Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: design_freak on December 03, 2012, 04:47:05 AM

Title: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 03, 2012, 04:47:05 AM
I recommend this article. It seems to me that, unfortunately, it's Near future for MF. I warn that is not a provocation!
Sony Ambassador Mr. Jacek Bonecki-some years ago published a comparison test (Hasselblad, Sony, Mamiya) - full of basic errors, absolutely devoid of objectivity, just shameful article-after which I could not look in the mirror, if I was the author. Then it was the marketing gibberish, in the worst form.
Unfortunately, times have changed and become very blurred boundary. Manufacturers MF - listen carefully to what your customers are saying - otherwise you will share the fate of such a giant like Nokia, and the title of the article will be a reality!
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 03, 2012, 05:56:48 AM
I recommend this article. It seems to me that, unfortunately, it's Near future for MF. I warn that is not a provocation!
Sony Ambassador Mr. Jacek Bonecki-some years ago published a comparison test (Hasselblad, Sony, Mamiya) - full of basic errors, absolutely devoid of objectivity, just shameful article-after which I could not look in the mirror, if I was the author. Then it was the marketing gibberish, in the worst form.
Unfortunately, times have changed and become very blurred boundary. Manufacturers MF - listen carefully to what your customers are saying - otherwise you will share the fate of such a giant like Nokia, and the title of the article will be a reality!

Why unfortunately?

D800E and D800
Same quality for 1/5th of the price
Far superior functionality:
IS image stabalization
live view focusing
tracking focusing
face recognition auto focusing as well as facial recognition manual focus assist
more frames per second, HD Video, HDMI monitoring
dual memory card redundancy
high speed flash sync up to 1/8000th of a second
Advanced flash system from same manufacturer
computer controlled focus stacking
vast range of lenses from various vendors
available with and without anti alias filter

You get all of this for less money and less weight. Seems to me that photographers are quite fortunate right now. ;)

I don't think it's the end of Medium Format Digital. However it is definitely putting a ever bigger dent into MFD and it's financial viability
for both the photographer in general and the manufacturers. There will still be a market for it, but it is getting smaller and more expensive.








Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: jeremypayne on December 03, 2012, 07:17:44 AM
share the fate of such a giant like Nokia

Huh.  Weird choice for your cautionary tale.

I don't really think there's anything remotely similar between Nokia and any of the MF camera companies.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 03, 2012, 08:15:16 AM
Huh.  Weird choice for your cautionary tale.

I don't really think there's anything remotely similar between Nokia and any of the MF camera companies.

I can't see anything strange. Many similarities - we are the biggest and the best, others do not know, our position is not threatened. Unfortunately, the reality is different. Their position is at stake. (very seriously). They have no idea what to do in the new reality. Progress is at a rate of turtle. They perform reckless moves.
Now just see the information about Nokia.


 It reminds me a campaign. Two worlds seen from different perspectives. (Traffic Movia)
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 03, 2012, 08:28:39 AM
Why unfortunately?

D800E and D800
Same quality for 1/5th of the price
Far superior functionality:
IS image stabalization
live view focusing
tracking focusing
face recognition auto focusing as well as facial recognition manual focus assist
more frames per second, HD Video, HDMI monitoring
dual memory card redundancy
high speed flash sync up to 1/8000th of a second
Advanced flash system from same manufacturer
computer controlled focus stacking
vast range of lenses from various vendors
available with and without anti alias filter

You get all of this for less money and less weight. Seems to me that photographers are quite fortunate right now. ;)









Unfortunately, because the opportunities were lost. I have a fondness for this equipment.
Now, as a man who shoots just for fun, I'm definitely glad that the equipment is so good for so little money  8)
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: hasselbladfan on December 03, 2012, 08:32:44 AM
I don't really think there's anything remotely similar between Nokia and any of the MF camera companies.

Never say never. It can happen. But I still see some differences between Nokia and MF.

It is very well known and documented that established firms cannot handle new technologies well because they have so much at stake in the old technology (Kodak film vs digital, IBM large computers vs PC, Nokia cell phones vs Ipad/iPhone).

And these firms are mostly taken by surprise when the big volumes suddenly move (PC revolution, androids, no more film, etc).

In the case of MF, there are no longer masses of followers, just passionates and professionals.

They should just focus at what they good at (MF) and not bring out Luna(tic) cameras for the rich.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Kitty on December 03, 2012, 08:42:13 AM
I really don't know the future. But I just upgrade P45+ to IQ160 and quite happy with the result.
It has mobility like DSLR. And MFB require less post process than DSLR. IMHO.

Kitty
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Justinr on December 03, 2012, 08:43:36 AM
The end of MF has been forecast for quite some time now and although I haven't a full frame body to compare my now old fashioned Mamiya ZD against there is no doubt that it will knock spots off the Pentax K5 when I'm taking proper photos rather than snaps for websites and the K5 itself takes a better picture than the Bronicas I used to haul around to weddings. It's an easy headline for a magazine but I doubt that we have seen the last of HB, Leaf et al.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: hjulenissen on December 03, 2012, 08:48:45 AM
If it is true that :
1) Digital camera+sensor production does not lend itself to small-scale production (unlike analog film)
2) The current market for MF is really small

Then I dont see how MF manufacturers are supposed to avoid fading slowly into the sunset. They may do "Ferrari" and "collector 50 Years anniversary" editions. They may "tailgate" large sensors that are paid for by telescope customers, defence equipment etc. Or there may be some way to re-use small sensor development in larger sensors. They may (like Pentax) re-use software and hardware from lower-cost/larger series 35mm or crop cameras.

If it was possible to make a MF camera with the features of the D800, with significantly better IQ, while still making money from it, would not Nikon, Canon, Sony & friends be making such cameras? Are they not in a better position on one or more or the following: technology, financial, distribution?

-h
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: michael on December 03, 2012, 08:53:51 AM
I don't find the premise or the comparisons relevant.

There are only two MF companies, excepting a few ultra tiny body and lens makers, such as Alpa. These are Hasselblad, and Phase One / Mamiya / Leaf (really all one company).

Even these are very small, producing products in the low to mid thousands a year. Based on what I know about Phase, they are accommodating the marketplace quite well. While pro sales are declining, enthusiast sales are holding steady and even climbing in some markets. The museum, science, military markets also continue and even expand.

As for Hasselblad, I have no knowledge of how their sales are or what their plans are. The pimping up of OEM NEX cameras seems misguided at best, but stranger things have happened.

So, I wouldn't worry about MF. Leica is a player as well, and they seem to be selling every S2 and lens that they can make.

The industry just isn't about megapixels any more, from the point and shoots to backs. There are other metrics that potential purchasers care about. And in some markets, the ones where MF plays, price isn't foremost the way it is in mass markets. The wealthy amateur and scientific/military/museum segment is driven by needs other than simple price/performance analysis, or the availability of glitzy features.

Once film was over there never was a mass market for medium format, and there never will be. But mice do very nicely living almost invisibly among the feet of elephants, who hardly notice or care that they are there.

Just keep in mind that Canon makes more Rebels in one factory in a single day than the entire MF industry makes backs in a year. And that probably includes both gross profit and margin as well.

Michael
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 03, 2012, 10:00:11 AM
Why unfortunately?

D800E and D800
Same quality for 1/5th of the price
Far superior functionality:
IS image stabalization
live view focusing
tracking focusing
face recognition auto focusing as well as facial recognition manual focus assist
more frames per second, HD Video, HDMI monitoring
dual memory card redundancy
high speed flash sync up to 1/8000th of a second
Advanced flash system from same manufacturer
computer controlled focus stacking
vast range of lenses from various vendors
available with and without anti alias filter

You get all of this for less money and less weight. Seems to me that photographers are quite fortunate right now. ;)


Do any of you 35mm enthusiast ever look at anything else besides the MP count?

Last I checked, you can push a MF image much further than a 35mm images.  Also, CCDs record the sharpness of light much better, not to mention the better lenses.  Backs have no moving parts meaning there life is much longer.  Also, 35mm comes in one style, and you take it or take it.  MF offers the traditional SLR setup plus true waist high view finder, tech camera setups, etc.  

Also, last I checked this is the "Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography" sub-forum.  There is a 35mm forum as well.  
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: gigdagefg on December 03, 2012, 10:10:48 AM
Why unfortunately?

D800E and D800
Same quality for 1/5th of the price
Far superior functionality:
IS image stabalization
live view focusing
tracking focusing
face recognition auto focusing as well as facial recognition manual focus assist
more frames per second, HD Video, HDMI monitoring
dual memory card redundancy
high speed flash sync up to 1/8000th of a second
Advanced flash system from same manufacturer
computer controlled focus stacking
vast range of lenses from various vendors
available with and without anti alias filter

You get all of this for less money and less weight. Seems to me that photographers are quite fortunate right now. ;)

I understand that FredBGG constantly and aggressively puts down MF validating his obsession occasionally with charts and other data, but I find the opposite. I use both a Nikon 800E and Hasselblad H4D50 and find that I can consistently recover more detail and obtain richer colors with my MF.
I agree that MF is heavier(much heavier) and one has to work a bit harder to get best result, but the result is just much superior with my H4D50 especially when I attach the back to a technical camera.
Stanley









Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 03, 2012, 10:21:38 AM
MF is not dead and probably never will be. Geez been hearing this since every new cam came out to challenge it or just even hitting the market. Honestly there is a whole market that 95 percent of us are not even thinking about. Government, museums, scientific and a host of other markets that MF is a big part of. I have had both systems and sure the market maybe sliding some for MF with working Pros but what else is new. Many hobbyists are certainly keeping the MF OEMS busy as well. Tech cams are something that has come on in more recent years and frankly given the glass and the movements involved nothing can touch it in many ways.The MF OEMs still need to innovate and try to reduce costs but thats in ever sector of business. I look forward to new and better products coming into the market from Hassy, Phase and Leica and hopefully we will see new players as well. Every industry has cycles and maybe the MF is in one of those right now but if they innovate than it will rebound just like many other industries. i worked in aerospace for 16 years as a chief photographer and talk about a cycle business. It maybe one of the worst. Never say never as in most cases you would be wrong. LOL
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 03, 2012, 10:38:47 AM
Do any of you 35mm enthusiast ever look at anything else besides the MP count?

Last I checked, you can push a MF image much further than a 35mm images.  Also, CCDs record the sharpness of light much better, not to mention the better lenses.  Backs have no moving parts meaning there life is much longer.  Also, 35mm comes in one style, and you take it or take it.  MF offers the traditional SLR setup plus true waist high view finder, tech camera setups, etc.  

Also, last I checked this is the "Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography" sub-forum.  There is a 35mm forum as well.  

Yes, just compare pictures of D800E and any DB 40mpix. I know a little bit about it. Many "MF users" is surprised by the quality of D800E. Some photographers in general would not have figured out what files you are watching. Since blurs the difference between the lowest model of MF, a 35mm camera, it gives you a reason to further explore whether it is worthwhile to give so much for a camera that will not necessarily be better. (Less versatile) As Michael mentioned, which I really appreciate. More and more buyers are amateurs, fewer and fewer professionals. We can not assume the same as Hasselblad, that rich amateur is an idiot. Really, something must change - we can not wait for the new camera 4 years. No one will buy a newer model (the old in the new version:  changed the colors / + in the name. Build quality, ergonomics, better materials (not to be confused with Lunar)
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: torger on December 03, 2012, 10:46:21 AM
One problem may be that sensor technology is becoming or has become so advanced that you need a very very large development budget, so large that you may not be able to support a small market such as MF.

What if also the next generation of MFDBs has the same CCDs as already used in two or more generations? And what if at the same time 135 cameras continue to improve image quality of their versatile CMOSes? What if MFDBs becomes even more expensive due to reduced market share?

Maybe the future for MF is to drop out of regular photography and only do speciality equipment for science, astronomy, cartography and medical.

One alternative scenario that I'd like to see is some stronger focus on the enthusiast market, and I think the tech cam for landscape photography is strong there. Maybe there is an opportunity to actually increase the volumes with the right product in that sector.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 03, 2012, 11:25:51 AM
... we are the biggest and the best, others do not know, our position is not threatened. Unfortunately, the reality is different. Their position is at stake. (very seriously). They have no idea what to do in the new reality. Progress is at a rate of turtle. They perform reckless moves...

You are talking about Canon, right? ;)
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 03, 2012, 12:51:27 PM
It's weird... ever since I joined LuLa so many years back, there have been threads like this, each time saying its 'for real' this time.

People, note that Fred, who is the loudest and most persistent nagging voice about the D800, has not given up his 8x10 or his Fuji.   When he posts his own images, how many his work images were taken with the d800?  I mean ones that he is proud of? 

It's not, and I did my own side by side testing, but I wouldn't care if it was. I like the look of MF.... smaller formats look flat and I dislike the 3::2 crop.  I enjoy a big viewfinder for composition and the leaf shutter lenses make hand holding much easier. I often shoot at 1/500th with strobes.  MF is still king in my book.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: MichaelEzra on December 03, 2012, 12:59:47 PM
Why did we never have a thread that 35mm format is dead because MF can finally kill it? :P
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 03, 2012, 01:02:59 PM
Tech cams are something that has come on in more recent years and frankly given the glass and the movements involved nothing can touch it in many ways.

While 80mp backs and tech cameras have an edge it is not all it is made out to be.  ... "nothing can touch it" ....  makes it sound untouchable.
However things are very close:

Here is a good comparison made by an IQ180 and tech camera owner that is also an experienced landscape photographer:

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

Quote
At 30×20 inches, you can see subtle but clear differences between the IQ180 and the D800E. Not all of them weighted in favour of the medium format camera, though. For instance, the D800E produced much more pleasing shadow areas on the prints of the photographs produced to test dynamic range.

Resolution and detail of the IQ180 prints was better than that of the D800E prints – but not massively. Again, the difference was there, but it wasn’t huge. Certainly not €30,000 huge.

And we were stunned just how close the D800E ran the IQ180 when the files were printed at 60×40 inches, which is bigger than many dining room tables.

Put simply, Nikon has produced a phenomenal camera.

Medium format camera manufacturers have cause for concern.

It gets even more interesting if we consider the lens used on the Nikon. It's not one of their best and somewhat due for an update.

here is how it compared with the state of the art in 135 format DSLR lenses.

Nikon 24mm pc-e @ f8
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Nikon-24mm-f-3.5D-ED-PC-E-Lens/Crop3/2010-02-26_08-00-23.jpg)
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens/Crop3/2009-06-29_10-54-40.jpg)
Canon 24mm TS-E @ f8

Then there is what has already been announced...... Zeiss is throwing it's weight behind very high end 135 DSLR format lenses in a manner that never have before.
The new 55mm f1.4 is a sign of what is on the horizon. MF makers are small and dependant on what Dalsa and Truesense make. Dalsa and true sense are more heavily inversted in other fields than MF enthusiat and pro photography. What they put out for Phase and Hasselblad is dependant on what they make for industrial applications for industrial equipment imaging systems. Dalsa was absorbed by Teledyne a giant industrial and defense contractor. Even if you go to their imaging website while the home page scrolls through many applications and areas it works in it does not feature enthusiast/armature or professional photography.

http://www.teledynedalsa.com/ (http://www.teledynedalsa.com/)

While the MF companies have been in decline in the digital age, Zeiss has grown into a company with $ 5.5 billion of revenue.
The fact that they have thrown their weight behind motion picture and 135 format DSLR and pretty much have nothing to do with medium format
says a lot.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 03, 2012, 01:11:10 PM
The argument is no longer 'about good enough' or 'IQ'.   Plenty of people got their work done with the Canon 1DS or 5d2.  The Nikon D3x was overkill.  People are using their iphones now for all kinds of stuff!   

The discussion is about how you work, what you like, and what works for you.   

MF has a different look
MF has a different crop ratio
MF has a big viewfinder
MF has finder options
MF has faster sync
MF has leaf shutter lenses
MF can shoot film or digital

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 03, 2012, 01:48:25 PM
Hi,

I guess that MF will be around as long as Dalsa and Truesense are around. Perhaps we see another MF sensor manufacturer in the future?

I don't really think that development of MF sensors is very expensive, so I guess it is more about a market large enough to keep production profitable. As Michael has pointed out, the market is not just professionals and wealthy amateurs but also museums and firms doing repro work.

On the other hand, I'd say it is pretty clear that small sensor technology has made inroads into MF. I used to be a MF shooter in the film days but was quite happy with APS-C and now full frame 135.

I also expect electronics to replace some of the technology of yore. For instance, I always hated the WLF (Waist Level Finder) on Hasselblad 500C and Pentax 67, but shooting waist level with swiveling LCD on my Alpha 99 is quite nice. Electronic viewfinders have just been around for a few years and I would expect them to improve rapidly. We probably also will see fully electronic shutters in some time.

Ultimately, I guess that the future of MF hangs on sensor availability. On the other hand I'm also pretty sure it is a shrinking market.

Best regards
Erik




I don't find the premise or the comparisons relevant.

There are only two MF companies, excepting a few ultra tiny body and lens makers, such as Alpa. These are Hasselblad, and Phase One / Mamiya / Leaf (really all one company).

Even these are very small, producing products in the low to mid thousands a year. Based on what I know about Phase, they are accommodating the marketplace quite well. While pro sales are declining, enthusiast sales are holding steady and even climbing in some markets. The museum, science, military markets also continue and even expand.

As for Hasselblad, I have no knowledge of how their sales are or what their plans are. The pimping up of OEM NEX cameras seems misguided at best, but stranger things have happened.

So, I wouldn't worry about MF. Leica is a player as well, and they seem to be selling every S2 and lens that they can make.

The industry just isn't about megapixels any more, from the point and shoots to backs. There are other metrics that potential purchasers care about. And in some markets, the ones where MF plays, price isn't foremost the way it is in mass markets. The wealthy amateur and scientific/military/museum segment is driven by needs other than simple price/performance analysis, or the availability of glitzy features.

Once film was over there never was a mass market for medium format, and there never will be. But mice do very nicely living almost invisibly among the feet of elephants, who hardly notice or care that they are there.

Just keep in mind that Canon makes more Rebels in one factory in a single day than the entire MF industry makes backs in a year. And that probably includes both gross profit and margin as well.

Michael
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: tho_mas on December 03, 2012, 01:53:32 PM
MF has a different look
MF has a different crop ratio
MF has a big viewfinder
MF has finder options
MF has faster sync
MF has leaf shutter lenses
MF can shoot film or digital
...
- camera handling is different (MF has analogue cameras with buttons instead of dials digital menues)
- you can use the same sensor (DB) on different camera bodies (eg. on a 645 SLR and a tech cam)
- you can use different sensors (DBs) on the same camera
- you can shoot vertical compositions without rotating the camera (on some MF / LF models)
- super easy and fast sensor cleaning on DBs

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 03, 2012, 02:11:03 PM
While 80mp backs and tech cameras have an edge it is not all it is made out to be.  ... "nothing can touch it" ....  makes it sound untouchable.
However things are very close:

Here is a good comparison made by an IQ180 and tech camera owner that is also an experienced landscape photographer:

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

It gets even more interesting if we consider the lens used on the Nikon. It's not one of their best and somewhat due for an update.

here is how it compared with the state of the art in 135 format DSLR lenses.

Nikon 24mm pc-e @ f8
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Nikon-24mm-f-3.5D-ED-PC-E-Lens/Crop3/2010-02-26_08-00-23.jpg)
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens/Crop3/2009-06-29_10-54-40.jpg)
Canon 24mm TS-E @ f8

Then there is what has already been announced...... Zeiss is throwing it's weight behind very high end 135 DSLR format lenses in a manner that never have before.
The new 55mm f1.4 is a sign of what is on the horizon. MF makers are small and dependant on what Dalsa and Truesense make. Dalsa and true sense are more heavily inversted in other fields than MF enthusiat and pro photography. What they put out for Phase and Hasselblad is dependant on what they make for industrial applications for industrial equipment imaging systems. Dalsa was absorbed by Teledyne a giant industrial and defense contractor. Even if you go to their imaging website while the home page scrolls through many applications and areas it works in it does not feature enthusiast/armature or professional photography.

http://www.teledynedalsa.com/ (http://www.teledynedalsa.com/)

While the MF companies have been in decline in the digital age, Zeiss has grown into a company with $ 5.5 billion of revenue.
The fact that they have thrown their weight behind motion picture and 135 format DSLR and pretty much have nothing to do with medium format
says a lot.


Thanks I have done all my own tests with all if Phases latest backs including the 180 and the best tech glass you can buy. My comment stands and no one else's test will change that. I have the T shirt.

I have the Nikon D800e and love the system but that takes nothing away from MF. They are different files.uch like when we said film vs digital. It's my conclusion it's now in that same vein it's CCDS vs CMOS. Each have there pluses and minuses but end of day I think a lot comes down to different types of sensor. Plus other factors as well. They both have there place and for Pros mostly we will decide what we need or don't need at any given shoot. Ill continue to buy or rent whatever it takes.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 03, 2012, 02:17:48 PM
Here's a though regarding tech cameras.....

Have you guys seen the new FF sony compact....

How about this as a tech camera system...

Modify the new sony FF compact and rig it as a two shot high speed stitch system...

Make a conversion lens to put infront of your Rodi or Schneider tech lens just for composition purposes that
changes the angle of view to preview your final two shot stitch so you can compose live view on the sony sensor...

Flip the preivew and composition converter lens out of the way, fine focus with live view off the sensor and shoot your two stitch shots
moving the sensor on the back of the tech camera.

The camera is small enough to make an automatic mechanism to do this.

48mp with higher dynamic range captures for not much money at all.

Hell the camera only coasts $ 2,800 .... probably less on the street.

Actually how about pairing something like this with the Canon 17mm TS lens. Two frame stitch-O-sonymatic ultra wide 48 MP shots.

Would be a damn good option for architectural photographer, product photographers. Certainly very interesting for the landscape enthusiast
with out a budget for an IQ180

Arca Swiss Sony colaboration maybe.... ;)
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 03, 2012, 02:29:13 PM
I believe this post was started just to spark an argument.

I would like to add that I prefer to drive a standard.  I am only 30 and autos have been around far before I was born.  But something about a standard makes me feel so much more in control.  Especially when dealing with hills or nasty driving conditions.  Go figure. 
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 03, 2012, 02:33:04 PM
Hi,

See below:

BR Erik


...
- camera handling is different (MF has analogue cameras with buttons instead of dials digital menues)

Well, Phase P45+ seems pretty much menu based, Sony Alpha 99 has plenty of buttons.

- you can use the same sensor (DB) on different camera bodies (eg. on a 645 SLR and a tech cam)
Yeah, that's great!

- you can use different sensors (DBs) on the same camera
Why? Even if you can afford two different sensors you would probably use the best one!

- you can shoot vertical compositions without rotating the camera (on some MF / LF models)
Yes, nice! You need a large image circle to support that! Hows wide are your wide angles get on that combo?

- super easy and fast sensor cleaning on DBs
Yes, of course! On the other hand, how much dust do you get on that big sensor? Some of the samples I have seen posted from MF were about the dirtiest I have seen. The IR filter on those sensor is exposed and easy to scratch.


Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: TMARK on December 03, 2012, 02:41:29 PM
Here's a though regarding tech cameras.....

Have you guys seen the new FF sony compact....

How about this as a tech camera system...

Modify the new sony FF compact and rig it as a two shot high speed stitch system...

Make a conversion lens to put infront of your Rodi or Schneider tech lens just for composition purposes that
changes the angle of view to preview your final two shot stitch so you can compose live view on the sony sensor...

Flip the preivew and composition converter lens out of the way, fine focus with live view off the sensor and shoot your two stitch shots
moving the sensor on the back of the tech camera.

The camera is small enough to make an automatic mechanism to do this.

48mp with higher dynamic range captures for not much money at all.

Hell the camera only coasts $ 2,800 .... probably less on the street.

Actually how about pairing something like this with the Canon 17mm TS lens. Two frame stitch-O-sonymatic ultra wide 48 MP shots.

Would be a damn good option for architectural photographer, product photographers. Certainly very interesting for the landscape enthusiast
with out a budget for an IQ180

Arca Swiss Sony colaboration maybe.... ;)

Rather than the Sony, the Sigma DP2M. 
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 03, 2012, 02:44:22 PM
Hi,

I don't think so. C't is one of the largest and most respected periodicals in Europe. That said, C't is a computer periodical and not about photography. They have photography specials that are quite good.

The views may just be different. I just got a mail from a photographer selling of his IQ180. He acknowledges the benefits of the IQ180, but he says he cannot see differences between IQ180 and D800E in prints up to 36" (without a loupe), the D800E has better DR and simply is more practical.

I'd suggest that we see a similar move from full frame or APS-C to micro 4/3. Once a technology is good enough it will compete, not on quality but practicality.

Best regards
Erik

I believe this post was started just to spark an argument.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 03, 2012, 02:49:46 PM
Hi,

I don't think so. C't is one of the largest and most respected periodicals in Europe. That said, C't is a computer periodical and not about photography. They have photography specials that are quite good.

The views may just be different. I just got a mail from a photographer selling of his IQ180. He acknowledges the benefits of the IQ180, but he says he cannot see differences between IQ180 and D800E in prints up to 36" (without a loupe), the D800E has better DR and simply is more practical.

I'd suggest that we see a similar move from full frame or APS-C to micro 4/3. Once a technology is good enough it will compete, not on quality but practicality.

Best regards
Erik


I would agree with you if only this was posted in some other sub-forum.  But to post a negative story in a sub-forum dedicated to MF will only start an argument. 
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: theguywitha645d on December 03, 2012, 03:09:28 PM
Lets face it, with the quality of APS-C and m4/3, 35mm is dead...

And don't forget the pundits that predicted film would be dead in five years in 2000...
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 03, 2012, 03:15:53 PM
... And don't forget the pundits that predicted film would be dead in five years in 2000...

It's not!?
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: tho_mas on December 03, 2012, 03:24:44 PM
you can use different sensors (DBs) on the same camera
Why? Even if you can afford two different sensors you would probably use the best one!
I shoot a P45 and P21+. The P45 exclusively at ISO50 and mounted on a tripod. The P21+ handheld and up to ISO800. And of course I shoot the P21+ when I need the somewhat faster capture rate (the P45 is sloooowww).

you can shoot vertical compositions without rotating the camera (on some MF / LF models)
Yes, nice! You need a large image circle to support that! Hows wide are your wide angles get on that combo?
on my tech cam I just rotate the rear plate with the DB attached to it... And then there is e.g. the Hy6 (6x6) and Leaf's rotating sensors...

super easy and fast sensor cleaning on DBs
Yes, of course! On the other hand, how much dust do you get on that big sensor? Some of the samples I have seen posted from MF were about the dirtiest I have seen. The IR filter on those sensor is exposed and easy to scratch.
I do see dust spots very rarely. I switch my backs back and forth on my tech cam and Contax all the time and I routinely blow (or wipe) over the sensor glass. This is why my sensor is mostly clean. I can't speak of other users.


Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 03, 2012, 03:37:43 PM

MF has a different look
MF has a different crop ratio
MF has a big viewfinder
MF has finder options
MF has faster sync
MF has leaf shutter lenses
MF can shoot film or digital



MF has a different look - Yes it's true, but most people don't see it ( customers, especialy in magazines ) or just don't want to pay for it extra
MF has a different crop ratio - Yes, but somebody will crop it as well in post
MF has a big viewfinder - Yes, I love it, big, very bright.
MF has finder options - Yes it is very nice, especialy when you work with children
MF has faster sync - Yes
MF can shoot film or digital - Yes, if you have old MF camera like contax, hasselblad or mamiya etc. Now PhaseOne DF+ and Hasselblad HxD can't work with film, only digital....

35 mm camera
Has a faster AF
Has a better ISO range
Has a better High ISO IQ
Has a better price
Has a better battery
Has a better seal
Is faster


Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: torger on December 03, 2012, 03:43:53 PM
Lets face it, with the quality of APS-C and m4/3, 35mm is dead...

And don't forget the pundits that predicted film would be dead in five years in 2000...

In the worst case scenario MF will probably not go away, but may become just as widely used as scanning backs are today. My worries are that sensor development seems stalled, prices don't ever seem to come down, the market does not exactly look expansive, and the manufacturers don't seem to have the financial muscle to do something revolutionary, like a lower cost higher volume enthusiast MF product, or developing a CMOS sensor to make their cameras more practical and all-around.

I don't think APS-C or m4/3 is a real threat to full-frame 135 as it is today. Quality lenses are on the 135 format, and I think shot noise is a bit of a problem on the smaller formats, and 135 is not extremely expensive. The jump from 135 to MF is more difficult, some experience the quality difference as even smaller than between APS-C and 135 fullframe, and the price difference is huge, and the initial investment is also large.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 03, 2012, 06:04:07 PM

MF has a different look
MF has a different crop ratio
MF has a big viewfinder
MF has finder options
MF has faster sync
MF has leaf shutter lenses
MF can shoot film or digital



Interesting points.

Lets look at them:

MF has a different look
There are very subtle differences. Go and download the hi res files of a few side by side tests and see if you can see the difference.

here is a side by side put together by a forum member that downloaded one example.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69391.0;attach=64261;image (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69391.0;attach=64261;image)
You can download the high res here:
http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/ (http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/)

Larger formats do have a different look, but IMHO you have to go bigger than 645 to see it.


MF has a different crop ratio
Neither better nor worse. D800 can be setup to shoot 5:4
When I shoot fashion on white background I add white on the sides in post. Instant virtual gain of a few megapixels.

MF has a big viewfinder
Yes, but it's not that simple. For example if you are using a 44x33 sensor with a Phase One Camera the screen is actually quite small.
Hasselblad on the other hand has two types of prisms, one for larger sensors and one for smaller sensors.
High quality live view and HDMI output with the D800 in many situations is better than a large optical viewfinder.
Critical focus is far far better with d800 live view.

MF has finder options
Only some and they are not all that great.
Phase One DF and DF plus have no alternative viewfinder options.
You can do waist level viewfinder like work with rotating live view screens
or add on HDMI finders (often used in motion picture)
There is no high magnification moving loup viewfinder made by an MFDB manufacturer.

MF has faster sync
Not that simple.
Hasselblad tops out at 1/800th
Phase One with their better backs and a limited range of lenses tops out at 1/1600th
The D800 using FP mode reaches a high speed sync of 1/8000th of a second with the full range of Nikon and 3rd party lenses.
Each system require the right technique.
More details here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=71679.0 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=71679.0)

MF has leaf shutter lenses
Not all they are made out to be.
Phase One needs both a focal plane shutter and a leaf shutter in order to use the leaf shutter.
Big focal plane shutter goes off along with the leaf shutter. You still have focal plane shutter vibration even if you are using a leaf shutter.
Phase One focal plane shutter has some reliability issues. JUst look at the warranty. Non leaf shutter lenses 3 years... leaf shutter lenses 1 year.
Hasselblad has Leaf shutter only but is limited to a fastest speed of 1/800th. Can be very limiting if shooting in strong light but you
want shallow depth of field.

MF can shoot film or digital
Not that simple. Phase One DF and DF+ do not support film backs.
Most Hasselblad bodies do not support film backs either.
Hy6 supports film backs
Mamiya RZ supports film backs

Plenty of 35mm film SLR cameras can be bought to shoot film.
Canon EOS film bodies work with EOS lenses.
Nikon too, not too sure about AF-s lenses...

IMO if your going to shoot film nothing beats 6x7cm and bigger.
I ditched Hasselblads to the Mamiya RZ67 years and years ago.

Any DSLR or MFDB shooter can add a very nice larger MF system to their kit
without Spending that much.

My choice is a combination of D800 for digital and 6x8 Fuji GX680 (film) and 8x10 film and paper negatives.
All three systems put together cost lens than just one medium range MFDB camera.

Now that said I don't think MF Digital is dead. It just isn't all it's drummed up to be.
You can choose between 35mm DSLR and Medium Format Digital and the quality is of the same caliber....
contrary to what the MF manufacturer's would lead you to believe.



 


Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: bjanes on December 03, 2012, 06:58:04 PM
Lets face it, with the quality of APS-C and m4/3, 35mm is dead...

And don't forget the pundits that predicted film would be dead in five years in 2000...

John Maynard Keynes (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnmaynar380219.html): "in the long run, we are all dead". In the meantime, we all have to decide what to do with our lives. By the same token, 35mm and MFDB will eventually be superseded by other camera types, but in the meantime, both formats will continue to be useful for their intended purposes.

Bill
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: K.C. on December 04, 2012, 12:42:51 AM
People, note that Fred, who is the loudest and most persistent nagging voice about the D800, has not given up his 8x10 or his Fuji.   When he posts his own images, how many his work images were taken with the d800?  I mean ones that he is proud of? 

Now you're on to something. With all due respect to those posting, the rest of the thread is information that has been rehashed time and time again.

Fred how about some recent work with your D800 ?

It would be refreshing to see you put something in a positive light.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 04, 2012, 01:41:53 AM
Wait! Wasn't the Red supposed to kill MF?
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: bcooter on December 04, 2012, 04:17:28 AM
You just knew that this thread was going to bash medium format and gosh . . . someone we know would post a long laundry list why a Nikon D800 is the best camera for chump change.

This race to the bottom is even more amazing because I'd just bet that the same people that bash the cost of equipment, probably yell the loudest over the lowering of professional rates and fees most photographers have negotiated through and around the last 4 years.

They're usually the same people that say a Hyundai is faster than a 5 year old Porsche for 1/2 the price.  That's true, but if they won the lottery tomorrow I doubt if they'd buy Hyundais.

Actually if everyone won the lottery tomorrow I doubt if Hyundai would exist.

Regardless I think in the professional world, most cameras have a place, in all formats and though the Nikon pundits constantly sing their praises I think we all should note that Nikon or any digital camera maker is not without their issues and faults.

Check the web on Nikon focus, skin tones, green lcd's, lens variations, manual focus and not everything is perfect in any format, including 35mm, regardless of megapixels.

Heck without lightroom, or C-1 the Nikon would be virtually unusable in the professional world because NIK software is at best slow at worst just complicated and dismal.

Anyway, I'm all for saving money, but I find no joy is hoping any company, especially wishing small professional camera companies lose their place in the market.

This week, we shot commerce for 5 days on a very compressed schedule and yes, due to time restraints and the creative brief I shot most of the images with NIkon and Canons, but when we could I used my Phase backs and just reviewing a few files tonight, I know the medium format files hold up better in post production.

I'm not looking at charts, or comparing frame rates but I am working real world images in a professional environment.

But as I review some of these pointed threads and posts I've come to the conclusion that none of this negativity is meant to inform anyone.  

In fact i have the opinion that the only reason for these posts is to stick a black mark in the googlesphere towards certain brands.

What a waste of time.

Just a note.  If anyone is thinking of buying and comparing don't listen to me or anyone, just test all formats of cameras yourself in as close to exact conditions you work.

I think you'll be surprised in the results.



IMO

BC
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: hjulenissen on December 04, 2012, 04:47:56 AM
They're usually the same people that say a Hyundai is faster than a 5 year old Porsche for 1/2 the price.  That's true, but if they won the lottery tomorrow I doubt if they'd buy Hyundais.

