Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Ray on October 09, 2010, 04:13:22 am
-
Let's have a look at the latest article in 'What's New' from James Martin.
This is an interesting description of the conflict between the seduction of a 'potentially more realistic image' and the practical realities of inflexibility and additional cost and weight of the MFDB system.
James Martin's title suggests that MFDB is more flexible than it's sometimes made out to be.
I would contest this view. I think there's no doubt that a larger sensor delivers better image quality, all else being equal. That's a given. But let's not kid ourselves as to its flexibility.
Full frame 35mm compared with the cropped format does at least retain, or even exceed, the flexibility of the smaller format. It exceeds it with respect to autofocussing at F8, for example. It may exceed it with respect to frame rate, for example.
The issue with MFDB is not that the quality at base ISO is not better than 35mm. It clearly is. The issue is that the MFDB system is cumbersome, heavy, lacks flexibility with regard to frame rates, liveview, high-iso performance, Dof, weight, and perhaps most important of all, cost.
Let's look at a few revealing examples from James Martin's article.
I concede that the equipment is relatively slow to operate and heavy enough that I canceled my gym membership while setting up a payment plan with my chiropractor, but whatever the challenges, the seductive resolution of the images I nail compels me to pack it every time.
Clearly, the message here is, the ultimate image quality transcends all. Never mind if you miss the moment because your equipment is inflexible. Those moments I capture make up for all the lost opportunities.
With immobile objects such as a grove of baobab trees or the tangle of the spiny forest, there wasn’t much difference between the Phase system and a 35mm rig, but animals were more challenging.
Really! With immobile objects there wasn't much difference between a Phase system and a 35mm rig?? I can't understand that. This is the precise situation where the MFDB reigns supreme. Low base ISO, slow shutter speed, tripod to eliminate camera shake, all contribute to a noticeably superior image quality with MFDB.
There was no way to capture skipping sifaka lemurs using autofocus; the system was too slow. Super telephotos are absurdly heavy, and mirror slap would blur the image at slower shutter speeds. I had to go old school, getting close and either focusing manually or, anticipating where the animal would go, focus on that spot and wait for the critical moment. I was back in 1990, but the old techniques still worked.
Is the message here, 'let's go back to old school and spurn the advantages of modern technology'? If you are in a position where you are photographing skipping lemurs, I concede it might be possible to get a spectacular shot using an MFDB, but I reckon a 35mm DSLR improves your chances.
For street photography, instead of snapping surreptitiously, I commandeered someone’s time, stood unmoving for so long they forgot about the tall guy with the tripod, or endured the jostle and press of the throngs long enough to capture a few moments.
Okay! So it is possible to do street photography with an MFDB, with difficulty. I'm not sure I have the time and patrience to stand in a position so long that people forget I'm there.
I don’t want to over sell the opportunities. There are times when the returns diminish to the vanishing point. Try to photograph a gazelle with a super telephoto, two tripods, and mirror lock up, and you will quickly exhaust your store of oaths and imprecations as your compatriots fill their cards with crisp images. After dusk, medium format street shooters hit the bars, but not to photograph unless they crave blurs and noise. Nothing does everything well.
I completley agree. Let's also consider the spectacular image of the Indian Sadhu with flowing long hair (much longer than mine. I'm envious). Even in such a small jpeg, the lack of resolution due to the lack of DoF in the lower half of the image is obvious. You take a shot of a Sadhu with spectacularly long hair, spilling out on the floor in front of you, but the hair is mostly out of focus and that's supposed to be good? C'mon! Let's get back to reality.
After coming to grips with issues great and small confronting medium format, I can’t go back to small sensors when medium format will do. When I zoom into an image and it holds together at each step, there’s a thrill I can’t relinquish.
Fair enough! But I think the key phrase here is, "I can't go back to small sensors when medium format will do". This applies to all of us, I suspect, whatever the range of formats we have. I've bought P&S cameras in the past, then got tired of them because image quality is so lousy compared with DSLRs. I always prefer to use FF 35mm instead of cropped format, except in circumstances where the effective longer reach of lenses, and the associated reduction in weight and cost, is an advantage. Consider the difference in cost and weight betweeen a 400/F4 and a 600/F4.
The fundamental issue for me is, when I move from an APS-C format to a FF 35mm format, I get a camera which is only marginally heavier, not significantly more expensive, and no less flexible in any respect, but actually slightly more flexible in some respects.
The move from FF 35mm to MFDB seems fraught with difficulty and enormous expense, in addition to a loss of flexibility as a bonus. Not particularly appealing in my opinion.
I hope I'm not offending anyone. I just think we should call a spade a spade.
-
"I hope I'm not offending anyone. I just think we should call a spade a spade."
Or even a shovel, if it takes your fancy.
I also read the article - just before this post of yours, Ray, and can only agree with the conclusions you reached which, to me, seem to be that if one is determined, then a very difficult route can sometimes be rewarded, but don't hold your breath. A bit like facing the world with your arm in a sling, then.
I would suggest anyone wondering about mobility take a look at the link Fred posted to the Lindberg film, of which I can't remember the thread, as I write, but if you like to see a top pro doing his stuff, it pretty much says all there is to be said.
What happened to the old belief (and logic) in horses for courses?
Rob C
-
I hope I'm not offending boring anyone
-
you have some interesting thoughts.. and i understand what you are about to say.
in my case i used to work with medium format film cameras in the past and i switched over to a canon full frame camera.
there is no doubt that raw files of high end canon and nikon cameras offer superb quality.
but in my case i recognized that i`m not a 35mm camera user. means shooting with mf is completely different. it feels different, in some way better even when you look through the finder. this is something subjective and i cannot proof that in a technical or physical way.
i think guys who worked in the past on mf or 4x5 are now better equipped with a digital medium format system and guys who worked on 35mm film (shooting events, reportage) are better with a canon or nikon camera.
-
i think guys who worked in the past on mf or 4x5 are now better equipped with a digital medium format system and guys who worked on 35mm film (shooting events, reportage) are better with a canon or nikon camera.
I used to shoot with 4x5 inch cameras doing architecture .But now the quality of a Nikon D3x with the new PCE tilt/shift lenses is so good - combined with the lighter weight and perfect focus- I would never go back.
It is the most flexible - creative system.
The focussing screen is even good enough to use tilt - and with liveview you can even use tilt at d2,8 and focus correctly.
I think the 24PCE could be a little better in the corners but the 45mm and the 85mm do 25MP with no problem.
If i need more pixels i stich to 45MP
-
If all cameras where the same price and offered the same social status, then what people would really use would be apparent. But with all the physiological and marketing segmentation each series offers... well, some cameras just feel better than others.
:)
-
I know Jim (James) personally, and may have helped to catalyze his transition to medium format. I say this to illustrate that I, too, am a fan of what can be achieved with medium format.
Despite this, I find myself generally in agreement with the points Ray raises about the article--there is definitely a cost (beyond the financial) to shooting MF; with perseverance, there will be a reward in terms of exceptional output, but one should not discount the additional time, effort, missed shots, additional weight, loss of speed (in all senses), et. al one will most definitely incur working in this medium.
I also agree that the statement that medium is 'no better than 35mm' for stationary subjects is puzzling.
Perhaps if Jim gets a moment he will be able to weigh in on a couple of these points...
Best regards,
-Brad
-
I also agree that the statement that medium is 'no better than 35mm' for stationary subjects is puzzling.
From my reading of it that paragraph was about usability and the ability to capture the desired image, not about image quality.
Meaning:
"With immobile objects such as a grove of baobab trees or the tangle of the spiny forest, there wasn’t much difference [in ease and practicality of use] between the Phase system and a 35mm rig, but animals were more challenging [regarding ease and practicality of use]."
(bracketed words inserted by me)
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ("doug@captureintegration.com")
__________________
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://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/")
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
Personal Work (http://"http://www.doug-peterson.com/")
-
you have some interesting thoughts.. and i understand what you are about to say.
in my case i used to work with medium format film cameras in the past and i switched over to a canon full frame camera.
there is no doubt that raw files of high end canon and nikon cameras offer superb quality.
but in my case i recognized that i`m not a 35mm camera user. means shooting with mf is completely different. it feels different, in some way better even when you look through the finder. this is something subjective and i cannot proof that in a technical or physical way.
i think guys who worked in the past on mf or 4x5 are now better equipped with a digital medium format system and guys who worked on 35mm film (shooting events, reportage) are better with a canon or nikon camera.
I used to work with 35mm and 6x6; I then changed the 6x6 for 6x7. Mistake (for me). But there is no doubt that using the 35mm or 6x6 turned you into a different photographer: not better, not worse, just different. However, 35mm spelled freedom; 6x6 spelled slow but larger blow-up. It was basically as simple as that - in the studio - but outdoors, 35mm was king from the comfort point of view of the work, just as long as you didn't want to use flash very much..
Rob C
-
Welome to Photoraphy .
There are indeed different camera systems, which are being used for different things .
To discuss such basics, there are fora like dpreview.com .
-
Wait for it folks, any moment soon: Fritzer's guided tour to the Universe!
;-)
Rob C
-
"With immobile objects such as a grove of baobab trees or the tangle of the spiny forest, there wasn’t much difference [in ease and practicality of use] between the Phase system and a 35mm rig, but animals were more challenging [regarding ease and practicality of use]."
(bracketed words inserted by me)
Thanks, Doug.
Ah, with that interpretation, it makes much more sense. I'd initially read it the same way Ray did, but this interpretation makes much more sense.
-
Wait for it folks, any moment soon: Fritzer's guided tour to the Universe!
;-)
Rob C
Give me a monent ... ;)
-
The move from FF 35mm to MFDB seems fraught with difficulty and enormous expense, in addition to a loss of flexibility as a bonus. Not particularly appealing in my opinion.
And that's your opinion...
I guess you don't know Jim do ya? If you did you would realize that image quality is very, very important to him. It is for that reason that Jim shoots medium format. The thing I found interesting in the article (and his wonderful work when you consider the real IQ not just a few small JPEGS on the web) is that Jim gets great shots, with enormous image quality because he's shooting medium format digital, shooting subjects and in circumstances most people would not even try to shoot with medium format–which was the thrust of the article in the first place.
If IQ is important to you, you do what you need to do to capture the quality you are looking for. In the old days, it was carrying large format view cameras and glass plates...these days life is considerably easier. The kit required for shooting medium format can be easily carried (relatively speaking) in a backpack with a tripod. Yes, it's heavier than a similar DSLR kit (and more expensive). Is it worth it? To you, maybe not...to Jim it is. Does that make him a bad person? No...it make him a dedicated, hardworking professional. What are you?
After finally moving to medium format (P-65+) last year, I've struggled with the question of what to take to a shoot. Sometimes I take my Canon _AND_ my Phase One kit, sometimes only one or the other. More often, I take the Phase kit for the serious stuff and a Canon S90 for snaps and leave the 1Ds MIII at home.
There are times when the mobility and flexibility of a DSLR camera vs the slower, plodding medium format back would be the difference between getting the shot and not getting it. I don't think anything Jim wrote indicated that he would ignore that reality and plod along with medium format regardless (he's not that inflexible). I saw him shooting with both a Phase One and Canon 1DS MII in Iceland-using the camera that was appropriate for the subject.
The point of the article was to encourage people to push the envelope...don't automatically assume that you must use DSLR instead of a medium format camera because it's "easier".
BTW, what Jim didn't show in the article was a lot of mountain climbing shots he's done using medium format while hanging off the cliff and still getting the shot with medium format. He admits now that he's getting a bit old for that sort of stuff...but if you are setting up a DSLR on a tripod to do a shot and get max IQ, what's the difference between shooting it with a DSLR and medium format? Not much assuming you were willing to make the extra effort and carry the weight...the end results, when shooting medium format will be superior, right? So, Jim says sometimes it's worth the extra effort...
-
From my reading of it that paragraph was about usability and the ability to capture the desired image, not about image quality.
Meaning:
"With immobile objects such as a grove of baobab trees or the tangle of the spiny forest, there wasn’t much difference [in ease and practicality of use] between the Phase system and a 35mm rig, but animals were more challenging [regarding ease and practicality of use]."
(bracketed words inserted by me)
Doug, I agree that must be the interpretation. However, for me, even with stationary landscapes, I would find a camera with a low base ISO, a shallow DoF and no image stabilisation less convenient to use.
All my DSLRs, until I bought a D700, have had a base ISO of 100 which, in conjunction with an image-stabilised lens, is usually sufficient for shooting still landscapes without tripod, in most circumstances, (almost) whatever the DoF requirement and whatever the lighting conditions.
Using the D700 with a base ISO of 200 is a real joy in this respect. Even on a dull day when I want the maximum DoF without seriously compromising image sharpness (say F16) I may not need to increase ISO to get a sufficiently fast shutter speed for a hand-held shot.
When I contemplate the disadvantages of the MF system in this respect, I get the impression the MFDB system would have to be permanently glued to a tripod.
Consider those 3 disadvantages added together.
Base ISO of 50 + bigger f stop number required for same DoF as 35mm + no image stabilisation = mandatory tripod.
-
finally you got it: MFD is only for real men
-
Doug, I agree that must be the interpretation. However, for me, even with stationary landscapes, I would find a camera with a low base ISO, a shallow DoF and no image stabilisation less convenient to use.
All my DSLRs, until I bought a D700, have had a base ISO of 100 which, in conjunction with an image-stabilised lens, is usually sufficient for shooting still landscapes without tripod, in most circumstances, (almost) whatever the DoF requirement and whatever the lighting conditions.
Using the D700 with a base ISO of 200 is a real joy in this respect. Even on a dull day when I want the maximum DoF without seriously compromising image sharpness (say F16) I may not need to increase ISO to get a sufficiently fast shutter speed for a hand-held shot.
When I contemplate the disadvantages of the MF system in this respect, I get the impression the MFDB system would have to be permanently glued to a tripod.
Consider those 3 disadvantages added together.
Base ISO of 50 + bigger f stop number required for same DoF as 35mm + no image stabilisation = mandatory tripod.
True, However Consider these 3 DSLR disadvantages added together
(D700) base iso of 200, 14bit file, Less dynamic range, smaller format = lower quality image, smaller print
This Jim fellow seems all about image quality which is not always the most convenient. it just depends what is most important to you !
-
Welome to Photoraphy .
There are indeed different camera systems, which are being used for different things .
To discuss such basics, there are fora like dpreview.com .
basics.. indeed
-
And that's your opinion...
It certainly is. Any objection, Jeff, to my expressing an opinion? :)
If IQ is important to you, you do what you need to do to capture the quality you are looking for. In the old days, it was carrying large format view cameras and glass plates...these days life is considerably easier. The kit required for shooting medium format can be easily carried (relatively speaking) in a backpack with a tripod. Yes, it's heavier than a similar DSLR kit (and more expensive). Is it worth it? To you, maybe not...to Jim it is. Does that make him a bad person? No...it make him a dedicated, hardworking professional. What are you?
Did I say, or even imply, that Jim is a bad person? What are you on about, Jeff? What am I? I'm a nice person too.
After finally moving to medium format (P-65+) last year, I've struggled with the question of what to take to a shoot. Sometimes I take my Canon _AND_ my Phase One kit, sometimes only one or the other. More often, I take the Phase kit for the serious stuff and a Canon S90 for snaps and leave the 1Ds MIII at home.
I'm not surprised. The weight of a P65+ system plus lenses plus sturdy tripod would make it very impractical to carry the additional weight of a 1Ds3. Carrying just two 35mm DSLRs creates a conflict for me. I like my D700 with 14-24/2.8 lens, but I also like my 5D with 24-105/F4 and my 50D with EF-S 17-55/2.8, not to mention my 100-400 IS zoom.
The point of the article was to encourage people to push the envelope...don't automatically assume that you must use DSLR instead of a medium format camera because it's "easier".
Do you think I'm making assumptions? I thought all my points were based on fact. It is true that MFDB systems are heavier than 35mm systems, and lack image stabilisation, and have shallower DoF at the same F stop, and have a slower base ISO, and suffer a greater loss of image quality at high ISO, and require the additional weight of a heavier tripod which is required to be used almost all the time, or certainly more frequently, is it not?
BTW, what Jim didn't show in the article was a lot of mountain climbing shots he's done using medium format while hanging off the cliff and still getting the shot with medium format. He admits now that he's getting a bit old for that sort of stuff...
Sensible guy. I've also had the experience of trudging up mountains in the dark to catch the dawn, carrying camera gear and tripod, then stuffing around trying to get the tripod on a solid base in the grass whilst the dawn gradually slips away. Progress for me is being able to get equally good results without tripod and sometimes better results because there's less chance I will miss the moment.
I've recently been doing some tests stitching hand-held shots from my old Canon 24 TS-E using shift. They stitch perfectly in CS3 or CS5. No tripod required. I can't believe it's taken me so long to realise this. The implications are clear. If the subject is stationary and you need a really high resolution image, then use a 1Ds3 or 5D2 with one of the excellent 17mm, 24mm or 90mm TS-E lenses and stitch the shifted images.
but if you are setting up a DSLR on a tripod to do a shot and get max IQ, what's the difference between shooting it with a DSLR and medium format? Not much assuming you were willing to make the extra effort and carry the weight...the end results, when shooting medium format will be superior, right? So, Jim says sometimes it's worth the extra effort...
Not necessairly. If the DoF required is so great that you need a tripod even with a DSLR, then the faster frame rate of most 35mm cameras may be useful for bracketing exposure in order to exceed the DR of the MFDB system, or again, if there's any movement at all in the scene which you want to freeze (such as tall grass swaying in the breeze) and you need an extensive DoF, you may have to compromise on the MFDB image quality by either raising ISO or settling for a shallower DoF than you really desire.
I'll always remember Michael's comparison between the P45+ and the P&S G10 at A3+ print size. There was no discernible difference except the P45 shot had a noticeably shallower DoF. To equalize the DoF, the P45+ should probably have been used at F22 instead of F11. I wonder if the G10 shot would then have appeared sharper.
In my experience, F22 is the point where lenses become almost totally diffraction limited. At F8 they begin to be very slightly diffraction limited. At F11 diffraction is a bit more noticeable. At F16 diffraction effects are still only moderate, but F22 is the point where images tend to be noticeably very soft, at least with 35mm.
Perhaps F22 is more usuable with MF. Is this true Jeff? I'm always willing to learn. :)
Cheers!
-
I've recently been doing some tests stitching hand-held shots from my old Canon 24 TS-E using shift. They stitch perfectly in CS3 or CS5. No tripod required. I can't believe it's taken me so long to realise this. The implications are clear. If the subject is stationary and you need a really high resolution image, then use a 1Ds3 or 5D2 with one of the excellent 17mm, 24mm or 90mm TS-E lenses and stitch the shifted images.
Or use a Phase One P65+ and stitch 7 or 8 60MP captures together...it all depends on what you are trying to achieve. Max image quality with stitched 60MP medium format captures is pretty impressive. It will beat the heck out of a DSLR...
Perhaps F22 is more usuable with MF. Is this true Jeff? I'm always willing to learn.
F22 with a medium format is better IQ than a DSLR at F22...again, depends on what you want. And note, deep depth of field is not ALWAYS desirable...the bokeh of a medium format capture at F2.8 or so is pretty nice...
So, Ray, do you shoot medium format? Are you talking from experience or a reluctance to buy/use medium format because of cost or convenience? If you don't have medium format experience then your opinion may have less relevance and your opinions are more likely an attempt at rationalizing your lack of medium format capability than being truely knowledgeable in your opinions of the limitations of medium format capture. Don't know...just asking...
-
I'm not surprised. The weight of a P65+ system plus lenses plus sturdy tripod would make it very impractical to carry the additional weight of a 1Ds3. Carrying just two 35mm DSLRs creates a conflict for me. I like my D700 with 14-24/2.8 lens, but I also like my 5D with 24-105/F4 and my 50D with EF-S 17-55/2.8, not to mention my 100-400 IS zoom.
Well, the conflict for me only boils down to which camera system to pack and carry...do I put the Phase One and P65+ with 28mm, 45mm 75-150mm and 300mm in my Sling bag 300 or the 1DS MII with a 16-35mm, 24-105mm and 70-200mm in a sling bag 200. The tripod would be the same, the Gitzo system 6 carbon fiber tripod. So it boils down to slightly less than 20lbs. for the 1Ds MIII system to about 35lbs for the Phase...depending on what I'm shooting, one wins out over the other. But the P65+ is winning more time than the 1Ds MIII since I have both because IQ is very important to me. If you don't have medium format, the choice is, of course, simpler.
-
Or use a Phase One P65+ and stitch 7 or 8 60MP captures together...it all depends on what you are trying to achieve. Max image quality with stitched 60MP medium format captures is pretty impressive. It will beat the heck out of a DSLR...
But why would you want to stitch 7 or 8 60mp captures together? Is there a printer big enough to make full use of so much detail? That would be a truly massive project. Not even a billboard requires that much detail. Are you seriously claiming that you find the 60mp of the P65+ sometimes inadequate for your purposes?
Stitching images has often been a pain because of parallax errors when the subject is close, and is something I would rather avoid doing if there's an easier alternative. Stuffing around with pano heads or even using an L bracket to shift the camera body in the opposite direction to the lens shift, is something I've painstakingly tried in the past. I've also wasted a lot of time trying to get perfect stitches of hand-held shots with standard lenses, so I'm now overjoyed I can use a TSE without tripod, for close subjects too, and get perfect stitches as easy as falling off a log.
I think you would probably agree that a stitch of 3 images with a TSE lens on a 1Ds3, with camera vertical, would provide as close as matters to the resolution and detail of a P65+, especially if one fills in a bit of sky or grass with 'context aware' instead of cropping. In fact, in some respects I think the stitched TSE image would be better with regard to edge distortion which gets pretty obvious with extreme wide-angle lenses. I don't believe a lens exists for the P65+ that could provide the angle of view of a stitch of 3 images from a Canon TSE 17mm. Am I right?
Now, if you need to go to the trouble of stitching images from your P65+ in order to get a sufficiently wide angle of view, wouldn't you prefer to uses a lighter set-up and make it easier for yourself, or do you see merit in producing images with unecessary trouble that are unnecessarily detailed for the intended print size?
So, Ray, do you shoot medium format? Are you talking from experience or a reluctance to buy/use medium format because of cost or convenience? If you don't have medium format experience then your opinion may have less relevance and your opinions are more likely an attempt at rationalizing your lack of medium format capability than being truely knowledgeable in your opinions of the limitations of medium format capture. Don't know...just asking...
Yes, Jeff. I was using MF film for some time before I bought my first DSLR, the Canon D60, and used to scan the negatives on the Nikon 8000 ED MF scanner which I bought for the purpose. I still have my Mamiya RB67 stored away with a few prime lenses ranging from 50mm to 300mm, and the much lighter Fuji GSW690 III rangefinder MF camera with fixed 50mm lens. I preferred the GSW690 despite it having a fixed lens, because it was much lighter and easier to handle than the Mamiya tank. As I recall, I avoided using F22.
-
MF sucks
DSLR sucks
I recently taked to a very good and high paid painter and according to him nothing beats a good horse brush.
It's a lot cheaper also.
-
MF sucks
DSLR sucks
I recently taked to a very good and high paid painter and according to him nothing beats a good horse brush.
It's a lot cheaper also.
I'm a painter too, Frank.
I paint (or draw) with light. It's called photography.
By the way, Frank, Caravaggio would have appreciated the chiaroscuro effect in many of your photos you've shown us on this forum. I couldn't help noticing the similarity. Well done! :)
-
I love the old masters.
-
Well, the conflict for me only boils down to which camera system to pack and carry...do I put the Phase One and P65+ with 28mm, 45mm 75-150mm and 300mm in my Sling bag 300 or the 1DS MII with a 16-35mm, 24-105mm and 70-200mm in a sling bag 200. The tripod would be the same, the Gitzo system 6 carbon fiber tripod. So it boils down to slightly less than 20lbs. for the 1Ds MIII system to about 35lbs for the Phase...depending on what I'm shooting, one wins out over the other. But the P65+ is winning more time than the 1Ds MIII since I have both because IQ is very important to me. If you don't have medium format, the choice is, of course, simpler.
If the choice is simpler it's because the total weight of carrying two systems is less. The difference in format size between the P65+ and full frame 35mm is about the same as the difference in format size between the Canon APS-C and FF 35mm.
Because of the lower total weight and the compatibility of lenses between the two Canon formats, it's much easier to throw in a 7D which will of course deliver sharper results with your 70-200 at 200mm when 200mm is not long enough with the 1Ds3.
It becomes more complicated, or at least as complicated as your situation, when the choice of an additional, but different brand of FF 35mm camera, may be desired, as in the D700 with 14-24/2.8 lens in addition to Canon gear.
When making such choices you really do have to consider the effective focal length of the lenses you intend to carry.
In your situation, you've deprived yourself of the flexibility of a couple of zoom lenses in the wide angle and telephoto range, by choosing the P65+ in preference to the 1Ds3. Now that's fine. It's your choice. You've sacrificed flexibility and lower weight for enhanced image quality. But let's not pretend there's no sacrifice.
-
I love the old masters.
So do I. I'm really pissed off that I didn't buy a 17mm TSE and 5D2 for my recent trip to Europe and Russia. I just assumed I wouldn't be allowed to photograph those marvelous works in the Russian Museum and the Hermitage in St Petersburg, not to mention the scores of churches and palaces containing amazing murals.
Of course, MFDB and the mandatory tripod, or flash, are definitely banned in such places. If you tried to use an MFDB without a tripod, the maximum ISO would not be sufficient to get a sharp result in the lighting conditions, so it would be a waste of time and effort.
-
Seriously...this is ridiculous...Ray you obviously love your Canon DSLR and I am sure it produces fine images, But we could start a thread "You cant do that with an 8 x 10" ......I mean every format has its strengths and weaknesses and situations where it shines, Your Canon DSLR is more portable than a MF system...great...but to pretend it equals a MF system in image quality is silly...A MFDB from 2004 will produce better files than any current DSLR - I know because I use both every day to earn a living - There is more to it than stitching together images to equal the resolution of a MFDB
Many of us use both systems, I have shot with my DSLR and thought damn i wish I had the MF, I have also shot with the MF and said "damn wish I had the 4 x 5".....had the 4 x5 ...wished I had the 8 x 10 - In my work rarely do I wish I had a smaller format, but I will use the proper tool for the job !
Well ...off to shoot the local game with my P2 and scan back ! cant beat the resolution ! :P ::)
Happy shooting !
-
Well, the conflict for me only boils down to which camera system to pack and carry...do I put the Phase One and P65+ with 28mm, 45mm 75-150mm and 300mm in my Sling bag 300 or the 1DS MII with a 16-35mm, 24-105mm and 70-200mm in a sling bag 200. The tripod would be the same, the Gitzo system 6 carbon fiber tripod. So it boils down to slightly less than 20lbs. for the 1Ds MIII system to about 35lbs for the Phase...depending on what I'm shooting, one wins out over the other. But the P65+ is winning more time than the 1Ds MIII since I have both because IQ is very important to me. If you don't have medium format, the choice is, of course, simpler.
Okay way off topic. Jeff you can get your Phase Kit in the Sling Bag 300. I'm using Think Tank Streetwalker Pro and maybe looking for a change basically same kit in size DF/Back 28,35,55LS,80LS and 150. Have to check one out.
Thanks and to add to the topic .
It's nothing to carry a MF kit anywhere, if you can't handle 35 lbs to go to work on your back than get a roller bag. Like Jeff i want the best image quality period and this just goes with the territory. If MF is what you chose to shoot you WILL find a way to get it done.
Back to the rerun topic. LOL
-
F22 with a medium format is better IQ than a DSLR at F22...again, depends on what you want.
In the same shot (with a shorter lens and same angle-of-view) you would not need f22 with ff 35mm.
The under-bonnet shot I posted the other day was @ f22, to get the DOF @ COC = 30 microns, and the Airy disc was also 30, so at the PoSF the pic was no sharper - it all looked sharp, as none of it was sharp.
I did do it with MF (without movements) ...but did I get a better picture than I could have done with FF 35mm? ...and a T/S lens?
...This was on a tripod with MLU, but when you are hand-holding a 300mm on 645, you have to compromise between high-ISO noise and camera shake and DOF ...and with a H4D-40 you might do OK, but with any other MF?
-
Well, the conflict for me only boils down to which camera system to pack and carry..
MF DSLRs and lenses are heavy, and a mirror-free MF system with several lenses might actually be lighter than a MFDSLR system?
The Schneider Apo-Digitars are light, and not too bulky on small lensboards (e.g. P3/F3).
The Hasselblad Flexbody is light, but the MF lenses for it are quite heavy.
Does anyone back-pack a mirror-free MFD system, and what does it weigh?
What is the best Medium format Digital view camera for back-packing?
...of course, if you want to use your set of lenses for other work, you might want a lightweight system using the same lensboards.
-
But why would you want to stitch 7 or 8 60mp captures together? Is there a printer big enough to make full use of so much detail? That would be a truly massive project. Not even a billboard requires that much detail. Are you seriously claiming that you find the 60mp of the P65+ sometimes inadequate for your purposes?
Because, image quality matters to me...for example, this image on Monument Valley was done with 8 P65+ captures with a 45mm lens. See: Monument Valley (http://schewephoto.com/SW-Selects/content/CF001797_pano_large.html). That image is sized at 36" x 107" at about 288 PPI (for printing on my Epson 9900 printer). What would the print size be with an 8 shot pano with a 1Ds MIII? Smaller for sure. Yes, I could have stiched 2 or 3 28mm P65+ captures to get the same final crop but at a much smaller print size. The image was done with only 3 P65+ captures: Monument Valley 2 (http://schewephoto.com/SW-Selects/content/CF001993_Edit_large.html).
Many of the shots at SW Selects (http://schewephoto.com/SW-Selects/index.html) were P65+ panos. Again, if you care about image quality, larger captures are better even if you have to stitch to get the size you want. And, again, the whole point of the article is to encourage people to consider medium format for things some shooter would shy away from using medium format for.
-
Yes, Jeff. I was using MF film for some time before I bought my first DSLR, the Canon D60, and used to scan the negatives on the Nikon 8000 ED MF scanner which I bought for the purpose.
Ah, so your experience is medium format film, not medium format digital huh? Big difference bud. Bottom line, you really can't compare a 24MP DSLR capture with a 60MP medium format capture. Apples/oranges...the only question is; does medium format get relegated to only use on a tripod for non-moving subjects? Jim Martin says no...I agree. You use the equipment you need to use to get the IQ you want. In Jim's case, that's medium format, even if he's shooting close ups of a bug or a lemur.
-
"Ah, so your experience is medium format film, not medium format digital huh? Big difference bud."
I don't think that's fair argumemt, Schewe; the point being made is about ergonomics and the portability problems associated wih larger, heavier equipment.
Exactly the same quandries existed in film; think of film as a different sensor, nothing more, nothing less, and you can't avoid seeing the similarity. It's the equipment that is heavier, not as versatile and more clumsy. It isn't really so much about quality because in the real world, people making prints at the sizes you mention are very few and far between, so other than for them, quality is much the same. Regarding stitching, there are always going to be those who need it, as there will be those who are in thrall to the experience simply because it's another game to play.
Let's just accept that horses for courses is the reality; that money is often a big issue for the non-pro; that some people who can afford to spend more also use their discretion and observe that splendid and famous French concept; rapport qualité-prix (RQP) which can easily be forgotten in the excitement of the camera shop blandishments. The Pretty Woman shopping scene psychology comes to mind.
Rob C
-
Back in the late 80s I was told in no uncertain terms that if I didn't shoot 6x7 (as opposed to 35mm) I would not be able to get into the stock game. This was good advice and I shlepped around a Pentax 6x7 for many years. Compared to that, MFDB systems are a total breeze.
If you want maximum image quality you need to suffer.
Then I moved to 4x5, better quality, more suffering.
Now, my S2 is smaller, lighter and vastly better quality that my old Pentax 6x7. OK is more expensive but it's easier to use, has better AF (!), shoots faster, has a better viewfinder - I could go on. I suffer a tiny bit compared to my Canons, but it's a small price to pay for the awesome results.
-
This seems to me to be yet another of these nonsensical threads, where there is endless debate over the truth (or not) of the blindingly obvious.
Of course your choice of camera equipment and format to some extent limits the kind of photography you can do and the quality of the result. That is a given - one would not choose to shoot 10x8 film to cover a football match. And equally, the photographer will choose an appropriate camera and format to match his or her intended subject. Beyond that, it merely a matter of personal preference and cost.
End of story.
John
-
one would not choose to shoot 10x8 film to cover a football match.
No, but you could do it in theory. Don't forget all sport was shot on 4x5 camera a while back and they got pretty good results. They worked with the tools that they had.
Sometime pushing the boundaries leads to special results. I was once involved in shooting a live rock and roll concert on 6x17 film, not exactly a normal choice of camera. It was not easy but the 'hero' shot from the project ended up being printed 6 feet long in an exhibition and it looked utterly amazing. Consider standing in the centre of the mosh pit on a milk crate, with two security guys for 'cover' and shooting live action with no TTL viewfinder and only 4 frames per roll.
Not easy, but I believe the original article was, like Jeff Shewe says, making the point that sometime you can force the 'wrong' gear to do things it is not really meant to do, but if you can pull it off through inspiration and/or perspiration, then the results can transcend the ordinary.
Using the rock concert example, there were plenty of images taken at the same time on more appropriate gear but only one image ended up as the centrepiece of the exhibit - ours. It was worth the effort.
-
No, but you could do it in theory. Don't forget all sport was shot on 4x5 camera a while back and they got pretty good results. They worked with the tools that they had.
¿Remember the Speed Graphic?
- no, I am no that old either ¿Rob?
...but, with the new fast 5 * 4 sheet film in pre-loaded holders, photojournalists with press shutters could shoot several frames a minute - and you could even use them hand-held in good light!
-
Because, image quality matters to me...for example, this image on Monument Valley was done with 8 P65+ captures with a 45mm lens. See: Monument Valley (http://schewephoto.com/SW-Selects/content/CF001797_pano_large.html). That image is sized at 36" x 107" at about 288 PPI (for printing on my Epson 9900 printer). What would the print size be with an 8 shot pano with a 1Ds MIII? Smaller for sure. Yes, I could have stiched 2 or 3 28mm P65+ captures to get the same final crop but at a much smaller print size. The image was done with only 3 P65+ captures: Monument Valley 2 (http://schewephoto.com/SW-Selects/content/CF001993_Edit_large.html).
Many of the shots at SW Selects (http://schewephoto.com/SW-Selects/index.html) were P65+ panos. Again, if you care about image quality, larger captures are better even if you have to stitch to get the size you want. And, again, the whole point of the article is to encourage people to consider medium format for things some shooter would shy away from using medium format for.
Jeff,
I will not try to pretend that those stitches of scenes from Death Valley are anything less than spectacular and appear to be of the finest technical quality, even in the small jpeg form displayed on your site.
However, if you're going to set up a system to take multiple shots for stitching purposes, is it not just as easy (or almost as easy) to use a 35mm DSLR and take more shots for the same resulting image size? In your example of Monument Valley, instead of 8 shots with a P65+ you would probably need 16 or 20 shots with a 1Ds3.
Of course, I would agree that 8 shots with a DSLR is easier than 20 shots with a DSLR, but I'm not sure that 20 shots with a DSLR is much more difficult or more time-consuming than 8 shots with a P65+, considering the really slow frame rate of the P65+ and (I presume) the relatively small buffer in relation to its large files.
In fact, at the 5 fps the 1Ds3 is capable of, you could could probably quite easily and quickly exposure-bracket each position and get a resulting stitched image with equal resolution but higher DR than your P65+ stitch.
-
Jeff,
if you're going to set up a system to take multiple shots for stitching purposes, is it not just as easy (or almost as easy) to use a 35mm DSLR and take more shots for the same resulting image size?
The advantage of using MF for stitching is that you can include larger moving objects, like waves, boats cars etc.
-
Because, image quality matters to me...for example, this image on Monument Valley was done with 8 P65+ captures with a 45mm lens. See: Monument Valley (http://schewephoto.com/SW-Selects/content/CF001797_pano_large.html).
From what you said (8 P65+ photos) Image quality should be excellent. But what I love is the beautiful composition and color. The image is magnificent.
