Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on December 12, 2012, 12:29:30 am
-
Hi,
There has been a lot of talk about the demise of medium format digital. In my view it's more revarding to discuss the future of MFD.
For my part, the new Alpa FPS is inspiring and so is the Hartblei HCam. Those cameras focus on the essential. In my view both cameras require working live view.
On another thread, Stefan Steib suggested that MF vendors should sit down at round table and develop a CMOS sensor.
In my view, the future may lay with mirrorless cameras in both small and medium format. Live view at actual pixels is the optimal manual focusing method, for sure. In the studio, the cameras are often used tethered.
In my view a compact modular camera, with good live view and an optional electronic viewfinder is probably the way to go.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
There has been a lot of talk about the demise of medium format digital. In my view it's more revarding to discuss the future of MFD.
For my part, the new Alpa FPS is inspiring and so is the Hartblei HCam. Those cameras focus on the essential. In my view both cameras require working live view.
On another thread, Stefan Steib suggested that MF vendors should sit down at round table and develop a CMOS sensor.
In my view, the future may lay with mirrorless cameras in both small and medium format. Live view at actual pixels is the optimal manual focusing method, for sure. In the studio, the cameras are often used tethered.
In my view a compact modular camera, with good live view and an optional electronic viewfinder is probably the way to go.
Best regards
Erik
Thank you Erik. Along with discussions over the use of current medium format digital technology, this topic has value and is a reasonable use of one's time for anyone interested in medium format digital. Good start!
I will say that I believe the attempt to scale CMOS or a CMOS-similar technology has been underway. Obviously it is not as easy as we would hope - otherwise they'd have something by now. I'm curious whether any such sensors will begin their life as full frame 645 or start smaller in order to get the technology into the marketplace and scale up from there. That has been the trend with new sensor technology.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Really usable live view needs to be on the top of the list.
Much broader range of tilt shift lenses.
Better corner to corner focusing support, both manual and auto. Even more important than speed.
-
Hi Fred,
With a technical camera every lens is a T&S lens, as long the camera offers tilts and shifts. The Hartblei can take any T&S lens for DSLRs, so they are in a pretty good shape.
Live view, with actual pixels, offers perfect focus corner to corner.
I'm not sure MF needs corner to corner AF, it seems users are doing fine with what they have.
I don't think MF needs to compete head on with DSLRs. I guess that DSLRs are quite optimal for the job they are intended for.
On the other hand, I really feel that a swinging mirror is also a part of old technology, weather on a Hasselblad or a Nikon. I use MLU whenever I use DSLRs on tripod.
Best regards
Erik
Really usable live view needs to be on the top of the list.
Much broader range of tilt shift lenses.
Better corner to corner focusing support, both manual and auto. Even more important than speed.
-
By much broader range of tilt shift lenses I mean more options, not just tech cameras and a couple for reflex cameras.
I also mean independent tilt in both vertical and horizontal as well as independent shift.
The Fuji gx680 this from 50mm to 500mm with very close focus on all lenses and in a reflex body.
Regarding better corner to corner focusing it does not come automatically with live view.
Current MF live view has no AF support.
Live view refresh rates need to be very fast to support live view focusing.
-
Okay, so let's talk about the future
Whenever we speak, we move in the direction of DB + technical camera. I'm not surprised. Maybe we should ask ourselves what to do with MF cameras. I think it's still the weakest link. Why has not anyone made a takeover ROLEI / Sinar / Leaf or Contax?
-
Hasselblad + Sony + 2 years = CMOS
But I've been championing CMOS for ages because of how far it's come.
I love shooting medium format but when I compare it to my 1DX if I had to choose only one, in general it would always be the Canon.
Although the reason, if I had to give just one is because of the ISO performance. Clean 3200 is all I need.
It's not really the price because a used H3DII 39 can be had for under £5000 now and the lenses are superb.
I'll be completely honest though, build me a full sized CMOS sensor of which I'm not locked to a body (Hi Hasselblad) and I'm there.
Because, I have the H1 and H3DII, one for film, one for digital. If any of the bodies fail I can't swap the backs around. So I'm 2000 miles from home without redundancy. Smart move Hasselblad who the hell thought that one up? Thanks for releasing the H4X btw, I'd still rather have a Hassy back on it though.
-
I am curious on the CMOS vs CCD issue. Is it just not possible to get a good live view from a CCD? Does only CMOS allow this? The are CCD's in the 60mp and 80mp sensors not single chips, but instead they are 8 separate chips, matted into one chip. You can see this when you view the sensor in bright light. You can also sometimes actually see the hard physical lines in your image when the back has not been tuned well. The size of the separate CCD's on the IQ160 Chip appear to be about the size of a APC-C sensor. As I recall on the older Kodak chips in the P45+ you did not see the 8 separate segments, instead it was just one large chip. I have always assumed you have to create the chip first, then build a camera around the chip. I am surprised that it has taken this long to get a composite style chip similar to the Dalsa CCD chips out of CMOS. I assume it must be lack of market demand?
The Tech camera solution is more a requirement due to optical shortfalling by the MF wide angles. I have only used the Mamiya/Phase line up, so cannot speak to Hassi or Contax. The 35mm and 28mm both were just too soft in the corners for my work. The ability to add tilt to a medium format wide angle lens is also a key component. You can create a very impressive hyperfocal distance. All you have to do is shoot with a wide on a tech camera and see the differences in clarity/color/contrast and overall focus, you will not want to go back. On a side note, this same issue has now appeared with the D800 and wide angle lenses, and I am sure will also appear with Canon when they bring a higher resolution solution to the market.
The Tech camera route, leads to a need for a better Live view, so hopefully Phase will follow up in 2013 with a new back with Live view. I have to commend Phase for having put into place an excellent software solution in Capture One that can accommodate the LCC process so well.
Paul
-
What surprises me is they haven't developed a form of piggy back system.
When I shoot film I always use the 5D3 as my exposure meter for the histogram and relate it to the film exposure.
If it's such an issue why can't they create a bolt on accessory or even an iphone app that simulates exposure, tilt, shift with built in focus peaking (simulated) based on feedback from the camera (that sits in the hotshoe).
-
I currently use a Hassleblad H3Dii-31 and a Canon 7D, shooting for my own website which I'd characterise as "fetish fashion" (http://www.restrainedelegance.com if anyone is interested - not safe for work...)
I use the Hasselblad wherever possible because of its clarity, colour rendition and sharpness. I like the big bright optical viewfinder, the delay on the mirror flip (which makes a perceptible difference in critical sharpness even with a very short delay), the fact that the camera compensates for focus shift at different apertures, and the leaf shutters which further reduce vibration and allow me to work with short shutter speeds with studio flash.The lack of optical low pass filter is a mixed blessing- increases perceived sharpness and micro-contrast, but is the devil's own job to shoot a model wearing stockings and suspenders.
Nothing stops the 35mm dSLR crowd from matching the salient points here to achieve similar levels of sharpness and perceived image quality.
However, I don't believe the dSLRs are there yet. My technique has probably got a bit sloppy but I'm spoilt by not having to worry too much about camera shake. When I have to fall back to the Canon and shoot at 1/160th of a second, with OLPF, and lenses which don't match the quality of the Hasselblad ones, I certainly notice the difference big-time at 100% zoom (let alone the lack of megapixels).
I don't shoot tethered and I dislike live view as a method of shooting. If I was a fan, I'd probably be trialling using my RED Scarlet for stills as well as video.
Until electronic viewfinders have resolution similar to the Mk I eyeball plus a Hassy lens and viewfinder, I want to stick to fast, unencumbered shooting with direct zero-lag vision of what's going on to pick the moment to press the shutter release.
The key improvement that would sell me on an MF upgrade is light sensitivity. The main reason I fall back to the Canon is available light shooting. Even though the H3Dii-31 has microlenses I find it hugely light-hungry, shooting ETTR I rate it somewhere around ISO 64. Indirect lighting indoors? Forget it.
There's always room to improve autofocus. I don't need more points- I have the Canon set to only use the centre one to focus and recompose anyway. But faster performance, especially in low light, would be welcome, and every little bit of accuracy helps - Hassy's TrueFocus sounds worthwhile. As various web reviewers are discovering, there's more to getting an accurately-focussed sharp 30+ megapixel image than slapping a finer grained sensor in a Nikon body- you need to pay attention to all these little physical niggles like focus shift, shift on recompose, etc.
A base ISO 400-800 sensor at 645 size with 40-ish megapixels and all the precision of MF? Sold.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
Hi,
The 7D has a double disadvantage of sensor size. A larger sensor is mostly beneficial. Regarding OLP filtering Canon could remove it if they didn't regard it necessary.
A CMOS sensor would probably offer a significant improvement in ISO capability, as they seem to have much lower noise levels compared to CCD.
Live view is a feature mostly beneficial to users of MF on technical cameras or users who need exact focusing.
A small pixel sensor would be helpful with Moiré, and so would stopping down to smallish apertures.
Best regards
Erik
I currently use a Hassleblad H3Dii-31 and a Canon 7D, shooting for my own website which I'd characterise as "fetish fashion" (http://www.restrainedelegance.com if anyone is interested - not safe for work...)
I use the Hasselblad wherever possible because of its clarity, colour rendition and sharpness. I like the big bright optical viewfinder, the delay on the mirror flip (which makes a perceptible difference in critical sharpness even with a very short delay), the fact that the camera compensates for focus shift at different apertures, and the leaf shutters which further reduce vibration and allow me to work with short shutter speeds with studio flash.The lack of optical low pass filter is a mixed blessing- increases perceived sharpness and micro-contrast, but is the devil's own job to shoot a model wearing stockings and suspenders.
Nothing stops the 35mm dSLR crowd from matching the salient points here to achieve similar levels of sharpness and perceived image quality.
However, I don't believe the dSLRs are there yet. My technique has probably got a bit sloppy but I'm spoilt by not having to worry too much about camera shake. When I have to fall back to the Canon and shoot at 1/160th of a second, with OLPF, and lenses which don't match the quality of the Hasselblad ones, I certainly notice the difference big-time at 100% zoom (let alone the lack of megapixels).
I don't shoot tethered and I dislike live view as a method of shooting. If I was a fan, I'd probably be trialling using my RED Scarlet for stills as well as video.
Until electronic viewfinders have resolution similar to the Mk I eyeball plus a Hassy lens and viewfinder, I want to stick to fast, unencumbered shooting with direct zero-lag vision of what's going on to pick the moment to press the shutter release.
The key improvement that would sell me on an MF upgrade is light sensitivity. The main reason I fall back to the Canon is available light shooting. Even though the H3Dii-31 has microlenses I find it hugely light-hungry, shooting ETTR I rate it somewhere around ISO 64. Indirect lighting indoors? Forget it.
There's always room to improve autofocus. I don't need more points- I have the Canon set to only use the centre one to focus and recompose anyway. But faster performance, especially in low light, would be welcome, and every little bit of accuracy helps - Hassy's TrueFocus sounds worthwhile. As various web reviewers are discovering, there's more to getting an accurately-focussed sharp 30+ megapixel image than slapping a finer grained sensor in a Nikon body- you need to pay attention to all these little physical niggles like focus shift, shift on recompose, etc.
A base ISO 400-800 sensor at 645 size with 40-ish megapixels and all the precision of MF? Sold.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
I am curious on the CMOS vs CCD issue. Is it just not possible to get a good live view from a CCD? Does only CMOS allow this? The are CCD's in the 60mp and 80mp sensors not single chips, but instead they are 8 separate chips ...
It is not possible to get the video feed needed for live view from the Full Frame(*) type of CCDs that is used in MF. That is why interline type of CCD was developed, as used in video cameras and many smaller format still cameras until CMOS started taking over. For video/live view, it makes no sense moving to interline CCD, even though MF suppliers like Kodak/Truesense offer interline CCDs, because they have worse noise and dynamic range than either full frame CCD or modern active pixel CMOS sensors.
Another video option is frame transfer CCDs, also used in some video cameras, but that technology only works well for quite small sensors: it requires a separate storage frame on the silicon next to the sensor and as big as the sensor itself.
The CCDs you mention are indeed single chips, though in fabrication on the silicon wafer, each sensor is etched part at a time. From what I have read, the segmentation you see on those big 60MP and 80MP sensors is not on the sensor's silicon chip itself, but in the coatings atop it, like color filter arrays and microlenses, which have to put on in several pieces on such large sensors.
(*) "Full Frame" has referred to a type of CCD design since long before it came to mean "36x24mm or 645 format, but nothing smaller or in-between."