Actually if everyone won the lottery tomorrow I doubt if Hyundai would exist.
Where I live, most seem to buy a Porsche to impress younger women when they hit the mid-life crisis. For all I know, it works.

In every profession that I have had, it has not been about having the fancy, mouth-watering equipment, but no-nonsense stuff that gets the work done while still maintaining a reasonable profit. Does MF fit with this description? Fine. Is it very much about "Ferrari editions", nostalgia and wealthy amateurs wanting to stand out? Fine.

If people are able to do their job using a D800 (or iPhone, for that matter), delivering the images that their customers expect, then I assume that those people will have a competitive advantage vs people with more expensive gear.

-h
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 04, 2012, 05:27:04 AM
Of course, many did not understand what I mean. I still have the same MF. The fact is that over the last four years did not show a product that caused me to think about replacing my old equipment. So the market is counting on wealthy amateurs? Of course you can start selling mugs, umbrellas, lighters ... When it comes to museums, archives - how do you think that they exchange equipment every two years - you are very wrong. Nikon D800, of course, is not perfect - but when compared to H4D40 makes it hard to believe that it is 35mm .... MF market should be good to revise their plans. Today, times have change very quickly.
BTW
Who of you can identify which ads in Vogue were taken by Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad and PhaseOne? Film or digital? (Assuming that you are not the authors of these photos)
That's it
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: yaya on December 04, 2012, 05:36:54 AM
But as I review some of these pointed threads and posts I've come to the conclusion that none of this negativity is meant to inform anyone.  

In fact i have the opinion that the only reason for these posts is to stick a black mark in the googlesphere towards certain brands.

What a waste of time.

I think you're right and I think what these time-wasting "this Vs that" posts/ threads really do is to drive people away from the forum as they find it more difficult, time consuming and annoying to wade through and to find the more useful and interesting information, specifically in the MF section which is supposed to cover MF/LF work and gear.

From a manufacturer standpoint we come on here to help and share our knowledge and experience with both existing and potential users and to (hopefully) help them make the right decision, and not to constantly battle the same small group of agenda driven naysayers (whatever their agenda might be on the day, only they know...).

Yair
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Justinr on December 04, 2012, 05:57:59 AM


Regardless I think in the professional world, most cameras have a place, in all formats and though the Nikon pundits constantly sing their praises I think we all should note that Nikon or any digital camera maker is not without their issues and faults.

Anyway, I'm all for saving money, but I find no joy is hoping any company, especially wishing small professional camera companies lose their place in the market.

This week, we shot commerce for 5 days on a very compressed schedule and yes, due to time restraints and the creative brief I shot most of the images with NIkon and Canons, but when we could I used my Phase backs and just reviewing a few files tonight, I know the medium format files hold up better in post production.

I'm not looking at charts, or comparing frame rates but I am working real world images in a professional environment.

But as I review some of these pointed threads and posts I've come to the conclusion that none of this negativity is meant to inform anyone.  

In fact i have the opinion that the only reason for these posts is to stick a black mark in the googlesphere towards certain brands.

What a waste of time.

IMO

BC


One of the most realistic posts to have made its appearance here. Horses for courses at the end of the day but there is also the subjective joy in using a particular piece of equipment and if you are happy using it then better images will result I'm sure. All the charts, tables and diagrams cooked up by the manufacturers, their acolytes and the media is going to do little to alter that although good reviews will always reinforce satisfaction with a choice already made.

As for the Googlesphere then I do wonder at times if there is anything as bad as photography in generating such meaningless battles over brands, other than Apple/MS of course. Bikers for instance can happily accept another fellows choice of machine without whipping out vast acres of data and diagrams proving to the great court of public wisdom that a certain model is 0.562% more efficient in the first 10.7 metres of a drag away the lights than any other of a similar capacity. Life is just too short for that sort of BS and hopefully as the digital market matures we will hear less of it.

Still don't like Porsches though!  :D


 
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Justinr on December 04, 2012, 06:07:56 AM
Of course, many did not understand what I mean. I still have the same MF. The fact is that over the last four years did not show a product that caused me to think about replacing my old equipment. So the market is counting on wealthy amateurs? Of course you can start selling mugs, umbrellas, lighters ... When it comes to museums, archives - how do you think that they exchange equipment every two years - you are very wrong. Nikon D800, of course, is not perfect - but when compared to H4D40 makes it hard to believe that it is 35mm .... MF market should be good to revise their plans. Today, times have change very quickly.
BTW
Who of you can identify which ads in Vogue were taken by Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad and PhaseOne? Film or digital? (Assuming that you are not the authors of these photos)
That's it

Funny you should say that as I have felt that there is a difference between the big two in colour rendition. Canon tend to be cooler than Nikon and I would only add fuel to a fire which I don't want to get involved in by suggesting their is a 'techie' style and a more thoughtful style which is often apparent as well, so I am attaching no labels to either. 
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 04, 2012, 06:30:17 AM
I think you're right and I think what these time-wasting "this Vs that" posts/ threads really do is to drive people away from the forum as they find it more difficult, time consuming and annoying to wade through and to find the more useful and interesting information, specifically in the MF section which is supposed to cover MF/LF work and gear.

From a manufacturer standpoint we come on here to help and share our knowledge and experience with both existing and potential users and to (hopefully) help them make the right decision, and not to constantly battle the same small group of agenda driven naysayers (whatever their agenda might be on the day, only they know...).

Yair

Yair,
When we can see a new camera? For the next Photokina?
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: OliverM on December 04, 2012, 06:37:09 AM
Camera tests tend to focus on 2 objective criteria : definition and high iso performance.
Regarding these 2 points, that relate to sensor performance, dslr are closing the gap with MF or can be better.

Some remarks nevertheless :

- at the time of film, sensors were the same (velvia, provia, ...) but still the pictures were not the same with slr and MF. Not systematically obvious, but still a different look in many cases. So even if sensors become dientical in digital slr & MF, I continue to think that the look differences of the format remain. Those are more subjective and possibly more or less important upon the subject (I find major differences in portraits for example)

- high iso performance is great to have, but I choose a camera according to its best IQ potential, not upon the minimization of its defaults. The pictures that really impress me are always done in base iso with a great light (including low light on tripod).
That's just me, I can understand that it matters much more for many photography domains (wedding, street, ...). Also the subject really matters and for example some great street photographs were made with poor performing cameras.

- I still find a significant advantage for MF regarding color accuracy, nuances. On my calbrated NEC screen, I have much more pleasure looking at pictures from MF.

- When looking at pictures on the web, I often cannot tell which were made from MF or from DSLR. I am more often impressed by those made by MF, but it is mostly related to the photographer I think. Difficult also to see differences on papers.

- I prefer the use of the MF and the pleasure in using the camera does impact the results (but many photographers who use dslr do better pictures than mine).

- cost : a D800 +2 lenses is 5500 euros, a used contax 645+2 lenses + 1 used back is 7000 euros, an used alpa TC + 2 lenses + 1 used back is 10 k€. (Then there are more expensive sets in MF) ... if I had 5500 euros to invest today, I would spare 1500 more and buy the contax. Or wait a bit more and buy the ALpa. (well I have them already). I dream I will buy a P65+ or IQ160, I do not dream of a D800.

Oliver
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 04, 2012, 07:04:43 AM
Camera tests tend to focus on 2 objective criteria : definition and high iso performance.
Regarding these 2 points, that relate to sensor performance, dslr are closing the gap with MF or can be better.

Some remarks nevertheless :

- at the time of film, sensors were the same (velvia, provia, ...) but still the pictures were not the same with slr and MF. Not systematically obvious, but still a different look in many cases. So even if sensors become dientical in digital slr & MF, I continue to think that the look differences of the format remain. Those are more subjective and possibly more or less important upon the subject (I find major differences in portraits for example)

- high iso performance is great to have, but I choose a camera according to its best IQ potential, not upon the minimization of its defaults. The pictures that really impress me are always done in base iso with a great light (including low light on tripod).
That's just me, I can understand that it matters much more for many photography domains (wedding, street, ...). Also the subject really matters and for example some great street photographs were made with poor performing cameras.

- I still find a significant advantage for MF regarding color accuracy, nuances. On my calbrated NEC screen, I have much more pleasure looking at pictures from MF.

- When looking at pictures on the web, I often cannot tell which were made from MF or from DSLR. I am more often impressed by those made by MF, but it is mostly related to the photographer I think. Difficult also to see differences on papers.

- I prefer the use of the MF and the pleasure in using the camera does impact the results (but many photographers who use dslr do better pictures than mine).

- cost : a D800 +2 lenses is 5500 euros, a used contax 645+2 lenses + 1 used back is 7000 euros, an used alpa TC + 2 lenses + 1 used back is 10 k€. (Then there are more expensive sets in MF) ... if I had 5500 euros to invest today, I would spare 1500 more and buy the contax. Or wait a bit more and buy the ALpa. (well I have them already). I dream I will buy a P65+ or IQ160, I do not dream of a D800.

Oliver

The privilege of the rich. But back to the topic: I say, "I love medium format." Using gives a lot of fun. But that's not the point. At some point you wrote: I would choose a "used" medium format. And I'm talkin 'about the new equipment that the manufacturer has to sell to function. And so you have to spend min 17 000 Euro to get something that is really not much different from what you get with this unfortunate Nikon D800. For real MF you have to spend 40,000 Euro. (60 or 80 megapixel). But what in case you already have 60mpix camera for a few years? Buy a new one - because you have a new cover, a different color or just because it's the same camera but with + in the name? Just here I see stagnation. A 35 mm continues to grow - really fast.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 04, 2012, 07:34:11 AM
I think you're right and I think what these time-wasting "this Vs that" posts/ threads really do is to drive people away from the forum as they find it more difficult, time consuming and annoying to wade through and to find the more useful and interesting information, specifically in the MF section which is supposed to cover MF/LF work and gear.

From a manufacturer standpoint we come on here to help and share our knowledge and experience with both existing and potential users and to (hopefully) help them make the right decision, and not to constantly battle the same small group of agenda driven naysayers (whatever their agenda might be on the day, only they know...).

Yair

+1

I bust my butt almost daily with PMs, emails about MF gear to help folks make smart purchases on gear. This stuff does not inform anyone of anything but just causes more confusion and than I have to unwind it all and get back to giving them more informed correct guidance. There is a lot of money on the line and no one wants to see people make a bad decision for there needs. I have a lot of respect for the reps that do this daily. Sure we all know end of day they would like people to buy BUT they at least give honest answers and advice. I know many of them personally and they are really good people with a desire to help. This vs that crap does not help anyone. I see it everywhere on here and our forum and all it does is either cause serious conflicts and  turn people off with other members or just get out of even bothering to participate. I won't put up with the negative agenda myself, just a waste of time. Every format has a place in photography from a IPhone to a 11x 14 view camera. Depends on what you do with it that counts. A famous line in this business , no one cares how you got there just that you did. That will never change. I'm off to a gig
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: OliverM on December 04, 2012, 08:03:32 AM
a) ... And I'm talkin 'about the new equipment that the manufacturer has to sell to function.
b) ... that is really not much different from what you get with this unfortunate Nikon D800.
c) ... A 35 mm continues to grow - really fast.

a) I was not arguing, just giving my humble purely subjective point of view with the scenarios I can afford
b) in many objective aspects yes.
c) great ! I hope P65+ users will sell their back when a D900 offers 60 Mpix. I will buy one at a lower price then.

Again, not arguing, it is just great that we have choice, it is so great to have a large variety of photographers.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Kevin Sink on December 04, 2012, 08:29:28 AM
I think the ideal setup would be a tech cam with a IQ160 or better back, with a Nikon D800E as a backup or to use when need to shoot fast.  Best of both worlds. 

Question:  I use an ARCA Swiss Rm3di with a Phase P65, and am convinced by thousands of shots of the need for VERY precise focusing with these small pixel pitch sensors.  (I make very large prints, and focus has to be razor tight.)   To get the best out of the lenses, you need to shoot at f8 to 11, making the dof narrower and the need for precise focusing even greater.  I tested the Nikon D800E and was very impressed and would have bought one but for one reason.  I found Live View for focusing on the D800E to be sorely lacking at best, especially in dim light.  I'd be interested to hear the D800 proponents tell how they get around this when focus is critical.  Maybe I missed something obvious in the brief testing time I had with the camera.  Everything else about the camera was terrific.  When I put the camera in live view mode at max magnification, the image was so pixelated so as to be nearly useless.  Any suggestions?
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 04, 2012, 08:51:00 AM
I think the ideal setup would be a tech cam with a IQ160 or better back, with a Nikon D800E as a backup or to use when need to shoot fast.  Best of both worlds.  

Question:  I use an ARCA Swiss Rm3di with a Phase P65, and am convinced by thousands of shots of the need for VERY precise focusing with these small pixel pitch sensors.  (I make very large prints, and focus has to be razor tight.)   To get the best out of the lenses, you need to shoot at f8 to 11, making the dof narrower and the need for precise focusing even greater.  I tested the Nikon D800E and was very impressed and would have bought one but for one reason.  I found Live View for focusing on the D800E to be sorely lacking at best, especially in dim light.  I'd be interested to hear the D800 proponents tell how they get around this when focus is critical.  Maybe I missed something obvious in the brief testing time I had with the camera.  Everything else about the camera was terrific.  When I put the camera in live view mode at max magnification, the image was so pixelated so as to be nearly useless.  Any suggestions?

Go to medium magnifaction as that is 100 percent view large is 200 percent and ugly. Also Kevin go to manual mode and just drop down shutter speed to where live view brightens up more for viewing than go back for exposure. Obviously you can only take that so far but it does have decent range.

I agree tech cam and Nikon which I had and loved the combo as it did everything for me. At some point I will get back to that setup. Maybe next year
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: torger on December 04, 2012, 09:23:35 AM
In the DSLR world the best live view has not yet been combined with the best high res sensor. Canon has been strong on live view but weak on base ISO image quality, and Nikon recently strong on base ISO image quality but not as good live view.

To me personally the ideal setup would be a 50 megapixel 48x36mm back at a good price for use with my tech camera, combined with a DSLR for hand-held stuff (and I don't need many pixels for that). For tripod-based shooting of still life / landscape a tech camera is still most attractive to me. I think the back options are a bit limited though, either too much crop or low pixel count or too high end. As I've mentioned before I'd love to see someone make a "enthusiast" back out of the Dalsa FTF6080C, perhaps drop tethering function to make it "less professional" (to avoid cannibalizing on own more high end products), and price it ~$6K - which I think would be possible (basically an Aptus-II 5 with an other off-the-shelf sensor). I think there would be a lot more enthusiasts if you could get a complete (tech cam) system that felt like a solid performer for say $15K. That would have been so much cooler than seeing a Hasselblad Lunar...
Title: The end of medium format? Not so long as big sensors are made for other reasons
Post by: BJL on December 04, 2012, 10:04:19 AM
Hi,

I guess that MF will be around as long as Dalsa and Truesense are around. Perhaps we see another MF sensor manufacturer in the future?
I share this "trickle down" optimism: there will continue to be a market for sensors larger than 36x24mm for "non-artistic" uses (scientific, medical, industrial, aerial) and making versions of these sensors with CFA's and such for "artistic photography" cameras should continue to be viable. And new players might be coming --- like CMOSIS, designer of the sensor for the new Leica M. With Teledyne-Dalsa and TrueSense (neé Kodak) now working on CMOS sensors as well as CCDs, and CMOSIS designing CMOS sensors for relatively small production volumes, MF systems might even get access to some good CMOS sensors within a decade or so!
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Paul2660 on December 04, 2012, 10:06:38 AM
Kevin:

Kevin:

I agree that the live view on the D800 (and now D600) can be a bit tricky, especially if you have used Canon's implementation.  I have found that in low light it's still best to just open the lens up all the way, I realize you might get some focus shifting but I have yet to really see much.  I will always take the live view to 100% then back off three steps.  I think this gives you a 100% view.  Nikon is what you see is what you get, Canon gives you what the camera feels is the best balance, but also shows you a meter at the bottom of the screen where you can judge the real exposure.  Here I like Nikon's setup better, and when you get around what zoom setup to use, it gets much easier to use.

In low light Canon has a better noise dampening setup for sure.  With Nikon you see all the noise in low light and it makes it very hard to focus.  Canon seems to have figured out a way to buffer out this effect, which allows you to gain a much faster focus.  However once you start working with the Nikon live view it's get better.  I have found that I tend to check most of my shots via live view now.  I have tried working with the D800 at night but it's not as well suited for my style of shooting, and I really don't need that large a raw file. 

BTW I feel that Live view on the IQ cameras is much harder to work with, but it can be used.  As many have pointed out, you need a strong ND filter over the lens and or be working in waning light.  My main issue with Live View on the IQ is that to my eye it's much harder to get a good focus on distant objects as there is very little contrast on the screen.  I have used it to gain sharp focus on closer in objects, say 5 feet to 30 feet.  I am also using the rm3di. 

Paul
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: TMARK on December 04, 2012, 10:14:47 AM
The real issues with medium format are the cameras not the backs.  The new generation of backs and software produce a great file usable in any environment where you might find MF useful.  The main thing is, to me any way, the finder.  The bigger the better.  Of currently produced cameras, the H is pretty good.  The Hy6 is good.  Not sure about the Pentax, but i've heard good things.  I don't count the Leica because, in my mind anyay, it is a hopped up D3x.  Good finder, great lenses, but it really feels like a 35mm camera, and in my experience Leica service is an insulting joke.

The D800 is a good, make that great, alternative, but it is in the end a 35mm format slr camera, which is great and limiting, depending on how you work.  Because people work differently, MFDB will be around, assuming they can get sensors.  For instance, I would shoot beauty with a back, but might shoot products with a D800.  I would shoot portraits with either, depending on the brief.  Not much time with the subject or spontenaity life style stuff, I'd use a D800 or M9.  For more traditional portraits, a back would work.  I think that shooting stills along with motion could be done with the newer crop of backs as they can shoot higher ISO and the software has greatly improved since I gave up on my P30+ in 2008.  I don't shoot landscap so I can't comment on that genre.

The D800 has issues, which are solvable. The color needs tweaking, you really need LR4 (havent tried C1 7), the Live View is not intuitive. Manual focusing is hard, the viewfinder is not great, not bad either.  No product is without issues. But the potential of the camera is fantastic.  The AF, face detection, HDMI out, etc etc combined with the sensor is eye opening.  I'm still getting into it and I've had one since August.

About the race to the bottom, its one reason I left the industry.  I grew tired of the fight.  Recently, a friend who is the editor of a magazine was over for dinner.  He liked the tintypes I had up of my daughter.  He asked me to shoot tintypes of actors in modern dress who had appeared in the Lincoln movie for a feature he was writing.  I met with the photo editor and gave a budget of around $2k for expenses. I said I could shoot it on 8x10 film to save money and time, which would get the look they were after.  They said that was too much money, and asked about digital.  I said it couldn't be done with digital because of the sensor size.  They ended up using someone else who used canon tilt/shift lenses with digital effects attempting to mimic the tintype look.  The photos looked like shit but they were happy with them.  Such is life.  I'm glad I don't depend on editorial work for my living.

Once Phase gets a camera that is up to snuff, minds might change.  In the end, just use the best tool for you and the job, be it film, a D800 or a Credo 80mp back.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 04, 2012, 11:41:44 AM
Quote from: KLaban link=topic=72919.msg579515#msg579515 date=1354637393

I doubt I'm alone.

[/quote

You're not.  I could have bought a D800E, but instead I bought several film cameras.  13x18 and 4x5 Technikas, and a Fuji gx680iii.  Of course I had already the AFi-ii 12 but still the new dollars went to old stuff not new stuff. 
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 04, 2012, 12:59:27 PM
I think you're right and I think what these time-wasting "this Vs that" posts/ threads really do is to drive people away from the forum as they find it more difficult, time consuming and annoying to wade through and to find the more useful and interesting information, specifically in the MF section which is supposed to cover MF/LF work and gear.

Yair

1487 views in one day would indicate a lot of interest.

I think that people look for comparisons. Just look at any field... cars, motorbikes, kites for kitesurfing. This vs that is part of the decision making process.
With photography the image speaks clearly. Putting the images side by side makes it a lot easier to make a choice. Functionality is harder to grasp and that is where
the opinion of others helps.

There is a strong presence of dealers and manufacturers reps on this forum that want to and need to make sales. The discussion has a balancing effect.
Experienced photographer compared to dealers and manufacture reps that have a strong monetary interest to promote their product.
Please not that I said compared, non vs.

One thing I have learnt in the business of photography is that it has been far more fruitful to listen carefully to  the art directors that have been critical
of my work and portfolio than wade in the (still much appreciated) praise of others.

When I buy something I look around and go head first for what inspires me or what I desire. In today's world what you tend to fall for has more to
do with marketing, image and constructed reputation. Once I'm all pumped up about what I want I then become my own devil's advocate and
it becomes about why I should not buy it. I go from want to ... do I need it... is there something as good... maybe better... how will this impact getting other things I need.

I also think that it is of great relevance that other formats be discussed in conjunction with MF if the images that these format produce are
of a quality that puts them in the league of even just some of the current MF offerings.

The final product is not the camera (unless you are an equipment collector) it's the image. The starting point should be there. I think that the this vs that
on this forum along with high res downloads does this very well.

This is a Discussion Forum. But it is also simply text. It's not loud, it does not interrupt one's dinner. No one has to read anything.

While you say this turns people away the number show the opposite.

Phase One High Speed flash sync. 1/1600                             3074 reads.
Phase One Schneider lenses (origin)                                     1223 reads despite being closed within a day
Nikon D800E v.s Hasselblad H4D40: my in-studio test-review    6498 reads
About the Phase One / Hasselblad focusing                           2287 reads
People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format      13628 reads

(I only started 2 of those threads... so the credit is not mine  ;) ) 
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Sheldon N on December 04, 2012, 01:10:33 PM
1487 views in one day would indicate a lot of interest.


And lots of people turn and look at auto accidents when driving by, because they want to see the carnage.

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: gerald.d on December 04, 2012, 01:58:14 PM
And lots of people turn and look at auto accidents when driving by, because they want to see the carnage.



And then you get those who stop their car by the side of the road,  grab a pen and paper, walk over to the crash site, and leave a note on one of the windscreens admonishing the driver.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 04, 2012, 02:24:42 PM
Hi,

In the film days I was shooting both MF and 135. I often made a 135 trip and an MF trip to the same place. One day in France I run out of 135 film, but still had 120 with me, so I was using the MF camera to shoot 135 stuff. The results were 135 like.

Best regards
Erik


Camera tests tend to focus on 2 objective criteria : definition and high iso performance.
Regarding these 2 points, that relate to sensor performance, dslr are closing the gap with MF or can be better.

Some remarks nevertheless :

- at the time of film, sensors were the same (velvia, provia, ...) but still the pictures were not the same with slr and MF. Not systematically obvious, but still a different look in many cases. So even if sensors become dientical in digital slr & MF, I continue to think that the look differences of the format remain. Those are more subjective and possibly more or less important upon the subject (I find major differences in portraits for example)

- high iso performance is great to have, but I choose a camera according to its best IQ potential, not upon the minimization of its defaults. The pictures that really impress me are always done in base iso with a great light (including low light on tripod).
That's just me, I can understand that it matters much more for many photography domains (wedding, street, ...). Also the subject really matters and for example some great street photographs were made with poor performing cameras.

- I still find a significant advantage for MF regarding color accuracy, nuances. On my calbrated NEC screen, I have much more pleasure looking at pictures from MF.

- When looking at pictures on the web, I often cannot tell which were made from MF or from DSLR. I am more often impressed by those made by MF, but it is mostly related to the photographer I think. Difficult also to see differences on papers.

- I prefer the use of the MF and the pleasure in using the camera does impact the results (but many photographers who use dslr do better pictures than mine).

- cost : a D800 +2 lenses is 5500 euros, a used contax 645+2 lenses + 1 used back is 7000 euros, an used alpa TC + 2 lenses + 1 used back is 10 k€. (Then there are more expensive sets in MF) ... if I had 5500 euros to invest today, I would spare 1500 more and buy the contax. Or wait a bit more and buy the ALpa. (well I have them already). I dream I will buy a P65+ or IQ160, I do not dream of a D800.

Oliver
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: bcooter on December 04, 2012, 02:44:27 PM
The camera doesn't make the photographer.

We all know that.

Then again professional equipment can and will enhance your business and art.

I know the world has changed . . . I know that people want more for less in all spectrums of society, but turning a healthy profit for yourself and clients is not a dirty word.

I personally want my suppliers to have success because if they don't they won't be around. 

Throughout my career we've invested in our business.  Studios, vehicles, equipment.  For a lot of years I had a simple rule that when I produce a large project I would buy something substantial, something that would last.

In a way it was my rainy day fund and when I look at the equipment I own, my medium format backs have lasted longer than anything I use, except some lighting and grip.

What this allowed me to do when budgets contracted I could use the equipment I preferred without having to toss profit to a rental house.

Sure the Nikon is close to medium format in spec, but then again when I bought my backs, there was no 30 mpx 35mm cameras and even today when tethering 35mm hits the buffer, my phase backs don't, 35mm has very limited software suites, my phase backs have robust professional suites and are more viable today than they were when I bought them.

Does that mean everyone should buy a medium format back?  No.  But does that mean that medium format is obsolete.  No.

I do know that commercial clients expect professional equipment.  They might not know a profoto from a Alien Bee, but they do know if the photographer is well equipped enough to produce their project.

They know when lights stop working, or something stops the project.

They know when a camera loses connection in tethering, when a file isn't large enough or deep enough to work in post with options, when skin tones look bright orange instead of beautiful brown.

Lately we get a lot of projects that have the "real" word as the driver of the creative brief.  I always ask a client to send me a visual reference of what they consider "real" and every time its a heavily produced image with a lot of post production.

It may look "real" in their view, but knowing what it takes to produce a comprehensive project, I know that it takes  real professional equipment and crew. 

It's a cute idea to think that real is instigram and that will do, but that is rarely the case. 

When I mentioned the race to the bottom, it's not about quality or effort.  It's just about price.  As I said everyone wants to pay less, but I've yet to meet a client that wants less effort or investment from our studios regardless of price.

That's why we invested long ago and continue to.

What is completely left off of these discussions is what equipment I use for professional work.  I find it interesting that when I go through the portfolio we present, 40%  is shot with CCD based cameras, mostly medium format, though in the broader scheme, probably 80% of what we shoot is done with 35mm.

What I also find interesting that when we shoot something for ourselves, or for editorial (which is really for ourself), we rarely use a 35mm dslr.   

Personal work is the most important thing we do, because this is the work that eventually gets us booked.

Now I'm not married to any camera or equipment and if I need a D800 I'll buy one in a moment, but so far I don't because I invested a long time ago.

But when it comes to investment all I can go from is the past.  In the time I've owned my Phase backs, I've also owned three sets of Nikons and two sets of Canons.

That doesn't mean any of these cameras or bad or not useful, but for me (and I only speak for me) the digital backs have had a much longer life span.

But as I keep saying, don't take my word for it, try everything yourself and look at the world in worst case scenario.

I own Nikons(3), Lecia(1), Canons(3), REDs(3) and a Sony handicam (1) and I can promise that when issues arise (and issues always arise) my Phase dealer gives me information anytime of day or night.  When I previously owned a Leaf I could reach them direct anytime, from any time zone. 

The others don't.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on December 04, 2012, 02:55:18 PM
I'd prefer a product that doesn't need great customer service but still has CPS 3 day turn around and a huge internet information base to a product that has great dealers but boy do you need them. Our Phase One DF and Leaf Back have required more returns to base and/or dealer support in 6 months than my Canon 5Dc's needed in 7 hard years of commercial and wedding photography. I've never had a DSLR crash on me mid shoot, wish I could say the same for the MFDB gear...
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 04, 2012, 03:48:57 PM
I'd prefer a product that doesn't need great customer service but still has CPS 3 day turn around and a huge internet information base to a product that has great dealers but boy do you need them. Our Phase One DF and Leaf Back have required more returns to base and/or dealer support in 6 months than my Canon 5Dc's needed in 7 hard years of commercial and wedding photography. I've never had a DSLR crash on me mid shoot, wish I could say the same for the MFDB gear...

That was my tipping point. Taking the camera apart, removing the battery to reboot the camera in front of the client one to many times.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 04, 2012, 05:28:30 PM
That was my tipping point. Taking the camera apart, removing the battery to reboot the camera in front of the client one to many times.

I guess you don't shoot tethered with your DSLR? 
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 04, 2012, 05:48:59 PM
I guess you don't shoot tethered with your DSLR? 

What problems are you having and with what software?
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Paul Ozzello on December 04, 2012, 05:51:02 PM
Hi,

In the film days I was shooting both MF and 135. I often made a 135 trip and an MF trip to the same place. One day in France I run out of 135 film, but still had 120 with me, so I was using the MF camera to shoot 135 stuff. The results were 135 like.

Best regards
Erik


I can't speak for medium format digital but in the film days there was no comparison between the two, medium format film blows away 135 every time in terms of IQ.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 04, 2012, 08:51:57 PM
What problems are you having and with what software?

Ah, well you have answered my question on if you shoot tethered with DSLR or not.   ;)    Cause you'd know if you did.     
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 04, 2012, 09:11:05 PM
Hi BC,

There might be a problem for MF. As you point out MF can be a good investment, because the stuff lasts for ever. You also say that resolution does not really matter.

If MF equipment has a very long lifetime, it may mean that the market would shrink, if existing customers don't upgrade. That may be one of the reasons that Phase and perhaps also Hasselblad work on aerial photography, finding new markets.

Best regards
Erik

The camera doesn't make the photographer.

We all know that.

Then again professional equipment can and will enhance your business and art.

I know the world has changed . . . I know that people want more for less in all spectrums of society, but turning a healthy profit for yourself and clients is not a dirty word.

I personally want my suppliers to have success because if they don't they won't be around. 

Throughout my career we've invested in our business.  Studios, vehicles, equipment.  For a lot of years I had a simple rule that when I produce a large project I would buy something substantial, something that would last.

In a way it was my rainy day fund and when I look at the equipment I own, my medium format backs have lasted longer than anything I use, except some lighting and grip.

What this allowed me to do when budgets contracted I could use the equipment I preferred without having to toss profit to a rental house.

Sure the Nikon is close to medium format in spec, but then again when I bought my backs, there was no 30 mpx 35mm cameras and even today when tethering 35mm hits the buffer, my phase backs don't, 35mm has very limited software suites, my phase backs have robust professional suites and are more viable today than they were when I bought them.

Does that mean everyone should buy a medium format back?  No.  But does that mean that medium format is obsolete.  No.

I do know that commercial clients expect professional equipment.  They might not know a profoto from a Alien Bee, but they do know if the photographer is well equipped enough to produce their project.

They know when lights stop working, or something stops the project.

They know when a camera loses connection in tethering, when a file isn't large enough or deep enough to work in post with options, when skin tones look bright orange instead of beautiful brown.

Lately we get a lot of projects that have the "real" word as the driver of the creative brief.  I always ask a client to send me a visual reference of what they consider "real" and every time its a heavily produced image with a lot of post production.

It may look "real" in their view, but knowing what it takes to produce a comprehensive project, I know that it takes  real professional equipment and crew. 

It's a cute idea to think that real is instigram and that will do, but that is rarely the case. 

When I mentioned the race to the bottom, it's not about quality or effort.  It's just about price.  As I said everyone wants to pay less, but I've yet to meet a client that wants less effort or investment from our studios regardless of price.

That's why we invested long ago and continue to.

What is completely left off of these discussions is what equipment I use for professional work.  I find it interesting that when I go through the portfolio we present, 40%  is shot with CCD based cameras, mostly medium format, though in the broader scheme, probably 80% of what we shoot is done with 35mm.

What I also find interesting that when we shoot something for ourselves, or for editorial (which is really for ourself), we rarely use a 35mm dslr.   

Personal work is the most important thing we do, because this is the work that eventually gets us booked.

Now I'm not married to any camera or equipment and if I need a D800 I'll buy one in a moment, but so far I don't because I invested a long time ago.

But when it comes to investment all I can go from is the past.  In the time I've owned my Phase backs, I've also owned three sets of Nikons and two sets of Canons.

That doesn't mean any of these cameras or bad or not useful, but for me (and I only speak for me) the digital backs have had a much longer life span.

But as I keep saying, don't take my word for it, try everything yourself and look at the world in worst case scenario.

I own Nikons(3), Lecia(1), Canons(3), REDs(3) and a Sony handicam (1) and I can promise that when issues arise (and issues always arise) my Phase dealer gives me information anytime of day or night.  When I previously owned a Leaf I could reach them direct anytime, from any time zone. 

The others don't.

IMO

BC

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: bcooter on December 04, 2012, 09:29:09 PM
I'd prefer a product that doesn't need great customer service but still has CPS 3 day turn around and......snip


I agree, though my experience with the C brand is we've blown 3 or 4 shutters, 1 sensor replaced and the corrupt file issue with the mk2.

Then again , I still use Canon as they make a fine product, so does Nikon, so does Phase, Leaf and a lot of other brands.

When I look at Simon's work with the D800 it looks great and since he's talented and professional it should, but . . .

Once again, I don't think buying a camera is always an either or proposition, at least not for my work and though I'd love to find the perfect camera, I haven't yet.

Maybe a camera that autofocuses as well as a D3, the skin tones of an H4d and 1ds Mk1, the software of Phase, the D3 lcd, the Leaf interface, the p series phase reliability, The lcd stays on while tethering like the Canons and Phase,  the ability to shoot a raw 4k video file like the RED, the Leaf shutter sync of the H series and certain Phase lenses, the . . .

IMO

BC
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 04, 2012, 09:57:04 PM
Hi,

If you shoot Velvia on both yes, but if you shoot Tri-X on 120 and T-MAX on 135 that may be a different case. With 120 you need to stop down two steps more for same DoF. In general I found handling of DoF a major issue with 120. I was mostly shooting 120 on film for a long time, but I used it on tripod mostly.

Regarding MF digital vs. 135 digital it is a slightly different case. Obviously MF has a format advantage and can produce higher resolution images. On the other hand, modern CMOS sensors are very good at keeping noise down. It also seems that for many purpose 12MP - 40MP is quite good enough, and it seems that very good image quality can be achieved on DSLRs (like the D800/D800E) with carefully chosen lenses.

I have written a bit around the issue here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts

A interesting response to that article was:

"Moving to the MF article, I mostly agree, especially about bit-depth and colour rendition. But on the issue of detail in re-sampled files I am less convinced: myself and quite a few people I know who have gone from IQ180 or IQ160 or P65+ but who rarely print over 24 x 36 have largely not looked back: we get easily enough resolution and, correctly captured and processed, the D800E files give us such a high degree of the MF 'feel' (excepting focus falloff characteristics) that we are happy with the transition. My IQ180 is at my dealer pending sale, so I can't run my own comparison, but in print at up to 24" on the long side, I think it would be pretty hard to tell the difference without a loupe and up to 36" hard at 'normal' viewing distance. For me, the extra DR is worth a lot more than the resolution advantage…."