-
Ah, so your experience is medium format film, not medium format digital huh? Big difference bud. Bottom line, you really can't compare a 24MP DSLR capture with a 60MP medium format capture. Apples/oranges...the only question is; does medium format get relegated to only use on a tripod for non-moving subjects? Jim Martin says no...I agree. You use the equipment you need to use to get the IQ you want. In Jim's case, that's medium format, even if he's shooting close ups of a bug or a lemur.
What do you mean, Jeff? Are you implying that the quality differences between film formats is less? The only way to find out which is better and by how much is to compare them. We all should know by now that a 60MP DB, under conditions which are ideal for it, will always produce better results than a 24mp DSLR under the same conditions, comparing single shots at very large print sizes. However, in the real world, conditions are frequently not ideal.
I would have thought that the image quality differences between MF film and 35mm film are actually greater than the differences between DSLRs and MFDBs. In fact, I think it would be true to say that the reasons for a 35mm film shooter to upgrade to MF film would have been far more compelling than the reasons to upgrade from a 24mp D3X to a 60mp Phase DB, not only because the cost difference was much less amongst different film formats, but the technical quality differences between the film formats was greater. It was greater because the differences in film area were greater.
Consider the difference between the D3X and P65+ formats. Both sensors have about the same pixel density so could be analagous to two different sizes of film with the same grain size. But the P65+ is slightly smaller than the minimum upgrade in film formats, ie from 35mm to 645 film. The P65+ sensor is only about 2.5x the area of the FF 35mm sensor, whereas my GWS690 (6cmx9cm) is over 6x the area of 35mm film.
Not only that, when I used a particular brand of high ISO film, say Superia 800, with my GSW690, I knew that the film would have the same characteristics when used in a smaller format on my 35mm SLR and that the technical quality differences between images from the two formats would remain at the same order of magnitude. This is not the case with MFDBs. At ISO 800, the differences between the P65+ and the D3X are greatly reduced to the point where they might actually disappear.
Comparing the P65+ at ISO 800 with a D3X at ISO 800 is not the sort of comparison you tend to see, because I suspect it would place the P65+ in a poor light. Now I don't believe you own a D3X, but you do own a 1Ds3 and a P65+, so how about it, Jeff - a comparison between the P65+ and the IDs3 at their respective real ISOs of 800? What would be even more sensible is a comparison at equal DoF and equal shutter speed, which would mean comparing the 1Ds3 at the manufacturer's specified ISO 400 with the P65+ at the manufacturer's specified ISO 1600.
According to DXOmark, the 1Ds3 at ISO 400 is actually ISO 285, and the P65+ at ISO 1600 is actually only ISO 698. The difference between ISO 285 and ISO 698 is roughly 1 & 1/3rd of a stop, which is approximately the f stop difference required to equalize DoF and maintain equal shutter speed at the respective ISO's of 400 and 1600.
-
Another thing I might gently point out, is that I thought this was supposed to be the Medium Format section of the LL Forum here. That is, for people who actually own and use MF cameras, be they film or digital. Not particularly for people who do not use them but seem to be on a mission to persuade all the MF shooters that they have made a huge mistake.
John
-
Agreed John, OP just doesn't get it - I hope some one tells Phase one, Sinar , Leaf that they are making a big mistake too ! poor fools ! :o :o
-
Another thing I might gently point out, is that I thought this was supposed to be the Medium Format section of the LL Forum here. That is, for people who actually own and use MF cameras, be they film or digital. Not particularly for people who do not use them but seem to be on a mission to persuade all the MF shooters that they have made a huge mistake.
John
Have you tried reading the description of this section, John? It ends with the following sentence: Users of all brands and models are welcome, as are all photographers interested in learning more about this equipment.
Sometimes in order to get the the truth, one has to be a bit forceful in one's enquiries. I get a sense there's a lote of hype and salesmanship going on here.
I've just had a private bet with myself that Jeff will not show us a comparison between the P65+, at F13 and ISO 1600, and the 1Ds3, at ISO 400 and F8, using the same shutter speed with both cameras.
The fact is, I already know that a P65+ at ISO 50, on a tripod, will produce a sharper and more detailed image of a static scene than a 1Ds3 at ISO 100, or even a D3X at ISO 100.
But I don't know what a comparison of equal DoF using the same shutter speed would look like. If someone shows me such a comparison, I shall have learned something.
-
The advantage of using MF for stitching is that you can include larger moving objects, like waves, boats cars etc.
Good point! It doesn't apply in Death Valley of course, but that's certainly worth bearing in mind should one be in a position of shooting panoramas with large moving objects.
-
Ray, do you actually own a MFDB ? Do you make a living strictly from photography ?
"the fact is, I already know that a P65+ at ISO 50, on a tripod, will produce a sharper and more detailed image of a static scene than a 1Ds3 at ISO 100, or even a D3X at ISO 100"
"or EVEN a D3X ?".....Nevermind the P65 my 6 year old 22mp Sinar 54M will produce a sharper more detailed static scene that the D3X - and Yes I have used both .
You seem hell bent on proving the 35mm FF format is a better choice, when in reality it is for some work and is not for others. If you dont want to use a MFDB fine, Things I found attractive and worth the expense were:
No AA filter, 16 bit files, big 9 micron pixel size, increased dynamic range, low base ISO are all things that attracted me to MF. Virtually any MFDB made in the past 5 or 6 years yield far cleaner and crisper images than any DSLR to date .
Once again - Guess I dont see the point...It is a very competitive field out there and I need to deliver the best image to my client i possible can, Sometimes that means MFDB...sometimes DSLR...and yes sometimes even Film ! If you are truly in this forum to "learn more about this equipment" why then dont you seem to want to listen to the working photographers that actually use this equipment in question on a daily basis ?
It all good - lets just keep shootin !
D
-
I've just had a private bet with myself that Jeff will not show us a comparison between the P65+, at F13 and ISO 1600, and the 1Ds3, at ISO 400 and F8, using the same shutter speed with both cameras.
Hmmm. Ray is comparing a digital back at high ISO to a dSLR at low ISO. Reminds of debating whether Cassius Clay with a 200lb backpack and half a dozen shots of whiskey in him could still win against a fight again Mike Tyson in his prime. Normally I wouldn't bit at such a post, but...
Based on working knowledge of both systems: a P65+ at max ISO for full resolution (ISO800) would be well outperformed by a D3X at ISO400 (which is one stop above it's base ISO) in terms of noise, usable/aesthetic dynamic range and color fidelity in hard areas (e.g. subtle shadow transitions, and continuous dark neutrals).
However the P65+ in Sensor+ Mode woud produce a very sharp 15 megapixel ISO1600 shot (3 stops above base) and would actually be a meaningful match. I've not done that specific matchup, but Steve did a 5DII@800 vs P40@ISO800 test (http://www.captureintegration.com/2010/03/30/phase-one-p40-versus-canon-5dmkii-iso-800/) either of our offices would gladly provide the gear to anyone who wants to do the test at our office.
Still these kinds of questions are kind of moot. It's like asking how the D3X would fair against the P65+ with both cameras set to ISO50 (the joke being that the D3X can't shoot at ISO50). Horses for courses: if you're low on shooting light and don't want to or can't introduce more light or use a tripod/monopod or open up then of course a smaller-sensor CMOS chip is going to be a better option.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ("doug@captureintegration.com")
__________________
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://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/")
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
Personal Work (http://"http://www.doug-peterson.com/")
-
What do you mean, Jeff? Are you implying that the quality differences between film formats is less? The only way to find out which is better and by how much is to compare them. We all should know by now that a 60MP DB, under conditions which are ideal for it, will always produce better results than a 24mp DSLR under the same conditions, comparing single shots at very large print sizes. However, in the real world, conditions are frequently not ideal.
I'm not implying anything. By your own admission, you don't have medium format digital back experience...so, you don't know what the IQ differences between a 1Ds MIII or D3X and a P65+ really would be nor the difficulties that would lead one to choose one over the other. Trying to extrapolate what the differences are based only on your medium format film and 35mm film isn't really applicable...
However, the whole point of the article (as indicated by the title You can't do That with medium format) is that digital medium format's "limitations" can be overcome and that carrying a medium format back and camera and shooting with it should not be automatically rejected simply because the subject or circumstances "seem" to indicate DSLR would be good enough-or at least easier to carry in the first place.
Jim chooses to use medium format digital instead of DSLR for subjects and circumstances where many photographers would not...the article was intended to try to dispel the reluctance some people may have with medium format backs and cameras...since we seem to agree that medium format (all other things being equal) will produce better IQ, the only question is whether or not it's worth the effort to even try to shoot medium format for subjects or in circumstances that seem to suggest DSLR. Now, if you don't have a medium format digital camera, the question is moot-you shoot with what you have...if you have both, the question becomes more interesting. Does the IQ benefits of medium format digital outweigh the difficulties shooting with it. Jim is indicating that his experience shows you CAN shoot medium format in circumstances where a DSLR would be a more common choice.
-
I'm not implying anything. By your own admission, you don't have medium format digital back experience...so, you know know what the IQ differences between a 1Ds MIII or D3X and a P65+ really would be nor the difficulties that would lead one to choose one over the other. Trying to extrapolate what the differences are based only on your medium format film and 35mm film isn't really applicable...
However, the whole point of the article (as indicated by the title You can't do That with medium format) is that digital medium format's "limitations" can be overcome and that carrying a medium format back and camera and shooting with it should not automatically rejected simply because the subject or circumstances "seem" to indicate DSLR would be good enough-or at least easier to carry in the first place.
Jim chooses to use medium format digital instead of DSLR for subjects and circumstances where many photographers would not...the article was intended to try to dispel the reluctance some people may have with medium format backs and cameras...since we seem to agree that medium format (all other things being equal) will produce better IQ, the only question is whether or not it's worth the effort to even try to shoot medium format for subjects or in circumstances that seem to suggest DSLR. Now, if you don't have a medium format digital camera, the question is moot-you shoot with what you have...if you have both, the question becomes more interesting. Does the IQ benefits of medium format digital outweigh the difficulties shooting with it. Jim is indicating that his experience shows you CAN shoot medium format in circumstances where a DSLR would be a more common choice.
I do it all the time with the P40+ on sensor plus i will shoot PR and Corporate Events , Runway and all kinds of things that normally it would be normal practice to shoot 35mm DSLR cams in. So yes I concur you can do a lot when people say you can't. For working Pro's the word CAN'T does NOT exist in our vocabulary or we simply will not have food on our table. We are paid to produce images for pay how you get that done is up to the shooter and personally if it is a 8x10 view camera than that is what I will do. I shot speed graphics out of helicopters with 4x5 sheet film. Talk about inconvenient. These topics are absolutely stupid to be honest. You shoot what you have and you buy the best you can within your budget. This 35mm Vs the world war is not productive at all. Just like film the famous line was bigger is better , can someone please point out where that changed when it comes to sensors. `
-
Another thing I might gently point out, is that I thought this was supposed to be the Medium Format section of the LL Forum here. That is, for people who actually own and use MF cameras, be they film or digital. Not particularly for people who do not use them but seem to be on a mission to persuade all the MF shooters that they have made a huge mistake.
John
Amen, bro .
-
I do it all the time with the .......snip
When I began shooting digital, I learned a lot from the old Rob Gailbraith Forums and even DP review.
Mostly from wedding photographers because their goal was simple. To shoot the best photo they can, shoot many multiples for options, cover the event, deliver quickly and deliver an image as good as they were producing with film.
Back then that was a tall order, but wedding photographers really lead the way.
Now today, it's different on the forums. To begin with there is a whole bunch of reps, salesman and photographers that are giving seminars and/or associated with dealers/reps/makers, so for the person starting out and reading these forums you have to take the information along with the presenter and the agenda.
Obviously someone that wants to teach is going to tell you one format or the other is difficult to learn. Obviously people that sell cameras with high margins are going to offer the camera with the most profit for the dealer and the maker.
I own every format of digital camera (except a tech camera) and IMO I can tell anyone what I've learned and sum it up in a few points.
1. Just like film cameras, larger formats usually produce a more detailed image. Unlike film cameras, larger format digital produces an much inferior preview image. Also unlike film cameras, larger format digital tends to moire.
2. Just like film cameras, larger formats are slower to work and though don't always require it, work a lot better with a tripod, if for focus alone.
3. Just like film cameras, 35mm is usually cheaper (not counting Leica) than the larger formats. Just like film cameras the 35mm versions usually are more innovative.
4. Unlike film cameras, digital larger formats requires a little more post work as there is no real embedded jpeg that is suitable for proofing.
5. Just like film cameras, medium format digital cameras are virtually the same as they were in the film days as all of the medium format digital bodies started life as 10 year old film camera designs.
6. Unlike film cameras, there just isn't that huge a difference in formats. 645 to 35mm might be double the size, but it's nothing compared to what was offered in film with 6x7, 6x9, 4x5 and 8x10.
7. Just like film cameras most people shoot the format they prefer. Today it is a photographer's option, not usually a client demand.
8. All of the cameras are good, any good photographer can shoot any of the major brands 35mm or 645 and have success. The camera will not change your career, your artistic abilities or your billing.
IMO
BC
-
When I began shooting digital, I learned a lot from the old Rob Gailbraith Forums and even DP review.
Mostly from wedding photographers because their goal was simple. To shoot the best photo they can, shoot many multiples for options, cover the event, deliver quickly and deliver an image as good as they were producing with film.
Back then that was a tall order, but wedding photographers really lead the way.
Now today, it's different on the forums. To begin with there is a whole bunch of reps, salesman and photographers that are giving seminars and/or associated with dealers/reps/makers, so for the person starting out and reading these forums you have to take the information along with the presenter and the agenda.
Obviously someone that wants to teach is going to tell you one format or the other is difficult to learn. Obviously people that sell cameras with high margins are going to offer the camera with the most profit for the dealer and the maker.
I own every format of digital camera (except a tech camera) and IMO I can tell anyone what I've learned and sum it up in a few points.
1. Just like film cameras, larger formats usually produce a more detailed image. Unlike film cameras, larger format digital produces an much inferior preview image. Also unlike film cameras, larger format digital tends to moire.
2. Just like film cameras, larger formats are slower to work and though don't always require it, work a lot better with a tripod, if for focus alone.
3. Just like film cameras, 35mm is usually cheaper (not counting Leica) than the larger formats. Just like film cameras the 35mm versions usually are more innovative.
4. Unlike film cameras, digital larger formats requires a little more post work as there is no real embedded jpeg that is suitable for proofing.
5. Just like film cameras, medium format digital cameras are virtually the same as they were in the film days as all of the medium format digital bodies started life as 10 year old film camera designs.
6. Unlike film cameras, there just isn't that huge a difference in formats. 645 to 35mm might be double the size, but it's nothing compared to what was offered in film with 6x7, 6x9, 4x5 and 8x10.
7. Just like film cameras most people shoot the format they prefer. Today it is a photographer's option, not usually a client demand.
8. All of the cameras are good, any good photographer can shoot any of the major brands 35mm or 645 and have success. The camera will not change your career, your artistic abilities or your billing.
IMO
BC
Yes,
but
unlike in the film age, tech is moving at the speed of light.
I remember in film cameras (I went late into digital), I had a Nikon FM2, F3 and F4, then moved to Contax (my latest film camera), kept some Pentaxes, worked also with a few Mamiyas ...I mean, all these cameras where from different generations but basically they were the same thing.
When student in fine arts, I could afford without too much problem a second-hand Mamiya with...one glass!
Who's student can own a MFD nowdays?
Then, the evolution of DSLR has always been faster than MF in film age, but now in digital, the gap is each time bigger. DSLR technology evolve much much faster.
My F3 was not obsolete in any date. Now, in a question of few years the evolutions are huge.
Think that just few years ago full frame was a luxury, video was a dream, decent imagery at 800iso was hard and a pro 2000 dollars camera simply did not exist. Without talking about connections, live-view, dust removal, etc...And look where we are now.
To me, the difference between now and before is a matter of speed.
-
Ray welcome back to the forum.
It's been a while since we've heard from you, I can only assume you've been away.
Just to bring you up to speed, while you were "away" (I'm not suggesting you were locked up or anything), many of the posters here (myself included) have been shooting for clients and for themselves with medium format gear. Some of us have even been paid to shoot with our medium format gear. Just sayin'.
Oh and I came across this really interesting Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)) entry the other day, here's an excerpt:
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in "that was an excellent troll you posted". While the term troll and its associated action trolling are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with trolling being used to describe intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context."
Nick-T
-
Based on working knowledge of both systems: a P65+ at max ISO for full resolution (ISO800) would be well outperformed by a D3X at ISO400 (which is one stop above it's base ISO)
The base ISO of the D3x is 100. Is not one stop above is two.
Still these kinds of questions are kind of moot. It's like asking how the D3X would fair against the P65+ with both cameras set to ISO50 (the joke being that the D3X can't shoot at ISO50).
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ("doug@captureintegration.com")
The D3x can shoot at ISO 50. Guess someone don't use Nikon :)
By the way I agree, in general,with your comment. Just pointing out a minor error (where you thinking of the D3s?) for the sake of completeness
-
Thanks. Accurate details are important to me, and I was wrong.
I was in fact thinking of the D3s.
-
MF DSLRs and lenses are heavy, and a mirror-free MF system with several lenses might actually be lighter than a MFDSLR system?
My Alpa gear is lighter than my 5dMk2 gear ...
-
My Alpa gear is lighter than my 5dMk2 gear ...
And after spending some time with Mark Dubovoy I've come to appreciate the compact and light weight nature of tech cameras and lenses...but the thing I still don't like is the limitation of ground glass/back swapping you have to do. For classic landscape type work that wouldn't be so bad and in the studio is easy, but a lot of what I'm shooting with the P1 system and 1Ds MIII isn't quite so easy to do with a tech camera. So, I'm still on the fence...
-
"More recently, the local litmus test is how few of Nashville's talented shooters bother with MFDBs, few. I can take a serious guess that there are more digital backs in the local photo schools than in the equipment cases of working pro shooters doing client jobs. I could probably count maybe half a dozen local shooters I know for sure use MFDBs for their work. Truth be told, 5DII's, 1DsIII's, D3x's, and then many other DSLRs are the mainstay for these highly talented shooters."
I shoot architecture primarily in the northeast (CT,NY,RI,MA) - sure I agree more are shooting DSLR but most of my serious competitors getting a 2k and better day rate shoot MFDB with Pancake or view cameras - I shoot MFDB most of the time, The prints look almost 3D and my clients love it .......They love the results and it gets me work and referrals. Could i do it with a DSLR? maybe....but MFDB works for me and my style......... I just feel blessed to be able to make a living at something I love
-
Based on working knowledge of both systems: a P65+ at max ISO for full resolution (ISO800) would be well outperformed by a D3X at ISO400 (which is one stop above it's base ISO) in terms of noise, usable/aesthetic dynamic range and color fidelity in hard areas (e.g. subtle shadow transitions, and continuous dark neutrals).
actually it be two stops
... but who's countin'
-
Hmmm. Ray is comparing a digital back at high ISO to a dSLR at low ISO. Reminds of debating whether Cassius Clay with a 200lb backpack and half a dozen shots of whiskey in him could still win against a fight again Mike Tyson in his prime. Normally I wouldn't bit at such a post, but...
Doug,
This is the precise problem I find with the attitude of many MFDB owners to their equipment, on this site. There seems to be a complete lack of concern about the relative merits of one piece of equipment as opposed to another under varying conditions.
There seems to be a very simplistic attitude that MFDBs are better at low ISO and DSLRs are better at high ISO, end of story. However, some of us more inquisitive types would like to know just how much better or how much worse, for very practical reasons.
For example, If I'm travelling with a P65+ and a 5D2, and I'm photographing some landscape with the P65+ because I want the best image quality, and the 5D2 is in the back of the car 100 metres away. I find that in order to get the interesting foreground in focus as well as the distant hills, I need to use F16 or F22 with the DB, and because there's a continual breeze, or maybe a moving boat on the lake between the Xantherias in the foreground and the hills in the background, I also need a fairly fast shutter speed which requires bumping up the ISO to 800 or even 1600.
Now, having read the MF forum on Luminous Landscape assiduously for the past few years, I'm fairly confident that the P65+ is not the right tool for these circumstances, and rush back to the car to grab my 5D2 before the lighting changes for the worse. I get the shot, but perhaps not the best shot I would have liked because the lighting has changed a bit and that boat on the lake has disappeared. I regret having left the 5D2 in the car, but 'them's the breaks'.
Based on working knowledge of both systems: a P65+ at max ISO for full resolution (ISO800) would be well outperformed by a D3X at ISO400 (which is one stop above it's base ISO) in terms of noise, usable/aesthetic dynamic range and color fidelity in hard areas (e.g. subtle shadow transitions, and continuous dark neutrals).
However the P65+ in Sensor+ Mode woud produce a very sharp 15 megapixel ISO1600 shot (3 stops above base) and would actually be a meaningful match. I've not done that specific matchup, but Steve did a 5DII@800 vs P40@ISO800 test either of our offices would gladly provide the gear to anyone who wants to do the test at our office.
Great! I now find from your link to Steve's 5D2/P40+ comparison at ISO 800 that even the the P40+ with substantly fewer pixels than the P65+ in binning mode (10mp v 15mp) has marginally better image quality than the 5D2 at ISO 800. Wow! That's something one really wants to know. Thanks Doug! If I'm ever in the situation I've described above, I can be quite confident there would be no need to rush back to the car to get my 5D2. I can continue using the P65+, even when binning to 15mp, and still get at least as good a result, and perhaps better, than the 5D2.
Now that's useful information to know. I'm a firm believer in the adage, 'Know thy equipment', so thanks Doug for bringing that comparison to my attention.
http://www.captureintegration.com/2010/03/30/phase-one-p40-versus-canon-5dmkii-iso-800/
Oops! There's something wrong here, Doug, isn't there? Having studied Steve's images I see huge discrepancies in the comparisons with regard to matching of FoV and DoF. Not only is the 5D2 shot considerably wider, both horizontally and vertically, but the perspective is also quite different. The F stops have not been adjusted for equal DoF and the claim by Steve that the P40+, at the same shutter speed, appears to be more sensitive at ISO 800 than the 5D2 seems plain weird, unless Steve used a wider aperture with the P40+ shot at the same shutter speed. Consider the right side (on the left of the image) of the subject's cheek. In the 5D2 shot it contains detail. In the P40+ shot there's a lack of detail. The trees outside are an even more obvious indication the Dof has not been matched.
God almighty! Why is it you MF guys are so willing to fudge the results of any comparisons. I don't think even Jeff Schewe would rise to your defense here.
Furthermore, if you are going to compare MFDB with 35mm, the issue is not a comparison at equal ISOs, but a comparison at equal DoF, equal shutter speed, and equal FoV (allowing for a slight discrepancy due to different aspect ratios). That's the meaningful comparison that is of practical value.
For everyone's information, here's a comparison of the relative ISO sensitivies of the P40+ compared with the 5D2, courtesy DXOmark. As you can see, the true ISO of the P40+ at the manufacturer's specified ISO 800 is actually only 375. Canon also appear to exaggerate, but not nearly as much as Phase One.
-
Ray, so what exactly is the point of all this? We should all sell our MF gear because it doesn't compare to 35mm?
Ok so your D3X and 5DMKII is better. Go out and take some photos with it. Us idiots with useless MF gear will just hang out and continue to make no money with our gear and flush any remaing cash down the drain. ::)
Btw, do you have a website? I'd love to see some work of yours and how you have reached a level in which this is so bothersome to you.
-
Ray, so what exactly is the point of all this? We should all sell our MF gear because it doesn't compare to 35mm?
Ok so your D3X and 5DMKII is better. Go out and take some photos with it. Us idiots with useless MF gear will just hang out and continue to make no money with our gear and flush any remaing cash down the drain. ::)
Btw, do you have a website? I'd love to see some work of yours and how you have reached a level in which this is so bothersome to you.
The point of all this is to understand more precisely where the strengths and weaknesses are in the equipment we use.
I've used MF film and I still have those cameras. I believe even the old Mamiya RB67 can be adapted to use DBs and I've briefly flirted with the idea of making use of that system with a DB, considering I already have a number of Mamiya lenses. But only briefly. It doesn't really make much sense. I think we must all have experienced the situation of buying gear because it seemed a good idea at the time, then we find that such gear is rarely used for a variety of practical reasons which we never fully considered at the time of purchase.
You seems to be falling into the simplistic trap of 'better or worse', period, whereas I'm trying to promulgate the idea of 'know thy equipment' for all possible applications.
-
You seems to be falling into the simplistic trap of 'better or worse', period, whereas I'm trying to promulgate the idea of 'know thy equipment' for all possible applications.
Pity... that's a common misconception. Actually, you persist in repeatedly asking questions to answers that will not change. I think there is a loose definition of insanity mixed in there somewhere. And btw, you completely avoided the: "Btw, do you have a website? I'd love to see some work of yours and how you have reached a level in which this is so bothersome to you". Which i'll take some creative forecasting to assume you'll do again.
-
Pity... that's a common misconception. Actually, you persist in repeatedly asking questions to answers that will not change. I think there is a loose definition of insanity mixed in there somewhere. And btw, you completely avoided the: "Btw, do you have a website? I'd love to see some work of yours and how you have reached a level in which this is so bothersome to you". Which i'll take some creative forecasting to assume you'll do again.
No, I don't have a website. It's probably why I have so many posts on this site. I don't even bother posting on other sites. This is the best, although I'm a bit dubious sometimes about the quality of the MF section ;D .
I'm an amateur who photographs for the pleasure of it. I've thought many times of starting my own business, but I'm troubled by the fact that running a business takes time, and is time I would rather spend taking photos. I haven't yet met the right woman who will say, "Don't worry darling, I'll take care of all business matters. You just take the photos".
Perhaps when I'm old and frail and have no inclination to clamber up mountains in Nepal to catch the dawn over the Himalayas, I will take up the more sedate activity of displaying an selling my photos over the net.
I have some absurd notion that true success is doing a job that's so interesting you would do it even if no-one paid you to do it. I think I've acheived that status with my photography. I'm currently planning another trip to Nepal, but this time with a Canon 17mm TSE lens. I'll probably drop by in Cambodia during the same trip and take a few more shots of those marvelous ruins at Angkor Wat, but this time with better equipment and a learning experience from my past mistakes.
But I'm stil undecided whether to get a 5D2 or a 7D for this trip. I make all my camera gear purchases on the basis of extensive research into their capability and performance at all levels.
MFDB seems to be like a secret society, almost like the Free Masons, or a Country Women's Association where all males are banned. There are suggestions in this thread that one shouldn't comment on anything in this section of the forum unless one owns MFDB equipment, for example.
It seems strange to me that MFDB stuff is not examined and compared in more detail.
-
The point of all this is to understand more precisely where the strengths and weaknesses are in the equipment we use.
Which is also the whole point of Jim's essay...that if you are willing to push the envelope, you can use MFDBs for more than what some people would expect...he doesn't say you have to...just that you can achieve better IQ and get better results if you don't see MFDB as a limitation. Which, after all the posts to this thread has become apparent...given the chance, I'll use medium format vs DSLR and I'll look more seriously at shooting more stuff with MFDB is possible. So, Jim Martin 1, Ray zero...sorry bud, you haven't moved me an inch.
-
Which is also the whole point of Jim's essay...that if you are willing to push the envelope, you can use MFDBs for more than what some people would expect...he doesn't say you have to...just that you can achieve better IQ and get better results if you don't see MFDB as a limitation. Which, after all the posts to this thread has become apparent...given the chance, I'll use medium format vs DSLR and I'll look more seriously at shooting more stuff with MFDB is possible. So, Jim Martin 1, Ray zero...sorry bud, you haven't moved me an inch.
Okay! You really should understand, Jeff, that I'm not about knocking or disparaging someone's efforts. Pushing the envelope is admirable. But pushing the envelope can apply to all formats, big and small. Push the envelope with MFDB and you may get results which are surprisingly good. Push the envelope with FF 35mm, perhaps in a different way because the strengths and weakness of the 35mm are different, and you may also get surprisingle good results. The same no doubt applies to P&S cameras. It doesn't alter the basic equation.
When attempting to push the envelope it's best to be prepared with knowledge of the precise characteristics of the system one is using and to understand in what way a particular result might have been better using a different format or system, pushing the envelope in a different way to take advantage of that system's strengths.
Why do you see this as a contest between me and Jim Martin?
-
The point of all this is to understand more precisely where the strengths and weaknesses are in the equipment we use.
....whereas I'm trying to promulgate the idea of 'know thy equipment' for all possible applications.
What do you mean? You don't use using medium format digital.
I think people, like myself, that do use medium format digital as well as DSLR do know the strengths and weaknesses of their equipment. Mostly through real world hand-on experience instead of arm-chair wisdom. Or if they don't, they quickly find out. There is a difference between reading about stuff and actually experiencing things yourself. You do really travel don't you, You don't watch the travel channel instead?
Holy cow, several years later you still have not used or even tried medium format digital Ray (even though more than once you got the offer to try)? You still don't do your own tests, insist others do them and always dismiss for whatever reason comparisons/tests that other people do? (admittedly sometimes your criticism in this area is justified).
You don't have to own or have to have used MFDB to talk about it but it surely adds to your credibility when talking about the strengths & weaknesses of it.
I agree with the article, there is more that can be done with MFDB than most people give it credit for but it doesn't come easy. Indeed pushing the envelope is something that is not dependant on any format. This article just happened to be about medium format and pushing the envelope...
-
Why do you see this as a contest between me and Jim Martin?
Mainly because of the OP where you said:
Let's have a look at the latest article in 'What's New' from James Martin.
This is an interesting description of the conflict between the seduction of a 'potentially more realistic image' and the practical realities of inflexibility and additional cost and weight of the MFDB system.
James Martin's title suggests that MFDB is more flexible than it's sometimes made out to be.
I would contest this view. I think there's no doubt that a larger sensor delivers better image quality, all else being equal. That's a given. But let's not kid ourselves as to its flexibility.
Jim's article did indeed suggest that MFDB is indeed more flexible that it's sometime made out to be. Your post contested this view. I disagree with YOUR view that MFDB isn't more flexible-if you are willing to put up with the difficulties involved. Which I am, BTW...and I've proven (at least to myself) that pushing the MFBB envelope can be well worth it if IQ is important to you. It is to me...
-
From my perspective, this post originates from a position fueled by passive-aggressive behavior, and in my opinion is disrespectful to photographers who don't agree with the position put forth by the O.P. Perhaps that's a fair type of response to Jim Martin's original post, if Jim's post is deemed as a challenge. I don't know.
As one who shoots medium format digital (and not high-end gear), as well as the usual suspects found in the typical well-stocked camera locker today (in my case: Canon), it seems odd to me that Ray would once again spend such an extensive amount of time to engage in such discussions under the guise of "learning". One has only to shoot a few samples of MFDB and lens combinations to decide if s/he is well served by the option of a photographic kit comprised of medium format gear. But Ray has repeatedly stated that he need not shoot MFD to understand it, since he has certain representatives such as DxO, etc. (never mind what you and your clients see). That's great, if one is comfortable with such a resource for what may be a subjective or artistic evaluation in the end. In my case, I shoot, I look, I decide. I'm not swayed by comments such as "you're biased because you want to justify your purchase" because I want the cheapest, lightest, quality kit for the work that I want to produce. Not to mention that I have a fairly strong science background and still think like a lab nerd.
I'm not sure why these discussions continue, but like the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L vs. 85mm f/1.8 discussions of yore, they draw many of us in like a 13-car-pile-up on the interstate.
Ray, you obviously love discussing this stuff, and I get that, but if you really want to understand you must shoot MFDB, with ice water in your veins (to remove emotional expectations), to understand what others are contributing to these discussions. Frankly, it's disrespectful to the community if you don't invest such efforts. And I must add that one outing with a MFD kit is not enough. There is a learning curve... to the kit, and to the software. That may be a check in the negative column for you, and that's okay, but it only carries value if it is properly evaluated.
I shoot MFD because I like the look of the files more. The difference is not subtle to me because the things that I appreciate are accentuated by MFD. This may not be the case for you, and that's great too. It's okay to disagree about the aesthetics. :)
I'm pretty sure that this community gets that you don't really think that MFD is for you – for reasons you know best. I doubt that anyone judges that negatively, and some may even be jealous of the financial benefits. But by the same token, it would be gracious if you would respectfully accept that those who have taken the time and invested the money to experience MFD, and who have decided that it fills a need of theirs, are making the choice from a position of knowledge of their own needs and preferences, and the ability to observe substantive differences which justify the considerable expense.
Ray, please don't respond to this in a manner in which you attempt to justify your implied position by railing against usability issues, low-light weaknesses, etc. Accomplished photographers know the the strengths and weaknesses of each piece of kit and adjust accordingly. We know when to grab the Canon or Nikon, and when to grab the Phase One or Hasselblad, etc.. There are lots of times when they overlap, and like Jim's article suggests, some overlapping opportunities may not be obvious.
You have asked this community several times to justify medium format digital camera equipment. Don't you think it's appropriate that you take the time to learn first-hand what may or may not be present in the MFDB experience? And even then, if your results differ from those stated by others, does it not make sense to humbly accept that each of us has different requirements and preferences?
-
Wow, that's as even-handed and diplomatic a post as I have ever seen. Respect!
From my perspective, this post originates from a position fueled by passive-aggressive behavior, and in my opinion is disrespectful to photographers who don't agree with the position put forth by the O.P. Perhaps that's a fair type of response to Jim Martin's original post, if Jim's post is deemed as a challenge. I don't know.
As one who shoots medium format digital (and not high-end gear), as well as the usual suspects found in the typical well-stocked camera locker today (in my case: Canon), it seems odd to me that Ray would once again spend such an extensive amount of time to engage in such discussions under the guise of "learning". One has only to shoot a few samples of MFDB and lens combinations to decide if s/he is well served by the option of a photographic kit comprised of medium format gear. But Ray has repeatedly stated that he need not shoot MFD to understand it, since he has certain representatives such as DxO, etc. (never mind what you and your clients see). That's great, if one is comfortable with such a resource for what may be a subjective or artistic evaluation in the end. In my case, I shoot, I look, I decide. I'm not swayed by comments such as "you're biased because you want to justify your purchase" because I want the cheapest, lightest, quality kit for the work that I want to produce. Not to mention that I have a fairly strong science background and still think like a lab nerd.
I'm not sure why these discussions continue, but like the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L vs. 85mm f/1.8 discussions of yore, they draw many of us in like a 13-car-pile-up on the interstate.
Ray, you obviously love discussing this stuff, and I get that, but if you really want to understand you must shoot MFDB, with ice water in your veins (to remove emotional expectations), to understand what others are contributing to these discussions. Frankly, it's disrespectful to the community if you don't invest such efforts. And I must add that one outing with a MFD kit is not enough. There is a learning curve... to the kit, and to the software. That may be a check in the negative column for you, and that's okay, but it only carries value if it is properly evaluated.
I shoot MFD because I like the look of the files more. The difference is not subtle to me because the things that I appreciate are accentuated by MFD. This may not be the case for you, and that's great too. It's okay to disagree about the aesthetics. :)
I'm pretty sure that this community gets that you don't really think that MFD is for you – for reasons you know best. I doubt that anyone judges that negatively, and some may even be jealous of the financial benefits. But by the same token, it would be gracious if you would respectfully accept that those who have taken the time and invested the money to experience MFD, and who have decided that it fills a need of theirs, are making the choice from a position of knowledge of their own needs and preferences, and the ability to observe substantive differences which justify the considerable expense.
Ray, please don't respond to this in a manner in which you attempt to justify your implied position by railing against usability issues, low-light weaknesses, etc. Accomplished photographers know the the strengths and weaknesses of each piece of kit and adjust accordingly. We know when to grab the Canon or Nikon, and when to grab the Phase One or Hasselblad, etc.. There are lots of times when they overlap, and like Jim's article suggests, some overlapping opportunities may not be obvious.
You have asked this community several times to justify medium format digital camera equipment. Don't you think it's appropriate that you take the time to learn first-hand what may or may not be present in the MFDB experience? And even then, if your results differ from those stated by others, does it not make sense to humbly accept that each of us has different requirements and preferences?
-
I guess I'm on the other side of the fence, I don't use medium format... but I wish I could.
As an aside, I don't remember the portability of equipment stopping our friend Ansel.
