Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ThomasCampbell on August 13, 2012, 06:27:51 pm

Title: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: ThomasCampbell on August 13, 2012, 06:27:51 pm
I currently shoot a 5D Mark III and am pleased with the IQ. I am looking at getting a digital back for my AFD and was considering the Phase One and Leaf options.

How would something along the lines of an Aptus 22, 65, 75 or XXs or P+ back (excluding 65+ and 40+ since I am trying to stay on budget.) Was the MF technology there to get an IQ better than the output that I am getting from a 5D3, or should I wait until I can afford an IQ?

I shoot almost exclusively portraits and POSSIBLY the occasional landscape. But extended exposure is not a concern. I also tend to use strobes, so the ISO performance over 400 isn't a big concern either.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: Michael Nelson on August 13, 2012, 06:55:51 pm
Great question to ask. I'm also curious...

Hoping that Steve H or Doug P post a detailed reply...
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: Doug Peterson on August 13, 2012, 07:26:44 pm
I shoot a 5DIII (previously II) for the faster and less-well-lit parts of weddings and have a lot of respect for the camera. The odd fact is I could show you a Phase One H25 from 2003 which will match or exceed the 5DIII on image quality in nearly every category. Granted the H25 was only good at base ISO (50), could only shoot tethered, was limited to 60 second exposures. But it's color rendering, tonal smoothness, and overall image quality still edge out my use of a 5DIII. As just one small pet peeve, Canon STILL cannot render a skin tone transition in dramatic lighting without a strong color break between highlight and shadow (regardless of which raw processor, setting, etc you use).  

It comes down to, more than anything else, the priorities of design of a system. Phase and Leaf, when facing a decision between image quality and [cost, speed, features] choose image quality every time. The sensors selected, the way the data is read off of them, the color filters and IR filters chosen, the internal electronics to convert the analog signals to a raw file - they are all selected first and foremost for image quality.

So yes, I think you'll be very pleased with the image quality, color, and tonality from any Leaf Aptus or P/P+ back. For shooting people I'd suggest a 30+mp back to avoid issues with moire. Likewise, if you like to shoot wide open on your Canon I'd suggest a larger-sensor digital back like the 33mp Leaf or (Aptus II 7) or 39mp Phase One P45+. They will exaggerate the look of wide open shooting. A Phase One 150mm D shot wide open on a large sensor is a really beautiful thing.

Likely others in this thread will get bogged down with numbers or numerical measures of image quality. Someone will mention the D800 and someone else will inexplicably mention the Fuji 680. Trust me when I say I can go toe-to-toe with all that, but it gets tiring. Suffice it to say I've never, not once, seen some one walk away from a hands on experience with a Leaf Aptus II or P/P+ with disappointment regarding the image quality at low ISOs. People do walk away sometimes because the high ISO is not fast enough, or they cannot afford it, the LCD isn't good enough (prior to the IQ/Credo - the LCD of which is stunningly good) or because they needed something with a higher burst frame rate, or video. But not image quality. So if you think medium format fits your style (e.g. you don't shoot fast paced action in low light) and you're curious you should really try it for yourself. Dealers can arrange test files, rentals with credit towards purchase, in studio demos, or remote video chat meetings to that end. Note of disclosure, this is a selfish statement, since my company Digital Transitions would be glad to be that dealer for you.

The other factors here are the lens selections available in medium format, both for uber-sharp modern-look lenses like the Phase One 150D/2.8 and for classic sharp-but-not-clinical lenses like the Hassy 110/2 to the notably-soft-but-still-cool-looking Mamiya 80/1.9.

All that said, image quality is not the only criterium on which to base a camera. Here is a list I posted on a similar thread regarding Nikon dSLRs vs. MF (I've tweaked it from that thread for applicability to your question). It is a partial list of non-image-quality related criterium in which I think medium format has a big advantage:
- large and bright viewfinder
- Flash sync speed with standard strobes rather than dinky flashes (up to 1/1600th, some back/lens combos)
- More tactile lens response when manually focusing (large focus barrel, actual lens gearing*)
- aspect ratio (some prefer 4:3 or 1:1, especially for verticals)
- waist level viewfinder (some bodies)
- ability to shoot verticals without rotating camera (some backs)
- ability to shoot film with same system as digital (some bodies)
- ability to crop a usable vertical and horizontal from the same frame (on higher res backs)
- ability to use on specific legacy cameras (some folks just plain love Contax, Hassy 500)
- ability to use on tech cameras for your occasional landscapes
---- rise/fall/shift/swing/tilt on every lens (if IC allows)
---- fully mechanical/traditional shooting
---- absolute best glass, period
---- ground glass (some prefer it regardless of other options)
- less frequent updates required (we still have many happy studio shooters using H25 backs users, don't know many happy Canon 1D shooters)**
- longer software support (original Phase One Lightphase from 1998 is still fully supported tethered in OSX 10.7 and Capture One 6, while the Canon 5D from 2006 isn't even officially supported tethered in LR4 or EOS Utility in OSX 10.7, nor 1Ds II in Windows 7 64 bit)
- consistent shooting speed; most of these backs can hold it's frame-rate for dozens of frames (if not forever) with a fast CF card, any Canon/Nikon can shoot much faster in a burst but unless you restrain yourself you can easily hit a buffer and the camera won't fire when you think it should. Such a digital back will be slower (around 1.2fps for the 40mp model) but it is reliably consistent - you know when you can shoot next and can develop a rhythm.
- larger bodies (for some this will be a big negative, but for others their hands are simply too large to comfortably use a camera like the 5D3, even with the optional vertical grip)
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: Steve Hendrix on August 13, 2012, 08:41:32 pm
I'm going to take the more succinct route, compared to my former comrade Mr Peterson.

I've almost stopped discussing differences in image quality of 35mm vs medium format (almost). I will say this about the quality - that if you use a DMF product in the conditions it excels in, and you have the appreciation for the sometimes subtle ways in which the image quality is preferred (and by image quality, I don't mean something as narrow as best, better, etc), then digital medium format will likely reward you on that front. There's more details there, but I don't want to dwell on that because for many, that's not the whole reason. It's part of the reason.

But frankly, I have come to feel that the preference for medium format has much to do above and beyond the image quality. I believe that many - especially those who are interested in say, a Mamiya RZ rather than a Hasselblad H4D or Phase One DF - are attracted by what medium format truly offers. And that is the ability to use many interesting cameras combined with many interesting lenses. And typically cameras that are pretty void of automatic features. What I believe is that some photographers, when they use a Nikon D800/D4 or a Canon Mark III/1DX feel that on some level the camera itself is at least partly responsible for the final result. Now, we know the camera actually has to be used to produce a resulting image and the camera chosen will in part determine the resulting quality (or lack of it). We know this. But there is something about shooting a manual Hasselblad camera or a Mamiya RZ, a View Camera, or even a Fuji GX680 that gives me the sense the photographer feels that he was more in control or that the result is more his doing.

This is all perception. This is all perspective.

But I believe it's there.

I've sold more digital backs for Mamiya RZ cameras in the past 6 months than I did the 2 years prior. There's something going on. I see it not as a revolution, but as a bit of minor pushback. That the emphasis of photography is to deeply feel like that the image is coming from you, through you. And I think - for some - shooting with automatron 35mm DSLR's makes this more difficult. It's not as simple as - I want to slow down - I think it's more like, I want to be the one driving, I don't want to feel so much like the passenger.

I'm really just guessing at things that aren't easily quantified. And that is really where much of medium format exists (other than the 60 megapixel or 80 megapixel varieties). When someone asks me if they will get a better image from a Leaf Aptus 22 than a Canon 5D-MKIII, I tell them I don't really know. Better how? In the conditions the Aptus will excel in? Yeah, probably. But you may not even be able to notice the difference. To some the difference may knock you out, to others, it may go right by them. If someone asks me that, I don't think the answer will matter. People who buy medium format don't usually ask that question. Because if they know medium format or if they want medium format, they already know that yes, in the right conditions, it will be better.

So, I don't really go into a lot of mumbo jumbo about dynamic range and bit depth and clarity and 3D and all that crap.

Do you like medium format cameras? Have you ever shot them? That is at least half the battle.