Best regards
Erik

I can't speak for medium format digital but in the film days there was no comparison between the two, medium format film blows away 135 every time in terms of IQ.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: HarperPhotos on December 04, 2012, 10:52:28 PM
Hi James,

Thanks for the complement you made this Maori boy blush.

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 05, 2012, 12:36:13 AM
Hi,

No reasons to blush;-) Keep up with the good postings, please!

Best regards
Erik

Hi James,

Thanks for the complement you made this Maori boy blush.

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on December 05, 2012, 02:48:41 AM
Ah, well you have answered my question on if you shoot tethered with DSLR or not.   ;)    Cause you'd know if you did.     


Funny that, we've had non stop problems with tethering our Leaf back to C1. That is what causes all the crashes. We have the firewire card Leaf recommend, their powered FW repeater, we still have to reboot the back and camera once every 200 frames or so. I found the tethering of a 5D with a powered USB extension to be pretty solid. Shot for 3 hours that way yesterday to a netbook (!), didn't fail once.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: bcooter on December 05, 2012, 03:44:44 AM
Simon, my pleasure, but your work speaks for itself.

You cross a lot of territory and genres and do it all very well.

I love to see your success.

BC
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 05, 2012, 10:04:11 AM
In my opinion, I think there would be a nice sized market for a company to produce backs made with cheaper and easier to make CMOS sensors.  With how close CMOS has come to CCD, I doubt many would be upset with the IQ.  One could probably make a back with a CMOS sensor for half the price.  And I am sure this would help out companies like Arca, Alpa, Rollei, etc sale more cameras and be better capitalized. 
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 05, 2012, 11:14:44 AM
Hi,

CMOS sensors have better image quality than CCD but they are more expensive to make. The purported advantages of CCDs is one of the myths lingering around.

Color is not dependent on circuit design. The chips are actually B&W the color is added by a grid in front of the sensor called CGA (Color Grid Array).

The best CMOS sensors today have about one fourth of the readout noise of the Dalsa chip used in the IQ180.

MF sensor have the advantage of size. It is also possible that MF-sensors have better CGA design than other sensors, but it has nothing to do with CCD vs. CMOS.

Best regards
Erik
In my opinion, I think there would be a nice sized market for a company to produce backs made with cheaper and easier to make CMOS sensors.  With how close CMOS has come to CCD, I doubt many would be upset with the IQ.  One could probably make a back with a CMOS sensor for half the price.  And I am sure this would help out companies like Arca, Alpa, Rollei, etc sale more cameras and be better capitalized. 
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 05, 2012, 11:56:41 AM
I was always under the impression that CCDs are much more difficult to make with more waste than a CMOS.  This could be wrong info.  But in any case, due to the much larger production of CMOS sensors worldwide, I would think it would be cheaper to contract the making of a 645 CMOS.  

For CCDs, there are only two players, Dalsa and Kodak.  For CMOS, we have Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc.  Any of those players have a higher output than Dalsa.  Also, with more companies, this could lead to more competitiveness for who gets the contract, helping to lower price.  

In any event, I still would like to see a CMOS 645 back.  With all factors combined, I think this would be cheaper, thus furthering the use and availability of MF.  It just seems that the current model is precluding entry into this market until you are an established higher end photographer.  By than, most younger shooters will already be dedicated to a system and reluctant to change.  Also, having it cheaper would increase use by schools, making the teaching of technical cameras more applicable; now it seems to be "here is a film tech camera that you will never use professional and you will probably never be able to afford the digital version, so why bother to really learn how to use the thing."  

I mean in the film days we had options.  Not everyone could afford a Linhof, so Toyo View was a the way to go, espicially when starting out.  Not it's $40K+, take it or leave it. 


Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 05, 2012, 11:58:31 AM
Funny that, we've had non stop problems with tethering our Leaf back to C1. That is what causes all the crashes. We have the firewire card Leaf recommend, their powered FW repeater, we still have to reboot the back and camera once every 200 frames or so. I found the tethering of a 5D with a powered USB extension to be pretty solid. Shot for 3 hours that way yesterday to a netbook (!), didn't fail once.

Yes Ben, the point I am making is that all the cameras have issues.  My experience has been largely the opposite.  I have more issues with the DSLR.  I think its noteworthy that not everyone's experience is the same.  
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Doug Peterson on December 05, 2012, 01:06:28 PM
If I had a few hours I'd go through the archives here and pull up every time someone has predicted the death of MF. If you lived in the world of the forums you'd have thought MF died when the Canon 1D was released, then when the 1Ds II was released, then when the 5D2 was released, then when the D800 was released.

Funny thing: each of those cameras were released and people keep buying medium format. It's been a great year for us.

I think what most people don't get is the numbers. If MF doesn't make sense for you, that doesn't mean MF will die. MF was always a minority in the global camera market and MF has been certifiably a niche market for nearly a decade. It doesn't need 10%, or even 1% of "photographers" - it needs a sliver of the market.

This aside from the government/institutional/scientific/industrial applications which are small in the global-camera-market sense but huge markets for medium format.

Plus in addition to the image quality benefits there are many technical, aesthetic, personal, ergonomic, and emotional reasons to buy a MF system:

- large and bright viewfinder***
- touch screen interface (some bodies); hard to find a system you can check 100% focus on faster on a specific part of the image than an IQ or Credo
- tools like auto-horizon and auto-keystone which correct the level and pitch of the image in software based on the electronic levels in the back, making every horizon straight and every vertical parallel without manual tweaking
- Flash sync speed with standard strobes rather than dinky flashes (up to 1/1600th)
- 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 vertical without rotating camera (some backs)
- low ISO without ND filters (useful for dragging shutter in some styles)
- ability to shoot film with same system as digital (some bodies)
- ability to turn sensor on/off independent of the shutter/flash firing (allows to build up exposure with strobes without excessive ambient light, even in bright conditions e.g. interiors)
- ability to crop a vertical and horizontal from the same frame (even 36mp in 3:2 is not enough for many applications when cropped to a vertical)
- ability to use on specific legacy cameras (some folks just plain love Contax, Hassy 500)
- ability to use on speciality equipment like Aerial, industrial, art-repro systems (obviously a niche)
- ability to use on tech cameras like Arca, Cambo, Alpa
---- rise/fall/shift/swing/tilt on every lens (if IC allows)
---- fully mechanical/traditional shooting
---- extremely precise focusing for specific distances (some bodies)
---- extremely precise focusing for hyperfocal distances (some bodies)
---- absolute best glass, period
---- ground glass (some prefer it regardless of other options)
---- small/light pack size for a body and several lenses (depending on which body and lenses of course)
- compatibility with view cameras
---- close focus possible with many lenses, not just select macros
---- rise/fall/shift/swing/tilt on every lens, not just select TS lenses
---- ground glass (some prefer it regardless of other options)
- less frequent updates required to stay competitive in image quality (we still have many happy studio shooters using H25 backs users, which at base ISO and in the studio easily beats a 5D Mark 3 which is many generations newer; I 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; an IQ or Credo can maintain it's frame-rate indefinitely with a fast CF card, any Canon/Nikon can shoot much faster but unless you restrain yourself you can easily hit a buffer and the camera won't fire when you think it should. The IQ or Credo 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 D800, even with the optional vertical grip)
- differentiation: like it or not, fair or not, some (both pros and enthusiasts) will want to have a camera that Uncle Bob does not own, and that Art Director John doesn't use as their point and shoot.
- longevity/durability: some backs are built like tanks and have no moving parts. Anything can break, but the number of field-failures on a P1 back are very low.
- interesting lens selections with unique looks (e.g. Mamiya 80mm /1.9, Zeiss FE 110/2)

*As opposed to e.g. the Canon 85/1.2 with fly-by-wire focusing and a dinky focus barrel
**This is not just a question of cost since of course the 1D owner could have updated to a 1DsII and a 1DsIII and spent about the same; some photographers just dislike the hassle of switching cameras - new batteries, new chargers, new cables, new settings, new button locations, new software, new look (forcing them in some cases to expend time/energy getting the new camera to produce the look of the old camera). Some photographers love getting new gear, some despise it.
***I never understood why this isn't mentioned/discussed more often; you have to look through the viewfinder for nearly every frame you take - it's your portal to the world you are capturing.

The thread is titled "the end of medium format?". My answer is no.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 05, 2012, 01:33:50 PM
I
The thread is titled "the end of medium format?". My answer is no.

Doug,
First of all, this is the title of the article that I'm not the author.
I also wrote quite clearly that this is not the end. But that 35mm got really good progress.

We look forward to a new camera and get a + in the name. Not so are the expectations.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 05, 2012, 01:55:51 PM
I think what most people don't get is the numbers. If MF doesn't make sense for you, that doesn't mean MF will die. MF was always a minority in the global camera market and MF has been certifiably a niche market for nearly a decade. It doesn't need 10%, or even 1% of "photographers" - it needs a sliver of the market.

But things are not going well at all. profits are not high enough for development costs and as a result there is very little improvement in the MFD field.
Adding 80mp to a system when it already had 60mp really makes little difference when it's on the same crappy body.

DF becomes the DF+...... slightly better focus and focus calibration.

New Hasselbad.... better eyecup and jpeg..... True focus II (slight improvement).

Hasselblad has not been profitable for quite some time hence the move by the new owners Ventiz Capital to try and leverage the brand name
with the crazy Lunar project.

Phase One on the other hand is a bit more grounded.

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 05, 2012, 02:05:08 PM
But things are not going well at all. profits are not high enough for development costs and as a result there is very little improvement in the MFD field.
Adding 80mp to a system when it already had 60mp really makes little difference when it's on the same crappy body.

DF becomes the DF+...... slightly better focus and focus calibration.

New Hasselbad.... better eyecup and jpeg..... True focus II (slight improvement).

Hasselblad has not been profitable for quite some time hence the move by the new owners Ventiz Capital to try and leverage the brand name
with the crazy Lunar project.

Phase One on the other hand is a bit more grounded.



+1
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Nick-T on December 05, 2012, 02:15:55 PM
+1

Nice to see the embittered ex Hasselblad dealer and the embittered ex medium format shooter in agreement :)

Now where's me D800...
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Doug Peterson on December 05, 2012, 03:15:32 PM
But things are not going well at all. profits are not high enough for development costs and as a result there is very little improvement in the MFD field.
Adding 80mp to a system when it already had 60mp really makes little difference when it's on the same crappy body.

DF becomes the DF+...... slightly better focus and focus calibration.

New Hasselbad.... better eyecup and jpeg..... True focus II (slight improvement).

Hasselblad has not been profitable for quite some time hence the move by the new owners Ventiz Capital to try and leverage the brand name
with the crazy Lunar project.

Phase One on the other hand is a bit more grounded.

To look at the IQ/Credo compared to every other digital back...
To look at the IQ/Credo interface compared to the interface on any Canon/Nikon...
To look at an image from an IQ180 or Credo 80 and compare it to any other digital camera...
...and to conclude that there has been not R+D and no progress in MFD; that is just silly.

Regarding the body: DF+ is a nice incremental improvement. Nothing revolutionary. Then again can you tell me the huge improvements to the body element of the 5D3 over the 5D2? I think it's clear from the IQ and Credo that Team Phase One has some great R+D. Just because every R+D project isn't completed today doesn't meant they aren't being worked on aggressively.

Anyway, don't know why I bother responding to you. Your only purpose on this forum is to find ways to cast medium format digital in a negative light.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 05, 2012, 03:33:30 PM
Hi,

More on CMOS vs CCD.

CCD-s are very simple devices. The charge from each sensor pixel is shifted out each pixel at a time. CMOS designs are much more complex. For each pixel there are a few gates and there are signal busses. Those components take up some surface, reducing the active are of the chip. CMOS designs normally have microlenses focusing light on the light collecting part of the chip.

Most logic circuitry is CMOS. A CMOS process can implement some logic on the chip itself. The Sony Exmoor design used  Nikon D800 and Pentax K5 (among others) has an ADC (Analog Digital Converter) on chip for each column of pixels. That makes signal paths shorter and makes off chip pre amps and external ADCs unnecessary. So the chip will be more expensive, as manufacturing probably requires more steps and much higher precision, but much more of the functionality is on the chip.

An MF back with CMOS would move much of the electronics from the back on the chip. It would probably offer about two extra steps of dynamic range. Would it be cheaper? That depends on numbers.

By the way, Nikon does not produce their own sensors, just doing design. Production is by Renesas as far as I know. The new sensor for the Leica M is designed by CMOSIS but fabbed by STMicroelectronics. Sony has it's own fabs.

Best regards
Erik

I was always under the impression that CCDs are much more difficult to make with more waste than a CMOS.  This could be wrong info.  But in any case, due to the much larger production of CMOS sensors worldwide, I would think it would be cheaper to contract the making of a 645 CMOS.  

For CCDs, there are only two players, Dalsa and Kodak.  For CMOS, we have Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc.  Any of those players have a higher output than Dalsa.  Also, with more companies, this could lead to more competitiveness for who gets the contract, helping to lower price.  

In any event, I still would like to see a CMOS 645 back.  With all factors combined, I think this would be cheaper, thus furthering the use and availability of MF.  It just seems that the current model is precluding entry into this market until you are an established higher end photographer.  By than, most younger shooters will already be dedicated to a system and reluctant to change.  Also, having it cheaper would increase use by schools, making the teaching of technical cameras more applicable; now it seems to be "here is a film tech camera that you will never use professional and you will probably never be able to afford the digital version, so why bother to really learn how to use the thing."  

I mean in the film days we had options.  Not everyone could afford a Linhof, so Toyo View was a the way to go, espicially when starting out.  Not it's $40K+, take it or leave it. 



Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Ed Foster, Jr. on December 05, 2012, 03:48:58 PM
It would be great to see this section of the forum return to positive discussions regarding medium format rather constant “mine is better than yours” posts hijackings that are full of negativity and a showcase for constant reposting of the same images over and over. Earlier this year, FredBGG (using his real name) gushed over medium format and belittled DSLRs and Nikon’s D800 claims on another forum:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=823993 (http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=823993)

I cannot help but wonder how many people who read his comments on Model Mayhem opted for MFD because of the rantings of a self proclaimed star and mentor?

C’mon, Fred, give forum members a little credit for being intelligent enough to read, research and make our own decisions on the equipment we choose to employ. I really don’t believe we need a “savior” here.

A big thank you to guys like Doug, Yair, BC, Erik, Keith, Eric, Guy and so many others who put the information out that truly informs and helps.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 05, 2012, 03:59:35 PM
Hi,

Evolution: Makes you spend more money on upgrades.
Revolution: Make you spend a lot of more money switching systems.

Best regards
Erik


To look at the IQ/Credo compared to every other digital back...
To look at the IQ/Credo interface compared to the interface on any Canon/Nikon...
To look at an image from an IQ180 or Credo 80 and compare it to any other digital camera...
...and to conclude that there has been not R+D and no progress in MFD; that is just silly.

Regarding the body: DF+ is a nice incremental improvement. Nothing revolutionary. Then again can you tell me the huge improvements to the body element of the 5D3 over the 5D2? I think it's clear from the IQ and Credo that Team Phase One has some great R+D. Just because every R+D project isn't completed today doesn't meant they aren't being worked on aggressively.

Anyway, don't know why I bother responding to you. Your only purpose on this forum is to find ways to cast medium format digital in a negative light.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 05, 2012, 05:34:58 PM
If someone does not agree with someone that is no reason to be rude.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 05, 2012, 05:37:50 PM
It would be great to see this section of the forum return to positive discussions regarding medium format rather constant “mine is better than yours” posts hijackings that are full of negativity and a showcase for constant reposting of the same images over and over. Earlier this year, FredBGG (using his real name) gushed over medium format and belittled DSLRs and Nikon’s D800 claims on another forum:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=823993 (http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=823993)

I cannot help but wonder how many people who read his comments on Model Mayhem opted for MFD because of the rantings of a self proclaimed star and mentor?

C’mon, Fred, give forum members a little credit for being intelligent enough to read, research and make our own decisions on the equipment we choose to employ. I really don’t believe we need a “savior” here.

A big thank you to guys like Doug, Yair, BC, Erik, Keith, Eric, Guy and so many others who put the information out that truly informs and helps.

Wow you certainly did some digging!
However if you look at the date the D800 was not shipping or had just started to. My post was based on the official sample images.
That were really quite bad (technically). Here is one of the first images.

(http://www.nikon-image.com/products/camera/slr/digital/d800/img/sample01/pic04.jpg)
Flat greyish skin tones, kind of flat darks in the hair. Harly what one would expect to be compared to MFD.
However it turns out that the shot was technically crap... just look at the levels.....
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8488/8248645894_28bd30a8b7_b.jpg)


Right after I received some good files from a friend that had received one of the early D800 cameras I posted what I saw.
But thanks for posting the link. It clearly demonstrates that I did not start out with a negative view of medium format digital. ;) ;)


This thread is clearly a discussion of comparison between the formats as the premise is an extensive article comparing the formats.
And I give forum member and above all non forum members, but visitors credit... if they are reading they are doing their research.
I also think that the opinion of photographers is as valid as that of dealers that clearly need to sell product.  
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: tho_mas on December 05, 2012, 05:42:18 PM
But things are not going well at all. profits are not high enough for development costs and as a result there is very little improvement in the MFD field.
Adding 80mp to a system when it already had 60mp really makes little difference when it's on the same crappy body.

DF becomes the DF+...... slightly better focus and focus calibration.

New Hasselbad.... better eyecup and jpeg..... True focus II (slight improvement).

Hasselblad has not been profitable for quite some time hence the move by the new owners Ventiz Capital to try and leverage the brand name
with the crazy Lunar project.

Phase One on the other hand is a bit more grounded.
small companies can only make small progress. There's no way around.
It seems to me that small progress is not enough for you.
Now, if we all agree to that point of view we all will end up with Adobe software and Canon and/or Nikon cameras.
No, thanks!! I applaud every little company that makes special ("specialized" that is) equipment ... because they give us a CHOICE!
If Adobe and Canon/Nikon would be the only choice, I'd go back to film ... seriously. Fortunately I don't have to because I (still) have a choice ...

Mc Donald's is not everyones taste ...

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 05, 2012, 06:17:17 PM
small companies can only make small progress. There's no way around.
It seems to me that small progress is not enough for you.
Now, if we all agree to that point of view we all will end up with Adobe software and Canon and/or Nikon cameras.
No, thanks!! I applaud every little company that makes special ("specialized" that is) equipment ... because they give us a CHOICE!
If Adobe and Canon/Nikon would be the only choice, I'd go back to film ... seriously. Fortunately I don't have to because I (still) have a choice ...

Mc Donald's is not everyones taste ...


You make it sound as if without MFD the only thing left is Nikon and Canon??????

You missed quite a few very interesting and highly diverse players.

Sony, Pentax, Leica, Olympus, Fuji, Sigma, carl zeiss, Schneider and many more.

There are also plenty of other raw converters out there.

I also think that most would agree that every camera maker on the planet has nothing to do with the crap McDonald's peddles.

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: tho_mas on December 05, 2012, 06:28:52 PM
You make it sound as if without MFD the only thing left is Nikon and Canon??????

You missed quite a few very interesting and highly diverse players.

Sony, Pentax, Leica, Olympus, Fuji, Sigma, carl zeiss, Schneider and many more.

There are also plenty of other raw converters out there.

I also think that most would agree that every camera maker on the planet has nothing to do with the crap McDonald's peddles.


of course my post was an intensification.
Still ... MFD companies are very, very small companies producing highly specialized equipment in very low numbers (unlike all the other companies you've listed).
You don't have to use their offers. But that doesn't mean their offers do not have a place.

Title: The end of medium format? Modern CMOS is neither less expensive nor "cheaper"
Post by: BJL on December 05, 2012, 06:49:05 PM
In my opinion, I think there would be a nice sized market for a company to produce backs made with cheaper and easier to make CMOS sensors.  With how close CMOS has come to CCD, I doubt many would be upset with the IQ.  
There are two out-dated views of CMOS vs CCD there: lower cost and lower quality, or being "cheap" in both senses of the word. Early CMOS sensors were of lower quality due to worse noise, but technical progress has completely reversed the story on noise and on IQ in general. There is perhaps a cost advantage for very small and cheap "camera on a chip" CMOS devices for cell phones and such, where a single IC contains sensor, ADC, etc., whereas a CCD needs a couple of additional support chips. But there has never been any sign of a cost advantage in larger sensors.

If anything, the opposite seemed true at one stage: as Nikon and Sony transitioned from CCD to CMOS, the models with CMOS were the better and more expensive ones, while CCDs hung around for a while longer in the cheaper models with lower overall IQ.

And Leica's recent move from CCD to CMOS for the new Leica M camera should be the final evidence that switching to CMOS does not involve any sacrifice in IQ.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 05, 2012, 06:56:16 PM
Nice to see the embittered ex Hasselblad dealer and the embittered ex medium format shooter in agreement :)

Now where's me D800...

Nick you want the E version. LOL

Just wanted to make sure you wanted the right one otherwise the wrong one would suck and you would really hate it and than turn on Nikon. Just want to make sure that dont happen bud. God forbid
Title: Re: The end of medium format? Modern CMOS is neither less expensive nor "cheaper"
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 05, 2012, 07:21:16 PM
There are two out-dated views of CMOS vs CCD there: lower cost and lower quality, or being "cheap" in both senses of the word. Early CMOS sensors were of lower quality due to worse noise, but technical progress has completely reversed the story on noise and on IQ in general. There is perhaps a cost advantage for very small and cheap "camera on a chip" CMOS devices for cell phones and such, where a single IC contains sensor, ADC, etc., whereas a CCD neds a coiple of additional support chips. But there has never been any sign of a cost advantage in larger sensors.

If anything, the opposite seemed true at one stage: as Nikon and Sony transitioned from CCD to CMOS, the models with CMOS were the better and more expensive ones, while CCDs hung around for a while longer in the cheaper models with lower overall IQ.

And Leica's recent move from CCD to CMOS for the new Leica M camera should be the final evidence that switching to CMOS does not involve any sacrifice in IQ.

This is very true in the beginning , sounds like a epic movie or something but CMOS was really crap and you would have never wanted in a camera ever. Of course I shot digital well over 20 years ago and CCD was junk as well. But its market was for cameras and obviously they both have evolved to be much better and we are pretty damn lucky they did, it was really ugly back than. CMOS has completely turned it around to high end sensors and costs maybe only being huge quantities and small chips they still are probably cheaper but i would bet the same size as the MF CCD's than maybe the same costs. Something we really dont know since nothing is in the market at that size and on the sales racks. The issue I still have with CMOS as good as it has gotten and lets be honest the D800 E is pretty good but its not the same look as a CCD sensor. I keep going looking back in a circle and keep coming back to the same conclusion. I shot a ton of CCD sensors from Phase, Leaf,Leica's M8, M9, DMR to old Kodak 460's and even on occasion Hassy H backs and all of them seem to have better color, better tone and maybe the biggest thing a smoother looking film like palette . Now maybe scientifically that makes little sense and i wont argue the science of it all, you guys know that better than me. I go by what I see but even today the D800E does not look like my IQ 140 or IQ 160 backs I had. Its actually a pretty big gap in the area's I mentioned and I'll put my nose in here and say i am one hell of a great raw processing guru with C1 so it is not that, I can lets say for clarity work any file to look great. I want to make that clear its not the operator at fault here and all I'm saying about that end. The differences are there between CMOS and CCD and i cant seem to even convince myself they look the same. There is a term I use use and even lets say between my old P25 Plus compared to the 160 the P25 was ( My words) crunchier looking. But the CMOS is even behind that comparison in my view . It just is not as smoooooooooth looking. Not sure what it is but its there and it takes some work in processing to get it looking better. My final conclusions on that as good as the Nikons Vs the Phase and CCD company of backs the difference comes down to CMOS vs CCD . There are some other factors like size and such for sure. But I think there is a technical gap that CMOS cant cross over. Just my thoughts on it and end of day some scientific guy may say I'm dead wrong. Maybe so but there is something I am seeing that has no real answer for it except the different sensors.

want to make it clear i am only talking about the look of the file. You folks can argue till the cows come home about functionality and ergos. That is not what I care about its the output. BTW i still love the MF backs so even though I am short of not having one right now, I still miss the crap out of it because i believe it still is the better file.
Title: Color differences between CCD and CMOS: color accuracy vs lowlight performance?
Post by: BJL on December 05, 2012, 07:35:00 PM
Guy,
    My best guess about color differences is that it is a matter of choices in the color filter arrays, where there is a trade-off between better color accuracy and improved sensitivity (quantum efficiency).

At one extreme, small sensors for compact cameras seem to have higher quantum efficiency (like 60%) than SLR or MF sensors. This suggests that their color filters let through a wider spectrum of light, giving a greater overlap in the colors of light detected by the three different colors of photosite. This "chromatic promiscuity" probably reduces noise by detecting more of the available light, but at the cost of less accurate color.

My guess is that sensors for DMF go in the opposite direction, with CFA's designed with priority higher on color accuracy and lower on low-light performance even compared to more mainstream DSLR (and other ILC) sensors.


P. S. comparison between the new Leica M with CMOS sensor and the previous models with Kodak CCDs might be illuminating.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 05, 2012, 08:10:05 PM

- large and bright viewfinder***
- touch screen interface (some bodies); hard to find a system you can check 100% focus on faster on a specific part of the image than an IQ or Credo
- tools like auto-horizon and auto-keystone which correct the level and pitch of the image in software based on the electronic levels in the back, making every horizon straight and every vertical parallel without manual tweaking
- Flash sync speed with standard strobes rather than dinky flashes (up to 1/1600th)
- 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 vertical without rotating camera (some backs)
- low ISO without ND filters (useful for dragging shutter in some styles)
- ability to shoot film with same system as digital (some bodies)
- ability to turn sensor on/off independent of the shutter/flash firing (allows to build up exposure with strobes without excessive ambient light, even in bright conditions e.g. interiors)
- ability to crop a vertical and horizontal from the same frame (even 36mp in 3:2 is not enough for many applications when cropped to a vertical)
- ability to use on specific legacy cameras (some folks just plain love Contax, Hassy 500)
- ability to use on speciality equipment like Aerial, industrial, art-repro systems (obviously a niche)
- ability to use on tech cameras like Arca, Cambo, Alpa
---- rise/fall/shift/swing/tilt on every lens (if IC allows)
---- fully mechanical/traditional shooting
---- extremely precise focusing for specific distances (some bodies)
---- extremely precise focusing for hyperfocal distances (some bodies)
---- absolute best glass, period
---- ground glass (some prefer it regardless of other options)
---- small/light pack size for a body and several lenses (depending on which body and lenses of course)
- compatibility with view cameras
---- close focus possible with many lenses, not just select macros
---- rise/fall/shift/swing/tilt on every lens, not just select TS lenses
---- ground glass (some prefer it regardless of other options)
- less frequent updates required to stay competitive in image quality (we still have many happy studio shooters using H25 backs users, which at base ISO and in the studio easily beats a 5D Mark 3 which is many generations newer; I 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; an IQ or Credo can maintain it's frame-rate indefinitely with a fast CF card, any Canon/Nikon can shoot much faster but unless you restrain yourself you can easily hit a buffer and the camera won't fire when you think it should. The IQ or Credo 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 D800, even with the optional vertical grip)
- differentiation: like it or not, fair or not, some (both pros and enthusiasts) will want to have a camera that Uncle Bob does not own, and that Art Director John doesn't use as their point and shoot.
- longevity/durability: some backs are built like tanks and have no moving parts. Anything can break, but the number of field-failures on a P1 back are very low.
- interesting lens selections with unique looks (e.g. Mamiya 80mm /1.9, Zeiss FE 110/2)

*As opposed to e.g. the Canon 85/1.2 with fly-by-wire focusing and a dinky focus barrel
**This is not just a question of cost since of course the 1D owner could have updated to a 1DsII and a 1DsIII and spent about the same; some photographers just dislike the hassle of switching cameras - new batteries, new chargers, new cables, new settings, new button locations, new software, new look (forcing them in some cases to expend time/energy getting the new camera to produce the look of the old camera). Some photographers love getting new gear, some despise it.
***I never understood why this isn't mentioned/discussed more often; you have to look through the viewfinder for nearly every frame you take - it's your portal to the world you are capturing.

The thread is titled "the end of medium format?". My answer is no.

I agree that it is not the end of medium format digital, but high end DSLR cameras have reached quality levels that are in the same realm for the lower end MFD
cameras still made and very close to the high end ones. The big leap forward was the D800 with it's very big jump in dynamic range.
Medium format has it's place. It has it's place with those that have affection for it and it has it's place in some specific areas of image making.
However it's niche is getting smaller.

Let me elaborate on Doug's list:

- large and bright viewfinder***
***I never understood why this isn't mentioned/discussed more often; you have to look through the viewfinder for nearly every frame you take - it's your portal to the world you are capturing.

However with the Phase One DF this large viewfinder is severely cropped with many of the backs. A 40mp sensor on a DF will need a mask and the image will not have the magnification
of a full frame sensor. So for most users the view finder will not me that large. Hasselblad on the other hand has a second prism option optimized for crop sensors.

- touch screen interface (some bodies); hard to find a system you can check 100% focus on faster on a specific part of the image than an IQ or Credo
Touch screens are nothing unique. The Canon Rebel has one. Google is making a strong push into the camera market and has introduced large touchscreen android
based interface on cameras from Nikon and Samsung. I think that we will see some interesting developments there.

As far as focus checking the implementation on the IQ backs is nice, but hardly state of the art as far as on camera image review goes.
On the D800 you can zoom in with one click using the center button of the multi controller on the back next to the screen
and in a beat navigate quickly to any point.
But there more to it than that. When the camera zooms in it automatically zooms into the area of the focus point that was used for the shoot.
And that is either a manually chosen point or the automatically chosen points.
What is also nice about it is that you still have the regular zoom in button that zooms into the center of the frame.
This is very nice for fashion work. Set you focus point on the face/eyes. Then review the photo. One button pops right to the face while the other to the waist.
Here is what I'm talking about.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8206/8194087638_0205e1db5f_b.jpg)

With the focus point chosen being the one with the green dot when you zoom in with the multi function center button the display
automatically moves to the face. Using the regular magnify button is zooms into the center of the frame.

But there is more. If you are shooting fashion even with manual focus the camera will also zoom into faces using face recognition regardless of where the face is.
It will magnify the face choosing a crop that shows eyes and mouth regardless of the size of the face in the shot. You can then go even closer with one or two clicks.
And there is even more to it. If there are more than one model in the shot you can jump instantly through all the faces in the shot.
Not only is this useful for checking focus, but also useful for quickly checking for closed eyes etc in a large group. This face recognition in review (playback) mode
works without interfering with other review functions and it's invoked by the front wheel that normally controls aperture. It's a seamless thumb and index finger thing.

http://youtu.be/yNajUFMpISs (http://youtu.be/yNajUFMpISs) Video of face recognition in review more. The photographer here is using low magnification setting.
closer setting crops automatically to eyes and mouth/chin

What is also very handy is that image review on the d800 can also be diplayed on larger HDMI monitors, both off camera and on camera.
With these you can also get focus peaking in live view before the shot is even taken. This is really nice when using tilt shift lenses.


- Flash sync speed with standard strobes rather than dinky flashes (up to 1/1600th)
Contrary to what dealers and Phase One would lead you to believe High Speed Sync with strobe can be done with the D800.
And it can be done at upto 1/8000th of a second.

Here are the numbers I get with my Elinchrom AS 3000 packs and s-heads.
It's Elinchrom's top of the line fully asymmetric digitally controlled flash pack. It goes from 188w/s to 3000w/s total (as low as 64w/s if 3 heads are connected.

With the S-Head 1/1,600th has an aperture range from f3.5 to F16

With the S-Head 1/8,000th has an aperture range from f1.4 to F8

With the x 3000 N twin tube head using one tube 1/1,600th has an aperture of f2.8 at 188ws

With the x 3000 N twin tube head using one tube 1/8,000th has an aperture range of f1.4 to f8. However if I discharges the same 3,000 w/s total (2x 1,500) I could get F11
So I get an exposure change by simply adding the second tube. This is because it speeds up the flash duration putting more of the light into the shutter scan time.

More detailed discussion of high speed sync here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=71679.0 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=71679.0)

Also regarding what you call "dinky little flashes" The Nikon and Canon speedflash systems offer functionality that has no equivalent in MF.
They small, but remarkably useful. Some very nice examples by Simon right here on the forum:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=28709.0;attach=70851;image (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=28709.0;attach=70851;image)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=28709.0;attach=70945;image (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=28709.0;attach=70945;image)


- More tactile lens response when manually focusing (large focus barrel, actual lens gearing*)
*As opposed to e.g. the Canon 85/1.2 with fly-by-wire focusing and a dinky focus barrel

Nikon 85mm 1.4 is not fly by wire. Manual focus works mechanically and will still work even with the lens off the camera.
You can also get Carl Zeiss fully manual focus lenses with traditional mechanical focusing.

Mechnical focusing on MF lenses results in slower AF due to the barrel rotating... and it's noisy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bLssgTM4I&feature=share&list=ULn0bLssgTM4I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bLssgTM4I&feature=share&list=ULn0bLssgTM4I)

- waist level viewfinder (some bodies)
Phase One offers none, Mamiya only on the RZ and and it's full frame 6x7, not optimized for 645 or smaller sensors.
The Hasselblad H is only really usable in horizontal. The Rollei with the right back has the best implementation.

There are however many ways to work with waist level viewing with a 35mm DSLR through live view.

(http://www.zacuto.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Handheld200w.jpg)
One from Zacuto. Expensive, but really neat.

Flip out screens on many cameras, just add a loup.

Oh and the image isn't flipped horizontally. ;)

Their is even wireless live view now for many dslrs:

(http://www.aputure.com/en/pimage/exa_02_1_12.jpg)

(http://www.aputure.com/en/images/Product_41_1_12.jpg)

Includes wireless remote camera control 8)





- compatibility with view cameras
---- close focus possible with many lenses, not just select macros

You can use extension tubes with virtually any Canon and Nikon lens.

- low ISO without ND filters (useful for dragging shutter in some styles)
Lowest ISO on the d800 is 50. Lowest ISO on IQ180 is 35. What is that? 1/3rd of a stop..... IQ160 is ISO 50. Some older backs go lower to 25
Since when has putting a 1 stop ND on a 35mm DSLR been a problem?.


- consistent shooting speed; an IQ or Credo can maintain it's frame-rate indefinitely with a fast CF card, any Canon/Nikon can shoot much faster
but unless you restrain yourself you can easily hit a buffer and the camera won't fire when you think it should.
The IQ or Credo 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.


Based on this logic everyone should buy a slow car so you don't hit the car infront ;) :P
This really makes little sense. If someone can develop a rhythm that goes with a camera that is limited to one shot per second they can just as easily
shoot at that rythm with a faster camera.
The B800 can keep going at 1 frame per second no problem at all. I would say though that it is a huge advantage to be able to shoot a burst of faster frames if something like a gust of wind
blows the models cloths. With card write speeds of 1000x this is really a non issue.