-
I guess I'm on the other side of the fence, I don't use medium format... but I wish I could.
As an aside, I don't remember the portability of equipment stopping our friend Ansel.
That's far out: for what he did, what choice did he have? As an old man he used 'blads, but the work didn't seem to be the same... I also used 4x5 when an employee; never, in a month of Sundays, would I have used it when I went freelance: the work was entirely different, and that brings this straight back to horses for courses, which I believe is where Ray is actually standing, though it seems easy enough to spin the position around to taste.
Rob C
-
and that brings this straight back to horses for courses, which I believe is where Ray is actually standing, though it seems easy enough to spin the position around to taste.
Rob C
Not really, Ray just is being somewhat obtuse here. Horses for courses is a sensible approach but what the original article was all about, as pointed out by Jeff, is that sometimes you can use a racehorse to pull a cart or whatever.
For the 'ordinary' sure choose the obvious tool, or even for the professional who has a business to run, but pushing the limits in search of the ultimate IQ can also be a worthy goal.
I am very happy with my Canons, and they are my tools of choice for paying work, but when I want to pursue even higher IQ, for whatever reason, then there will be a price to pay, in money, convenience or some such.
No pain no gain, and I'm completely OK with that. If it was easy everyone would be doing it.
-
- I shoot MFDB most of the time, The prints look almost 3D and my clients love it .......They love the results and it gets me work and referrals. Could i do it with a DSLR? maybe....
interesting to read this, Shooting a D3x myself i had this 3d feeling for the first time with the d3x in combination with the 85mm PCE at d=8
I think this 3d effect is the result of very good lenses that capture every nuance- so creating this effect.
Also the RAW-software is important- I find the nikon capture in this respect more 3D then Capture One ( not intensively tested).
Then you can make things look more 3d by applying some USM (10%, 50, 0) but that ruins information at the same time ( as does about everything in photoshop)
So what i would suggest is that MF is served with better - more expensive lenses - in relation to the overall higher cost of the whole MF system.
fortunately Canon as well as Nikon are starting to produce better and more expensive optics the last year or so. But i would like the lenses be more expensive and better still.
-
interesting to read this, Shooting a D3x myself i had this 3d feeling for the first time with the d3x in combination with the 85mm PCE at d=8
I think this 3d effect is the result of very good lenses that capture every nuance- so creating this effect.
Also the RAW-software is important- I find the nikon capture in this respect more 3D then capture pro ( not intensively tested).
Then you can make things look more 3d by applying some USM (10%, 50, 0) but that ruins information at the same time ( as does about everything in photoshop)
So what i would suggest is that MF is served with better - more expensive lenses - in relation to the overall higher cost of the whole MF system.
fortunately Canon as well as Nikon are starting to produce better and more expensive optics the last year or so. But i would like the lenses be more expensive and better still.
Not to stray too far off topic, Leica RF lenses used to be considered to give the 'look' of medium format film equivalent in the days of film; also, from first-hand experience of printing both, Leica glass did have a different look that Nikon and Hass never gave me. Trouble was, I couldn't live with RF because of the long lenses I needed and the fact that using 35mm format for pro work means you need to know all that the slide is going to contain, which is where the Nikon F came into its own and no RF camera did.
Rob C
-
Who's student can own a MFD nowdays?
You might have thought that this would encourage aspiring photographers to work as assistants?
-
You might have thought that this would encourage aspiring photographers to work as assistants?
No, I might have thought that this would encourage MF manufacturers to work for the younguest generation...
-
May I suggest some sticky thread, where all the MFDB vs. 35mm topics get dumped into ?
It's always the same nonsense, going in circles, and has no relevance to pro photography .
I've never met a single pro who had to think about what system to us for even a split second; these uneducated amateur gear whores are just a waste of space .
No, I might have thought that this would encourage MF manufacturers to work for the younguest generation...
I'm sure reading your postings will encourage them to do just that .
-
fortunately Canon as well as Nikon are starting to produce better and more expensive optics the last year or so. But i would like the lenses be more expensive and better still.
Agree about wanting better lenses - not sure I want them to be more expensive!
-
Photography only gets better with each passing year, today we can shoot film or digital, choose whatever format and we have access to quality results that could only be dreamed several years ago. My scanned Nikon F3 Velvia slide yields a pretty decent print. My Canon Digital trumps F3/Velvia and MFDB trumps my Canon full frame digital. The Canon and F3/Velvia look pretty darn good but James Martin summed it up so well in the last sentence "When I zoom into an image and it holds together at each step, there’s a thrill I can’t relinquish." What is not said is that a pixel is not a pixel, they aren't created equal, i.e. we can't assign quality based on numbers of pixels, each and every digtial medium format photographer knows this. Those medium format pixels are less limited not only in quantity but quality also, they're characteristically more maleable for lack of a better term. Large format film photography has a beauty that is unmatched, and so too medium format digital. Inherent in any camera system (format) are strengths and weaknesses, the strengths can be mastered to yield exceptional results and weaknesses can be overcome with practice and familiarity of the equipment and the situation. This is what James is saying, he has overcome the weaknesses of medium format digital. For those that say horses for courses, I agree, but it doesn't mean we can't adapt and overcome the limitations with practice and......preparation, when we do we get those rich photographs that gives the thrill.
-
And after spending some time with Mark Dubovoy I've come to appreciate the compact and light weight nature of tech cameras and lenses...but the thing I still don't like is the limitation of ground glass/back swapping you have to do. For classic landscape type work that wouldn't be so bad and in the studio is easy, but a lot of what I'm shooting with the P1 system and 1Ds MIII isn't quite so easy to do with a tech camera. So, I'm still on the fence...
This indeed as been the most challenging aspect of using the Alpa, especially for a person such as myself who has never used a view camera or technical camera. Of course, being a zoom lens addict also adds another level of learning (something which I need to do anyway since I left the world of portrait photography and now pretty much do only landscape)
Most of the time I don't even try to switch to the ground glass, but just get rough cropping with the viewfinder and fine tune with exposures which I delete. I'm also having a little trouble adjusting to the look delivered by the lenses (although the sharpness is quite amazing).
Overall its a slower more deliberate process, which isn't really a bad thing, forcing one to previsualize and be a little more disciplined when choosing subject matter. I'm sure it will get faster, but I'm still taking the Phase camera gear when I'm not sure what the opportunities will be.
I hardly ever use the canon gear anymore.
-
It's always the same nonsense, going in circles, and has no relevance to pro photography .
This forum is not reserved for professionals. Read the rubric.
these uneducated amateur gear whores are just a waste of space .
I'm an educated amateur gear whore - and proud of it. Does being educated make me an acceptable use of space? I only ask because the laws of physics may be different in your exalted "pro" dimension.
-
This forum is not reserved for professionals. Read the rubric.
The forum title suggests the discussion is supposed to be about Digital Backs .
What can someone without DB experience possibly contribute ?
-
With talent possibilities are endless. Slap some good business with talent and you have a raging bull blowing through the status quo of established shooters.
It might surprise you, but most 'established shooters' started with nothing but cheap gear, and talent . If there was such a thing. ;)
I'm not sure why we have mirrors anymore. 4/3 cameras have shown there's no need.
- There are mirrors for the same reason they were introduced in the first place - and because noone has developed a competitive design yet.
- Countless cameras in all formats have shown there is no need for SLR designs - unless you need what it has to offer.
With digital, it's different, but again noone could be bothered to develop proper EVs, and everything else that could rival SLRs .
Genuinely, I'd like to see the work from fritzer.
Nope .
-
The following was number one on a Google search for Fritzer.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fritzer&defid=1013249
;D
-
Heaven forbid someone comes along with more talent, that's truly what any entrenched pro fears.
John, I don't honestly think so.
What he/she fears is the price cutting that will force him/her to do one of two things: match it; give up.
Talent is not reserved to either am or pro; that's hardly in dispute anywhere. It is money that the pro cannot fight, or fight without. That's the hard reality of the business.
There are a zillion other personal issues, not least a sense of unfairness where experience can be, and often is, replaced by cheapness, quality being largely in the eye of the beholder, a beholder who is often part-blinded by accountants and/or personal issues of his own.
A pro faces competition from his peers from the moment he hangs up his shingle; it isn't competition that is feared, rather it becomes a spur to better work; it is financial murder that kills and breeds the hatred which, often, does exist between the species. And even within the same one, more than some think.
Rob C
-
The following was number one on a Google search for Fritzer.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fritzer&defid=1013249
hehehe ;D
-
An acquaintance of mine, Richard Blair, was working as a full time professional commercial photographer in San Francisco with a $3000 day rate. A few years ago after over three decades in the business he lost his corporate clients almost overnight to young "talent" willing to work for $500 day rate. Currently he is surviving at least in part from sales of self published books on California and the Bay Area.
From gear point of view, in the film days he used to shoot with 8x10 Sinar and Hasselblad V, but digital work is all Canon. I asked him about it recently, and he feels that MFDB would not help him sell more books or prints.
-
Expected that from reading your posts for some time now. Stand up guy you are. Curmudgeon is the word for the day.
Just keep quoting out of context, choosing the parts that don't overwhelm you, and Bob's your uncle .
To abuse the famous quote : When I wake up in the morning, I'll be sober - but you will still be ingorant . ;)
But by all means, at least do a little reading, and understand why we are still using the exact same camera techonlogy from some 50 years ago.
And begging your pardon if I missed that before : what DB and camera system are you using ?
-
Heaven forbid someone comes along with more talent, that's truly what any entrenched pro fears. With talent possibilities are endless. Slap some good business with talent and you have a raging bull blowing through the status quo of established shooters.
Talent has a lot less to do with success in the word of pro photography than many people think. A competent photographer with an excellent business brain will do far better than the converse. The 'Pro' bit of the title refers to 'business' not creativity, talent, flair, mojo or whatever.
I have absolutely no fear of talent - I see heaps of this in the club competitions that I judge.
-
These types of discussions remind me of a scene from the movie "Ronin"
where the wannabe Spense quizzes the veteran Sam on weapons.
All you have to do substitute "camera" for "weapons"
Spense: l'm a... l'm a weapons man. So what do you favour ?
Sam: Well, you know. lt's a toolbox. You put the tools in for the job.
At the end of the day, it's a TOOL. I don't know anyone who works with tools that uses
just one kind. You use the right tool for the job.
-
Indeed, but there's the rub, a lot of folks seem to have trouble deciding what is the right tool for the job. Or try and force the tool that they have to do everything.
-
Indeed, but there's the rub, a lot of folks seem to have trouble deciding what is the right tool for the job. Or try and force the tool that they have to do everything.
But Nick, in some heads that equates with quality... you know, medium format digi for everything, regardless of ergonomics and suitability. If it can be done, then I damn well will do it with that thing I spent half my capital buying!
;-)
The base problem is that I'm not really convinced that the format analogy between the film culture format/expectation and the assumed parallel one within the digital world of formats really is relevant. Apart from different receptors of the light, the characteristic of workable apertures is also rather skewed - remember, with large format film, very small apartures were usually where you went, which is why you could find f64. No digi that I've heard of goes there... or should.
To conclude, I think a whole new sense of photography has to be learned, probably an easier matter for those without an extensive earlier knowledge.
Rob C
-
Very true. The right tool is much better than a cucumber.
Or, sometimes what was the right tool at one point can become easily the tomorrow's cucumber.
-
The forum title suggests the discussion is supposed to be about Digital Backs .
What can someone without DB experience possibly contribute ?
People interested in changing to MFD from LF or SFD can ask questions about the benefits of MF, but that is different to repeatedly trying to convince people who have MF kit, or are thinking of getting into MF, that it is a waste of money and space.
-
"Jumping into the water."
I often think about that too, Fred. I was only able to get a job in industrial photography (only, means damn lucky, in fact, for too many reasons to enter into here) but my mind was ever on fashion. I was even told it was far too late for me; that nobody outside London did it - all sorts of encouraging stuff!
The one thing that never occurred to me was this: since you haven't worked for a fashion shoooter, what makes you think you can do it?
I just never had that thought; I did it my way and it worked. I think that's probably the best way of all; you don't know enough of how another guy does it to become his poor clone; all you can do is keep buying Vogue, Harper's and (then) Nova and also, best of the lot, Linea Italiana (which seemed impossible to buy - they only became available to me via a manager in House of Fraser). That way, you know how good you have to get, not how to copy. If those mags didn't move you, baby, you were dead!
I watched a few moment of Bloomberg today; a prof from Harvard Business School made a wonderful remark: just get out there and follow your heart; do what you want to do and start a great company! There is no other way; it will not fall in your lap.
Rob C
-
just get out there and follow your heart; do what you want to do and start a great company! There is no other way; it will not fall in your lap.
Rob C
Great quote!
-
Great quote!
Like your pictures, Alex, especially the black/whites!
Rob C
-
...the time spent in building mentally and then technically the creative part of the photography is much bigger and important than the shooting itself and whatever camera involved.
I agree... and I have been in part-time or full time pro photo for much of the last 40 years, in addition to being a keen freelance/amateur wildlife/travel photographer.
There are a lot of people who have inverted this process. If it works good for them, fine. It does not work good for me.
I could be happy with any camera, MF included of course.
I have been happy with Kodak Instamatic, Zenith, Practika, Nikon, Mamiya, Hassy film systems, Sinar... and I have spent years on eBay buying bits towards setting up a Medium Format Digital View Camera system
Think also that the situation in europe is very different. I'm european, and here there is not this democratised market about landscape that exists in the US. It just does not work. Mass culture is basically street photography, not landscape. The normal way in europe are very few art galleries that generally are not accessible to the average. In the US, you sell well landscapes, there is a big market for that, so then for the MF products.
I too, am European, and I would like to reap the Euro market for quality landscape.
Most galleries I have come across would rather hang photographers that photographs.
One gallery owner said:
"A photograph is just what happened to be in front of the photographer when he pressed the button"
One methodology would be to take photos in Europe and market them in the US?
There is competition in the US, but there is a market.
My Father said that he could not understand how anyone could be a good car driver I they had not had experience driving a horse and cart,,, but I do appreciate that it would be possible for someone to become a good digital photographer without having mastered film.
-
, but that is different to repeatedly trying to convince people who have MF kit, or are thinking of getting into MF, that it is a waste of money and space.
Obviously, the irony in this post escaped you ...
-
Like your pictures, Alex, especially the black/whites!
Rob C
Thank you Rob
-
John-S, I loved your mall musings. A great entertaining read on an easy-like-Sunday-morning. You, at least, are a definite asset to this forum.
Ray (the other Ray, as I keep saying unnecessarily).
-
Quote from: ondebanks on October 14, 2010, 03:24:12 PM
This forum is not reserved for professionals. Read the rubric.
The forum title suggests the discussion is supposed to be about Digital Backs .
What can someone without DB experience possibly contribute ?
And there you go again. You have assumed that an amateur (let's try to put the "gear whore" moniker behind us, shall we?) cannot possibly have "DB experience".
I am an amateur. I shoot with a DB (and with film). There's no law against it, you know.
And - what's more - even before I had "DB experience", as I researched them I realised that I patently had more technical knowledge about them than some folks who do shoot with them. But that's fine; for many people, photography is business or art and the technical stuff doesn't really concern them. I really take to it though. My job is as a university physics & astronomy lecturer (what you'd call a "professor" in the States), so I take a strong technical interest in sensor and camera performance, specifications and calibration. I guess what I'm saying here is that I am rejecting the notion that unless you have hands-on DB experience, you can contribute nothing to a technical discussion about them. That just isn't the case.
-
nice mall rant
-
Talent has a lot less to do with success in the word of pro photography than many people think. A competent photographer with an excellent business brain will do far better than the converse. The 'Pro' bit of the title refers to 'business' not creativity, talent, flair, mojo or whatever.
I have absolutely no fear of talent - I see heaps of this in the club competitions that I judge.
Right on, Nick!
-
finally you got it: MFD is only for real men
Hi - I'm new here but actually don't feel like it, because I've been following the discussions (especially about MF) for a long time. After two weeks of extensive research my head was about to explode - this morning I read your statement and the tension was gone. Maybe you're right and I would feel a lot more comfortable accepting this fact and giving up my dream of a MF camera system.
However, some dreams become very persistant, and this one did. So I've decided to jump into the discussion, ask all of you for help and opinion and maybe become a real man in the end. :D
Uh - and I beg for tolerance - I have difficulties sorting out all the technical terms in my mother-tongue (German), and my English is heavily influenced by French. So if I sound somewhat strange please don't blame women in general.
I'm mainly in portrait photography - humans, animals and sometimes products. And to put my position straight right from the beginning: I'm a firm believer in the relationship of image size and image quality. Thus I resisted to go digital until the full frame EOS D5 was available. Meantime I used a Linhof 5x4`` and Polaroid P/N, because I had realized that people become more relaxed when they see some shots during the session. And I experimented with a Nagel plate camera with roll-film adapter, Agfa Isolettes and other cheap cameras, even Boxes. Lot's of fun and an important experience for a (then still) girl. These old cameras gave me the confidence that photography finally is not that complicated at all. :P
For example I started manual focussing with my ever-so-mighty 5D and she allowed me to do so.
On the other hand I learned that equipment is important, too. Is a Mac a gear? Two years ago I fought my fears and bought my first Mac. What fears? I can't recall them, because the experience was liberation at it's best.
To those who might want to keep me in the loyal 35mm troops - I will stay there with my 5D. But I've observed that some have a full format, like me. If the difference between APS 35mm and full frame 35mm counts, the difference between MF and 35mm is even larger, right? For me, it's not the size or resolution numbers, that count. There are two factors, that are relevant for my personal photography: the dynamic range of 12 f-stops and the bokeh.
So two weeks ago I finally decided to go for a MF camera system. This market has become very limited, in fact only two real competitors and you might assume it's easy to sort out which product best meets your needs. But it only proofs that poor competitions results in poor performance. I don't mean the quality of the product (even though I grew suspicious by what I saw), but the information policy.
I'd like to scream now... This is an investment like buying a car. No car dealer, even of the cheapest, lousiest (bitemytongue - no nationality attached) carriage would dare an information policy that leads a potential customer into total confusion. I'm NOT blonde.
I started to gather all available information in a spread-sheet which I nearly deleted yesterday evening, due to frustration. There are few dealers of digital backs, few datasheet available and the data-sheet are not comparable. Phase One tells me about longtime exposure while there are no exposure times available in the datasheet of Leaf. Same applies (I think vice versa) for power supply or the screen size. One German dealer has the best version of datasheet - look for what's missing and you know the weekness of the product. Prices? Not comparable neither. It takes years to figure out which lense is just OEM'd and more expensive because another label sticks on it. I thought I was blonde, until yesterday evening I realized that one and the same digital back of the same dealer started at 50 ASA in own city and 100 ASA in another city. Does it really matter? I'm not looking for a super-bargain but I do want to know whether the product I'm buying is worth its price.
I know what they're aiming at - I should contact them and wooops - my dream will become true and I'll stick with them forever. Sounds like a marriage. But I have difficulties contacting someone who sells cars with websites not updated, products not consistently presented and whose information policy whispers: we don't care. Or maybe they just don't want me to become a real man?
So I thought the only way to be sure I make the right decision is to ask you. Shall I at all? Besides the dynamic range and bokeh I could reactivate my Linhof. I'm not afraid of tripods, on the contrary, they belong to us - me and my EOS 5D.
What I love, however is Tilt and Shift. If I invest in a MF system, I want an adapter. Mamiya so far is the only one where I found it, but with recommended lenses I couldn't find anywhere. And with manual focussing. If Autofocus is so slow or unreliable, do I really need it at all?
I love waist level finders and agree that people feel less 'shot' with it. After years with my 80-200mm 2,8 Canon lense my shoulder would be grateful for a different position, too.
So - these are my first rants and I'll be more grateful for any input.
-
Paintress
First of all, welcome aboard, though you may eventually think you were better off swimming.
I would imagine that your best bet would be to stay with FF 35mm and buy yourself the set of Tilt/Shift lenses, see if they do give you the quality you need, and then, only then, buy into larger digital bodies if you find from experience that 35mm can't cut it.
Somebody I know in Australia has a background in 8x10 and also 4x5 and 120 film, has a 35mm digital for much of his work, but still finds his personal heaven with sheet film. I think he has spent a lot of money running around in equipment circles.
If you are really, really German, how can you not be blonde? All the ones I see in Mallorca are!
Rob C
-
What I love, however is Tilt and Shift. If I invest in a MF system, I want an adapter.
I love waist level finders
waist level finder & Tilt/Swing/Shift...?
Hasselblad bodies do have removable finders and of course there is also a waist level finder.
They provide the "HTS"-adapter for tilt+swing+shift on the H-bodis. The adapter magnifies the focal length by factor 1.5.
(leaf shutter system)
The Contax also provides a waist level finder. As the system is discontinued it's a bit harder to find a waist level finder.
You could use a Zörk adapter in conjunction with a Pentax 6x7 format lens on the Contax or a Hartblei Super Rotator lens... but I am not sure about the quality of these lenses.
(focal plane shutter system)
Finally also the Hy6 provides a waist level finder but I don't know about tilt/swing/shift lenses.
(leaf shutter system)
As to the digital backs it would be helpful to outline the features you need... so do you need for instance somewhat higher frame rates, usable mid-ISO or super low base ISO, wide angle (i.e. a larger or a smaller sensor plane)... etc.
The long exposure capability of the Phase backs you've mentioned above only apply to the previous generation of Phase back with Kodak sensors (P21, P30, P25, P45). All the other backs of all makers (including the P40 and P65) are more or less limited to 30''-1'... resp. a few minutes (for instance the H4D40 can do 4 or 5 minutes or so AFAIK).
-
Wow - three answers already and I thought you were all asleep over there (time lag).
Rob, my 90mm T+S is the reason I love T+S. If you don't mind, I'll upload two examples to show how I use it, pictures tell more than words. I tilt, turn it about 22 degrees and shoot at f2,8. With the small viewfinder it's extremely difficult to control (or even smell) the area of sharpness.
Staying with film is an option, if I'm able to reactivate my huge Jobo machine. Two years ago she started to smoke, the repair man (I hope he's still working) told me I was lucky she didn't go up in flames. Since then she doesn't smoke anymore, but the films look only half developped. I changed chemistry, cameras, films but then gave up. It felt a bit like having spent two weeks with my Windows PC in order to make the printer accept Fine Art Paper.
And the German girls you meet in Mallorca - are you sure they're true blondes? If so, Dutch sounds very similar to German. :D
Keith, Phase One told me: "We will contact you as soon as possible to arrange your Phase One demo." on October 14th. Of course I will test before I buy. When I last bought a car, I could do the first selection online, get an idea about what is actually offered and what is really important for me and then the four remaining candidates were all within a thirty minutes drive range from my home. I contacted them via their websites (which were up to date) and they reacted within one day. I'm not planning to run across Germany in order to test half of what is available and then still have the feeling that the lense of my dreams is waiting for me in a non-updated website. When I find it I'll realize I'm stuck with the wrong system. I knew that Hasselblad was expensive and many Mamiya fans produced equal results. But after the little consistent results of my research I'm not sure whether it's more expensive to step into a Mamiya system in the long run. At this level I don't want any lense lying around to gather dust. Not even if it's included in a package and seems to cost nothing. I also would like to know who manufactured a lense before spending my time on testing it.
tho_mas - thank you very much for the information. Concerning the features I need, I'm not yet determined. First because within MF there are natural restrictions that I'm ready to accept, if the rest is worth it. Second because I'll still have my working EOS and Linhof to do what the MF can't.
Some criteria only become important in real life. For example the reason I went for full format initially was the Tilt and Shift. At that time it took me more than two weeks to figure out what APS format would mean for my lenses. The 5D is said to be slow, my German photographer friends (all had gone for the D1) were so convincing that I had stayed away from certain topics for a long time. Now I'm doing horses and just for fun went to photograph a hockey game (field hockey inside, not ice hockey). It worked, but I'm aware it only worked because I've grown accustomed to my camera's behaviour. Until then Super ISO rates never were an issue for me, but thanks to horses and hockey I discovered the ability of my camera at ASA 800.
After all I've understood, a resolution of above 40 MP is not necessary for what I want, I'm fairly sure that 30MP will be more than enoough. Unless I've overseen an aspect concerning my Linhof. :-[
Wide Angle (as to yet) play a minor role. No architecture, no landscape. I'm quite confused with the translation of focal lenghts. My favorites for portrait were a 100mm Macro and the 70-200mm Zoom. According to a Phase One translator, 100mm would mean 161mm in a 645 system (Hasselblad H1), 183mm for 6x6 (Hasselblad V) or 211mm for 6x7 (Pentax). I don't get what this means for the actual photo. The difference between 6x6 and 6x7 is that I have some more space (1cm) on one axis, but shouldn't the rest of the picture be the same? And now I'm starting to go in circles: What lense will I put on a Pentax 6x7 with a 645 back? I think the focal length should be oriented at the limiting 4,5 cm, wrong?
Enough, I'm starving and hope I don't forget to heat the water before I throw in the Spagetti. Thank you all very much for answering!
-
Sounds like the Hasselblad H4D31 is just right for your needs. I switched from the 5D to the 5DII, and now own the H3DII31 (No longer for sale), the H4D31 replaced it. It's a fantastic camera and has all the abilities you need. Price is said to be around $9995. Euro. Hard to beat that. The Hasselblad system is also very easy to understand. It's a closed system and everything works together very well.
.02
-
Sounds like the Hasselblad H4D31 is just right for your needs. I switched from the 5D to the 5DII, and now own the H3DII31 (No longer for sale), the H4D31 replaced it. It's a fantastic camera and has all the abilities you need. Price is said to be around $9995. Euro. Hard to beat that. The Hasselblad system is also very easy to understand. It's a closed system and everything works together very well.
I agree, to the OP, if you're dead-set on getting MFD for its mythical qualities, Hasselblad H4D whatever is the way to go.
-
After all I've understood, a resolution of above 40 MP is not necessary for what I want, I'm fairly sure that 30MP will be more than enoough. Unless I've overseen an aspect concerning my Linhof. :-[
if I understand correctly you are planing to use the digiback also on the Linhof?
In this case you definitely should not consider a digiback with a microlensed sensor. On a view-/tech camera the lenses are very close to the sensor and the microlenses of the respective digibacks will produce heavy light falloff and color shift with large movements (i.e. tilt/swing/shift). So definitely no H-31, H-40, P21 or P30... Any other back without microlenses will do fine.
-
if I understand correctly you are planing to use the digiback also on the Linhof?
In this case you definitely should not consider a digiback with a microlensed sensor.
Oops, yes, good catch...
-
Is the article and post not missing the biggest point? I mean we are judging a photograph by it's technical content and not it's artistic content. Don't we all know which gear is better suited to certain jobs, sure we can file the corners off the square peg and hammer it into the round hole, or hey why not get a round peg or a square hole and stop f arting around.
Kevin.
-
Keith - maybe it's a misunderstanding, I never intented to take a decision after only two weeks. I just never experienced that a two weeks' research resulted in my being more confused than before. And in increasing my fears and doubts. A new addition to my fears is the fact that I've been trying to open the website of Hasselblad Germany for five hours and nothing comes up. I know this phenomenon from last week - at that time it was Phase One. At first I thought my internet connection is weak, but I started opening Canon or Luminous Landscape and other websites and they work. Maybe they want me to buy a new car?
While waiting for Hasselblad I tried a pack of Polaroid films, valid until 02/02. They were not stored in the fridge, because the fridge had broken down one day and the moment I discovered this, all films were destroyed. So I kept the ones I had planned for immediate use and still have nine packs of this one. I was so amazed and happy of the results that I nearly forgot about MFD. But then my stomach told me it was going to turn upside down and it took me half an hour in very fresh (and cold) air to persuade him to stay balanced. Good Lord, they do smell. My entire system screemed for going digital.
Fights on a personal level are not my cup of tea, thus I don't want to say more than that I'm quite resistant to mythical believing when photography is concerned. Too many very expensive wrong decisions. I have an old Hasselblad in my studio, used it several times and never really became attached to it. My EOS 5D had to wait a year until it became my constant companion, I'm aware it can take time. Maybe my lacking fire with the Hasselblad is because of the lenses I have along with the body - a wide angle and a 80mm.
Well, these are emotional factors that I will have to check by testing. But forgive me if I now state that the No-1-treasure to me is tho_mas. I'm establishing a flow-chart according to his information and whenever I find a website of Hasselblad without having to learn Swedish, the choice can be narrowed down and I will have to spend less time testing without even guessing what will go wrong in the end.
Kevin - I agree that in the end it's the photograph and nothing else that we should judge. With Photoshop we don't need an expensive camera at all nowadays. Shoot and then start the real artistic work in PS. One photographer on Flickr nearly tricked me into buying the equipment he had until I realized that his Nikkon performed just as well as his MF camera. His city had amazingly clean trains or buses, all the people on his photographs were amazingly perfect. The great fascinating world of PS is not appropriate when you make a living from portrait photography. Been there, done it - gave it up very soon. My clients see themselves in the mirror every morning. They know who they are. A potential employer knows what he sees and we've trained them to look for the difference between reality and the photograph.
My aim is not to create the finest image that ever was shot in my category. I don't want to send anyone to a surgeon, I want to tell them that they have a unique personality and we (my camera system and me) are grateful we were allowed to witness and communicate this unique trait. It's not about me, it's not about the camera, it's about the customer. BUT, very big but - I'm not aware of any successfull artist in whatever discipline who didn't mind about his tools. The article you disliked is of great information to me. I've followed this forum long enough to have an idea about what these writers are able to accomplish. Long enough to have a certain feeling that you were persuaded by the technical details. There are tons of websites with technical tests I'll never understand in my life - let them have it. Counting lines or pixels and being able to reproduce the most realistic colour is not my aim. I'm grateful for reviews like this article - by people who don't rely on PS (you can do a lot with it, that's why I refrained from it) but on the system that views the world in a very similar way we do ourselfs. Let's stay human.
-
"With Photoshop we don't need an expensive camera at all nowadays"
Dont agree with that statement at all.....people rely too much on photoshop....
If start with crap all you get is crap thats been photoshopped ;D
I for one hate the current " Models with no skin " look...so smooth they look like plastic...just look silly to me...but then again what do I know..I shoot Architecture .....LOL
Quality doesnt have to mean expensive either - You can buy complete MF kits on Ebay for peanuts with some of the best lenses ever produced !
just my thoughts :D
-
In fact, you need the camera that suits you. Not more, not less. More importantly the design and operation in your hands.
That's why testing in hand is obligatory. Not specially the magical IQ, because nowdays most of the cameras are capable of producing the quality you need.
The current models with no skin look is because of cultural codes, being introduced in many ad campaigns by some brands. This plastic unreal and quasi-mortiferous imagery has a lot to do with our plastic, dead and artificial societies (in the so called first world)...
I must say that I see the same cold imagery in arquitecture photography also nowdays. Perfect exposures, perfect textures, everything is clean, DR is perfect and all ends boring like hell.
My favorite picture of James Russell is this one, not specially the "cleanest and most elaborate" of his portfolio:
Link is here:http://russellrutherfordphoto.com/#/Sports/Sports/20 (http://russellrutherfordphoto.com/#/Sports/Sports/20)
-
forgive me if I now state that the No-1-treasure to me is tho_mas. I'm establishing a flow-chart according to his information and whenever I find a website of Hasselblad without having to learn Swedish, the choice can be narrowed down and I will have to spend less time testing without even guessing what will go wrong in the end.
I am sure you will find many more "treasures" on this board when you start a new thread. I suspect there are quite a few users that simply stay away from this thread (due to its title and its author).
-
Buy a car, it's far easier!
Keith! That's a fib! You know perfectly well how long I have been dancing around myself to replace Rusty and then, at the last moment, find a fiscal or moral imperative that demands I do nothing at all.
No, it's not lack of cash. It's a gut feeling that anything I do get, in that range, will be a huge disappointment. They are all boxes now, all tall as the Empire State and as pleasing to the eye as a catapult in Gaza. Or anywhere else, for that matter.
Cameras are also bitches. They seduce you (blonde or not) into thinking they will cure your emotional ills, will turn you into the soul you were half a century ago (okay, ME!), but then they turn into the same dogs that the last one was. But heavier. And more expensive. That opened film box shot brought it all back - well, it has been sitting there on the cabinet for zonks, anyway - and it proves the huge immediacy of digital, no argument. But, I can understand the problem that digital represents for many erstwhile film users. Film has another quality, it isn't just a tactile thing, and certainly the processing would be a real pain nowadays without the old pro set-ups of earlier years, part of the very personal routine that gave the particular look each snapper developed (oh dear) for himself, almost by default.
In the end, I suppose that it all comes down to what kind of work and time pressures you have. For the guy who enjoys messing about in the dark, it could still be fun, but for the busy pro, as in large throughput, it probably has to be a relic. Yet, why do I get the feeling that for many people, going big digi will be their financial undoing?
Rob C
-
I suspect there are quite a few users that simply stay away from this thread (due to its title and its author).
That's effing uncalled for.
Rob C
-
Thanks Fred,
There is a nice story to this and if it's off topic or anyone doesn't want to be bored by it, this just skip it.
Last year was approached by an Atlanta Ad agency to shoot some kind of spec spot for a soft drink. You know, using real people in real situations.
I was in our Dallas studio so I thought I'd go out to this dirt track, Devil's Bowl Speedway and location scout it.
Once I got there I shot a few frames in succession with a D3 and D700 and kind of flipped through them and they looked great in sequence, so I thought what the hell, just shoot the still camera like a motion camera and kept shooting.
I shot about 2,000 frames, color graded em' in lightroom and stuck them together in the non linear editor and like the look so then we storyborded the project brought out a couple of models and went back two weeks later to fill in the blanks and give it a "commercial" look.
The commercial part just didn't work. Well it did, but it kind of ruined the whole idea and at this point it morphed from a commercial project to something I cared about deeply.
BTW: Dallas is like any Metropolitan area. I know most people probably think it's cowboys and Redneck Strip Joints (and there is some of that), but it's mostly high end restaurants, Scoop, Prada, Mercedes and Toyota Pruius'. In other words kind of sissified like the rest of the major metro world.
Now if you go 40 miles out of Dallas it turns into the real world of people that get dirt under their fingernails, eat corndogs on a stick, cheer for the local hero and say excuse me if they stand in your way.
So I shot the second session with the Nikons and a 5d, licensed a great song by Noreen Braun and cut the piece together. I love this piece and am proud of it.
Heres the video.
http://russellrutherfordphoto.com/#/Motion%20Imagery/Motion%20Imagery/1 (http://russellrutherfordphoto.com/#/Motion%20Imagery/Motion%20Imagery/1)
A side note is between going back out, I made a couple of prints for those to gentlemen in the photograph Fred linked to. I explained that I loved this image and these prints were for them. They both looked at the two prints and kind of stood there a little worried looking. I asked what the problem was and the driver said, "uh, gosh these are very nice, but how much do we owe you?". I smiled and siad, look you don't owe me anything, in fact I owe you and the driver said, "yes, but I know making prints like this must be expensive so we should pay you.".
Another side note, is one of the model's from LA said "hey this is great, I have to tell all my friends. I said please don't. These are nice people and the last thing they need is someone walking up to the concession stand, asking for an arugula salad.
These people are doing fine, so leave them alone.
JR
In fact, you need the camera that suits you. Not more, not less. More importantly the design and operation in your hands.
That's why testing in hand is obligatory. Not specially the magical IQ, because nowdays most of the cameras are capable of producing the quality you need.
The current models with no skin look is because of cultural codes, being introduced in many ad campaigns by some brands. This plastic unreal and quasi-mortiferous imagery has a lot to do with our plastic, dead and artificial societies (in the so called first world)...
I must say that I see the same cold imagery in arquitecture photography also nowdays. Perfect exposures, perfect textures, everything is clean, DR is perfect and all ends boring like hell.
My favorite picture of James Russell is this one, not specially the "cleanest and most elaborate" of his portfolio:
Link is here:http://russellrutherfordphoto.com/#/Sports/Sports/20 (http://russellrutherfordphoto.com/#/Sports/Sports/20)
-
I've shot a few times in Austin and Waco, once for an insurance company and once for Dr. Pepper. Nice, nice people. Tall, too. I told the crew that they would see a few things in Texas: a man on a horse (working); a man with a gun on his hip; and road side advertisements that are a cross between Rauchenberg's Combines, folk art, and late 40's advertising. They saw all this, and more.