-
Thanks Erik,
I even tried to move the title of that other thread to your title here, to get away from the futility of asking for a yes or no answer and move towards discussing a range of possibilities and hopes.
Two recap some ideas that got buried in that thread, it now looks to me that for formats larger than 36x24mm, a move to more modern sensor technologies like active pixel CMOS with on-chip, column-parallel ADC is both necessary in the long term, and becoming feasable due to the rise of sensor designers like CMOSIS, which seems willing and able tom design a large, high quality, relatively low-volume CMOS sensor, as indicated by its design work with Leica for the new Leica M.
I would bet on a small sensor design house like CMOSIS or Aptina (the latter worked with Nikon on designing the Nikon One sensors) rather than Sony, because Sony seems less interested in small volume custom designs.
Design is the main issue: actual fabrication can then be outsourced to one of several competent foundries. None of Nikon, CMOSIS, or Aptina have ever manufactured the sensors that they have designed over the years.
-
I currently use a Hassleblad H3Dii-31 and a Canon 7D, shooting for my own website which I'd characterise as "fetish fashion" (http://www.restrainedelegance.com if anyone is interested - not safe for work...)
I use the Hasselblad wherever possible because of its clarity, colour rendition and sharpness. I like the big bright optical viewfinder, the delay on the mirror flip (which makes a perceptible difference in critical sharpness even with a very short delay), the fact that the camera compensates for focus shift at different apertures, and the leaf shutters which further reduce vibration and allow me to work with short shutter speeds with studio flash.The lack of optical low pass filter is a mixed blessing- increases perceived sharpness and micro-contrast, but is the devil's own job to shoot a model wearing stockings and suspenders.
Nothing stops the 35mm dSLR crowd from matching the salient points here to achieve similar levels of sharpness and perceived image quality.
However, I don't believe the dSLRs are there yet. My technique has probably got a bit sloppy but I'm spoilt by not having to worry too much about camera shake. When I have to fall back to the Canon and shoot at 1/160th of a second, with OLPF, and lenses which don't match the quality of the Hasselblad ones, I certainly notice the difference big-time at 100% zoom (let alone the lack of megapixels).
I don't shoot tethered and I dislike live view as a method of shooting. If I was a fan, I'd probably be trialling using my RED Scarlet for stills as well as video.
Until electronic viewfinders have resolution similar to the Mk I eyeball plus a Hassy lens and viewfinder, I want to stick to fast, unencumbered shooting with direct zero-lag vision of what's going on to pick the moment to press the shutter release.
The key improvement that would sell me on an MF upgrade is light sensitivity. The main reason I fall back to the Canon is available light shooting. Even though the H3Dii-31 has microlenses I find it hugely light-hungry, shooting ETTR I rate it somewhere around ISO 64. Indirect lighting indoors? Forget it.
There's always room to improve autofocus. I don't need more points- I have the Canon set to only use the centre one to focus and recompose anyway. But faster performance, especially in low light, would be welcome, and every little bit of accuracy helps - Hassy's TrueFocus sounds worthwhile. As various web reviewers are discovering, there's more to getting an accurately-focussed sharp 30+ megapixel image than slapping a finer grained sensor in a Nikon body- you need to pay attention to all these little physical niggles like focus shift, shift on recompose, etc.
A base ISO 400-800 sensor at 645 size with 40-ish megapixels and all the precision of MF? Sold.
Cheers, Hywel.
Why do you have crop sensor cameras? You go on about the magnificent Hasselblad lenses and then up a small sensor behind them throwing away
much of the clarity/resolution they project.
You also say that 35mm DSLRs are not there yet, but choose to use a crop sensor Canon with a 1.6 crop factor.
Take a look at how the D800 compared to the H3D 40:
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 say that even with the canon you use a center focus point and recompose... well that's relatively OK if you don't shoot wide open. No very shallow depth of field on your website.
One of the pluses of MF is the larger sensor and how it produced nice shallow depth of field. To make this more usable better focusing support, both manual and auto,
would be a strong improvement.
Full frame sensors are the way to go for MFD in the future IMO. MF crop sensors just overlap with current top of the line 35mm dslr.
Regarding mirror up functionality. Both the Hasselblads and the D800 have mirror up with or without delay.
-
A really nice compact folding MFD camera like the Fuji GF680 would be a very nice camera for the luxury market.
A luxury MFD camera that someone can actually carry around. However it would require a higher level if compact electronics
and a more compact battery.
I can see a better future to the prestige of MF brands through that then the crazy Lunar BS.
-
Hi,
CCD is essentially based on popping charge between adjacent cells. So you sort of pop each cell to the next one, taking several thousands of pops to get the charge to the readout circuitry. That takes time and generates heat. CMOS is more straightforward, you are reading charge in place.
The reason that large sensors are stitched is that the devices exposing the masks on silicon substrate are limited to small apertures. So most sensors larger than APS-H are stitched. This stitching is not done physically but when exposing the sensor chips.
Regarding live view, there are dual reasons for it being important. One is that getting rid of the mirror is good for flexibility. For instance you can use fairly symmetrical wide angle designs with mirrorless but inverted telephoto is needed for wide angles on SLR.
The other factor is that LV removes variations in ground glass screen and sensor registration as the actual signal from the sensor is used for focusing. For instance, the Alpa cameras can be shimmed within 0.01 mm, but thermal expansion from say -20 to +20 degrees may expand the body more than that!
Live view is simply "what you see is what you get", and it comes no better than that.
Best regards
Erik
I am curious on the CMOS vs CCD issue. Is it just not possible to get a good live view from a CCD? Does only CMOS allow this? The are CCD's in the 60mp and 80mp sensors not single chips, but instead they are 8 separate chips, matted into one chip. You can see this when you view the sensor in bright light. You can also sometimes actually see the hard physical lines in your image when the back has not been tuned well. The size of the separate CCD's on the IQ160 Chip appear to be about the size of a APC-C sensor. As I recall on the older Kodak chips in the P45+ you did not see the 8 separate segments, instead it was just one large chip. I have always assumed you have to create the chip first, then build a camera around the chip. I am surprised that it has taken this long to get a composite style chip similar to the Dalsa CCD chips out of CMOS. I assume it must be lack of market demand?
The Tech camera solution is more a requirement due to optical shortfalling by the MF wide angles. I have only used the Mamiya/Phase line up, so cannot speak to Hassi or Contax. The 35mm and 28mm both were just too soft in the corners for my work. The ability to add tilt to a medium format wide angle lens is also a key component. You can create a very impressive hyperfocal distance. All you have to do is shoot with a wide on a tech camera and see the differences in clarity/color/contrast and overall focus, you will not want to go back. On a side note, this same issue has now appeared with the D800 and wide angle lenses, and I am sure will also appear with Canon when they bring a higher resolution solution to the market.
The Tech camera route, leads to a need for a better Live view, so hopefully Phase will follow up in 2013 with a new back with Live view. I have to commend Phase for having put into place an excellent software solution in Capture One that can accommodate the LCC process so well.
Paul
-
Live view is simply "what you see is what you get", and it comes no better than that.
Kind of...at the moment it is more like "what you see is what the camera interpolates out of the data read off the sensor"...hence the difference in LV image quality at 1:1 between cameras. Compare the 5DIII to the D800 to see the differences
Yair
-
Why crop sensor Hasselblad?
1) All I could afford at the time (when I added in lenses, etc.)
2) 1 stop improvement in light sensitivity over the non-crop frame versions (micro lenses on sensor)
3) The crop is fairly modest and gives "look around" capability on the viewfinder, which I've grown to like
4) To date, the improvements in newer Hasselblad models hasn't provided a compelling reason to change. As I said, base 400 ISO and 40-ish megapixels and I'd be there
Why crop sensor Canon?
1) I bought it for video, and at the time it had significantly less compromises than the 5Dii (got fixed in firmware later on but it didn't have 25 fps IIRC which is an issue in PAL land)
2) I sold my 5D Mark 1
3) It is only the backup camera, so I bought a RED instead of a full-frame replacement backup stills camera. I definitely will go back to a full-frame Canon when I get around to replacing the 7D
Good to know that the D800 implements a mirror flip-delay system. As I said, for my purposes I don't see any particular reason why 35mm full frame shouldn't deliver the kind of results I'm currently getting from the Hassy, so maybe they're one step closer than I realised, but I believe there are still issues with focus shift etc.. And if I do update the Hasselblad, at least I have lenses capable of supporting the higher spec readout at the back end without investing in a sack full of expensive new glass.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
Hi!
I don't have neither the 5DIII nor the D800, so I cannot comment on that. It is my understanding that maximal enlargement on the D800 is larger than actual pixels.
Live view is just a tool and we need to learn how to use it. I am a Sony user and still learning how to use live view, but I love it!
Best regards
Erik
Kind of...at the moment it is more like "what you see is what the camera interpolates out of the data read off the sensor"...hence the difference in LV image quality at 1:1 between cameras. Compare the 5DIII to the D800 to see the differences
Yair
-
Why crop sensor Hasselblad?
1) All I could afford at the time (when I added in lenses, etc.)
2) 1 stop improvement in light sensitivity over the non-crop frame versions (micro lenses on sensor)
3) The crop is fairly modest and gives "look around" capability on the viewfinder, which I've grown to like
4) To date, the improvements in newer Hasselblad models hasn't provided a compelling reason to change. As I said, base 400 ISO and 40-ish megapixels and I'd be there
Why crop sensor Canon?
1) I bought it for video, and at the time it had significantly less compromises than the 5Dii (got fixed in firmware later on but it didn't have 25 fps IIRC which is an issue in PAL land)
2) I sold my 5D Mark 1
3) It is only the backup camera, so I bought a RED instead of a full-frame replacement backup stills camera. I definitely will go back to a full-frame Canon when I get around to replacing the 7D
Good to know that the D800 implements a mirror flip-delay system. As I said, for my purposes I don't see any particular reason why 35mm full frame shouldn't deliver the kind of results I'm currently getting from the Hassy, so maybe they're one step closer than I realised, but I believe there are still issues with focus shift etc.. And if I do update the Hasselblad, at least I have lenses capable of supporting the higher spec readout at the back end without investing in a sack full of expensive new glass.
Cheers, Hywel.
3) The crop is fairly modest and gives "look around" capability on the viewfinder, which I've grown to like
Good point. Look around is a nice thing to have. Something to be kept in mind in future MF development.
D800 offers various crop abilities and gives you two options for indicating the crop in the finder. Either greyed out of a guide frame. Can be very handy.
The crop feature also increases frame rate.
Could be a good option for medium format too. 80MP at a slow frame rate and 15 or 20 much faster.
-
My rule of thumb on the D800 Live view is go to the max and back off three. At a 100% view, it's way over kill and hard to determine anything. Same as the image preview. Nikon's what you see is what you get approach is great on exposure, where as Canon has a much much better noise buffering setup. Just try to use a D800 in low light (even with the exposure correct), the noise on screen is very hard to work around and get a good focus. In good light, this is not a problem. Canon somehow buffers out the noise, enough so you can see the image and focus.
I didn't really start using Live View until I moved to Nikon, as I found it critical to focus on the D800 and e. I have started using on Canon (for night work) and love it. As for implementation on MF, it will be interesting to see what the future brings.
I am still confused on the chip construction as many are using term stitched including myself. I know from using a IQ180 briefly that this "stitching" can be sometimes seen on a actual image and is really impossible to remove in post. It has been explained to me that the raw software is supposed to blend these areas and smooth them out. (Capture One, LR etc). My 160 shows lines at times on LCC's when viewed on the camera LCD, but these same lines never show up in post. On my loaner 180, they did show up in post and pretty much ruined the image. Again I have been told this is a "tuning" issue and each back has to be tuned to get the blend correct. I should also note, that on the 180 the images that caused the problem were taken with a Schneider 43mm lens and this lens is not considered a good solution on the 180. (I own a 160, but it's in for work).
Paul
-
The way landscape photographer likes to use live view is 1) framing (full view), 2) focus placement (100% zoom). If the live view is really good to simulate the final result one can get histograms and use it to set exposure too.
A good 100% focus check live view must demosaic the sensor data, preferably apply some sharpening etc, and if low light a good noise reduction, so it is not trivial. It must also update with a fast refresh rate and without delay, or else it becomes difficult to finetune manual focus. It should also preferably handle a wide range of light conditions.
As far as I know Canon is the leader on live view, much better than Nikon for example. Don't know about Sony. Maybe Canon's less-than-great low ISO performance is a price one have to pay for the excellent live view, at least so far. With the high ISO performance of the latest cameras can through live view in low light siutation actually make you see more than you do through the viewfinder.