- interesting lens selections with unique looks (e.g. Mamiya 80mm /1.9, Zeiss FE 110/2)

The choice is much larger when it comes to Nikon and Canon. The selection is huge. I did love the Zeiss FE 110/2, but there are equivalents
for the D800. Carl Zeiss 85mm 1.4, Nikons 85mm 1.4G.
Regarding the selection:
Nikon
Zeiss
Schneider
Sigma
and all the way over to the toy lenses from lens baby.
Not to mention mounting MF lenses with adapters.

The announcement by Zeiss that it is developing an ultra high end lens like for high MP count DSLRs is very interesting.
The optical giant has thrown it's weight behind high end DSLRs while no longer developing for MFD.

(http://prophotocoalition.com/images/uploads/121027_9283_dancarr.jpg)



- 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 D800, even with the optional vertical grip)
Hmmm. I'm 6ft 4inch. I have size 14 shoes and hence large hands, 11 inch span, 9 inch from wrist to finger tip.Very hard to find gloves.
I have no problem at all holding the Nikon D800 either with or without the vertical grip. Maybe Shaq?
I'll hand him the camera next time I shoot him ;)

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8485/8249482974_f9744e342b_c.jpg)

Even if your 6'4" Shaq makes you feel like your 3'3" ;)








 
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Nick-T on December 05, 2012, 08:26:41 PM
Thanks for sharing Fred this is really useful stuff.

Nick-T
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Ed Foster, Jr. on December 05, 2012, 08:29:35 PM
...It clearly demonstrates that I did not start out with a negative view of medium format digital. ;) ;)

To me, it demonstrates that you bashed Nikon in a public way before you had sufficient information to be reasonably objective. You added a lot of noise on a matter before you actually knew what you were publishing. That type of information does not benefit research or the forum in which you posted it on.

Regards,
Ed
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 05, 2012, 09:28:58 PM
To me, it demonstrates that you bashed Nikon in a public way before you had sufficient information to be reasonably objective. You added a lot of noise on a matter before you actually knew what you were publishing. That type of information does not benefit research or the forum in which you posted it on.

Regards,
Ed


 ::) ::) ::) It was a discussion based on Nikon claiming MF quality and this was the sample image that we were all seeing at the time.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8488/8248645894_28bd30a8b7_b.jpg)

Sorry if I made the mistake of discussing the issue based on Nikon's Official sample images.....
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: TMARK on December 05, 2012, 09:33:44 PM
::) ::) ::) It was a discussion based on Nikon claiming MF quality and this was the sample image that we were all seeing at the time.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8488/8248645894_28bd30a8b7_b.jpg)

Sorry if I made the mistake of discussing the issue based on Nikon's Official sample images.....

I've never understood why the samples from both Nikon and Canon are so poor. I saw the samples and initially passed on the D800.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on December 05, 2012, 09:51:21 PM
35mm does a lot of things medium format can't do (and may never). But medium format does not need to match all of those technologies. All medium format must do is continue to offer enough of a reason to buy it for those who want to. Regarding profits and improvement, in relative terms, the Credo and IQ products were a quantum leap forward for medium format compared to the prior generation. In fact, if you evaluate Phase One as a company over the recent years, on the contrary, they seem to be a thriving company. During the peak of the worldwide recession, they made acquisitions, acquiring a hardware company (Leaf Imaging), a software company (Expressions Media), and invested a controlling stake into a 3rd company (Mamiya), while posting profits throughout the period (indeed, record profits in 2011). They do not seem to reflect a company struggling with R&D funding.

I think both platforms have advanced quite significantly for their intended base. Medium format will always have the disadvantage (and advantages) of size, when it is compared to 35mm technology.

I spoke to a long time client today who shoots Canon and recently acquired a D800. Though an owner, he is not a fan of the D800, and continues to have interest in medium format. The D800 is an excellent product. It is not perfect, and it is not for everyone, but it is a no brainer for the general photographic market, in the same way the Canon 5D-MK II was when it launched.

There are enough photographers in the world who value something different, and does not necessarily have to do seemingly everything with ease the way a Nikon D800 can.

If someone is a fan and can indeed provide useful information about the Nikon D800, by all means share it. I don't understand any need to deter anyone's interest in medium format at the same time.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Title: Re: The end of medium format? Modern CMOS is neither less expensive nor "cheaper"
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 05, 2012, 10:45:24 PM
Hi Guy,

Just keep apart things please. Are you comparing CCD and CMOS or are you comparing MF and 135 or are you comparing Dalsa sensors with Nikon sensors.

What BJL and I am saying that there is little difference between CCD and CMOS as both are just converting photons to electrons and storing the electrons in small capacitors on the chip. The only difference between the two is really how the capacitor is read. In CCD you pop the charge from pixel to pixel while on CMOS you can read it directly. CMOS readout is non destructive which allows for correlated double sampling, a technique reducing noise.

Were you using the same raw converter on CMOS and CCD cameras, or were you using vendor's software?

Regarding the future of MF, it is very simple at least in the long term. The companies making MF equipment need to sell enough stuff at profitable prices. They need enough earnings to keep manufacture, development and their value added retailer chain going. As long as the companies earn money MF will be hanging around. If the companies would not earn enough money they may hang on anyway.

I would not be surprised if Phase or Leaf designed their own MF sensor.

I noted with some interest that Phase is going into industrial stuff, like repro equipment and aerial photography, thus expanding the market. Seems to me to be a very wise move.

Best regards
Erik




This is very true in the beginning , sounds like a epic movie or something but CMOS was really crap and you would have never wanted in a camera ever. Of course I shot digital well over 20 years ago and CCD was junk as well. But its market was for cameras and obviously they both have evolved to be much better and we are pretty damn lucky they did, it was really ugly back than. CMOS has completely turned it around to high end sensors and costs maybe only being huge quantities and small chips they still are probably cheaper but i would bet the same size as the MF CCD's than maybe the same costs. Something we really dont know since nothing is in the market at that size and on the sales racks. The issue I still have with CMOS as good as it has gotten and lets be honest the D800 E is pretty good but its not the same look as a CCD sensor. I keep going looking back in a circle and keep coming back to the same conclusion. I shot a ton of CCD sensors from Phase, Leaf,Leica's M8, M9, DMR to old Kodak 460's and even on occasion Hassy H backs and all of them seem to have better color, better tone and maybe the biggest thing a smoother looking film like palette . Now maybe scientifically that makes little sense and i wont argue the science of it all, you guys know that better than me. I go by what I see but even today the D800E does not look like my IQ 140 or IQ 160 backs I had. Its actually a pretty big gap in the area's I mentioned and I'll put my nose in here and say i am one hell of a great raw processing guru with C1 so it is not that, I can lets say for clarity work any file to look great. I want to make that clear its not the operator at fault here and all I'm saying about that end. The differences are there between CMOS and CCD and i cant seem to even convince myself they look the same. There is a term I use use and even lets say between my old P25 Plus compared to the 160 the P25 was ( My words) crunchier looking. But the CMOS is even behind that comparison in my view . It just is not as smoooooooooth looking. Not sure what it is but its there and it takes some work in processing to get it looking better. My final conclusions on that as good as the Nikons Vs the Phase and CCD company of backs the difference comes down to CMOS vs CCD . There are some other factors like size and such for sure. But I think there is a technical gap that CMOS cant cross over. Just my thoughts on it and end of day some scientific guy may say I'm dead wrong. Maybe so but there is something I am seeing that has no real answer for it except the different sensors.

want to make it clear i am only talking about the look of the file. You folks can argue till the cows come home about functionality and ergos. That is not what I care about its the output. BTW i still love the MF backs so even though I am short of not having one right now, I still miss the crap out of it because i believe it still is the better file.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 05, 2012, 10:55:25 PM
Hi,

On the other hand I had some communication from a photographer who is in the process of selling of his IQ180, after he switched to Nikon D800/D800E. The reason he sells of the IQ180 is mainly because he found it was collecting dust.

I would also add that the person I communicated with is essentially furious with Nikon's lack of quality control, so he is not a Nikon fanboy. He also noted that he knows several photographers who are in a similar situation selling of P65+ and IQ160, he says they don't look back.

I guess that it is a question of equipment matching needs and needs being different.

Best regards
Erik

35mm does a lot of things medium format can't do (and may never). But medium format does not need to match all of those technologies. All medium format must do is continue to offer enough of a reason to buy it for those who want to. Regarding profits and improvement, in relative terms, the Credo and IQ products were a quantum leap forward for medium format compared to the prior generation. In fact, if you evaluate Phase One as a company over the recent years, on the contrary, they seem to be a thriving company. During the peak of the worldwide recession, they made acquisitions, acquiring a hardware company (Leaf Imaging), a software company (Expressions Media), and invested a controlling stake into a 3rd company (Mamiya), while posting profits throughout the period (indeed, record profits in 2011). They do not seem to reflect a company struggling with R&D funding.

I think both platforms have advanced quite significantly for their intended base. Medium format will always have the disadvantage (and advantages) of size, when it is compared to 35mm technology.

I spoke to a long time client today who shoots Canon and recently acquired a D800. Though an owner, he is not a fan of the D800, and continues to have interest in medium format. The D800 is an excellent product. It is not perfect, and it is not for everyone, but it is a no brainer for the general photographic market, in the same way the Canon 5D-MK II was when it launched.

There are enough photographers in the world who value something different, and does not necessarily have to do seemingly everything with ease the way a Nikon D800 can.

If someone is a fan and can indeed provide useful information about the Nikon D800, by all means share it. I don't understand any need to deter anyone's interest in medium format at the same time.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 05, 2012, 11:04:26 PM
35mm does a lot of things medium format can't do (and may never). But medium format does not need to match all of those technologies. All medium format must do is continue to offer enough of a reason to buy it for those who want to. Regarding profits and improvement, in relative terms, the Credo and IQ products were a quantum leap forward for medium format compared to the prior generation. In fact, if you evaluate Phase One as a company over the recent years, on the contrary, they seem to be a thriving company. During the peak of the worldwide recession, they made acquisitions, acquiring a hardware company (Leaf Imaging), a software company (Expressions Media), and invested a controlling stake into a 3rd company (Mamiya), while posting profits throughout the period (indeed, record profits in 2011). They do not seem to reflect a company struggling with R&D funding.

I think both platforms have advanced quite significantly for their intended base. Medium format will always have the disadvantage (and advantages) of size, when it is compared to 35mm technology.

I spoke to a long time client today who shoots Canon and recently acquired a D800. Though an owner, he is not a fan of the D800, and continues to have interest in medium format. The D800 is an excellent product. It is not perfect, and it is not for everyone, but it is a no brainer for the general photographic market, in the same way the Canon 5D-MK II was when it launched.

There are enough photographers in the world who value something different, and does not necessarily have to do seemingly everything with ease the way a Nikon D800 can.

If someone is a fan and can indeed provide useful information about the Nikon D800, by all means share it. I don't understand any need to deter anyone's interest in medium format at the same time.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

Bought a software company (expression media)? They bought the software... the company they bought it from was Microsoft. Microsoft dropped Expression from it's Suite in 2009.
Phase pretty much bought a moth-balled software....
I know a little bit about it because I had it at the time.
As far as the other investments go they are purchases of MF companies somewhat in difficulty.
Leaf brand and technology was acquired from the ailing Kodak creating Leaf Imaging.

Quote
while posting profits throughout the period (indeed, record profits in 2011).
Where are these number posted?

One would think they would be a bit more public about record profits due to the uncertainty surrounding MFD and many other technologies.
It would be reassuring to potential customers considering the investment required is a long term investment for most clients.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on December 05, 2012, 11:51:15 PM
Bought a software company (expression media)? They bought the software... the company they bought it from was Microsoft. Microsoft dropped Expression from it's Suite in 2009.
Phase pretty much bought a moth-balled software....
I know a little bit about it because I had it at the time.
As far as the other investments go they are purchases of MF companies somewhat in difficulty.
Leaf brand and technology was acquired from the ailing Kodak creating Leaf Imaging.

Oh, you used Expressions Media, so you know a little bit about it. Oh...ok. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding Expressions Media and Leaf at the time, the acquisitions are still notable, especially in conjunction with the Mamiya investment and considering the worldwide economic conditions at the time.


Where are these number posted?


Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you had the profit numbers.

But things are not going well at all. profits are not high enough for development costs


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 06, 2012, 12:04:26 AM
It would be great to see this section of the forum return to positive discussions regarding medium format rather constant “mine is better than yours” posts hijackings that are full of negativity and a showcase for constant reposting of the same images over and over. Earlier this year, FredBGG (using his real name) gushed over medium format and belittled DSLRs and Nikon’s D800 claims on another forum:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=823993 (http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=823993)

I cannot help but wonder how many people who read his comments on Model Mayhem opted for MFD because of the rantings of a self proclaimed star and mentor?

C’mon, Fred, give forum members a little credit for being intelligent enough to read, research and make our own decisions on the equipment we choose to employ. I really don’t believe we need a “savior” here.

A big thank you to guys like Doug, Yair, BC, Erik, Keith, Eric, Guy and so many others who put the information out that truly informs and helps.

Wow! Good Googling there Ed!    

It's amazing reading that thread... its like a tale of two Fred's... one that loves MFDB and one that hates it...
Reading a bit down... Fred states....

"While Nikon (with Sony's help) have crammed 36 MP into a fantastic mini supercomputer with outstanding build quality and the formidable reliability of Nikon and Canon the sensors don't have the true dynamic range and quantization of a MF  CCD sensor. "

Then he writes, "Look at how the shadows in the nikon file don't have deep solid details that still hold jet black like the p25 file does.

Look at how the skin tones become creepy right ways in the Nikon file. That is what dynamic range is really about. "
and

"Both the 5d mark III and the D800 are fine cameras, but we are not at MF CCD levels yet."


It's like Jeckl and Hyde but all we get here on LuLa from Fred is the Hyde.   Fred, You are so busted!    
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 06, 2012, 12:20:30 AM
Wow! Good Googling there Ed!    

It's amazing reading that thread... its like a tale of two Fred's... one that loves MFDB and one that hates it...
Reading a bit down... Fred states....

"While Nikon (with Sony's help) have crammed 36 MP into a fantastic mini supercomputer with outstanding build quality and the formidable reliability of Nikon and Canon the sensors don't have the true dynamic range and quantization of a MF  CCD sensor. "

Then he writes, "Look at how the shadows in the nikon file don't have deep solid details that still hold jet black like the p25 file does.

Look at how the skin tones become creepy right ways in the Nikon file. That is what dynamic range is really about. "
and

"Both the 5d mark III and the D800 are fine cameras, but we are not at MF CCD levels yet."


It's like Jeckl and Hyde but all we get here on LuLa from Fred is the Hyde.   Fred, You are so busted!    


Busted????

As I said before the camera was not shipping yet and that was based on the sample files that Nikon had made available.
As more information came out and I got my hands first on better files and then on the camera I stated what saw.
After trying a D800 once I sold all my Phase One gear.

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Paul Ozzello on December 06, 2012, 12:40:31 AM

After trying a D800 once I sold all my Phase One gear.


No better reason to stop posting in the medium format forum.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 06, 2012, 12:46:28 AM
Hi,

I would say that it is a reasonable approach to change your mind, once you are proven wrong.

I got some "DR" samples using IQ180 and Nikon D800E from Marc McCalmont and Tim Ashley. In my view the D800E image had better shadow detail in both cases.

Check this two links for analysis of Tim's images:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=2
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=3

Another image I got from Marc McCalmont shows the resolution advantage of the IQ180 (paired with a best of breed lens):

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=5

Best regards
Erik

Busted????

As I said before the camera was not shipping yet and that was based on the sample files that Nikon had made available.
As more information came out and I got my hands first on better files and then on the camera I stated what saw.
After trying a D800 once I sold all my Phase One gear.


Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: gerald.d on December 06, 2012, 01:01:56 AM
*As opposed to e.g. the Canon 85/1.2 with fly-by-wire focusing and a dinky focus barrel
Just to clarify this, the 85/1.2 isn't an example from a wide number of Canon lenses with "fly-by-wire" (i.e. powered) focusing.

It's the only one that has such an arrangement.

Which is a shame, because it takes beautiful pictures when married to a MFDB through either the HCam or Alpa FPS!
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 06, 2012, 01:15:49 AM
No better reason to stop posting in the medium format forum.

Where does it say you have to still own a Phase One camera to post in this forum?
There is no rule making this some kind of exclusive club for current owners only ;)

I still own and shoot both Medium Format and large format.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 06, 2012, 01:32:28 AM
Fred,
You were doing the same analysis then as you do now... Downloading somebody else's images and making assumptions.  What's different?
Everything you wrote about the nikon d800 having bad skin color hasn't changed just cause you bought one.  That's one thing that you actually got right. 
Go ahead a post an D800 image you shot yourself where you think the skin tone in your d800 is better than one you shot with your own MFDB.  No points for linking to someone else's images.
Eric


Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 06, 2012, 02:47:51 AM

Go ahead a post an D800 image you shot yourself where you think the skin tone in your d800 is better than one you shot with your own MFDB.
Eric


I never said that skin tone with the D800 is better than with MFD. So please don't imply that I have.
We all know that skin tomes with MFD cameras is excellent, but I would put the d800 up their with them.
There is not much point posting most of that I do (celebrity portraits) as they are with quite a bit of makeup and
I don't let anything out that isn't retouched ;)

Here however is a snapshot of my friends that I think is an honest shot of skin... no makeup, no retouching, no supermodels, just the lovely Ola.... even Majieks sun burn from our kitesurfing session the previous day.
Waves were 10 foot so we stayed on the water as long as we could.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8487/8248472483_150bffb5f3_b.jpg (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8487/8248472483_150bffb5f3_b.jpg)

Natural looking delicate skin tones in very flat light.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 06, 2012, 02:48:56 AM
Thanks for sharing Fred this is really useful stuff.

Nick-T
Your welcome Nick :)
Title: Re: The end of medium format? Modern CMOS is neither less expensive nor "cheaper"
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 06, 2012, 02:52:10 AM
Hi Guy,

Just keep apart things please. Are you comparing CCD and CMOS or are you comparing MF and 135 or are you comparing Dalsa sensors with Nikon sensors.

What BJL and I am saying that there is little difference between CCD and CMOS as both are just converting photons to electrons and storing the electrons in small capacitors on the chip. The only difference between the two is really how the capacitor is read. In CCD you pop the charge from pixel to pixel while on CMOS you can read it directly. CMOS readout is non destructive which allows for correlated double sampling, a technique reducing noise.

Were you using the same raw converter on CMOS and CCD cameras, or were you using vendor's software?

Regarding the future of MF, it is very simple at least in the long term. The companies making MF equipment need to sell enough stuff at profitable prices. They need enough earnings to keep manufacture, development and their value added retailer chain going. As long as the companies earn money MF will be hanging around. If the companies would not earn enough money they may hang on anyway.

I would not be surprised if Phase or Leaf designed their own MF sensor.

I noted with some interest that Phase is going into industrial stuff, like repro equipment and aerial photography, thus expanding the market. Seems to me to be a very wise move.

Best regards
Erik






Comparing Dalsa CCD vs Nikon CMOS. Phase 140 and 160 to be exact. Now even Kodak P25 vs Dalsa IQ 160 CCD there is still a crunchier difference but not nearly like the Nikon CMOS vs CCD Dalsa. Yes same raw converters C1 but even ACR and Nikon NX2 it just is not the same kind of file smoothness and look.
Title: Re: The end of medium format? Modern CMOS is neither less expensive nor "cheaper"
Post by: yaya on December 06, 2012, 04:09:25 AM

Comparing Dalsa CCD vs Nikon CMOS. Phase 140 and 160 to be exact. Now even Kodak P25 vs Dalsa IQ 160 CCD there is still a crunchier difference but not nearly like the Nikon CMOS vs CCD Dalsa. Yes same raw converters C1 but even ACR and Nikon NX2 it just is not the same kind of file smoothness and look.

Dalsa sensors are specifically designed with smaller gaps between pixels compared to other sensors. This improves sharpness and smoothness and it also reduces luminance falloff.
Title: Re: The end of medium format? Modern CMOS is neither less expensive nor "cheaper"
Post by: Kitty on December 06, 2012, 07:27:52 AM
Dalsa sensors are specifically designed with smaller gaps between pixels compared to other sensors. This improves sharpness and smoothness and it also reduces luminance falloff.

I do believe this. From my eyes IQ160 and P65+ has better color accuracy, smoother gradient with sharp noise and sparkling details.
DSLR seems use a lot of chip processing to increase sharpness but gradient is more harsh and lack of sparkling.
I remember the day D3 launch a guy asked Nikon head japanese engineer about the lens and sensor resolution limit and got the reply.
It is infinity limit because of the EXPEED chips.
MFB is slow and difficult to handle but the result always pays for the effort. IMHO

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 06, 2012, 07:28:51 AM
Thanks Yair for bringing that up, good data to know.
Title: Re: The end of medium format? Modern CMOS is neither less expensive nor "cheaper"
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 06, 2012, 07:37:19 AM
I do believe this. From my eyes IQ160 and P65+ has better color accuracy, smoother gradient with sharp noise and sparkling details.
DSLR seems use a lot of chip processing to increase sharpness but gradient is more harsh and lack of sparkling.
I remember the day D3 launch a guy asked Nikon head japanese engineer about the lens and sensor resolution limit and got the reply.
It is infinity limit because of the EXPEED chips.
MFB is slow and difficult to handle but the result always pays for the effort. IMHO



Yup the IQ 140 and IQ 160 along with the P40 I owned also seems pretty clear to me its a much smoother looking sensor than anything else. I have owned 3 Dalsa backs and shot a lot with the P65 and even the IQ180 to notice this. I like the Nikon but for me it is a compromise to those backs that I owned. They are not the same and honestly better than any of the Kodak sensor backs that I owned P25 and P30 but they have a bigger pixel pitch too. Folks can rant about functionality to each system on which may work better on a ergo and functionality level but when it comes down to the file , MF is still better and the Dalsa sensor I love w better than even the Kodaks. Not saying I did not like the Kodaks but until I got my hands on my first Dalsa P40 than it took over my preference.

The buying question about file seems to be eluded for a lot of folks and buying more on price, functionality and ergos. One has to decide what your really after and what works better for you. I still contend for myself a tech cam and a Nikon but my work dictates having a 35mm too. If I retired tomorrow. Hell I would have a tech cam and a Leica M and not even think about a Canon or Nikon. But that's me.

BTW I never really found MF that much harder to function for me. Sure heavier and bulkier but I could handle it with pretty good ease even doing PR and Fashion stuff handheld. But I'm also not a whiner on working my butt off either. It's my job. Just sayin
Title: Re: The end of medium format? Modern CMOS is neither less expensive nor "cheaper"
Post by: design_freak on December 06, 2012, 07:50:21 AM

I remember the day D3 launch a guy asked Nikon head japanese engineer about the lens and sensor resolution limit and got the reply.
It is infinity limit because of the EXPEED chips.


Oh yeah!
 At one event, I heard from an engineer that soon we will have a  cable free connection (MFDB). At another party said that they are working on a new camera that will be perfect  :)


Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 06, 2012, 08:09:39 AM
A few retailers, producers and photographers associated with them. No one has to write that MFDB still gives better quality. Just 35mm is getting better and better. You have to accept it . I think that the worst thing that can happen - underestimate the competition
Title: Re: The end of medium format? Modern CMOS is neither less expensive nor "cheaper"
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 06, 2012, 09:02:07 AM
Oh yeah!
 At one event, I heard from an engineer that soon we will have a  cable free connection (MFDB). At another party said that they are working on a new camera that will be perfect  :)




Must have been the new Hassy Lunar. ROTFLMAO
Title: Re: The end of medium format? Modern CMOS is neither less expensive nor "cheaper"
Post by: Kitty on December 06, 2012, 09:21:04 AM
The buying question about file seems to be eluded for a lot of folks and buying more on price, functionality and ergos. One has to decide what your really after and what works better for you. I still contend for myself a tech cam and a Nikon but my work dictates having a 35mm too. If I retired tomorrow. Hell I would have a tech cam and a Leica M and not even think about a Canon or Nikon. But that's me.

I agree. Leica M8 or M9 digital has file character same to MFB. Totally difference from DSLR. IMHO
Title: Re: The end of medium format? Modern CMOS is neither less expensive nor "cheaper"
Post by: design_freak on December 06, 2012, 09:25:53 AM
Must have been the new Hassy Lunar. ROTFLMAO

That was sarcasm ::)
It was much earlier, a few years before someone came up with this brilliant idea of ​​a "Lunatic"  ;D
But it was not heard from them - moreover, it's not important. I used to not listen to what is often said on these events. Mostly trying to arouse the feeling that we are ahead of the competition.
Title: Re: The end of medium format? Modern CMOS is neither less expensive nor "cheaper"
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 06, 2012, 09:47:54 AM
That was sarcasm ::)
It was much earlier, a few years before someone came up with this brilliant idea of ​​a "Lunatic"  ;D
But it was not heard from them - moreover, it's not important. I used to not listen to what is often said on these events. Mostly trying to arouse the feeling that we are ahead of the competition.

Yes it was and just joking but these events are really marketing events more than anything else and a lot of wish lists are talked about for sure. That's stuff that should really be ignored and not base the company's value on it as well. Look at Leica for instance it's been at least 3 years since they said the S2 would have leaf shutters. Still tapping my feet on that one but that's just one companies promises. You heard of politics right. I'm still waiting for the middle class to get rich. Again joking
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Paul Ozzello on December 06, 2012, 11:26:09 AM
Where does it say you have to still own a Phase One camera to post in this forum?
There is no rule making this some kind of exclusive club for current owners only ;)

I still own and shoot both Medium Format and large format.


Then how about keeping it constructive ? This constant format evangelism is boring and dreadful. It seems that almost every post in these forums gets hijacked by the same few members about what format is better, or how digital is better than film. Do artists in the oil painting forum have to constantly hear from the guy who converted to watercolor about how much better his medium is ?

How about creating a seperate forum for these endless debates so that the rest of us stay on topic ?

Title: Re: The end of medium format? Modern CMOS is neither less expensive nor "cheaper"
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 06, 2012, 12:39:31 PM
Hi Guy,

If you are comparing MF against 135 DSLRs I think sensor size matters much more than CCD or CMOS. A larger sensor collects more photons if both are exposed fully ETTR. The larger number of photons should give smoother highlights and midtones. I would expect that reducing exposure 2/3 EV would compensate for the larger surface of the IQ140. The IQ 160 has a larger sensor so you would need to reduce exposure 1.3 eV to compensate.

On the other hand, if you happen to have a Leica M9 around and see that it has smoother highlights and midtones when both Nikon CMOS and Leica M9 are fully exposed to the right and both images are scaled to same pixel dimensions, it would be hard to explain.

I would be very glad to make those experiments, but I have no access to IQ160, P45+, Leica M9 or even to a Nikon D800.


Anders Torger made a very interesting comparison of his cameras (Nikon D7000, Canon 5DII and Aptus 75) and his findings were in agreement with the above speculation: http://www.ludd.luth.se/~torger/photography/noise-test.html

Best regards
Erik



Comparing Dalsa CCD vs Nikon CMOS. Phase 140 and 160 to be exact. Now even Kodak P25 vs Dalsa IQ 160 CCD there is still a crunchier difference but not nearly like the Nikon CMOS vs CCD Dalsa. Yes same raw converters C1 but even ACR and Nikon NX2 it just is not the same kind of file smoothness and look.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 06, 2012, 01:29:13 PM
I would not disagree for a second that sensor size also plays a role in this but even with a Leica M9 it has the smoothness of the CCD sensors. I agree be nice to pin the M9 against the D800 as well or even like the D600. In all honesty and I will not speak for everyone but only myself. I really gave up interest in comparing these types of things in a large way. I really am interested in more what can I do with this cam results more than anything else and how i can process a file without sweating bullets over it to make it look good. I do like my Nikon D800E a lot and it does get me closer to what I had and not because I own the thing either. That stuff I can care less about that type of bias. All these systems are really good on one hand and also they all have compromises on the other hand. I deal with a lot of people on workshops/forums and most of them are hobbyists and lets be very clear about this they are out to have fun and enjoy themselves but on the other hand they have limited time for photography and as a hobby they want the best image maker in there hands and have fun with it and some just want a decent camera and save some money. But most of them love MF and seriously folks without these hobbyists buying us Pros and OEM's are up a creek without a paddle. These are the folks that drive the market and keep Phase , Hassy and Leica in business. Pros are counted as such a low percent of ownership we really dont count much in regards to the MF market segment. Sure they are designed for us and used by us but we are seriously outnumbered by the hobbyists so these threads I am not sure who the hell the are setup to protect from the big bad wolf of MF OEM's . Its almost a joke, I get daily e-mails from hobbyists asking which back to buy and what system of parts works the best and so on and so on. I love helping them but they are not scared to spend a few dollars to have a really nice tool in there hand that just wallops them with great files. Hell I'm jealous of them as heck they get to spend a lot of money have amazing tools to go out and enjoy themselves. Us Pros are struggling to even breath never mind worry about what gear to buy. LOL I'm half serious on that one. MF is not dead and it will hardly go away anytime soon but i do agree they need to innovate and produce better products just like any other business in the world. Anyway just thought I would add some thoughts to the discussion. You know even though i own part of GetDPI all this stuff is important that good data and good thoughts of folks that work in this business comes across and I respect Michael and this forum. Its not a competition believe me, I could care less but it is about good forums having good people give out good data that is useful to help, learn and share. Heck life is hard enough lets have fun with photography , that is why ALL of us Pros got in this business to begin with because we wanted to make money , have fun and enjoy our life . These struggle debates are stupid, sorry i had to say that. Anyway i went far over my writing limits. LOL
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: uaiomex on December 06, 2012, 01:31:01 PM
Good but too much neatness gets boring very often. As we say in my country: "Variety is the sauce of life"
Eduardo


Then how about keeping it constructive ? This constant format evangelism is boring and dreadful. It seems that almost every post in these forums gets hijacked by the same few members about what format is better, or how digital is better than film. Do artists in the oil painting forum have to constantly hear from the guy who converted to watercolor about how much better his medium is ?

How about creating a seperate forum for these endless debates so that the rest of us stay on topic ?


Title: So many other differences in that comparison besides CCD vs CMOS
Post by: BJL on December 06, 2012, 04:01:20 PM
Comparing Dalsa CCD vs Nikon CMOS.
Exactly: comparing sensors of different sizes from different makers and so most likely with different color filter arrays and different needs for demosaicing algorithms, and used behind different lenses .... which leaves no basis for attributing the differences you see to the difference between CCD and CMOS sensor technologies, because of all those other confounding differences. Digging into the physics shows that it makes little sense to attribute those differences to "CCD vs CMOS", since those differences occur almost entirely after light has been "converted" to a "color blind" charge at each photosite.

For a comparison with far less confounding variables, have you compared cameras of the same brand and format, used with the same lenses, with the main difference being CCD vs CMOS? This could for example be done with Nikon, Sony, or Olympus Four Thirds DSLRs from a few years back, and can now or soon be done with Leica M8 vs "new M".

P. S. As to the Leica M9 fitting the "MF/CCD" look, that does not surprise me: I would expect Leica and its CCD sensor supplier Kodak to stay with the CFA designs that Kodak uses for MF sensors (including the one in the Leica S2) and to favor greater color accuracy over greater sensitivity much as MF sensors seem to, while Canon, Nikon and Sony prioritize low light performance more in their CFA designs.

P. P. S. My informal comparison is a sequence of Olympus Four Thirds format cameras from the E-1 (with Kodak Full frame type CCD of the same pixel size as the 40MP, 49x37mm ones for DMF) through the E-510 with a Panasonic CMOS sensor, to the E-M5 with its mystery brand CMOS sensor (most likely Sony). The trend in IQ is unequivocally for the better, even in dynamic range at base ISO sensitivity, often claimed as the last resort of CCD superiority.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 06, 2012, 04:27:48 PM
Totally agree but the argument is and has been for months this vs that (MF vs D800) by a million posts. So obviously that is the comparison we have to go by. We do not get to chose the apples here so yes the compounding variables are many but still I contend even on a Leica M9 vs any of the CMOS chips from Sony, Canon or Nikon the CCD sensor looks a lot smoother.

Lets say for argument sake we actually tried to get it more apples to apples and test sensor differences than i totally agree with you but this is not really the case here we are stuck with fixed objects like a Nikon D800 vs something different altogether. So yes the science maybe out there in complete left field but that is not what folks are caring about it is this vs that and screw the variables . The question is and has been for months is the D800 better than a MF back the answer is NO it is not and one of those reasons is CCD vs CMOS plus a bunch of other variables . What my general comment is i see a difference between them .
Now dont get me wrong i agree with you because i also believe in the science of it. But this is not the real question on hand it is flat out can the D800 beat the MF backs. The question posed to guys like me . Question: Guy what do you think about the D800 since i have been thinking really about a IQ 160 or IQ 140 and a DF and a couple lenses. The money is somewhat the issue but I have been tempted by MF for awhile now. The one answer i would give is this tonal range and smoothness factor. See the problem is folks are not asking about the science but for practical reasons. How do you answer those questions because i will tell you right now I NEVER been asked about the science between 35mm and MF. LOL

Maybe we grown off topic but hopefully you see what i am saying. I know a lot of engineers visit the forums and spout off all the science between sensors and such and it is quite interesting but most people just want to know what to buy and more importantly what do you think will work best for me and what I shoot.
Title: MF vs D800, but not CCD vs CMOS, or even Europe vs Asia
Post by: BJL on December 06, 2012, 04:40:45 PM
Guy,
    I get what you are saying: your observations on the DMF vs D800 comparison, which are certainly relevant to that ongoing debate, and should be useful given your professional credentials.

But I doubt this is about "CCD VS CMOS", anymore than is about "Made in Europe vs Made in Asia", despite the perfect correlation of CCD=Europe=smooth, CMOS=Asia=less smooth in the camera origins.
Title: Re: MF vs D800, but not CCD vs CMOS, or even Europe vs Asia
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 06, 2012, 04:52:06 PM
Guy,
    I get what you are saying: your observations on the DMF vs D800 comparison, which are certainly relevant to that ongoing debate, and should be useful given your professional credentials.

But I doubt this is about "CCD VS CMOS", anymore than is about "Made in Europe vs Made in Asia", despite the perfect correlation of CCD=Europe=smooth, CMOS=Asia=less smooth in the camera origins.

Yes maybe so. Just interesting that on the art side of the house folks are seeing this as well. Maybe also a good diversion of how much I hate Phase negativity. ROTFLMAO

Alright you folks have fun, need to get back to some projects.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: TMARK on December 06, 2012, 04:59:17 PM
I think the bottom line is that MF isn't going any away.  Pentax, Leica, Blad and Phase/Leaf may ultimately lose the pro market to the D800 and its successors, but there are plenty of people who want the ultimate in anything, be it a scarf, jacket, lens, car, or imaging device.  Hi end audio or the stupid expensive car market isn't going to disapear just because Audi/BMW/Porsche/M.Benz make cars that are in the same league as a Maybach/Buggtti/McLaren, or that NAD amps are good enough so McIntosh will be gone.  There is a reason that VW/Audi makes the Bugatti and Benz makes the Maybach (which is possibly the ugliest car I've ever seen, like a Ford Topaz crossed with gigantism), and that MacIntosh tube amps are still being made.  There is always some one who will pay for the "Ultimate [Image] Quality".