West has really good Czech food.
After eating at Diamondbacks' in Waco, we were walking back to the Hilton when we noticed a large parking lot party. Trucks, reefer, beer, football talk. A gaffer from New York said, all excited: "Its just like Dazed and Confused out here!" And it is.
-
Though born and raised in Texas I left young and remember it quite different.
Though we still live in LA and NY my wife wanted us to buy a building and though I know nothing of real estate I knew we were at the top of the bubble and I couldn't see buying 500 sq ft. in NY for a million, or 2 million in LA to live next to a bowling alley, so we flew to Texas over the Holiday's to visit family and met a realtor in Dallas. 4 hours later I bought the building. A really great building, that I probably paid too much for, but after looking at the numbers we saw on the coast, it was a steal.
Anyway, I like it there, Dallas is much more metro than Austin, a little less fun, but the people are nice, the traffic not bad, the taxes pretty good, the weather ok and I wish I could spend more time there.
We've shot some nice images there.
I actually would have preferred to buy in Austin, but I didn't want to make a connecting flight to all the places we traveled.
I haven't seen anyone working on a horse in downtown Dallas, though it might happen, I have met a lot of nice folks, though overall I mostly see people with Iphones in one hand, an espresso in the other, updating their face-book page.
Now 40 miles away is much different and a lot of fun.
JR
P.S. Next time you want a Dr. Pepper, ask for a Dublin. They're little bitty Dr. Peppers, made in the original plant in Dublin Texas, with pure cane sugar instead of corn syrup.
They're good.
-
The other day I was looking for information on internet about a Grass Valley product (Edius) and falled... on a Dallas city map...(nothing to do with video!)
James, the video you linked is fantastic in all aspects. The color tones, the montage, the little boy (very important IMO), the inboard views, and maybe the highest point is that it transmits you did it with big passion. It's very sensitive, like a tribute to those people and the esthetic is extremely well executed.
Cheers.
-
I'm quite confused with the translation of focal lenghts. My favorites for portrait were a 100mm Macro and the 70-200mm Zoom. According to a Phase One translator, 100mm would mean 161mm in a 645 system (Hasselblad H1), 183mm for 6x6 (Hasselblad V) or 211mm for 6x7 (Pentax). I don't get what this means for the actual photo. The difference between 6x6 and 6x7 is that I have some more space (1cm) on one axis, but shouldn't the rest of the picture be the same? And now I'm starting to go in circles: What lense will I put on a Pentax 6x7 with a 645 back? I think the focal length should be oriented at the limiting 4,5 cm, wrong?
Well a Pentax 6x7 doesn't have interchangeable backs; but if it did, yes, you would match the lens to the dimensions of the actual format being used. And in MF digital it gets even more complicated, because there are at least 5 different digital sensor sizes (none of them actually as large as 645 film). So you must relate the available MF lens focal lengths to the actual sensor size and see what angle of view each gives you, then compare those numbers to the angles given by lenses for the format you are most familiar with (for most people this means full 35mm). It's actually very easy to do this in a spreadsheet. In Microsoft Excel, enter these data and formulae:
In cell A1 put the width of the sensor (mm)
In cell B1 put the height of the sensor (mm)
In cell C1 enter the formula for the diagonal length of the sensor: =SQRT((A1)^2+(B1)^2)
In cell D1 put 43.27 (which is the diagonal length of a 35mm frame)
In cell E1 put the Medium Format lens focal length (mm)
In cell F1 enter the formula for the angular field of the MF lens =DEGREES(2*ATAN(C1/(2*E1)))
In cell G1 enter the formula for the focal length of the equivalent 35mm lens =($D$1)/(2*TAN(RADIANS(F1/2)))
If you paste in the formulae exactly as I've derived them here, it will work.
You can then copy the complete row 1 to other rows, changing only the MF lens focal length, to see how the range of lenses work out.
Or change the sensor sizes in A1 & B1, to see how that affects things.
Of course this also works equally for film - just put the film frame dimensions in cells A1 & B1.
Hope this helps,
Ray
-
http://www.captureintegration.com/?s=focal+length+calculator
-
I'm quite confused with the translation of focal lenghts. My favorites for portrait were a 100mm Macro and the 70-200mm Zoom. According to a Phase One translator, 100mm would mean 161mm in a 645 system (Hasselblad H1), 183mm for 6x6 (Hasselblad V) or 211mm for 6x7 (Pentax). I don't get what this means for the actual photo. The difference between 6x6 and 6x7 is that I have some more space (1cm) on one axis, but shouldn't the rest of the picture be the same? And now I'm starting to go in circles: What lense will I put on a Pentax 6x7 with a 645 back? I think the focal length should be oriented at the limiting 4,5 cm, wrong?
You are quite right. The rest of the picture should be the same. When adjusting focal lengths to get the same Field of View using a different format of camera (or DB), there is a complication when the aspect ratios of the two different formats are also different, as in the case of 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 6x8cm & 6x9cm film formats.
If the height of a particular scene or composition is to your taste but you want more width, then you can use the same focal length of lens with 6x9 as you are using with 6x6 format.
However, if you want the width that a 6x9 format would give you, but all you have is a 6x6 format back, then you have to use a wider FL of lens with the 6x6 format, ie, 6/9ths of the focal length.
As a rule of thumb, without getting into the specifics of the requirements for a particular composition and the type of cropping that might be appropriate, it's common practice to use the differences of the diagonal of the formats to determine a focal length equivalent, as the other Ray has suggested.
When taking the trouble to compare resolution, noise and other characteristic of different formats, using the differences in the diagonals to adjust FL may be quite acceptable when the differences in aspect ratios are not great, as in the cases of 35mm format and 645, but it wouldn't be acceptable when comparing 6x6 with 6x9, in my opinion.
What I find rather amazing are comparisons between 35mm and MFDB where the photographer hasn't even bothered to adjust FL (or FOV) in accordance with the diagonal differences between the two formats. Such comparisons are meaningless. (Well, perhaps not entirely meaningless. One might deduce that the photographer making such comparisons is either careless and technically incompetent, or is trying to be deliberately deceptive. There's meaning in that.)
-
James,
that's a nice little video :)
who is singing the Magic Man there?
Edmund
-
James post really hit home for me. I am experiencing the same type of scenerio. The last four weeks I have been going to the River Bottom Speedway. It's in central Illinois but I'll keep the location secret as, like James, I don't want to spoil it. Take a Sunday afternoon, a bunch of red necks (in the good sense), some beat up home-built race cars, a hunk of corn field, some Bud, and no rules or prizes, and you have a heck of a time.
I am retired and shoot for fun. Use a m4/3 with lots of adapted lenses (retitle this thread to 'You can't do That with m4/3'). Yes, fast focus is a problem but it can be worked around. I get enough keepers to keep me happy using autofocus and manual. Limited dynamic range, work around that to. It's the pictures that count and I can get what I want.
I have free range to pick the best vantage points except some times they hollar 'Move back - ya wanta get killed'. I sell prints for cost for this is not a money thing but I can't afford to give them away.
This Saturday they are having a benefit and racing under lights. That will really stretch the capabilities of my camera. I guess I'll go for the grainy B/W 'atmosphere' genre.
When I first moved here five years ago I was depressed. Nothing around here worth photographing. In the last couple of months its as if blinders have been removed from my eyes. Now I see stuff all around me, like this speedway. Heard about an antique tractor plowing next Sunday. Sounds like fun.
Too keep to the OP topic, his point was that you can use equipment beyond its normal usage parameters and get results if you try hard enough. That's my point too, only going in the opposite direction.
Larry
-
Goofed. Didn't get the other two pics posted. Here they are: the overall scene and a sexy race car.
Larry
-
OK, I've moved (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=47590.0).
-
http://www.captureintegration.com/?s=focal+length+calculator
Ah! I didn't realise that was available. They did a nice job. Still, I enjoyed putting my own together - understanding the formulae from optical principles.
-
I've just had a private bet with myself that Jeff will not show us a comparison between the P65+, at F13 and ISO 1600, and the 1Ds3, at ISO 400 and F8, using the same shutter speed with both cameras.
In theory, they should be about the same. In practice, the Canon is better engineered for this kind of scenario and so will produce a much better image is my guess...
Your comments about diffraction are mostly accurate. At a given field of view and depth of field (assuming the same print size) resolution is diffraction limited to a specific amount--irrespective of sensor size. So for some deep focus photography, APS-C digital and 4x5 are turning out the same resolution, even though the 4x5 camera needs orders of magnitude more light. For example:
At 50mm f8 on 135 (or the equivalent field of view/depth of field on any other format), you're limited to about 35 slightly fuzzy megapixels by diffraction. So an equivalent lens and f-stop on medium format, while it would require more light, would in theory produce a better image. But not dramatically better.
At 100mm f16 on 135 (or the equivalent on anything else), your resolution is capped at under 9 megapixels. Any modern digital camera should be fine. 135 film would be fine, too, except it's grainy.
With film, tonality and grain--not resolution--are limiting factors w/r/t enlargements. Film is really grainy. And so increases in film size matter--a lot. With digital, so long as your lenses measure up, megapixels matter more than sensor size. With either, when doing deep focus landscapes at tasteful focal lengths, diffraction is usually the limiting factor. Using the Scheimpflug principle (tilt/shift) or image stitching, you can to some extent overcome these limitations, though.
So the simplest answer is: for any shots you take below f11, in theory those could be sharper with medium format digital (and yes, f11 is a lot sharper on medium format than on full frame, just as f11 is sharper on full-frame than on APS-C). But of course you would need WAY more light and better lenses.
Medium format digital capture emulates the workflow of your RB67...it assumes you want to use low ISOs (like with film) because you'll be shooting landscapes or in studio with strobes (and always with a tripod). The dSLR is much more general purpose. The article is just trying to argue that medium format digital is a little more flexible than it seems, even if it's not designed to be very flexible.
And besides, the Canon 5D4 or whatever will be out in five years and be 50MP+. And at that point diffraction limits will make anything else completely pointless.
-
Shooting antelope… just came across the Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 1700 mm F4. Find out more here:
http://www.crestock.com/blog/technology/the-worlds-most-extreme-photography-equipment-117.aspx
Cheers,
-
Shooting antelope… just came across the Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 1700 mm F4. Find out more here:
Cheers,
Shucks, I was hoping it was on eBay!
I have not got anything larger than 600mm and 900mm aero-recce lenses, on Sinar lensboards.
-
Thanks Fred,
There is a nice story to this and if it's off topic or anyone doesn't want to be bored by it, this just skip it.
Last year was approached by an Atlanta Ad agency to shoot some kind of spec spot for a soft drink. You know, using real people in real situations.
I was in our Dallas studio so I thought I'd go out to this dirt track, Devil's Bowl Speedway and location scout it.
Once I got there I shot a few frames in succession with a D3 and D700 and kind of flipped through them and they looked great in sequence, so I thought what the hell, just shoot the still camera like a motion camera and kept shooting.
I shot about 2,000 frames, color graded em' in lightroom and stuck them together in the non linear editor and like the look so then we storyborded the project brought out a couple of models and went back two weeks later to fill in the blanks and give it a "commercial" look.
The commercial part just didn't work. Well it did, but it kind of ruined the whole idea and at this point it morphed from a commercial project to something I cared about deeply.
BTW: Dallas is like any Metropolitan area. I know most people probably think it's cowboys and Redneck Strip Joints (and there is some of that), but it's mostly high end restaurants, Scoop, Prada, Mercedes and Toyota Pruius'. In other words kind of sissified like the rest of the major metro world.
Now if you go 40 miles out of Dallas it turns into the real world of people that get dirt under their fingernails, eat corndogs on a stick, cheer for the local hero and say excuse me if they stand in your way.
So I shot the second session with the Nikons and a 5d, licensed a great song by Noreen Braun and cut the piece together. I love this piece and am proud of it.
Heres the video.
http://russellrutherfordphoto.com/#/Motion%20Imagery/Motion%20Imagery/1 (http://russellrutherfordphoto.com/#/Motion%20Imagery/Motion%20Imagery/1)
A side note is between going back out, I made a couple of prints for those to gentlemen in the photograph Fred linked to. I explained that I loved this image and these prints were for them. They both looked at the two prints and kind of stood there a little worried looking. I asked what the problem was and the driver said, "uh, gosh these are very nice, but how much do we owe you?". I smiled and siad, look you don't owe me anything, in fact I owe you and the driver said, "yes, but I know making prints like this must be expensive so we should pay you.".
Another side note, is one of the model's from LA said "hey this is great, I have to tell all my friends. I said please don't. These are nice people and the last thing they need is someone walking up to the concession stand, asking for an arugula salad.
These people are doing fine, so leave them alone.
JR
A quick meditation of the James picture, out of topic also, inspired by a Rob's post.
Why this Jame's picture is so important to me? because that's a huge peice of photography.
There are many others works in the portfolio that can be considered cleaner, technicaly more acheived or whatever. But this pic tells the big story. That is why it is so good. Who cares about any other aspects like DR, and so on.
This picture is simply brillant because its power lays in the big story.
Ironicaly, to put up a fashion or advertising shooting, a "big story is needed", but where lays that story, in the final image? I think it do not, the big story is in the making-of. In the human adventure that made possible the pictures. On the contrary, the car race shooting tells an apparently small story, simple people, simple life in a texan country. No Ayrton Senna or Michael Shumacher there, no celebrities but just anonymous guys. But the final image is a big story.
-
Ah the stories!
It's a funny thing, but I have long believed that 'stories' have nothing to do with actual photography. Stories are the trick through which you sell the idea of the shoot to the client - or vice versa - but the reality, without captions, means that there never really is a visible story, just an excuse for a helluva good time (on a good shoot).
Look at those fashion mags around the place - what do you see? A headline telling you about the story, but the pictures are generally stand-alone images that sell something very beautifully. Thank God for that; to be tied to some moron's idea of a theme would be murder indeed.
I think I mentioned this here before, but it's perhaps worth the retelling. A calendar client told me that the next shoot was going to be a 'painterly' job in the south of France. I was delighted, and took the Sarah Moon Pirelli into his office to see if that was where his mind was travelling. He almost had a heart attack. The upshot? Some of the French pix on my website - St Paul de Vence, Saint-Tropez, etc. Nothing to do with painterly, but certainly what he was happy to publish for his company. Stories; they confuse more than they help.
So yes, Fred, you are absolutely right: the 'big story' is all about the selling of the act of getting the contract to do the shoot! It's the justification that one level of management feels it owes to the level above itself.
Rob C
-
Ah the stories!
It's a funny thing, but I have long believed that 'stories' have nothing to do with actual photography. Stories are the trick through which you sell the idea of the shoot to the client - or vice versa - but the reality, without captions, means that there never really is a visible story, just an excuse for a helluva good time (on a good shoot).
Look at those fashion mags around the place - what do you see? A headline telling you about the story, but the pictures are generally stand-alone images that sell something very beautifully. Thank God for that; to be tied to some moron's idea of a theme would be murder indeed.
I think I mentioned this here before, but it's perhaps worth the retelling. A calendar client told me that the next shoot was going to be a 'painterly' job in the south of France. I was delighted, and took the Sarah Moon Pirelli into his office to see if that was where his mind was travelling. He almost had a heart attack. The upshot? Some of the French pix on my website - St Paul de Vence, Saint-Tropez, etc. Nothing to do with painterly, but certainly what he was happy to publish for his company. Stories; they confuse more than they help.
So yes, Fred, you are absolutely right: the 'big story' is all about the selling of the act of getting the contract to do the shoot! It's the justification that one level of management feels it owes to the level above itself.
I think Gregory Crewdson would disagree.
-
I think Gregory Crewdson would disagree.
I don't think he's relevant to Fred's dilemma; I doubt he has any wish to be a hot potato in fashion photography, but you never know.
The triumph of technique over soul?
Rob C
-
Crewdson is a strange case. I respect him. Don't get me wrong when I talked about big stories. The imagery of Crewdson is extremely elaborate, he has IMO more of a painter soul. His influences are clear.
So Gregory uses small stories but they end in big stories. Exactly what I was pointing about the Russell's picture of the car.
That's what I call real talent and what I consider photography is about.
I respect him as an artist fully accomplished.
Eugene Smith that Rob was talking about is indeed a monster. Very powerfull! But hey, simple subjects, how strong are his images he can extracts from very simple situations.
Can you do that? Honestly I can not.
-
In theory, they should be about the same. In practice, the Canon is better engineered for this kind of scenario and so will produce a much better image is my guess...
It's my guess also, but we're now in the digital age. There should be no need for guessing. It's now so easy to do comparisons under any conditions one wishes to specify.
I recall that illuminating comarison between 35mm film and 4x5" film, produced many years ago by Lars Kjellberg of Photodo. Do you remember that?
As I recall, the films used were the B&W T-Max 100 for the 35mm camera and T-Max 400 for the 4x5 format in order to at least increase the shutter speed a bit, at equivalent DoF.
The object of the exercise was to see how 35mm compares with 4x5 at equal DoF, without resorting to the use of tilt lenses.
The 35mm camera was used with an exceptionally fine lens at F5.6 (might have been a Leica Summicron, from memory) and the lens of equivalent focal length on the 4x5 camera was set at F22, a difference of 4 f stops, which matches exactly the ratio of the differences in the height of the two film formats, in order to match the DoF characteristics.
The results were surprising. The 35mm shot was actually slightly sharper than the 4x5 image. However, the 4x5 image was less grainy. With today's noise reduction programs, I guess one could sacrifice the slight edge in sharpness of the 35mm shot to get a result very similar to the 4x5 shot. Except of course, the faster film of ISO 400 was not sufficient to enable use of the same shuter speed with the 4x5 format. To do that, one would have needed to push-process the T-Max 400 film to ISO 1600, resulting in a 4x5 image which I guess might then have been noticeably inferior to the 35mm shot.
So the simplest answer is: for any shots you take below f11, in theory those could be sharper with medium format digital (and yes, f11 is a lot sharper on medium format than on full frame, just as f11 is sharper on full-frame than on APS-C). But of course you would need WAY more light and better lenses.
Aren't all lenses equally bad at F22?
My own tests involving different formats (mainly cropped-format DSLRs and full frame DSLRs) is that F22 seems to be the F stop where the lens is fully diffraction limited. I noticed with my Canon 5D, which has bigger pixels (or at least bigger photosites) than the P65+, I could use F16 without any major concern about resolution loss. The resolution differences between F8 and F11, and between F11 and F16, were difficult to see even when pixel-peeping at 100%. However, the differences between F16 and F22 were quite obvious, F22 being quite noticeably softer.
I imagine that users of MFDBs would want to stay clear of F22 if sharp images are their goal, especially considering that lack of an AA filter. At F22, no camera needs an AA filter. It's no wonder that Michael used F11 when he compared a P45+ image with the P&S G10 at F3.5, at A3+ print size. To equalise DoF he probably should have used F22 with the P45+, but that might have risked the ludicrous situation of the G10 out-resolving the P65+. I say might because of course I'm guessing again.
I should also mention that I've compared the resolution of my 10mp Canon 40D with the 15mp 50D at various F stops, just to see what effect diffraction would have in limiting the potential resolution increase of the 50D.
Once again, F22 appeared to be the F stop at which no resolution benefit of the 50D was noticeable. At F16 the 50D delivered about the same resolution as the 40D at F11. The 50D also delivered about the same resolution at F11 as the 40D at F8. However, at F8 the 50D was slightly sharper than the 40D at F5.6, but that was probably due to the quality of the lens. I was using a standard Canon 50/1.4 which is probably only very slightly sharper at F5.6 than at F8, at least my copy is.
Medium format digital capture emulates the workflow of your RB67...it assumes you want to use low ISOs (like with film) because you'll be shooting landscapes or in studio with strobes (and always with a tripod). The dSLR is much more general purpose. The article is just trying to argue that medium format digital is a little more flexible than it seems, even if it's not designed to be very flexible.
Fair enough! MFDB gear can only come down in price if more people buy the equipment. Perhaps I should 'pull my punches' more.
But I still think, if one values flexibility in a camera system, James Martin's article could be misleading for some potential MFDB customers. Sometimes we want something badly, but perhaps we realise it's not quite pratical for our needs, but we rationalise to ourselves, and kid ourselves, that the disadvantages are not serious.
I sometimes can't help sympathising with Jeff Schewe carrying 35 LBs of P65+ camera gear and having to leave his 1Ds3 & lenses behind. I certainly would, in his circumstances. Even 35 LBs is too heavy for me.
The last time I was in Nepal, photographing the spectacular Himalayas, I carried two cameras, the Canon 20D and 5D, plus a Sigma 15-30 zoom, Canon 24-105 zoom, Canon 100-400 zoom and lightweight Manfrotto tripod. Total weight would have been about 15 LBs or 6 Kgs, for a continuous focal range of 15mm to 640mm.
That's what I call flexibility.
-
There's no argument re: flexibility. dSLRs win. Or, in some cases, point and shoots.
I've read the test you cited and your conclusions are pretty close to what the test finds. But Tri-X is a really old, not terribly good film that still exists primarily because it's easy to develop. Comparing TMAX and Tri-X isn't entirely fair. Comparing TMAX 100 and TMAX 400 might be. And if you're using a tripod, you might as well be using 100ISO film anyway.
All the same, it seems the resolution the 135 lens delivers is fairly similar to the resolution the 4x5 lens delivers. This isn't way too surprising. The rare 135 lens can output 200lp/mm; the rare Hasselblad or Mamiya 7 lens can do just over 100lp/mm, and the rare large format lens reaches 60lp/mm. Which means each would deliver a similar amount of resolution, corrected for sensor size, were film grain and film mtf not limiting factors.
But you may also notice that f22 looked fine on large format. Sure, there's as much diffraction as there would be on any other camera (in theory), but because of the massive size of film, it's basically cancelled out. I've seen awesome 4x5 prints printed at 40''x50'' and taken at f45 (lots of 4s and 5s in that sentence).
Diffraction limits (not accounting for image stitching and the Scheimpflug principle) are constant over a given field of view and depth of field (assuming a common print size). So an f22 lens looks as bad on medium format digital as it does on APS-C digital on a per-pixel level (assuming similar pixel pitch), but the medium format sensor is way bigger and so....it's still a much better image.
Just some numbers (not sure how accurate these are but they should be close):
At f11, a 36mmx24mm sensor is limited to just under 20 megapixels, the same as a 5DII fully resolves. Beyond that (f16, f22, etc.) you get real diffraction issues.
On a 45+ sized sensor, f22 limits you to just under 10 megapixels.
On a G10, f3.5 limits you to just over 8 megapixels, about what the camera likely actually resolves.
At f64 (a commonly used stop), 4x5 film is also limited to about 8 megapixels.
This may explain why David Meunch (who shoots deep focus almost exclusively) moved from 4x5 to a Canon G10 point and shoot. He doesn't need shallow focus or anything other than 100ISO.
But at f5.6 or so...the 80 megapixel medium format backs might actually be delivering 80 megapixels. So for some: it's totally worth it.
Use what you like. If the article didn't resonate with you, don't go medium format. It probably resonated completely with someone else, who's now happily lugging around all the extra gear. The difference between a point and shoot and dSLR is as substantial as the difference between a dSLR and medium format system (in terms of weight, not necessarily pace). Even dSLR shooters are sacrificing convenience for image quality. It's all about how a particular photographer wants to work. I'm not about to call large format photographers crazy, even when they shoot at f64. I'm not about to call Meunch crazy for switching from 4x5 to a G10. If it's the workflow you like and delivers good images, it's just a matter of taste.
-
That's what I call flexibility.
It all depends what you call flexibility. A MF back has a flexibility that lacks dsrl designs, you can use it on different supports like view/tech cameras.
Some Cambos weight less than a good dslr and are very versatiles on field.
Probably the worst design when it comes to those MF cameras is the Leica S2 or Pentax choice because here you loose actually what really makes the MF versatile: the possibility to use the backs in different camera systems. But you have all the hassles in a dslr design package. To me it's not a good idea at all.
Keith Laban pointed a very short statement that I find resumes very well, saying something like "if I where trying to do the kind of work you do with MFD (that was fashion-advertising) I would have thrown the camera on the wall"
That point is cristal clear.
-
The new workflow with MF is interesting - I saw a shoot in Paris, and they had MF, a comp and an assistant on the comp and a camera on tripod set up in the middle of nowhere. I wonder if part of the success of digital MF isn't that to allows guys to offload stuff to an assistant without a bad conscience - camera is now locked on tripod, assistant is checking the focus, lighting, photographer is free to "direct" - walk around checking carefully until everything is ready, chat to AD and keep him happy, make sure model has what she needs to powder her nose, keep the team bullying in the background in check while the lensing is happening - all of which is hard to do if you photographer are stuck behind a viewfinder, choosing angles for the picture, checking the number of frames still on card, chimping your previous image etc.
Edmund
It all depends what you call flexibility. A MF back has a flexibility that lacks dsrl designs, you can use it on different supports like view/tech cameras.
Some Cambos weight less than a good dslr and are very versatiles on field.
Probably the worst design when it comes to those MF cameras is the Leica S2 or Pentax choice because here you loose actually what really makes the MF versatile: the possibility to use the backs in different camera systems. But you have all the hassles in a dslr design package. To me it's not a good idea at all.
Keith Laban pointed a very short statement that I find resumes very well, saying something like "if I where trying to do the kind of work you do with MFD (that was fashion-advertising) I would have thrown the camera on the wall"
That point is cristal clear.
-
The new workflow with MF is interesting - I saw a shoot in Paris, and they had MF, a comp and an assistant on the comp and a camera on tripod set up in the middle of nowhere. I wonder if part of the success of digital MF isn't that to allows guys to offload stuff to an assistant without a bad conscience - camera is now locked on tripod, assistant is checking the focus, lighting, photographer is free to "direct" - walk around checking carefully until everything is ready, chat to AD and keep him happy, make sure model has what she needs to powder her nose, keep the team bullying in the background in check while the lensing is happening - all of which is hard to do if you photographer are stuck behind a viewfinder, choosing angles for the picture, checking the number of frames still on card, chimping your previous image etc.
How is that different from tethered shooting with a DSLR?
-
Keith
Yes, and I agree with your comment.
I have an addendum: Use a dSLR instead of MF and you will be a bit unhappy with yourself; use the wrong MF gear for some purpose, and you will be very unhappy with your gear.
Edmund
I just like to make clear that my comment which was as follows...
If I was trying to do the kind of work that you are trying to do with your current MFD platform I would have slammed it through a wall years ago.
...was specific to the platform/camera that Edmund was using. There are now MFD platforms/cameras that are more suited to the genre.
-
The new workflow with MF is interesting - I saw a shoot in Paris, and they had MF, a comp and an assistant on the comp and a camera on tripod set up in the middle of nowhere. I wonder if part of the success of digital MF isn't that to allows guys to offload stuff to an assistant without a bad conscience - camera is now locked on tripod, assistant is checking the focus, lighting, photographer is free to "direct" - walk around checking carefully until everything is ready, chat to AD and keep him happy, make sure model has what she needs to powder her nose, keep the team bullying in the background in check while the lensing is happening - all of which is hard to do if you photographer are stuck behind a viewfinder, choosing angles for the picture, checking the number of frames still on card, chimping your previous image etc.
Edmund
I read all this, Edmund, and I am forced to ask myself: how in hell is digital supposed to have been an advance?
Let’s be a little more precise: you mentioned models and so I assume you are talking about a shoot with movement, with flow. If you mean otherwise, then discount this post.
I did innumerable model shoots with 6x6 Hasselblad; it was never a problem keeping my work in control; I had the model(s) on my side, there was very seldom an art director present – his job was done when he gave me the job and only began again when I gave him the trannies or prints - and when there was an AD there, he tended to stay well out of the way and schmooze the client, who was also a rare personality on any shoot.
I built an effing career on that principle; I did well enough to pay my way and bring up my kids and retire. I seldom lost a client, and when I did, it was generally through something entirely non-photography related, something such as total hatred shared, very much mutually, between some people at first glance; the kind of disaster that can happen when somebody within a company is replaced by a new guy with his own well developed power structure that’s in a very different place to yours.
Now this was a huge benefit of film: there was no way you could have the situation where people sit and second guess the photographer in their me-me-me game around a monitor (or two, or three, or however big the nightmare becomes) and Polaroids, for me and most of those shooters I actually knew, was a non-event: we just didn’t need it or bother.
The nonsense is all built on a mutual platform of insecurity and fear. Nobody trusts anybody else in the chain – that’s far too long – and so photography turns into something it doesn’t really have to be: a complicated battle of wits; too many people involving themselves. It’s interesting to me to read, here and there, that quite a lot of architectural guys still preserve (and probably expect) both that respect and freedom; how easily the model shooter world capitulated; too much ‘glamour’ and too many desperate to feed off it, to get their fingers damp in the cake.
There are, always, exceptions: unless I got this wrong, Mario Testino is still allowed(!) and able to use his Pentax 67…
You want solutions? Reinvent closed studios, slim everything down.
Rob C
-
Rob,
I really don't know. I think most shooters in product and fashion have capitulated, they are now seen a a technical extension of the AD, who imposes his (her) vision. Some existing guys made their name with vision, but it is my -maybe erroneous- impression that the newer ones are now recruited for being compliant.
Purely technically, if the camera is tripod mounted, an assistant does the light, the AD selects the model and locale and the stylist(s) selects the hair and clothes, I don't know how much the "photographer" really brings into the equation apart from one-point billing, and pre-shoot and on-set management. There is a very nice film made about Vogue, "The September Issue" where one can see the AD set up a shoot at Versailles, and one can also see that the photographer has silence to say.
Edmund
Edmund
I read all this, Edmund, and I am forced to ask myself: how in hell is digital supposed to have been an advance?
Let’s be a little more precise: you mentioned models and so I assume you are talking about a shoot with movement, with flow. If you mean otherwise, then discount this post.
I did innumerable model shoots with 6x6 Hasselblad; it was never a problem keeping my work in control; I had the model(s) on my side, there was very seldom an art director present – his job was done when he gave me the job and only began again when I gave him the trannies or prints - and when there was an AD there, he tended to stay well out of the way and schmooze the client, who was also a rare personality on any shoot.
I built an effing career on that principle; I did well enough to pay my way and bring up my kids and retire. I seldom lost a client, and when I did, it was generally through something entirely non-photography related, something such as total hatred shared, very much mutually, between some people at first glance; the kind of disaster that can happen when somebody within a company is replaced by a new guy with his own well developed power structure that’s in a very different place to yours.
Now this was a huge benefit of film: there was no way you could have the situation where people sit and second guess the photographer in their me-me-me game around a monitor (or two, or three, or however big the nightmare becomes) and Polaroids, for me and most of those shooters I actually knew, was a non-event: we just didn’t need it or bother.
The nonsense is all built on a mutual platform of insecurity and fear. Nobody trusts anybody else in the chain – that’s far too long – and so photography turns into something it doesn’t really have to be: a complicated battle of wits; too many people involving themselves. It’s interesting to me to read, here and there, that quite a lot of architectural guys still preserve (and probably expect) both that respect and freedom; how easily the model shooter world capitulated; too much ‘glamour’ and too many desperate to feed off it, to get their fingers damp in the cake.
There are, always, exceptions: unless I got this wrong, Mario Testino is still allowed(!) and able to use his Pentax 67…
You want solutions? Reinvent closed studios, slim everything down.
Rob C
-
Good comment, thank you very much!
BR Erik
There's no argument re: flexibility. dSLRs win. Or, in some cases, point and shoots.
I've read the test you cited and your conclusions are pretty close to what the test finds. But Tri-X is a really old, not terribly good film that still exists primarily because it's easy to develop. Comparing TMAX and Tri-X isn't entirely fair. Comparing TMAX 100 and TMAX 400 might be. And if you're using a tripod, you might as well be using 100ISO film anyway.
All the same, it seems the resolution the 135 lens delivers is fairly similar to the resolution the 4x5 lens delivers. This isn't way too surprising. The rare 135 lens can output 200lp/mm; the rare Hasselblad or Mamiya 7 lens can do just over 100lp/mm, and the rare large format lens reaches 60lp/mm. Which means each would deliver a similar amount of resolution, corrected for sensor size, were film grain and film mtf not limiting factors.
But you may also notice that f22 looked fine on large format. Sure, there's as much diffraction as there would be on any other camera (in theory), but because of the massive size of film, it's basically cancelled out. I've seen awesome 4x5 prints printed at 40''x50'' and taken at f45 (lots of 4s and 5s in that sentence).
Diffraction limits (not accounting for image stitching and the Scheimpflug principle) are constant over a given field of view and depth of field (assuming a common print size). So an f22 lens looks as bad on medium format digital as it does on APS-C digital on a per-pixel level (assuming similar pixel pitch), but the medium format sensor is way bigger and so....it's still a much better image.
Just some numbers (not sure how accurate these are but they should be close):
At f11, a 36mmx24mm sensor is limited to just under 20 megapixels, the same as a 5DII fully resolves. Beyond that (f16, f22, etc.) you get real diffraction issues.
On a 45+ sized sensor, f22 limits you to just under 10 megapixels.
On a G10, f3.5 limits you to just over 8 megapixels, about what the camera likely actually resolves.
At f64 (a commonly used stop), 4x5 film is also limited to about 8 megapixels.
This may explain why David Meunch (who shoots deep focus almost exclusively) moved from 4x5 to a Canon G10 point and shoot. He doesn't need shallow focus or anything other than 100ISO.
But at f5.6 or so...the 80 megapixel medium format backs might actually be delivering 80 megapixels. So for some: it's totally worth it.
Use what you like. If the article didn't resonate with you, don't go medium format. It probably resonated completely with someone else, who's now happily lugging around all the extra gear. The difference between a point and shoot and dSLR is as substantial as the difference between a dSLR and medium format system (in terms of weight, not necessarily pace). Even dSLR shooters are sacrificing convenience for image quality. It's all about how a particular photographer wants to work. I'm not about to call large format photographers crazy, even when they shoot at f64. I'm not about to call Meunch crazy for switching from 4x5 to a G10. If it's the workflow you like and delivers good images, it's just a matter of taste.
-
A quick meditation of the James picture, out of topic also, inspired by a Rob's post.
Why this Jame's picture is so important to me? The answer is simple: because that's a huge peice of photography.
There are many others works in the portfolio that can be considered cleaner, technicaly more acheived or whatever. But this pic tells the big story. That is why it is so good. Who cares about any other aspects like DR, and so on. This picture is simply brillant because its power lays in the big story.
Ironicaly, to put up a fashion or advertising shooting, a "big story is needed", but where lays that story, in the final image? I think it do not, the big story is in the making-of. In the human adventure that made possible the pictures. On the contrary, the car race shooting tells an apparently small story, simple people, simple life in a texan country. No Ayrton Senna or Michael Shumacher there, no celebrities but just anonymous guys. But the final image is a big story.
When I see that, I realise that those are the kind of images I'd like to do and I don't. Probably because I'm not good enough, or I lack courage or whatever is the reason.
I simply don't do images like those. I'm just telling small stories.
Is shooting for shooting a reason in itself and being happy with paid jobs, well executed imagery and put a name on decent works for the mall shop or Vogue editorial ?
Somewhere I find this path steril, at the same time I'm fully involved into an imagery that is selling clothes and high-heel stuff. I don't think I have the talent to do something else, I don't know, maybe it will rise on day, maybe I'll keep going telling small stories. That's why this James's picture moves me so much: it's what photography is about!
If I can't do photography, I'll stop taking them and sell cameras.
Fred, it sounds like you have come around to the realisation that the entire fashion industry is an artificial construct of vacuous nonsense; while ordinary guys driving cars round a dirt track in a high-stakes-but-low-money race is real life; and that is why photography of the latter is much more appealing.
I would entirely agree!
Ray
-
This week we shot a great project where all the garments had a white theme. We shot on movie lots, beaches, a hot rod shop, studio and practical sets.
We shot with daylight, hmi, studio flash, portable flash, tungsten and mixed lights. We shot at iso 100 and iso 800 as this project was to follow the life of a Hollywood star, it was scene specific.
So what CAN you do with medium format. Well with verticals you can easily get a familiar 4:3 cropping. You can hold extraordinary detail and though they may or may not have more range than the Canons, it does have a different look.