Live view would be very useful for a tech camera, but not so meaningful for the typical 645 DSLR use case when you hand-hold the camera and look through the viewfinder.
Actually I don't think CMOS-quality live view would change that much in practical MFDB photography (although I would not cry if I did not need to use the slidning back), we do quite good without, but I think it would help sales and help market communication. Photographers of today do not start with film, they start with live-view capable DSLRs. It's a lot easier to sell something when you don't need to tell your customer that they need to drop the flexibility they are used to.
-
BJL, you seem to know a lot about sensors. As a tech cam user I worry about color cast, i e that the sensors cannot handle low angles of incoming light, and thus forces more or less strong retrofocus lens designs. I think it would be sad if the ability to handle non-retrofocus or weak-retrofocus lenses disappeared.
Do you know if there is something inherent in CMOS design that would make the color casts worse or not than we see in current CCDs?
-
Kind of...at the moment it is more like "what you see is what the camera interpolates out of the data read off the sensor"...hence the difference in LV image quality at 1:1 between cameras. Compare the 5DIII to the D800 to see the differences
Yair
The live view high magnification zoom mode of the D800 may not be sexy, but it does the job in terms of enabling perfect focus 100% of the time, even in pre-dawn and post-dusk dark conditions.
I'll stick to my view that usable live view is mandatory for MF backs to become credible contendors for some of my applications.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
3) The crop is fairly modest and gives "look around" capability on the viewfinder, which I've grown to like
Good point. Look around is a nice thing to have. Something to be kept in mind in future MF development.
D800 offers various crop abilities and gives you two options for indicating the crop in the finder. Either greyed out of a guide frame. Can be very handy.
The crop feature also increases frame rate.
Could be a good option for medium format too. 80MP at a slow frame rate and 15 or 20 much faster.
Sensor+ in the P40+, P65+, IQ140, IQ160, and IQ180 already offer faster frame rates (and two stops of free ISO) by reducing resolution but keeping the same frame size.
Aptus ii 10 and Aptus ii 12 already offer the option to shoot square raw files at faster frame rates.
-
Hi,
It normally means that a single chip is done using several exposures in the stepper. Normal steppers cannot expose 24x36 mm in a single exposure.
This paper from Canon discusses the issue http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Full-Frame_CMOS_White_Paper.pdf
"Of course, there is more to this topic. For example, the circuit pattern of a fullframe
sensor is too large to be projected on the silicon wafer all at once; it requires
three separate exposures (See page 53). This means that the number of masks and
exposure processes is tripled. For now, appreciate that a full-frame sensor costs not
three or four times, but ten, twenty or more times as much as an APS-C sensor."
Best regards
Erik
I am still confused on the chip construction as many are using term stitched including myself.
Paul
-
Sensor+ in the P40+, P65+, IQ140, IQ160, and IQ180 already offer faster frame rates (and two stops of free ISO) by reducing resolution but keeping the same frame size.
Aptus ii 10 and Aptus ii 12 already offer the option to shoot square raw files at faster frame rates.
The speeds in sensor plus are still quite slow. 1.2fps (1.8 fps in Sensor+ ) for the IQ140 and 0.7 fps (0.9 fps in Sensor+ ). However sensor plus is a
useful function producing a lower res image, but still using the full frame and still capturing the look of the whole projected image of the lens.
Usefull when 80MP files are overkill and 20MP is better but still with the advantage of oversampling.
I was suggesting significant crop to obtain even higher speed when needed. This may be a way for future MF cameras to reach 4 to 6 fps.
"(and two stops of free ISO)" That was tongue in-cheek right..... ;)
-
My rule of thumb on the D800 Live view is go to the max and back off three. At a 100% view, it's way over kill and hard to determine anything.
Paul
Excuse the diversion...
Paul you can setup the center button of the multi function button to magnify to your preferred magnification. Very handy one click to go to
the magnification you want.
-
The speeds in sensor plus are still quite slow. 1.2fps (1.8 fps in Sensor+ ) for the IQ140 and 0.7 fps (0.9 fps in Sensor+ ). However sensor plus is a
useful function producing a lower res image, but still using the full frame and still capturing the look of the whole projected image of the lens.
Usefull when 80MP files are overkill and 20MP is better but still with the advantage of oversampling.
I was suggesting significant crop to obtain even higher speed when needed. This may be a way for future MF cameras to reach 4 to 6 fps.
"(and two stops of free ISO)" That was tongue in-cheek right..... ;)
The noise at ISO 1600 in sensor plus is identical to the noise in an ISO400 full frame image. That is what I meant by "two free stops of iso". Going into sensor plus mode increases your native ISO by two stops, at the compromise of file size.
If I made a list of features/improvements I think that would help photographers (who use or would consider using medium format) produce better work, and produce it more easily and with more enjoyment of the process... 4-6fps wouldn't even be in the top 20.
Maybe that is just me. I don't claim to know the needs/wants of all medium format or potential medium format shooters.
-
Live view would be very useful for a tech camera, but not so meaningful for the typical 645 DSLR use case when you hand-hold the camera and look through the viewfinder.
Imagine a combination of a really good EVF, along with further enhancement of the eye control focus-select system used in the Canon EOS-5.
Look in the viewfinder at the focus point you want to use whilst holding down one button, camera focuses using that focus point. Look at another point in the viewfinder whilst spinning a control wheel, zoom in and out to focus check any part of the image. Make it a clickable control wheel (like that on the Alpa FPS), and you can do it all with a single control.
Kind regards,
Gerald.
-
The noise at ISO 1600 in sensor plus is identical to the noise in an ISO400 full frame image. That is what I meant by "two free stops of iso". Going into sensor plus mode increases your native ISO by two stops, at the compromise of file size.
What happens when the two files are printed with the subject of the photo printed to the same size?
-
Hi,
You can check that on DxO-mark. Sensor+ makes a small improvement on DR.
Reason: Signal is summed over four pixels while readout noise is kept the same.
For tonal range (which by and large ignores read noise) the effect is very, very small.
Both samples I enclosed are in print mode, that is normalized to a smallish print.
Best regards
Erik
What happens when the two files are printed with the subject of the photo printed to the same size?
-
Yes but look at the noise graphs for screen and print.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8082/8268067455_2d667b22e5_b.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8214/8268067495_bcf7bc7cc7_b.jpg)
-
Hi,
SNR 18% is dominated by shot noise and depends only on the number of photons captured. It scales perfectly with enlargement that is the reason it does little effect on noise. If you look at noise at 1% you would see the effect of Sensor+.
But I agree that most of the advantages by Sensor+ can be achieved by simply scaling down the picture to half linear dimension.
Best regards
Erik
Yes but look at the noise graphs for screen and print.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8082/8268067455_2d667b22e5_b.jpg)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8214/8268067495_bcf7bc7cc7_b.jpg)
-
What happens when the two files are printed with the subject of the photo printed to the same size?
Hi,
SNR 18% is dominated by shot noise and depends only on the number of photons captured. It scales perfectly with enlargement that is the reason it does little effect on noise. If you look at noise at 1% you would see the effect of Sensor+.
But I agree that most of the advantages by Sensor+ can be achieved by simply scaling down the picture to half linear dimension.
Best regards
Erik
I was not stating that, asking the question really.
-
MFD has to change, being hamstrung by only having the hand-me-downs from chip manufacturers is not helping all the time 35mm makes advances in optics and sensors, the 'improvements' touted are abysmal when you look at the cost and these 'upgrades' are glacial in the speed they come to market, just look how long it took to get a passable rear screen and USB3 that doesn't work.
Real live view that is usable like a canikon and 800-3200 iso that is perfectly usable like a current DSLR without silly crop formats.
If the next batch of 'new and improved' backs only offer even higher mpixels for a closer look at diffraction and the reps extolling the virtues of a dedicated button to add a star rating then the plot really has been lost.
I actually don't care if they cost 15-20k it just has to deliver the goods, MFD to me seems like a cartel that all the time they can get away with it they will keep pushing the same product.
I guess it's going to be a sensor manufacturer that is going to dictate and change for the better.
All IMHO.
While writing this I got a marketing email from hassleblad, they have an owners club now :D
-
Down sampling in post in theory produces one stop gain in per pixel noise.
Pixel binning produces two stops.
In practice I find pixel binning to be a bit better than one stop difference; why? I could only speculate (maybe related to the modest ineffeciencies of demosaicing?)
But what do I know? I'm not looking at dXo charts, I'm only looking at raw files from said cameras in their native processor.
-
Downsampling has very little impact on noise. It might be worth pointing out, we are comparing two pixels with a difference in linear resolution of 2x (or area of 4x). The visual system will really not perceive any difference between the conditions is it naturally does its own downsampling cause by its own limit in resolution. Comparing images at 100% monitor view is not going to show the reality of the situation, unless you put instructions under your pictures for viewers to fix two different viewing distances depending if you downsampled or not.
Binning on the other hand is making a difference as it impacts the actual signal.
-
Hi,
I disagree in part.
To begin with, I presume that we really talk about prints. Whenever you print the image will be resampled to the native resolution of the printer driver. The resolution of the file may matter little, so far signal is dominated by shot noise only the total number of photons captured will matter and that number is not affected by binning.
Shadow noise can be dominated by readout noise. Lets do some very simple math:
Full well capacity is 65000
Nominal ISO is 25
So 1600 ISO = ln(1600 / 25) / ln 2 means six stops of underexposure. Let's also assume that we look at 12.5% grey tone, 12.5% is 1/8 or three stops.
So our grey tone will hold about 65000 * 25 / 1600 / 8 = 127 photons (well electrons to be correct). This will result in shot noise of 11 electron charges.
No readout noise on the DALSA chip used on the IQ180 is about 12 electrons (according to data sheet), noise is added in quadrature, so total noise would be:
sqrt(11*11 + 12 *12) = 16.3, leading to an Signal Noise Ratio of 127 / 16.3 = 7.8
Now, if we subsample four pixels the math will change a bit:
FWC = 4 * 65000
Electron count = 507
Giving shot noise of 22.5
Readout noise will become sqrt (4 * 12 *12) = 24
Total noise will be sqrt(22.5 * 22.5 + 24 *24) = 32.8 giving SNR of 15.4 (about twice the SNR)
If we use hardware binning everything will be the same, except that readout noise will not be added up but stay at 12.
So we get: total noise = sqr(22.5 * 22.5 + 12 * 12) = 25.5 leading to SNR of 507 / 25.5 = 19.8
So downsampling will improve SNR from 7.8 to 15.4. Binning in hardware will improve SNR to 19.8.
;-) This is the math ;-)
Keep in mind that downsampling will not improve image quality in print.
I'd also suggest that raw converters can take different parameters into account and do more ore less aggressive noise reduction. For instance, it would make a lot of sense to increase noise reduction in the darks, which often have impulse noise and probably little detail.
Best regards
Erik
Down sampling in post in theory produces one stop gain in per pixel noise.
Pixel binning produces two stops.
In practice I find pixel binning to be a bit better than one stop difference; why? I could only speculate (maybe related to the modest ineffeciencies of demosaicing?)
But what do I know? I'm not looking at dXo charts, I'm only looking at raw files from said cameras in their native processor.
.....
Downsampling has very little impact on noise. It might be worth pointing out, we are comparing two pixels with a difference in linear resolution of 2x (or area of 4x). The visual system will really not perceive any difference between the conditions is it naturally does its own downsampling cause by its own limit in resolution. Comparing images at 100% monitor view is not going to show the reality of the situation, unless you put instructions under your pictures for viewers to fix two different viewing distances depending if you downsampled or not.
Binning on the other hand is making a difference as it impacts the actual signal.
-
Interesting thread, I quit following the other one some time ago. That horse was beat to death when the d800 came out, and as one who owns both a d800e and a IQ180 system, for me MF is not dead.
As far as the future, the only feature I care about in MF is LiveView, as has been discussed. I would be back on a technical camera in a flash, if MF had liveview that was as functional as my Canon or Nikons. In fact, give me , my NEX 7's manual focus and I'd probably sell the DF and lens and move strictly to tech cameras. I tried a nice tech camera system, and just couldn't stand the challenge of composing and focusing - just doesn't fit my "explorer" type shooting style.
-
For my type of portrait/commercial type of shooting live view is a pain in the ass. I prefer the viewfinder any day. I just dont want too much information around me when I compose.
And the talk do CCDS not having good enough iso. Look at the noise of the new canons. They are terrific. imagine that technology on a 645 sized sensor. But then again, the same technology that's in the D800 sensor... Hard to believe how incredible that would be.