Oh, back to my succinct reply, rather than Doug's very detailed, kitchen sink essay. Brevity was my initial intent. But who has time for that?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: uaiomex on August 13, 2012, 09:12:41 pm
Michael, we need a LIKE button at Lula's  :D
Eduardo

I'm going to take the more succinct route, compared to my former comrade Mr Peterson.

I've almost stopped discussing differences in image quality of 35mm vs medium format (almost). I will say this about the quality - that if you use a DMF product in the conditions it excels in, and you have the appreciation for the sometimes subtle ways in which the image quality is preferred (and by image quality, I don't mean something as narrow as best, better, etc), then digital medium format will likely reward you on that front. There's more details there, but I don't want to dwell on that because for many, that's not the whole reason. It's part of the reason.

But frankly, I have come to feel that the preference for medium format has much to do above and beyond the image quality. I believe that many - especially those who are interested in say, a Mamiya RZ rather than a Hasselblad H4D or Phase One DF - are attracted by what medium format truly offers. And that is the ability to use many interesting cameras combined with many interesting lenses. And typically cameras that are pretty void of automatic features. What I believe is that some photographers, when they use a Nikon D800/D4 or a Canon Mark III/1DX feel that on some level the camera itself is at least partly responsible for the final result. Now, we know the camera actually has to be used to produce a resulting image and the camera chosen will in part determine the resulting quality (or lack of it). We know this. But there is something about shooting a manual Hasselblad camera or a Mamiya RZ, a View Camera, or even a Fuji GX680 that gives me the sense the photographer feels that he was more in control or that the result is more his doing.

This is all perception. This is all perspective.

But I believe it's there.

I've sold more digital backs for Mamiya RZ cameras in the past 6 months than I did the 2 years prior. There's something going on. I see it not as a revolution, but as a bit of minor pushback. That the emphasis of photography is to deeply feel like that the image is coming from you, through you. And I think - for some - shooting with automatron 35mm DSLR's makes this more difficult. It's not as simple as - I want to slow down - I think it's more like, I want to be the one driving, I don't want to feel so much like the passenger.

I'm really just guessing at things that aren't easily quantified. And that is really where much of medium format exists (other than the 60 megapixel or 80 megapixel varieties). When someone asks me if they will get a better image from a Leaf Aptus 22 than a Canon 5D-MKIII, I tell them I don't really know. Better how? In the conditions the Aptus will excel in? Yeah, probably. But you may not even be able to notice the difference. To some the difference may knock you out, to others, it may go right by them. If someone asks me that, I don't think the answer will matter. People who buy medium format don't usually ask that question. Because if they know medium format or if they want medium format, they already know that yes, in the right conditions, it will be better.

So, I don't really go into a lot of mumbo jumbo about dynamic range and bit depth and clarity and 3D and all that crap.

Do you like medium format cameras? Have you ever shot them? That is at least half the battle.

Oh, back to my succinct reply, rather than Doug's very detailed, kitchen sink essay. Brevity was my initial intent. But who has time for that?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: FredBGG on August 13, 2012, 10:06:18 pm
A P25+ will match the quality of your 5D Mark III and with slightly better colors but only at ISO 50 and 100. Pretty much the same with other older backs that came after the p25+
The problem that you will have is the limitations of the body.

Do not expect close to the reliability of your Canon gear.

Some of the Mamiya lenses are very nice. 150mm 2.8D is a very nice lens. Great look wide open, but the Mamiya bodies don't have accurate enough focus to get the type of hit rate you get with the Canon.
Manual focus with such shallow depth of field is also a problem due to the low magnification of the AFD or DF viewfinders.

Better with a waist level finder on an RZ.

What are you looking for image wise from MFD that you are now getting from your 35mm DSLR?

As far as getting an IQ back... probably better to get your feet wet with a p25+. Same image quality at base ISO, but just lower resolution.
IF you get an IQ and don't like it you would take a huge hit selling it.
Buy a p25+ when a nice deal shows up and if you don't get on with MFD you can pretty much sell it for what it cost you.
Actually you could flush it down the toilet and you would still take a smaller hit that the loss on selling an IQ back.

The level of quality of the Canon 5D III and even more so the Nikon D800 have made the quality difference between MFD and the best FF DSLR
very minimal.
See this test:

http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/

With the ever smaller image quality differences make the reliability and ergonomics more of a choosing point.

I used to shoot MFD but decided to drop it after using the D800, but I still shoot medium format film and large format film. 
While MFD looks pretty close to the 5D III and D800 larger medium format film and large format film has a very distinctive look.




Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: FredBGG on August 13, 2012, 10:13:17 pm
- consistent shooting speed; most of these backs can hold it's frame-rate for dozens of frames (if not forever) with a fast CF card, any Canon/Nikon can shoot much faster in a burst but unless you restrain yourself you can easily hit a buffer and the camera won't fire when you think it should. Such a digital back will be slower (around 1.2fps for the 40mp model) but it is reliably consistent - you know when you can shoot next and can develop a rhythm.

What fuzzy logic is this????

Every digital Canon or Nikon I have can shoot 1.2 frames per second until the CF card is full so I can't understand what the heck you are trying to SELL here....
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: Doug Peterson on August 13, 2012, 10:29:52 pm
Fred, I'm going to guess you've never tech'd for a speed demon with a fast-burst dSLR with a small buffer. While in theory you can shoot a 5DII at a moderate consistent rate this often does not happen; very often a photographer will overpace the buffer and be left waiting for the last image to clear the buffer before resuming shooting.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: jeanvalentin on August 14, 2012, 12:54:58 am
....
- Flash sync speed with standard strobes rather than dinky flashes (up to 1/1600th)
.....

That is a bit misleading due to the fact that not everything is spelled out. The only backs that advertise that are the Phase ones. While that sync speed can be achieved is ONLY in certain conditions: for starters, you need a DF body (your AFD will not do); you will need LS lenses which are not cheap; you will need a 40+ (or 65+) back which you said you can't afford and more.

Giving the context of this thread, this feature shouldn't be mentioned (or at least all the qualifiers should be included). And I don't get the comment about the hitting the buffer. I never did (but I don't machine gun in general and I doubt anybody does it for extended periods of time where it will make you hit the buffer) and if you shoot at the same pace as the MFD, you will NEVER hit the buffer.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: EricWHiss on August 14, 2012, 12:57:43 am
Succinct? 

Steve, I think you and Doug are having a write out contest. 

Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: Gigi on August 14, 2012, 01:10:22 am
One can only hope there is a wee bit of cut and paste in those responses. I sure hope they aren't writing all that from scratch! But its all good info, to be sure.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: yaya on August 14, 2012, 01:49:54 am
That is a bit misleading due to the fact that not everything is spelled out. The only backs that advertise that are the Phase ones. While that sync speed can be achieved is ONLY in certain conditions: for starters, you need a DF body (your AFD will not do); you will need LS lenses which are not cheap; you will need a 40+ (or 65+) back which you said you can't afford and more.
FWIW 1/1600 on the DF with LS lenses works also with a lowly Aptus-II 5 but if you use an older back you still get 1/800...
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: jeanvalentin on August 14, 2012, 02:18:11 am
FWIW 1/1600 on the DF with LS lenses works also with a lowly Aptus-II 5 but if you use an older back you still get 1/800...

Thanks for clarification. My point was more about the fact that you need certain conditions in order to achieve that and from the post one could assume that ALL MFD setups can do that.

It's like saying "one can achieve 14fps with a 35mm DSLR". True ... if you use a top of the line one, not a Rebel for example.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: yaya on August 14, 2012, 05:52:52 am
Thanks for clarification. My point was more about the fact that you need certain conditions in order to achieve that and from the post one could assume that ALL MFD setups can do that.

It's like saying "one can achieve 14fps with a 35mm DSLR". True ... if you use a top of the line one, not a Rebel for example.

Well...Doug says "Flash sync speed with standard strobes rather than dinky flashes (up to 1/1600th)", so if the back is mounted on a camera equipped with a leaf shutter lens, it can sync at whatever the maximum shutter speed that is available on that lens e.g. 1/1000 on some Rollei lenses, 1/800 on HC lenses, 1/500 on Copal shutters and V series lenses, 1/400 on RZ lenses etc.