You CAN tether reliably with c-1 v5, set a base look on the computer, at least close enough for the clients and art crew to know where your going.
What you CANNOT do with medium format. You can't really work without a computer because of the lcd. At least with Phase and Leaf . . . not when your shooting intricate lighting and pushing the look to the very edge. The lcd is just hopeless and all it really tells you is you fired the shot. Nothing more.
You also CANNOT use medium format, (at least my two backs) at 800 iso and expect any real detail. The grain is not bad, but if detail is the goal, keep it at 200 iso. (under high key images you can get away with 400 iso, but low key, no).
I'm at the point that I don't mind tethering that much. I mean I don't like it all the time and this week two sessions we just couldn't tether due to permits/time restraints, (which means you have to use a dslr), but when you have so much equipment on large production adding a computer really doesn't speed up or slow down anything.
What you almost have to do with digital is use a tripod for focus. I've known it all along, (resisted it all along) but I can manually focus my Contax's well, the Canon autofocus is ok, but digital leaves such a small window for focus errors, that the rate of success when using a tripod goes up 75% vs. hand holding, with the only exception being the nikons. They autofocus dead on, almost all the time.
Now I don't know about the Hasselblad h4 series, or a Nikon D3x, because as of today I haven't had the time to test any new cameras, but if I was going forward with new cameras for my work I'd look at the d3x and/or the H4. The d3x because I know it focuses well and the H4 because I believe it has a nice 800 iso and maybe a better lcd preview.
BC
P.S. We did use the new Kobalt Bron HMI's for some of these sessions and they are a nice kit, with a lot of accessories and well thought out. Kind of like Mini Pars with small ballasts.
Before I purchase them I will also test the new profoto HMI's though the Kobalts are nice.
We also used the profoto 600b's on the beach and they're really great little strobes, though you need a lot of batteries.
P.S. 2
Don't any maker, dealer, or rep get there knickers in a twist over the lcd/preview, higher iso thing thing, because you all know it, you all have heard the issues, though for some reason only Pentax and Hasselblad have come even close to addressing it.
I know you sell the mega pixel thing and I guess some people need/want 80 gazillion pixels and I know you keep waving around sales figures that prove stuffing in higher density sensors sell well on the high margins, BUT I'd love to have a real full frame 645 and might open my wallet if that would happen along with the other issues of medium format are addressed. Just pulling a new sensor of the Kodak/Dalsa shelf really doesn't show great foresight or innovation.
P.S. 3.
Regarding what Fred says about tethering . . . understand, tethering or not will not make a bad client good, a good client bad, or a good AD/client more intrusive. In fact if you manage your production well, it probably keeps things moving in a more positive direction because you can prove what works and what doesn't work in all 30" of electronic polaroid.
Still sometimes you can't tether and you absolutely cannot show anyone the lcd on the phase back. Not without a staff paramedic and a defibrillator.
P.S. 4
Options matter. My old Ghetto Contax's have a waist level finder, a right angle grip and though they're both are not needed 100% of the time having both when you need them are a lifesaver. Sometimes you just wish that Hasselblad and Phase would merge and put together a combined full featured camera.
P.S. 5
Having messed around with the 5d2 for motion for over a year, I can tell you it ain't there yet and this project proves it. Once again we made it work, but as Michael says Video cameras that are designed for video work a lot better than these combination cameras. (But this is a whole different subject).
IMO
-
Fred, it sounds like you have come around to the realisation that the entire fashion industry is an artificial construct of vacuous nonsense; while ordinary guys driving cars round a dirt track in a high-stakes-but-low-money race is real life; and that is why photography of the latter is much more appealing.
I would entirely agree!
Ray
But there's a problem, Ray: many of us drawn to fashion/model work are actually not empty headed in the least; we are attracted like moths to a blue lamp because we like the concept of capturing, creating beauty out of something that was neither beautiful not even really there at the time before we brought our minds to bear on the subject. That's pretty much a strong form of appealing to the senses, more so than any reportage, which by definition, demands the objective touch. Quite into which branch of photography this puts W.E.Smith I hesitate to guess!
Rob C
-
But there's a problem, Ray: many of us drawn to fashion/model work are actually not empty headed in the least; we are attracted like moths to a blue lamp because we like the concept of capturing, creating beauty out of something that was neither beautiful not even really there at the time before we brought our minds to bear on the subject. That's pretty much a strong form of appealing to the senses, more so than any reportage, which by definition, demands the objective touch. Quite into which branch of photography this puts W.E.Smith I hesitate to guess!
Rob C
I'm not of a one thing mindset.
I love shooting "real" people, I also love shooting constructed settings and both have a place, just like I love a good hamburger and can appreciate Fusion Cuisine.
Maybe it's just me, but I've always resisted being a _________ photographer. To me it's really all the same, subject, light, background and creative brief, even if it's my own creative brief.
It's good for my soul, my life and my bank account.
I know a lot of people don't see it this way and feel everything and everyone must be put into a small little categorical boxes, but I believe any good photographer can add something unique to any project.
What is interesting about the business of image making is (at least in my view), the best photographs I've taken I can't really show, because the subject was so challenged, or the concept so skewed that I used everything I know to make them right (and to some level succeeded), but because they were so challenged nobody really notices that you saved it, unless they are intimate with the project.
JR
-
author=fredjeang link=topic=47291.msg396888#msg396888 date=1287845350]
“It's just like fly-by-wire system in aviation. Well, there is a consensus between pilots that the introduction of fly-by-wire makes a good pilot a better pilot, but actually limits a very very good pilot, and can even be dangerous, many accidents included fatal have occured because of the fly-by-wire when a very good pilot would have saved the situation in extreme flight.”
Like in that Airbus demonstration some years ago where the pilot put it out of auto on coming in to land, and then found he couldn’t regain control; the tv showed the plane fly into a wood…
”Testino was in Madrid for its opening, I can tell you this: he is very powerfull as a man. Very charismatic. Doesn't doubt and just concentrate on one thing at once. He acts absolutly like a rock star. What I mean is that Testino's blood is a leader's blood. Raised in a powerfull familly and been introduced very young in sphere that are almost impossible to reach...personal friend of show-buiz and politics leaders etc...so he can actually uses what he wants, even a Lomo and a monkey as assistant I doubt any AD has enough power on earth to bother or contradicting him. Pure leadership.”
And you can’t buy that. I’ve seen the very same phenomenon with a couple of friends; nothing even remotely makes them doubt the rightness of their own opinions, nor do they imagine for a moment that anyone will dream of questioning them. And to my knowledge, nobody ever does, not even their wives. It is personality. I believe that David Bailey was born with that quality, an opinion based over the years upon several tv interviews, books and articles about him. We could also put Oliviero Toscani into that category; but I think he was also born into the right family. If you have ever met Sean Connery, you will recognize the same quality there. I have, and I did: Shalako. He's a human panther.
”Well Edmund, actually what you just wrote in your posts is precicely something that concerns me and that I also perceive. This reality drives me to several questions about my own path.In short, do I want to be the little AD's ship? or do I want something else? and what are the consequences, etc...but that's way out of topic.”
Maybe off topic, but more important if you are making your life in this business!
Rob C
-
Fred, it sounds like you have come around to the realisation that the entire fashion industry is an artificial construct of vacuous nonsense; while ordinary guys driving cars round a dirt track in a high-stakes-but-low-money race is real life; and that is why photography of the latter is much more appealing.
I would entirely agree!
Ray
Thoughts on fashion.
It's all about dream. So it's all fake of course but it's about making people dream with unrealistic/reachable parameters (models are not representatives of the average woman etc...) to sell them the average and common product.
Fashion as we know it, contemporary, comes basically from Paris. You have to understand what Paris is about to understand what fashion is about.
Basically, Paris is a "prostitute". (Edmund don't jump on me on this one). But, yes, that's the essense of Paris, a very expensive and sophisticated prostitute.
Is it a non sense? If I start to think about it seriously, I find it more than a non sense, a dead end road. But it can have an exit, very narrow and difficult but it can.
What do I like very much in fashion? The team work. I really love to work in/with team. Then, the short relationship with the model, but in my case more exactly, with the human being. I shoot humans, and even if I can apreciate the fantastic landscape or art work of many, personally it does not motivate me to photograph, humans yes.
So that immediatly lead to your post: there are more usefull, powerfull or authentic ways to speak about humans, yes indeed I beleive so. And that's the reason why I'm asking at that time a lot of questions concerning this.
I think that fashion could be a very powerfull medium to express oneself and go further the emptiness and purely commercial, do art with fashion, real art. But I'm not yet on that stage and maybe never will.
Avedon was tirying his models before he knew he had some decent shots, I understand more and more why.
-
“In terms of imagery now, specially with models, I find the freedom to move + shoot a high amount of frames/sec kind of keeping a sort of working tension and maybe, but I'm not yet sure about that because I lack experience, influence the final results to a big extend.”
Well, I didn’t lack experience after a while, and I did work much as you say, except that it wasn’t frames per sec! I had motor drives, but only used them to advance the film.
The whole thing about shooting a lot of frames (for me, at least) is to get the model into the mood of the particular thing you are building up to a climax. Yes, just like sex. That’s why 35mm format gave an entirely different m.o. to using MF – the film count was three times as long with 35mm. Build-up with film MF was a bit of a hope, rather than a reality; also, in my day, electronic flash took quite a few seconds to recycle up to full kick. You just couldn't work too quickly in the studio.
Tripods. Well, for many years I never used them for anything shorter than a 135mm outdoors. Longer than that, I knew I couldn’t hand-hold well enough. That applied with or without studio flash. But, in the studio with 6x6 it was mainly the 2.8/80mm and I didn’t need to tripod it; same with 35mm, where, as I said, it was 135mm that was the razor wire. But when I began to work seriously with stock in mind, it was tripod all the way… maybe the pics suffered as an effect of that.
Rob C
-
Rob,
There is a very nice film made about Vogue, "The September Issue" where one can see the AD set up a shoot at Versailles, and one can also see that the photographer has silence to say.
Edmund
You can also see that Testino just doesn't give an eff: he shot what he felt he'd shoot in Rome, not what Wintour wanted. How Grace Coddington kept her job after that film is the eighth wonder of the world. She was a far better person to deal with than the 'boss' seemed to be; maybe because she was in it at the start, as a model, and she could also appreciate good photography more than it semed the top girl does, and she rooted for her photographers, sticking up for their work! I admired her attitude; wish I'd had a chance to work with her - might have given me an entirely different idea about editors! But boy, did the presence of total fear smell strongly!
Rob C
-
I'm not of a one thing mindset.
Maybe it's just me, but I've always resisted being a _________ photographer. To me it's really all the same, subject, light, background and creative brief, even if it's my own creative brief.
It's good for my soul, my life and my bank account.
I know a lot of people don't see it this way and feel everything and everyone must be put into a small little categorical boxes, but I believe any good photographer can add something unique to any project.
JR
Nothing wrong with that: it's just that some people don't want to do more than one thing; some others can't do more than one thing; and some can't do anything!
;-)
Rob C
-
I agree with the reasons of the high/rate frames.
So, MF for the Viagraists? Houilll....won't walk that path Rob, too dangerous without shield.
How did a capote anglaise come (no!) into this conversation?
Rob C
-
Why should I object? The Paris fashion industry displays the selfsame charm, commanding presence, understanding of human needs, and above all steely eyed avarice of a brothel madam arranging the wrapping of the goods.
I always say that when I go to a fashion show, I am afraid of touching the trade women by accident, their elbows are so sharp they'd cut me to ribbons.
As for shooting, I go with what Jay Maisel says: You never know whether you will get the results, so you should make sure you enjoy the process.
Edmund
Fashion as we know it, contemporary, comes basically from Paris. You have to understand what Paris is about to understand what fashion is about.
Basically, Paris is a prostitute. (Edmund don't jump on me on this one). But, yes, that's the essense of Paris, a very expensive and sophisticated prostitute.
-
I was kidding. But I know, (I've been living there my life before Madrid after all) that the prostitute can asks sometimes people a very high price to have sex with her, and she's not so young. (no offense to women, those are images and parabols okay?)
Don't ask me. What I have noticed is that when you go to the small fashion shows there are quite a few pretty women in the audience. When you go to the big shows, they're all old birds, too tough to eat :)
-
Well, I've shot Antarctica and Yunnan & Sichuan provinces in China with the D3x/D3s combo, and Iceland with the P40+/Phase 645DF system. Other than birds in flight, there's nothing I shot in Antarctica or China that I couldn't have shot with the Phase. In retrospect, I wish I'd had the Phase with me on those other trips, and will be bringing it with me to Antarctica when I go back in a couple weeks. I very much enjoy the D3x, and I think it's a fabulous camera. But the top of a Mountain in Nepal? Definitely MFDB would be my choice. Hands down.
-
I recall that illuminating comarison between 35mm film and 4x5" film, produced many years ago by Lars Kjellberg of Photodo. Do you remember that?
As I recall, the films used were the B&W T-Max 100 for the 35mm camera and T-Max 400 for the 4x5 format in order to at least increase the shutter speed a bit, at equivalent DoF.
The object of the exercise was to see how 35mm compares with 4x5 at equal DoF, without resorting to the use of tilt lenses.
This is a bit like doing a comparative test between a Citroen 2CV and a Ferrari, and insisting on using the same tyres... or was it just to indicate that, if you used a larger format, you have to use the same high-res film and movements to get the benefit?
There was a time when photographers used 5 * 4 sheet film because it was the best tool for photo-journalism or most other jobs for which you did not need 10 * 8, now, in the real world, we use higher res digital cameras to produce bigger pictures in which you can appreciate fine detail at a close viewing distance.
Why do I bother? This topic should have been left to die with the original post!
-
There was a time when photographers used 5 * 4 sheet film because it was the best tool for photo-journalism or most other jobs for which you did not need 10 * 8,
No; in my own experience, many used 4x5 because it was all that the company provided. The Rollei eventually put paid to that in newspapers, not so much because it hadn't been around a long time, but because of availability. When you had a perfectly willing MPP sitting in the office, why would the management think it worthwhile scapping it for nothing and buying a fleet of new, expensive Rolleis?
As soon as they were were made available, they were adopted, in turn to give way to Nikon and Pentax. A 4x5 monster was never the best kite for the flight; it was the tool of last resort.
Rob C
-
No; in my own experience, many used 4x5 because it was all that the company provided. The Rollei eventually put paid to that in newspapers, not so much because it hadn't been around a long time, but because of availability. When you had a perfectly willing MPP sitting in the office, why would the management think it worthwhile scapping it for nothing and buying a fleet of new, expensive Rolleis?
As soon as they were were made available, they were adopted, in turn to give way to Nikon and Pentax. A 4x5 monster was never the best kite for the flight; it was the tool of last resort.
Rob C
That would be the MF (120 film) Rollieflex?
I thought that photo-journalists used European MF roll-film and 35mm cameras before they discovered Pacific-rim cameras when their European cameras failed in the jungle in the Vietnam (or was it Korean?) war?
-
Hi,
The story goes that David Douglas Duncan tested a few Japanese lenses and found them better the corresponding German lenses. If I recall correctly a Japanese photographer had some photos that he said were taken with a Canon lens on a Leica. So they started testing Japanese lenses on the Leica.
Best regards
Erik
That would be the MF (120 film) Rollieflex?
I thought that photo-journalists used European MF roll-film and 35mm cameras before they discovered Pacific-rim cameras when their European cameras failed in the jungle in the Vietnam (or was it Korean?) war?
-
That would be the MF (120 film) Rollieflex?
I thought that photo-journalists used European MF roll-film and 35mm cameras before they discovered Pacific-rim cameras when their European cameras failed in the jungle in the Vietnam (or was it Korean?) war?
Yes, the 120 film Rollei; they also made a 35mm thing later on, but it was an amateur's toy. I used a second-hand Rollei T for some time, and eventuallly traded it for a new Hasselblad 500C, only to discover that the 'blad bounced like a monkey on heat in outdoor, hand-held, fashion work; however, in the studio with flash, it ('blad) was fantastic. The Rollei was also the tool of choice for the Italian paparazzo people, the only alternative I ever actually saw being used was a flashless Leica M... even then, the fifties and early sixties, there was money in celebs but I remember feeling surprised that hardly any newspapers or specialist magazines like today's Hola, the old Italian Tempo etc. existed in Britain, trading in celeb culture, whereas in Italy, probably most of Europe, the gossip rags were ubiquitous.
The MPP (think it went up to Mk 7 or 8 if I remember correctly) was a British 4x5 camera, heavy and with a restricted set of movements, but it never pretended to be a monorail! Simple, it was a workhorse for many industrial units and produced very good work if used well.
Instead of all this crap, I wish I remembered how to make money instead.
;-(
Rob C
-
Hi,
The story goes that David Douglas Duncan tested a few Japanese lenses and found them better the corresponding German lenses. If I recall correctly a Japanese photographer had some photos that he said were taken with a Canon lens on a Leica. So they started testing Japanese lenses on the Leica.
Best regards
Erik
The way I read it, the war snappers used Japanese cameras whilst their Leicas were being serviced, and when the films reached the States, the editors discovered that though the Leicas had pots of detail, the Jap cameras had more contrast and made for snappier (n.p.i.) pages in LIFE.
And hence the world domintaion of Nikon, Canon and Pentax!
Rob C
-
Don't ask me. What I have noticed is that when you go to the small fashion shows there are quite a few pretty women in the audience. When you go to the big shows, they're all old birds, too tough to eat :)
That's a simple example of the survival of the fittest: the old birds can, and have, outfought everything else in that universe; and with money and winning comes power. They don't need the small shows; those need them and so they won't get them.
Rob C
-
This is a bit like doing a comparative test between a Citroen 2CV and a Ferrari, and insisting on using the same tyres... or was it just to indicate that, if you used a larger format, you have to use the same high-res film and movements to get the benefit?
Only a tiny bit like it seems to me. I think it's probably true that some people buy MFDB systems as status symbols, to attract the opposite sex. But I thought, in this thread, we are attempting to discuss the real and practical advantages, for photographic purposes, of the inflexible MFDB system as opposed to the much more flexible 35mm DSLR system.
In our cities and on our highways, a Ferrari does not get you to work faster than any average car. (A 2CV is the equivalent of a P&S. Get serious!)
-
Well, I've shot Antarctica and Yunnan & Sichuan provinces in China with the D3x/D3s combo, and Iceland with the P40+/Phase 645DF system. Other than birds in flight, there's nothing I shot in Antarctica or China that I couldn't have shot with the Phase. In retrospect, I wish I'd had the Phase with me on those other trips, and will be bringing it with me to Antarctica when I go back in a couple weeks. I very much enjoy the D3x, and I think it's a fabulous camera. But the top of a Mountain in Nepal? Definitely MFDB would be my choice. Hands down.
Can't understand how you would come to this conclusion. But instead of waffling, let's get down to brass tacks (for the Americas, concrete examples).
Here's a shot I took a few years ago from the top of a small mountain in Nepal (about 3200 metres). I attempted to catch the dawn, so set off hiking in the dark at 4.30 am.
I got a few shots of the dawn, but the difficulties in finding a solid platform for my tripod, and the continual need to wipe the condensation from my lens as a result of the lens suddenly being exposed to a cold environment, after removing it from my camera bag, caused me to miss a few good shots.
Not to mention the complaints from the model because she was shivering with cold. You wouldn't believe the abuse I suffered from that lady, as I stuffed around setting up my equipment.
Anyway, let's do a few technical comparisons. I was using a 12.8mp 5D. The scene was shot with camera horizontal, taking 3 shots for stitching purposes. In fact, the resulting aspect ratio indicates that the middle shot was necessary only for overlap purposes. The resulting composition is very close to just two 35mm shots end on end, ie, 72mm x 24mm.
The lens I used was 30mm at F11 and 1/50th sec exposure.
Let's consider what would have been required had I hauled a P65+ up the mountain.
Could I have captured the same scene with just one shot with the P65+? No way!
To capture such a scene with a 72x24m sensor, I would have need a 15mm lens. The P65+ sensor is only 54mm wide. I would have needed a lens with a focal length of 72/54 x 15 = 20mm.
Is there such a lens for the Phase DB?
Let's assume that such a lens exisits and that we could shoot this scene with a single shot from the P65+. After cropping to the 3:1 aspect ratio, the 60mp of the P65+ becomes about 27mp (54x18mm), which is very close to the 'real' MP value of the 5D stitch. (2x 12.8 = 25.6). The actual resulting image size is about 40mp after warping and stretching, but this reduces resolution somewhat.
I'd be prepared to accept that a P65+ could deliver this result with just one shot, if a high quality 20mm lens were available.
However, here we're comparing old 35mm technology with newer MFDB technology. The comparaison should be between the 21mp 5D2 and the P65+.
In this scenario I've described, the 21mp 5D2 would produce better image quality than the P65+. (42 MP v 27 MP).
Okay! Why not stitch with the P65+? We might suffer a bit more abuse from the model shivering at the high altitudes, but never mind. We're dedicated professionals.
The equivalent of a 30mm lens on 135 is 45mm on a P65+. Instead of F11, we need to use F16 for same DoF. To get maximum image quality we need to use ISO 50. In stead of 1/50th at F11 and ISO 100, we need to use F16 at ISO 50 and 1/13th sec exposure.
Sorry! There's a slight breeze. I know. I was there. That grass in the foreground is swaying in the breeze, not to mention the shivering of the model. A 50th of a second is a minimum. I'd have preferred a 100th. With a D700 I could have used a 100th. A 13th is not acceptable.
Moral of story: Don't carry an MFDB to the mountain top. A D3X or 5D2 is a better choice.
PS. The nude model in the foreground was placed there just to grab your attention. I'm slightly amazed that some posters in this thread do not seem to get the point that this topic is not about which format can deliver the best image quality, but in what circumstances these formats can deliver the best image quality.
-
I do a fair bit of mountaineering photography. I can tell you you're absolutely right that the small format work is quicker, easier, lighter, more consistent, more reliable, doable in lower light, etc., etc. I wouldn't debate any of that.
For me personally, I'm with Rob on this one.
After having purchased different six digital medium format systems (I'm a slow learner), and then returned to small format Canon with an all-prime setup I can tell you that the MF work I did (frustrating as it was) is simply better. There's not as much portfolio-grade work, to be sure, and I can tell stories about the big one that got away far more often than I'd like, but whether its the dynamic range, the lenses, or pixie dust, the results are what they are. (It's why I'm coming back for more lumps to my 7th MF system.)
I can totally see this being the other way around for others (most people, in fact). But it's nice to know that there are others out there who've found that, despite the (considerable) disadvantages, MF can still be the right tool for remote location work.
-
Ray,
I agree, it looks much better with that "girlie". Maybe the "girlie" should be taken up there on every shoot, if you want to come back with really interesting pictures.
You can always use content-aware fill to erase her, later ;D
Edmund
Perhaps you should consider pasting a girlie on to all of your pics.
-
Ray,
I agree, it looks much better with that "girlie". Maybe the "girlie" should be taken up there on every shoot, if you want to come back with really interesting pictures.
You can always use content-aware fill to erase her, later ;D
Edmund
Hey! Edmund, you've just given me an idea. I could have a smorgasboard of delightlful, nude ladies in all sorts of provocative poses, spread across the entire foreground of this panorama.
On the extreme right of the panorama is a faint, distant peak known as the 'fishtail' mountain. Here's a closer view of it from a slightly different perspective.
It is said that the Indian God, Shiva, resides on this mountain. It is forbidden to climb the mountain. (Not that that worries me since I never contemplated climbing it). However, the deity Shiva is a complex God embodying various qualities, one of which is sensuality. I don't believe he would disapprove of my project. ;D
-
200 hundreds repplies and 5679 views so far for that thread ??!!!
I must confess that Ray is a forum genius.
-
200 hundreds repplies and 5679 views so far for that thread ??!!!
I must confess that Ray is a forum genius.
Yep, has convinced me that my own failure to do landscape because I find nice ones only as backgrounds for girls is no actual failure at all. It proves that without girls, its just another rock, another tree, another sunset, another desert, another Zabriskie Point. The time and effort and money I've saved myself!
Thanks!
Rob C
-
Keith I don't think you get it. You do not have to have used, or even laid eyes on, a medium format camera in order to have strong opinions on the subject.
Anyway, must dash, I'm off to one of the brain surgery forums to tell them they are using the wrong scalpels.
Nick-T
-
Anyway, must dash, I'm off to one of the brain surgery forums to tell them they are using the wrong scalpels.
you might tell them a chainsaw is much, much faster.
Also easier to use... in a certain way.
-
Anyway, must dash, I'm off to one of the brain surgery forums to tell them they are using the wrong scalpels.
Don't forget the DxO lab test for scalpel metal purity. It's the best way to judge scapel quality - don't actually go and cut anything because what matters is the DxO metal purity score.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
At last this thread is getting useful.
What I want to know from the resident pundits is this: Will an MF chainsaw get me better results than a plain old 35mm (full frame, of course)? I need the info right away as I'm about to advertise my brain surgery specials on Craig's List.
Eric
-
At last this thread is getting useful.
What I want to know from the resident pundits is this: Will an MF chainsaw get me better results than a plain old 35mm (full frame, of course)? I need the info right away as I'm about to advertise my brain surgery specials on Craig's List.
Eric
Never forget: advertise your services for frontal lobotomies and somebody here will be perfectly willing to give it a try! What are your charges...?
Reminds me of that funny Western custom: the ballot box.
Just imagine, asking someone who has never personally been in government to vote in a candidate! Is that that funny thing called democracy? It'll never last, juging by what one reads...
Rob C
-
Fred
I find the DR tests relevant - sorry - in real life. Take your favorite camera to its limit, then the graph will tell you if another camera will help you more or less. If your camera (and the new one) are not near a limit, and your exposure will be correct, then the test is simply not practically relevant.
Edmund
Oh yes, this DxO...unforgetable truly usable informations for our works indeed. The little Pentax KX has almost the same DR as the 645D and the Leica M9 is somewhere average in their testings...
They have little buttons that when you move then, put some noise to the pic according to the Isos. How exciting!
And what about the demonstration of DR on a masterpeice picture of the Eiffel Tower, so you can see (actually you can see nothing of course) how important is one point of DR.
Can't wait their newsletter to see the last testing. That will help a lot choosing my next gear and make good pictures.
Others that have found a cool way to earn their lives with vaccum. Only a great publicist would have done so good.
-
Yup.
The OP has probably penned more words on MFD systems than any other contributor to this forum and all of this without ever having had any meaningful experience of actually using them.
Thanks, indeed.
I have been following this thread with some interest and amusement. I too have medium format experience but only with film and have never seen a MFDB or even a large print from such a camera. In the 40 years that I have been doing photography at the enthusiast level, a larger format gives better image quality at increased cost and with less convenience and portability, and I am sure that this applies to MFDBs.
However the arrogance and non-credible claims of some of the MFDB users grate some of us mere mortals the wrong way and results in some heated discussions. Prices may come down, but the cost of current MFDBs limits their use to top flight professionals and very rich enthusiasts. Many enthusiasts have advanced degrees in the physical sciences or engineering and have a better understanding of technical issues relating to digital photography than many professional photographers who lack a rigorous scientific background and may have received their photographic education during the film era. Therefore, their analysis should not be dismissed out of hand.
Certainly no one with any rigorous scientific knowledge would claim that MFDBs have orders of magnitude more dynamic range than full frame dSLRs. The MFDBs do have larger sensors and can thus collect more photons than a dSLR, but their CCDs also have more read noise than the best CMOS designs used in dSLRs. A stop or possibly even two of DR over a full frame dSLR would be reasonable, but the inflated claims of some can be dismissed as physically impossible without having seen or used such a camera.
MFDBs do have more pixels than dSLRs, but it remains to be seen if their pixels are any better than those of the top dSLRs, such as the Nikon D3x. The former do lack low pass filters (probably since such filters would be impractical for large sensors) and their images do appear sharper, but suffer from aliasing artifacts. The blurring of low pass filters on dSLRs can largely be overcome by deconvolution sharpening as Diglloyd has shown on his web site.
-
"MFDBs do have more pixels than dSLRs, but it remains to be seen if their pixels are any better than those of the top dSLRs, such as the Nikon D3x"
No.....That is a fact 16 bit, larger 9 micron photosite...etc They are better at base ISO question is ...do you really care ? D3X is an awesome tool for the right job, just as a MFDB is DEPENDING ON THE JOB .... sheesh
-
bjanes,
I agree, what we are seeing here in this forum interesting, it's a dialogue between those who understand the structure of the tools, and those who actually use them.
But in this dialogue, there is one thing that the "pros" forget: Some tools will increase the pleasure of the process of photography. In other words, it's not only about the amateur owning the camera, or the pro being able to wring pictures from it, sometimes it is about having fun with the camera while you use it, or at the very least its not getting in your way. And about all this DR cr*p which Fredjean dislikes, well it's about getting back to the computer and having a file that works with you, not one which just tears up as soon as you apply a curve.
Edmund
I have been following this thread with some interest and amusement. I too have medium format experience but only with film and have never seen a MFDB or even a large print from such a camera. In the 40 years that I have been doing photography at the enthusiast level, a larger format gives better image quality at increased cost and with less convenience and portability, and I am sure that this applies to MFDBs.
However the arrogance and non-credible claims of some of the MFDB users grate some of us mere mortals the wrong way and results in some heated discussions. Prices may come down, but the cost of current MFDBs limits their use to top flight professionals and very rich enthusiasts. Many enthusiasts have advanced degrees in the physical sciences or engineering and have a better understanding of technical issues relating to digital photography than many professional photographers who lack a rigorous scientific background and may have received their photographic education during the film era. Therefore, their analysis should not be dismissed out of hand.
Certainly no one with any rigorous scientific knowledge would claim that MFDBs have orders of magnitude more dynamic range than full frame dSLRs. The MFDBs do have larger sensors and can thus collect more photons than a dSLR, but their CCDs also have more read noise than the best CMOS designs used in dSLRs. A stop or possibly even two of DR over a full frame dSLR would be reasonable, but the inflated claims of some can be dismissed as physically impossible without having seen or used such a camera.
MFDBs do have more pixels than dSLRs, but it remains to be seen if their pixels are any better than those of the top dSLRs, such as the Nikon D3x. The former do lack low pass filters (probably since such filters would be impractical for large sensors) and their images do appear sharper, but suffer from aliasing artifacts. The blurring of low pass filters on dSLRs can largely be overcome by deconvolution sharpening as Diglloyd has shown on his web site.
-
"MFDBs do have more pixels than dSLRs, but it remains to be seen if their pixels are any better than those of the top dSLRs, such as the Nikon D3x"
No.....That is a fact 16 bit, larger 9 micron photosite...etc They are better at base ISO question is ...do you really care ? D3X is an awesome tool for the right job, just as a MFDB is DEPENDING ON THE JOB .... sheesh
Dennis,
You should check your facts and understand some theory before posting. For example: the Phase 1 P65+, usually considered the top dog in MFDB, has a pixel size of 6 um. The D3x, has a pixel size of 5.9 um. The Phase 1 has a 16 bit ADC, but that does not mean that the sensor has enough DR to make full use of that bit depth. The excess bits serve to quantify noise. See Emil Martinec (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#bitdepth). The Nikon D3 has 8.4 um pixels, but the D3x bests it in DR. Quantum efficiency, fill factor, and micro-lens technology, and better electronics give the D3x the edge in DR. The D3 has a 14 bit ADC, but that is mainly a marketing ploy, since it does not have 14 stops of DR.
-
bjanes,
All the fun of forum posting is that you get readers more qualified than you to fact check for free, kind of like a journal review, but less unpleasant :)
That aside, if you can explain this graph (D3, D3s, D3x) please do
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/485|0/(appareil2)/628|0/(appareil3)/438|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Nikon (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/485|0/(appareil2)/628|0/(appareil3)/438|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Nikon)
Edmund
Dennis,
You should check your facts and understand some theory before posting. For example: the Phase 1 P65+, usually considered the top dog in MFDB, has a pixel size of 6 um. The D3x, has a pixel size of 5.9 um. The Phase 1 has a 16 bit ADC, but that does not mean that the sensor has enough DR to make full use of that bit depth. The excess bits serve to quantify noise. See Emil Martinec (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#bitdepth). The Nikon D3 has 8.4 um pixels, but the D3x bests it in DR. Quantum efficiency, fill factor, and micro-lens technology, and better electronics give the D3x the edge in DR. The D3 has a 14 bit ADC, but that is mainly a marketing ploy, since it does not have 14 stops of DR.
-
photography by numbers ... is bestest
-
For those who don't understand (or want to understand) the science behind the tools they're using, you are welcome to continue using your favorite tools that get the job done in just the way you like.
But please don't try to imply that because a scientific test doesn't have your particular favorite camera come out where you felt it should that the entire idea of objective measurements is somehow useless. We all know that optics and software processing tools have a huge impact on final image quality. These DxO tests don't measure these. That alone can explain many of the perceived discrepancies, so let's not exaggerate the relevance of what they do test.
If you know what you're looking for, this type of objective measurement helps to cut through the marketing BS and can tell you what's really going on--if you're interested.
Edmund--not sure what you are looking for an explanation of with the three Nikons you linked to...
-
11 pages, 218 posts and almost 6200 views.....
I guess that old guy I met when I was much younger really did have it right when he told me;
"Kid, opinions are like a$$holes...most everybody has one, and they all stink"
-
photography by science ... is almost as good
-
Dennis,
You should check your facts and understand some theory before posting. For example: the Phase 1 P65+, usually considered the top dog in MFDB, has a pixel size of 6 um. The D3x, has a pixel size of 5.9 um. The Phase 1 has a 16 bit ADC, but that does not mean that the sensor has enough DR to make full use of that bit depth. The excess bits serve to quantify noise. See Emil Martinec (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#bitdepth). The Nikon D3 has 8.4 um pixels, but the D3x bests it in DR. Quantum efficiency, fill factor, and micro-lens technology, and better electronics give the D3x the edge in DR. The D3 has a 14 bit ADC, but that is mainly a marketing ploy, since it does not have 14 stops of DR.
Ok Bjanes,
What facts do I need to check ? The back I own has a pixel size of 9 um and is 16 Bit. I actually use a camera to make a living and it is my sole source of income, you can throw all the numbers and theory at it you want - I find a MFDB file takes many times the abuse in PP that a file from a DSLR does... thats all Im sayin ......I dont care what the literature says, I have actually used both and speak from real world experience. I dont think someone who has never USED a MFDB is qualified to make any meaningful comparison, many of the posters in this thread have never even used one and rely on sales literature to throw out opinions - to me that is just silly. Not sure if you have used one or not - no disrespect intended
Happy Shooting ! (With what ever you use ! ;D )
-
All the fun of forum posting is that you get readers more qualified than you to fact check for free, kind of like a journal review, but less unpleasant :)
That aside, if you can explain this graph (D3, D3s, D3x) please do
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/485|0/(appareil2)/628|0/(appareil3)/438|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Nikon (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/485|0/(appareil2)/628|0/(appareil3)/438|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Nikon)
Edmund,
I am not sure what you want explained or if I am more qualified than you (doubtful), but I do have a couple of things to suggest. Emil Martinec (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3a.html) has made some interesting observations regarding sensor DR vs camera DR that are worth looking at, and I will add a few comments of my own.
With regard to the DR of the D3 and D3x, it is instructive to look at the DR vs ISO plots published by DXO. The D3x plot is nearly linear, with DR dropping by 1 stop for each doubling of ISO from the base ISO and upwards. However, the D3 demonstrates this linearity only for higher ISOs, and exhibits flattening towards base ISO. This indicates that the D3 has higher read noise at base ISO. This is likely due to inferior electronics (amplifiers and ADC). The D3 is geared for speed and it is difficult to design an ADC with low noise at high readout rates. Also, the D3x is a newer generation sensor. Pixel size has little to do with DR when the the overall sizes of the sensors are the same and one uses the same print or viewing size: the large and small pixel cameras both collect the same number of photons if other things are equal.
As Emil has pointed out, the graphs are important when one is shooting with limited light and exposure is limited by shutter speed and f/stop considerations. With the D3, a higher ISO is desirable because of reduced read noise. When the graph becomes linear, increasing ISO will not improve read noise and it is advisable to increase exposure in the raw converter rather than increasing the ISO on the camera. In this case the histogram on the camera will be to the left, but headroom is preserved. With many MFDBs one can merely shoot at base ISO and increase exposure with the raw converter. Indeed, I understand this is what is done with Hasselblad MFDBs and possibly some others.