Dynamic range would be out of this world.
-
Live view would be ... not so meaningful for the typical 645 DSLR use case when you hand-hold the camera and look through the viewfinder.
One part of live view is the option of an eye-level EVF (I can imagine MF cameras keeping the OVF and also offering an accessory eye-level EVF), which could be very useful also for accurate manual focusing while hand-holding the camera, due to the ability to magnify near the selected focus target. This would probably work best if the magnified image occupied only part of the VF image, with the overall framing still shown around it, but I get by without that when manually focusing my E-M5. Focus peaking in the eye-level EVF could also be useful, according to those who have experience with it.
Live view also opens up another old-school medium format style: cradling the camera at waist level, with forearms braced againsts hips and looking down on the up-tilted external monitor. This is actually a very stable way to hold a camera, as one can see by using a highly magnified live view image with IS off, to show how much the image shakes. By the way, unstabilized and highly magnified live view with a long focal length also teaches humility about one's hand-holding abilities! The ability to engage IS while focusing helps greatly, but that might be slow to come to MF, because (a) the existing lenses lack it, and (b) sensor based stabilization might be a big mechanical challenge with larger sensors and the relatively small R&D budgets of the MF makers.
-
Dynamic range would be out of this world.
being that real mf sensors are way less than 4 times larger than ff sensors DR will be less than 2 stops more... that is hardly out of this world... specifically if the sensor will come not from Sony but from some lesser skillful manufacturer.
-
Down sampling in post in theory produces one stop gain in per pixel noise.
Pixel binning produces two stops.
In practice I find pixel binning to be a bit better than one stop difference; why? I could only speculate (maybe related to the modest ineffeciencies of demosaicing?)
But what do I know? I'm not looking at dXo charts, I'm only looking at raw files from said cameras in their native processor.
Down sampling does reduce noise... it's not a theory. It is used in many fields including still and motion picture. Many features are shot at a higher res than distribution, but for
celluloid and digital distribution.
DXO graphs are a valid source. Even Phase One refers customers to DXO. I remember getting emails when the IQ180 report was published and Phase One refers to
DXO on it's website:
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/Camera-Bodies/Reviews.aspx (http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/Camera-Bodies/Reviews.aspx)
Anyway here are some images of sensor plus from a P65+
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-88/iso800crop.jpg)
ISO 800
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-88/1600-plus-crop.jpg)
ISO3200
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8207/8269803755_3868be995e_b.jpg)
800 ISO scaled over the 3200 ISO
While the noise appears similar at the same magnification it is far better when the ISO 800 is scaled and it looks better than
one stop to me.
We all know that noise increases quite dramatically with MF CCD sensors and not in a linear manor once you go over 400/800.
Most likely the noise increase would have been worse even with down sampling with an IQ180 80mp ISO 1600 capture.
So the choice of using binning is a good move or else they would not have done it. But it's worth keeping in mind that it
is to address the limitations of CCD sensors when it comes to high ISO.
The advantage though of having sensor plus is worth noting.
Slightly faster frame rate 0.7 fps (0.9 fps in Sensor+ ) for the IQ180. That may not seem like a big difference, but for such a slow camera it is
a 28% speed increase. There are also work flow advantages. If you are going to down sample it can be an advantage to have the camera do it at the get go.
However it's worth considering if it's worth the extra cost as sensor plus is far from free. The Leaf backs don't offer sensor plus,
but shoot at full MP count at ISO 800 and can be scaled down. The difference in price is quite significant especially if
you keep in mind that you can get the Leaf form B and H as well as Adorama.
I think this reinforces the argument for CMOS for MF.
-
For my type of portrait/commercial type of shooting live view is a pain in the ass. I prefer the viewfinder any day. I just dont want too much information around me when I compose.
Live view can be with and without information being displayed.
Face recognition guided magnified live view is brilliant for live view portrait shooting especially for groups.
It is currently in the D800 and is something that could be implemented in in medium format cameras with CMOS live view.
That said I think it's important to keep OVF as part of the MF systems.
-
Hey Fred, I wasn't talking about the info on the screen. I ment I like how the viewfinder is like an off switch to everything around that happens in the room or environment. Makes me focus better.
-
Hey Fred, I wasn't talking about the info on the screen. I ment I like how the viewfinder is like an off switch to everything around that happens in the room or environment. Makes me focus better.
Then you would prefer your live view through an eye-level EVF, not just a rear-screen monitor. You seem to be thinking only of the latter form ormlive view, perhaps becuase that is all that DSLRs currently offer. The mirrorless system cameras and Sony's "SLT" cameras have experimented more with different ways of using live view than DSLRs have, and so offer a richer preview of the directions that photographic technology might go.
-
Hey Fred, I wasn't talking about the info on the screen. I ment I like how the viewfinder is like an off switch to everything around that happens in the room or environment. Makes me focus better.
You can use a loup with a nice large eye cup. This isolates you well, but you are right you are looking at a video screen. They are getting better and better, but it's different from
looking right at reality through a focusing screen However there are some big advantages to live view view finders.
One I particularly like is black and white preview while still shooting a color raw.
Best thing for the future of MF is to have both.
-
We all know that noise increases quite dramatically with MF CCD sensors and not in a linear manor once you go over 400/800.
Well, the 645D is a couple of years older than the other cameras here, but there is no really difference between them at ISO 1600. Perhaps the CMOS sensors are really not that much better.
-
Hi,
We all know what we know, at least until we know better ;-)
Your observation is a "good catch" and also in agreement with DxO-mark, see below.
Best regards
Erik
Well, the 645D is a couple of years older than the other cameras here, but there is no really difference between them at ISO 1600. Perhaps the CMOS sensors are really not that much better.
-
Hi,
We all know what we know, at least until we know better ;-)
Your observation is a "good catch" and also in agreement with DxO-mark, see below.
At the common exposure index values, at least up to 800, the signal at 18% is high enough that shot noise dominates over sensor dark noise, so differences will come only from differences in well capacity. So what you see is primarily the noise inherent in the incoming light, not from the sensor. The main difference is that beyond Exposure Index 800, the 655D starts to fall behind.
What this 18% "print normalized" noise graph shows is at Exposure Index up to about 800, the noise level differences due to sensor dark noise differences are only seen in shadows, not mid-tones, and that sensor noise only starts to significantly effect mid-tones from about EI 1600.
This offers a caution about wrongly extrapolating from DR measurements based on the noise floor in very dark parts of the image to conclusions about visible noise in images at low to moderate EI! The watch-face comparisons reinforce this, even with significant parts of the image a stop or so below 18% midtone level, but still not way down in the depths where sensor noise is the dominant noise source.
I wuld love to see something like 2% or 4% SNR measurements, as an indication of noise in shadow regions two or three stops below midtones: regions that are still relevant to straight, not-contrast compressed, prints.
-
Actually it's the skin tones that are more of a problem with the 645D at high ISO.
While the Pentax does a very good job with high ISO as far as luminance noise goes
it's not good on skin tones at ISO 1600.
Being a portrait photographer it's the skin tones I look at and due to the type if lighting I use
I also look at the color in the areas of skin tone that fall into the shadows.
Having taken a look at the Pentax 645D I decided against mainly due to the 44x33 sized sensor,
but also for the high ISO skin tones.
They are more ashy and slight green patches appear in the gradations of the skin.
Anyway you can see what I am talking about from the same DPreview test comparison tool
that was shown above.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8063/8272201045_4ee67c68d5_o.jpg)
And here is the Pentax image laid over the Nikon image
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8203/8272197051_dc4b7e0f3b_o.jpg)
The Nikon has more color in the skin tones and if you drop the saturation to that of the Pentax
you will also reduce chroma noise.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8482/8273315346_bee24ff8e0_o.jpg)
Pentax image laid over the Nikon image with saturation corrected to match.
On top of this in a low light situation but with more contrast which is often the case in
night scenes the dynamic range of the camera combined with ISO perfomace comes into play.
The D800 (CMOS) has a one and a half stop dynamic range advantage.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8079/8273331930_6342db629e_b.jpg)
Now that said the Pentax 645D is a lovely camera with many features that distinguish it from the other MFDB cameras.
The ergonomics are really good and what is most important it comes from a company that has significant CMOS experience
and they are likely to be the ones to make the jump over to CMOS. They also already have a good relationship
with CMOS manufacturers and already use Sony sensors.
A full frame CMOS sensor in a Pentax 645D with Pentax pricing and image stabilization
in the right lenses and I think I might get one.
-
The main difference is that beyond Exposure Index 800, the 655D starts to fall behind.
Two pieces of data posted here show that at 1600ISO, there is no falling behind with the 645D.
-
They are more ashy and slight green patches appear in the gradations of the skin.
Fred, with controlled lighting, why would you even want to shoot at ISO 1600? Not your typical speed for portrait work. If you are simply working in bad light, then it is not even worth mentioning as the light is not going to be ideal to reproduce color accurately anyway. Pity the Nikon color is so yellow for skin. It looks like both cameras need some work.
-
Well, the 645D is a couple of years older than the other cameras here (d800), but there is no really difference between them at ISO 1600. Perhaps the CMOS sensors are really not that much better.
Even if there were not difference it would still make a case for CMOS because with the Cmos camera achieves what it does at a 1/3rd of the price and a smaller sensor.
Fred, with controlled lighting, why would you even want to shoot at ISO 1600? Not your typical speed for portrait work. If you are simply working in bad light, then it is not even worth mentioning as the light is not going to be ideal to reproduce color accurately anyway. Pity the Nikon color is so yellow for skin. It looks like both cameras need some work.
Actually there is not too much yellow. In the overlay all I did was lift saturation.
Regarding why I would want to shoot ISO 1600...... Might not be typical, by often in natural light situations the light can be really beautiful, but not much of it.
Also another situation where it is relevant is when I shoot an actors portrait on a TV digital (as compared to film) set. Sometimes I have little time
and I have to use the available lighting. In these situations the light for the whole scene tends to be very flat as well as quite low. Often to find
more interesting light I either have to go to the edge of the lighted scene to find some interesting fall off or use flags to carve the light a bit.
I'm not trying to trash the Pentax. I think it is a lovely camera. I just find it is held back by the size of it's sensor (44x33 in a 645 body) and the limitations of CCD sensors.
Never hear of the camera crashing or freezing.
-
Anyway you can see what I am talking about from the same DPreview test comparison tool
that was shown above.
it is not a good idea to use DPReview comparisom - first of all they are not good w/ using the same illuminations between their tests, then they are using ACR which applies different hidden mandatory corrections for different camera, then DPReview does not compare at equal ISO measured by sensor saturation (DxOMark) but at nominal ISO (which is basically tells that you can use whatever gain you want for as long as your in camera JPGs a conforming to a certain criteria - which makes that nominal ISO not a good idea for a raw shooter, who wants to expose to saturate the sensor properly)...
-
Actually there is not too much yellow. In the overlay all I did was lift saturation.
Regarding why I would want to shoot ISO 1600...... Might not be typical, by often in natural light situations the light can be really beautiful, but not much of it.
Also another situation where it is relevant is when I shoot an actors portrait on a TV digital (as compared to film) set. Sometimes I have little time
and I have to use the available lighting. In these situations the light for the whole scene tends to be very flat as well as quite low. Often to find
more interesting light I either have to go to the edge of the lighted scene to find some interesting fall off or use flags to carve the light a bit.
I'm not trying to trash the Pentax. I think it is a lovely camera. I just find it is held back by the size of it's sensor (44x33 in a 645 body) and the limitations of CCD sensors.
Never hear of the camera crashing or freezing.
The point is Fred, there is no case that CMOS in inherently better than a CCD at high ISO, at least up to 1600. The differences are too small to be significant. The Pentax at ISO 1600 is as good as any 35mm DSLR. Except for Live View, there is no limitation to a CCD.
-
Just for fun I took the two 100 iso RAW files, opened them in ACR 7.2, neutralised them on one of the X-Rite patches and lifted the shadows:
-
Just for fun I took the two 100 iso RAW files, opened them in ACR 7.2, neutralised them on one of the X-Rite patches and lifted the shadows:
D800e was 2/3 of a stop underexposed... it is about quality of dpreview shots for raw files comparison
-
it is not a good idea to use DPReview comparisom - first of all they are not good w/ using the same illuminations between their tests, then they are using ACR which applies different hidden mandatory corrections for different camera, then DPReview does not compare at equal ISO measured by sensor saturation (DxOMark) but at nominal ISO (which is basically tells that you can use whatever gain you want for as long as your in camera JPGs a conforming to a certain criteria - which makes that nominal ISO not a good idea for a raw shooter, who wants to expose to saturate the sensor properly)...