So in fact the only "certain" condition that you need is to have a leaf shutter lens...it is true however that for 1/1600 you also need a DF body and a back from certain models and also flash packs that are capable of working with this kind of settings

Yair

Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: torger on August 14, 2012, 05:57:38 am
I made a comparison concerning noise performance recently which you may find interesting:

http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/noise-test.html

It looks at noise for 5Dmk2, a D7000 (almost exactly as D800 but APS-C cut), and an Aptus 75.

I think it is safe to get an older back, the CCDs were great already back in 2004. They have become a little bit better, but I don't think they have become so much better that it changes anything significant.

I think a second hand Leaf Aptus 75 is one of the absolutely best entry level options today.
 - It's old so prices are low
 - The screen is better and gui more useful than most backs of similar age. A useful 100% focus check is rare for backs of this age.
 - It's 33 megapixels and 48x36mm, not too low res, not too small sensor

As other have mentioned I think you need to motivate it with more than pure image quality out of the sensor though. You need to like the handling of MF cameras, and the lenses. If I was only in it for what the sensor can deliver I'd get a D800E...
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: Doug Peterson on August 14, 2012, 01:18:56 pm
That is a bit misleading due to the fact that not everything is spelled out.

To be fair it was on a summary list so inherently does not fully explain the entire picture of flash sync. I meant the "up to" as an indication that it didn't apply to every option in medium format.

But it's a good point, so I've added some wording to the post to clarify that it is only some back/lens combos that allow this fast of flash sync.

Thanks for your comments.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: Doug Peterson on August 14, 2012, 01:26:58 pm
Giving the context of this thread, this feature shouldn't be mentioned (or at And I don't get the comment about the hitting the buffer. I never did (but I don't machine gun in general and I doubt anybody does it for extended periods of time where it will make you hit the buffer) and if you shoot at the same pace as the MFD, you will NEVER hit the buffer.

Oddly, many do. We consult for a lot of production studios (e.g. clothing catalog companies) and yes, many of their shooters shoot at the max speed of the camera regardless of what speed that is, and will complain loudly about the buffer depth and the hesitation it imposes on the rhythm of shooting whether it's 4 images or 20. When shooting backs they cannot shoot bursts, which they will complain about at first, but after adjusting to the allowed pace they appreciate the fact that pace is infinitely extendable.

Could they simply shoot their 1DsIII at 1fps? Absolutely: technically speaking. But they don't. For whatever psychological/personal/non-logical reason.

These are the same studios that bought Profoto 8As because Profoto 7As didn't recycle fast enough for them (hint: Profoto 7As recycle very fast as it is).

For sure if you personally don't shoot quickly, or you're confident you will shoot at the same pace regardless of what the camera allows then this will be a non-issue for you and, if anything, the ability to occasionally burst with a dSLR will be better. Just don't assume that every one else's style of shooting is the same as yours.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: Doug Peterson on August 14, 2012, 01:28:44 pm
One can only hope there is a wee bit of cut and paste in those responses. I sure hope they aren't writing all that from scratch! But its all good info, to be sure.

My list was (as noted in situ - it was modified from another thread here on LL), the rest was not.

I enjoy writing and I love the gear; forums are a bit of an addiction for me. :-)
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: ErikKaffehr on August 14, 2012, 03:13:00 pm
Hi,

A very good test. I read it in may when on travel. I reread it right now.

I have looked at some recent and not so recent test images and my impression is that the new Nikon D800 is a solid performer and I very much doubt that an older back would have some significant advantage over it. As a side note, the Nikon obviously needs very good lenses while an MFDB would be less challenged lens wise, because of the lager pixels. An MFDB will be more prone to aliasing, at least with good lenses, but it seems that it does matter little for photographers not shooting fashion and textiles.

If you happen to have a lot of decent MF glass, a MFDB would probably be attractive, if you build a new system I guess a Nikon D800 system  could be built much cheaper. Nikon has some very good glass and can also use Zeiss lenses.

I have seen some other tests and images that essentially confirms what Torger says. The images I looked at were raw images I processed myself, courtesy of Lloyd Chambers (Leica S2 and Nikon D3X), Marc McCalmont Phase One IQ180 and Nikon D800E and Alex Koloskov (Hasselblad H4D40 and Nikon D800E).

Best regards
Erik




I made a comparison concerning noise performance recently which you may find interesting:

http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/noise-test.html

It looks at noise for 5Dmk2, a D7000 (almost exactly as D800 but APS-C cut), and an Aptus 75.

I think it is safe to get an older back, the CCDs were great already back in 2004. They have become a little bit better, but I don't think they have become so much better that it changes anything significant.

I think a second hand Leaf Aptus 75 is one of the absolutely best entry level options today.
 - It's old so prices are low
 - The screen is better and gui more useful than most backs of similar age. A useful 100% focus check is rare for backs of this age.
 - It's 33 megapixels and 48x36mm, not too low res, not too small sensor

As other have mentioned I think you need to motivate it with more than pure image quality out of the sensor though. You need to like the handling of MF cameras, and the lenses. If I was only in it for what the sensor can deliver I'd get a D800E...
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: FredBGG on August 14, 2012, 04:05:18 pm
Fred, I'm going to guess you've never tech'd for a speed demon with a fast-burst dSLR with a small buffer. While in theory you can shoot a 5DII at a moderate consistent rate this often does not happen; very often a photographer will overpace the buffer and be left waiting for the last image to clear the buffer before resuming shooting.

So let's see your "logic" here. So a photographer want's to shoot relatively fast.... So according to you it's better for them to shoot with a sloooow MFDB at 1 fps than to shoot at 2 fps or a bit faster with a DSLR without having buffer problems.
You ALSO FAIL to mention that you can use two cards in a D800 or Canon 5D III to speed up writing to the cards.

IF a photographer can get into the rhythm of shooting at 1 fps with a MFDB her or she can do the same thing with a faster camera, but also have the advantage of hitting a burst if something interesting happens like a wind gust etc.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: FredBGG on August 14, 2012, 04:42:28 pm

- Flash sync speed with standard strobes rather than dinky flashes (up to 1/1600th, some back/lens combos)


This needs some clarification....

First MFD has very poor support for portable flash and auto flash exposure.

Regarding high speed sync for overpowering the sun it can be done with studio strobes on location with the D800 and 5D mark III using Pocket Wizards HyperSync.
I get great performance with my 6,000W/S Elinchrom pack synching as high as 1/4000th. There is a fair bit of power loss, but with one or more big packs there is plenty of power to spare.

Large packs are not expensive used. I picked up a couple of extra Elinchrom 6,000 packs for $300 a piece.

Added advantage is that by investing in lighting rather than MFD I have more lighting options for other things.... like 8x10 film.

Another thing to consider too is that the very fast mechanical shutters of the leaf shutter phase one lenses have reliability issues, limit the optical design of the lenses and come with a rather
unpleasant 5 blade pentagon shaped iris resulting in not so nice bokeh.

See this post regarding reliability issues:
http://forum.phaseone.com/En/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=11964 (http://forum.phaseone.com/En/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=11964)
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: FredBGG on August 14, 2012, 04:51:57 pm
- larger bodies (for some this will be a big negative, but for others their hands are simply too large to comfortably use a camera like the 5D3, even with the optional vertical grip)

6'4" size 14 feet and large hands here. No problem holding any cameras.

To increase the grip size of the d800 or 5D mark III there are various kits for added protection.
They add grip and a bit of size with little added weight.

Like this from Delkin:

(http://delkin.com/images/T46897484.jpg)
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: ThomasCampbell on August 14, 2012, 08:50:30 pm
I already shoot with my AFD, so not worried about the size.

I own 9 different Elinchrom lights, but am unaware of any 6,000w/s light. But I am cool with a handful of 1,100w/s lights. I don't really care about auto exposure with flash because I shoot everything manually.

The leaf shutter is something I am interested in down the road, but I am not dropping thousands on a new back and new lens on top of what I already have. I have a 35, 55, 80AF, 80 1.9, 210 and 300mm lens. When I can afford an IQ back, I am sure I will be getting the leaf shutter lenses as well. But for now, no dice.