In my personal opinion the differences in IQ between the D800e and the older generation of backs is so slight that it doesn't make sense to use the older backs, when the D800 not only offers the similar IQ, but also offers flexibility to get a shot that you couldn't get with a back.  Again, I'm talking about the older generation of backs, like the Phase P25/30/45 plus series and the Leaf 54s/75s.  Not that those backs are bad, just that the Nikon is that good.  Before I get flamed I'm not bashing the backs at all, especially the new Dalsa based backs of which I have no experience.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Doug Peterson on December 06, 2012, 05:17:06 PM
In my personal opinion the differences in IQ between the D800e and the older generation of backs is so slight that it doesn't make sense to use the older backs, when the D800 not only offers the similar IQ, but also offers flexibility to get a shot that you couldn't get with a back.  Again, I'm talking about the older generation of backs, like the Phase P25/30/45 plus series and the Leaf 54s/75s.  Not that those backs are bad, just that the Nikon is that good.  Before I get flamed I'm not bashing the backs at all, especially the new Dalsa based backs of which I have no experience.

You have both.

When you have a project that meets the following qualifications which do you use?
- doesn't require high ISO or video
- is personally important to you
- doesn't have a tight deadline, and you have the time to do things the way you want to do them
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 06, 2012, 06:14:15 PM
The big bright viewfinder is for me such and advantage that I often choose to shoot with the AFi even when a DSLR might make more sense to some people.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: HarperPhotos on December 06, 2012, 08:28:49 PM
Hi Doug,

I have tried to keep completely out of this debate but your comments below


You have both.

When you have a project that meets the following qualifications which do you use?
- doesn't require high ISO or video
- is personally important to you
* doesn't have a tight deadline, and you have the time to do things the way you want to do them


Well that just floored me and personally sounds like a man clutching at straws.

I own a Leaf Aptus75/Mamiya RZ kit and a Nikon D800E & D800 and I would be using the Nikons on any project be personal or for a client.

I have made a packed with myself that if I don’t use my Leaf Aptus75/Mamiya RZ kit in the next six months its all going on Ebay as my Sinar P2 kit and Mamiya 645AFDII kit have already gone.

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: MF vs D800, but not CCD vs CMOS, or even Europe vs Asia
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 06, 2012, 11:44:01 PM
Hi,

Just a small reflection, which I think makes some sense. Guy talks about smoothness, which I presume is lack of noise, and he is quite definite on the M9 being smoother than Nikon. I'm pretty sure that does not depend on CCD vs. CMOS. But, there is another difference, and that is the Leica lacking OLP/AA-filter. Now the OLP filter does not affect noise directly, but any OLP filtered camera needs much more sharpening than non OLP. Sharpening would increase noise.


My interest into CCD vs. CMOS has little to do with MFD vs 135 CMOS but very much with my interest of technology. If there is something that is not obvious I want to find out why and how. I'm an engineer by profession not a photographer. But I do take pictures: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/

Best regards
Erik


Guy,
    I get what you are saying: your observations on the DMF vs D800 comparison, which are certainly relevant to that ongoing debate, and should be useful given your professional credentials.

But I doubt this is about "CCD VS CMOS", anymore than is about "Made in Europe vs Made in Asia", despite the perfect correlation of CCD=Europe=smooth, CMOS=Asia=less smooth in the camera origins.
Title: Re: MF vs D800, Phase is a great company
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 07, 2012, 12:19:16 AM
Hi,

Just as a comment I actually think that Phase is a great company with what to seem to be nice people. True, I don't use their products, and that has a lot to do with cost and a lot to do with need.

I also see that Phase One has done a great job building a decent camera system after Hasselblad locked everyone else out from their system. I understand that Phase tried to acquire rights and tools for Contax 645 from Kyocera, but no agreement was made. Great pity, Contax 645 was and still is a great system.

One problem with MF for me is that I really love live view and I'm also a quality freak. The combo I would find attractive would be a camera like the Alpa but using LV for focus. The ultimate camera for me may be the Hartblei H1, but with LV. Honestly, I still guess that I would not spend the money, but the attraction would be there.

It seems that CMOS is essentially needed for live view to work well. I would not rule out that Phase One would be able to source an MF CMOS sensor, like Leica has done for the new Leica M, that sensor is designed by CMOSIS and fabbed at STMicroelectronics. It seems that a small company like Leica can develop a CMOS sensor of they own. Phase has built up a camera system to fit their sensors, so I think they may have enough muscle to develop their own sensor, like Leica did.
http://www.chipworks.com/blog/technologyblog/2012/10/25/full-frame-dslr-cameras-part-iii-new-entrants-and-look-forward/


I would still not buy a Phase One Hartblei combo even with LV and CMOS, because of the cost. But in the unlikely event anyone gave me something like 30000€ I guess that a combo like that would be my first priority.

Best regards
Erik


Yes maybe so. Just interesting that on the art side of the house folks are seeing this as well. Maybe also a good diversion of how much I hate Phase negativity. ROTFLMAO

Alright you folks have fun, need to get back to some projects.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: TMARK on December 07, 2012, 09:39:10 AM
You have both.

When you have a project that meets the following qualifications which do you use?
- doesn't require high ISO or video
- is personally important to you
- doesn't have a tight deadline, and you have the time to do things the way you want to do them

Doug,

T-Max in the Blad or RZ, or sheet film!

But if I were to shoot that project digitally with the parameters who suggest, I'd do it with the biggest brightest viewfinder I could find, with the biggest chip.  A Credo 80 on an AFi or RZ or Hx or a 501cm. 

T
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: TMARK on December 07, 2012, 09:46:17 AM
Simon,

The D800e is brilliant.  I do, however, enjoy using an MF camera, mainly for the viewfinder.  So if I were shooting a slow paced project, and shooting it digitally, I would go for the biggest VF I could find. 

My ONLY gripe with the D800e (after I worked out my color issues) is that I wish it had a larger viewfinder.  Not that the 800's VF is bad at all, I just wish it were larger.

T

Hi Doug,

I have tried to keep completely out of this debate but your comments below


You have both.

When you have a project that meets the following qualifications which do you use?
- doesn't require high ISO or video
- is personally important to you
* doesn't have a tight deadline, and you have the time to do things the way you want to do them


Well that just floored me and personally sounds like a man clutching at straws.

I own a Leaf Aptus75/Mamiya RZ kit and a Nikon D800E & D800 and I would be using the Nikons on any project be personal or for a client.

I have made a packed with myself that if I don’t use my Leaf Aptus75/Mamiya RZ kit in the next six months its all going on Ebay as my Sinar P2 kit and Mamiya 645AFDII kit have already gone.

Cheers

Simon

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: TMARK on December 07, 2012, 09:49:59 AM
I have made a packed with myself that if I don’t use my Leaf Aptus75/Mamiya RZ kit in the next six months its all going on Ebay as my Sinar P2 kit and Mamiya 645AFDII kit have already gone.

Cheers

Simon


I sold my Aptus.  I would have kept it if it were V mount.  I will more than likely get a V mount back of the older generation for fun, for a different look, and I believe there is a V to RZ adapter. 
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Doug Peterson on December 07, 2012, 10:03:47 AM
Well that just floored me and personally sounds like a man clutching at straws.

I own a Leaf Aptus75/Mamiya RZ kit and a Nikon D800E & D800 and I would be using the Nikons on any project be personal or for a client.

I have made a packed with myself that if I don’t use my Leaf Aptus75/Mamiya RZ kit in the next six months its all going on Ebay as my Sinar P2 kit and Mamiya 645AFDII kit have already gone.

Sounds like a man who knows TMark pretty well :-)*. As the lawyers say, never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

TMark would prefer to work with MF when it is both practical and the photographic task is within MF's areas of strength (e.g. lower ISO, time to get it right etc). He of course uses his dSLR when that is a better choice or when practicality dictates it.

My overall point is that personal preference should never be under stated as a motivation to use one camera or another. If someone likes working with a given camera and it helps them execute their vision, increase their business, or just plain enjoy the process of image making more - then that is all that should really matter to that shooter. Nobody should get worked up that someone else prefers a different tool. If a given camera fit me well, and not one other person in the whole world liked it, I'd still be happy with it.

You say you'd prefer your D800/E for all personal and client shooting. If that is true you should sell your Aptus 75 today. My assumption is that you haven't done so because for any frustration you have right now you still enjoy shooting with it more than with your D800. But if there is no (or rarely) circumstance in which that is true you should not own it; it's not the right tool for you. Why do you have it?

*At least as well as one can gleam from posts; we still haven't met up for a beer (how bout it TMark?)
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Doug Peterson on December 07, 2012, 10:06:20 AM
I sold my Aptus.  I would have kept it if it were V mount.  I will more than likely get a V mount back of the older generation for fun, for a different look, and I believe there is a V to RZ adapter. 

Indeed. V mount backs work great with RZ. You're welcome to reach out by email and let us know that you want to be informed as relevant backs come through as pre-owned.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on December 07, 2012, 10:10:53 AM
Hi Doug,

I have tried to keep completely out of this debate but your comments below


You have both.

When you have a project that meets the following qualifications which do you use?
- doesn't require high ISO or video
- is personally important to you
* doesn't have a tight deadline, and you have the time to do things the way you want to do them


Well that just floored me and personally sounds like a man clutching at straws.

I own a Leaf Aptus75/Mamiya RZ kit and a Nikon D800E & D800 and I would be using the Nikons on any project be personal or for a client.

I have made a packed with myself that if I don’t use my Leaf Aptus75/Mamiya RZ kit in the next six months its all going on Ebay as my Sinar P2 kit and Mamiya 645AFDII kit have already gone.

Cheers

Simon



While there are many who no longer shoot medium or large format at all and exclusively utilize a 35mm DSLR, there are others who desire and even require using something different as well. While Doug's examples may not have rang true with you, I think his meaning is that a photographer may choose a different camera for different conditions, depending on those conditions and the applicability of a given camera system. I believe that has been a traditional approach for photographers for many, many years.

While perhaps the crafting of his message was not perfect, I understand his meaning and am not thrown by it. The idea that one is clutching at straws to desperately try to convey a reason to shoot medium format seems kind of extreme, but I can understand your reaction, given the set of conditions that were listed. The fact is - photographers who choose to use medium format do so for many reasons, rational ones, logical ones, even emotional ones. In an odd way, I think emotion is a key factor in equipment use.

Edit - I mean, not actually in an odd way, I think it is prevalent; odd only in that it doesn't get discussed much, nor can a manufacturer easily present it as a feature, but the emotional response to products is naturally very substantial.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 07, 2012, 10:11:38 AM

You say you'd prefer your D800/E for all personal and client shooting. If that is true you should sell your Aptus 75 today. My assumption is that you haven't done so because for any frustration you have right now you still enjoy shooting with it more than with your D800. But if there is no (or rarely) circumstance in which that is true you should not own it; it's not the right tool for you. Why do you have it?

*At least as well as one can gleam from posts; we still haven't met up for a beer (how bout it TMark?)

Maybe because the value that can be achieved is not an incentive to do so...
Some people have a fondness for their tools, even if they do not use them anymore  ;)
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 07, 2012, 11:27:06 AM

Those who would dance on the grave of MFD should be careful what they wish for.

 

Problem is people don't understand or to damn stubborn to really understand what that would truly mean to there wallets. You WANT competition and you want more players selling in the market. MF has shrank actually too far already with only 3 players in the field. We need Phase, Hassy and Leica or we are looking at Nikons and Canons at 9k each , because they can.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 07, 2012, 12:08:22 PM
I'm sorry, but I think prices should be much higher. More money on R & D = better products. It is not always cheaper product means higher profits.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: gerald.d on December 07, 2012, 12:12:57 PM
Problem is people don't understand or to damn stubborn to really understand what that would truly mean to there wallets. You WANT competition and you want more players selling in the market. MF has shrank actually too far already with only 3 players in the field. We need Phase, Hassy and Leica or we are looking at Nikons and Canons at 9k each , because they can.

Not sure I fully understand what you're saying here.

Are you claiming that the existence of a MFDB market is keeping the price of 35mm DSLR's in check?
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 07, 2012, 12:28:27 PM
Three players?

Let's see, Phase One, Hasselblad, Pentax, Leica, Mamiya, Leaf.

But just two makers of MF sensors, Dalsa and TrueSense.


Best regards
Erik



Not sure I fully understand what you're saying here.

Are you claiming that the existence of a MFDB market is keeping the price of 35mm DSLR's in check?
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 07, 2012, 12:40:57 PM
Three players?

Let's see, Phase One, Hasselblad, Pentax, Leica, Mamiya, Leaf.

But just two makers of MF sensors, Dalsa and TrueSense.


Best regards
Erik




As I understand
PhaseOne, (PhaseOne, MamiyaLeaf), Hasselblad, Leica
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 07, 2012, 12:50:20 PM

You say you'd prefer your D800/E for all personal and client shooting. If that is true you should sell your Aptus 75 today. My assumption is that you haven't done so because for any frustration you have right now you still enjoy shooting with it more than with your D800. But if there is no (or rarely) circumstance in which that is true you should not own it; it's not the right tool for you. Why do you have it?


That's really an un called for comment. Typical attitude of holier than thou "we know better" attitude of some MF dealers.
Part of the pattern of criticizing and demeaning working photographers that are moving away from MF.

I can think of many logical reasons to keep the camera for a few more months.
Maybe he is still getting familiar with the D800.
Maybe he has only one D800 for now. Having a backup is smart. Might be holding out for a D4x...
Maybe better to sell his used gear next fiscal year
Maybe he is just being responsibly cautious.
Maybe he does not need the cash quickly... he seems to be quite a busy photographer ;)
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 07, 2012, 12:51:34 PM
Not sure I fully understand what you're saying here.

Are you claiming that the existence of a MFDB market is keeping the price of 35mm DSLR's in check?

Sure just like 4/3rds gear. The more companies pouring out products in the photo market regardless of format N and C have to stay competitive to the market. Bottom line its all about market share and shareholder value. If John and Sally are buying MF and Susan and Jeff are buying 4/3rds it does eat into classic 35mm DSLR market since they are going outside of it and not buying Canon or Nikon. US as consumers WANT more products and companies in the market as it keeps the market competitive.


Oh and I forgot Pentax and Sinar, my bad. Phase , Leaf and Mamiya are really under 1 company Phase One( they serve different markets). Contax really is a dead company so not in the new market. Shame too
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Doug Peterson on December 07, 2012, 01:18:13 PM
That's really an un called for comment. Typical attitude of holier than thou "we know better" attitude of some MF dealers.
Part of the pattern of criticizing and demeaning working photographers that are moving away from MF.

I can think of many logical reasons to keep the camera for a few more months.
Maybe he is still getting familiar with the D800.
Maybe he has only one D800 for now. Having a backup is smart. Might be holding out for a D4x...
Maybe better to sell his used gear next fiscal year
Maybe he is just being responsibly cautious.
Maybe he does not need the cash quickly... he seems to be quite a busy photographer ;)

LOL, you're the greatest Fred  :-*
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: gerald.d on December 07, 2012, 01:33:06 PM
Sure just like 4/3rds gear. The more companies pouring out products in the photo market regardless of format N and C have to stay competitive to the market. Bottom line its all about market share and shareholder value. If John and Sally are buying MF and Susan and Jeff are buying 4/3rds it does eat into classic 35mm DSLR market since they are going outside of it and not buying Canon or Nikon. US as consumers WANT more products and companies in the market as it keeps the market competitive.


Oh and I forgot Pentax and Sinar, my bad. Phase , Leaf and Mamiya are really under 1 company Phase One( they serve different markets). Contax really is a dead company so not in the new market. Shame too

I don't buy that argument at all. Was it earlier in this thread that someone was explaining how a single Canon factory would churn out more product, value, and profit, in a single day than the entire MFDB industry in a year?

Claiming that the existence of an MFDB market keeps the price of Canons and Nikons in check is akin to claiming that Toyota consider the price of the Bugatti Veyron when setting the price of the Prius.

MFT is a totally different argument.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 07, 2012, 01:38:27 PM
Contax really is a dead company so not in the new market. Shame too

Contax never was a company. It is a brand name owned by Cark Zeiss. The Name was licensed to Kyochera.
Kyochera is far from being dead it has a market capitalization of $ 17 billion.
They are still a very advanced imaging company and are also a growing telecom company. Smart phones etc.
Carl Zeiss is doing just fine too. EUR 4.24 billion in annual revenues.. up more than a billion from the previous year.

So the companies are very sound and still heavily in the imaging world.
They simply saw little future in MF and stopped making MF gear. Looking at their financial
state it looks like they made a smart move.

One of the main reasons the Contax system did not go to someone else is that Kyocera
sold nearly all of the machining equipment used to Canon.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: theguywitha645d on December 07, 2012, 01:41:55 PM
I have a D800e and Pentax 645D. At ISO 1600, the Pentax is better, but the D800 goes higher--I have not had a chance to push 645D past 1600. The Pentax files are better generally. The ergonomics of the Pentax wins hands down--the D800 is a bit of a brick (it also feels a little cheap). Video in the Pentax is wanting and so is live view, but I can live without live view, especially since the viewfinder in the MF camera is that much bigger. The D800 is a fine camera, but it is still a 35mm camera. I like my D800, but it doesn't really excite me. So while I do do some great work with my D800, it is the Pentax I prefer. Could a viewer tell the difference between the two, maybe not, but I need to be the first person to please.

YMMV...
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 07, 2012, 01:50:43 PM
Three players?

Let's see, Phase One, Hasselblad, Pentax, Leica, Mamiya, Leaf.

But just two makers of MF sensors, Dalsa and TrueSense.


Best regards
Erik

Shusssh.... Don't mention Pentax MF. Less expensive, but in many ways more advanced, also a maker of DSLRs
and now part of a $6.62 billion imaging company.

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 07, 2012, 01:52:37 PM
It's the differences between folk that make life interesting. Same applies to cameras. Life is all the poorer without diversity.

Just imagine if we as photographers were limited to the mainstream, the all singing all dancing D800/5Ds of this world; what a desperately dull place this would be

Those who would dance on the grave of MFD should be careful what they wish for.

 

Problem is people don't understand or to damn stubborn to really understand what that would truly mean to there wallets. You WANT competition and you want more players selling in the market. MF has shrank actually too far already with only 3 players in the field. We need Phase, Hassy and Leica or we are looking at Nikons and Canons at 9k each , because they can.

Pentax ;)

The price of 35mm DSLRs has nothing to do with the tiny market of MFD. There is very strong and healthy competition between the various 35mm brands.
Just look at Canons recent price drop. This price drop has nothing to do with MF prices that are more than 5 times higher for essentially the equivalent IQ.
This is as a result of competition from Nikon and other 35mm DSLR manufacturers.

As far as expensive cameras go both Nikon and Canon have for a long time offered top of the end cameras in both heavier construction at a higher price
and lighter construction at a lower price, but with equivalent IQ. Seems to me that both Nikon and Canon come from a culture of empowering their clients
and keeping entry level costs very very low.

The big three companies often make large investments in other photography companies. Sony just invested over half a billion dollars in Olympus.
If they saw real growth potential in MF they would be shopping....
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 07, 2012, 01:55:13 PM
I don't buy that argument at all. Was it earlier in this thread that someone was explaining how a single Canon factory would churn out more product, value, and profit, in a single day than the entire MFDB industry in a year?

Claiming that the existence of an MFDB market keeps the price of Canons and Nikons in check is akin to claiming that Toyota consider the price of the Bugatti Veyron when setting the price of the Prius.

MFT is a totally different argument.

Difference of opinion , but the more products in the market be it higher or lower will have a impact on everyone since folks are given more choices to go outside 35mm.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 07, 2012, 01:58:18 PM
Contax never was a company. It is a brand name owned by Cark Zeiss. The Name was licensed to Kyochera.
Kyochera is far from being dead it has a market capitalization of $ 17 billion.
They are still a very advanced imaging company and are also a growing telecom company. Smart phones etc.
Carl Zeiss is doing just fine too. EUR 4.24 billion in annual revenues.. up more than a billion from the previous year.

So the companies are very sound and still heavily in the imaging world.
They simply saw little future in MF and stopped making MF gear. Looking at their financial
state it looks like they made a smart move.

One of the main reasons the Contax system did not go to someone else is that Kyocera
sold nearly all of the machining equipment used to Canon.

The comment related to actual product you can buy in the MF market.

Side note . I do not wish to dialogue with you at all so please leave me out of your posts and comments. Thanks I would appreciate that.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: bcooter on December 07, 2012, 02:11:26 PM
Fred,

OK . .  . do you know these dealers and reps, Doug, Steve and Yair?  I do and I can promise you, in fact I'll bet you almost anything that few if anyone would ever say they are demeaning.

I don't agree with everything they say, (who agrees 100% with anyone) and they want to sell equipment, but hey man, who doesn't want to sell their products and services?

The last two weeks for our studio was the perfect example of what Doug was talking about.  We shot a large lifestyle project with many multiples of talent, all ethnic origins, many multiple locations under an incredibly compressed schedule.

I could have shot 90% with my medium format cameras and yes I honestly believe it would have produced a better overall project, but the client and their respect agency wants a lot of volume and medium format is a little slower so we shot 75% 35mm 25% medium format.  

Use to 15% slower on anything didn't matter in 2007, but in today's marketplace 15% of time is about 4 sessions.  

Anyway, I won't sell my mfd cameras because I don't need to, I still use them and I have a rule that I rarely sell anything if I can't buy it again for the same or less price and I doubt if I could sell my large Contax kit with two of everything, including backs and lenses and buy them again for the same price.

Maybe next year I'll even buy another mfd camera, I haven't had time to decide yet, but after processing 25 trillion images the last few days from Nikons and Canons I know I'd rather have shot it all with my Contax and Phase backs.

The skin tones are better, the file is just different (I believe because it's a ccd sensor) and I loathe Nikon skin tones and double loathe 35mm viewfinders and we shoot about a gazillion images of all stripes every year.

This is 8 months worth of projects, all full 1 terabyte drives (originals, not backups which are in another location on Raid 5's).
(http://spotsinthebox.com/2012_lacie_1tb.jpg)

Also like it or not, when I look at our dit station we use (excuse the mess, but this is end of day as we're tearing down), the one thing that would be difficult to replaces for  in all of our still cameras is C-1 for tethering and client review.  That's the gold standar especially if your shooting Nikons and Canons.
(http://spotsinthebox.com/dit_station.jpg)

In fact since this year we bought REDs, we're pretty much up to speed on all motion cameras, so next year I'll probably buy some new still cameras.  A H5d, or Leaf/Mamiya/Phase for faster flash sync with leaf shutter lenses.

If I had time I'd do it this year, but I'm on the road right up to the start of the Holidays.

________________________________________________________________________


But Fred, let me pose a hypothetical question for you.  

You get a call to shoot Charlize Theron for a high 6 figure Dior project.  Are you going to show up with just your Nikons or will you also rent a medium format camera?

I'll bet, whether you use it or not, they're will be two medium format cameras on set.

Maybe not, but I know I'd have enough cameras there to fill up the room.

But then again,  we're all different.

IMO

BC

P.S.  In regards to digital cameras, or any cameras, people use what they like and feel comfortable with.  In the motion imagery biz, there are DP's that won't touch anything but an Arri, even if you can prove a RED does it better, or vice versa.  People use what they trust and like.

P.S.2  I apologize for adding fuel to the fire on this thread as IMO I think it's just a way to googleize a negative towards certain brands.

Which is a real shame because I'd rather see all of this effort in showing images like Simon does with his D800 or any camera system.

That's a lot more instructive and positive than showing a bunch of web images trying to prove a point.

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: TMARK on December 07, 2012, 02:11:55 PM
I have a D800e and Pentax 645D. At ISO 1600, the Pentax is better, but the D800 goes higher--I have not had a chance to push 645D past 1600. The Pentax files are better generally. The ergonomics of the Pentax wins hands down--the D800 is a bit of a brick (it also feels a little cheap). Video in the Pentax is wanting and so is live view, but I can live without live view, especially since the viewfinder in the MF camera is that much bigger. The D800 is a fine camera, but it is still a 35mm camera. I like my D800, but it doesn't really excite me. So while I do do some great work with my D800, it is the Pentax I prefer. Could a viewer tell the difference between the two, maybe not, but I need to be the first person to please.

YMMV...

I don't think the D800 feels cheap.  It feels precise, solid, almost as solid as the best 35mm SLR ever made, the F5.  The 5D1 and 2 feel cheap, certainly the CF door feels like the battery cover on my daughter's Barbie car.  Nikon needs to dump the on camera flash and put a real prism on the thing, like the one on the F4, F3HP, and F5.  I had a waistlevel for the F5 that I liked very much. I would even remove the prism from the F4 and use it without a finder, which was doable.  Limited to spot metering, but the screen was so bright you could use it outside.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: HarperPhotos on December 07, 2012, 02:12:07 PM
Hello,

Fred is right on a number of his assumptions.

Yes I am still getting my head around the Nikon D800E but mostly trying to get stable software to work e.g. Phase One Capture 7. Unfortunately Control My Nikon won't be avaiable to mid 2013 for Mac.

I now own D800E and D800 as I sold my Nikon D3x last week. It was a great camera but the D800s files are fatter like my Leaf Aptus 75/Mamiya RZ.

Why I have given myself six months or even sooner is prior to the D800E there was a very big difference between the Nikon D3x and Leaf Aptus75/Mamiya RZ so when it did come to

When you have a project that meets the following qualifications which do you use?
- doesn't require high ISO or video
- is personally important to you
* doesn't have a tight deadline, and you have the time to do things the way you want to do them

as stated by Doug yes it was the camera I went for.

But since May when I got the D800E I quickly noticed that I didn’t seem to be grabbing the RZ as much if at all.

I’ve been using my Mamiya RZ now for 23 years and I have a very strong affection for the old girl especially the waist level view finder and all those awesome lenses. But like the Sinar P2 kit and Mamiya 645AFDII kit if its not making money its out.

Sad but true.

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 07, 2012, 02:17:53 PM
Fred,

OK . .  . do you know these dealers and reps, Doug, Steve and Yair?  I do and I can promise you, in fact I'll bet you almost anything that few if anyone would ever say they are demeaning.

I don't agree with everything they say, (who agrees 100% with anyone) and they want to sell equipment, but hey man, who doesn't want to sell their products and services?

The last two weeks for our studio was the perfect example of what Doug was talking about.  We shot a large lifestyle project with many multiples of talent, all ethnic origins, many multiple locations under an incredibly compressed schedule.

I could have shot 90% with my medium format cameras and yes I honestly believe it would have produced a better overall project, but the client and their respect agency wants a lot of volume and medium format is a little slower so we shot 75% 35mm 25% medium format.  

Use to 15% slower on anything didn't matter in 2007, but in today's marketplace 15% of time is about 4 sessions.  

Anyway, I won't sell my mfd cameras because I don't need to, I still use them and I have a rule that I rarely sell anything if I can't buy it again for the same or less price and I doubt if I could sell my large Contax kit with two of everything, including backs and lenses and buy them again for the same price.

Maybe next year I'll even buy another mfd camera, I haven't had time to decide yet, but after processing 25 trillion images the last few days from Nikons and Canons I know I'd rather have shot it all with my Contax and Phase backs.

The skin tones are better, the file is just different (I believe because it's a ccd sensor) and I loathe Nikon skin tones and double loathe 35mm viewfinders and we shoot about a gazillion images of all stripes every year.

This is 8 months worth of projects, all full 1 terabyte drives (originals, not backups which are in another location on Raid 5's).
(http://spotsinthebox.com/2012_lacie_1tb.jpg)

Also like it or not, when I look at our dit station we use (excuse the mess, but this is end of day as we're tearing down), the one thing that would be difficult to replaces for  in all of our still cameras is C-1 for tethering and client review.  That's the gold standar especially if your shooting Nikons and Canons.
(http://spotsinthebox.com/dit_station.jpg)

In fact since this year we bought REDs, we're pretty much up to speed on all motion cameras, so next year I'll probably buy some new still cameras.  A H5d, or Leaf/Mamiya/Phase for faster flash sync with leaf shutter lenses.

If I had time I'd do it this year, but I'm on the road right up to the start of the Holidays.

________________________________________________________________________


But Fred, let me pose a hypothetical question for you.  

You get a call to shoot Charlize Theron for a high 6 figure Dior project.  Are you going to show up with just your Nikons or will you also rent a medium format camera?

I'll bet, whether you use it or not, they're will be two medium format cameras on set.

Maybe not, but I know I'd have enough cameras there to fill up the room.

But then again,  we're all different.

IMO

BC

P.S.  In regards to digital cameras, or any cameras, people use what they like and feel comfortable with.  In the motion imagery biz, there are DP's that won't touch anything but an Arri, even if you can prove a RED does it better, or vice versa.  People use what they trust and like.

P.S.2  I apologize for adding fuel to the fire on this thread as IMO I think it's just a way to googleize a negative towards certain brands.

Which is a real shame because I'd rather see all of this effort in showing images like Simon does with his D800 or any camera system.

That's a lot more instructive and positive than showing a bunch of web images trying to prove a point.



Total side note and don't have to answer here but curious as at one time we talked you mentioned the Red software was killing you guys, just wondering if that has improved a great deal.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 07, 2012, 02:21:15 PM
Hello,

Fred is write on a number of his assumptions.

Yes I am still getting my head around the Nikon D800E but mostly trying to get stable software to work e.g. Phase One Capture 7. Unfortunately Control My Nikon won't be avaiable to mid 2013 for Mac.

I now own D800E and D800 as I sold my Nikon D3x last week. It was a great camera but the D800s file a fatter like my Leaf Aptus 75/Mamiya RZ.

Why I have given myself six months or even sooner is prior to the D800E there was a very big difference between the Nikon D3x and Leaf Aptus75/Mamiya RZ so when it did come to

When you have a project that meets the following qualifications which do you use?
- doesn't require high ISO or video
- is personally important to you
* doesn't have a tight deadline, and you have the time to do things the way you want to do them

as stated by Doug yes it was the camera I went for.

But since May when I got the D800E I quickly noticed that I didn’t seem to be grabbing the RZ as much if at all.

I’ve been using my Mamiya RZ now for 23 years and I have a very strong affection for the old girl especially the waist level view finder and all those awesome lenses. But like the Sinar P2 and Mamiya 645AFDII if its not making money its out.

Sad but true.

Cheers

Simon


OT but Simon try as best you can to stick with C1 7 as it is the best by far for the Nikons. I tested them all and it still goes back in there camp. But you have to get some standards with it and yes that does take some time. Ping me if you need a little help in some settings.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: HarperPhotos on December 07, 2012, 02:27:44 PM
Hi Guy,

Thanks for the offer as the the Phase One guys here in New Zealand couldn’t even find there own asses let alone know how to use C7.

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Doug Peterson on December 07, 2012, 02:40:09 PM
Yes I am still getting my head around the Nikon D800E but mostly trying to get stable software to work e.g. Phase One Capture 7. Unfortunately Control My Nikon won't be avaiable to mid 2013 for Mac.

And I'll bet dollars to dimes that when Control My Nikon (CMN) launches it's first public version that it will have at least a few minor bugs. I say that not as a negative on CMN but because you can fill in any name from any company with the statement "[XYZ] version 1.0 has bugs".

Here's the thing, you're needlessly hitting yourself over the head. Capture One 7 is at version 7.0.1; it's going to have some bugs.

That may or may not be the way things "should be" and it may or may not be "fair" or whatever, but that is simply the case with every major new release of every major piece of software from every software maker. If you want something that will have rock solid stability, you should simply wait out brand new versions of software. If you want to be on the bleeding edge - you are likely to bleed a little. I do NOT mean to be trite or harsh and my tone here, if it's not clear from the written word on a forum, is not to be demeaning or insulting or anything negative; I just genuinely want you to understand that YOU are not doing anything wrong - struggling against bugs in an early release of a major new version of any software is a fact of digital life. You can struggle against it, acquiesce to it, or simply sit out the storm by waiting a bit. This will be true of Capture One 8.0, it will be true of OSX 10.9.0, it will be true of LR5.0, and it will be true of CMN1.0. At best you can hope that your particular configuration and usage won't trip any of the bugs (and so it will be smooth for you) but there WILL be bugs for at least some configurations and at least some usages.

BCooter, if you follow all of his posts, is super conservative with his tethered configurations. He only uses well tested highly recommended versions of software, everything is thoroughly cleaned/labeled/tested, everything (once tested) remains static (no upgrading software just because something new is out, no trying something new out on a job). And guess what? He rarely has any significant problems despite following some crazy intensive schedules and producing a LOT (literally, as you can see above, a "stack full of drives" worth) images. (obviously Bcooter: jump in if I misrepresent anything).
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: bcooter on December 07, 2012, 03:06:19 PM
Doug, we don't have a lot of issues, but we NEVER use our capture computers for anything but capturing and on set processing.  NEVER and if I see an assistant watching a u-tooob video on one of them I go crazy.

We keep it clean, don't update until we have to and we test the s**t out of everything using worst case scenario as a goal. In other words we shoot a huge burst of files, yank the cord, plug it in an see what happens.

We process in the background (every client asks to send an few jpegs back to their cd or client) and keep shooting.  We let the batteries run down to zero and see what happens.  In other words, we know the worst before we go into a project.

Also prior to production, we also lay out all of our cameras on a big white sheet and clean everything, every lens, every contact like we're polishing jewels.  

In fact of the e-mails and calls I get from people about issues they have with connection, 99.999999999% all use their computers for other functions and have full drives, old software laying around in them, try running 12 applications when working, etc. etc.

I'm not bragging or talking down, but if you treat this business like it's life and death, you rarely have any problems.  If you work with good people and suppliers you rarely have any problems.

If an artist or a client pushes you into cutting corners . . . then there are problems, but we all know that.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 07, 2012, 03:22:31 PM
But Fred, let me pose a hypothetical question for you.  

You get a call to shoot Charlize Theron for a high 6 figure Dior project.  Are you going to show up with just your Nikons or will you also rent a medium format camera?

I'll bet, whether you use it or not, they're will be two medium format cameras on set.

Maybe not, but I know I'd have enough cameras there to fill up the room.

If and that's a very big IF.
That would very much depend on what images they based their decision on. The last thing I would do is have a
room full of cameras. I would choose the right camera and that is what I would use.

For the beauty advertising I have done (L'Oreal, Wella, Monteil, AOK, and many others)  I have nearly always chosen the format or camera I have used for
the photos that the client/agency based their decision on.

I recently did a shoot with Ashley Greene from Twilight for Mark cosmetics. I still had MF digital, but chose to shoot it with a 35mm DSLR.

That said I don't exclude renting or even buying MFD again in the future. Things would have to change significantly on the functionality front though.