Making prognostications about a camera based on downloading DPReview comparisons is deeply flawed and a very shallow approach to analyzing the difference between two cameras. For several reasons, a few of which you mention.
Especially for higher ISO shots, or for analysis of color, both of which are EXTREMELY dependent on raw processor version, settings, and preferences.
-
Down sampling does reduce noise... it's not a theory. It is used in many fields including still and motion picture. Many features are shot at a higher res than distribution, but for
celluloid and digital distribution.
I think you misattributed the word "theoretical" in that sentence. I was perhaps not clear enough.
Down sampling does reduce apparent noise. In theory this reduction is around one stop.
DXO graphs are a valid source. Even Phase One refers customers to DXO. I remember getting emails when the IQ180 report was published and Phase One refers to
DXO on it's website:
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/Camera-Bodies/Reviews.aspx (http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/Camera-Bodies/Reviews.aspx)
Anyway here are some images of sensor plus from a P65+
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-88/iso800crop.jpg)
ISO 800
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-88/1600-plus-crop.jpg)
ISO3200
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8207/8269803755_3868be995e_b.jpg)
800 ISO scaled over the 3200 ISO
While the noise appears similar at the same magnification it is far better when the ISO 800 is scaled and it looks better than
one stop to me.
We all know that noise increases quite dramatically with MF CCD sensors and not in a linear manor once you go over 400/800.
Most likely the noise increase would have been worse even with down sampling with an IQ180 80mp ISO 1600 capture.
So the choice of using binning is a good move or else they would not have done it. But it's worth keeping in mind that it
is to address the limitations of CCD sensors when it comes to high ISO.
The advantage though of having sensor plus is worth noting.
Slightly faster frame rate 0.7 fps (0.9 fps in Sensor+ ) for the IQ180. That may not seem like a big difference, but for such a slow camera it is
a 28% speed increase. There are also work flow advantages. If you are going to down sample it can be an advantage to have the camera do it at the get go.
However it's worth considering if it's worth the extra cost as sensor plus is far from free. The Leaf backs don't offer sensor plus,
but shoot at full MP count at ISO 800 and can be scaled down. The difference in price is quite significant especially if
you keep in mind that you can get the Leaf form B and H as well as Adorama.
I think this reinforces the argument for CMOS for MF.
Lol, yes fred, Phase One's marketing department, like every other marketing department will reference and link to anyone who says nice things about them. If President Obama made an offhand remark that he thought Phase One backs produced great colors I'm sure Phase One's marketing would send out an email with that quote - that wouldn't make Obama any more authoritative on color rendering than joe schmoe.
Citing P1 Marketing to show that dXo is a point of reference with broadly applicable meaning is silly. dXo have a very specific set of tests that tell you a very specific thing. They provide no useful guidance on very important nuances like what KIND of noise, how pretty the grain of that noise is, what the impact on the noise will be of using the native vs. generic raw processor, the impact of ambient temperature, length of exposure etc. If we printed 1's and 0's then they'd be everything you need to know about an image. But we don't. We print colors, and textures, and details, and tonality, and transitions and a dozen other aesthetic attributes which can only be loosely (and at great effort) be described or analyzed mathematically. The only way to really see what kind of picture a camera will take is to take a picture with that camera. Everything else is armchair analytics.
As I've said a dozen times, the KIND of noise matters even more in most cases than the amount of noise. Banding, color crossover, blotchiness, low frequency color wonking, and erratic non-gaussianly distributed noise will ruin the aesthetics of an image far before a finely distributed film-like evenly structured homogeneously colored grain will, regardless of what their resulting respective SNRs (signal to noise ratios) are.
We understood this in the days of film. No one ranted about scientific charts of how grainy this emulsion was or that emulsion was (or maybe they did, I was too young to have noticed); they shared and looked at photos with different emulsions to see what kind/amount/look of grain it produced. They looked at pictures.
As a case in point: those images you posted were clearly processed in Capture One v6 or LR/ACR (or had awful settings applied in v7). The quality of higher ISO processing for Phase/Leaf files is remarkably better in version 7. The color bleed you see, the lack of color subtlety, and the poorly shaped grain structure are simply in your examples are absent in v7. Check out an example on our facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152207239185165&set=a.10152207238975165.923078.126184805164&type=3&theater).
I'm outta here for a while. This is tiring. I'll see you all in the new year.
-
The point is Fred, there is no case that CMOS in inherently better than a CCD at high ISO, at least up to 1600. The differences are too small to be significant. The Pentax at ISO 1600 is as good as any 35mm DSLR. Except for Live View, there is no limitation to a CCD.
To be fair there are many limitations on a CCD sensor. And many limitations on a CMOS sensor.
What I assume you mean to say is that CCD isn't holding you back from any of the tasks you want to put your camera to.
-
Two pieces of data posted here show that at 1600ISO, there is no falling behind with the 645D.
The curve for the 645D dips a bit below he D800 at 1600, having been an almost perfect match up to 800.
However, I agree that the dip is small and might not mean much, with the dark noise not being relevant until higher EI levels or if one substantially raises the deep shadow levels in post-processing. Indeed Pentax likely ends its range of EI settings (so-called ISO settings) at 1600 because it is being prudent and honest in offering just the EI settings that give reasonable noise performance when printed or displayed ”normally", without substantial raising of shadow levels.
The DR graphs do indicate that as EI is raised even higher, dark noise will show up with the 645D at least one stop before it does with the D800. But how much do MF users care about such extremes of low light and high exposure index?
-
D800e was 2/3 of a stop underexposed... it is about quality of dpreview shots for raw files comparison
Right...
100 iso vs 50 iso; ACR 7.2, WB and shadow lift (linear curve)
But as I said this is just for fun, for anyone who wishes to buy any of these camera I would as always recommend to do their own tests
(200% crop)
-
Hi,
This is what I see in LR 4.2 after lifting exposure 3 resp 5 stops (Nikon D800E and Pentax 645D, 100 ISO on both).
I wouldn't judge skin tone based on Q60. The Q60 is intended for scanning and there is a sample variation, that is the reason they are always used with a reference file.
Best regards
Erik
Just for fun I took the two 100 iso RAW files, opened them in ACR 7.2, neutralised them on one of the X-Rite patches and lifted the shadows:
-
Hi Doug,
I don't really agree on that. It seems from the postings on the forum that for quite a few posters (who use MFD) live view is important, and it seems that live view with present day CCD technology is not very workable.
I got some communications from IQ 180 owners having both IQ180 and D800E clearly stating an advantage in DR for the D800E. One of the owners is selling of his IQ180 the other one is keeping it for resolution.
I have looked at some samples myself, and this is what I have seen: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=3 . Now, that is just a part of a longer article, and the images are taken out of context. Also, raw processors have a lot of settings and can produce very different results in expert hands.
On the other hand, I think there may be a bit to much emphasis on DR. There are situations where DR is important, but in most cases it will also be limited by lens flare. Lens flare is actually one of the reasons that DR is not easy to measure, at least not with a single exposure.
To be fair there are many limitations on a CCD sensor. And many limitations on a CMOS sensor.
What I assume you mean to say is that CCD isn't holding you back from any of the tasks you want to put your camera to.
-
Hi,
In my view, switching platform to CMOS would give a couple of advantages for MFD.
The first one would be well working live view. It seems that feature is important for users deploying MFD on technical cameras.
The other advantage would be an improvement in ISO capability. That improvement is coming mostly from reduced readout noise in CMOS based systems.
Finally there is a potential advantage with CMOS in DR.
I guess it needs to be pointed out that there are two different routes in CMOS. Either using on chip ADCs (Analog Digital Converters), one for each column, like in Sony Exmoor and the new CMOSIS designed sensor for the Leica M10, or off chip ADC. Nikon D4 and all Canons use the off chip converter route, loosing low ISO DR and gaining nothing. In the second case it seems that in camera electronics cannot utilize the full dynamic range of the sensor, because of readout noise. At high ISO they preamplify the signal coming off the sensor, and can therefore reach high ISO.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi Doug,
I don't really agree on that. It seems from the postings on the forum that for quite a few posters (who use MFD) live view is important, and it seems that live view with present day CCD technology is not very workable.
The "you" in my post was a specific reply to TheguywiththePentax645. I was attempting to straighten out that for *him* CMOS did not have compelling advantages. For others who want/need CMOs features like video, movie-quality-liveview, or ultra high ISO CMOs offers huge advantages.
Somehow I was not clear an you took the opposite meaning: that CMOS has no advantage for *anyone*. You know I don't believe that. Sorry for any lack of clarity.
Everyone's ideal camera is different. Every camera (and brand or price) has advantages or disadvantages. Every shooter has different personal, business, and practical requirements an needs. For GuyWith645 to say CMOS offers no advantage for him is entirely correct, but not globally applicable to all photographers.
Now I really must be going.
Happy holidays. Email me if you need me.
-
It seems from the postings on the forum that for quite a few posters (who use MFD) live view is important, and it seems that live view with present day CCD technology is not very workable.
While Live View would be a really helpful feature for certain tasks it's also true that quite a few posters (who in fact use MFD) can manage to get sharp captures (even non-tethered).
Reading on the LuLa-MFD forum is less and less fun. It seems there are more posts from people who have never used MFD - but draw blod conclusions from some captures they've found on the internet - than from posters who actually use MFD.
This is why almost every thread is over and over flooded with the same lines of argument (underpinned by weblinks that show always the same "comparisions") and therefore many threads turn in circles. It's a shame.
-
Question regarding CMOS. Why do all the CMOS sensors have such overlapping color filter selection? Is it so that the camera maker can get better luminosity data for higher ISO? I don't care either way what sensor is in my camera but I have found in the past that CCD sensors seem to have better color tonality and range than CMOS. You can see it in flowers, food, skin and stuff like that. Sorry, Erik and Fred, but I'm not going to post sample images. I leave this comment for to explore yourselves, but I would not be happy with a super sized D800E sensor in my digital back right now, since it still is not capturing the same color tonal range that I get even with my old CF 528 or new AFi-ii 12. Even the Leica DMR did better.
-
Hi,
I have tried to look into things related to MF and written a small article about what I have found http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?showall=1
What I have found, not unexpectedly, is that the advantage MF has comes from sensor size. Those advantages will not disappear with sensor development. A large sensor will have some advantage over a small sensor in many aspects.
What we see is that 135 size sensors are caching up, and are good enough in some respects and actually superior in respects. I would argue that MFD has an advantage in resolution/sharpness if matched by excellent lenses and put to proper use. I would also argue that it will take long time until 135 digital can catch up as it would need a revolution in lens quality and quality assurance. Making lenses that are diffraction limited at f/4 or even f/2.8 would be a good start.
On the other hand, once quality is good enough there is little reason to use MFD, if you cannot see an advantage at the print sizes you make there is little reason to use MFD, unless you have a fondness for the system.
So I think that high end MF will be competitive with 135 size but I guess that 135 will affect sales of low end MF digital. Another problem for MFDs at the low end is that there seems to be a long upgrade cycle, unless you are into it for ultimate quality.
The way I see it takes an innovative company to keep afloat in the MF business.
Stefan Steib, the inventor of Hartblei HCam, suggested that MFD vendors sit down and develop a CMOS sensor jointly, I agree fully.
I would also add that I think that Hasselblad did the MFD industry a lot of disservice making their camera interfaces proprietary. Now we have a situation where Phase One was forced into the camera manufacturing business and Hasselblad users are deprived some of the best MF backs in the market.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hasselblad users are deprived of the best MF backs in the market.
what are the best backs on the market ... and why?
-
<<what are the best backs on the market ... and why?>>
It depends on the use of it. For example, in absolute terms, a multishot DB is better than a one shot. But its use is very specific.
Some will prefer the DB with the best results at high ISO. Others will choose the best one at low ISO.
Each back also works with its own program, whose role is essential.
This debate seems rather futile and useless.
PdF
-
This debate seems rather futile and useless
sure. as is the statement that Hasselbald users are deprived of the best MF backs in the market.
-
Question regarding CMOS. Why do all the CMOS sensors have such overlapping color filter selection? Is it so that the camera maker can get better luminosity data for higher ISO?
Yes, I think that having less noise inlow light/high exposure index situations is the main reason. One hint is that the smaller and more noise prone sensors in compact cameras tend to have even more overlap in their color filtration, going with even higher quantum efficiency values.