I was looking hardest at the Leaf 75. But don't want to spend thousands on something that won't give me an appreciably better image from in the same circumstance as what I already have. I currently shoot portrait sessions with my 85LII and 135L on my 5D3. If I would get better quality from a Aptus 75 and 80 1.9 or 210, then I am happy to make the switch. I wouldn't doubt that I would shoot a good bit in the 200-400 ISO range. I would also probably shoot at 25ISO if I got a back that goes down that far for my on location strobed shots.

I also like the slower shoot speed, because I know from shooting film that it would help me slow down and process what I am doing instead of just flipping the 'green box' switch in my mind and going to town. I like how deliberate I shoot in MF, which is why I would like to get a back for my camera.


Thank you all for your comments and help.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: FredBGG on August 15, 2012, 01:52:40 am
I already shoot with my AFD, so not worried about the size.

I own 9 different Elinchrom lights, but am unaware of any 6,000w/s light.

Elinchrom 6K twin tube flash head:

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8022/7628132006_554ec22b25_b.jpg)

They were made in two versions. The one in the photo is the better overlapping tube version.

They can be used with two 3K packs or one 6k pack

(http://www.theflashcentre.com/images/CLAS6000.jpg)
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: FredBGG on August 15, 2012, 02:00:58 am
I have a 35, 55, 80AF, 80 1.9, 210 and 300mm lens.

I had the 55mm, the 80mm AF, 80 1.9 and 210.

The 55 and 210 were very nice. Did not like the 80 AF or the 80 1.9.

This was shot with the 210:

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7198/6805196544_06f8ed172f_b.jpg)

it's a crop of about 50% of the frame from a P25+

the 210mm is a great lens, but the Canon 135 f2 is superior IMO.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: Pingang on August 16, 2012, 01:22:39 pm
But this is somewhat true!  Back in the days when I use Leica M6, I shot much slower than say with a Nikon F4s or later with a F5, or my beloved RTXIII, and we are talking about very much the same film.  Yes there is motordrive for M but it is an awkward motordrive because the shutter release constant goes up and down with the winder that I found it really annoying, so then I have to adapt to a slower pace.  With F4s or F5, of course, you can rapid shoot beause of the autofocus, and of coruse the auto rewind, compares to digital camera today yes it is a cut in sequence, but there is really no choice, so everyone taking the short break the same time, or you simply have 3-4 cameras/lenses that the assistant constantly do all the reload, mode setting, exposure setting, passing to you.  RTXIII is by far, IMHO, the most beautiful - automated picture taking machiine ever made - even to this day I still every so often take it with a 85/1.4 MM to point and shoot (no film loaded), just to listen to the beautiful shutter sound - and the most beautiful viewfinder layout ever designed.
Anyway, as much as photography as an art, it is as much as equipment related, and the photographer eventually has to adapt to what the machine is capable of, physically and mentally. 
I know it is a bad habit to shoot fast sequence - but CF card once paid you might as well use it and hey, the modern raw converer batch process is so good that you can just prepare the recipe, let the machine run, and have a coffee break. True, you might not get better image when shoot faster than slow, and again, it is not a good habit, but when over 90% people do so, it is a phenomenon.

BR,
Pingang


So let's see your "logic" here. So a photographer want's to shoot relatively fast.... So according to you it's better for them to shoot with a sloooow MFDB at 1 fps than to shoot at 2 fps or a bit faster with a DSLR without having buffer problems.
You ALSO FAIL to mention that you can use two cards in a D800 or Canon 5D III to speed up writing to the cards.

IF a photographer can get into the rhythm of shooting at 1 fps with a MFDB her or she can do the same thing with a faster camera, but also have the advantage of hitting a burst if something interesting happens like a wind gust etc.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: TMARK on August 17, 2012, 05:23:25 pm
The old backs are nice in a studio.  I like Leaf colors, even the old Aptus 22, better than current DSLRs.  That is really the advantage, but even there, you can get what you want from a 5d2 or Nikon, and with adapters, use most lenses which ae far more important, in my opinion, to the look of an image.  For instance, I think the newer Nikon lenses are too sharp and I don't like the color, so i use Hasselblad V and Mamiya lenses via an adapter when shooting portraits with the D800. 

 
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: Fine_Art on August 18, 2012, 02:56:20 pm
I shoot a 5DIII (previously II) for the faster and less-well-lit parts of weddings and have a lot of respect for the camera. The odd fact is I could show you a Phase One H25 from 2003 which will match or exceed the 5DIII on image quality in nearly every category. Granted the H25 was only good at base ISO (50), could only shoot tethered, was limited to 60 second exposures. But it's color rendering, tonal smoothness, and overall image quality still edge out my use of a 5DIII. As just one small pet peeve, Canon STILL cannot render a skin tone transition in dramatic lighting without a strong color break between highlight and shadow (regardless of which raw processor, setting, etc you use).  

It comes down to, more than anything else, the priorities of design of a system. Phase and Leaf, when facing a decision between image quality and [cost, speed, features] choose image quality every time. The sensors selected, the way the data is read off of them, the color filters and IR filters chosen, the internal electronics to convert the analog signals to a raw file - they are all selected first and foremost for image quality.

So yes, I think you'll be very pleased with the image quality, color, and tonality from any Leaf Aptus or P/P+ back. For shooting people I'd suggest a 30+mp back to avoid issues with moire. Likewise, if you like to shoot wide open on your Canon I'd suggest a larger-sensor digital back like the 33mp Leaf or (Aptus II 7) or 39mp Phase One P45+. They will exaggerate the look of wide open shooting. A Phase One 150mm D shot wide open on a large sensor is a really beautiful thing.


I have read that Canon chose wider overlap in their color filters than Sony. This gave them an advantage at higher ISO. It degraded tonality. Their decision does match the tendency of many review sites to put emphasis on high ISO capability. This was info from a couple years ago.

These days the resolution is getting high enough on DSLRs that a downrez is an option to fix many tonality issues. IMO the technology is at a point where you should make your decision on the lenses with maybe some weight to ergonomics.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: bcooter on August 18, 2012, 05:31:52 pm
I wouldn't have said this a year ago, but today, is probably a good time to buy a medium format system.

Looking at Hasselblad's site they have h4d 40's for 12k to 13k (U.S.) under their certified pre owned section and you can buy a new Pentax 645 for 13k.

What does that give you over a $3,400 or almost $4,000 5d3 or a 36mp Nikon?  Well, basically another and different device in your arsenal and most medium format cameras seem to be kept for a much longer time than the dslrs.

I'm not saying you don't need a dslr, I think for a lot of images you do, but at those prices which really are about 1/2 of what was offered a few years ago their good.

Now for my work I think the $35,000 back and $50,000 still camera system is a rather limited thought given the fact that a cinema camera like the RED One's sell for $22,500, but for 13k not a bad deal especially if you keep it for 5 or 6 years (and of course use it).

Comparing it to a new phase 40mpx back (only) that's about 7 grand less and most people rave about the kodak (or ex kodak) 40 mpx sensor used by the blad and the Pentax.

I'm not saying medium format is better, (better covers a lot of territotry) but it is different, you will work differently you will probably shoot less frames, but have more thoughtful images.

Since I use Contax and said I could replace my complete kit if need be, I started looking at prices and a P30+ in good shape with some warranty a contax body, prism, and one lens will get very close to the Hasselblad price.

So without pixel peeping or brand worship, looking around at prices, especially pre owned, the prices today at good and almost 1/2 of where prices were 5 years ago.

In fact people love lists of what to buy and why, but I'd look at availability in rental, company history, localized repair, being able to talk directly to the manufacturer and today seems like the best time in history to own a medium format camera.



IMO

BC
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: BernardLanguillier on August 19, 2012, 05:13:55 am
These days the resolution is getting high enough on DSLRs that a downrez is an option to fix many tonality issues. IMO the technology is at a point where you should make your decision on the lenses with maybe some weight to ergonomics.

Agreed. This should put Leica pretty much on top of everyone's list.

The S system being priced very irrealistically, this leaves existing R lenses as one obvious choice if you don't need AF.

I have found the 180 f2.8 APO and 280 f4 APO to be out of this world good on the D800. They are expensive for 35mm lenses but look cheap compared to recent MF prices. It seems that the 100mm APO is also extraordinary at short to medium distances.