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 07, 2012, 03:28:55 PM
Quote from: KLaban
Those who would dance on the grave of MFD should be careful what they wish for.


Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Problem is people don't understand or to damn stubborn to really understand what that would truly mean to there wallets. You WANT competition and you want more players selling in the market. MF has shrank actually too far already with only 3 players in the field. We need Phase, Hassy and Leica or we are looking at Nikons and Canons at 9k each , because they can.


Fred, please don't associate my quote with Guy's. I can assure you the two have no common ground.




Oops... when you quote a post that has a quote in it that quote does not carry over. Fixed it now. :)
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 07, 2012, 04:53:00 PM
Fred, what I can't understand is why you chose to lump together my quote with Guy's? As I said, the two have no common ground. The fact is I disagree with Guy's post. It would be better if you removed my quote.

Sorry. It's was not my intention to "lump you in", it was just to give the response you had received some context as the response doesn't read clearly without what he was responding to.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 07, 2012, 04:59:51 PM
Hi,

Regarding competition in the DSLR marketplace, I was much surprised when:

- Sony released the Alpha 900 at 3000$, Canon released 5DII at 3000$ and Nikon released D3X at 8000$
- Nikon released D800 at 2800$, Canon released 5DIII at 3000$ followed by Sony releasing A99 at 3000$

Never understood the pricing of the D3X.

I am also somewhat confused by the D4 and 4DX.

Best regards
Erik



Pentax ;)

The price of 35mm DSLRs has nothing to do with the tiny market of MFD. There is very strong and healthy competition between the various 35mm brands.
Just look at Canons recent price drop. This price drop has nothing to do with MF prices that are more than 5 times higher for essentially the equivalent IQ.
This is as a result of competition from Nikon and other 35mm DSLR manufacturers.

As far as expensive cameras go both Nikon and Canon have for a long time offered top of the end cameras in both heavier construction at a higher price
and lighter construction at a lower price, but with equivalent IQ. Seems to me that both Nikon and Canon come from a culture of empowering their clients
and keeping entry level costs very very low.

The big three companies often make large investments in other photography companies. Sony just invested over half a billion dollars in Olympus.
If they saw real growth potential in MF they would be shopping....
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 07, 2012, 05:32:23 PM
The comment related to actual product you can buy in the MF market.

Your words were "Contax really is a dead company"

My response was simply to correct the statement that Contax was a company and to state that the owner Zeiss
is growing and that the licencee of the brand Kyochera is still alive and very well.

That said my followup is about adding information, not saying you were lying or anything, you comment after all was
just a brief one :)

A german photo magazine recently reported that the Contax brand name licence with Kyochera has
expired and all rights have returned to Carl Zeiss.

That said the Contax 645 is still supported by Phase One as far as manufacturing backs... and that is commendable.
There is also a very healthy used market. Right now there are about 350 Contax 645 items for sale on ebay.

It is sad though that the Contax 645 is no longer in production and was not developed further.
Having an MF system developed by an electonics, optical and materials giants like Zeiss and Kyochera
would have been very interesting.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 07, 2012, 05:34:23 PM
Hi,

Just another set of small thoughts.

Development in DSLRs is not very fast. The D800 came out and shook the industry a bit, but all other new releases are in the 20 MP bracket. The great news is of course the Leica M with it's CMOSIS designed CMOS sensor.

(http://www.chipworks.com/blog/technologyblog/files/2012/10/dslr-chart-2-i2.jpg)

See also the two figures enclosed, one is DxO-mark for 135 FF DSLR and the other for MF.

Quite obviously MF has a significant advantage in resolution. Also it is quite obvious that would MF have the same quality of readout circuitry as the recent Sony based sensors they would rank up about two EV in DR. Simple algebra.

As I see it, there is a real possibility for MF to do a quantum step, get better sensors! Going to CMOS would also give full live view!

Another way to increase market at low cost would be to sell fully refurbished backs at reasonable price with an extended warranty or a reasonably priced maintenance contract. Say that you can buy a refurb back for 50000$ with a yearly maintenance cost of 1250$. Wouldn't such a solution be reasonable, lowering cost of entry and reduce risk?

Best regards
Erik






I recommend this article. It seems to me that, unfortunately, it's Near future for MF. I warn that is not a provocation!
Sony Ambassador Mr. Jacek Bonecki-some years ago published a comparison test (Hasselblad, Sony, Mamiya) - full of basic errors, absolutely devoid of objectivity, just shameful article-after which I could not look in the mirror, if I was the author. Then it was the marketing gibberish, in the worst form.
Unfortunately, times have changed and become very blurred boundary. Manufacturers MF - listen carefully to what your customers are saying - otherwise you will share the fate of such a giant like Nokia, and the title of the article will be a reality!
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: yaya on December 07, 2012, 05:57:56 PM
Hi,

Just another set of small thoughts.

Development in DSLRs is not very fast. The D800 came out and shook the industry a bit, but all other new releases are in the 20 MP bracket. The great news is of course the Leica M with it's CMOSIS designed CMOS sensor.

(http://www.chipworks.com/blog/technologyblog/files/2012/10/dslr-chart-2-i2.jpg)

They've emitted the 6.6MP Leaf C-Most from 2000....the 14n that came in 2002 used the same basic chip/ packaging design/ manufacture...
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 07, 2012, 06:05:34 PM
Quite obviously MF has a significant advantage in resolution.
Best regards
Erik

That may not be the case soon.
Cmosis is already making a 70MP 35mm format sensor.
It has electronic rolling shutter capability
8 30Mhz channels that let it reach 3 frames per second at full resolution, but it is designed
for faster frame rates with cropping or down-sampling.

(http://www.cmosis.com/assets/images/_made/assets/images/products/Screen_Shot_2011-11-04_at_154025_240_202.png)

There are 3 versions.
Color
Monochrome with microlenses
Monochrome without microlenses.

http://www.cmosis.com/?ACT=52&key=Z0xuV25NYTZKUHcxNGxSY1Nta0RWekZpanRycE1SYk4wL1JQVXNZT21XS1dON2Z6bjM4WWgxbjhxWDVONkhKenlOdlgreHBmbitIeUg1enpKMW5Sd0pzdFBLcVZ0a1VlU1NQM3JMV2JON2Y3a2RkQUcxNlBJZFN6UUkzanpvb08= (http://www.cmosis.com/?ACT=52&key=Z0xuV25NYTZKUHcxNGxSY1Nta0RWekZpanRycE1SYk4wL1JQVXNZT21XS1dON2Z6bjM4WWgxbjhxWDVONkhKenlOdlgreHBmbitIeUg1enpKMW5Sd0pzdFBLcVZ0a1VlU1NQM3JMV2JON2Y3a2RkQUcxNlBJZFN6UUkzanpvb08=)
Title: Some advantages of medium format: VF's, lens resolution, photographic DR?
Post by: BJL on December 07, 2012, 06:53:33 PM
That 70MP, 31x22mm CMOSIS sensor is not itself a threat to MF, due to its relatvely poor noise floor and well capacity, but it seems likely that sooner or later, sensors will improve to the point where lens resolution dominates overall image resolution. That should leave larger "medium" formats with a natural advantage, though it is much debated what fraction of photography needs even as much resolution as the D800 offers.

Electron well capacity limits might also leave larger formats with a sustained advantage in maximum "electrons per image" or "electons per pixel after normalizing to equal pixel count", which again could give a natural advantage in photographically relevant DR and SNR to larger formats, at least when one can expose at low enough exposure index, to make good use of full well capacity.

But what fascinates me is the number of MF users who particularly emphasize the advantage of the big, bright image in the optical viewfinder. What happens if and when EVFs get good enough in dynamic range and such to be a fully satisfactory alternative (or adjunct) to the OVF? Because there is no relationship beween the size/brightness of an EVF image and the size of the sensor: even a Micro Four Thirds camera could have an EVF with an image size as big as any ever seen on an SLR, if there were sufficient demand for that. And big, beautiful hot-shoe mounted EVF's could also be offered as accessories for many current SLR's, using HDMI out.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on December 07, 2012, 07:49:35 PM
... the point where lens resolution dominates overall image resolution. That should leave larger "medium" formats with a natural advantage...

I always thought that 35mm-format lenses have a "natural advantage" over medium-format lenses (at least in lp/mm), not the other way around. Thus, it is the degree of enlargement that more than compensates the initial lens "disadvantage."
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 08, 2012, 01:55:11 AM
Hi,


Yes and no. There is no law in nature saying that smaller lenses are better. Larger formats require larger lenses and cost probably rises with size. Many years ago Photodo published some MTF tests of medium format lenses. In the Photodo tests the few MF lenses tested were weaker than their 135 colleagues, except Mamiya 7 lenses that were competitive with 135 on an absolute scale.

The worst MF lens in the Photodo tests was the Zeiss 120/4 macro planar, that lens got grade 2.7.

Now, the very same lens is sold by Hartblei (in Germany) as a tilt and shift lens. Diglloyd has tested it and finds it excellent, although it needs to be stopped down to f/11 for god sharpness/contrast whatever. A lens that needs stopping down to f/11 is not very good in my book. To put it simply, I don't understand. The only way of finding out is to get one of those lenses and finding out. A quite expensive proposal, unfortunately.

It was a bit interesting that Michael switched from Pentax 67 (on film) to Contax 645 and Phase One (P25?). With time he found out that in many cases the Canons he had offered better sharpness. When he came back to MF it was with a P45 and a few selected lenses from Rodenstock calculated for MF digital. Those lenses were probably better than most 135 lenses according to MTF data.

Joseph Holmes set out to replace 4x5" with MFD and started putting together an equipment but found that MF-stuff had a large variation in quality. He also worked with students, and found that more than half of the equipment that came under his hands had issues. Foremost, it seemed like Schneider and Rodenstock had lousy quality control with real lenses being far off from MTF data. Josep Holmes finally settled on carefully cherry picked Mamiya lenses on a Phase One body.

Here is a good example of what is achievable with IQ 180 on Alpa with "Digital" lens (I don't know which lens was used, images courtesy of Marc McCalmont)
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=5

In the same article I also looked at sample images from Pentax 645D and Nikon D800E published at Imaging Resource and calculated MTF. Here the difference was quite small, see enclosed screen dump.

Best regards
Erik




I always thought that 35mm-format lenses have a "natural advantage" over medium-format lenses (at least in lp/mm), not the other way around. Thus, it is the degree of enlargement that more than compensates the initial lens "disadvantage."
Title: Re: Some advantages of medium format: VF's, lens resolution, photographic DR?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 08, 2012, 02:05:48 AM
Hi,

I agree with BJL on both issues.

Regarding image quality, there has always been a quest for better image quality. In film days it was 8x10". Needed or not is dependent on viewing distance.

Timothy Greenfield-Sanders was known to produce mural size prints from large format film intended to be viewed from relative short distance.

Best regards
Erik

Electron well capacity limits might also leave larger formats with a sustained advantage in maximum "electrons per image" or "electons per pixel after normalizing to equal pixel count", which again could give a natural advantage in photographically relevant DR and SNR to larger formats, at least when one can expose at low enough exposure index, to make good use of full well capacity.

But what fascinates me is the number of MF users who particularly emphasize the advantage of the big, bright image in the optical viewfinder. What happens if and when EVFs get good enough in dynamic range and such to be a fully satisfactory alternative (or adjunct) to the OVF? Because there is no relationship beween the size/brightness of an EVF image and the size of the sensor: even a Micro Four Thirds camera could have an EVF with an image size as big as any ever seen on an SLR, if there were sufficient demand for that. And big, beautiful hot-shoe mounted EVF's could also be offered as accessories for many current SLR's, using HDMI out.

Title: Re: Some advantages of medium format: VF's, lens resolution, photographic DR?
Post by: TMARK on December 08, 2012, 12:15:39 PM
But what fascinates me is the number of MF users who particularly emphasize the advantage of the big, bright image in the optical viewfinder. What happens if and when EVFs get good enough in dynamic range and such to be a fully satisfactory alternative (or adjunct) to the OVF?


Bring it on.

The EVF in the Red One is pretty good.  If an EVF can give me what I can get from an RZ or Blad, I'm all over it.  Too often EVFs just look electronic, like unprocessed Jpegs that can't be used to judge exposure from looking at a scene through a lens.  It is distracting from composition and the feling of being in the image, which is where I do my best work.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 10, 2012, 01:30:07 AM

DF becomes the DF+...... slightly better focus and focus calibration.

New Hasselbad.... better eyecup and jpeg..... True focus II (slight improvement).


Regarding the body: DF+ is a nice incremental improvement. Nothing revolutionary. Then again can you tell me the huge improvements to the body element of the 5D3 over the 5D2?

Can I tell you the improvements in the body of the Canon 5D III over the 5D II? Sure can.....

Very significant improvements.

Autofocus.

5DII          9   focus points.   Working range      EV -0.5-18
5dIII       61   focus points     Working range      EV -2.0 - 18

The 5DIII has a larger combination of focus point settings. Auto, manual single point (spot focus), various expanded point focusing settings and area focus.

If we look at the 1DX it's predictive and tracking of focusing also uses luminance and color information from the exposure metering sensor to assist the AF system.

Frames per second.

5DII        3.9 fps
5dIII       6.0 fps


Flash support.

The Canon 5DIII has even more flash support with power and ratio control of multiple flashes wirelessly directly from the camera menu.

Video

5DIII now has uncompressed HDMI output.

Camera Noise
The 5DIII has a silent shooting mode for remarkably quiet shooting.

memory cards
5dII just one CF slot.
5dIII one CF slot and one SD slot. This gives the camera redundancy if one card fails.
The addition of the SD card also includes direct Eye-Fi support for Wi-Fi tethering to both Laptops , iPads, iPhones and Android devices.


I think there is no comparison between the Canon 5dIII improvements compared to the DF to DF+ improvements.

One could also make a Nikon d700 to D800 vs DF P65 to DF+ IQ180.

It's also interesting to note that the Canon despite all the improvements and the addition of uncompressed HDMI
it has already dropped in price from it's initial price thanks to the healthy competition in the 35mm DSLR sector.

 
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 10, 2012, 02:18:31 AM
Earlier in this thread I mentioned the importance of the Carl Zeiss announcment of a new line of lenses specifically developed for high MP count 35mm DSLRs
and how it will effect the quality that can be reached by 35mm DSLRs.

(http://prophotocoalition.com/images/uploads/121027_9283_dancarr.jpg)

The 55mm 1.4 being the first to be shown.

Here is an interesting article about the new lens.

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/12/06/how-sharp-is-the-new-zeiss-distagon-55mm-f1-4-zf-2-lens-comparison.aspx/#more-49844 (http://nikonrumors.com/2012/12/06/how-sharp-is-the-new-zeiss-distagon-55mm-f1-4-zf-2-lens-comparison.aspx/#more-49844)

The quality increase wide open at 1.4 is quite significant as is the better bokeh.

It will be interesting to see how this compared with MF.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: HarperPhotos on December 10, 2012, 02:51:36 AM
Hello,

The sharpness increase in my opinion is defiantly NOT worth paying 4 grand.

I wished they had used a Nikon 50mm f1.4G lens instead of the older Nikon 50mm F1.4D lens in this review.

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 10, 2012, 03:21:54 AM
Hello,

The sharpness increase in my opinion is defiantly NOT worth paying 4 grand.

I wished they had used a Nikon 50mm f1.4G lens instead of the older Nikon 50mm F1.4D lens in this review.

Cheers

Simon

Yup the price is steep if that will be the final selling price.

Good you pointed out that eh Nikon lens is an older model.

There is quite a difference between the two.

(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Nikon-50mm-f-1.4D-AF-Lens/Crop1/2010-05-07_08-25-25.jpg)
D


(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Nikon-50mm-f-1.4G-AF-S-Lens/Crop1/2009-10-23_15-33-15.jpg)
G

Looking at this difference the G might be very close to the new Zeiss or even a match for it.

Also the G lens had a 9 blade iris for better bokeh when stopped down. The D lens only has 6 blades.

Simon is right. We need to see the 50mm 1.4G vs the Carl Zeiss 55mm 1.4.
Price difference also needs to be considered....

$ 400 to $ 4,000.... 10x  :o
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: yaya on December 10, 2012, 07:24:58 AM
I played with the 55mm/1.4 on a D800E. It's a beast as expected and is very well made with a very smooth MF action. It is bigger and heavier than the Contax 645AF 55mm.

IMO if a high end 35mm camera now requires expensive MF lenses with no VR to get the most out of it then it makes the camera less flexible and maybe less attractive since manual focus is not so easy with the small viewfinder. I guess it'll work better on a D4 or a 1DX with their larger finders

As a general comment if a lens is designed to be a portrait lens (as most 50mm are) then there is no real point in testing and comparing edge sharpness

Yair
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: MrSmith on December 10, 2012, 08:24:19 AM
IMO if a high end 35mm camera now requires expensive MF lenses with no VR to get the most out of it then it makes the camera less flexible and maybe less attractive since manual focus is not so easy with the small viewfinder. I guess it'll work better on a D4 or a 1DX with their larger finders

but you get focus confirmation* with all the focus points not just 1 in the middle of the frame plus a live view option that is usable and doesn't need a ND filter taking off and on.

*presuming focus confirmation will work the same as other manual focus lenses
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: bcooter on December 10, 2012, 08:33:19 AM
snip........ since manual focus is not so easy with the small viewfinder. .........snip

Yair,

I'm with you on this.

One of the most difficult things to learn is taking a three dimensional world, looking at it through a semi three dimensional optical viewfinder then lighting, composing to make the 2 dimensional end result look almost three dimensional.

That's how most of us trained ourselves.

When the RED's EVF came out I thought they were pretty spiffy.  High rez enough to focus and heck everything starts out in two dimensions, so less brain drain on my end.  

What I noticed was everything looked kind of flat.  I was missing that intermediate step.

Now, I don't have a single doubt that someday all cameras will be evfs.   It's just too easy and too electronic for them not to be.  Also we have a new generation of photographers learning on iphones instead of cameras.

Still, there is a difference.  When we got our first REDs we would use the RED's to base out the shot and the lighting (if we were using continuous light).  I think everything suffered.  Now even if I'm using a RED as the primary camera I still base out with a still camera or no camera at all.

It makes for more thoughtful imagery . . . at least for me.

My partner and wife who is our producer and on set style director is one of the few non photographers I know that can see a 3 dimensional set with her eyes and transfer it into a two dimensional outcome.

In fact, she never, ever looks at the monitor when we're shooting tethered.  She finds it completely uninteresting and says anything important is happening on set, not on a screen.

Even though she is at a separate angle from the camera she can spot a bad tangent a block away and when she mentions it I'll say, naw it's ok and she says check the files.  She's right everytime.  You can't fool a trained eye.

Actually, to take this one step further, the thing I miss about the lab and film is the surprise of going from an optical viewfinder, two steps further to seeing the final image on film.

It's a gas and somewhere with camera lcds, tethering, hot folders to special processes like lightroom, we lose some of the surprise some of the innovation and I think spend way too much time looking at a screen and less time on set.

Not to debate this silly d800 vs. the world thing because I still think a few protagonists want to googlize he negatives of medium format, but if there is anything I dislike about dslrs is the crappy manual focus on those tiny screens.  If your ever used a F5 Nikon and go back to one of the digital era nikons it's like a cheap prosumer view and since I shoot people shooting with life view really isn't that appealing.

I just find it a dumbing down of the photographic process.

To take this thought to a different level, I think everyone should try a rangfinder like a Leica.  There is something so cool about looking through that weird viewfinder with crop lines and no real view of the lens, taking a series of frames and then looking at them in final.  It's a leap almost like going to the lab.

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

In fact, I love my REDs, but the only thing that would make me go to an Arri is it has an optical viewfinder.  That's something I can really understand.

In regards to the Zeiss glass, I have a few of those lenses we use one one of our RED One's for hand holding and the previous versions were great lenses and you can focus them on a RED, but I put them on my still Nikon D3 and their a beast to manually focus on that small ground plastic.

As I said someday I guess we'll all focus on Ipad screens mounted to some kind of lens and probably even have cameras that we can say, light it like Newton or Bordin and the camera will do it, maybe it will even talk to the model and give direction, like smile now, or looks off camera.  

Sounds like a lot of fun.  (yawn).

IMO

BC
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Stefan.Steib on December 10, 2012, 10:02:52 AM
BC - if all cameras had a finder like the Leica S2 or the Nikon F5 the world would be a better place to work in.
This was and is the top of the optical mirror finder.
I don´t think it can be done any better.

But I believe we will have other finders in the future, like the Zeiss Cinemizer or the Sony counterpart, off the camera
no more forcing us to go down or step on ladders or hang off helicopters............ :)

The OLED´s of the Sony HMZ T2 are already that good that they match or surpass a Pro Video finder like the Zacuto and this in 3D,
maybe your wife will then take a look as soon as you can "walk around" with your eyes.Once these finders will run around 4k res I think optical finders are dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMwsMaSxZDU

This is the next logical step and already visible - and working. Soon these will become much smaller, higher res and even more comfortable.
This will allow a full concentration to the subject and give you a 100% match of the stuff that is recorded with your actual vision-in 3 D

regards
Stefan
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: yaya on December 10, 2012, 11:20:16 AM
but you get focus confirmation* with all the focus points not just 1 in the middle of the frame plus a live view option that is usable and doesn't need a ND filter taking off and on.

*presuming focus confirmation will work the same as other manual focus lenses

You have the same functionality in the D4/ 1DX and you also have a larger finder...
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 10, 2012, 12:28:14 PM
I played with the 55mm/1.4 on a D800E. It's a beast as expected and is very well made with a very smooth MF action. It is bigger and heavier than the Contax 645AF 55mm.

IMO if a high end 35mm camera now requires expensive MF lenses with no VR to get the most out of it then it makes the camera less flexible and maybe less attractive since manual focus is not so easy with the small viewfinder. I guess it'll work better on a D4 or a 1DX with their larger finders

As a general comment if a lens is designed to be a portrait lens (as most 50mm are) then there is no real point in testing and comparing edge sharpness

Yair

35mm does not require expensive medium format lenses. MF lenses have a much larger image circle than needed on a 35mm System and as such are not optimized for a
smaller sensor. MF lenses will not produce better results on a 24x36 sensor than a new Nikon or Canon lens designed specifically for the sensor size.

Also in that comparison an older Nikon lens was used, not the newer 50mm 1.4G.

Here is the difference:
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Nikon-50mm-f-1.4D-AF-Lens/Crop1/2010-05-07_08-25-25.jpg)
Older Nikon 1.4D at 1.4center frame



(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Nikon-50mm-f-1.4G-AF-S-Lens/Crop1/2009-10-23_15-33-15.jpg)
New 50mm 1.4G at 1.4center frame



Corner difference:
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Nikon-50mm-f-1.4D-AF-Lens/Crop3/2010-05-07_08-25-25.jpg)
D at 1.4 corner
(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Nikon-50mm-f-1.4G-AF-S-Lens/Crop3/2009-10-23_15-33-15.jpg)
G at 1.4 corner

As you can see there is a significant quality difference. Very close and probably matching the Zeiss 55mm.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Doug Peterson on December 10, 2012, 12:46:32 PM
Funny I could swear I can remember you (FredBGG) touting the excellent performance of his Fuji lenses (designed for 6x8 with movement) as used on a 35mm dSLR.

Anytime you read such categorical statements you can be assured they are not entirely correct.

In truth some medium format lenses hold up exceptionally well on a Nikon/canon.
Also some dSLR lenses hold up reasonably well on medium format (e.g. 24TS).

Also you really can't generalize about quality vs. price vs. image circle. What makes a lens perform better or worse or be more or less expensive is a very complicated equation.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 10, 2012, 12:47:18 PM
I played with the 55mm/1.4 on a D800E.......

IMO if a high end 35mm camera now requires expensive MF lenses with no VR to get the most out of it then it makes the camera less flexible and maybe less attractive since manual focus is not so easy with the small viewfinder. I guess it'll work better on a D4 or a 1DX with their larger finders

Yair

I don't think there will be a huge difference on a 1DX vs a 5dIII
The difference in magnification is not large at all.


1DX    Approx. 0.76x (-1m-1 with 50mm lens at infinity) / 35.0° angle of view
5DIII   Approx. 0.71x / Angle of view 34.1° (with 50mm lens at infinity, -1 m-1 (dpt))

What you need to do is test manual focusing with a manual focusing optimized focusing screen. Both Nikon and Canon make special screens for manual focusing.

But if we are going to talk about manual focusing abilities there is no comparison between MFD and the D800.
There are so many more options that assist with manual focusing with the D800. Face recognition assisted manual focus live view ... just to mention one.
See my post on page 5 of this thread.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: yaya on December 10, 2012, 12:59:47 PM
35mm does not require expensive medium format lenses.
MF as in Manual Focus...
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 10, 2012, 01:02:45 PM
MF as in Manual Focus...

Oh. OK. ;)

Most of my reason still stands. 35mm DSLR do not require manual focusing lenses, but if you do need or want to use manual focus the D800 offers
far more precise manual focus support then MFD.

As previously stated in this thread
Quote
As far as focus checking the implementation on the IQ backs is nice, but hardly state of the art as far as on camera image review goes.
On the D800 you can zoom in with one click using the center button of the multi controller on the back next to the screen
and in a beat navigate quickly to any point.
But there more to it than that. When the camera zooms in it automatically zooms into the area of the focus point that was used for the shoot.
And that is either a manually chosen point or the automatically chosen points.
What is also nice about it is that you still have the regular zoom in button that zooms into the center of the frame.
This is very nice for fashion work. Set you focus point on the face/eyes. Then review the photo. One button pops right to the face while the other to the waist.
Here is what I'm talking about.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8206/8194087638_0205e1db5f_b.jpg)

With the focus point chosen being the one with the green dot when you zoom in with the multi function center button the display
automatically moves to the face. Using the regular magnify button is zooms into the center of the frame.

But there is more. If you are shooting fashion even with manual focus the camera will also zoom into faces using face recognition regardless of where the face is.
It will magnify the face choosing a crop that shows eyes and mouth regardless of the size of the face in the shot. You can then go even closer with one or two clicks.
And there is even more to it. If there are more than one model in the shot you can jump instantly through all the faces in the shot.
Not only is this useful for checking focus, but also useful for quickly checking for closed eyes etc in a large group. This face recognition in review (playback) mode
works without interfering with other review functions and it's invoked by the front wheel that normally controls aperture. It's a seamless thumb and index finger thing.
Title: 35mm OVF image vs bigger MF OVF image vs even bigger magnified live view image
Post by: BJL on December 10, 2012, 01:26:23 PM
... manual focus is not so easy with the small viewfinder. I guess it'll work better on a D4 or a 1DX with their larger finders
On the other hand, when manual focusing goes with having enough time to do it slowly and carefully, and maybe with a tripod, then the live view manual focus offered by modern CMOS sensors gives a vastly larger and more detailed image than any optical viewfinder. For example, using 10x magnification on a 3" diagonal, 800x600 rear screen is like viewing a portion of the full image as it would appear on a 30" diagonal, 8000x6000 screen, vastly exceeding the apparent image size and resolution of the secondary image from the ground glass in an OVF (which, it should be remembered, has far lower resolution that the lens or sensor provides). With a well-designed live view system (as on the Olympus E-M5, which is the only good example I have experience with) you can have touch screen selection of enlargement points allowing one to jump between full view and magnified views of various parts of the scene with a couple of screen taps and button presses.

In a peep-hole EVF, the apparent image size is ever greater --- almost like pressing your noise up against that imaginary 30" screen.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 10, 2012, 01:26:30 PM
Funny I could swear I can remember you (FredBGG) touting the excellent performance of his Fuji lenses (designed for 6x8 with movement) as used on a 35mm dSLR.

I posted a comparison between a Fuji GX680 250mm f5.6 and a Canon 200mm 2.8
The point of that posting was quite clear and not what you are implying.
I posted that example to show the performance of Fuji GX680 lenses on 6 micron sensors to validate that the Fuji GX680 lenses
would preform very well on a MFDB.

Also Doug before you bend this out of proportion there are a few things to keep in mind.
The Fuji GX680 lenses may have a very large image circle, but they also have very large rear lens elements and the camera has a huge lens mount throat allowing for vast lens design freedom.

Also the comparison made was with an inexpensive Canon lens. ($ 700 today) vs a Fuji gx680 lens that that adjusted for inflation
would be a $ 6000 lens.

Then you need to consider that the aperture used was comparing the lenses at 5.6 thus the Canon has depth of field
abilities that the MF lens on the Canon would never be able to match.

The other point of using Fuji gx680 lenses on a DSLR is to get tilt shift ability on focal lengths such as 150mm and above.

I have never said that a Fuji gx680 lens would be better than a high end 35mm system lens.
Title: Re: 35mm OVF image vs bigger MF OVF image vs even bigger magnified live view image
Post by: FredBGG on December 10, 2012, 01:31:23 PM
On the other hand, when manual focusing goes with having enough time to do it slowly and carefully, and maybe with a tripod, then live view manual focus gives a vastly larger and mote detailed image than any optical viewfinder. For example, using 10x magnification on a 3" diagonal, 800x600 rear screen is like viewing a portion of the full image as it would appear on a 30" diagonal, 8000x6000 screen, vastly exceeding the apparent image size and resolution of the secondary image from the ground glass in an OVF (which, it should be remembered, has far lower resolution that the lens or sensor provides). With a well-designed live view system (as on the Olympus E-M5 for example) you can have touch screen selection of enlargement points allowing one to jump between full view and magnified views of various parts of the scene with a couple of screen taps and button presses.

In a peep-hole EVF, the apparent image size is ever greater --- almost like pressing your noise up against that imaginary 30" screen.

And then there are these really nifty on camera HDMI monitors.

(http://designyoutrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Swivi-HDMI-LCD1.jpeg)

(http://www.photoxels.com/images/media/swivi-580.jpg)

Even comes with a built in folding hood:

(http://www.photogearetc.com/imglib/images/camera/lcd/LCD012SWIVI_~_Swivi_6Inch_LCD-02.jpg)
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: gerald.d on December 10, 2012, 01:39:47 PM
Sorry for the diversion...

Fred - are you saying the Fuji 250/5.6 would be $6K now if new (and adjusting for inflation)?

The same lens that can be picked up for not much more than 10% of that price second hand now?

I knew the 680 was a bargain, but never appreciated how much of a bargain!

Kind regards,

Gerald.
Title: Re: Some advantages of medium format: VF's, lens resolution, photographic DR?
Post by: Doug Peterson on December 10, 2012, 01:45:15 PM
But what fascinates me is the number of MF users who particularly emphasize the advantage of the big, bright image in the optical viewfinder. What happens if and when EVFs get good enough in dynamic range and such to be a fully satisfactory alternative (or adjunct) to the OVF? Because there is no relationship beween the size/brightness of an EVF image and the size of the sensor: even a Micro Four Thirds camera could have an EVF with an image size as big as any ever seen on an SLR, if there were sufficient demand for that. And big, beautiful hot-shoe mounted EVF's could also be offered as accessories for many current SLR's, using HDMI out.

I'm very practical when it comes to technology both for my own personal use and for recommendations for clients. I don't care how it's done, just what the result is and what the experience is along the way to the result.

The day that an EVF produces a viewing/shooting experience on par with an OVF I think most MF shooters would be glad to use it. As of today that is not my experience in the situations in which I shoot or most of our clients shoot in. Though it is the case in some situations already (e.g. very low light an EVF can leverage the ISO of the sensor to show you an image with appropriate brightness rather than a dark OVF).

Right now I vastly prefer the experience of optically looking directly through a lens. However, it's not the method I care about, or the technology underlying it, only the resulting experience.

My gut says it will be several more years until EVFs can match the OVF in both technical and visceral-impact/visual-ergonomics/scene-feeling. But it could be a month from now. Who knows with technology.

But it ain't today IMO.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 10, 2012, 01:47:06 PM

IMO if a high end 35mm camera now requires expensive MF lenses with no VR to get the most out of it then it makes the camera less flexible.

Yair

Interesting that you mention VR (image stabilization) and that it's needed to make the most out of a lens.
There is no VR or image stabilization with Phase/Mamiya cameras, Hasselblad, Lieca MF or nearly all MF Pentax.
Yet all the MF vendors tout 35mm DSLR handeling and hand held use. Interesting to hear that a MFD rep states that VR is required to
get the most out of a lens. Something I have been saying for quite some time when it comes to working off a tripod.
Title: Re: Some advantages of medium format: VF's, lens resolution, photographic DR?
Post by: FredBGG on December 10, 2012, 01:56:11 PM

The day that an EVF produces a viewing/shooting experience on par with an OVF I think most MF shooters would be glad to use it. As of today that is not my experience in the situations in which I shoot or most of our clients shoot in. Though it is the case in some situations already (e.g. very low light an EVF can leverage the ISO of the sensor to show you an image with appropriate brightness rather than a dark OVF).

Right now I vastly prefer the experience of optically looking directly through a lens. However, it's not the method I care about, or the technology underlying it, only the resulting experience.

My gut says it will be several more years until EVFs can match the OVF in both technical and visceral-impact/visual-ergonomics/scene-feeling. But it could be a month from now. Who knows with technology.

But it ain't today IMO.

Yes but today you can have both a very good OVF and electronic viewfinders, HDMI... both on camera and off camera.
I sometimes will step away from the camera with a hand held HDMI screen that comes with me and direct the model or portrait
subject when I want them looking off camera and they can see my visual instructions. I can walk upto them make an adjustment
to something... step back and shoot wirelessly while the camera keeps AF focus with face recognition....... it's like having a virtual
camera man when you want to direct more.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 10, 2012, 03:26:24 PM
Speaking of manual focus, what the hell happened to split and cross prisms on the ground glass in cameras.  I would really like it if they brought them back.  I had to have a custom one made for my canon. 
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: yaya on December 10, 2012, 03:39:27 PM
Interesting that you mention VR (image stabilization) and that it's needed to make the most out of a lens.
There is no VR or image stabilization with Phase/Mamiya cameras, Hasselblad, Lieca MF or nearly all MF Pentax.
Yet all the MF vendors tout 35mm DSLR handeling and hand held use. Interesting to hear that a MFD rep states that VR is required to
get the most out of a lens. Something I have been saying for quite some time when it comes to working off a tripod.

I am not stating anything I'm expressing an opinion and am questioning the benefit of using such a lens on a high MP 35mm body. For me using a DSLR is about flexibility and speed. I want good zooms and good AF and good high iso and combining these will often require VR. I did not say that you need VR to get the most out of the lens...rather out of the body...

If I need to focus manually I want to be able to SEE it through the finder. If I need to change the focusing screen every time I change a lens then I'm loosing another benefit of DSLR, but that's just me I guess...

As a friendly comment Fred If you want to be taken seriously you should read others' posts before you fill up the page with yours...
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 10, 2012, 03:48:02 PM
If I need to change the focusing screen every time I change a lens then I'm loosing another benefit of DSLR, but that's just me I guess...