-
Hi,
They don't all have overlapping color filters, for instance at least one of the Dalsa MF sensors and then Nikon D5000 have very similar characteristics
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=9
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/Canon-500D-T1i-vs.-Nikon-D5000/Color-blindness-sensor-quality
The article below by Tim Parkin is an interesting one, but unfortunately requires subscription.
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/02/the-myth-of-universal-colour/
Best regards
Erik
Yes, I think that having less noise inlow light/high exposure index situations is the main reason. One hint is that the smaller and more noise prone sensors in compact cameras tend to have even more overlap in their color filtration, going with even higher quantum efficiency values.
-
Hi,
Lets put it this way, some folks need live view, mostly those who want to use MFD on technical cameras.
You also seem to have some idea that you cannot analyze an image that you didn't shoot your self. Can you perhaps explain why?
Also, this discussion is about the direction of MF to go. Rambling about other posters view will not help anyone.
Best regards
Erik
While Live View would be a really helpful feature for certain tasks it's also true that quite a few posters (who in fact use MFD) can manage to get sharp captures (even non-tethered).
Reading on the LuLa-MFD forum is less and less fun. It seems there are more posts from people who have never used MFD - but draw blod conclusions from some captures they've found on the internet - than from posters who actually use MFD.
This is why almost every thread is over and over flooded with the same lines of argument (underpinned by weblinks that show always the same "comparisions") and therefore many threads turn in circles. It's a shame.
-
I agree with Tho_mas on the recent flood of negative posting and more than enough technical babble by folks who don't even use digital MF. I don't say there isn't a place for it, but I sure liked the forum a lot better when most of the posting had to do with "which is the good lens for this platform", and "how do you do that with this camera" etc. Kind of stuff one that was actually using the gear could use.
To eliminate the noise, I humbly suggest to Michael that he add the following two sub forums:
1) Arm chair technobabble - the endless debate about what is better. Rules: No one is allowed to post about a camera they have - this is strictly a theoretical forum. No images please, unless they are of color charts, brick walls, or cats.
2) Complaints forum - This section is for those that are unhappy for whatever reason wether it was due to operator error or some other fault. Rules: No work arounds or other suggestions allowed. Conspiracy theories encouraged!
-
Hi,
You take a line of a pretty long comment out of context. But I can refrase: Hasselbald users are deprived some of the best MF backs in the market.
On the other hand you can check this figure recently published in an editorial on LuLa:
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/PvdH3/Fig2a_183.png)
and you may get the impression that Hasselblad is a bit behind.
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
I have tried to look into things related to MF and written a small article about what I have found http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?showall=1
What I have found, not unexpectedly, is that the advantage MF has comes from sensor size. Those advantages will not disappear with sensor development. A large sensor will have some advantage over a small sensor in many aspects.
What we see is that 135 size sensors are caching up, and are good enough in some respects and actually superior in respects. I would argue that MFD has an advantage in resolution/sharpness if matched by excellent lenses and put to proper use. I would also argue that it will take long time until 135 digital can catch up as it would need a revolution in lens quality and quality assurance. Making lenses that are diffraction limited at f/4 or even f/2.8 would be a good start.
On the other hand, once quality is good enough there is little reason to use MFD, if you cannot see an advantage at the print sizes you make there is little reason to use MFD, unless you have a fondness for the system.
So I think that high end MF will be competitive with 135 size but I guess that 135 will affect sales of low end MF digital. Another problem for MFDs at the low end is that there seems to be a long upgrade cycle, unless you are into it for ultimate quality.
The way I see it takes an innovative company to keep afloat in the MF business.
Stefan Steib, the inventor of Hartblei HCam, suggested that MFD vendors sit down and develop a CMOS sensor jointly, I agree fully.
I would also add that I think that Hasselblad did the MFD industry a lot of disservice making their camera interfaces proprietary. Now we have a situation where Phase One was forced into the camera manufacturing business and Hasselblad users are deprived of the best MF backs in the market.
Best regards
Erik
sure. as is the statement that Hasselbald users are deprived of the best MF backs in the market.
-
Hi,
Did you ever consider to make and publish any comparisons of your own? Any such comparison would be appreciated for sure. But make a sloppy one and you need to be prepared for some FLAK.
Best regards
Erik
While Live View would be a really helpful feature for certain tasks it's also true that quite a few posters (who in fact use MFD) can manage to get sharp captures (even non-tethered).
Reading on the LuLa-MFD forum is less and less fun. It seems there are more posts from people who have never used MFD - but draw blod conclusions from some captures they've found on the internet - than from posters who actually use MFD.
This is why almost every thread is over and over flooded with the same lines of argument (underpinned by weblinks that show always the same "comparisions") and therefore many threads turn in circles. It's a shame.
-
Hi,
Just to make clear. This thread was started as an alternative to the negative threads about MF and is about the future of medium format.
One of the main reasons for starting it was the presentation of the new Alpa FPS the other was some suggestions about the need of CMOS sensors for MF by Stefan Steib, the inventor of the Hartblei HCam.
Actually, I find much of the discussion here relevant.
Best regards
Erik
I agree with Tho_mas on the recent flood of negative posting and more than enough technical babble by folks who don't even use digital MF. I don't say there isn't a place for it, but I sure liked the forum a lot better when most of the posting had to do with "which is the good lens for this platform", and "how do you do that with this camera" etc. Kind of stuff one that was actually using the gear could use.
To eliminate the noise, I humbly suggest to Michael that he add the following two sub forums:
1) Arm chair technobabble - the endless debate about what is better. Rules: No one is allowed to post about a camera they have - this is strictly a theoretical forum. No images please, unless they are of color charts, brick walls, or cats.
2) Complaints forum - This section is for those that are unhappy for whatever reason wether it was due to operator error or some other fault. Rules: No work arounds or other suggestions allowed. Conspiracy theories encouraged!
-
Actually, I find much of the discussion here relevant.
Of course you do! ;D You've probably made more than half the posts yourself!
-
Just for fun I took the two 100 iso RAW files, opened them in ACR 7.2, neutralised them on one of the X-Rite patches and lifted the shadows:
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73210.0;attach=71398;image)
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73210.0;attach=71400;image)
which is which?
-
As a case in point: those images you posted were clearly processed in Capture One v6 or LR/ACR (or had awful settings applied in v7). The quality of higher ISO processing for Phase/Leaf files is remarkably better in version 7. The color bleed you see, the lack of color subtlety, and the poorly shaped grain structure are simply in your examples are absent in v7. Check out an example on our facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152207239185165&set=a.10152207238975165.923078.126184805164&type=3&theater).
I'm outta here for a while. This is tiring. I'll see you all in the new year.
The images I "posted" are simply linked from an article on Luminous Landscape as I had already stated.
These:
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-88/iso800crop.jpg)
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-88/1600-plus-crop.jpg)
Come from here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-88/1600-plus-crop.jpg (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-88/1600-plus-crop.jpg)
-
Getting back onto the subject of the thread. The future of medium format.
I think that film support is worth considering at least for those cameras with removable backs.
To someone that likes both film and digital it would be a pity to invest in a bunch of Phase One "Schneider" lenses and not be able to shoot film with them.
Infrared for example....
IT would just take making a simple film back... it's not like anything has to be invented.
-
which is which?
Does it matter?
-
Now don't laugh, but I've been using a small Olympus XZ-1 as a monochrome previewer-with-histogram along with a Nikon FM3a film camera. Just bought a Pentax 645N, and looking forward to more 'hybrid' photography.
Might be that part of the future of medium format will be more and more amateurs like me, dissatisfied with digital, looking for affordable work-arounds to mix old with new so we can enjoy what, to us, is VERY large format photography! And the beautiful older cameras that are so much more user-friendly than the new ones.
To mount the XZ-1 on a hotshoe, I bought a hotshoe adapter from Filmtools in Los Angeles. Works like a charm! http://www.filmtools.com/ninmounbracf.html ... just checked, and it fits on the Pentax 645N just fine. Here's what it looks like on my Nikon:
(http://jon404.com/images/fm3a-and-xz1.jpg)
-
To eliminate the noise, I humbly suggest to Michael that he add the following two sub forums:
1) Arm chair technobabble - the endless debate about what is better. Rules: No one is allowed to post about a camera they have - this is strictly a theoretical forum. No images please, unless they are of color charts, brick walls, or cats.
2) Complaints forum - This section is for those that are unhappy for whatever reason wether it was due to operator error or some other fault. Rules: No work arounds or other suggestions allowed. Conspiracy theories encouraged!
+1 although I doubt it'll stop the noise...
-
Yes,
In addition I also started the thread.
Best regards
Erik
Of course you do! ;D You've probably made more than half the posts yourself!
-
Now don't laugh, but I've been using a small Olympus XZ-1 as a monochrome previewer-with-histogram along with a Nikon FM3a film camera. Just bought a Pentax 645N, and looking forward to more 'hybrid' photography.
Might be that part of the future of medium format will be more and more amateurs like me, dissatisfied with digital, looking for affordable work-arounds to mix old with new so we can enjoy what, to us, is VERY large format photography! And the beautiful older cameras that are so much more user-friendly than the new ones.
To mount the XZ-1 on a hotshoe, I bought a hotshoe adapter from Filmtools in Los Angeles. Works like a charm! http://www.filmtools.com/ninmounbracf.html ... just checked, and it fits on the Pentax 645N just fine. Here's what it looks like on my Nikon:
(http://jon404.com/images/fm3a-and-xz1.jpg)
Almost exactly what I do when shooting film to check exposure (but I use a 5D3).
-
Just for fun I took the two 100 iso RAW files, opened them in ACR 7.2, neutralised them on one of the X-Rite patches and lifted the shadows:
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73210.0;attach=71398;image)
which is which?
Does it matter?
There is a significant difference right? You say you took two ISO 100 files to compare them so which is which?
And can you help us understand the difference.
-
The RAW files are there, you can check them and draw your own conclusions
-
Hi,
This is what I see in 100 ISO images. None of the graininess you have.
According to DxO mark there is very little difference between P645D and Nikon D800, except in DR where has a 2 EV advantage.
Personally I see very little difference. Regarding DR I may suggest that DR may be limited by lens flare on both.
Best regards
Erik
The RAW files are there, you can check them and draw your own conclusions
-
Almost exactly what I do when shooting film to check exposure (but I use a 5D3).
Why do you wish to complicate your life? If it's for fun, disregard this post.
Exposure for film and digi at the same quoted ISO rating is not the same: not the same any more than it was when shooting b/w film or colour transparency material of the same/near nominal speeds.
Instead of unstable constructs you simply need a good hand-held exposure meter and the understanding of how/why it works.
When I bought my first dig camera -a D200 - I did some sunlit tests and thought that my results using the Matrix metering of the D200 and the incident light readings from the Minolta Flashmeter set to the same 100 ISO were identical. What I didn't know was anything about the ETR exposure needs of digital imaging. I imagined that I could translate my decades' worth of Kodachrome and Ektachrome experience straight to digi, but I was mistaken. Film and diogi are not alike; don't confuse them because you'll do your photography no good service. At one time early in digi history the mantra was to treat digi as tranny; later, that was discarded for the ETR belief, which I think works better, but is far closer to the 'expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights' idea behind b/w film usage.
I still have a pristine F3 but it lives in a safe, almost unused from the year it was bought to replace an F4s, which I ended up hating.
Rob C
-
Make that a high end digital camera on tripod below and something like an iPad mini above for preview and control, and I would be more interested. (Surprisingly, the iPad Mini only weighs about as much as that XZ-1.)
-
The noise at ISO 1600 in sensor plus is identical to the noise in an ISO400 full frame image. That is what I meant by "two free stops of iso". Going into sensor plus mode increases your native ISO by two stops, at the compromise of file size.
This correctness of this statement depends on the definition of ISO speed (for an explanation, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed)). A saturation standard is most often employed, and the speed is determined by the exposure necessary to saturate the sensor. If the electron wells of the sensor are saturated, binning the wells inside of the sensor will have no effect on the exposure necessary for saturation, but it will have an effect on the signal:noise and would affect an ISO based on noise. The science of on chip pixel binning and how it compared to software binning (downsizing) is reviewed by a PhaseOne engineer here (http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/IQ-Series/IQ-Tutorials.aspx) (click on the Sensor+ link).
The Sensor+ technology is very clever, but it would be interesting to know how often it is employed in the field. If one needs to shoot in low light situations using high ISO, the Nikon D3s or D4 makes more sense. The resolution advantage of the MFDB would be difficult to maintain under these conditions.