Once you have realized that it is only a matter of selecting the best sensor on which to mount these wonders.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: FredBGG on August 19, 2012, 12:55:47 pm

I'm not saying medium format is better, (better covers a lot of territotry) but it is different, you will work differently you will probably shoot less frames, but have more thoughtful images.


IMO

BC

I keep on hearing this bogus logic. Just because a camera is slow does not make for more thoughtful images.
You can contemplate and take your time with any camera. Actually I would say that the more functionality the camera has the more time and effort you can dedicate to the subject and hat you want to do with it.

If a camera dictates how much though one puts into an image ... well you have a problem that has nothing to do with your gear.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: EricWHiss on August 19, 2012, 12:59:06 pm
I think BC is right at least that the results are different certainly for format size, and ratio differences, but also because with most MF you have a different view for composing images. The bigger brighter viewfinder alone makes working differently - at least for me.  I also think the color is better with MF.

Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: EricWHiss on August 19, 2012, 01:02:50 pm
I still have a lot of R lenses and agree for 35mm they are wonderful, and I used to think they were the best but after using the schneider glass for Rollei I changed my mind.  Leica R lenses render a beautiful image but the character always reads at least to me as "this is a photo, a captured moment".   The schneider on MF reads as "this is real, you are there right now".     And as far as pricing goes, maybe the R lenses are cheaper than the Leica S lenses but not really cheaper than MF lenses really since we are talking used.    Compare R lenses to Mamiya RZ lenses for example.    The leica r lenses such as the ones Bernard called out are even way more expensive than the Rollei Schneider.     Compare a Schneider 300mm APO f/4 to the Leica 280mm f/4 for example.   The leica has to be twice the cost of the Rollei and the rollei covers 6x6 too.   It's too bad there isn't a solution to mount the Rollei lenses to the 35mm bodies.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: itsskin on August 19, 2012, 03:55:54 pm
I'd say the most important thing about MF is the look. If you feel it and need it - the only way to get there is MF.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: Gigi on August 19, 2012, 04:36:01 pm
I keep on hearing this bogus logic. Just because a camera is slow does not make for more thoughtful images.
You can contemplate and take your time with any camera. Actually I would say that the more functionality the camera has the more time and effort you can dedicate to the subject and hat you want to do with it.

If a camera dictates how much though one puts into an image ... well you have a problem that has nothing to do with your gear.

runs counter to most experience.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: BernardLanguillier on August 20, 2012, 12:02:15 am
runs counter to most experience.

In my experience, the camera you are using is irrelevant. What I found to be relevant is the experience of having shot with a camera forcing you to be slow (nothing beats large format from that standpoint).

That is the key learning experience whose outcome is the ability to shoot slow with any camera from then on.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: BernardLanguillier on August 20, 2012, 12:05:19 am
And as far as pricing goes, maybe the R lenses are cheaper than the Leica S lenses but not really cheaper than MF lenses really since we are talking used.    Compare R lenses to Mamiya RZ lenses for example.    The leica r lenses such as the ones Bernard called out are even way more expensive than the Rollei Schneider.     Compare a Schneider 300mm APO f/4 to the Leica 280mm f/4 for example.   The leica has to be twice the cost of the Rollei and the rollei covers 6x6 too.

True, but those are on the cheaper side of MF lenses. Look at the recent lenses from Phaseone, Hassy or even pentax. They tend to be more around 4,000 US$.

The 2 lenses I mentioned are probably the 2 most expensive R lenses to be found (except some super exotics), most of the others can be had for less than 1500 US$. They may not be as good though.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: KevinA on August 20, 2012, 02:18:04 am
What fuzzy logic is this????

Every digital Canon or Nikon I have can shoot 1.2 frames per second until the CF card is full so I can't understand what the heck you are trying to SELL here....
My 1DsmkIII will not shoot at 1.2 frames per sec until the card is full, I would get about 20 frames before waiting a few seconds to shoot again and that's better than my 1DsmkII.
Shooting raw to both card slots.
One reason I'm half tempted with the 1Dx is to shoot long quick sequences, then again I'm fed up with throwing money at cameras in general, they are all tomorrows junk and nothing new released would earn me a penny more than anything I have.
I would think the main reason for MF these days is the way it makes you work.
If portraits was my thing I would like to work with something like a 500cm with a digital back, although I believe that has critical focus issues.
 It was mentioned earlier about the sense of being in control, I would go along with that. I like to use old cameras for fun (Rolleiflex mostly), I actually think it easier and more rewarding taking a reading, judging the scene and twiddling the aperture and shutter speed. I have no idea what the modern computerised camera is thinking about, I don'y know how much it's allowing for the over bright or over dark parts of a scene. You can point it at a scene and waggle it a few degrees and the exposure will move around by a large amount.
I don't like the quality variations of Canon or Nikon, neither do I like their attitudes towards their customers or the way they sell us upgrades.
MF would be limited use for what I do, but it's appeal to me is more than image quality, if portraits and people were what I made a living at, I would have one and a DSLR.

Kevin.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: FredBGG on August 20, 2012, 04:21:10 am

I would think the main reason for MF these days is the way it makes you work.
If portraits was my thing I would like to work with something like a 500cm with a digital back, although I believe that has critical focus issues.
 It was mentioned earlier about the sense of being in control, I would go along with that. I like to use old cameras for fun (Rolleiflex mostly), I actually think it easier and more rewarding taking a reading, judging the scene and twiddling the aperture and shutter speed.....

Kevin.


Sense of being in control....
You know you can take a reading, judge the scene, set the aperture and shutter speed with just about every DSLR.
You can be in control as much as you want to.

Regarding the 500CM why would you choose it if you believe that has critical focus issues?

Actually thanks to the higher magnification waist level finder it's better than a Phase One or Hasselblad H when using manual focus.
Also there is a rare Hasselblad waist level finder with a movable loup. Gives you even higher magnification than the waist level finder.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: bcooter on August 20, 2012, 05:13:10 am
I keep on hearing this bogus logic. Just because a camera is slow does not make for more thoughtful images.
You can contemplate and take your time with any camera. Actually I would say that the more functionality the camera has the more time and effort you can dedicate to the subject and hat you want to do with it.

If a camera dictates how much though one puts into an image ... well you have a problem that has nothing to do with your gear.


Last night with to the Sunset Music Festival.   I am understating it when say there were 10,000 people in the crowd taking pictures with I phones.

I even shot one, (god help me)., though  99.99999999999% were all crappy pictures and video, but pictures none the less that will be published on the web the next day or even faster.   

In the crowd I saw about 5 professional cameras, probably freelance stringers covering it on semi assignment.

Now I'm not saying a camera makes a photographer, but the real problem with the make a living at photography business today isn't digital, isn't the web, isn't the format.  It's the fact that they're are twenty gazillion photos taken and instagramed every hour to the point the world is going visually blind and in capitalism if there is way too much of anything in the market place, whether it's good or bad, the overall price of that segment goes down, because a photograph is not as unique and precious as it once was.

I know of a young photographer that just got a major national gig shooting with an iphone and instagraming them, because the photographer get's a lot of hits on facebook.  Now this isn't the norm but when you walk onto a sound stage to shoot a professional gig, there should be more investment than your plastic phone and your ability to push a button. 

To shoot a good photograph, much less a very good photograph takes investment in time, learning and yes usually some equipment, so my point is I'm not advocating any camera or brand, because I could care less what anyone uses.  My point is just shooting pictures to shoot pictures doesn't go very far and if you have a camera that will shoot 6fps, I can promise you, even in commercial work due to the economic pressures, you'll now and then shoot 6fps.  Sometimes that's good. Usually that's bad.

I'm also not advocating $50,000 still cameras. Not any more because I think those days are over.  Heck I think those days are over even for hollywood motion picture cameras, but I've found the broad strokes are easy, the fine, studied detail of what makes a good photograph are much harder.

But back to my original post.  I'm not saying to run out and buy a hasselblad or Pentax, but given what they cost just a few years ago, $13,000 is a steal and I'd rather spend 12 to 13k on a camera that I will probably use for 5 to 10 years than one I'll use for 2 to 3.

I'm also not saying that if everyone in the crowd last night was shooting an old film camera  that the photos would be better, but let's face it, they're wouldn't have been 10,000 bad photographs shot of the event from the same angle and published for the world to see.