-
Bjanes,
Thanks for your comments. I'm pretty superficial these days, as we have all noticed :)
I would agree that it's clear that the D3x and D3 higher Iso's are basically software (left shift). I don't think the low ISO flattening is a problem, I think its is probably a design feature. What feature would be interesting to know. Last not least is the case of the D3s; I think here we are seeing the additional effect of some software processing in the High ISO regime.
I would agree that the D3x is newer tech than the D3, if those are unit-cell DR estimates. But with those virtually coinciding lines, one can wonder why the D3x cannot be pushed by software to the same ISO as the original D3 with identical results.
This is just from a cursory inspection, I'm not very technical these days. A week in the library could change that :)
Edmund
Edmund,
I am not sure what you want explained or if I am more qualified than you (doubtful), but I do have a couple of things to suggest. Emil Martinec (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3a.html) has made some interesting observations regarding sensor DR vs camera DR that are worth looking at, and I will add a few comments of my own.
With regard to the DR of the D3 and D3x, it is instructive to look at the DR vs ISO plots published by DXO. The D3x plot is nearly linear, with DR dropping by 1 stop for each doubling of ISO from the base ISO and upwards. However, the D3 demonstrates this linearity only for higher ISOs, and exhibits flattening towards base ISO. This indicates that the D3 has higher read noise at base ISO. This is likely due to inferior electronics (amplifiers and ADC). The D3 is geared for speed and it is difficult to design an ADC with low noise at high readout rates. Also, the D3x is a newer generation sensor. Pixel size has little to do with DR when the the overall sizes of the sensors are the same and one uses the same print or viewing size: the large and small pixel cameras both collect the same number of photons if other things are equal.
As Emil has pointed out, the graphs are important when one is shooting with limited light and exposure is limited by shutter speed and f/stop considerations. With the D3, a higher ISO is desirable because of reduced read noise. When the graph becomes linear, increasing ISO will not improve read noise and it is advisable to increase exposure in the raw converter rather than increasing the ISO on the camera. In this case the histogram on the camera will be to the left, but headroom is preserved. With many MFDBs one can merely shoot at base ISO and increase exposure with the raw converter. Indeed, I understand this is what is done with Hasselblad MFDBs and possibly some others.
-
Ok Bjanes,
What facts do I need to check ? The back I own has a pixel size of 9 um and is 16 Bit. I actually use a camera to make a living and it is my sole source of income, you can throw all the numbers and theory at it you want - I find a MFDB file takes many times the abuse in PP that a file from a DSLR does... thats all Im sayin ......I dont care what the literature says, I have actually used both and speak from real world experience. I dont think someone who has never USED a MFDB is qualified to make any meaningful comparison, many of the posters in this thread have never even used one and rely on sales literature to throw out opinions - to me that is just silly. Not sure if you have used one or not - no disrespect intended
If the sensor sizes of two cameras are the same and other things are equal, pixel size has little to do with DR, as I pointed out earlier and has been confirmed by DXO and other experts. 16 bits does not ensure high DR. What DSLRs have you used for your comparisons, the D3x or some obsolete cropped sensor model? As I said, I have not even seen or held a MFDB, but the laws of physics still apply. I am relying on science, not sales brochures or exaggerated and subjective opinions of some.
I'm glad that your camera is meeting your needs for your type of photography. MFDBs do have definite advantages, but let's cut out the hype and overstatements.
Regards,
Bill
-
MFDBs do have more pixels than dSLRs, but it remains to be seen if their pixels are any better than those of the top dSLRs, such as the Nikon D3x. The former do lack low pass filters (probably since such filters would be impractical for large sensors) and their images do appear sharper, but suffer from aliasing artifacts. The blurring of low pass filters on dSLRs can largely be overcome by deconvolution sharpening as Diglloyd has shown on his web site.
Just FYI the Mamiya ZD had an optional AA filter - it was not a popular option.
"Largely Overcome" is of course a relative statement. Certainly some of the softening effect caused by the loss of data via low pass filtering can be offset through meticulous post-processing.
-
Let me just say that I could not be more pleased, operationally and financially speaking, with my Canons 1D. Hold the camera and it fits like a glove, AF that is fast, put it on a tripod and the LiveView is a pleasure to use, lenses for almost every need, and ISO to suit any situation.
Leaving megapixels out of the discussion, what would make someone like me want to move to MFD? I can answer that. The DOF look, the different color (out of the bag anyway, and different not better from what I've seen), and greater ease of retouching (sharper files at 100%).
What keeps me away? Firstly, no LiveView, secondly cost, thirdly, no customer complaints.
-
photography by science ... is almost as good
:D
-
11 pages, 218 posts and almost 6200 views.....
I guess that old guy I met when I was much younger really did have it right when he told me;
"Kid, opinions are like a$$holes...most everybody has one, and they all stink"
...and perhaps most importantly, nobody has much use for anybody else's!
-
There is a point which is not being touched upon.
Sync Speed is pretty important to those of us using Strobes. Especially in outdoor sun. I can shoot 1/800th with my Elinchrom Rangers and do it often. Can't do that with 35mm, yeah sure there is hypersync but it's not efficient and you lose a lot of flash power.
Now onto points that other people have addressed. Secondly, lack of AA filter and high resolution allow me to retouch skin at MUCH more accurate levels. Lack of AA filter gives me tack sharp skin texture at 100% and the more i zoom in, the more detail i have. It's really incredible. Those here that haven't used MFDB in its proprietary software, i highly suggest you try it out. You'll be amazed.
DOF and Aperture... i think we can all agree that the DOF and look is different. Also, having apertures of F32 and F45 come in extremely handy in certain lighting situations as well.
.02 (A very happy H3DII-31 user)
-
Just FYI the Mamiya ZD had an optional AA filter - it was not a popular option.
I didn't know that. How much did the option cost?
Also, there are a number companies that will remove the low-pass filter from dSLRs. That is also not a popular option, although some are pleased with the results. Others report objectionable aliasing after such a conversion. Due to their high megapixel count aliasing with MFDBs would occur at higher frequencies and might not be as objectionable.
-
...and perhaps most importantly, nobody has much use for anybody else's!
Sadly, you must have been living a protected life on the moon.
Rob C
-
We are dramatically moving to the mental hospital in this topic I'm afraid.
Fred
I think you have to keep a sense of humour about it all. This is just the stuff that people amuse themselves with when they are bored and for one reason or another, there is nothing much else to do. Like perhaps taking photographs, for example. Or getting a life.
However, in amongst the noise, there is very often a pearl of wisdom which can open a door or give you a good idea, which can really help your own photography. So I do tend to read all these posts (or mostly), just in case something good turns up.
John
-
Wait , Wait...... Guys I have one....MAC or PC ? :P
-
Blonde, Brunette, or Redhead*
*Trick Question: anyone picking something other than redhead is clearly wrong
-
Blonde, Brunette, or Redhead*
*Trick Question: anyone picking something other than redhead is clearly wrong
Tricky question Doug! But the Redhead, in large format? medium? or tiny?
And, whith a good dynamic range?
-
- Mercedes or BMW?
- Audio!
-
To be or NOT to be?
That is the question?
;-)
Rob C
-
Blonde, Brunette, or Redhead*
*Trick Question: anyone picking something other than redhead is clearly wrong
Are you hung up on lights, then?
Rob C
-
Yup.
The OP has probably penned more words on MFD systems than any other contributor to this forum and all of this without ever having had any meaningful experience of actually using them.
Thanks, indeed.
Keith I don't think you get it. You do not have to have used, or even laid eyes on, a medium format camera in order to have strong opinions on the subject.
Anyway, must dash, I'm off to one of the brain surgery forums to tell them they are using the wrong scalpels.
Nick-T
I have to say I find that such notions about the need to personally handle and fondle a piece of hi tech equipment before one can express a meaningful opinion on its uses and performance, are very quaint indeed.
Never in the history of photography has it been so easy to compare the image attributes of different brands, types and formats of cameras under a variety of different conditions, and demonstrate such comparisons to all who are interested.
In this day and age, it should not be necessary to take the time, trouble and expense of personally testing the performance of a camera in order to see if it's the right tool for the job.
Why is it that owners of MFDB equipment seem to think their camera is like a gourmet meal that can only be evaluated by tasting? What sort of irrationality is this?
At present I'm in a state of indecision about the Canon 7D and the 5D MkII. It's likely I'll get one or the other before I make my next photohraphic trip.
I know from past experience that there's little resolution difference between 18mp and 21mp. (No need to take the trouble to test this). But I also know from past experience that an 18mp cropped format with a 400mm lens will produce a significantly more detailed result than a 21mp FF 135 format with the same lens, after cropping to the same FoV. (Also no need to test this).
I also know that larger formats tends to have smoother tonality and lower noise, all else being equal. But how much lower noise is the question. Do I need to hire both cameras to test them for myself?
Fortunately not. There are sites like Imaging Resource where one can compare identical scenes and test charts, taken by a variety of cameras at all ISOs.
What we find, in the examples of the 7D and 5D2, is that the 5D2 image quality at ISO 3200 is actually slightly better than the 7D image quality at ISO 1600, but not quite as good as the 7D image quality at ISO 800. There is approximately a 1.6x F stop advantage to the 5D2, regarding noise and general image quality, as one might expect from the differences in sensor size.
What amazes me is that it is so difficult to find any MFDBs featured in such comparisons. What are you people trying to hide?
The P65+ has an interesting feature called sensor+ whereby 4 pixels are binned to simulate the quality one might expect from a 15mp MF sensor. Where are the comparisons? Is this not an interesting and useful feature of the P65+?
Why is no-one doing comparisons with 15mp DSLRs so we can all learn under what circumstances and at what ISO this feature may be useful? Could it be that MFDB owners are naturally shy and reticent people, not given to boasting?
We all know that MFDBs can produce superior results under certain conditions, but some of use are rational and naturally inquisitive people who would like to know how such results may change with changing conditions.
For example, I might like to know beforehand how much a P65+ would have improved the following shot of a small bird on top of a tree against the background of Machapuchare.
I'm disappointed in the technical quality of this shot because it lacks resolution. I was travelling with a 5D and 20D around my neck. The 5D had a 15-30mm lens attached, and the 20D a 24-105 zoom. I didn't have time to change lenses. The bird was perched there very briefly. I didn't even have time to get a second shot.
The problem is, this shot is good only for an A3 size print. The resolution of the bird (sorry it's a bird of the feathered variety, so I hope you will all not be too disappointed) is so poor, I cannot tell whether it's a Yellow-rumped Honeyguide, a Silver-backed Needletail, or a Blue-bearded Bee-eater.
The shot was at F8 at ISO 100 and the focal length was 40mm. F8 was probably too wide an aperture. F9 or F10 would have been better.
To capture the same scene with a P65, same FoV and DoF, I would have needed a 100-120mm lens set at F22. I'm almost sure the shot would have been significantly better with a P65, even at F22. But how much better I simply don't know, due to a lack of transparency in the very few comparison between MFDBs and DSLRs that are available.
What's the problem? Oh! You're too busy? You are too 'arteestic' to be bothered with such trivialities?
It amazes me again, when a group of highly qualified scientists at DXO labs take the trouble to test a few DBs, their results are ridiculed my many owners of MFDB systems who, for some mysterious reason are unable or unwilling to show any of their own comparisons that might refute the DXO results.
Some of us weren't born yesterday, ya know!
-
Troll. Don't take the bait.
Did some fun stuff over the past couple of weeks... check it out. (Note, i primarily shoot weddings)
(http://www.symbolphoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/MyraJacksonBridalPreview1.jpg)
(http://www.symbolphoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/MyraJacksonBridalPreview2.jpg)
(http://www.symbolphoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/ChristinaWillWeddingPreview2.jpg)
(http://www.symbolphoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/JillianJacksonPreview1.jpg)
All with the H3D11-31. Using Elinchrom lights. Enjoy.
-
Troll. Don't take the bait.
Did some fun stuff over the past couple of weeks... check it out. (Note, i primarily shoot weddings)
All with the H3D11-31. Using Elinchrom lights. Enjoy.
Such a pity the last shot with an interesting background of graffiti has insufficient DoF. Was that a mistake, or was that deliberate?
-
Such a pity the last shot with an interesting background of graffiti has insufficient DoF. Was that a mistake, or was that deliberate?
Since the image is about the people, seems the depth of field is about right. Of course, I made my living doing portrait photography. Even with a full frame dSLR doubtful the graffiti would have been much sharper on the back walls.
-
Since the image is about the people, seems the depth of field is about right. Of course, I made my living doing portrait photography. Even with a full frame dSLR doubtful the graffiti would have been much sharper on the back walls.
Bingo. Granted it was the 100 2.2, but the separation was purposeful. Ray, do you have anything of interest to share?
-
Since the image is about the people, seems the depth of field is about right. Of course, I made my living doing portrait photography. Even with a full frame dSLR doubtful the graffiti would have been much sharper on the back walls.
Nonsense! With a good DSLR like the D3x, you could get that background as sharp as you want. I appreciate the creative idea of shooting the married couple against an interesting background of graffiti, but I just can't understand the concept of getting the interesting background out of focus. Make up your mind. If the background is interesting, it deserves to be in focus. If it's not interesting, by all means get it out of focus, or choose another background.
-
Ray, do you have anything of interest to share?
Everyone, without exception, has something interesting to share, with someone. And everyone, without exception, has nothing of interest to share with certain other people.
Wedding photography has never appealed to me because I get a sense that the photographs produced, if the business is to be successful, should appeal to, and be appreciated by the client, whatever the tastes of the client.
-
Nonsense! With a good DSLR like the D3x, you could get that background as sharp as you want. I appreciate the creative idea of shooting the married couple against an interesting background of graffiti, but I just can't understand the concept of getting the interesting background out of focus. Make up your mind. If the background is interesting, it deserves to be in focus. If it's not interesting, by all means get it out of focus, or choose another background.
LOL. ;D So i'm guessing that means you don't have anything of your own to share?
-
LOL. ;D So i'm guessing that means you don't have anything of your own to share?
What are you talking about? I've posted hundreds of images on this site, over the years. Try to make some sense. We're rational beings, aren't we?
-
Nonsense! With a good DSLR like the D3x, you could get that background as sharp as you want. I appreciate the creative idea of shooting the married couple against an interesting background of graffiti, but I just can't understand the concept of getting the interesting background out of focus. Make up your mind. If the background is interesting, it deserves to be in focus. If it's not interesting, by all means get it out of focus, or choose another background.
I actually find the oof but still recognisable background very nice in that picture. For me it provides an environment and context without overpowering the people as the main subject in the shot.
I also think the oof background in that shot has much more to do with choice of aperture than MFDB vs. DSLR. Maybe better to keep this thread on technical concepts, and not artistic ones. I think there's other places on this forum where that is more appropriate.
-
Ray, I think I speak for everyone who actually WORKS as a photographer and uses both formats on a daily basis when I say; Thanks for the endless stream of chuckles, please keep posting! Oh, and here's a novel idea, instead of whining about the lack of MFD tests on the internet how about testing it yourself? Naaah, just kidding, better to just write another lengthy post on this forum about how everyone is elitist and doesn't respect your opinion just because of trivial details such as actually having experience on the subject. Enjoy the armchair!
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100803203517/gw/images/c/cf/Trollface.jpg)
-
Nonsense! With a good DSLR like the D3x, you could get that background as sharp as you want. I appreciate the creative idea of shooting the married couple against an interesting background of graffiti, but I just can't understand the concept of getting the interesting background out of focus. Make up your mind. If the background is interesting, it deserves to be in focus. If it's not interesting, by all means get it out of focus, or choose another background.
Your response is nonsense. Where is it carved in stone that interesting things need to be in sharp focus? Colored figures or colored areas can be a very interesting background without the need of being in sharp focus. Actually, most people believe they should remain OOF so it doesn't distract from what the picture is actually about.
In this case the image would have been worse with the background in focus and would have made it flat. The separation between the persons and background makes it more interesting.
In your case you probably should have left out the couple and only shot the background. Make up your mind, are you making an image of the background or an image of a just married couple?
-
Dustbak,
Don't you understand the symbology of the Graffiti as representing the silent surrounding social discourse, accompanying the explicit ceremonial planning of the marriage? And the fact that a private ceremony momentarily silences (puts out of focus) the pressing public discourse?
Humor aside, I do find that these days the couples who can afford wedding photography are those who in some way make it the most ironic. The youth and "innocence" and in some ways the look into the future which came with the look into the camera in old photos is now gone; marriage used to be about adolescents turning into adults,it is now about adults who are turning middle aged. At least those who pay for the imagery.
Edmund
Your response is nonsense. Where is it carved in stone that interesting things need to be in sharp focus? Colored figures or colored areas can be a very interesting background without the need of being in sharp focus. Actually, most people believe they should remain OOF so it doesn't distract from what the picture is actually about.
In this case the image would have been worse with the background in focus and would have made it flat. The separation between the persons and background makes it more interesting.
In your case you probably should have left out the couple and only shot the background. Make up your mind, are you making an image of the background or an image of a just married couple?
-
:) True, very true. It does make wedding photography a lot more interesting IMO. I totally respect those that have made this type of photography an art form.
-
I have never seen an interesting wedding photograph.
To me, it represents all that's wrong with high street photography. Even those superstars of the lens who have fallen for the 'royal appointment' have also fallen flat on their faeces faces when they touch the genre.
Marriage is made in heaven; marriage photographs in artistic despair.
All that pomp, all that money and all that excitement wasted on people that have no ability to do one simple thing: look good.
Better varnishing wooden shutters on a hot day.
Rob C
-
I dont like wedding photography most likely because I am so bad at it. I think the last wedding image above with the graffiti to be a fine image. The amount of OOF seems just right. Sharp enough to see whats there and soft enough to nudge the eye back to the couple. Well done
-
I have to say I find that such notions about the need to personally handle and fondle a piece of hi tech equipment before one can express a meaningful opinion on its uses and performance, are very quaint indeed.
Some of us weren't born yesterday, ya know!
Before there had been a man on the the moon, the best information we had about it was from people who had never been there, but we do have, on this forum, people who can express meaningful opinions about MF kit... as they have not only handled and fondled it, but have used it and earned there living with it!
Some of us were not born yesterday, you know!
-
Ray keep it coming, I haven't been laughing that much in a long time.
-
Guys... hold on.
I want to see what Ray has to share. After all, 7000 posts, he must have something. Right?
-
don't feed the troll
-
Your response is nonsense. Where is it carved in stone that interesting things need to be in sharp focus?
Here! This is where it's carved in stone. See?
-
Guys... hold on.
I dig this.
This is the direction blogs and forums are going, the notion that every voice has equal weight.
Heck, you see it under a NYTimes article some unknown from wherever giving opinion on politics, the economy, the moon and their voice is just as important as the author of the article. (at least to them).
It's crazy and this forum gets sucked into it every time.
I have this feeling that ol' Ray Ray is just laughing his ass off. Here's a guy that spends about 50 bucks a year on photography and can stir the pot of people that buy, use make and sell images and equipment around the world.
All he's gotta do is just write some silliness that nobody will do a proper test to his satisfaction, even though he's not able, or willing to do it himself, this place goes ape s##t trying to prove him wrong.
This format fixation is hilarious and has absolutely nothing to do with the art, or commerce of making a photograph.
Funny stuff.
BC
-
I agree on his lack of experience and intent to stir up the pot and make people laugh.
However, there is a pattern with people like him on forums. If i were to profile, i'd guess the following:
1. Has trouble affording gear for his hobby.
2. Is miserable in his own life on some level.
3. Isn't willing to show any shots of their own because he has low self-confidence.
4. Posts a lot on forums that have post counts listed to seemingly have some sort of rank. :rolleyes:
It's sad really. It makes you wonder what's really going on in their real life?... i hate people who hide behind usernames. Stand up and be a man.
</Psychiatrist>
-
Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Do not feed the trolls" and its abbreviation "DNFTT" redirect here. For the Wikimedia essay, see "What is a troll?".
For other uses, see Troll (disambiguation).
A prank cake using common troll motifs such as the acronym 'YHBT' (You Have Been Trolled), the term 'pwned', and Guy Fawkes masks.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in "that was an excellent troll you posted". While the term troll and its associated action trolling are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with trolling being used to describe intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, recent media accounts have used the term troll to describe "a person who defaces internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[3][4]
Bottom line we all been sandbagged. LOL No worries folks it's done everyday
-
I agree on his lack of experience and intent to stir up the pot and make people laugh.
However, there is a pattern with people like him on forums. If i were to profile, i'd guess the following:
1. Has trouble affording gear for his hobby.
2. Is miserable in his own life on some level.
3. Isn't willing to show any shots of their own because he has low self-confidence.
4. Posts a lot on forums that have post counts listed to seemingly have some sort of rank. :rolleyes:
It's sad really. It makes you wonder what's really going on in their real life?... i hate people who hide behind usernames. Stand up and be a man.
</Psychiatrist>
Brendan, I see that you are new on the forum and might not know that much about Ray. Actually, he is pretty well heeled and has good equipment and has posted many images online, as he stated previously in this thread. I don't know if he is satisfied with his life, but he travels extensively around the world and many of us would be glad to trade places with him. You should tone down your amateur psychobabble. I assume that you are not a real psychiatrist.
His comments in this thread challenge some of the outlandish and scientifically impossible claims made by some MFDB users who should know better.
Regards,
Bill
-
Your response is nonsense. Where is it carved in stone that interesting things need to be in sharp focus?
We learn the basics of pointing the camera at the subject, getting it in focus and correctly exposed, and then we go advanced... and point the camera at random,, and produce blurred images of nothing, with large areas of black or white, and then try to convince buyers (or failing that us) that it is marketable art!
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community,
As the OP defines the subject matter for the topic, by definition you cannot be a troll in your own topic?
Respect and appreciation where it is due... if Ray confines his posts to his own topics, we can easily avoid reading it.
-
Brendan, I see that you are new on the forum and might not know that much about Ray. Actually, he is pretty well heeled and has good equipment and has posted many images online, as he stated previously in this thread. I don't know if he is satisfied with his life, but he travels extensively around the world and many of us would be glad to trade places with him.
Damn, that makes it even sadder.... :(
-
You should tone down your amateur psychobabble. I assume that you are not a real psychiatrist.
His comments in this thread challenge some of the outlandish and scientifically impossible claims made by some MFDB users who should know better.
Right. I guess pointing out the obvious helps nobody. Point taken.
As for helping the community by challenging them ::), there are much more constructive ways to do so.
-
We learn the basics of pointing the camera at the subject, getting it in focus and correctly exposed, and then we go advanced... and point the camera at random,, and produce blurred images of nothing, with large areas of black or white, and then try to convince buyers (or failing that us) that it is marketable art!
As the OP defines the subject matter for the topic, by definition you cannot be a troll in your own topic?
Respect and appreciation where it is due... if Ray confines his posts to his own topics, we can easily avoid reading it.
Sorry Dick but that don't wash. I see it everyday. BTW i really don't care I shoot what I shoot because i want too and don't have to defend any of my buying decisions. I always loved MF even in my film days . MF digital is just a bonus to me and my clients love the files. That alone is a good enough reason to shoot it. No other reason needed and more important no other proof needed.
-
I agree on his lack of experience and intent to stir up the pot and make people laugh.
However, there is a pattern with people like him on forums. If i were to profile, i'd guess the following:
1. Has trouble affording gear for his hobby.
2. Is miserable in his own life on some level.
3. Isn't willing to show any shots of their own because he has low self-confidence.
4. Posts a lot on forums that have post counts listed to seemingly have some sort of rank. :rolleyes:
It's sad really. It makes you wonder what's really going on in their real life?... i hate people who hide behind usernames. Stand up and be a man.
</Psychiatrist>
Those are not only a rather nasty and spiteful comments to make, Brendan, but there's not a skerrick of truth to any of them.
I actually get a great deal of satisfaction from my hobby. I find digital photography a vast improvement on the old system of film and chemical darkroom. I enjoy immensely the activity of travelling to exotic locations to photograph new scenes, and sometimes returning to the same locations with better equipment and more experience.
I enjoy the activity of processing the images I take, after I return home, as well as the activity of discussing photographic matters and exploring the continual new developments in image processing software and hardware.
Since I'm retired, I could certainly afford an MFDB system, but I would have a hard time justifying to myself the purchase of such expensive equipment, considering it's weight and lack of flexibility for my purposes.
As for not being willing to show my shots because of low self-confidence, what on earth are you talking about? You don't seem to be making any sense at all. The first image that appeared in this long thread was mine, on page 10 or so.
After more than 7,000 posts on this forum there's probably a couple of hundred or more of my images in various threads on various topics.
As for posting a lot on forums, that's not true again. I post on only one forum, Luminous Landscape, and I only post in topics that interest me, unlike some people who find it necessary to post in topics they find boring.
By the way, Ray (abbreviation for Raymond) is actually my real name.
Can I suggest if you fancy yourself as a psychiatrist, you change occupations ;D .
-
ok perhaps i entered the thread at the wrong point and got the wrong impression as to what was going on here. I don't have time to go back and confirm this, so if so, Much Apologies.
-
I'm working 15 hours minimum a day to try to improve my photography, being better step by step with any kind of equipment that falls in my hands, with no other intention than improve, make a more consistent work, find a solid way of expression and shoot bloody better mounth by mounth.
I spend my week ends to learn all the possible softwares, learning video filming, editing, assisting and solving problems for people that pay me.
And I can even manage to have a private life.
When I see the incredible amount of bullshit that are written in this thread, is the D3x better that my sister and law? the DoX curves and all that relevant information, I'm sorry dudes, but when I'll run out of toilet paper, I'll made a special print to clean my bottom with your Dynamic D F......g 3 and DoX comparatives. I'm sure my ass will make better pictures.
There you go Fred you hit the jackpot. Bottom line is we are all in this to survive and whatever improvements we need to take as far as gear, software and just flat out getting more creative at our craft is all that matters. Gear is gear knowing how to use it effectively in all aspects is PHOTOGRAPHY and the end result is ALL that counts. How you get there is absolutely meaningless. It's nice to talk about the gear but for me is how to take the gear to different levels of improving oneself, I don't need the science what i do need is to understand the workings of it to take advantage of what it can do to help improve me. Have fun back to work.
-
I'm working 15 hours minimum a day to try to improve my photography, being better step by step with any kind of equipment that falls in my hands, with no other intention than improve, make a more consistent work, find a solid way of expression and shoot bloody better mounth by mounth.
I spend my week ends to learn all the possible softwares, learning video filming, editing, assisting and solving problems for people that pay me.
And I can even manage to have a private life.
When I see the incredible amount of bullshit that are written in this thread, is the D3x better that my sister and law? the DoX curves and all that relevant information, I'm sorry dudes, but when I'll run out of toilet paper, I'll made a special print to clean my bottom with your Dynamic D F......g 3 and DoX comparatives. I'm sure my ass will make better pictures.
Dear me, Fred! It sounds as though the D3X is the camera for you. I sense here a subconscious resistance, a state of denial about the true wonders of the D3X.
You know you want it! Don't resist! It might not have the pixel count of the latest DB, but it's got almost everything else, and more. ;D
-
When I see the incredible amount of bullshit that are written in this thread, is the D3x better that my sister and law? the DoX curves and all that relevant information, I'm sorry dudes, but when I'll run out of toilet paper, I'll made a special print to clean my bottom with your Dynamic D F......g 3 and DoX comparatives. I'm sure my ass will make better pictures.
Fred,
Your vulgarity is inappropriate for the forum and I don't find it amusing. By DoX, I presume you mean DXO. I think that I am the only one who posted DXO curves in this thread, but I could be wrong since the thread is no enormous. The curves that I posted make an important point, which apparently escaped you, a point that has important implications when shooting in limited light.
I don't think anyone has stated that the D3x is better than your sister in law, or better than the Phase 1 P65+. The P65+ has a big advantage over the D3x in megapixels and resolution and also has many high grade prime lenses that can deliver the resolution offered by the sensor. However, by any objective criterion (such as the DXO testing), it does not have vastly greater dynamic range. What BS that you find objectionable has been posted?
Regards,
Bill
-
ok perhaps i entered the thread at the wrong point and got the wrong impression as to what was going on here. I don't have time to go back and confirm this, so if so, Much Apologies.
Apology accepted. I don't hold grudges.
-
...and on and on and on and on...
It's called 'The Wheel of Life'.
-
My post was not intented to be funny but to be taken as it is. Wasn't aimed either to you particularly.
Here is the politically corrected version:
When I see the somewhere exagerated arguments, keeping in mind that in a democratic forum every voice's counts and without any intention to disqualify the french scientific DXO datas, if only emiting a certain reservation, I should had that all the equipment is suitable to our purpose, wich is making photography, and therefore shouldn't we focus on a respectufull way to establish, not interesting, differences between two systems that for sure have only unsignificant relevant impact in the essence our works?
-
If the forum software has a limit on the number of people one can ignore, I'm going to hit it in a page or two more of this thread.
-
What makes Luminous Landscape so cool, and why I keep coming back to drink the coolaid... is because wrapped up deep inside a thread that is obvious bait, there are some pretty cool people, cool mini discussions taking place, and some of the best photographers in the world are posting in this very thread and it is still very civil. Amazing really...
Luminous Landscape is special. These tangents must in some way be a part of what makes it so good here. Slightly off topic... Am I perceived to be a weirdo freak? Sometimes it is hard to know what others think of you, not that it always matters.
-
Luminous Landscape is special. These tangents must in some way be a part of what makes it so good here. Slightly off topic... Am I perceived to be a weirdo freak? Sometimes it is hard to know what others think of you, not that it always matters.
1. It only matters what they think if they are clients.
2. Weirdo freak? You're a photographer, aren't you? Why would anyone notice a little eccentricity after that?
Rob C
-
1. It only matters what they think if they are clients.
2. Weirdo freak? You're a photographer, aren't you? Why would anyone notice a little eccentricity after that?
Rob C
To add to the above, yes, LuLa is indeed special. I believe strongly that it is because of the tangents that this place works so well; as in any real conversation, people do wander around hither and thither, it's all about communication and building up a sense of relationships, personalities and so on. If you stay long enough, you even discover that someone with whom you traded verbal punches a couple of years ago is actually a damn pleasant guy, that his written manner is not his nature. It takes time and it takes an ability to read and not second guess motive.
And above all, we are blessed with minimal government action!
Rob C
-
The shot was at F8 at ISO 100 and the focal length was 40mm. F8 was probably too wide an aperture. F9 or F10 would have been better.
I shouldn't really rise to the bait.
Ray you are a troll.
The sentence above is exactly why you will never understand what good photography is. Your obsession with numbers and pedantry is just that. It's a shame that so much good information in these forums gets buried and pointless threads like this one.
I should however thank you for the laugh when you told a (very competent) photographer that his graffiti was out of focus. Reminded me of these fake critiques:
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html
Nick-T
-
2. Weirdo freak? You're a photographer, aren't you? Why would anyone notice a little eccentricity after that?
Yes, full time. But I have argued about the necessity of MFD systems as it relates to purely commercial objectives. I want to be careful to not be insulting to those who have spent $50K on such a setup. It is not their intelligence that I question. Perhaps a part of me is not as artistic as it should be.
I tend to look for how little I can spend on the gear itself. Mark Dubovoy (a very smart guy) said that he would spend whatever it takes to make images. It is just a different way of thinking... BUT, and this is very important, I feel as though I share the same passion for quality imagery, imagery that a collection of MFD owners typically are making. For some reason I have been unable, and uninterested in realizing the gains MFD seems to provide. Can I still play in the pool? :)
-
Yes, full time. But I have argued about the necessity of MFD systems as it relates to purely commercial objectives. I want to be careful to not be insulting to those who have spent $50K on such a setup. It is not their intelligence that I question. Perhaps a part of me is not as artistic as it should be.
I tend to look for how little I can spend on the gear itself. Mark Dubovoy (a very smart guy) said that he would spend whatever it takes to make images. It is just a different way of thinking... BUT, and this is very important, I feel as though I share the same passion for quality imagery, imagery that a collection of MFD owners typically are making. For some reason I have been unable, and uninterested in realizing the gains MFD seems to provide. Can I still play in the pool? :)
It's not a matter of smart or not, really, more one of economics and absolute requirement for the work one gets.
A wealthy amateur is free to spend as he chooses, and why not? On the other hand, a pro, if able to raise the dough, should spend to suit the work he has at the time; I think it's a mistake to overspend on a wish. If work comes along that demands additional gear, if you can buy it, then buy it, but I'd wait until you have to. If you live in those cities where you can rent the stuff, maybe that makes more sense, at least for a while until you know that your work depends on having such equipment.
Nobody needs to live in hock. If you go that route, you are losing a lot of the pure pleasure that photography as a business can also offer you. You have to sleep easy, and the work itself doesn't always allow that, never mind inviting debt into your life as a further complication!
But then, that's just my way of looking at finance; others seem to thrive on debt. It could well be a generation concept.
Rob C
-
I shouldn't really rise to the bait.
Ray you are a troll.
The sentence above is exactly why you will never understand what good photography is. Your obsession with numbers and pedantry is just that. It's a shame that so much good information in these forums gets buried and pointless threads like this one.
I should however thank you for the laugh when you told a (very competent) photographer that his graffiti was out of focus. Reminded me of these fake critiques:
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html
Nick-T
Nick,
I think it's you who are offering a bait which I probably shouldn't rise to, but here goes.
First, as a teacher of photography I would advise you never to tell anyone that he will 'never understand what good photography is', because such statements can only be understood as a projection onto others of your own feelings and sense of inadequacy as a teacher.
Far better to adopt the principle, 'there are no bad students, only bad teachers'.
Secondly, how you can describe a concern about using the best F stop for a particular DoF, as being an 'obsession with numbers and pedantry', beats me.
Selecting the most approriate combination of F stop, ISO and shutter speed is the most basic procedure for anyone who uses a camera in manual mode. It affects such matters as DoF, sharpness at the plane of focus, motion blur and noise.
One of the great advantages of the digital system that provides EXIF information about every shot taken, is that it creates a learning feed-back process.
In the days of film, one would have to make a written note of the f stop and shutter speed of every shot, unless one's memory was very good and/or one took very few shots.
With digital, the comparisons between different combinations of F stop, shutter speed and ISO are easy to make, after the event, even long after the event, and hopefully one can learn from one's mistakes and get a sense, borne of experience, of the most appropriate f stop to use without taking out a measuring tape to find the precise hyperfocal point for the desired DoF (which is something I've never done, by the way, and something which I would call being a bit obsessive).
Now I don't mind your having a good laugh at my comment that the interesting background in a particular photograph was out of focus (way out of focus) and my enquiry as to whether or not that was deliberate.
I personally don't necessarily have a problem with an interesting background intruding upon the main subject. If I go out of my way to choose an interesting background, I would like that background to be 'in focus' if it adds to the general interest of the shot as a whole.
If the background is not interesting, is distracting or even ugly, then by all means get it out of focus as much as possible.
But to deliberately choose a background for its interest and then treat it as though it were any other background that requires to be out-of-focus, seems it bit questionable to me. (I'm entitled to my opinion, am I not?)
But again, I think you have missed the point. The main point of that remark was not to critique the photo, but to suggest that the OoF backround was a natural consequence of using an MFDB system. If the client is happy with the shot, then that's what counts. I wouldn't argue against that.
However, if I were the bridegroom in that shot, and the graffiti in the background was my own handywork, I might like it to be in focus.
So, my point was, with a good DSLR one would have the option of getting the background in or out of focus, without compromising image quality significantly.
With the MFDB there seems to me to be a tendency to always get the background OoF because to do otherwise compromises image quality as a result of stopping down into diffraction-limited F-stops, or raising ISO which reduces image quality more significantly on MFDB systems than on DSLRs.
Hope I've managed to clarify this for you, Nick ;D .
-
Can I still play in the pool? :)
Sure.
Just stop constantly requesting attention to your personal feelings, will you ? ;)
-
I dig this.
This is the direction blogs and forums are going, the notion that every voice has equal weight.