No need to change the focusing screen every time you change the lens. The AF system is no affected by the manual focus optimized focusing screen,
The AF sensors are below the focusing screen and the Live view focusing excludes the OVF.
Also cropping lines and other in viewfinder features are above the focusing screen.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 10, 2012, 03:59:31 PM
I am not stating anything I'm expressing an opinion and am questioning the benefit of using such a lens on a high MP 35mm body. For me using a DSLR is about flexibility and speed. I want good zooms and good AF and good high iso and combining these will often require VR. I did not say that you need VR to get the most out of the lens...rather out of the body...

If I need to focus manually I want to be able to SEE it through the finder. If I need to change the focusing screen every time I change a lens then I'm loosing another benefit of DSLR, but that's just me I guess...

As a friendly comment Fred If you want to be taken seriously you should read others' posts before you fill up the page with yours...

"I did not say that you need VR to get the most out of the lens...rather out of the body..." regardless of how you put it or call it the image stabalization is in the lens and the lens and body work together. image stabalization
reduces camera shake thus making the sharp image the lens produces recordable. While at low shutter speeds this has a dramatic effect that is even visable from far away at higher speeds like 1/60th or so
the effect will be less dramatic but will significantly help keep lens sharpness so it can be recorded. With the high resolution of cameras today image stabalization is a significant advantage for just about any hand held work.
Even the steadiest hand will have some movement... maybe not enough to smear the image, but enough of reduce some sharpness.

As a friendly comment Fred If you want to be taken seriously you should read others' posts before you fill up the page with yours...

And regarding this .... "friendly comment" I do read your posts well and I also remember them well.

When the Zeiss 55mm 1.4 was first discussed you wrote this about the lens.....

Or

It's the same lens as the 55mm/f3.5 Distagon they made for the 645AF...

But with a larger aperture since 35mm sensors only use the centre of the lens so won't bring up issues of CA, vignetting and softness towards the edges at full aperture
......


Implying that Zeiss rather than designing a whole new range of lenses for 35mm DSLRs it was just recycling an old design..... that happens to be from the 80s if I'm not mistaken.

But that's not all.

Another forum member added a comment that you can't just magically turn a 3.5 lens into a 1.4 lens....

It's a new design, "opening up" an existing design by 2.5 stops is not possible...

I hope that they finally got some common sense and produce this lens themselves - compromising another design by mediocre mechanical quality or sample variation for a so-called reference line-up makes little sense, since the target audience already accepts bigger, heavier and expensive lenses - no need for compromises...

Your response to that was.....

Unless the original design was already capable (mechanically & optically) of going to f1.2 but was physically limited to f3.5 due to vignetting/ CA/ soft edges...which won't be so much of a problem with the 35mm chips...

The 45mm, for example, was an f2.8 lens and it used the same basic barrel as the 55mm/f3.5...

So you were saying that the lens Carl Zeiss designed was capable of f1.2 but was physically limited to f3.5.....

..... If Carl Zeiss had some how magically figured out how to make a 55mm 1.2 that was so compact i'm pretty sure they would have
put it on the market even if it were soft at the edges stopping down would have done the same as your suggested "physical limiting",
but at the same time it would have has the magic of a super shallow depth of field lens for artsy purposes. Maybe they would have added some special indication
to the apertures above 3.5 as "special purpose" or something.... Would have been an incredible environmental portrait lens
would not matter if it's soft at the edges right... aren't you the one that said this to.....


As a general comment if a lens is designed to be a portrait lens (as most 50mm are) then there is no real point in testing and comparing edge sharpness

Yair
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 10, 2012, 04:19:50 PM
Sorry for the diversion...

Fred - are you saying the Fuji 250/5.6 would be $6K now if new (and adjusting for inflation)?

The same lens that can be picked up for not much more than 10% of that price second hand now?

I knew the 680 was a bargain, but never appreciated how much of a bargain!

Kind regards,

Gerald.


Yes the going price for Fuji gx680 lenses is really good and an excellent deal for a studio side kick to a MFDB system for someone that wants
a nice spread of Tilt Shift lenses and 6x8cm film SLR.

For the price of one tilt shift MF lens you can get a whole GX680 system.. a good spread of lenses and an adapter for your digital back
from Kapture group.

On top of that you can have many viewfinder options that make using tilt shift much easier.

There is even a stitch back made by kapture group that can give you a virtual sensor twice the size of the biggest MF backs
which is great for still lifes and landscapes and all in an SLR... though rather big.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 11, 2012, 12:46:45 AM
Hi,

I guess it's quite possible to adopt a DSLR to the shooting style needed. You can use it with image stabilization and zooms, when appropriate and with high end primes when needed. In my view you probably need tripod, MLU,  and live view focusing to extract best quality from DSLRs and that essentially precludes speedy work.

Regarding viewfinders, an MF camera has a potential to collect more photons, as the senor is larger. So an MF camera with a f/2.8 lens will collect more photons than a DSLR with f/2.8 lens, it takes the DSLR an f/1.4 lens to collect as many photons.

The focusing screens of todays DSLR are intended to be used with AF. They can be changed, but it is possible that they may loose registration.

Large aperture lenses generally have some focus shift, so optimum focus at f/1.4 is different from say optimal focus at f/2.8.

The way I see it, a DSLR can be used for almost any kind of shooting, so it is a very flexible device.

If you consider economy, something that matters to a lot of people, you can have two DSLR bodies, and dual sets of lenses (like 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 ) and a bunch of Zeiss primes for the cost of a single medium format kit.

On the other hand the medium format kit may be a good long time investment.


Best regards
Erik



I am not stating anything I'm expressing an opinion and am questioning the benefit of using such a lens on a high MP 35mm body. For me using a DSLR is about flexibility and speed. I want good zooms and good AF and good high iso and combining these will often require VR. I did not say that you need VR to get the most out of the lens...rather out of the body...

If I need to focus manually I want to be able to SEE it through the finder. If I need to change the focusing screen every time I change a lens then I'm loosing another benefit of DSLR, but that's just me I guess...

As a friendly comment Fred If you want to be taken seriously you should read others' posts before you fill up the page with yours...
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: torger on December 11, 2012, 03:42:02 AM
I've noted that these discussions is always about the 645 DSLRs vs the 135 DSLRs.

Anyone who knows how large part of the MFDB sales that goes into tech cameras? 5%? 10%? Even 20%?
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 11, 2012, 06:56:23 AM
Don't know the numbers but I have seen a pretty big increase in tech cam users and I get a lot of PMs and emails on it. Most of our workshops are all tech cam users on hand . So it's a pretty nice to see change in the format. Only the OEMs can answer this. But I bet Steve and Doug could give a pretty good idea. From a instructor POV its really a lot of fun working with people on them since its all new to them mostly.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on December 11, 2012, 10:04:17 AM
I've noted that these discussions is always about the 645 DSLRs vs the 135 DSLRs.

Anyone who knows how large part of the MFDB sales that goes into tech cameras? 5%? 10%? Even 20%?


Interesting question Guy. I just did a quick check for the past 3 years - right about 25% of my sales (give or take) go on an Arca Swiss or Cambo Technical Camera for landscape or architectural use. In a lot of these cases, a medium format camera is also deployed at times. So conversely, that means about 75% of my sales are going on a medium format camera and/or a large format camera (view camera for studio use).

In particular, 2011 was a good year for Technical Cameras as there was pent up demand for a high resolution digital back with a good LCD for image review in the field. Most of the Technical Camera purchases in 2011 were accompanied by a Phase One IQ180 or IQ160. This year, with the release of the Leaf Credo product, Leaf has been more active in that segment.

Now - my take away would be that medium format present nice options for Technical Camera use. But I wonder if this information instead is turned into some dire conclusion or a debate of the merits of using medium format digital backs with Technical Cameras vs 35mm DSLR's.

I understand preferences (that's a good thing) - I don't understand the dogma of one has to be better or worse than the other.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: torger on December 11, 2012, 11:08:56 AM
Why I ask is that I think maybe the MFDB makers should focus a bit more on the tech camera segment than they do. To me it seems like they put most effort into their 645 cameras, and then casually say "oh, you can use it on a tech cam too". I also get the sense that tech camera manufacturers and lens makers need to adapt to whatever backs MFDB makers do for their 645 cameras, rather than a two-way discussion and collaboration.

Dropping the 48x36mm format to the IQ/Credo series and promoting P65+ to IQ180 upgrades (worsening color cast to the point that some lenses got near unusable) were not great tech cam moves if you ask me.

While it is a very efficient professional tool for architecture etc, the tech cam is also a very different experience from a DSLR so I think there is growth potential in the enthusiast market as many enthusiasts like to do landscape photography (like myself).

I would guess that 645 cameras don't have that large enthusiast following, or maybe I'm wrong? To me a 645 camera is something for flash photography in the professional studio, or occasionally on location but still with flash and makeup artists. When I don't use a tech camera it is for documentary style shooting or wildlife/birds, and then a 135 DSLR suits me better, and I guess it's the same for most enthusiasts. A tech cam + 135 DSLR combo would be interesting for many enthusiasts though. I think though that digital backs are a bit too expensive to make any serious growth in this segment possible. A 48 megapixel 48x36mm back for $5K-$7K would change it though :), don't know if we ever will see that sort of prices though other than second hand.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 11, 2012, 11:25:34 AM
Hi,

I got the info that IQ180 uses microlenses.

I am much impressed by the new generation of technical cameras like Hartblei HCam and the Alpa FPS, but at the same time I see that with those cameras live view would make a lot of sense.

Best regards
Erik


Why I ask is that I think maybe the MFDB makers should focus a bit more on the tech camera segment than they do. To me it seems like they put most effort into their 645 cameras, and then casually say "oh, you can use it on a tech cam too". I also get the sense that tech camera manufacturers and lens makers need to adapt to whatever backs MFDB makers do for their 645 cameras, rather than a two-way discussion and collaboration.

Dropping the 48x36mm format to the IQ/Credo series and promoting P65+ to IQ180 upgrades (worsening color cast to the point that some lenses got near unusable) were not great tech cam moves if you ask me.

While it is a very efficient professional tool for architecture etc, the tech cam is also a very different experience from a DSLR so I think there is growth potential in the enthusiast market as many enthusiasts like to do landscape photography (like myself).

I would guess that 645 cameras don't have that large enthusiast following, or maybe I'm wrong? To me a 645 camera is something for flash photography in the professional studio, or occasionally on location but still with flash and makeup artists. When I don't use a tech camera it is for documentary style shooting or wildlife/birds, and then a 135 DSLR suits me better, and I guess it's the same for most enthusiasts. A tech cam + 135 DSLR combo would be interesting for many enthusiasts though. I think though that digital backs are a bit too expensive to make any serious growth in this segment possible. A 48 megapixel 48x36mm back for $5K-$7K would change it though :), don't know if we ever will see that sort of prices though other than second hand.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Doug Peterson on December 11, 2012, 11:42:04 AM
Why I ask is that I think maybe the MFDB makers should focus a bit more on the tech camera segment than they do. To me it seems like they put most effort into their 645 cameras, and then casually say "oh, you can use it on a tech cam too". I also get the sense that tech camera manufacturers and lens makers need to adapt to whatever backs MFDB makers do for their 645 cameras, rather than a two-way discussion and collaboration.

Dropping the 48x36mm format to the IQ/Credo series and promoting P65+ to IQ180 upgrades (worsening color cast to the point that some lenses got near unusable) were not great tech cam moves if you ask me.

While it is a very efficient professional tool for architecture etc, the tech cam is also a very different experience from a DSLR so I think there is growth potential in the enthusiast market as many enthusiasts like to do landscape photography (like myself).

I would guess that 645 cameras don't have that large enthusiast following, or maybe I'm wrong? To me a 645 camera is something for flash photography in the professional studio, or occasionally on location but still with flash and makeup artists. When I don't use a tech camera it is for documentary style shooting or wildlife/birds, and then a 135 DSLR suits me better, and I guess it's the same for most enthusiasts. A tech cam + 135 DSLR combo would be interesting for many enthusiasts though. I think though that digital backs are a bit too expensive to make any serious growth in this segment possible. A 48 megapixel 48x36mm back for $5K-$7K would change it though :), don't know if we ever will see that sort of prices though other than second hand.

We've never agreed on these points.

Of the four backs Phase offers three of them work great with all (full frame) tech camera lenses. Only the IQ180 has any limitations on lens selection and even there the limitation is only on three Schneider lenses (28/35/43). The IQ180 works really well on a tech camera as many IQ180+techcam users would attest to.

Half the design of the IQ and Credo series seems to be designed specifically with tech cameras in mind: untethered live view, 2-axis electronic level, focus mask, hold-position-when-changing images when zoomed in, zero latency, internal battery, overly-rugged chassis and operational temperature range.

Moreover yes, many enthusiasts use 645/6x6 bodies whether Phase, Hassy, Contax, or V.

The back you own does especially poorly at higher ISOs. Perhaps if you had a back like the IQ160 which can shoot great ISO1600 files your feeling that MF has no place in documentary and other non-flash environments would change no? I use an IQ160 at weddings frequently, usually without strobe/flash (or with the same fill flash as when I shoot similar images with a dSLR).

Shooting birds? No*
Shooting sports? No  
Shooting war journalism? No

But many MF systems can be used quite successfully and enjoyably in a much broader range of applications than the picture you paint. Which is understandable if most of your experience is with an ISO25 several-generation-old 22mp sensor.

*maybe penguins :-)
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Vladimirovich on December 11, 2012, 11:55:10 AM


Regarding viewfinders, an MF camera has a potential to collect more photons, as the senor is larger. So an MF camera with a f/2.8 lens will collect more photons than a DSLR with f/2.8 lens, it takes the DSLR an f/1.4 lens to collect as many photons.

I am sorry - but what are digital MF cameras/backs with 48 x 72 = 3456  mm^2 sensors ? because if non are there then it is not 4 times larger surface... so...
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 11, 2012, 12:06:28 PM
I've noted that these discussions is always about the 645 DSLRs vs the 135 DSLRs.

Anyone who knows how large part of the MFDB sales that goes into tech cameras? 5%? 10%? Even 20%?

I'm not sure of the numbers, but quite a few have moved or had moved from the DF body to Tech cameras.

Anyway here is an interesting comparison between the D800E and a tech cam with the state of the art MFDB the IQ180.
The comparison was made by an IQ180 and tech cam owner and landscape photographer.

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

From the article:
Quote
At 30×20 inches, you can see subtle but clear differences between the IQ180 and the D800E. Not all of them weighted in favour of the medium format camera, though. For instance, the D800E produced much more pleasing shadow areas on the prints of the photographs produced to test dynamic range.

Resolution and detail of the IQ180 prints was better than that of the D800E prints – but not massively. Again, the difference was there, but it wasn’t huge. Certainly not €30,000 huge.


Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: torger on December 11, 2012, 12:09:55 PM
Well, I do use an ISO50 back, and the same sensor is used in current models ;). I also have an analytical mind that manages to digest input from others and to think outside my own experience.

If you think Credo/IQ is perfectly in line with a rich tech camera strategy, that's fine. You sell the stuff, I don't. I think more could be made though, and I think MFDB makers could benefit from it.

If you intend to hand-hold stuff and not use flashes i e often use high ISO and have camera shake issues, I don't think a $30K MFDB is the way to go. If you primarily do 645-friendly work, then of course you could expand the space you use your 645 camera. However, if you have a tech camera but not a 645 and your choice to complement your tech cam is to buy a 645 to use with the tech cam back or buy a DSLR system, well, I think the DSLR will be the better choice for nearly all people that are not mainly into flash photography. Getting a second hand Mamiya RZ or Hasselblad V is practically for free, so that one can do just for fun of course, that would be a typical enthusiast thing to do, but you would still get a DSLR. When I use the vintage MF SLR cameras I wonder how anyone could shoot any hand-held sharp picture at all without auto-focus and image stabilization, I'm very impressed with those that can :).
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: torger on December 11, 2012, 12:24:42 PM
http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/ (http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/)

Concerning image quality in terms of landscape photography I don't think MF have to be massively better. Slightly better in good conditions is enough. The reason I shoot with a tech cam is much for the joy of the gear and the photographic workflow, and on the technical side suitable focal lengths with shift/tilt. It's not that I couldn't do it with a DSLR, but I prefer to use the tech cam and I've found a solution that I can afford (i e second hand).

From the enthusiast perspective I think the real obstacle is really the pricing. At some point it just gets too expensive to have this cool stuff, and perhaps more importantly with increasing price difference the acceptance of a minor image quality improvement declines. I don't think the tech cams or lenses are too expensive, but the digital backs are. I don't think it is impossible to make the example I've mentioned so often, a 48 megapixel 36x48 back at the same price as the current Aptus-II 5. But as it seems rather than upping the level of the entry level backs that price range disappears completely after Aptus-II is discontinued. And I'm not sure if that is the right way to get medium format into the future.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Doug Peterson on December 11, 2012, 01:02:46 PM
If you think Credo/IQ is perfectly in line with a rich tech camera strategy, that's fine. You sell the stuff, I don't. I think more could be made though, and I think MFDB makers could benefit from it.

What feature changes/improvements do you suggest on an IQ### that would be better suited for tech camera use?

I can promise you I'm serious in listening, as is Phase.

I can think of a few I'd like to see:
- long term CMOS (for faster/more-flexible live view) if/when it can be done without compromising quality
- ability to enter lens metadata (as in Aptus II)
- internally rotating sensor would be nice but with Arca Rotamount this is less critical now to me
- longer exposures than 2 min

The only suggestion I can't help with is the price. There will not be a $5-7k IQ back.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 11, 2012, 01:28:19 PM
Concerning image quality in terms of landscape photography I don't think MF have to be massively better. Slightly better in good conditions is enough. The reason I shoot with a tech cam is much for the joy of the gear and the photographic workflow, and on the technical side suitable focal lengths with shift/tilt. It's not that I couldn't do it with a DSLR, but I prefer to use the tech cam and I've found a solution that I can afford (i e second hand).

Different camera types are a pleasure to use. Heck... I beetle around on weekends at times taking portraits on location with an 8x10 camera :o
However with such a small quality difference many are leaning towards 35mm DSLRs for many reasons.
Weather sealing,
geotagging,
disguising one's self as a tourist,
less financial liability,
redundancy with dual memory cards,
wireless live view, (camera on the end of a poll over obstacles)
shoot video (stock motion landscape clips sell for higher prices than stills stock)
Direct wireless tablet support with Eye-Fi and cell phone support.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: torger on December 11, 2012, 01:52:14 PM
What feature changes/improvements do you suggest on an IQ### that would be better suited for tech camera use?

I can promise you I'm serious in listening, as is Phase.

I can think of a few I'd like to see:
- long term CMOS (for faster/more-flexible live view) if/when it can be done without compromising quality
- ability to enter lens metadata (as in Aptus II)
- internally rotating sensor would be nice but with Arca Rotamount this is less critical now to me
- longer exposures than 2 min

The only suggestion I can't help with is the price. There will not be a $5-7k IQ back.

On the technical side there may be conflicting goals, I'm not sure. With CMOS the active area is smaller(?) so one needs some funneling, i e micro lenses, which might not combine so well with the desire to make a sensor that don't have that bad color casts. Maybe lightpipe technology or similar can solve that issue. I think the symmetric/near-symmetric with very short flange distance wide angle lens designs is something unique to tech cams and is something that would be nice to keep or maybe strengthen, but for that we need sensors with low color cast.

Maybe it is possible to make use of the larger sensor area and thus larger pixels to make a sensor that can handle low angles of incoming light better than a small pixel sensor can, and in that way you could gain a clear advantage bound to the sensor format size. This assumes though that you can use a ultra-short flange distance to design better lenses, which I think you can do, but I'm no lens design expert.

Having some sort of electrical contact between camera and back so you actually get tilts and shifts stored would be cool, and then you could auto-apply LCC corrections. That would require deep collaboration with a tech cam maker though, and some of the charm of tech cams is that they are 100% mechanical, but as a professional tool it would be a nice feature to have I think.

I'd also like to see the return of the 48x36mm size. Why? I think it is a very good balance movement vs image circle size of the typical 90mm lens image circle size. I think 44x33 is a bit undersized and 54x41 oversized, while they are excellent sizes for the 645.

And I'd like to see development towards better 6 um pixels (more dynamic range, less color cast) before going smaller. As it happens, I think 6 um also strikes a nice balance for f/11 diffraction-wise which gives some lens design advantages compared to having to support f/8 or f/5.6.

For medium format I think the balance you should try to strike is to have more pixels than the high end 135 DSLRs, but at the same time larger pixels. In terms of image quality reputation I think that better pixel-peep quality should not be underestimated :).

Concerning lower costs backs, I think it can be done. Sure sensors are expensive, but not *that* expensive. What you would do as a MFDB manufacturer today rather than develop something new from scratch is to use the base from an existing back, use an off-the-shelf sensor (FTF6080C, as in Sinar eXact) and cripple away some "professional" features, say tethering, and sell at an entry level price. The risk would be quite small, and the gain can be large if there really is an enthusiast market. If the pro market is shrinking it may be a thing to try.

(Concerning long exposures I wonder if it would be possible to make some external cooling device that you could attach to the back, say some fluid cooling and a huge fan, that would make your back a lot bulkier and require extra batteries but you could do very long exposures without the need of a dark frame.)
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: gerald.d on December 11, 2012, 02:08:40 PM
What feature changes/improvements do you suggest on an IQ### that would be better suited for tech camera use?

I can promise you I'm serious in listening, as is Phase.

I can think of a few I'd like to see:
- long term CMOS (for faster/more-flexible live view) if/when it can be done without compromising quality
- ability to enter lens metadata (as in Aptus II)
- internally rotating sensor would be nice but with Arca Rotamount this is less critical now to me
- longer exposures than 2 min

The only suggestion I can't help with is the price. There will not be a $5-7k IQ back.

Doug - do you think any of your suggestions would do anything to grow the MFDB user base, or just provide some mild satisfaction to the existing customers?
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: torger on December 11, 2012, 02:30:45 PM
To be clear, my suggestion of trying with a "low" price digital back product that to most users is attractive directly on paper in comparison to current high-end DSLRs is not only because it is mouth-watering for myself, but because I think it can be a winning strategy. If enthusiasts are as important that some say, a lower price will surely bring in a lot more customers. If the MFDB makers need it or want it is a different story...

And a different thing concerning tech cameras, when you go to www.phaseone.com and look at camera systems, there's only the Phase One 645DF. I think there could be a much stronger show of tech cams. I have found the Joe Cornish videos there though where he mentions a Linhof Techno (but the shots taken in the videos is with 645DF), but if they were serious about tech cam integration there could be more done on the marketing side, like some nice photos of the back on the usual suspects (Alpa, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Linhof...), maybe even links to web sites, do some press releases and stuff, the usual things. When you look at the web site today you don't really get a feeling that tech cams is an important market.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Doug Peterson on December 11, 2012, 02:42:42 PM
Doug - do you think any of your suggestions would do anything to grow the MFDB user base, or just provide some mild satisfaction to the existing customers?

I would expect CMOS would grow the user base considerably - assuming it could be done without sacrificing quality. The greatest challenge of any rangefinder system is composition and focus and CMOS would add new tools to addressing those in addition to the existing set of tools of today.

The rest of my suggestions would only be minor refinements, unlikely to sway anyone one way or the other - though every bit of refinement helps.

I also don't think the market necessarily has to grow any considerable amount. Innovate? Sure - today anyone who does not innovate will be beat out. But grow? I think a niche market can remain a niche market and do quite well for all involved. I'd welcome market growth, but that is not a goal in and of itself that I find worthy of pursuing, but rather a welcome side effect that comes when you do other worthy goals (making good products, providing good service, etc).
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on December 11, 2012, 02:59:09 PM
Doug - do you think any of your suggestions would do anything to grow the MFDB user base, or just provide some mild satisfaction to the existing customers?



To grow the user base, the additions must outnumber the subtractions. I don't know if we will see this. I don't believe prices will ever get to the point of easy affordability compared to 35mm, and frankly I don't know that it would have the anticipated beneficial impact.

This year, despite some migrating away from medium format to 35mm, I have seen more first time buyers of medium format digital.

What is most important would be to keep the numbers close between adopters and departers. There will always be departures from medium format - but I feel that most of the migration from medium format has already occurred. What is different this year is the number of new adopters. And what is responsible for the new adopters - in my opinion -  is ironically also responsible for the departees, namely 35mm DSLR cameras and their differences compared to medium format cameras.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 11, 2012, 03:33:56 PM
Hi,

I have serious issues with the price tag, unfortunately.

Except the price tag I find cameras like the HCam or the FPS very attractive, but I also see that live view would make them much more attractive.

Best regards
Erik


What feature changes/improvements do you suggest on an IQ### that would be better suited for tech camera use?

I can promise you I'm serious in listening, as is Phase.

I can think of a few I'd like to see:
- long term CMOS (for faster/more-flexible live view) if/when it can be done without compromising quality
- ability to enter lens metadata (as in Aptus II)
- internally rotating sensor would be nice but with Arca Rotamount this is less critical now to me
- longer exposures than 2 min

The only suggestion I can't help with is the price. There will not be a $5-7k IQ back.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 11, 2012, 03:42:18 PM
Okay from my seat which is a lot of workshop folks and of course the forum but a lot of hobbyists have bought into medium format maybe a lot more than Pros. It's not like a lack of money so throw that case scenario out the window it's simple not the case. Many of these hobbyist bought a IQxxx along with a DF since Phase and the dealers make a nice package. Buy a back get a DF and 80 LS to go with it. That is usually there first jump in than add a few lenses and graduate into the tech cams . Some go directly to tech cams. Now folks I can tell you this without blinking a eye they out spend me by miles. So lets not get into this D800 crap because this is a hobby for them and they want to play big and frankly photography believe it or not is a cheap hobby. Yes you heard it here, go buy a boat , sports cars , planes and such. This is chump change to a lot of these folks when it comes to a hobby, I play golf and that's dirt cheap compared to others. LOL

Now yes your talking about professional people , scientist, engineers, doctors and lawyers. I get them all on our workshops. Actually 18 workshops and I always had a doctor on board for instance. Thank god I may need one. LOL

The money argument does not always wash these discussions. To guys like me sure we worry about our ROI and use case but Pros are such a small minority here . We are seriously out numbered when it comes to photography. Frankly I would guess in today's world in total cams made we are maybe 1-5 percent of the total market is my guess. Love to know that number actually. Btw I'm not knocking the hobbyist at all I am if anything embracing them as without them we would still be shooting film. The market and technology may never have grown without them, they drive the sales. I agree with Steve sure there are departures both in 35mm and MF. That's just a natural order that has always been around. Some departures are also short term as well. The negativity towards MF is now resting on D800 shooters as the new holy grail. I'm not one of them I shoot it but I still love MF and hopefully will get back to it. The economy sucks and sure it's hurt a lot of things but if I was putting it on anything than that would be it. Maybe we will climb out I hope so, frankly its too freaking slow and let's be honest many of us are hanging on and some have already gone away. I work for big corporate clients and its slim pickings. It's rampant all through photography even for the top guns things are in adjustment periods both what you do and gear you have. Anyone tells you different is feeding you a line of BS.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 11, 2012, 03:51:40 PM
Damn 5 minutes after I write that just got a all day corporate gig. LOL

Cool
Title: The future of medium format: I keep coming back to CMOS
Post by: BJL on December 11, 2012, 04:20:02 PM
I can think of a few I'd like to see:
- long term CMOS (for faster/more-flexible live view) if/when it can be done without compromising quality
- ...
- internally rotating sensor would be nice but with Arca Rotamount this is less critical now to me
- longer exposures than 2 min
...
Doug,
    Thanks for your rational input, and patience with some posters. I like your list, but cannot resist mentioning that one way to make rotating for verticals more convenient is ... CMOS sensors, allowing video viewfinders, aka real live view (not the half-baked "tape-delayed" almost live view offered by some MF cameras). Because a rear-screen can stay just as usable when the body is rotated, a jumbo-sized off-board external screen could be conveniently positioned regardless of camera orientation, and a peep-hole EVF could be removable with mounts both on the top and on one side. Like the two flash hot-shoes on Pentax 645 bodies (By the way, has Phase One copied that elegant idea?)

CMOS sensors could probably also help with your last item, about longer exposures and dark current noise control.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: torger on December 11, 2012, 04:45:35 PM
It's not like a lack of money so throw that case scenario out the window it's simple not the case.

When a hobbyist buys a camera system for $50K it is generally not a lack of money involved. However, I would assume you don't get to the workshops those that didn't buy one because they thought it was too expensive. Heck, I generally think even workshops are too expensive :D

My question is that with continued improvement of image quality in mass market DSLRs and experienced reduced difference in image quality, for how long can the MF products stay the way they are? And if a change is required what is that, is it getting to even higher image quality, or is it trying to sell in larger numbers (i e lower prices, targeting more amateurs), becoming a luxury brand (Hasselblad, good luck!), or will a CMOS sensor save us all?

If we listen to manufacturers and salesmen there is no problem whatsoever, the D800 did not break any quality barrier and changed nothing. Maybe that's the case. I don't have the sales trends. But time will tell.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 11, 2012, 05:04:52 PM
When a hobbyist buys a camera system for $50K it is generally not a lack of money involved. However, I would assume you don't get to the workshops those that didn't buy one because they thought it was too expensive. Heck, I generally think even workshops are too expensive :D

My question is that with continued improvement of image quality in mass market DSLRs and experienced reduced difference in image quality, for how long can the MF products stay the way they are? And if a change is required what is that, is it getting to even higher image quality, or is it trying to sell in larger numbers (i e lower prices, targeting more amateurs), becoming a luxury brand (Hasselblad, good luck!), or will a CMOS sensor save us all?

If we listen to manufacturers and salesmen there is no problem whatsoever, the D800 did not break any quality barrier and changed nothing. Maybe that's the case. I don't have the sales trends. But time will tell.

 We get both with and without but mostly they have a MF DSLR usually on hand at least. We also get Leica's and Nikon shooters.


On the CMOS issue. Now Im not going to argue one way or the other on it but MF has enjoyed the benefits of CCD for so long we have to start asking real questions if CMOS is truly the answer. Lets look at 35mm CMOS today there are some added benefits like higher ISO , live view and such. Now like I said earlier there are downsides too with CMOS we lose those ISO 35 and 50 settings since they raise the floor on ISO and for a guy shooting water ISO is a stop to fast even with ND filters and that is not always a good thing. I still contend there is a look difference as well be it real or perceived it is there in my mind. Again just bringing up points that maybe it may not be the holy grail. Another big one, sure it maybe cheaper to make in the 35mm size world but has anyone said it will be cheaper in a Full Frame MF back world. Something we don't really know until someone puts one in full production like a Phase or Hassy. Not saying no one is looking at it or even working on it . I bet my bottom dollar they are but we have to ask ourselves as shooters is it going to be worth it in the end , will it bring costs down , will it bring more folks to enter the market and will the quality of file be better or worse and/or the same. Guess what i am saying is there are a lot of very unanswered questions as of today and it is going to be interesting to see how that all plays out. One other thing is if everything is CMOS than do we lose some identity between formats. If CMOS is the same on all systems than one wonders if there are advantages or not to MF at that point. I see both good things and than I see questionable things as well. Are we driving down performance here at the same costs or are we truly improving at the same costs. I dont know the answers but I do know the questions and there are a lot of them. Something to noodle for sure. Personally Im not so sure I would want CMOS in a MF back and I think there are folks that may feel the same way. Sure I would like Live View but again at what costs in performance if any. Interesting to see how the reality will come into play on it. Lets face it I like my Nikon a lot but it is no MF file either, they are different and i ran a ton of tests on it and sure its been said a million times when a new cam hits the streets this will kill MF and it really has not happened and I agree the D800 has closed the gap better than anything else that has hit the streets but it still does not look the same.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: fcicconi on December 11, 2012, 05:11:35 PM
The argument is no longer 'about good enough' or 'IQ'.   Plenty of people got their work done with the Canon 1DS or 5d2.  The Nikon D3x was overkill.  People are using their iphones now for all kinds of stuff!   

The discussion is about how you work, what you like, and what works for you.   

MF has a different look
MF has a different crop ratio
MF has a big viewfinder
MF has finder options
MF has faster sync
MF has leaf shutter lenses
MF can shoot film or digital


I'm Agree!!
With my client is important show that i've not the same camera that they have... MF is a professional value
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: julienlanoo on December 11, 2012, 05:17:39 PM
Might be a remark already given about MF,

But other than the "quality" and " look " , it's an other way of shooting,

Much much much slower, relax, i am putting lots of effort in building my self a as slow as possible camera, ...
With a Tech cam and a back attached for instance, and a tripod, and a hudge protocol to make the image.

Why? Because you think twice before shooting an image, and just the machine enforces a calm " zen " attitude, ...
Also the " ratio " of the sensor size, is just some thing that feels better to me.. Man some - one make me a 6x9 inch sensor, it does not need 100 mpix, 40 or 45 is fine !!...

Well quality wise, you know, i still prefere P25 images over P65 images, so Mpix who cares,
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 11, 2012, 06:33:01 PM

Interesting question Guy. I just did a quick check for the past 3 years - right about 25% of my sales (give or take) go on an Arca Swiss or Cambo Technical Camera for landscape or architectural use. In a lot of these cases, a medium format camera is also deployed at times. So conversely, that means about 75% of my sales are going on a medium format camera and/or a large format camera (view camera for studio use).

Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

What are your year totals per year for new MF backs?
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Vladimirovich on December 11, 2012, 06:35:08 PM
Now like I said earlier there are downsides too with CMOS we lose those ISO 35 and 50 settings since they raise the floor on ISO and for a guy shooting water ISO is a stop to fast even with ND filters and that is not always a good thing.
I guess there is nothing in CMOS that can prevent you from having ISO25 or ISO50 if so you want to design your sensor... Pentax K5 (APC-S) has nominal ISO80 (which is ISO70 based on sensor saturation approach as used by DxOMark)... tiny sensor cameras like P&S Canon S100 has nominal ISO80 (which is ISO63 based on sensor saturation approach as used by DxOMark)... and those are not fake, extended ISOs...
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Vladimirovich on December 11, 2012, 06:39:00 PM
One other thing is if everything is CMOS than do we lose some identity between formats.
foveon is CMOS... a very much different identity... and if Fuji can even make an distinct identity for itself by placing a little different bayer pattern on top of its otherwise regular CMOS sensor.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: jeremypayne on December 11, 2012, 06:54:21 PM
Much much much slower

This one I just dont't get. 

I can understand the non-technical folks getting confused about the (non) differences between CMOS and CCD sensors.

What I don't understand is this notion that you need a medium format back to take your time.  That's just ridiculous.

You want to slow down and that's really important to you ... But you pick up a Nikon and suddenly you can't help yourself?
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Gigi on December 11, 2012, 07:03:00 PM
FWIW, I'd like to pick up on Torger's ideas - that of a simpler, lower cost back that is taylored for a market which could/can does exist, but might be under the radar screen of the MFDB makers. Its a good idea, and one that has a lot of precedents in many industries, and it should be given some room to grow.

As to what such a back should have, I'm not sure. His suggestions of 48x36 and 6 um pixel size are good ones (gee - just the sizes on my Leaf AFI II7 back) along with the rotating sensor (a great feature). In fact, why not take the Leaf back, don't modernize it but rather aim to find ways to meet an attractive cost point? Opening up the middleof the MFD (or even the bottom) to more users is a good business strategy.

