all the way in the background as long as things are going well.
I was merely pointing out that cost is relative and many, but not all, have derived 3x, maybe even 5x the income from owning a MF system.
-
I would have to argue that drinking a few beers while on the internet is not only possable, but advisable.
Roman
Indeed! That is exactly what I'm doing now
Fred.
-
Indeed! That is exactly what I'm doing now
Fred.
Then Madrid must be much warmer than Mallorca: I am freezing and the wood burner is burning wood and the electric thing is doing electricity, but apart from ever higher GESA bills, which will get even higher when IVA goes up, I am still damn cold. The thought of a beer is positively masochistic!
Ciao
Rob C
-
Then Madrid must be much warmer than Mallorca: I am freezing and the wood burner is burning wood and the electric thing is doing electricity, but apart from ever higher GESA bills, which will get even higher when IVA goes up, I am still damn cold. The thought of a beer is positively masochistic!
Ciao
Rob C
Hi Rob,
After the more than horrible winter we had in Madrid so far, yes, 2 days of sun and decent temperatures, I took my cofee on a terrasse today thinking why I'm not in the warm everglades that describes so well Claire, throwing jamon ibérico to the crocodiles while I'm drinking lazily my beer with the brand new sunglasses that are useless so far, watching careless the back of my P65 while my assistant is looking for sandwiches ; and today tobaco has increased taxes in reminder of the next IVA boost...thinking why I'm paying 1500euros each months for my 200m2 flat, knowing that I'm lucky but non stop higher bills, harder works for less incomes...mmm...a move is on the air Rob.
Cheers,
Fred.
Oh, and did I mentionned the last inteligent Gallardon's 180 euros taxes for city rubbish? Keep Marllorca Rob, good weather is coming soon.