Heck, you see it under a NYTimes article some unknown from wherever giving opinion on politics, the economy, the moon and their voice is just as important as the author of the article. (at least to them).
It's crazy and this forum gets sucked into it every time.
I have this feeling that ol' Ray Ray is just laughing his ass off. Here's a guy that spends about 50 bucks a year on photography and can stir the pot of people that buy, use make and sell images and equipment around the world.
All he's gotta do is just write some silliness that nobody will do a proper test to his satisfaction, even though he's not able, or willing to do it himself, this place goes ape s##t trying to prove him wrong.
This format fixation is hilarious and has absolutely nothing to do with the art, or commerce of making a photograph.
Funny stuff.
BC
This is an interesting post because it highlights a great confusion between the democratic right of any person to express his/her feelings about any situation that affects him/her, and the unqualified opinions that abound, about complex matters that are the subject of contention amongst the experts in the field.
Every voice does not have equal weight, on the internet or anywhere else, to me. Anyone who thinks it has equal weight must be referring to himself, his own attitude to such opinions.
I always judge an argument, or an opinion, on its merits, whoever is the author of such an opinion. I can't imagine anyone, who is not a sheep, thinking that all voices on the internet have equal weight.
-
Selecting the most approriate combination of F stop, ISO and shutter speed is the most basic procedure for anyone who uses a camera in manual mode.
Sure...and then (but only if you REALLY want to) you can also remove the lens cap, point the camera at something, maybe even frame and compose a bit and finally, as the last possible priority, press the shutter...
...actually, you can also do this in Auto mode on a mobile phone camera (which would normally not have a lens cap, saving you one step in the process), but only if you really want or need to take a picture...
-
Sure...and then (but only if you REALLY want to) you can also remove the lens cap, point the camera at something, maybe even frame and compose a bit and finally, as the last possible priority, press the shutter...
...actually, you can also do this in Auto mode on a mobile phone camera (which would normally not have a lens cap, saving you one step in the process), but only if you really want or need to take a picture...
Of course you can, but the issue addressed is whether or not a concern about appropriate F stop in manual mode is obsessive or not. Nick seems to think it is.
-
I feel like sending some heart-felt greetings to the exclusive, MFDB-owning members of this commercial photographers' section of the forum.
May peace be with you, and may you satisfy many clients.
-
I feel like sending some heart-felt greetings to the exclusive, MFDB-owning members of this commercial photographers' section of the forum.
May peace be with you, and may you satisfy many clients.
Pic reminds me of the line: he's never gone to bed with an ugly woman, but he's sure woken up with a few. Obviusly, could be worse.
(Credit due: Suzie Quatro, 20th November, 2000. BBC 2.)
Amazing the cultural benefit of the dear old Beeb! Love it.
Rob C
-
Pic reminds me of the line: he's never gone to bed with an ugly woman, but he's sure woken up with a few. Obviusly, could be worse.
(Credit due: Suzie Quatro, 20th November, 2000. BBC 2.)
Amazing the cultural benefit of the dear old Beeb! Love it.
Rob C
You're being very cryptic, Rob. Are you implying I was verey draank when I posted that image? ;D
-
You're being very cryptic, Rob. Are you implying I was verey draank when I posted that image? ;D
Why, are you pretending to be Dutch?
Rob C
-
Why, are you pretending to be Dutch?
Rob C
We seem to be straying off the topic of the thread.
I'll add that 35mm shooters can also get backgrounds out of focus. This guy is far worse than any troll ;D .
-
Safari on my ipad only permits 9 web pages open at a time, very precious space for instant access. This forum is getting the X for a while. Daily checking here has ceased to be useful. So weekly or even less frequent checking seems to be better use of my iPad web grid.
Ray, I'm not a religious person but what I do realize in life is that scientific approaches to life's exporations is not the full solution either. There exists a space in between where gut instinct is quite powerful along with some faith (which can exist without pure religion). With that, photography becomes more rewarding. The decision of an f-stop is but a blink of an eye and little contemplation is required for such. Spend more time with the content in front of you than worrying about switches, buttons, settings, MTFs. Absorb more of your world travels within your own photography. Not just photographing what is in front of you, but finding the harder, more difficult to attain content, more than a snap. Our world will reach a point of more cameras than humans, so the great intangible is paramount to imagery. That's the path, the goal, the journey, the means and the end. The best way towards that is actually taking no camera at all. That creates more powerful vision because you are left with just what is inside your mind, not handed to you a few feet away.
My intention is not to criticize, but critique. I find your images need more depth of purpose, intention, less worry about depth of field. Travel snaps are fine, but we all can do that a mile away or 10,000 miles away.
Great design, architecture, paintings, fashion, vignettes of nature and so much more connects at a soul balancing level. That's even before the shutter is clicked. I find the walking binaries in this forum and many other forums to be missing that understanding. They seem to think that a set of proceedures are the path, but the truth is far from that.
X
Your post sounds rather spiritual and profound, but I find it ignores the facts.
First, you cannot take snaps from a mile away, and certainly not 10,000 miles away.
Second, not taking a camera with one does not create a more powerful vision in my experience. The camera records what the memory can not retain.
There are periods in my life when I didn't have a camera, and other periods when I did.
I regret not having a camera during those periods, such as the time I spent in Iran in 1962.
The photo I posted above is one I'd forgotten I'd taken. Whilst organising some images, I came across it and posted it in response to Rob's post, as a bit of humour. It wasn't intended to be spiritually profound.
The main purpose of all my photos is that they should be meaningful to me. A secondary purpose is that they might be meaningful to you.
I should add, John, that of course you can take a snapshot of a subject 10,000 miles away, but you wouldn't capture much of it unless you paid a bit of attention to equipment and technique.
The snake, by the way, was taken with a 105mm lens on a 5D at F4.
-
We seem to be straying off the topic of the thread.
I'll add that 35mm shooters can also get backgrounds out of focus. This guy is far worse than any troll ;D .
Aha! the fabled hamadryad.
Should have posted in the 'nature' part of the forum; they are serious people there.
Rob C
-
Aha! the fabled hamadryad.
Should have posted in the 'nature' part of the forum; they are serious people there.
Rob C
What has this cobra got to do with trees? You're being cryptic again.
-
What has this cobra got to do with trees? You're being cryptic again.
Okay, you're being intentionally naïve to match my crypt!
Serpent, temptation, trees, hand-in-hand, would you bel-Eve it... non? (That was moi being italically and linguistically pretentious at the end.)
;-(
Rob C
-
Ray, I was just thinking: this MF phenomenon can be quite productive after all, as a quick look at the territory this thread as covered will quickly reveal.
We have travelled from the Himalayas to Paradise (or at least the Garden of Eden, which may or may not also be the Garden of Good and Evil, at midnight or at other times), with most stops in between.
Quite a cool format for armchair travellers.
Rob C
-
I think you touched the center point: cyberExperts.
that's why they tend to bark very loud, like the very little nervous dog barks always loud when a big german pastor is crossing it's way...
are we talking about a shepherd of men, or a sheep of a dog?
Edmund
-
are we talking about a shepherd of men, or a sheep of a dog?
Edmund
Just an alsation...
Rob C
-
They are generally jalous of MFD owners (because hey, they might understand something that they don't or can't access to) that's why they tend to bark very loud, like the very little nervous dog barks always loud
I think you may have hit on the true "center point" with that comment 8)
-
Just an alsation...
Rob C
Alsatian = Deutscher Schäferhund = German Shepherd. :)
-
I think you touched the center point: cyberExperts.
Internet has given us an incredible tool but became also the very best land for "self-promotional-knowledge-and-pride". Everyone has something to say, to write, to show. Everyone needs to be an "expert" to some extend to feel being someone. This is a WW social phenomenon. It doesn't matter if the datas are serious, it just has to look like.
I mean, there are people in youtube that make movies about what will happen to the world the 21th december 2012! And they are serious about it... like if it they had secret information. It probably makes them feel that they belong to a sort of knowledgable circle. Then videos on evil illuminati and free massons leading the world with super trustable datas of course etc...we are inundated by those "experts".
Photography, being a much more democratized medium than cinema wich requires heavy and expensive structures, so kept free of "cyberexperts", is a diamond mine indeed. Because it has all the ingredients for those cyberExperts to express themselves: it's technical but it's not rocket engineering, it has brands and systems wich every "expert" can identify himself with and compeat with the others etc...
So any average "technician" that would have no voice in real science can elaborate theories from things like DXO etc...and it works! more exactly it looks that it works. Internet is absolutly overcrowded by "knowledgable" people mostly in mass product area, like photography.
Strangely, none of those experts are actually engineers currently working for Dalsa or Canon but consummers like you and me. And very few of those "experts" are actually working as professional photographers, or print bigger than 30cm... So inevitably, the information sprayed it's mostly empty, but they will do all they can to make you feel that they know, matter of cyber reputation they put their names on... having the last word is convenient: "I know and you're wrong because this that and the other". They are generally jalous of MFD owners (because hey, they might understand something that they don't or can't access to) that's why they tend to bark very loud, like the very little nervous dog barks always loud when a big german pastor is crossing it's way...
You have some good points there, Fred, and I imagine that, for anyone who is not particularly rational and who might have some difficulty in being objective and unbiased, this state of affairs you describe could be a real problem. Whom to trust?
I imagine such people will simply 'follow the leader' and buy the same equipment that someone whom they admire uses. Problem solved.
Others, such as myself, get a sense of what equipment they need through the feed-back process of taking many images in a variety of circumstances and seeing clearly what works (technically) and what's lacking, whether it be too little detail for a large print, too noisy because of poor high-ISO performance, or too blurred due to a too-slow shutter speed which is related to ISO performance.
For my own purposes, I value good performance at high ISO, as well as good performance at base ISO, because I tend to be a peripatetic photographer rather than a studio worker.
For example, when I got up this morning, on the way from the bedroom to the bathroom to have a pee I noticed the following scene through the laundry glass door.
I grabbed my Canon 50D and quickly attached the 100-400 zoom, and took a series of shots through the glass door, setting the camera at ISO 800. The shutter speed was a bit slow, so I re-set the ISO to 1600 which is the highest ISO that provides reasonable quality on this small-format camera.
Knowing the technical qualities that I desire in a camera (and lenses), I can then search the internet for any tests and comparisons that are available, to help me decide upon the best equipment for my purposes.
This is where sites such as DXOmark, Imaging Resource and dpreview are very useful.
Opinions are cheap. Anyone can have an opinion, but not everyone can back up his opinion with comparison images, or comparison data in the form of graphs.
I find it quite absurd that many owners of DBs claim that DXOmark results are a joke, yet such people never provide any comparison images demonstrating that the DXO data is either false or misleading. Can you believe such people? I don't.
So my advice to you, Fred, is to tackle this confusing mass of opinions on the internet with a very simple procedure. Ask for the evidence. In photography, seeing is believing.
-
Ray, I know that the DOXers don't like my statements because I give them hard time always claimed clearly and sometimes with disrespect that I don't give credit to their numbers and will never do.
I went to their site, I think I almost saw their entire measurements, and after examinating with the most open mind the only question that came to my mind was...so what?
Do you really think that I would choose a gear for a one point more or less DR? Measurements by the way taken under laboratory conditions.
I just want to point here that in the past, Michael Reichmann himself started to use the DXO, then made a step back (for a good reason) and explained why.
But no, some bought the DXO pill, beleive in their numbers like religion and use those arguments that they don't hesitate to qualify "scientific" to criticize every gear that they consider "out of their parameters" and to reassure themselves that they made the right technical choices and that there is only one gear in the world above all other equipment that is called the Nikon D3x because DXO gave it the best DR ever measured.
Also, If I'm skilled and experienced, if I make some trully good images and I have the money for it or my professional needs really ask for it, the fact that I want the best equipment makes all sense. What I find funny really is all those "aficionados" that are completly obsessed by the very best and shoot sunsets. It's like if I play a little bit the guitar and I want the Who's set...
Let me tell you something that will not please at all but: I strongly beleive, including myself in the list, that 90% of the people in this forum and 99% in the other forums should start to make brillant pictures with a point-and-shot camera or a film view camera before coming into the scene with gear mystic datas and revendications. Then we can talk.
Maybe, instead of keep going saying that those MF users are all snob and stupids, we could just look at Michael Reichmann who owns: The highest Phase gear + 35mm FF Sony (by the way not the D3 that I know) + some micro4/3 + probably more bizarre stuff like view cameras etc...
I don't think that Michael is a lot preocupated by DXO datas but much more by having the best equipment for this or that particular purpose. Probably more interested in the handling and ergonomics and design than any other parameter.
In fact, Michael shoot on anything. It just has to feel right in each particular hand and needs. IMO.
-
Ray, I know that the DOXers don't like my statements because I give them hard time always claimed clearly and sometimes with disrespect that I don't give credit to their numbers and will never do.
I went to their site, I think I almost saw their entire measurements, and after examinating with the most open mind the only question that came to my mind was...so what?
Do you really think that I would choose a gear for a one point more or less DR? Measurements by the way taken under laboratory conditions.
I just want to point here that in the past, Michael Reichmann himself started to use the DXO, then made a step back (for a good reason) and explained why.
But no, some bought the DXO pill, beleive in their numbers like religion and use those arguments that they don't hesitate to qualify "scientific" to criticize every gear that they consider "out of their parameters" and to reassure themselves that they made the right technical choices and that there is only one gear in the world above all other equipment that is called the Nikon D3x because DXO gave it the best DR ever measured.
Also, If I'm skilled and experienced, if I make some trully good images and I have the money for it or my professional needs really ask for it, the fact that I want the best equipment makes all sense. What I find funny really is all those "aficionados" that are completly obsessed by the very best and shoot sunsets. It's like if I play a little bit the guitar and I want the Who's set...
Let me tell you something that will not please at all but: I strongly beleive, including myself in the list, that 90% of the people in this forum and 99% in the other forums should start to make brillant pictures with a point-and-shot camera or a film view camera before coming into the scene with gear mystic datas and revendications. Then we can talk.
Maybe, instead of keep going saying that those MF users are all snob and stupids, we could just look at Michael Reichmann who owns: The highest Phase gear + 35mm FF Sony (by the way not the D3 that I know) + some micro4/3 + probably more bizarre stuff like view cameras etc...
I don't think that Michael is a lot preocupated by DXO datas but much more by having the best equipment for this or that particular purpose. Probably more interested in the handling and ergonomics and design than any other parameter.
To me DXO does not take into account for the raw converter and as a Phase shooter with now on my 4th back plus many tests. There is a major improvement just bringing the files from any Phase back into C1. It has all the built in algorithms for noise , DR built into the software. As a shooter and not a scientist i only care about one thing how it comes out AFTER i process the files not some raw data that really means absolutely nothing. I consider DXO as a guide and only a guide does not mean it is right or wrong just not complete. Only thing that matters is what the Tiff file looks like after you process and either deliver to client or go to print. I know that may rub so many the wrong way but digital photography is what it is at the end of the processing chain. Is this not what matters the most. Not to piss off the DXO folks but why would we really care what happens on the front end of the raws, makes no sense to me. Especially since most of the OEM MF if not all are making corrections in there software for each dedicated back they sell.
-
To me DXO does not take into account for the raw converter and as a Phase shooter with now on my 4th back plus many tests. There is a major improvement just bringing the files from any Phase back into C1. It has all the built in algorithms for noise , DR built into the software. As a shooter and not a scientist i only care about one thing how it comes out AFTER i process the files not some raw data that really means absolutely nothing. I consider DXO as a guide and only a guide does not mean it is right or wrong just not complete. Only thing that matters is what the Tiff file looks like after you process and either deliver to client or go to print. I know that may rub so many the wrong way but digital photography is what it is at the end of the processing chain. Is this not what matters the most. Not to piss off the DXO folks but why would we really care what happens on the front end of the raws, makes no sense to me.
Exactly. And we all know that they have (commercial strategy) a special sauce for their files. That is why Phase has never been very friendly with the DNG as I experienced myself.
So the point is that all those DXO datas are just datas out of contexts, and contexts are so diverse really.
-
Ray, I know that the DOXers don't like my statements because I give them hard time always claimed clearly and sometimes with disrespect that I don't give credit to their numbers and will never do.
I went to their site, I think I almost saw their entire measurements, and after examinating with the most open mind the only question that came to my mind was...so what?
Do you really think that I would choose a gear for a one point more or less DR? Measurements by the way taken under laboratory conditions.
No. You've got it the wrong way round, Fred. You don't choose gear because it has a one point more or less DR. But you may choose not to buy some gear because it has only a one point more or less DR, if that camera has advertised itself has having significantly more DR than certain other smaller formats. This is what seems to infuriate the MFDB crowd.
But no, some bought the DXO pill, beleive in their numbers like religion and use those arguments that they don't hesitate to qualify "scientific" to criticize every gear that they consider "out of their parameters" and to reassure themselves that they made the right technical choices and that there is only one gear in the world above all other equipment that is called the Nikon D3x because DXO gave it the best DR ever measured.
Wrong again. DXO is not a pill or a religion. I'm sure the team at DXO labs would be delighted if anyone were to send them evidence (real evidence) that contradicts their results.
There have been many occasions when I have tested and compared my own equipment, before DXOmark was created. Such results in retrospect, agree very closely with DXOmark's results.
When the Nikon D3 was released and all reports on the internet claimed that this camera had up to 2 stops better high-ISO performance than any 35mm DSLR in existence, I was very interested but also incredulous.
I took the trouble to compare the D3 with my Canon 5D whilst in Bangkok. I couldn't hire one because they were in such short supply, so I visited the main Nikon store in Bangkok and used their demonstration model.
After examining many shots, the result was clear. The D3 did have a high-ISO advantage over the 5D, but only by about 2/3rds of a stop, which is nowhere near the claimed 2 stops.
Years later, after DXOmark appeared, I found that their comparison between the Nikon D3 and Canon 5D also indicate approximately a 2/3rds of a stop difference in DR and noise at high ISO. However, their tests are far more comprehensive than mine. They also reveal a more significant improvement at lower ISOs, which I didn't test because of time constraints.
This notion that DXO's test results are a belief system is sheer nonsense, Fred. The strength of religions is that they cannot be proved either true or false.
This is not true of DXO. If you have evidence that you think may falsify their results, then provide it. We'll all be happy, including me.
Let me tell you something that will not please at all but: I strongly beleive, including myself in the list, that 90% of the people in this forum and 99% in the other forums should start to make brillant pictures with a point-and-shot camera or a film view camera before coming into the scene with gear mystic datas and revendications. Then we can talk.
They do make brilliant pictures, but not by your standard. Surely you realise that what's valued in 'art' is a very subjective process and that there's a lot of humbug and patronage going on.
If everyone made brilliant pictures according to your standards (which you've no doubt borrowed from others as we all do), then such pictures would soon become a cliche, boring and banal.
-
They do make brilliant pictures, but not by your standard. Surely you realise that what's valued in 'art' is a very subjective process and that there's a lot of humbug and patronage going on.
If everyone made brilliant pictures according to your standards (which you've no doubt borrowed from others as we all do), then such pictures would soon become a cliche, boring and banal.
My italics.
But Ray, most pics of any style or genre already reach the heady heights you just described.
You can't win: it's all been done before, and much better.
The most one can hope for is to please one's self, the inner person. That's the real benefit of the amateur status.
Rob C
-
I was with Testino (he impressed me really as a person) and others on his Madrid's opening, he would shoot with anything. The great Ruven Afanador uses several systems etc...do you really think this class of photographers are giving just 5minutes of their time to those internet measurements? They use cameras, what's available, point. And because they use cameras, point, they use use them to this level.
Fred, it was pretty much always like this prior to the invention of digital. Everybody who could afford it used the same small handful of cameras and films. The companies thrived, the photographers thrived and all the world was a happier place. Digital not only changed the mindset of the users but killed off many of the companies that made the goodies that allowed it all to work so smoothly.
I can promise you, discussions such as happen here never, ever, occurred amongst professional users of photo equipment - only the amateur magazines played those games: they had to; it was their reason for existing, followed by the publication of reader's wives pictures in second place. The pro mags I found - few and far between - were concerned with lens and new film tests more than anything else. New cameras were rare birds!
Rob C
-
I can promise you, discussions such as happen here never, ever, occurred amongst professional users of photo equipment - only the amateur magazines played those games: they had to; it was their reason for existing, followed by the publication of reader's wives pictures in second place. The pro mags I found - few and far between - were concerned with lens and new film tests more than anything else. New cameras were rare birds!
If that's the case, Rob, you are contradicting yourself. The same preoccupation continues - lenses and film - except film has been replaced by a digital sensor and the RAW image is like a piece of exposed film that can be developed and redeveloped as often as one likes, push or pull processed to taste.
Some films lent themselves to a push-processing technique and other types of film were not so good in that respect, a bit like current DBs.
On the other hand, films that produced the sharpest results usually had a very low ISO rating, a bit like DBs. My favourite film before I switched to digital was Kodak Royal Gold 25. As I recall, it was the difficulty of getting a sufficiently fast shutter speed with that film, when camera was hand-held, that caused me to switch from Minolta to Canon because of the lure of Canon's image stabilisation technology.
-
If that's the case, Rob, you are contradicting yourself. The same preoccupation continues - lenses and film - except film has been replaced by a digital sensor and the RAW image is like a piece of exposed film that can be developed and redeveloped as often as one likes, push or pull processed to taste.
Not really, Ray; the lenses (in my memory, at least) were tested and an opinion given for that lens. That's not the same as the fanboy game: x is better than y because I bought into x. The facts, mam, only the facts!
Come to think of it, in 35mm only Nikon, Canon and Leica were seriously mentioned with, later on, one or two Sigma products. The other makes were disregarded, in the main, as cheap amateur country. I don't really remember 35mm Zeiss getting much space in reviews.
With MF it was Hasselblad stuff, Rollei, Mamiya, with Bronica in a sort of making-up-the-numbers rôle; Pentax was mainly mentioned for the difficulty in getting a hands-on experience of it.
The point, really, is that cameras were pretty well set in stone and, in general, only new lenses were introduced or improved. The game had plateaued into a state of fairly damn good on all scores. How nice for buyers - you could hardly go wrong; and for makers, more of the same, please!
With film, it was all about how well it performed. Pushing/pulling etc. wasn't usually on the agenda. Regardless of what many believe, all that sort of non-standard treatment was more part of the am game than the pro. The pro had to have standardized routes to results. Of course there were labs to provide such services, but it wasn't a position anyone wanted to find himself in - it was an emergency case. The pro never sought more problems than he already had to beat.
Rob C
EDIT: I'll give you this - the other computer has just finished scanning four 35mm trannies; 40 minutes to do that!
-
Not really, Ray; the lenses (in my memory, at least) were tested and an opinion given for that lens. That's not the same as the fanboy game: x is better than y because I bought into x. The facts, mam, only the facts!
Rob C
EDIT: I'll give you this - the other computer has just finished scanning four 35mm trannies; 40 minutes to do that!
So it is today, Rob. Opinions supported by evidence are always preferrable to opinions unsupported by any tests or comparisons. Anyone can have an opinion. When my interest in photography was renewed after the digital darkroom became an affordable option, I found sites like Photodo a valuable resource. I found it interesting that sometimes a Tamron lens had a slightly higher MTF result than a Hasselblad of similar focal length. Of course, the Hasselblad lens would have a wider image circle.
Photodo no longer do MTF testing of lenses. I guess that was just too expensive. But other sites like Photozone test actual copies of lenses. Unfortunately, their results are 'system' results which include the performance of both lens and sensor, so not as useful as the old Photodo MTF tests.
I'm waiting on some reliable testing results, or comparison images showing 100% crops, for the new Nikkor 24-120/F4 VRII lens. It's a lens which interests me, but I need to know if it's at least as good as my Canon 24-105/F4, before I order one.
Of course, the problem with lenses has always been quality variability amongst individual copies of the same model, and this is why a single test, howeveer competently carried out, may be misleading.
10 minutes to scan a 35mm slide seems a bit long, but the last time I scanned any film was a few years ago on my Minolta 5400. I can't remember how long it took at maximum resolution.
Cheers!
-
Those are the people (and more on the list of course) that I want to know what they use and why. Not laboratory stuff.
And the why has never to do with the web measurements, even if those datas are trustable and scientifically prooved.
If I where making cameras, I'd had much more reliable info anyway that are not published, but I'm not making cameras.
That was my point.
Respect for all, yes. If some find those datas usefull for their imagery, that's perfect to me. I have nothing to object.
Of course. It can be useful to know why a photographer uses particular equipment, if you admire his work. There are ergonomic issues as well as matters of technical quality. It is said that Henri Cartier Bresson, who was a master of 'capturing the moment', found the rangefinder concept of the Leica useful because it allowed him to see detail and movement immediately surrounding the 35mm frame in the viewfinder, when his eye was pressed to the camera.
However, I'm partly getting the impression that you don't want to think about the attributes of the equipment you need for your own purposes, but would rather just use the same equipment as those photographers you admire. Is this true?
-
However, I'm partly getting the impression that you don't want to think about the attributes of the equipment you need for your own purposes, but would rather just use the same equipment as those photographers you admire. Is this true?
For a moment there Ray I thought you were being rude.
Oh wait...
-
For a moment there Ray I thought you were being rude.
Oh wait...
Me? Rude? Don't be silly!
-
I have to learn equipment that I can't afford because I assist, and in those, I like some and don't like very much others. Leica S2 handling for example is not for me but I'd like to learn RED.
This is an entirely different issue. If it's your job to assist people who are using equipment you neither like nor can afford, then it's perfectly understandable you should learn about such equipment.
However, when selecting a camera for your own needs, is there not a list of priorities that you use in selecting the best equipment?
For example, if camera A has 1/2 a stop better DR at ISO 3200 than camera B, and a full stop better DR at ISO 200, that in itself might not be significant. However, if camera A is also compatible with a particularly fine lens, such as the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 for example, then such performance features can add up to make a compelling case for purchasing camera A.
In order to discover such attributes, one has to not only listen to opinions but examine the reports from laboratory tests, or at least examine comparison images taken by people who are thorough and meticulous.
To a practical point of view, the Hassy sync is much more important than if the D3 has an 1/2 DR point more than Phase in laboratory, wich means nothing because they don't take the software into the equation as it's been mentionned in this thread and over and over again in Lu-La.
Of course. If a high sync speed is important for your work and you need to get a sharp image of a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun, then a 35mm DSLR probably won't do. The best tool for the job applies.
If a 1/2 stop DR advantage means little to you, then the fact that C1 software may be able to extract a 1/2 stop more DR out of a P65+ file, than Nikon or Adobe software can, simply means that DR is out of the equation. It's not an issue.
I've also heard it mentioned many times on this forum, that the DR of the Phase DBs is better than the DXO results would indicate, but I've never seen comparison images, so I don't know how much better. Maybe such claims are largely defensive bluster, for all I know.
What does seem clear to me is, if it were not for organisations like DXO doing serious laboratory tests, some people would still be claiming that DBs have up to 6 stops better DR than any 35mm DSLR in existence. Thankfully that myth has been exploded.
If you are really serious about subtle files, precision, like in fine arts for example, MF is almost an obliged path if you can afford it. The ones who try to demostrate the opposite don't know what they are talking about. I never condamned MF except for its computer dependence and few other things that could be fixed.
I would not deny that there are situations in which the MFDB is clearly the best tool for the job. Such situations, it appears to me (correct me if I'm wrong) tend to be when high resolution images are required of slowly moving subjects in good natural lighting, or fast moving subjects in good artificial lighting (at high sync speed), when only a single shot is possible to catch the moment and freeze the subject.
For most other situations, such as fast action in natural lighting, acceptable results in poor lighting at high ISO, long telephoto reach for wildlife, extensive DoF for landscapes, stationery subjects where stitching is possible to increase resolution, and exposure bracketing is possible to increase DR, the 35mm DSLR seems at least as good and often better than the MFDB, wouldn't you say?
-
Very odd thread I think.
I see 2 issues at work here. The first is a desire to justify the large amount of money that needs top be spent to get into MF when frequently MF is not the correct tool for the job. The second is a sour grapes issue for people that cannot afford MF and so do there best to prove that it is all an con and a rip off.
I am in no way calling Ray out on the last point. In fact I agree with almost all the points he makes about the technical issues.
By the way I shoot most of my personal work on a Leaf Aptus7 that I plan on upgrading to a Aptus12 while almost all my commercial work, mostly catalogue stuff, is shot on a Canon 1D MKIII. In essence the Canon pays the bills and supports my MFDB habit. I just happen to shoot landscapes and such that please me more on the Aptus mounted on a Cambo.
As Lance said. "It's not about the camera"
-
Of course. If a high sync speed is important for your work and you need to get a sharp image of a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun, then a 35mm DSLR probably won't do. The best tool for the job applies.
Ray, this is not the purpose / benefit of high sync speed on a camera.
Rather to balance ambient and flash light without being limited by the 1/125 sync speed.
-
Actually the best chance (pretty much your only chance ) to catch a bullit leaving the barrel is a long exposure (1second or more) and a fast flash.
-
Actually the best chance (pretty much your only chance ) to catch a bullit leaving the barrel is a long exposure (1second or more) and a fast flash.
That would work in the dark, but, if you need to exclude ambient light, it is best to use two shutter-beams (which can react to sound) one to fire the shutter, and one to fire the flash, or a delay circuit.
...or you can use a three-circuit system, and fire the bullet electronically.
-
Dick, even with 1sec. you need the microphone and the delay timer. And the studio doesn't need to be totally dark with this but indeed it does free you to go longer if necessary. In practice it is very hard to do it faster and get good results, even with the Cognysis equipment.
Opening the shutter and the camera delay is one thing that is not totally reliable in as it appears to be not entirely consistent. It also takes quite a bit of time. The best results I get is when I open the shutter first, have the 'event' take place, delay for x amount of micro (yes micro) seconds, set off the flash and close the shutter. It gets a lot more difficult to go under 1 second this way.
I also need the fastest flash I have around to minimize movement.
I have done drops and collissions this way, not (yet) bullits.
Addendum. This is with MF, maybe it goes better with my DSLR. I will give it a try one of these days...
-
Actually the best chance (pretty much your only chance ) to catch a bullit leaving the barrel is a long exposure (1second or more) and a fast flash.
Dustbak, you are talking crap.
The best way to catch a bullet leaving the barrel is to stand right in front of it as the gun goes off.
This has been proven time after time; there is casebook after casebook full of the details.
Rob C
-
Dick, even with 1sec. you need the microphone and the delay timer. And the studio doesn't need to be totally dark with this but indeed it does free you. In practice it is very hard to do it faster and get good results, even with the Cognysis equipment.
I have done drops and collissions this way, not (yet) bullits.
How long does it take to open the shutter, with a mirror-less or MLU system?
If it takes longer to open the shutter than it takes for the bullet to travel down the barrel...
...but the application I have in mind would involve photographing the bullet as it hits the target, which would be easier.
-
RobC,
:) You are right. How could I not think of that. Repeatability is kind of bad that way which might be a downside :)
-
How long does it take to open the shutter, with a mirror-less or MLU system?
If it takes longer to open the shutter than it takes for the bullet to travel down the barrel...
...but the application I have in mind would involve photographing the bullet as it hits the target, which would be easier.
The mirror is already up.
Be my guest and go ahead. Let me know and see the results...
-
Dustbak, you are talking crap.
The best way to catch a bullet leaving the barrel is to stand right in front of it as the gun goes off.
This has been proven time after time; there is casebook after casebook full of the details.
Rob C
Hi, Rob..
Does this involve placing the mussel of the gun in the hand, or in some suitable orifice, or are you talking of photographing the bullet?
Do you use a gun that fires ping-pong balls? (or squash ball for white backgrounds)?
-
Back to the thread, there is a very simple fact: 80% of the professional choice is Canon. Digital imagery is basically Canon. Why? ...with Canon, no miracles but no hassles. It just works,...
Despite of that fact, many pros also choosed to shot Nikon for good reasons also (sport is one), or to shoot Phase, Hasselblad, Cambo etc...for good reasons.
Do you seriously imagine yourself conversing with Ansel Adams explaining to him that you just discovered that the sensor X has more DR...
I believe that AA did a great deal of "real world" (ambient, outdoor) photography, so DR would be of more interest to him (and landscape photographers) than studio photogs.
You are talking about professional photography with mainstream amateur equipment "no miracles but no hassles. It just works".
Especially with the new T/S adapters and lenses, amateur equipment is adequate for most pro photographs... but some of us try to work to a higher standard that what can be achieved with amateur equipment, or do work that would be technically impossible with amateur equipment.
There are, of course H4D-60s used by amateurs, and there is not enough specialist work out there to make it worth while for every pro to buy equipment that can take pictures that the well-healed amateur could not.
A pro might do a better job than an amateur with the same camera, but the instant feed-back of digital makes it so easy for the amateur or part-timer to get an acceptable result.
How many pros do you come across who use Sinar?
-
Ray, this is not the purpose / benefit of high sync speed on a camera.
Rather to balance ambient and flash light without being limited by the 1/125 sync speed.
David,
On page 305 of the 443-page Nikon D700 manual, I'm informed that the humble D700 can have flash sync speeds ranging from 1/60th to 1/320th sec when used with the Nikon Speedlight units, such as the SB-900, SB-800, and SB-600 etc. For appropriate balance with ambient light, shutter speeds can be selected from 30 secs to 1/8000th, but apparently at shutter speeds faster than 1/320th the flash range is reduced.
However, this is not something I've experimented with. I haven't even bought a Nikon Speedlight yet. Maybe I should.
-
David,
On page 305 of the 443-page Nikon D700 manual, I'm informed that the humble D700 can have flash sync speeds ranging from 1/60th to 1/320th sec when used with the Nikon Speedlight units, such as the SB-900, SB-800, and SB-600 etc. For appropriate balance with ambient light, shutter speeds can be selected from 30 secs to 1/8000th, but apparently at shutter speeds faster than 1/320th the flash range is reduced.
However, this is not something I've experimented with. I haven't even bought a Nikon Speedlight yet. Maybe I should.
Glad to hear you've taken the time to read the D700 manual, however 1/320 with small flash guns does not give the same results as when you use an MF or LF camera and flash packs, syncing at 1/500, 1/800 or even 1/1,600 (on the Phase One/ Mamiya 645DF and LS lenses), be it freezing motion in the studio or out-powering the sun outside...
Check Claes Axstål's work (http://www.axstalphoto.com/) as a good example for how flash is used outside
Yair
-
Do you seriously imagine yourself conversing with Ansel Adams explaining to him that you just discovered that the sensor X has more DR than the much more expensive MF claims because you saw that important fact in an internet webpage dedicated to measurements...he probably would answer not very politely: "Son, go back to work and show me a nice picture"
You're joking again aren't you, Fred? Ansel Adams invented the zone system. He was obviously very concerned about technical issues such as dynanic range.
Adams (1981, 52) distinguished among three different exposure scales for the negative:
The full range from black to white, represented by Zone 0 through Zone X.
The dynamic range comprising Zone I through Zone IX, which Adams considered to represent the darkest and lightest “useful” negative densities.
The textural range comprising Zone II through Zone VIII. This range of zones conveys a sense of texture and the recognition of substance.
He noted that negatives can record detail through Zone XII and even higher, but that bringing this information within the exposure scale of the print is extremely difficult with normal processing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System
-
Glad to hear you've taken the time to read the D700 manual, however 1/320 with small flash guns does not give the same results as when you use an MF or LF camera and flash packs, syncing at 1/500, 1/800 or even 1/1,600 (on the Phase One/ Mamiya 645DF and LS lenses), be it freezing motion in the studio or out-powering the sun outside...
Check Claes Axstål's work (http://www.axstalphoto.com/) as a good example for how flash is used outside
Yair
No doubt. I've admitted that the MFDB system has an advantage in that respect. I was really just addressing David Grover's example of a maximum flash syc of 1/125th which perhaps he thinks is typical for 35mm DSLRs. The Nikon Speedlight SB-900, which attaches to the camera, is supposed to have a maximum range of only 20 metres, depending on aperture and ISO.
Are we talking about external flash units remotely controlled, or those that attach to the camera and are portable?
-
No doubt. I've admitted that the MFDB system has an advantage in that respect. I was really just addressing David Grover's example of a maximum flash syc of 1/125th which perhaps he thinks is typical for 35mm DSLRs. The Nikon Speedlight SB-900, which attaches to the camera, is supposed to have a maximum range of only 20 metres, depending on aperture and ISO.