But like it or not, some cameras make you think more than others. 

(http://spotsinthebox.com/old_boris.jpg)

Shoot 8x10 film and you'll really think about every detail.   Shoot medium format with a computer as a ground glass and a tilt shift lens and you'll think about the image in ways, that click, click, click doesn't allow.

I've used the same Contax system for about 7 years, probably will for another 7 and unless somebody comes up with something I just can't do without.  My dslrs I generally use for commerce . . . the day I buy them I am thinking about selling them.


IMO

BC

Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: EricWHiss on August 21, 2012, 12:31:04 pm
[quote author=BernardLanguillier link=topic=69645.msg553156#msg553156 date=1345435519

The 2 lenses I mentioned are probably the 2 most expensive R lenses to be found (except some super exotics), most of the others can be had for less than 1500 US$. They may not be as good though.

Cheers,
Bernard

[/quote]

That's probably true - I think you can still buy some really fantastic Leica glass such as the 60mm macro elmarit and the 35-40mm f/4 zoom for $600-800 and these are quite good.   but they also have some very expensive lenses like your 280/4.   I had the leica 35-70mm f/2.8 lens which i used on my canon 5d2.  Now that was a really fantastic lens!  Wonder how that would sing on the d800e? 

I really only am familiar with the used market on Rollei and Mamiya RZ glass, but it seems like lots of the MF lenses are cheaper than the Leica R lenses - certainly the RZ and mamiya 645 glass is and the Rollei stuff may be.  Lot's of good schneider and zeiss PQ lenses going for under $1k these days.    I'm wondering outloud if these MF lenses could not be fit to the nikon too?

I do think some of the color rendering on the MF lenses is nicer than color on the canon lenses.  Can't speak to the nikon glass.  Leica R glass makes a rich color look.  It isn't just all about sharpness. 



Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: BernardLanguillier on August 22, 2012, 04:44:19 am
I really only am familiar with the used market on Rollei and Mamiya RZ glass, but it seems like lots of the MF lenses are cheaper than the Leica R lenses - certainly the RZ and mamiya 645 glass is and the Rollei stuff may be.  Lot's of good schneider and zeiss PQ lenses going for under $1k these days.    I'm wondering outloud if these MF lenses could not be fit to the nikon too?

I do think some of the color rendering on the MF lenses is nicer than color on the canon lenses.  Can't speak to the nikon glass.  Leica R glass makes a rich color look.  It isn't just all about sharpness. 

True. I think some adapters exist  but I'd have to check to see what MF lenses can be mounted on F mount.

Cheers,
Bernard

Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: BernardLanguillier on August 22, 2012, 05:00:23 am
True. I think some adapters exist  but I'd have to check to see what MF lenses can be mounted on F mount.

Hassy V:
http://fotodioxpro.com/index.php/lens-mount-adapters/medium-format-120-220-lens-mount-adapters/professional-pro-medium-format-adapters-lens/fotodiox-pro-adapter-hasselblad-v-lens-to-nikon-f-camera-mount-adapter-for-nikon-d1-d2-d3-d3x-d3s-d100-d200-d300-d300s-d700-d40-d40x-.html

Mamiy 645:
http://fotodioxpro.com/index.php/lens-mount-adapters/medium-format-120-220-lens-mount-adapters/professional-pro-medium-format-adapters-lens/mamiya-645-lens-to-nikon-camera-fotodiox-pro-lens-mount-adapter.html

Pentax 645:
http://fotodioxpro.com/index.php/lens-mount-adapters/medium-format-120-220-lens-mount-adapters/professional-pro-medium-format-adapters-lens/pentax-645-lens-to-nikon-f-camera-lens-mount-fotodiox-pro-lens-mount-adapter.html

Pentax 6x7:
Novoflex has an adapter

Contax 645:
http://www.dl-kipon.com/en/product.asp?id=77

My quick search didn't reveal any RZ -> F adapter, but it could exist nonetheless.

Cheers,
Bernard


Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: yaya on August 22, 2012, 01:23:19 pm
My quick search didn't reveal any RZ -> F adapter, but it could exist nonetheless.

The Cambo X2-Pro does it and adds some T/S capability...not as cheap as an adapter but much more fun!
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: FredBGG on August 22, 2012, 11:41:47 pm
If you have a problem accepting that some photographers prefer to use the larger formats because it "slows them down" then that's your problem, not theirs.

My point is VERY SIMPLE. With a little bit of discipline you can shoot just as slow and deliberately with a camera that also has faster shooting abilities.
A lot of photographers in a certain sense are missing out on what their gear can do.

I don't have a problem with the photographers you are referring to... I do however have a bit of a problem when this influences other photographers... especially new ones. IT's also really rather silly when it becomes one of a dealers sales pitches..... more of a sign they are running out of reasons to justify MFD
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: FredBGG on August 23, 2012, 12:02:21 am
True. I think some adapters exist  but I'd have to check to see what MF lenses can be mounted on F mount.

Cheers,
Bernard



The problem is that the Mamiya RZ lenses do not have a focusing mechanism on them.

Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: BernardLanguillier on August 23, 2012, 12:16:35 am
The problem is that the Mamiya RZ lenses do not have a focusing mechanism on them.

Yep, but my "hope" was to find a bellow type adapter that would enable focusing.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: FredBGG on August 23, 2012, 12:36:44 am
Yep, but my "hope" was to find a bellow type adapter that would enable focusing.

Cheers,
Bernard


You could do this with the Front end of a Fuji GX680 and GX680 lenses.

The two rails come off the camera with just two screws.

You could use the 4 peak canvas fuji bellows and mount an F bayonet on the back.

You can fashion a mount for the whole lot using a Mamiya triopd adapter.

I'll post some photos later.

I made one for my D800, but it was snitched at a rental studio... need to make another.

The 115mm 3.2 makes a great tilt shift portrait lens for the D800.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: EricWHiss on August 23, 2012, 12:37:34 am
"The problem is that the Mamiya RZ lenses do not have a focusing mechanism on them."

Actually as soon as Yair mentioned the X2-pro, I realized this was a viable solution. It has a built in stage to move the whole front 'standard' in and out.   Probably the Horseman VCC would also work too.  

I'd love to see something for the Rollei lenses too, but that would take some kind of electronics to operate the aperture blades.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: FredBGG on August 23, 2012, 04:39:47 am
Frankly if they haven't the savvy to glean that for themselves then perhaps they'd be better suited to a career in dry walling.

That's a bit uncalled for. I don't know about you, but I don't look down on the fellow that put up the dry wall in my house.
Actually a fine painter and put his wife and kids through college dry walling.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: FredBGG on August 23, 2012, 05:43:05 pm
I was brought up in the East End of London before moving to a tough council estate. On leaving art college I took a job as a cab driver to support myself and my family while I established myself as an illustrator and painter. Most of my family and friends are from a working class East London background.

The trouble with this web thingy is you can't see the twinkle in the eye.


Oops ;) Yup we definitely need a "twinkle in the eye" emoticon!



Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: David Schneider on August 26, 2012, 07:09:24 pm

But frankly, I have come to feel that the preference for medium format has much to do above and beyond the image quality. I believe that many - especially those who are interested in say, a Mamiya RZ rather than a Hasselblad H4D or Phase One DF - are attracted by what medium format truly offers. And that is the ability to use many interesting cameras combined with many interesting lenses. And typically cameras that are pretty void of automatic features. What I believe is that some photographers, when they use a Nikon D800/D4 or a Canon Mark III/1DX feel that on some level the camera itself is at least partly responsible for the final result. Now, we know the camera actually has to be used to produce a resulting image and the camera chosen will in part determine the resulting quality (or lack of it). We know this. But there is something about shooting a manual Hasselblad camera or a Mamiya RZ, a View Camera, or even a Fuji GX680 that gives me the sense the photographer feels that he was more in control or that the result is more his doing.

This is all perception. This is all perspective.

But I believe it's there.

I've sold more digital backs for Mamiya RZ cameras in the past 6 months than I did the 2 years prior. There's something going on. I see it not as a revolution, but as a bit of minor pushback. That the emphasis of photography is to deeply feel like that the image is coming from you, through you. And I think - for some - shooting with automatron 35mm DSLR's makes this more difficult. It's not as simple as - I want to slow down - I think it's more like, I want to be the one driving, I don't want to feel so much like the passenger.