Regards,
Bill
-
This correctness of this statement depends on the definition of ISO speed (for an explanation, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed)). A saturation standard is most often employed, and the speed is determined by the exposure necessary to saturate the sensor. If the electron wells of the sensor are saturated, binning the wells inside of the sensor will have no effect on the exposure necessary for saturation, but it will have an effect on the signal:noise and would affect an ISO based on noise. The science of on chip pixel binning and how it compared to software binning (downsizing) is reviewed by a PhaseOne engineer here (http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/IQ-Series/IQ-Tutorials.aspx) (click on the Sensor+ link).
The Sensor+ technology is very clever, but it would be interesting to know how often it is employed in the field. If one needs to shoot in low light situations using high ISO, the Nikon D3s or D4 makes more sense. The resolution advantage of the MFDB would be difficult to maintain under these conditions.
Regards,
Bill
Sensor plus is quite good and I have used it many times when maybe a 35mm cam may have been a better choice. Personally I find comments like MF can't do this cant do that and is slow to work with a little misleading. Sometimes I may agree with that but again I also find it very overblown comments. Here is a whole review on Sensor plus I did some time ago. Low light stage work all done with sensor plus both handheld and monopod and BTW I use the same techniques as I would with 35mm. Again photography is more about solving issues and working with gear and using it the best you can . I rarely ever found MF limitations I could not deal with. Both focusing , speed , handheld ability all come down to you as the shooter on how you deal with the system within your hands. I will say the more experienced you are the better success you will have working within those limitations of a system. Every system is a compromise, its how you as the shooter deal with it. Obviously some folks will fail and some will succeed , again knowing your system and making it work to its advantages and knowing the disadvantages the more success you will have. Check this out on sensor plus, its clean , it works and the files are great. I have shot these shows for years and my best looking files have come from sensor plus.
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/digital-camera-reviews/29252-phase-one-iq-160-sensor-plus-high-iso.html
-
These were processed. In c1 version 6 and today with version 7 my guess the noise would be even better as Version 7 is a whole new excellent processing engine that I find so much better than Version 6 both with my Phase and Nikon files. So the new engine I would expect even better results on several levels.
Before anyone goes off on 35mm would be a better tool , I would not totally disagree. I could have shot maybe a little faster and a little more wide open and captured the same DOF and such. Obviously that is true but the point is you can work very similar if you work within a systems limitations and at the time i did not have a 35mm system so you use what you have. The one nice thing on this with the same MF systems at any point i could go back to a full resolution shot of 60 mpx at a flip of a switch. Which sometimes going to sensor plus in situations like doing a landscape the wind picks up a great deal the light is going down and you need speed without sensor plus you just maybe packing your bags but with it you can keep on working and still get the images. So i find it a very nice option to have on a system and a great option to turn too when you really need it.
-
Sensor plus is quite good and I have used it many times when maybe a 35mm cam may have been a better choice. Personally I find comments like MF can't do this cant do that and is slow to work with a little misleading. Sometimes I may agree with that but again I also find it very overblown comments. Here is a whole review on Sensor plus I did some time ago. Low light stage work all done with sensor plus both handheld and monopod and BTW I use the same techniques as I would with 35mm. Again photography is more about solving issues and working with gear and using it the best you can . I rarely ever found MF limitations I could not deal with. Both focusing , speed , handheld ability all come down to you as the shooter on how you deal with the system within your hands. I will say the more experienced you are the better success you will have working within those limitations of a system. Every system is a compromise, its how you as the shooter deal with it. Obviously some folks will fail and some will succeed , again knowing your system and making it work to its advantages and knowing the disadvantages the more success you will have. Check this out on sensor plus, its clean , it works and the files are great. I have shot these shows for years and my best looking files have come from sensor plus.
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/digital-camera-reviews/29252-phase-one-iq-160-sensor-plus-high-iso.html
Those shots are impressive. However, most of the shots are relatively static, which simplifies shooting. Also what percentage of your shots were keepers? For action shots in low light, I haven't seen evidence that the Sports Illustrated pros or the PJs at Reuters and elsewhere are switching to MFDB. Long and fast lenses favored by these photographers are not in the MFDB lineup. Also, to maintain equivalent depth of field, one must use the next smallest f/stop with MFDB. Interested readers should see the "Bigger Lenses for Bigger Sensors" here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras2.shtml).
I'm not trying to knock MFDB, but as our host says, "Horses for courses".
Regards,
Bill
-
"Horses for courses".
Yes, absolutely! The problem with many of these threads is that they turn into which is better DSLR or MFDB, erroneously proposing that a photographer could only have one camera. There will always be situations where one is better suited than another.
Of course if you only are interested in discussing the technology, then you don't need a camera at all. Unfortunately for those folks, they miss out on how important the usability of the gear is, the character of the resulting images, and only see the easily quantifiable data. As an example, mirror vibration is still a big issue for both formats that is overlooked (d800 and mamiya DF included).
-
Runway is static? LOL
Kid jumping in the air is static? LOL
Bill no question for those guys 35mm is king. I'm not trying to say that in the slightest. What i am saying for a lot of gigs things are possible with MF. Its not all about landscape shooters on tripods. I even shot a Golf tourney with MF. I cant get 6 fps per second but i can get the decisive moment. From my days guys shot speed graphics for sports, so its not always about 6 fps per second or long lenses but about getting the decisive moment too. Also MF is pretty limited to long focal length as 300mm being about the Max with AF capability. I agree its not a MF world with high end sports. i would much rather shoot Nikon or Canon and there fine long glass ( really would not have much of a choice) and if I shot sports for a living. Than i would certainly be shooting that. Basically this points out your not out in the cold all the time with MF, Sensor plus does bring a interesting and valuable option to the party. I would not read into that any further than what i just said. Each system will always have there strengths, no question about it. Sports is a 35mm world but I do like bucking the rules a lot. LOL
-
"Horses for courses".
Yes, absolutely! The problem with many of these threads is that they turn into which is better DSLR or MFDB, erroneously proposing that a photographer could only have one camera. There will always be situations where one is better suited than another.
Where did I say one can do everything, I did in my review that 35mm would be better suited for this type of work. There is no question about that, I am just one stubborn ass photographer that will do crazy stuff and shoot anything with any gear. Cuss I 'm nuts enough to try it. ROTFLMAO
This is my signature on GetDPI its something I believe in.
Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.
-
Guy,
my post was not directed to you as are a working photographer .... but rather the non-shooters, the analytical folks who savor every chance to talk bits, post charts and pixel peep. I'm not saying all that is bad, because we need people like that, but often its a myopic view of what photography is about. A more complete picture would include both the science and the working experience with maybe the science taking a supporting role since now all the cameras are quite capable enough. e.g.. I'm actually quite impressed with my n808 camera phone.
-
LOL
I agree science should be more a supporting role as the actually reality of shooting is the more important aspect. But I agree science is our backbone so still very important. I guess one problem for the artist is we can't see science as we are more visual oriented. We have to have both and a good balance as well.
-
Hi,
Just to point out, this thread started from discussing technical cameras, the Hartblei HCam and the Alpa FPS, both lacking mirror. Quite a few of those taking part in the discussion are perfectly aware of the flipping mirror issue, this is actually one of the reason we consider live view a necessity. With live view you don't need the mirror!
Personally I always use MLU when the camera is on tripod. My latest cameras have fixed translucent mirror, so I need to do some rethink.
Best regards
Erik
Of course if you only are interested in discussing the technology, then you don't need a camera at all. Unfortunately for those folks, they miss out on how important the usability of the gear is, the character of the resulting images, and only see the easily quantifiable data. As an example, mirror vibration is still a big issue for both formats that is overlooked (d800 and mamiya DF included).
-
Hi,
Just to point out, this thread started from discussing technical cameras, the Hartblei HCam and the Alpa FPS, both lacking mirror. Quite a few of those taking part in the discussion are perfectly aware of the flipping mirror issue, this is actually one of the reason we consider live view a necessity. With live view you don't need the mirror!
Personally I always use MLU when the camera is on tripod. My latest cameras have fixed translucent mirror, so I need to do some rethink.
Best regards
Erik
Honestly as much as I would like to see no mirror and live view. I'm just not sure I want to give up a optical finder. I hated every EVF setup to date that I tried. Not all of them but it really bugs me. Not sure what it is.
I guess the question here that we may need to address as well . Will technology actually progress to a point it's more accepted to the buyer. I know many facets to that question but my believe is no. It's going to take several things one being costs and I'm still not sure we can drive that down.
Now a close friend who is a dealer said to me once. If you can give me a MF system like a phase or Hassy for 10k back, body and lens at 50-60 mpx easy to use I can sell them pretty easily to just about every portrait shooter and wedding guy. Interesting comment but how do we get there. Technology great but driving costs down to that level would take more. The Alpa FPS is 10k no back and no lens. Okay different animal but not going to fly off the shelf either. Admit love to have one as they are nice.
-
Simple Guy, they need to lower their margins and stop carving rebranded cameras out of one piece of aluminium. :D
In the case of Hasselblad and the Phase DF, these are now very old bodies, manufacturing these must be a simpler cheaper process now.
Other than upgrading the circuit bards the model upgrades seem minimal.
I can't see where 18k (UK) for a body back and lens comes from. Really I don't.
-
Hi,
Regarding the OVF/EVF I agree in part, having both, but keep in mind that we had OVFs for just a few years while SLRs have been around for 80 years or so. EVF has long development ahead. But EVF solves many problems and lovers cost or increases margins.
On MFD I see live view more as a feature of the back. You want to put the MFD on either an SLR or on a technical camera and I see live view as a perfect match for the technical camera.
I don't think contrast sensing live view AF is coming to MF any soon. My understanding is MF a niche market and resources need to be wisely spent.
Regarding MFD for 10 k$US it seems to be possible, I guess that you can buy a Pentax 645D with standard lens at B&H for that price, and it is my understanding it is a fine camera. I don't know how it is selling.
As a final thought, it is quite natural for MF to be expensive. You need big sensors, and the lenses need to be relatively large. What I would love to see would be backs refurbished by manufacturer that lowers the cost of entry.
Best regards
Erik
Honestly as much as I would like to see no mirror and live view. I'm just not sure I want to give up a optical finder. I hated every EVF setup to date that I tried. Not all of them but it really bugs me. Not sure what it is.
I guess the question here that we may need to address as well . Will technology actually progress to a point it's more accepted to the buyer. I know many facets to that question but my believe is no. It's going to take several things one being costs and I'm still not sure we can drive that down.
Now a close friend who is a dealer said to me once. If you can give me a MF system like a phase or Hassy for 10k back, body and lens at 50-60 mpx easy to use I can sell them pretty easily to just about every portrait shooter and wedding guy. Interesting comment but how do we get there. Technology great but driving costs down to that level would take more. The Alpa FPS is 10k no back and no lens. Okay different animal but not going to fly off the shelf either. Admit love to have one as they are nice.
-
The RAW files are there, you can check them and draw your own conclusions
Yaya can you explain whey your two 100 ISO raw conversion files look like this:
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73210.0;attach=71398;image)
But Erick's conversions look the same?
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73210.0;attach=71434;image)
I downloaded the two iso 100 raw files too... they look the same just as Erick's conversion.
-
Hi,
Excessive sharpening would cause that kind of grittiness, but if I apply same sharpening on P645D image and D800E image I get similar grittiness on both.
Best regards
Erik
Yaya can you explain whey your two 100 ISO raw conversion files look like this:
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73210.0;attach=71398;image)
But Erick's conversions look the same?
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73210.0;attach=71434;image)
I downloaded the two iso 100 raw files too... they look the same just as Erick's conversion.
-
Sensor plus is quite good and I have used it many times when maybe a 35mm cam may have been a better choice. Personally I find comments like MF can't do this cant do that and is slow to work with a little misleading. Sometimes I may agree with that but again I also find it very overblown comments. Here is a whole review on Sensor plus I did some time ago. Low light stage work all done with sensor plus both handheld and monopod and BTW I use the same techniques as I would with 35mm. Again photography is more about solving issues and working with gear and using it the best you can . I rarely ever found MF limitations I could not deal with. Both focusing , speed , handheld ability all come down to you as the shooter on how you deal with the system within your hands. I will say the more experienced you are the better success you will have working within those limitations of a system. Every system is a compromise, its how you as the shooter deal with it. Obviously some folks will fail and some will succeed , again knowing your system and making it work to its advantages and knowing the disadvantages the more success you will have. Check this out on sensor plus, its clean , it works and the files are great. I have shot these shows for years and my best looking files have come from sensor plus.