Torger has some company in his sense of a small hobbyist niche. Maybe there are more of us out there.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Doug Peterson on December 11, 2012, 07:04:07 PM
What are your year totals per year for new MF backs?

What is your income for this past several years?
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on December 11, 2012, 07:23:52 PM
What are your year totals per year for new MF backs?

What is your income for this past several years?


Fred - I have no interest in your yearly income. But I also have no interest in providing my annual sales numbers to you. I've already stuck my neck out providing a ratio of technical cameras to medium format cameras. Sine we're one of the largest medium format suppliers on the planet, I would only say our annual totals for new MF Backs are plenty enough to allow us to hire 5 additional staff members over the past 2 years (doubling our ranks).


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 11, 2012, 08:32:21 PM

Fred - I have no interest in your yearly income. But I also have no interest in providing my annual sales numbers to you. I've already stuck my neck out providing a ratio of technical cameras to medium format cameras. Sine we're one of the largest medium format suppliers on the planet, I would only say our annual totals for new MF Backs are plenty enough to allow us to hire 5 additional staff members over the past 2 years (doubling our ranks).


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

Whoa....

I did not ask what your personal income was.  The thread was discussing market share. You were discussing numbers and percentages.... seems like a reasonable question seeing you did a quick check on the relative percentages of tech vs MFDB cameras
you'd have the numbers handy. I don't see how it would reveal your personal income in any way. Your company does more than just sell digital backs.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on December 11, 2012, 09:06:40 PM
Whoa....

I did not ask what your personal income was.  The thread was discussing market share. You were discussing numbers and percentages.... seems like a reasonable question seeing you did a quick check on the relative percentages of tech vs MFDB cameras
you'd have the numbers handy. I don't see how it would reveal your personal income in any way. Your company does more than just sell digital backs.


Fred -

Are you out of your flippin' mind?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: gerald.d on December 11, 2012, 09:41:27 PM

Fred -

Are you out of your flippin' mind?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

I don't think he's out of his mind at all.

The fact that dealers are so protective regarding the quantity of one specific product category that they sell is pretty illuminating.

Regardless. You've provided sufficient information already to work out a ballpark figure anyway.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: HarperPhotos on December 11, 2012, 09:59:47 PM
Hello,

My guess is the total sales of Phase/Leaf backs per year would be about 100 units world wide.

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on December 11, 2012, 10:00:13 PM
I don't think he's out of his mind at all.

The fact that dealers are so protective regarding the quantity of one specific product category that they sell is pretty illuminating.

Regardless. You've provided sufficient information already to work out a ballpark figure anyway.


No, he is out of his mind.

The protection of our sales numbers is not illuminating of anything other than the fact we simply do not publicly discuss our sales figures. It is as simple as that. Especially on a public forum where real data and information is twisted into misinformation and personal agendas are so rampant. Further - I find the credibility and motivations of the requestor to be malicious in nature and function.

I provided no information for anyone to work out any ballpark on our sales figures. Someone wondered about the ratio of tech cameras to medium format cameras, in combination with digital back sales. In the spirit of the forum as a helpful place for photographers - I offered certain data, which has a value and is potentially sensitive. That's it.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on December 11, 2012, 10:01:09 PM
Hello,

My guess is the total sales of Phase/Leaf backs per year would be about 100 units world wide.

Cheers

Simon



Thanks for proving my point Simon.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: gerald.d on December 11, 2012, 10:07:36 PM

No, he is out of his mind.

The protection of our sales numbers is not illuminating of anything other than the fact we simply do not publicly discuss our sales figures. It is as simple as that. Especially on a public forum where real data and information is twisted into misinformation and personal agendas are so rampant. Further - I find the credibility and motivations of the requestor to be malicious in nature and function.

I provided no information for anyone to work out any ballpark on our sales figures. Someone wondered about the ratio of tech cameras to medium format cameras, in combination with digital back sales. In the spirit of the forum as a helpful place for photographers - I offered certain data, which has a value and is potentially sensitive. That's it.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

You provided staffing numbers. That, along with the assumption that it's a well run business, and the structure of your website, is sufficient to come up with a ballpark figure.

As an aside, the ad hominem attacks on members here by dealers is totally unnecessary.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 11, 2012, 10:15:08 PM

Fred -

Are you out of your flippin' mind?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration



No, he is out of his mind.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

I was going to leave it at that, but calling me out of my mind twice for simply asking a follow up question
how many new digital backs are sold is uncalled for. As I said before you had offered up some figures regarding MF Backs.
It was simply a follow up question to get an idea of the size of the market.

You and Doug could simply have stated that that it private. No big deal. Well actually I didn't even ask Doug.

What is your income for this past several years?

I think that that is not relevant. I would say that the equivalent question to ask a celebrity/portrait photographer
who he/she has photographed and how many shoots.


Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on December 11, 2012, 10:32:01 PM
You provided staffing numbers. That, along with the assumption that it's a well run business, and the structure of your website, is sufficient to come up with a ballpark figure.

As an aside, the ad hominem attacks on members here by dealers is totally unnecessary.

Gerald - we sell more than just digital backs. In fact, our sales in 2011 increased by a higher percentage in other categories than digital backs. Nonetheless, I'm wondering what ballpark figure you came up with. Really it makes no difference.

Are ad hominem attacks on members by other members  (besides dealer members) ok?

I'll take back that Fred is out of his mind. I think he is very much in his mind. And knows exactly what he is doing. It's a shame how some on this forum command a huge amount of time and attention by providing agenda-driven slanted criticism or misinformation. I am sorry, but I feel strongly about this and feel it is a huge disservice to the forum.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: gerald.d on December 11, 2012, 10:34:21 PM
General comment -

Please could I ask people not to send me private messages making defamatory personal comments about individuals.

Many thanks.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on December 11, 2012, 10:37:18 PM
General comment -

Please could I ask people not to send me private messages making defamatory personal comments about individuals.

Many thanks.

I would like it to be noted that I have not sent any private message to Gerald. I agree with Gerald that whoever sent the message to him should not have.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: bcooter on December 11, 2012, 11:11:01 PM
I would hope there are 2,000, or 10,000 or 20,000 digital backs sold a year.

These numbers might be a stretch, but the more professional equipment sold, the better the signs of a healthy industry.

I know some people think mfdbs are priced high, heck even at times I've felt like that, but when you step back and look at it, professional equipment always cost more than prosumer equipment and should.

But just for the record I don't believe that anyone has a right to know what a privately held company sells or receives in gross and net income.

That's between the owners, the government and well . . . that's it.

You know for years I've heard photographers say, ___________ (fill in the blank with any well known celebrity photographer) makes 6 figures a day and that's waaaay too much.

I've always felt the opposite, because the more the top person in any industry makes, the higher the bar, the more respected the industry is.

The sad thing is this thread started out with a negative title and now has even taken a turn for the worse.

Steve, who I know well, answered a question about tech camera use to be helpful and did so without any intentions other than to inform.

That now has been once again twisted to the negative for reasons that make absolutely no sense to me.

For the record, this week were shooting a day and mostly night time project with a Canon 1dx at about a gazaillion ISO. (whatever ISO is).

The file is pretty good, the focus is pretty good, but this is a very specialized project with a lot of low light LEDs and a lot of night shooting.

I rented the 1dx(s) and today asked for quotes to buy one or two.  The thing is I'm almost positive that at the end of two years I'll probably sell it and I'll just bet you in those two years I'll still own and still be working with my digital backs.

The d800 might be a good camera, but I've got 30 something megapixel cameras that are paid for and work very well and have deep rich ccd files which I find superior to any cmos file I've shot.

They don't do what a 1dx does, the 1dx does not do what they do.

Others may feel different, but that doesn't matter to me.

What does is this week we have three magliners full of cameras and we're using them all.  From Canons to Nikons to RED Ones, a Scarlet and our Contax/Phase(s).

Clients noticed them all and the cameras they noticed the most were the original RED 1's and the Contax, mostly because they are just different looking than the standard dslr.

Now does that make me a better photographer . . . no . . .did owning those cameras get me the gig . . . no. . . but in a client's mind does this add to the professionalism of the project.  I believe yes, because it was mentioned.

This is a competitive industry and everyone that prospers must be 100% complete with presentation, estimation, creative treatments, performance, crew, equipment, post production, and final billing.

So, I hope the medium format industry stays healthy.

I hope all segments of the professional photography industries prosper . . . myself included.

IMO

BC


Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Vladimirovich on December 11, 2012, 11:18:55 PM

But just for the record I don't believe that anyone has a right to know what a privately held company sells or receives in gross and net income.

That's between the owners, the government and well . . . that's it.


what about a bank if you apply for a loan ? may it ?
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 11, 2012, 11:27:12 PM
I would like it to be noted that I have not sent any private message to Gerald. I agree with Gerald that whoever sent the message to him should not have.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

Wasn't me either.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Vladimirovich on December 11, 2012, 11:28:45 PM
I rented the 1dx(s) and today asked for quotes to buy one or two.  The thing is I'm almost positive that at the end of two years I'll probably sell it and I'll just bet you in those two years I'll still own and still be working with my digital backs.

that simply tells that 2 years later you will have a much-much better dSLRs at a lower cost and you will not have a much much better digital backs at a lower cost, that's it to it
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 11, 2012, 11:35:15 PM


I'll take back that Fred is out of his mind. I think he is very much in his mind. And knows exactly what he is doing. It's a shame how some on this forum command a huge amount of time and attention by providing agenda-driven slanted criticism or misinformation. I am sorry, but I feel strongly about this and feel it is a huge disservice to the forum.

Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration



Please feel free to point out any mistakes in information I post and refrain from these personal attacks.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 12, 2012, 12:13:59 AM
Hi,

My guess that you miss a zero. I'd think that Phase/Leaf/Mamiya would not be able to operate successfully with just 100/year WW.

Best regards
Erik

Hello,

My guess is the total sales of Phase/Leaf backs per year would be about 100 units world wide.

Cheers

Simon

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: jeremypayne on December 12, 2012, 12:15:40 AM
What a tempest in a teapot.

For the record, literally millions of private companies disclose financial results.  D&B sells the data.  In some countries, the results are filed with regulators and made public ... albeit slowly.  

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on December 12, 2012, 12:24:41 AM
Please feel free to point out any mistakes in information I post and refrain from these personal attacks.


Fred -

I am willing to clear the air. I will say that recently your posts have been more helpful in pointing out some very useful 35mm features (which I see are being cross posted on the 35mm forum). But you have had some posts in the past that I felt were unnecessarily provocative, so as to purposely paint medium format digital in a negative light. This has made it hard for me to trust your motivations.

If you read my posts, you will see that I spend most of my time hear providing information that is factually correct or indicated as accurate in our testing and in the context of our tremendous comparative experience with medium format digital backs, which covers many years and many more different products than just about anyone else on this forum, users or otherwise. You will have a difficult time finding a post that I have written where I attempt to portray a product in a negative light, or where I initiate the idea of question marks that are not grounded in actual results when it comes to choosing to use a product.

I feel that photographers, while some may see themselves as craftsman, others as artists, and others as a combination of attributes, are first and foremost individuals. And as individuals, they have their own subjective preferences for the tools they use to complete their task. I highly respect those preferences.

As a result, when someone questions the use of a tool for photography just in general, and continues to produce information that seems to be pushing them away from legitimate tools, I find that of questionable benefit to photographers.

So, when you took my data offering on ratios and blithely asked for my annual unit sales, I was suspicious of your motives. I wouldn't provide such data to anyone - certainly not on a public forum - and nothing is being hidden by not doing so. There's no great conspiracy for dealers hiding their medium format sales numbers. The annual sales numbers for medium format worldwide have been in the 5k - 7k range for most of the past 10 years. I was rather shocked when Simon Harper stated his projection as 100 units worldwide for P1/Leaf. I will tell you the sales numbers from CI alone are way higher than that. But here is a respected and talented photographer posting a guess of 100 units worldwide. Perhaps he missed a zero. But such is the ease in which misinformation can be spread. I don't blame Simon at all, as I trust his track record as an honest advocate of whatever he is using or not, it was just a guess or a typo.

The fact is, photographers like to think they know all the other players. In reality, they do not. I've been told by a well known photographer that there are maybe 5 or 6 guys in the city he lives in who might shoot medium format, when in fact, we'd been selling more than that every year in that very same city (obviously to photographers he doesn't know, or doesn't know well).

If Simon asked me for my annual sales numbers, I wouldn't be offended and I would simply state that I respectfully decline to share those numbers. I don't have a reason to not trust Simon. Maybe you now have a different approach in contrast to some of your prior posts. If so, then I will try to keep that in mind going forward. You have some very positive insights into the practical use of cameras and I hope that those continue.

I hope that my frank explanation of my perspective on this issue is not considered an attack.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 12, 2012, 12:28:13 AM
Lets get back to the numbers regarding market share.

Okay from my seat which is a lot of workshop folks and of course the forum but a lot of hobbyists have bought into medium format maybe a lot more than Pros. It's not like a lack of money so throw that case scenario out the window it's simple not the case. Many of these hobbyist bought a IQxxx along with a DF since Phase and the dealers make a nice package. Buy a back get a DF and 80 LS to go with it. That is usually there first jump in than add a few lenses and graduate into the tech cams . Some go directly to tech cams. Now folks I can tell you this without blinking a eye they out spend me by miles. So lets not get into this D800 crap because this is a hobby for them and they want to play big and frankly photography believe it or not is a cheap hobby. Yes you heard it here, go buy a boat , sports cars , planes and such. This is chump change to a lot of these folks when it comes to a hobby, I play golf and that's dirt cheap compared to others. LOL

Now yes your talking about professional people , scientist, engineers, doctors and lawyers. I get them all on our workshops. Actually 18 workshops and I always had a doctor on board for instance. Thank god I may need one. LOL

The money argument does not always wash these discussions. To guys like me sure we worry about our ROI and use case but Pros are such a small minority here . We are seriously out numbered when it comes to photography. Frankly I would guess in today's world in total cams made we are maybe 1-5 percent of the total market is my guess. Love to know that number actually. Btw I'm not knocking the hobbyist at all I am if anything embracing them as without them we would still be shooting film. The market and technology may never have grown without them, they drive the sales. I agree with Steve sure there are departures both in 35mm and MF. That's just a natural order that has always been around. Some departures are also short term as well. The negativity towards MF is now resting on D800 shooters as the new holy grail. I'm not one of them I shoot it but I still love MF and hopefully will get back to it. The economy sucks and sure it's hurt a lot of things but if I was putting it on anything than that would be it. Maybe we will climb out I hope so, frankly its too freaking slow and let's be honest many of us are hanging on and some have already gone away. I work for big corporate clients and its slim pickings. It's rampant all through photography even for the top guns things are in adjustment periods both what you do and gear you have. Anyone tells you different is feeding you a line of BS.

I don't think Guy's estimate was intended to be a solid figure, but if the numbers are in the 1 to 5 % of total camera sales I think it would be safe to say that the MF manufacturers would be drowning in cash.

Consider this.

Canon in 9 months made 10,000,000 EF lenses. That would be about 13,000,000 in a year. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e024806188ec&WT.mc_id=C126149 (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e024806188ec&WT.mc_id=C126149)
Canon sold 7 million DSLRs in the previous year and estimates sales of 9,000,000.

Just for ballpark lets assume canon has 40% of the DSLR market ( it's a bit less I think)

So that would roughly put the market at about 22,000,000 DSLRs

If MFDB cameras had just 1% of the totals cameras made that would be 220,000 units.

Then lets even assume that they only their less expensive 40mp Phase And Hasselblad bodies.  $21,000 and $17,000. And lets split the one percent between
the two:

That would be $ 2,310,000,000 for one and $ 1,870,000,000 for the other.

These are just very rough numbers. No intention of establishing accurate figures, but just give an idea of the magnitude of the market.

Sales are in smaller numbers that 1% of the total market. However if we consider the size of the DSLR market even a very small percentage or fraction of a percentage is still a lot of sales.
The real problem though is the costs of development in regards to significant image quality gains and significant functionality gains.

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on December 12, 2012, 12:55:39 AM
What a tempest in a teapot.

For the record, literally millions of private companies disclose financial results.  D&B sells the data.  In some countries, the results are filed with regulators and made public ... albeit slowly.  




Well, we're Capture Integration Incorporated, so look us up. I would imagine our annual overall sales numbers can be found somewhere.

Again - as is my right - I respectfully decline to provide our annual sales numbers by category to the Luminous Landscape forum. Mostly by principle - because I'd like to know what it would mean to anyone. I can already see the armchair extrapolations and the resulting miscalculations from receiving - critically - a very partial view of the worldwide annual unit sales numbers. And to prove what, exactly?

You will never know precisely the total number of units sold. Nor do I know - precisely. But I have worked for 3 of the remaining medium format digital companies, and did indeed have access to sales numbers worldwide. And the numbers that have been established are approximately accurate, so far as I can tell. I mean - it's not very many. 5,000 - 7,000 units, maybe a bit less in recent years? That is not a lot. But it never has been - a lot.

I do agree that medium format digital has an interesting road ahead. I think that the numbers will be more interesting/relevant in say, 5 or 10 years from now. No one should not consider medium format digital because of concern that it is dead. (Note - this last sentence is just my opinion).


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 12, 2012, 02:02:59 AM
Hi,

My guess is that it takes about 100000$US to keep a person employed in the western world. So you need to sell like 5-10 backs/year for each employee making his/hers living of those backs, in development, manufacture and sales.

Best regards
Erik




Please feel free to point out any mistakes in information I post and refrain from these personal attacks.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 12, 2012, 02:11:36 AM
Actually 5-7k of new MF backs sold last year is not a bad figure at all considering that older backs are still in use, even some many generations behind now.  To  me that means there are more and more MF users out there each year.  The problem MFDB makers have is these things don't wear out!   
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 12, 2012, 02:14:04 AM
Hi,

I guess MFDB makers offer attractive upgrade packages in order to keep old backs of the second hand market.

Best regards
Erik

Actually 5-7k of new MF backs sold last year is not a bad figure at all considering that older backs are still in use, even some many generations behind now.  To  me that means there are more and more MF users out there each year.  The problem MFDB makers have is these things don't wear out!   
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 12, 2012, 02:35:46 AM
Lets get back to the numbers regarding market share.

I don't think Guy's estimate was intended to be a solid figure, but if the numbers are in the 1 to 5 % of total camera sales I think it would be safe to say that the MF manufacturers would be drowning in cash.

Consider this.

Canon in 9 months made 10,000,000 EF lenses. That would be about 13,000,000 in a year. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e024806188ec&WT.mc_id=C126149 (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e024806188ec&WT.mc_id=C126149)
Canon sold 7 million DSLRs in the previous year and estimates sales of 9,000,000.

Just for ballpark lets assume canon has 40% of the DSLR market ( it's a bit less I think)

So that would roughly put the market at about 22,000,000 DSLRs

If MFDB cameras had just 1% of the totals cameras made that would be 220,000 units.

Then lets even assume that they only their less expensive 40mp Phase And Hasselblad bodies.  $21,000 and $17,000. And lets split the one percent between
the two:

That would be $ 2,310,000,000 for one and $ 1,870,000,000 for the other.

These are just very rough numbers. No intention of establishing accurate figures, but just give an idea of the magnitude of the market.

Sales are in smaller numbers that 1% of the total market. However if we consider the size of the DSLR market even a very small percentage or fraction of a percentage is still a lot of sales.
The real problem though is the costs of development in regards to significant image quality gains and significant functionality gains.



You need to read a little better, those are not sales percentage I am quoting. They are working Pros may only account for 1-5 percent of total sales worldwide compared to hobbyists buying all cams.
We are a a very small percentage of the market. Another words we count for shit. Lol


As far as how many backs sold annually by all OEMs I know that number but will not post it. It's immaterial
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 12, 2012, 03:51:52 AM
You need to read a little better, those are not sales percentage I am quoting.

Did not say you were referring to camera or solid numbers. What I was getting at is the magnitude of things.
That even if pros are a small percentage and that if a majority of those bought MF that that 1 % would still
be enough to generate revenues in the billion dollar plus scales. Back in the day medium format was essential to
a much larger segment of photographers and when I started out I never met a pro photographer that didn't have a medium format camera.



However I would not count out the importance of professional photographers to Nikon, Canon and the MF makers.
Enthusiasts look up to professional photographers .... your workshops are a clear example of that.
Enthusiasts want the features pros want and this makes the manufacturers pay attention to the pro market.

The other day I was discussing with a photographer friend the whole instagram and pinterest phenomena.
All interesting stuff. So I asked my daughter and a couple of her friends to show me around pinterest and instagram.
The kids in their late teens and early twenties are really into pinterest. What was most interesting is that most of the images in pinterest
are professional images. What used to be images just sitting on various fashion and product websites are now getting huge exposure
through things like pinterest. This increased exposure makes still more valuable to clients.. that it good for photographers.

I think that is is also important to note that this new form of exposure is in a big sea of images including armature snaps.
All the more reason for clients to invest in better photographers so as to stand out.


Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 12, 2012, 06:39:43 AM
Like a lot of industries Pros are very important to the market place. I do agree we are just a very small percentage on a global level. Now MF we maybe even slightly better on percentages, that would make sense. Nikon,canon, Sony and so on they have very big product lines so less so but no question people do look up to Pros and buy like them.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Steve Hendrix on December 12, 2012, 10:00:08 AM
Hi,

My guess is that it takes about 100000$US to keep a person employed in the western world. So you need to sell like 5-10 backs/year for each employee making his/hers living of those backs, in development, manufacture and sales.

Best regards
Erik






The most accurate way to gauge the numbers if you are going by payroll would be to assess the number of employees at the manufacturers themselves, not a dealer. Based on your numbers, the total sales figure for us would be substantially under represented. While we are known as medium format digital specialists, we sell a lot of other products. Even back when we sold less associative products, your numbers for compensation in a small company can be very skewed. The per employee compensation cost can be a good bit higher.
 
I don't think the numbers are any great mystery. In the healthiest years on record, perhaps 7,000, in recent years (like 2010), perhaps 4,000. From my experience, that is the ballpark range.

You guys can calculate percentages and such all you like, but you won't arrive at any closer or more accurate number than that, unless you focus on the manufacturer employment ranks, and even then, it's somewhat of a ballpark. Some manufacturers lay off in slow times, others hang onto employes until the good times. When you're not talking about thousands of employees, that is going to skew the numbers in a way you won't be aware of.

I would say - save yourself the trouble, just accept roughly 4,500 average currently (that may be a bit low, I don't know), and then do whatever you will with the numbers. I still don't really know what the objective is, once you think you know it.

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 12, 2012, 10:20:13 AM

The most accurate way to gauge the numbers if you are going by payroll would be to assess the number of employees at the manufacturers themselves, not a dealer. Based on your numbers, the total sales figure for us would be substantially under represented. While we are known as medium format digital specialists, we sell a lot of other products. Even back when we sold less associative products, your numbers for compensation in a small company can be very skewed. The per employee compensation cost can be a good bit higher.
 
I don't think the numbers are any great mystery. In the healthiest years on record, perhaps 7,000, in recent years (like 2010), perhaps 4,000. From my experience, that is the ballpark range.

You guys can calculate percentages and such all you like, but you won't arrive at any closer or more accurate number than that, unless you focus on the manufacturer employment ranks, and even then, it's somewhat of a ballpark. Some manufacturers lay off in slow times, others hang onto employes until the good times. When you're not talking about thousands of employees, that is going to skew the numbers in a way you won't be aware of.

I would say - save yourself the trouble, just accept roughly 4,500 average currently (that may be a bit low, I don't know), and then do whatever you will with the numbers. I still don't really know what the objective is, once you think you know it.



This is really meaningless to know these numbers. They tell you nothing and more likely used in a negative way or worse OEMs use them for marketing reasons. The only people these matter too are the OEMs for internal use for hiring, there supply chain and budgeting reasons. All it tells us as photographers is that it is a niche market. I think we already know that. Do we really need to bring the format down to its knees. Look at this way there are REAL people behind this stuff that have family's and need jobs. If anything we as photosphere want to keep this industry in business as it gives us better products, support and hopefully lower costs. Besides all that BS its fun too shoot.

Now I will ask this stop taking the good post made here and turning it into subject to fit your desire to be negative . That's all I have seen in this whole thread. I say one thing it gets turned into something else to fill someone else's point. I ve seen this in almost every post to everyone's fine contributions. That is considered trolling by definition . It's annoying not fair and causes bad feelings among members. This thread has run its course IMHO and we should all move on. As a forum owner myself I can identify these types of threads a mile away and it just wastes good folks time. Frankly someone started a thread on improving MF I think that is far more productive to help shape its future. With that I'm out of this thread. Have a great day and Happy Holidays to everyone.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: sgilbert on December 12, 2012, 10:58:45 AM
This thread points out the problem often found in internet forums:  a poster says something -- or a series of somethings -- that makes you want to tune him or her out.  But the poster is relentless, and appears to have time to post the same or similar messages over and over again. 

What to do?  Some people can't seem to help themselves, and need to respond.  Others, perhaps feeling that their livelihood is being attacked, feel the need to correct what they see as unfair or inaccurate comments about their product or business.  And then the guy who started it all says people are treating him badly. 

It's really unfortunate, but I doubt it'll stop:  it's the internet.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 12, 2012, 11:24:37 AM
Hi,

Those numbers are quite relevant, at least if there is a need to develop a new sensor or ASIC. Development and tooling costs need to be split over all sensors produced.

Stefan Steib suggests the vendors should sit down and cooperate on development of a new CMOS sensor. In my view an excellent idea.

Best regards
Erik

Ps. I checked out your portfolio this morning. A lot of great work there!


This is really meaningless to know these numbers. They tell you nothing and more likely used in a negative way or worse OEMs use them for marketing reasons. The only people these matter too are the OEMs for internal use for hiring, there supply chain and budgeting reasons. All it tells us as photographers is that it is a niche market. I think we already know that. Do we really need to bring the format down to its knees. Look at this way there are REAL people behind this stuff that have family's and need jobs. If anything we as photosphere want to keep this industry in business as it gives us better products, support and hopefully lower costs. Besides all that BS its fun too shoot.

Now I will ask this stop taking the good post made here and turning it into subject to fit your desire to be negative . That's all I have seen in this whole thread. I say one thing it gets turned into something else to fill someone else's point. I ve seen this in almost every post to everyone's fine contributions. That is considered trolling by definition . It's annoying not fair and causes bad feelings among members. This thread has run its course IMHO and we should all move on. As a forum owner myself I can identify these types of threads a mile away and it just wastes good folks time. Frankly someone started a thread on improving MF I think that is far more productive to help shape its future. With that I'm out of this thread. Have a great day and Happy Holidays to everyone.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 12, 2012, 11:36:04 AM
This thread points out the problem often found in internet forums:  a poster says something -- or a series of somethings -- that makes you want to tune him or her out.  But the poster is relentless, and appears to have time to post the same or similar messages over and over again. 

What to do?  Some people can't seem to help themselves, and need to respond.  Others, perhaps feeling that their livelihood is being attacked, feel the need to correct what they see as unfair or inaccurate comments about their product or business.  And then the guy who started it all says people are treating him badly. 

It's really unfortunate, but I doubt it'll stop:  it's the internet.

I do not recall anyone in this thread has treated me badly  ::)
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 12, 2012, 11:37:39 AM
Hi,

Those numbers are quite relevant, at least if there is a need to develop a new sensor or ASIC. Development and tooling costs need to be split over all sensor produced.

Stefan Steib suggests the vendors should sit down and cooperate on development of a new CMOS sensor. In my view an excellent idea.

Best regards
Erik



Of course, it's a good idea!!!
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Guy Mancuso on December 12, 2012, 11:56:54 AM
Hi,

Those numbers are quite relevant, at least if there is a need to develop a new sensor or ASIC. Development and tooling costs need to be split over all sensors produced.

Stefan Steib suggests the vendors should sit down and cooperate on development of a new CMOS sensor. In my view an excellent idea.

Best regards
Erik

Ps. I checked out your portfolio this morning. A lot of great work there!



Yes and what I meant by internal needs. OEMs need to know what use case a new sensor and such would do for them in the market. This I do agree with but for us as Photographers they have no real value. I do agree with Stefans comment as well. Guess my big question on CMOS is what in the end would it bring us, but thats a another thread with a lot of questions to consider.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 12, 2012, 01:53:21 PM
I really don't understand why such a strong stance against knowing the sales or production numbers of MFD.
Being transparent about the numbers (and I'm talking about the manufacturers, not dealer numbers) would give
the market more certainty. As the image quality between the formats has become pretty much equivalent
and the massive price advantage of 35mm DSLR I think that doubts about the longevity of MFD don't work in favor
of MFD sales. The uncertainty surrounding the numbers and the ever changing ownership of MF companies, mergers,
re-branding etc along with the demise of several MF companies and brands does not help in making a decision to by a very expensive camera.
Even more so if long term financing is needed to make the purchase feasible for many photographers.

Numbers don't have to be huge. Even small numbers with the appropriate company structure would be more reassuring
than no information.

It takes very little to tip a buyers choice towards something like a D800 vs MF. Lack of information is one of them.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Nick-T on December 12, 2012, 02:08:38 PM
Fred!
Seriously, enough already!

You have some really good knowledge around 35mm and large format film and I thank you for sharing that, but this relentless trolling around MFDB is just that, trolling.

The problem is lots of good data is getting buried under your prolific posts which are always slanted against medium format digital. I understand that you had a bad experience with medium format at one point but I don't think that gives you the right to continually attack the idea of medium format, please Fred move on.

I have been shooting Hasselblad (and before that Imacon) digital backs for well over a decade now, and I plan on shooting with them for a while yet (and yes I have a D800 and a 5D2).  I think that qualifies me to comment on Hasselblad threads and I do, but I tend to avoid commenting on say a Phase One thread as I don't know the product, if I do make a stupid comment Doug or Steve will advise :).

My point is do you feel you have a depth of experience in medium format that leaves you qualified to make these continuous attacks or are you just an angry man with an agenda?

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 12, 2012, 02:27:07 PM
Fred!
Seriously, enough already!

You have some really good knowledge around 35mm and large format film and I thank you for sharing that, but this relentless trolling around MFDB is just that, trolling.

The problem is lots of good data is getting buried under your prolific posts which are always slanted against medium format digital. I understand that you had a bad experience with medium format at one point but I don't think that gives you the right to continually attack the idea of medium format, please Fred move on.

I have been shooting Hasselblad (and before that Imacon) digital backs for well over a decade now, and I plan on shooting with them for a while yet (and yes I have a D800 and a 5D2).  I think that qualifies me to comment on Hasselblad threads and I do, but I tend to avoid commenting on say a Phase One thread as I don't know the product, if I do make a stupid comment Doug or Steve will advise :).

My point is do you feel you have a depth of experience in medium format that leaves you qualified to make these continuous attacks or are you just an angry man with an agenda?



For your information I have been a photographer for 30 years, internationally publishes, work daily with the a-list and have owned two Phase One Digital cameras, many lenses for them and beta tested for several high end imaging apps. I have also used color suites that cost the production companies I sometimes work for $1,200 an hour. this being one of them http://www.efilm.com/inside-efilm/slideshow (http://www.efilm.com/inside-efilm/slideshow)
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Sheldon N on December 12, 2012, 02:32:53 PM
For your information I have been a photographer for 30 years, internationally publishes, work daily with the a-list and have owned two Phase One Digital cameras, many lenses for them and beta tested for several high end imaging apps. I have also used color suites that cost the production companies I sometimes work for $1,200 an hour. this being one of them http://www.efilm.com/inside-efilm/slideshow (http://www.efilm.com/inside-efilm/slideshow)

Well that sounds like a much better use of your time than trolling the medium format threads.

As an outside observer in this thread (and someone who has owned both MFDB and 35mm gear and settled on 35mm gear) I tend to agree with Nick-T's post above.
The forum would be well served if you shared your knowledge in other threads, and didn't continually strive to create controversy in every medium format thread that came up.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Gigi on December 12, 2012, 03:28:48 PM
Well that sounds like a much better use of your time than trolling the medium format threads.

As an outside observer in this thread (and someone who has owned both MFDB and 35mm gear and settled on 35mm gear) I tend to agree with Nick-T's post above.
The forum would be well served if you shared your knowledge in other threads, and didn't continually strive to create controversy in every medium format thread that came up.

+1
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 12, 2012, 03:52:40 PM
Nick!!
Did you every time  belittle people and their positions? Nick, it's time to put long pants.
Chill out and Collect power, join the new thread. Let's talk about the future  :)
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Alan W George on December 12, 2012, 04:58:41 PM
Troll (Internet)

In Internet slang, a troll ( /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: Alan W George on December 12, 2012, 05:24:39 PM
The Pathology of Trolls --> http://webupon.com/web-talk/the-pathology-of-trolls/
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: EricWHiss on December 12, 2012, 08:25:11 PM
For your information I have been a photographer for 30 years, internationally publishes,

And what will you do next year Fred?  Arguing on the forums isn't a profession (even if you do it full time)  - no one pays you for it.   It has no value and no style points are awarded.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: FredBGG on December 12, 2012, 10:36:48 PM
And what will you do next year Fred?  Arguing on the forums isn't a profession (even if you do it full time)  - no one pays you for it.   It has no value and no style points are awarded.


"And what will you do next year Fred?".... well lost of kitesurfing for starters... strapless and plenty of big surf...
"No one pays me for it".... not hear for the money ;)
"It has no value and no style points are awarded." not hear for some award...

"Arguing on the forums isn't a profession" I think you read my posts to LOUD ;)
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: gerald.d on December 12, 2012, 11:05:24 PM
Troll (Internet)

In Internet slang, a troll ( /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Which, of course, describes precisely your motivation and behaviour in making that post in this thread.
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 13, 2012, 05:51:26 AM
This thread turned into a psychology tutorial!?  ???
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: JoeKitchen on December 13, 2012, 06:25:25 AM
I do believe it is time for LuLa to close this discussion. 
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: design_freak on December 13, 2012, 06:48:46 AM
I do believe it is time for LuLa to close this discussion. 

I agree
Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: hjulenissen on December 13, 2012, 08:14:42 AM
I would like to see a mass-produced "mirror-less" (EVF) MF. Perhaps Samsung would make one? Or Sony? Reuse software and components from FF/crop/m43 cameras, bolt on a large cmos/ccd sensor, make it a mass-product, enjoy widespread positive PR. These guys have the software and components and capital to make a "streamlined" MF camera. The only issues are (in my mind):
1. What lense mount (and who gets to monopolize future lense purchases)
2. What sensor (can Sony make as good MF sensors as they currently are making FF? Would they?)
3. Where is the tipping point where such a product would be inexpensive enough while still having desirable quality/features so that it would appeal to a wide customer base, thereby allowing for mass-production?

-h

Title: Re: The end of medium format ?
Post by: michael on December 13, 2012, 09:41:03 AM
OK kids, time to go out and play.

By popular request this thread is locked.

Michael