I'm really just guessing at things that aren't easily quantified. And that is really where much of medium format exists (other than the 60 megapixel or 80 megapixel varieties). When someone asks me if they will get a better image from a Leaf Aptus 22 than a Canon 5D-MKIII, I tell them I don't really know. Better how? In the conditions the Aptus will excel in? Yeah, probably. But you may not even be able to notice the difference. To some the difference may knock you out, to others, it may go right by them. If someone asks me that, I don't think the answer will matter. People who buy medium format don't usually ask that question. Because if they know medium format or if they want medium format, they already know that yes, in the right conditions, it will be better.


Thanks for putting into words the feeling I get using my "old" Hassie H3D2-39 vs. my Canon 5Dmk2, especially in the studio.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: MrSmith on August 27, 2012, 06:03:33 am
I see very little distinction between the 2, but then I work with manual focus lenses that have movements, the real difference is in focussing as the live view actually works on the 35mm camera.
The way of working stays the same, just a different camera.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: Steve Hendrix on August 27, 2012, 10:31:14 pm
The fact is there are millions and millions of photographers worldwide who have no problem shooting with a 35mm DSLR. Is it so hard to imagine that annually, some 6,000 - 8,000 prefer to shoot with a different camera?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: bcooter on August 28, 2012, 04:13:27 am
The fact is there are millions and millions of photographers worldwide who have no problem shooting with a 35mm DSLR. Is it so hard to imagine that annually, some 6,000 - 8,000 prefer to shoot with a different camera?


Steve

Steve,

So how do you make a larger user base?

In fact (if your allowed) you can answer these following question probably better than most working photographers.

None of us pick up a camera to become a scanner operator, or a computer technician, at least none that I know.  Digital or not, we still try to  select cameras to express an idea, a unique visual and we do it because we enjoy it, regardless of pay, regardless of effort and most importantly regardless of what anyone thinks.

At the "professional-earn a living segment" of using a camera, a lot of what we do is just damn hard.  From the vast amount of  creative treatments, multiple estimates, weeks of 18 hour pre production,  down to the final delivery one of the most enjoyable things we do  is shooting a camera you like, using one that feels special.

So why is it that nobody makes a RZ designed for a digital back.  Obviously not 6x7 because it seems no company will invest in a sensor that large, but I'm not talking about backs I talking about the cameras.  I'm talking about the dog wagging the tail, not the way it's become where the little digital stuff in the black boxes, seems to get the attention and I assume most of the profit.

The kids that work for me all buy either Nikon 800's (or is it 8000) or Canon 5D threes.  Most of them have a TR style yashica or Contax rangefinder they mess around with and shoot a roll of film per month for fun, but for their portfolio and the jobs they sometimes get, they use a Canon or Nikon.

Is there no market for professional cameras THAT professionals buy?

I think most photographers . . . we're kind of lost in our own world with our client's projects, our personal projects, who we work with and for, so it's difficult for us to gauge where the professional photography market is going.  Up or down.

Every week I use to know.  If I went to A+I at midnight to pick up snips and if the parking lot was overflowing into the alley, I knew it was a good, busy time.  Or if I went to a rental house and there were pallets of equipment going out the back, I knew things were cooking.

Now we spend so much time in front of the computer, in our own offices and studios I can't tell, because I don't rent a lot and I obviously I'm not at the lab.

I've noticed Phase and Hasselblad (mostly phase) have directed a lot of their marketing effort towards "serious" amateurs.  I know the few times I go into a camera store, at the medium format section the customer to my right is not asking about skin tones or fps, they're asking if they can get more detail in their nature shots, how long will the batteries last in the mountains, is the sensor dust proof if they shoot in the desert.   

So is that the group professional cameras are designed for, the weekend warrior?  Has the professional gone to second tier on the sales effort?

Regardless, I do understand the push back to reacquire some feeling of analog and the computer operated feel that is lost in cameras compared to their analog cousins.

Hell I'm still using my Contax(s) because the f stop falls next to the focus on my left hand, the shutter is next to the release on my right hand and I can shoot and adjust most of the day without ever looking at a dial or especially a blinking lcd.  Also I have a strange set of lenses that give a lot of different looks.  I can do that in post with a Canon, but it's always in Post and kinda looks like post work.

So why not a digital RZ, or a square camera that the back really rotates  (not one you have to take on or off) that has cropping blades that let you know if it's horizontal or vertical.  How about a miniature Fuji with the bellows and tilt shift, or glue three sensor together and make a panoramic camera?

Was it the chicken or the egg that made the HY6 or Rollei or F+H (whatever it's called) become so marginalized?  Did that camera just kinda of hit the skids because Phase, the biggest digital film maker didn't jump on board, or since Hasselblad already had a camera they saw no need to add their back to the HY6.   Or did these two companies not get involved because there was no market for this camera?

Did this experience just leave us with a Hasselblad and a Mamiya that were the only new medium format cameras produced, because everyone was afraid to take the plunge?   ( I guess I should add Pentax and would add Leica if I thought that was a viable camera for my work.)

Anyway.

The Mamiya and blad have been warmed over, but they are still 10 year old designs that haven't changed that much and IMO way too much digital interface and interference and not enough of as you say "driving the car yourself".

Or is the professional market just about cost vs. megapixels?  Once dslrs got to over 20 something megapixels and costs under 4 grand did that become good enough, so why bother with anything else?



IMO

BC
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: Rob C on August 28, 2012, 05:25:19 am
Cooter

1. Picking up a camera. You are right: there’s no wish to pick up something that’s a computer instead. In my own case I even went as far as selling my F4s in favour of an new, older model, the F3, because I detested the self-loading trick which almost always failed me, leaving a perma-blush on my face every time I had to use it in front of another human – or even my dog.

2. Using a camera. Again, you’re spot on. There was always a buzz using the F and F2 and the 500 Series was a dream of its own in suitable situations. Even more importantly, the two formats had different personalities that carried over into how I, as the user, felt and worked with the model in front of me. That is absolutely true and without a hint of exaggeration: one felt and moved and thought in entirely different ways.

3. Market for professional cameras that professionals buy. I’m not sure whether what your assistants buy tells the whole story; perhaps they are budget-limited like most of us in life. But, for anyone with a photographic business – as in shooting – then buying becomes tax-deductible and as long as your turnover allows, then buying isn’t a problem.

But your point is more to do with design of cameras for pro use. I don’t really know whether the manufacture of 6x7 sensors is or is not beyond reason in terms of production or cost, and frankly, I don’t believe much that any manufacturer says: they produce what they think they will be able to sell, and by and large, I doubt their willingness to discuss it with the public! But, I do agree that something like a 500 Series with a rotating back – a real one – and using a format like the old 645 would be the best solution. The quality from sensors is already so good that I can imagine few situations where much more (bigger) is essential. We can never reach a point where any single camera will cover all final picture ratios, but I think 645 is pretty good! 6x6 would be better, but I’m willing to compromise on that.

4. Visits to the lab. Indeed; it was good and also helpful to be able to get a grasp of how busy or otherwise people were; it didn’t do much for inter-snapper relations though, even if the gossip was nice, because the feeling always was the same: we held hands to prevent the other guy from picking our pocket! Most photographers I knew were like salesmen: everything was cool, even the day before they went bust, which many did. The main problem was the lab: there were two of them in Glasgow that were any good, and both also did photography, a shitty situation that took away secrecy of what our clients were doing. That was one of the reasons that I was heavily into Kodachrome where time allowed.

5. For whom are cameras designed? It was always common belief that the much bigger size of the amateur market supported the development that went into the professional. As an extension of that, I would expect that as top equipment gets ever more expensive, then the more concentrated the emphasis on how the expensive stuff will suit the wealthier amateur’s imagined needs. But it’s not all gloom: you do have your Reds etc…

6. To sum up my general feeling about this: I don’t believe that costs will kill off the more ‘glam’ names like Leica of Hasselblad. They are strong enough (I hope) to survive on the magic of a name, as did Rolls-Royce, Bentley and Aston Martin etc., even if they had to be bought over (some several times) in order to achieve that state of stability. But the difficulty is that I think many people today – the young especially – have a totally different take on camera stuff: they are brought up with computers and computer toys, things I’d hate to have to play with, and menus and buttons are their delight. Why would they miss rational, manual controls that few of them will have experienced? I firmly believe that playing with buttons and menus is part of the public display, the show of expertise they might feel: if it’s complicated, it’s got to be good! But any old pro knows photography is simple, and that you can complicate it as much as you or your idea of what’s wanted can make it.