Are we talking about external flash units remotely controlled, or those that attach to the camera and are portable?
Speedlites typically sync at 1/250th and 1/320th. Using studio strobes, is when you come into issues. That's when you back down to 1/125th give or take.
Hassy syncs at 1/800th and Phase does 1/1600th in a couple of cases.
-
For appropriate balance with ambient light, shutter speeds can be selected from 30 secs to 1/8000th, but apparently at shutter speeds faster than 1/320th the flash range is reduced.
Ray
For appropriate balance (of flash) with ambient light, we need flash sync!!!
-
My point was that he would have ask the evidence of what those laboratory measurements are saying on the real result. You can actually apply the zone system with any camera, regardless of its specs. It's a shooting and lab technique.
Indeed. One should always question the evidence if it seems unbelievable or contradicts other information. I do it myself frequently. You can apply the zone system with any camera, but only part of it. Most film on smaller formats cannot capture the entire dynamic range of Ansel's zone system, which covers about 10-11 stops of DR. Ansel used large format B&W film for good technical reasons.
You can't compare a technical system that is used on the field for practical purpose with a clear aim with a spec data in a webpage.
Yes you can. I've done it. I mentioned before that I took some trouble comparing my 5D with the new Nikon D3 shortly after it first came out, when I was in Thailand. I spent half a day travelling to and fro, across the city of Bangkok, to check for myself these extraordinary claims of high-ISO performance for the D3. I simulated the high ISO settings that the 5D doesn't have (but the D3 does have), by underexposing the 5D by various amounts at ISO 3200.
After examining a hundred or so RAW & jpeg images taken above ISO 3200, I came to the conclusion that the high-ISO advantage of the D3 was in the order of 2/3rds of a stop, half a stop at the most.
My procedure was to match images from each camera that had equal ETTR exposures (after adjusting the histogram for the 5D to simulate an ETTR), then examine detail and noise in the shadows. Since both cameras are of the same format and have a similar pixel count, the 5D having just slightly more pixels, that procedure worked well.
If the DXOMark website had existed at that time, I could have saved myself a lot of trouble, because their laboratory tests show a similar result. They didn't test beyond ISO 3200 with the 5D, but the slope of the graph is clear.
-
Ray
For appropriate balance (of flash) with ambient light, we need flash sync!!!
I'm just reading what's written in the D700 manual, Dick.
FIXING SHUTTER SPEED AT THE FLASH SYNC SPEED LIMIT
To fix shutter speed at the sync speed limit in shutter-priority, auto, or manual exposure modes, select the next shutter speed after the slowest possible shutter speed (30 s or bulb). An X (flash sync indicator) will be displayed in the control panel and viewfinder.
However, the table on the next page suggests the range of shutter speeds from 1/250th to 30 secs might only apply to the built-in flash. It's not clear. You'd think 443 pages would be sufficient to make everything clear.
I get the impression that above 1/320th, the full strength of the flash will be attenuated. But at slower shutter speeds, all the way down to 30 secs, the full strength of the flash will still apply but the strength of the ambient light will increase with the greater exposure, but I'm no expert in the use of flash.
-
We all know that the Nikon files are much better (photographically speaking) than the "washing machine aspect" of the Canons
I wasnt aware of this. Even when comparing my Canon images to family members Nikon images I cannot see such a thing. Please tell me what conditions are needed for your statement to be not only true, but obvious to all.
-h
-
I believe that AA did a great deal of "real world" (ambient, outdoor) photography, so DR would be of more interest to him (and landscape photographers) than studio photogs.
Perhaps it is the sign of a great master of art when she knows the technique needed in her art so well, that our attention is not drawn to technique at all?
A pro might do a better job than an amateur with the same camera, but the instant feed-back of digital makes it so easy for the amateur or part-timer to get an acceptable result.
A pro makes a living out of it. An amateur simply loves it. I think there are "skilled" and "less skilled" individuals from both camps.
-k
-
... exposure, but I'm no expert in the use of flash.
That´s obvious. ;D
-
Sync speed is a big deal when controlling the balance of flash to ambient. For those of us that shoot with flash and for example shoot restaurant interiors full control using high flash sync speeds is important and the higher sync speeds you get using on camera dedicated DSLR flash systems are not very helpful. Usually we will have various flash heads with various shapers hidden/placed around the set.
-
Sync speed is a big deal when controlling the balance of flash to ambient.
The minimum or base ISO of backs seems to creep upwards, but if you can use 50 ISO, (or even 25) it makes it easier to balance sunlight, particularly if you can use the optimum f8ish, e.g. when using tilt to control the POSF.
-
I'm just reading what's written in the D700 manual, Dick.
However, the table on the next page suggests the range of shutter speeds from 1/250th to 30 secs might only apply to the built-in flash. It's not clear. You'd think 443 pages would be sufficient to make everything clear.
I get the impression that above 1/320th, the full strength of the flash will be attenuated. But at slower shutter speeds, all the way down to 30 secs, the full strength of the flash will still apply but the strength of the ambient light will increase with the greater exposure, but I'm no expert in the use of flash.
Ray,
Do yourself a favour, go and borrow a flash (any flash...on or off camera, monoblock or a separate pack/ head etc.) and try to sync it with your D700 at 1/500 or 1/800 or 1/4000. Then come back and tell us if you have found anything unusual with the look of your images
Awaiting your insight
Yair
You will then, possibly, realise that seeing only half an image is not that great...the other half will be Black, showing you the back of the shutter blades...
-
Ray,
Do yourself a favour, go and borrow a flash (any flash...on or off camera, monoblock or a separate pack/ head etc.) and try to sync it with your D700 at 1/500 or 1/800 or 1/4000. Then come back and tell us if you have found anything unusual with the look of your images
Awaiting your insight
Yair
You will then, possibly, realise that seeing only half an image is not that great...the other half will be Black, showing you the back of the shutter blades...
This is, of course, the effect you get with a roller-blind or foil focal-plane shutter, but, as I am sure you, Yair, appreciate, with a leaf shutter you can get attenuation of the flash power as the shutter opens and closes, giving the effect of an opening and closing diaphragm, even if the sync is optimal, with the flash producing peak power when the shutter is fully open.
-
As others have mentioned control of ambient along with flash is key... for instance;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/symbolphotography/4895863233/
Not an amazing shot by any stretch of the imagination, however, it was shot in bright mid-day sunlight. Having the ability to not only control flash output, but the sunlight is a HUGE benefit when shooting in varying conditions.
-
Ray,
Do yourself a favour, go and borrow a flash (any flash...on or off camera, monoblock or a separate pack/ head etc.) and try to sync it with your D700 at 1/500 or 1/800 or 1/4000. Then come back and tell us if you have found anything unusual with the look of your images
I don't need to, yaya. I'm smart enough to understand if the maximum sync speed is 1/320, then at 1/8000 the intensity of the flash will be much reduced. The D700 manual tells me it will be reduced.
Did you think I am arguing that the MFDB systems do not have some advantage with flash?
However, I have learned something from this exchange. Searching the internet for manuals, it seems the Nikon SB-900 (with the D700) can do repeat flash during a single exposure for either a stroboscopic effect or to enable a greater cummulative flash intensity during long shutter speeds. I might buy one of those Speedlights.
Here's a link to some creative use of that feature. http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explore/Photography-Techniques/fy1hs59w/1/Repeating-Flash.html#tab=1
-
As others have mentioned control of ambient along with flash is key... for instance;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/symbolphotography/4895863233/
Not an amazing shot by any stretch of the imagination, however, it was shot in bright mid-day sunlight. Having the ability to not only control flash output, but the sunlight is a HUGE benefit when shooting in varying conditions.
The lighting doesn't look at all natural to me.
-
I don't need to, yaya. I'm smart enough to understand if the maximum sync speed is 1/320, then at 1/8000 the intensity of the flash will be much reduced. The D700 manual tells me it will be reduced.
Did you think I am arguing that the MFDB systems do not have some advantage with flash?
However, I have learned something from this exchange. Searching the internet for manuals, it seems the Nikon SB-900 (with the D700) can do repeat flash during a single exposure for either a stroboscopic effect or to enable a greater cummulative flash intensity during long shutter speeds. I might buy one of those Speedlights.
Here's a link to some creative use of that feature. http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explore/Photography-Techniques/fy1hs59w/1/Repeating-Flash.html#tab=1
Great...after you have bought that SB-900 kit, try it at speed faster than your camera's max sync speed
But before you do that, take a look at this page (http://tzywen.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=895)
We're talking about the difference between focal plane shutters (used in 35mm cameras) and leaf shutters (used in MF and LF cameras)
-
Great...after you have bought that SB-900 kit, try it at speed faster than your camera's max sync speed
But before you do that, take a look at this page (http://tzywen.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=895)
We're talking about the difference between focal plane shutters (used in 35mm cameras) and leaf shutters (used in MF and LF cameras)
Well, I am disappointed. I imagined 'this page' would tell me something about the marvelous attributes of flash units that attach to MFDB systems. Instead, I got a page about the D90. The FX D700 that I use, has a maximum flash sync of 1/320th, at full flash intensity. Not as good as some MFDB systems, I'm sure, but still not bad.
You guys are a bit cagey. I still don't know if these marvelous flash attributes of MFDB relate to portable flash units that attach to the camera. I'm a peripatetic sort of guy. I don't travel around with a truck-load of lighting equipment.
-
Well, I am disappointed. I imagined 'this page' would tell me something about the marvelous attributes of flash units that attach to MFDB systems. Instead, I got a page about the D90. The FX D700 that I use, has a maximum flash sync of 1/320th, at full flash intensity. Not as good as some MFDB systems, I'm sure, but still not bad.
You guys are a bit cagey. I still don't know if these marvelous flash attributes of MFDB relate to portable flash units that attach to the camera. I'm a peripatetic sort of guy. I don't travel around with a truck-load of lighting equipment.
Not cagey Ray, just read what you have been presented. It was explained earlier in the thread.
"Sync speed is a big deal when controlling the balance of flash to ambient. For those of us that shoot with flash and for example shoot restaurant interiors full control using high flash sync speeds is important and the higher sync speeds you get using on camera dedicated DSLR flash systems are not very helpful. Usually we will have various flash heads with various shapers hidden/placed around the set."
Flash heads, as in not Nikon Speedlights which you won't find on a professional set of any genre in photography.
Symbolphoto gave you an example as well shot with an MF camera. Whether you like or dislike the effect is upto you, but it is necessary for a lot of photographers to achieve what they want in an image.
-
The lighting doesn't look at all natural to me.
It's not trying to be natural. It's supposed to be more interesting then natural light. Otherwise i'd just stick with ambient.
-
Well, I am disappointed. I imagined 'this page' would tell me something about the marvelous attributes of flash units that attach to MFDB systems. Instead, I got a page about the D90. The FX D700 that I use, has a maximum flash sync of 1/320th, at full flash intensity. Not as good as some MFDB systems, I'm sure, but still not bad.
You guys are a bit cagey. I still don't know if these marvelous flash attributes of MFDB relate to portable flash units that attach to the camera. I'm a peripatetic sort of guy. I don't travel around with a truck-load of lighting equipment.
Ray,
Your D700 syncs at 1/320 in normal mode at best. In a lot of cases it will not do better than 180/th and at 1/250th it will already have some darkening due to the shutter blades. We are not talking the kind of darkening like a nice creative vignette but the kind that renders an image unusable.
With the SB900 (and the SB600/SB800 and I am sure the SB700) you can have FP (focal plane) flashing where you can sync up to 1/8000th but this is very limited. You loose a lot of power from the flash but it can be done. Was it Joe McNally that had this whole contraption with many SB900/800's in the dessert?
Yes the 1/800th sync of Hasselblad relates to all sorts of flashes that you can trigger with it. It is not limited to one specific kind.
I have used both and find the Hasselblad much easier and more reliable to use than the DSLR. The batteries of the SB's are a weak link, they tend to go to sleep when you don't need it (even when you turn that off), IR trigger (SU800) is sometimes tricky, using a flash as commander doesn't always work really well, remote triggers are working but not always 100%. Where as the MF works and is much more reliable. This to me is really important.
-
That would work in the dark, but, if you need to exclude ambient light, it is best to use two shutter-beams (which can react to sound) one to fire the shutter, and one to fire the flash, or a delay circuit.
...or you can use a three-circuit system, and fire the bullet electronically.
I've never shot bullets with a camera, but I'd recommend using sub-sonic rounds if you rely on sound to trigger the shutter ;)
-
Not cagey Ray, just read what you have been presented. It was explained earlier in the thread.
"Sync speed is a big deal when controlling the balance of flash to ambient. For those of us that shoot with flash and for example shoot restaurant interiors full control using high flash sync speeds is important and the higher sync speeds you get using on camera dedicated DSLR flash systems are not very helpful. Usually we will have various flash heads with various shapers hidden/placed around the set."
Flash heads, as in not Nikon Speedlights which you won't find on a professional set of any genre in photography.
Symbolphoto gave you an example as well shot with an MF camera. Whether you like or dislike the effect is upto you, but it is necessary for a lot of photographers to achieve what they want in an image.
David,
You'll have to pardon my ignorance. I'm just an amateur.
I'm now getting the impression that these flash advantages of the MFDB system, with regard to higher flash intensity at greater shutter speeds, are only applicable to external flash units. Is this correct?
I'm also getting the impression that, for more modest flash requirements, at lower intensity and slower shutter speeds, the 35mm DSLR may still have an advantage because it accepts TTL flash devices like the SB-900 which attach to the camera hot-shoe.
For example, let's say I'm visiting Angkor Wat again, photographing the ruins in bright sunlight. The shadows are very dark, but sometimes there's interesting detail in those shadows; perhaps a little figurine nestled against the root of a tree overgrowing the ruins; or perhaps I just want to bring out the texture of the stone and any moss that might be growing there, in complete shade.
With my D700 and attached SB-900 Speedlight, there'd be no problem. It's true the Speedlight adds another 500gms to the weight of the camera, but that's manageable.
What may not be manageable is setting up a couple of external flash units with reflectors in a crowded area with tourists passing 'to and fro' all the time.
"Sorry folks! Stand back everyone! Professional photographer at work!"
This thread was inspired by the rebuttal in James Martin's article, "You can't do That with Medium Format", which I thought was a bit misleading.
Have I highlighted yet another thing you can't do with Medium Format; walk around with a reasonably good flash unit attached to the camera?
-
Ray,
Your D700 syncs at 1/320 in normal mode at best. In a lot of cases it will not do better than 180/th and at 1/250th it will already have some darkening due to the shutter blades. We are not talking the kind of darkening like a nice creative vignette but the kind that renders an image unusable.
Dustbak,
As far as I can tell from the SB-900 manual, you can choose the flash intensity, the distance to the subject, the aperture for appropriate exposure, and the angle of coverage. (As well as many other options).
I imagine that vignetting would take place if the angle of coverage is either not set correctly, or is outside the design limits of the flash unit.
If I buy one of these units, it looks as though I'll have to spend a lot of time reading the manual. Things seem to be getting more and more complicated.
-
Ray you'll probably be shocked to hear that most MF cameras nowadays offer a hotshoe!!!!! Some even have a built-in pop-up flash!!!
You can even use the hotshoe to mount a flash unit and with the correct adapter, have TTL function!!!!
For your question, I think lighting those shadows with an off-camera unit (can be an SB-XXX if you want as you can trigger it remotely) will give better control and better results.
-
Dustbak,
As far as I can tell from the SB-900 manual, you can choose the flash intensity, the distance to the subject, the aperture for appropriate exposure, and the angle of coverage. (As well as many other options).
I imagine that vignetting would take place if the angle of coverage is either not set correctly, or is outside the design limits of the flash unit.
If I buy one of these units, it looks as though I'll have to spend a lot of time reading the manual. Things seem to be getting more and more complicated.
Ray,
You are hitting your shutter blades because your sync limit is actually lower than 1/320th with the D700 in a lot cases. This shows as half a black frame from the bottom upwards.
It seems you are either not reading what I wrote or you have no idea what max sync speed actually is and what happens if you cross it (or where you cross it with the D700). This has nothing to do with the angle of coverage of the flash.
-
Ray you'll probably be shocked to hear that most MF cameras nowadays offer a hotshoe!!!!! Some even have a built-in pop-up flash!!!
You can even use the hotshoe to mount a flash unit and with the correct adapter, have TTL function!!!!
For your question, I think lighting those shadows with an off-camera unit (can be an SB-XXX if you want as you can trigger it remotely) will give better control and better results.
I'm not so much shocked as mystified. I did a bit of Google searching to try to find out what flash options are available to attach to DMF cameras, and couldn't find any satisfactory answers. I checked out the Phase One site where there are lots of video tutorials on the Phase 645DF, but the only reference to use of flash related to external units.
During my search, I came across a 'getdpi.com' forum where people were showing off their high-ISO DMF images downsampled to DSLR size, and congratulating themselves that such images were comparable to DSLR output. They seemed to have completely ignored the fact that that at high ISO the MFDB manufacturers tend to exaggerate their ISO ratings by a greater extent than do DSLR manufacturers. The real ISO of the P65+ back at ISO 1600, for example, is very close to the real ISO rating of the D3X at the nominated ISO 800.
Talk about 'fanboyism'!
-
Ray,
You are hitting your shutter blades because your sync limit is actually lower than 1/320th with the D700 in a lot cases. This shows as half a black frame from the bottom upwards.
It seems you are either not reading what I wrote or you have no idea what max sync speed actually is and what happens if you cross it (or where you cross it with the D700). This has nothing to do with the angle of coverage of the flash.
I'm reading the D700 (and SB-900) manuals. They tell me that maximum flash sync speed is 1/320th. What problems there might be in using the SB-900 at this flash sync speed of 1/320th are another matter. Regards vignetting, I can only comment from experience with other TTL flash units. There's vignetting if the FL of lens used is outside the specifications of the flash unit, or if the FL range has not been set properly.
This advice at http://nikonclspracticalguide.blogspot.com/2008/03/10-auto-fp-high-speed-sync-explained.html is 2 1/2 years old but perhaps still helpful. To quote:
As I mentioned, a focal plane shutter mechanism moves the curtains at a very precise speed. This speed is determined during manufacturing of the mechanism and is governed mostly by how recently the shutter was designed. In older 35mm cameras, this speed was 1/60th second, but with time, shutters got faster and faster, and in the new D300 this speed is 1/320th sec.
-
I'm not so much shocked as mystified. I did a bit of Google searching to try to find out what flash options are available to attach to DMF cameras, and couldn't find any satisfactory answers. I checked out the Phase One site where there are lots of video tutorials on the Phase 645DF, but the only reference to use of flash related to external units.
A Hasselblad H-series has a few flash options (I'm not sure about the other MFs but I quess they have something similar)
- built in fill flash with TTL
- hotshoe where you can mount normal flashes and with the appropiate adapter a TTL flash
- PC plug where you can mount cord base flashes
All these flashe options syncs to 1/800 - well there is only one case that I know of where you dont have max sync speed and that is when you use slow wireless remote triggers but that is not really the cameras fault.
When using faster sync than the flash duration you don't get the full benefit of the flash power.
You can choose to sync the flash in the beginning or at the end of the exposure, which is very nice when shooting moving objects leaving the ghosting trail behind the object instead of in front.
I have been following this thread and find it very entertaining even though I have difficulties seeing what its actual purpose is. I seems that the OP ask if MF is too expensive, too heavy, and too unflexible to be worth getting and as the thread progresses it appears that the question is more rethorical than actual.
To me it's like asking: Why does anybody wan't to buy a 18 wheel truck - it's heavy, it's very expensive, nobody else buys it, it doesn't run very fast, it's difficult to drive and even more difficult to park?
The best answer I can come up with is a few people needs it's ability to move stuff and a few freaks just like to drive it. I wouldn't recommend it for a sunday drive unless ofcourse you mostly enjoy destroying your environment.
-
A Hasselblad H-series has a few flash options...
All these flashe options syncs to 1/800 - well there is only one case that I know of where you dont have max sync speed and that is when you use slow wireless remote triggers but that is not really the cameras fault.
Can you tell us which wireless remote triggers work well, and give fast sync speeds?
Metz?
Pocket Wizard?
Elinchrome?
-
Can you tell us which wireless remote triggers work well, and give fast sync speeds?
Metz?
Pocket Wizard?
Elinchrome?
I don't have much experience with wireless flash. But since the challenges you face with high sync speed with focal plane shutters are very different from the ones you have with a leaf shutter, all the fancy sync modes you get with Pocket Wizard will not help you. Elichrom says up to 1/250 on their web site and seems to be designed for focal plane shutters. My best quess would be Profoto air which it is designed for leaf shutters and they say up 1/1500 on their site.
-
Flash heads, as in not Nikon Speedlights which you won't find on a professional set of any genre in photography.
Em, there are loads of professional photographers who regularly use Nikon/Canon etc speedlites on location, especially in editorial and travel work, using them creatively, often off-camera, often producing powerful and artistic work.
-
It's probably all different now - what the hell isn't? - but even in the days of the 500C and theoretical synch at 1/500 of a sec with its lenses, the received wisdom was to stay down at around 125th and, at a push, a 250th. This was because synch wasn't always that accurate and also because many big bang studio units were only powerful because the flash was a long-duration one; the danger was clipping part of that output via the shutter and, as a result, not getting the exposure your meter told you that you would be getting... maybe Polaroid had value after all.
Rob C
-
Can you tell us which wireless remote triggers work well, and give fast sync speeds?
Metz?
Pocket Wizard?
Elinchrome?
Elinchrom works very well. All my photos in the above link were taken with Elinchrom strobes. They have some great systems.
-
I don't have much experience with wireless flash. But since the challenges you face with high sync speed with focal plane shutters are very different from the ones you have with a leaf shutter, all the fancy sync modes you get with Pocket Wizard will not help you. Elichrom says up to 1/250 on their web site and seems to be designed for focal plane shutters. My best quess would be Profoto air which it is designed for leaf shutters and they say up 1/1500 on their site.
Just to be clear, Elinchrom syncs to 1/800th and 1/1600th no problem. Ranger RX AS and Quadra's both. I use them exclusively with my Hassy.
-
I don't have much experience with wireless flash. But since the challenges you face with high sync speed with focal plane shutters are very different from the ones you have with a leaf shutter, all the fancy sync modes you get with Pocket Wizard will not help you. Elichrom says up to 1/250 on their web site and seems to be designed for focal plane shutters. My best quess would be Profoto air which it is designed for leaf shutters and they say up 1/1500 on their site.
I do not use any cameras with focal plane shutters, and I have Hassy V and H systems, and Copal shuttered MFDVC and LF lenses, and I am about to get eShutters for my Apo-Digitars, so why will "all the fancy sync modes you get with Pocket Wizard... not help" me?
eShutters are limited to 1/250th, and I have (old) Elinchroms.
-
big bang studio units were only powerful because the flash was a long-duration one;
Rob C
I think that the trick is to use big flashes (1,500ws) at fractional power.
-
Just to be clear, Elinchrom syncs to 1/800th and 1/1600th no problem. Ranger RX AS and Quadra's both. I use them exclusively with my Hassy.
Maybe the 1/250 on different sync vendors websites should be understood as "It is fast enough for 1/250 sync speed on a focal plane shutter camera" since it would be problematic if they goes out promising sync speeds up to 1/1600
-
Maybe the 1/250 on different sync vendors websites should be understood as "It is fast enough for 1/250 sync speed on a focal plane shutter camera" since it would be problematic if they goes out promising sync speeds up to 1/1600
Agreed, it's a fine line in how you word things. What it should state is;
For focal plane shutter cameras, we sync up to 1/280th (The new speed mode promises 280th)
For Leaf Shutter cameras, we sync up to 1/1600th with less than half a stop loss of light. (Which is true, i've tested it)
-
Am I the only one who is utterly thrilled at the prospect of seeing what Ray can do to Ankor Wat with on camera flash?
Nick-T
-
Am I the only one who is utterly thrilled at the prospect of seeing what Ray can do to Ankor Wat with on camera flash?
Nick-T
Nope :)
-
Sorry for interupting, but I cant follow you on this flash stuff.
Are we down to the main benefit of MF over smaller sensor sizes is the ability of fast flash sync??
-h
-
I found Mr Rockwell quite illuminating on this topic.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm
(http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/images/sync-speed_v2.gif)
-
Sorry for interupting, but I cant follow you on this flash stuff.
Are we down to the main benefit of MF over smaller sensor sizes is the ability of fast flash sync??
-h
No. that is one of the advantages of leaf shutters, which are fitted to good MF cameras.
It seem to be lost on most people now, but the other advantage of leaf shutters is the lake of distortion of fast moving subjects.
-
No. that is one of the advantages of leaf shutters, which are fitted to good MF cameras.
It seem to be lost on most people now, but the other advantage of leaf shutters is the lake of distortion of fast moving subjects.
But MF is used primarily for studio and landscapes, is it not? I would guess that fast moving subjects are more interesting to Canikon sports photographers?
I guess that a leaf shutter cannot be infinitely fast, just like the shutter of my 7D. What is the artifact caused by the leaf shutters "shutter time"? I would guess diffraction similar to a very small aperture?
-h
-
But MF is used primarily for studio and landscapes, is it not? I would guess that fast moving subjects are more interesting to Canikon sports photographers?
I guess that a leaf shutter cannot be infinitely fast, just like the shutter of my 7D. What is the artifact caused by the leaf shutters "shutter time"? I would guess diffraction similar to a very small aperture?
-h
I use MF and never have used it in a studio or for landscapes - it all depends on the subject matter and personal preference - obviously sports shooters would use a DSLR for fast frame rates, Hi ISO performance and light weight manuverability. A MFDB at ISO 50 shooting 1 frame every 1 or 2 sec would be a poor choice. However what they are referring to is the FLASH SYNC speed not top shutter speed. For instance my Rollei with a PQS lens can flash sync up to 1/1000, my Nikon only 1/250
-
I use MF and never have used it in a studio or for landscapes - it all depends on the subject matter and personal preference - obviously sports shooters would use a DSLR for fast frame rates, Hi ISO performance and light weight manuverability. A MFDB at ISO 50 shooting 1 frame every 1 or 2 sec would be a poor choice. However what they are referring to is the FLASH SYNC speed not top shutter speed. For instance my Rollei with a PQS lens can flash sync up to 1/1000, my Nikon only 1/250
If I understood Dick correctly, Leaf shutters have 2 advantages:
1) Possibility of fast flash sync, for increasing the flash-to-ambient light ratio
2) Different mechanics of shutter, leading to less/no distortion when capturing high speed movement (independent of flash)
My point about sports photography was in reference to point 2: fast movement, less distorted images.
What kinds of subjects do you work with that benefit from a leaf shutter, and is it because of pt 1 or 2 above?
-h
-
If I understood Dick correctly, Leaf shutters have 2 advantages:
1) Possibility of fast flash sync, for increasing the flash-to-ambient light ratio
2) Different mechanics of shutter, leading to less/no distortion when capturing high speed movement (independent of flash)
My point about sports photography was in reference to point 2: fast movement, less distorted images.
What kinds of subjects do you work with that benefit from a leaf shutter, and is it because of pt 1 or 2 above?
-h
Pt 1 is the most important for us. To make pt 2 more clear: Using a focal plane shutter with short times is exposing the sensor (or film)
beginning at one side moving to the other side. This means one half is exposed after the other, this can for example result in a rotating straight propeller looking bend in the image. This won´t happen with a leaf shutter, as a leaf shutter alway exposes the whole sensor the entire time it is opened. There might be a very similar effect though, if the sensor read out is starting from one side to the other (you can easily see this with video cams, kind of funny to watch, a nightmare if you have to do a proper job with it)
Cheers, Ulf
-
But MF is used primarily for studio and landscapes, is it not? I would guess that fast moving subjects are more interesting to Canikon sports photographers?
I guess that a leaf shutter cannot be infinitely fast, just like the shutter of my 7D. What is the artifact caused by the leaf shutters "shutter time"? I would guess diffraction similar to a very small aperture?
It's not infinitely fast. One drawback of leaf shutter lenses is that they can only open and close at a certain speed. With a Hassy H that is 1/800th (depending on aperture), with a Phase One DF it is 1/800 with an internal electronic timing technology to allow an effective 1/1600th. With an RZ it is 1/400th etc etc.
The fastest that most Full Frame SLRs can transit the image is around 1/125th - 1/160th. To sync with a flash it's necessary that for some moment in time the entire frame be open (no shutter obscuring it) because the moment the flash fires any shutter in the way it shows up as a black section of the frame.
The "trick" that you are probably not thinking/realizing is that focal plane shutters can get to a faster "effective shutter speed" by using two shutters that form a slit. For instance a focal plane shutter can give you an effective 1/1000th of a second exposure by creating a slit that is about 1/6th the height of the frame. At no point in time is entire frame is being exposed. Actually the duration of shutter movement lasts around 1/125th - 1/160th of a second but any given section of the frame is only exposed for 1/1000th of a second so the ability to freeze action is equivalent to 1/1000th with the caveat of ultra fast moving objects (and then only for those traveling other-than-opposite-the-direction-of-the-shutter). The compromise is that since there is no point in time where the entire frame is being exposed you cannot fire a flash and have it expose the entire scene - only the area that the slit happens to be in when the flash fires.
So while focal plane shutter systems can go to a higher max speed they can only sync at a relatively slow speed. While leaf shutter lenses can sync at any speed they can go, they can only up to a relatively slow max speed. There is no free lunch. A select few systems like the Phase One DF and Leica S2 (assuming Leica makes good on releasing their here-to-fore unavailable LS lenses) have both a body shutter (allowing fast max speed) and a leaf shutter (allowing fast flash sync).
Also as to the comment about MFD only being for landscape and studio. That's simply factually incorrect, but markets vary widely across the world so I can see where you could get that impression. I manage the rentals out of our Miami office and we have four digital backs out on rental this week - all to fashion shooters and only one in a studio and that's a pretty typical week (during the Miami fashion season - winter). If you've never used a system with leaf shutter lenses in conjunction with strobes outdoors it's hard to understand how much more control they give you over your lighting.
Also, just in case you run across it and find it confusing - some systems like Canon and Nikon have dedicated flash systems (the SB### for nikon and the e.g. 580EX from Canon) which can "sync" at higher shutter speeds. It is a very useful tool, but it is not magic (no free lunches!) and has a major limitation. They achieve "sync" with very fast shutter speeds by changing from standard flash (where the flash fires once) to a pulsing flash method where the light pulses very very very fast (thousands of times per second) and therefore fires at least once for each section of the frame as the slit of the shutter travels across the frame. It's really cool actually, but by definition it greatly reduces the maximum power the flash can produce (since it is now trying to pulse rather than simply fire once).
So if you want to sync at f/5.6 at 1/1600th of a second at ISO50 (under exposing the sky/far-background by two stops on a sunny day) and then add flash to light up a full-length shot of a model standing 10 feet away you'll be able to do it with a single strobe head even if you put a modifier on it (soft-box/beauty dish etc) and a power pack using a MFD with a leaf shutter lens, but to do the same thing with a dSLR you'd need either many (many) SB800s in fast-sync-mode (pulsing light).
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
The fastest that most Full Frame SLRs can transit the image is around 1/125th - 1/160th. To sync with a flash it's necessary that for some moment in time the entire frame be open (no shutter obscuring it) because the moment the flash fires any shutter in the way it shows up as a black section of the frame.
I believe those figures are a little out-of-date, Doug. I don't recall any maximum flash sync in my Canon DSLRs of less than 1/250th (maybe 1/200th), and as I've mentioned, my D700 can sync at 1/320th in 'auto FP sync mode'. I presume this means that modern FP shutter curtains can move so fast that the entire sensor can be fully exposed during a 1/320th setting to allow sufficient time for synchronisation with a flash burst of about 1/1000th of a sec.
Here's an explanation from the following website http://nikonclspracticalguide.blogspot.com/2008/03/10-auto-fp-high-speed-sync-explained.html
A focal plane shutter is actually two precisely timed curtains positioned between the lens and the sensor that can either block light from hitting the sensor or allow light to hit the sensor. The reason there are two shutter curtains is to be able to get much higher effective shutter speeds.
It is important to understand is that these curtains open and close in exactly the same amount of time. So the the shutter speed is set by timing between the start of the first curtain opening and the start of the second curtain closing.
Notice that the entire sensor will be open to the light at every shutter speed up to the speed of the curtain movement itself. This is the maximum normal Flash Sync Speed.
As I mentioned, a focal plane shutter mechanism moves the curtains at a very precise speed. This speed is determined during manufacturing of the mechanism and is governed mostly by how recently the shutter was designed. In older 35mm cameras, this speed was 1/60th second, but with time, shutters got faster and faster, and in the new D300 this speed is 1/320th sec. And those race car wheels lean much further forward with an older 1/60th shutter than with the D300 1/320th shutter.
-
I believe those figures are a little out-of-date, Doug. I don't recall any maximum flash sync in my Canon DSLRs of less than 1/250th (maybe 1/200th), and as I've mentioned, my D700 can sync at 1/320th in 'auto FP sync mode'. I presume this means that modern FP shutter curtains can move so fast that the entire sensor can be fully exposed during a 1/320th setting to allow sufficient time for synchronisation with a flash burst of about 1/1000th of a sec.
Here's an explanation from the following website http://nikonclspracticalguide.blogspot.com/2008/03/10-auto-fp-high-speed-sync-explained.html
Indeed I Probably should have said 1/125th-1/250th. However, don't let the stated specs confuse you: sync with Canon/Nikon's proprietary strobe units is often faster than can be achieved with studio strobes. They are based on some very specifically tailoring the flash to the shutter. So the 1/200th spec of a 5DII may or may not what you're able to achieve with e.g. a Profoto power pack.
There are hacks to squeeze every last quarter stop of sync speed out of your particular system (body + strobe + sync device) - canon/nikon forums are full of them, which is proof to me that those users would love the fast (full power) flash sync flexibility of a leaf shutter lens. It's odd to me that neither Canon/Nikon, nor Olympus/Sony/Pentax etc have (AFAIK) worked at all on leaf shutter lenses on their SLRs - it could be a real competitive advantage. Maybe they are banking on sensor-based technology 2-3 bodies down the line (only my guess - could happen tomorrow) that would allow the sensor to "blink" on and off at whatever virtual shutter speed one wanted. I'm venturing into territory here that I am not an expert on, maybe one of the true deep-science nerds would care to contribute.
It's kinda nice not to have to worry about such hacks, tweaks, and such. A leaf shutter lens "just works"
-
A select few systems like the Phase One DF and Leica S2 (assuming Leica makes good on releasing their here-to-fore unavailable LS lenses) have both a body shutter (allowing fast max speed) and a leaf shutter (allowing fast flash sync).
*********
And my 6 year old 203 fe with film and digital backs.
Steve
-
A select few systems like the Phase One DF and Leica S2 (assuming Leica makes good on releasing their here-to-fore unavailable LS lenses) have both a body shutter (allowing fast max speed) and a leaf shutter (allowing fast flash sync).
*********
And my 6 year old 203 fe with film and digital backs.
True! A great system with many passionate followers!
-
BTW. My F5 as well as my D1x used to have a 1/500th sync speed. Apparently it is possible to produce for the 35mm manufacturers. A pity Nikon dropped the faster sync speed with the D2x.
As doug mentions, which I did as well posts before, don't expect your Nikon to sync at 1/320th with anything other than the designated speedlight. I often get no more than 1/180th with the D700 when using power packs or monoblocks.
-
BTW. My F5 as well as my D1x used to have a 1/500th sync speed. Apparently it is possible to produce for the 35mm manufacturers. A pity Nikon dropped the faster sync speed with the D2x.
As doug mentions, which I did as well posts before, don't expect your Nikon to sync at 1/320th with anything other than the designated speedlight. I often get no more than 1/180th with the D700 when using power packs or monoblocks.
I don't think they dropped it they are just clearer now of what it is
http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9631/~/f5-1%2F300-sec.-flash-sync-speed (http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9631/~/f5-1%2F300-sec.-flash-sync-speed)
Q: On the F5, can 1/300 sec. flash sync be used with studio strobe?
A: 1/300 sec. is only available with Nikon TTL speedlights. 1/250 is the shortest possible speed with non-Nikon flash units or studio flash