Rob C

Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: TMARK on August 28, 2012, 10:25:12 am
From a marketing perspective, and from the outside looking in on the camera market, the issue is where emotion comes into play in the user experience.  In the days of film, it was looking through those big and bright viewfinders (which is really how we relate to a cameras in a viceral way), and then again when the contacts and prints were made.  With digital, especially the backs, the emotional response is back loaded to gazing at the the sharpness of detail on a large screen away from the camera.  The experience of using the camera was (and is) secondary to the "ohh and ahh" of being able to tell the gender of a bee from 100 yards.  In other words, the camera becomes a recording device, losing the raw emotional connection that can spur creativity, at least it always did for me.

Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: TMARK on August 28, 2012, 11:15:44 am
I agree, the H VF is big and bright, which is, in my opinion, one reason that camera has been successful, even with its many ergonomic and operational issues of the earlier models.  I always loved shooting them, despite the wrist breaking, muscle cramping heft of shooting all day with 55-110 in portrait, and the lock ups on the H1s.

The Canon 1ds3 and Nikon D3X have excellent viewfinders.  I reach for the 1ds3 over the 5d or D800 for this reason alone. I'd prefer to us ethe Aptus 75s/RZ combo, but that system just takes so much more time to use, shoot, and the lighting required is an order of magnitude greater, that that it stays in the Peli case.  The ds3 and d3x viewfinders could be better, of course.  I really think that if Mamiya/Phase made a new DF with a LARGE bright finder on par with the H, the camera would be much better received.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: FredBGG on August 28, 2012, 03:46:14 pm
I have the same emotional response and creative spur looking through the big and bright viewfinder of an H series Hasselblad as I had looking through the big bright viewfinder of the V series. It's an emotional response and creative spur that's sadly lacking whenever I pick up a Nikon or Canon. I wish it was otherwise.

I have used both, and find that both the Hasselblad H and Mamiya/Phase DF do not have adequate viewfinders.

However hasselblad is marginally better due to the two prism models. One for larger sensors and film and one for smaller sensors.

The DF prism with a 33x44 sensor is really limiting.....
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: EricWHiss on August 28, 2012, 06:44:12 pm
  I really think that if Mamiya/Phase made a new DF with a LARGE bright finder on par with the H, the camera would be much better received.

Maybe, but they'd have to also figure out a way to have less VF black out time.  It goes dark for what seems like an eternity.  It's dark for a long while before actually taking the frame and then a long while after.  It's easy to loose connection to your model or whatever you shoot during this time.   Compared to the DF, the H has a wonderful finder.  I think the Hy6 is a bit better than the H but the H isn't bad at all. 

But back to DSLR's.    I recently picked up a Nikon F4 and was amazed by the finder.   Miles better that what is currently offered in the DSLR's.  If it was great in the F4, why can't Nikon make a good one now?
The big viewfinder of the MF cameras is a treat and one of the reasons why I love shooting MF.   And after using the F4, I realized how much better the DSLR's could be.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: TMARK on August 28, 2012, 11:31:44 pm
Maybe, but they'd have to also figure out a way to have less VF black out time.  It goes dark for what seems like an eternity.  It's dark for a long while before actually taking the frame and then a long while after.  It's easy to loose connection to your model or whatever you shoot during this time.   Compared to the DF, the H has a wonderful finder.  I think the Hy6 is a bit better than the H but the H isn't bad at all. 

But back to DSLR's.    I recently picked up a Nikon F4 and was amazed by the finder.   Miles better that what is currently offered in the DSLR's.  If it was great in the F4, why can't Nikon make a good one now?
The big viewfinder of the MF cameras is a treat and one of the reasons why I love shooting MF.   And after using the F4, I realized how much better the DSLR's could be.

The Mamiya has really slow electronics when used with a back.  I never understood why it didn't improve with each interation of the AFd.  There was less black out time with the AFD1 and 2 when shooting film.  Hitting teh shutter is like setting some Rube Goldberg contraption in motion until finally the mirror swings up and then down as the film advance mechanism moves.  I haven't used the DF enough to really know how it performs, and I'm surprised to hear that it isn't much better, at least from your description.  The Blad's are way better.  I'll take your word for it regarding the Hy6.  It appears wonderful. 
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: TMARK on August 28, 2012, 11:36:38 pm
But back to DSLR's.    I recently picked up a Nikon F4 and was amazed by the finder.   Miles better that what is currently offered in the DSLR's.  If it was great in the F4, why can't Nikon make a good one now?
The big viewfinder of the MF cameras is a treat and one of the reasons why I love shooting MF.   And after using the F4, I realized how much better the DSLR's could be.

And this, yes, I still shoot lots of TMAX in my F4 that I've had since '88, my first pro camera I picked up for my first pro assignments for UPI.  Great viewfinder.  The F5 and the EOS 3 also had great finders.  Picking up a modern DSLR is a punishment.  Again, the D3X and DS3 have pretty good finders, but not Really Great Finders.  Its even harder after using an RZ with the waist level, even with the Aptus crop.
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: EricWHiss on August 29, 2012, 11:39:03 am
@TMARK

Yes I love TMAX 400.  Man I hope that whoever buys Kodak's film division doesn't mess that up!  I shoot it in my 4x5's, Hy6 and F4.  It's really nice in the RZ as well!   

RE: Mamiya DF... my hunch is the viewfinder black out is all about waiting for the mirror movement vibrations to die down.  Digital backs with higher and higher res probably force longer wait times so even though they've revised the body, they can't do anything about the black out - probably getting worse if anything.   I have no idea what Phase/Mamiya have up their sleeves but the new camera body has been said to be in the works.  I sort of hope for them they ditched the DF all together and went with something new.   
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: Petrus on August 29, 2012, 02:12:15 pm
But back to DSLR's.    I recently picked up a Nikon F4 and was amazed by the finder.   Miles better that what is currently offered in the DSLR's.  If it was great in the F4, why can't Nikon make a good one now?
The big viewfinder of the MF cameras is a treat and one of the reasons why I love shooting MF.   And after using the F4, I realized how much better the DSLR's could be.

One reason might be the light robbing semitransparent thingies (D)SLRs now have for the 63 or something focusing spots, in the old school SLRs there was only one perfect mirror sending 100% of the light to the prism, now a great part of the light is directed to the focus systems. In the old times you had to have all the light available to focus on the matte screen, now you just need enough to frame, camera does the focusing. And does it faster and better...
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: EricWHiss on August 29, 2012, 02:24:12 pm
Petrus,
FYI -   F4 had interchangeable finders and auto focus - see here: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf4/prisms/index.htm
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: kers on August 29, 2012, 04:07:31 pm
Having had the d3x and now the D800e i do not find much difference in the quality of the viewfinder...
but when I look through my Nikon F100 viewfinder it is so much bigger and lighter- - a joy to look through ( f4 probably better still)

Too bad new is not always better- i could do with one auto focus point that really works ...
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: FredBGG on August 30, 2012, 02:33:26 am
If you really want to see how good and bright a viewfinder can be take a look through a Fuji gx680 the the AE Anglefinder III and a Beattie screen .. and one of the 3.2 lenses.

No other SLR or MF slr comes remotely close.

(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6091/6242494779_e6cf765002_b.jpg)

Also you don't have your nose jammed up against the camera and has a damn nice eyecup.
The eyecups on the hasselblad and the pathetic eyecup of the Phase One DF are a joke.





Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: Rob C on August 30, 2012, 03:46:07 am
Even better: it clearly comes complete with beautiful girl!

Rob C
Title: Re: Older backs vs new DSLRs
Post by: Rob C on August 30, 2012, 06:40:01 am
...and team of sherpas.


How did Ray get into this?

Rob C