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/digital-camera-reviews/29252-phase-one-iq-160-sensor-plus-high-iso.html
While these are good images to show what the image quality of the Sensor + function are like I would advise readers here not to think that they are representative of mainstream Fashion runway
While these are good images to show what the image quality of the Sensor + function are like I would advise readers here not to think that they are representative of mainstream Fashion runway. Not to take anything way from the good shots Guy took, but there is a big difference between this IMTA talent show and Paris, Milan or NY fashion runway. Both the conditions and the photography required. I very much doubt that the same camera Phase One DF and IQ160 could handle what it required.
First of all you are unlikely to have so much light. I've shot Milan and Paris shows
1/320th f7.1 at ISO 800 not really a low light situation.
Also the light is likely to be much flatter. The lighting at most fashion shows is much softer and would be harder for the DF to focus.
Lighting for the major fashion shows is set up primarily for TV.
A quick search to show what I mean:
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3230/3073785228_88316c7d3a_z.jpg)
Gianfranco Ferre Spring 2009 Fashion Show in Milan.
Try focusing that with the single center focus point of the DF.
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6104/6337088825_9aa6f4bd20_b.jpg)
GUCCI MILAN FASHION WEEK ISO 800 1/400th f3.5 (that's about 2 stops darker than the IMTA talent show.
This video is a good indication of the lighting you will get as well as the fast pace.
http://youtu.be/ylcPqmZ4ESw (http://youtu.be/ylcPqmZ4ESw)
http://youtu.be/_6g5D2DDt5w (http://youtu.be/_6g5D2DDt5w)
Christian Serrano fashion show.
The designers often go for more atmosphere and less light. The light is likely to go up and down through the show.
For this reason you need to have selectable spot metering and focus points.
Then there is what it required image wise. Most magazines want shallow depth of field for cleaner
layouts of 4 or more photos per page.
Also the magazines what head shot, half shot, shoes and multiples of full length.
The shows are fast paced and last 7 to 20 minutes. The pace required is much faster than the 2,000 shots Guy took in three hours.
If the photographer is shooting for a magazine he or she will most likely shoot 6 to 10 shows in a day.
Then there is the issue of delivery. You will have to include custom data in the exif data. Designer, copyright etc.
Files need to be made available right away. Jpegs have to be ready to go. There is not time for the photographer to edit
out shots out of focus. For this reason the focus hit rate has to be very high.
This is clearly a job that a MF digital can't handle however skilled the photographer is and sensor plus won't change that.
This is a job for the high speed 10+ fps Canon and Nikons. With dual high speed card slots, stabilized lenses and built for combat.
All I'm saying here is that what may have worked at the IMTA talent show with 3 shots per model an 2,000 shots in 3 hours (that's about 1 shot every 5 seconds average)
won't work at a Paris, Milan or NY fashion show.
My point here is that the way many jobs are shot is changing fast and that Sensor plus is a very small step forward that isn't keeping pace with the speed
of progress else where. To not make comparisons with other tools available is like sticking your head in the sand.
The MF world has to understand that as image quality of 35mm increases fast by while taking all other performance level and features with it
the market will get used to those conditions of working.
-
Hi,
Excessive sharpening would cause that kind of grittiness, but if I apply same sharpening on P645D image and D800E image I get similar grittiness on both.
Best regards
Erik
But the image is not sharper..... lips lost detail.
??????? Something isn't right....
-
Hi Fred,
Thanks for giving insight into fashion world.
I would suggest that we don't need to discuss where MF had been, but where MF needs to go.
The way I see it, Guy essentially said that he was shooting that kind of pictures and that Sensor+ was helpful.
Best regards
Erik
-
One thing I would really like to see is a universal back system (or close to it). I'd like to be able to use my Mamiya back on a Hasselblad (V/H) or technical camera when the situation comes up. I know we have that to some extent with adaptors but there are limits. Sinar makes their backs adaptable to most brands so I assume it can be done by everyone else.
In the past the Graflock backs were used fairly universally for 4x5 cameras and Hasselblad has taken up this role largely with the V system now. I'd like to see this expand or updated.
-
Hi Fred,
Thanks for giving insight into fashion world.
I would suggest that we don't need to discuss where MF had been, but where MF needs to go.
The way I see it, Guy essentially said that he was shooting that kind of pictures and that Sensor+ was helpful.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks Erik. Missed in my report is I could have shot a lot faster , I chose to shoot slower. I have to process this stuff. Agree bad part on MF is your not shooting jpegs so I put a limit on how many I shot. They walk the same speed as the big fashion shows and I could have even had less light and shot at 5.6 or even 4.5 if needed. Also I agree MF is maybe not the best tool and I said that several times now but it's a workable system and I use single AF point regardless of system. I do exactly the same thing with a Nikon single point continuous focusing. Yes the DF can do continuous. Once again let's beat up MF because we can attitude comments. Lost in this is of course is the possibilities of MF although it does have its limit in scoop. Never said it didn't.
Again another thread of what MF negative comments. How can you build a future for it when we constantly get barraged by 35mm. Obviously my whole point taken completely out of context. I had enough, have a great Holiday everyone. I maybe the only one that has done a full report on sensor plus and since it was brought up thought I would share it so folks can understand it better. Again It's data that is useful but its also data for the zealots to pounce on. Same shit diffrent day. Lol
The interesting part of sensor plus is it can take on the role of limited 35 DSLR world given its scope of course where one may not need to have a 35mm on hand or at every job. It serves as a good smaller file higher ISO and faster speed option when you really need it in the field. I like to see this type of binning in the future of MF and maybe it could be a even better option with a CMOS sensor that would already have a higher ISO value on it. One other thing the back is much faster in recycle shooting times going to sensor plus. Not all of us want to have two systems all the time in the field so this gives you a essentially a faster option when needed.
-
Hmmm, I'm disappointed. Again, the subject turned into a MF vs 35mm . At best, it ends in self-admiration. Where are all specialists in MFDB? You are not aware of the weaknesses of your product? Your products are perfect? You may want to fine-tune the elements, which are currently the weakest elements, and then to deal with the switch to the new sensors.
I appreciate very much that such small companies as Alpa, Arca-Swiss or HARTBLEI are able to set trends, in spite of the scarce resources which they have. I do not know how to read the market, but apparently there are the right people in the right place.
-
When(?) live-view arrives for MFD, I'd love to see a split-screen feature. I'd like to zoom in to two selectable areas for checking DOF and tilt/swing.
I'd also like to see backs that don't require $8k retrofocus wides to avoid color casts on tech cameras.
-
One thing I would really like to see is a universal back system (or close to it). I'd like to be able to use my Mamiya back on a Hasselblad (V/H) or technical camera when the situation comes up. I know we have that to some extent with adaptors but there are limits. Sinar makes their backs adaptable to most brands so I assume it can be done by everyone else.
In the past the Graflock backs were used fairly universally for 4x5 cameras and Hasselblad has taken up this role largely with the V system now. I'd like to see this expand or updated.
It would be wonderful if digital backs were made in the manner of film; as most know, there were standard sizes and they fitted everything made within those sizes, regardless of brand. Except that with digital (MF) they would be better settling on one maximum size that's feasible to produce. At least as a start.
It shouldn't take a genius to figure that if all the back/sensor/camera manufacturers got together, sat down and looked at the real world, they might, just might agree that getting back to an old, very successful formula would be no bad thing. The buyer base is relatively so small and the club so expensive to join that consolidation makes more sense than competition. Lack of competition wouldn't affect the buyers because it would be pretty much guaranteed by the manufacturers having to stay honest if only to hang on to market share within the greater competition offered by other formats.
The Mafia would have handled things better.
Rob C
-
One other thing the back is much faster in recycle shooting times going to sensor plus. Not all of us want to have two systems all the time in the field so this gives you a essentially a faster option when needed.
Much faster?
0.7 (0.9 in Sensor+ ). In today's world of digital going from 0.7 frames per second to 0.9 frames per second isn't much faster.
You are also forced to shoot higher ISO range with sensor plus... this could be an issue in the field.
My point is that if sensor plus it to be taken as another example of the state of the art of medium format it reinforces the case for a drastic change in direction.
Dwelling on the benefits of how sensor plus and how it handles strongly light runway with a photographer with 30 plus years of experience in a thread about the future of
medium format isn't going anywhere. That is why I pointed out what the larger market requires and what the reality of mainstream runway is.
-
Hi Fred,
Thanks for giving insight into fashion world.
I would suggest that we don't need to discuss where MF had been, but where MF needs to go.
The way I see it, Guy essentially said that he was shooting that kind of pictures and that Sensor+ was helpful.
Best regards
Erik
It's not about where MF has been. It's about where it is now and will be for several years due to the slow
product cycle and the far to gradual. MF did not need to keep an eye on 35mm DSLRs when for example Nikons top prosumer
camera was a 12mp camera with no video. When a big jump trippling MP count and adding much more dynamic range and uncompressed HD video happened in one product cycle
it's a totally different ball game.
Medium format has to make a similar large step or simply figure out how to operate in a ever smaller niche market and the resulting higher prices.
The large step needs to be in erganomics, functionality and scope. I find it interesting that it's the smallest new comer Pentax to MF digital that is making
some of the biggest steps. Image stabalization, way more focus points, far more advanced metering, weather sealing, fully supported TTL, High sped sync.....
and all for a lower price than the competition. Interestingly it comes from a company that makes 35mm and smaller DSLRs.
Lets look at a MF to MF comparison. The Pentax 645D shoots full 40MP at 1.1 fps. It has 11 focus points and far more advanced metering. It can also spit out Jpegs with in camera noise reduction. This would make it a better MF option for runway and closer to the state of the art for that type of shoot.
Price difference:
Pentax 645D $8,796.95
Phase One IQ140 $$21,990.00 and that is just the back.
Pentax can achieve this in it's first MF digital camera thanks to its 35mm system know how. That is why 35mm systems are a relevant subject in the discussion of the future or MF.
-
0.7 (0.9 in Sensor+ ) IQ 180
1.0 (1.4 in Sensor+ ) IQ 160
1.2 (1.8 in Sensor+ ) IQ 140
The first number is full res.
My back was the 160.
-
Again another thread of what MF negative comments. How can you build a future for it when we constantly get barraged by 35mm.
They are comments on reality and the barrage that MF needs to compete with is not on the threads, but in the studios and retail stores.
0.7 (0.9 in Sensor+ ) IQ 180
1.0 (1.4 in Sensor+ ) IQ 160
1.2 (1.8 in Sensor+ ) IQ 140
The first number is full res.
My back was the 160.
1 second for each photo in full res and 0.72 or a second in Sensor plus. I would not exactly call that a much faster camera recycle time either by today's standards.
-
My point is that if sensor plus it to be taken as another example of the state of the art of medium format it reinforces the case for a drastic change in direction.
no one has said Sensor+ is state of the art or something that sets MFD appart from the competition. It's just an additional feature that you may or may not find useful.
-
Hi,
A few reflections:
I feel it's a bit odd that the Pentax 645D is always forgotten when MFD is discussed, although the the original 645 has always been a much respected MF camera and the 645D is probably one of the more competent MFD cameras.
Another observation is that I was shooting a young horse jumping over fences recently, just a few jumps. I had three cameras with me s Sony Alpha 900, a Sony Alpha 77 and an Alpha 99 i had just for three days. Checking out light I decided for the Alpha 99, in spite of having it for three days and just 6 FPS. In the end I shot 6FPS at 6400 ISO and got a decent picture for each jump. The EVF was not making life easy, but 6FPS was enough. In this case I could have chosen the A900 for optical viewfinder, or the Alpha 77 for 10 FPS but neither would work well at 6400 ISO.
The images are still not perfectly sharp, but make a decent A3 print.
How could I manage shooting horses in the seventies with Tri-X pushed to 1600 ASA and without motor drive?
Best regards
Erik
Price difference:
Pentax 645D $8,796.95
Phase One IQ140 $$21,990.00 and that is just the back.
Pentax can achieve this in it's first MF digital camera thanks to its 35mm system know how. That is why 35mm systems are a relevant subject in the discussion of the future or MF.
-
I find it interesting that it's the smallest new comer Pentax to MF digital that is making
some of the biggest steps. Image stabalization, way more focus points, far more advanced metering, weather sealing, fully supported TTL, High sped sync.....
and all for a lower price than the competition. Interestingly it comes from a company that makes 35mm and smaller DSLRs.
it comes from a company that was well known for its film 67 and 645 cameras
-
Hi,
I actually think there are both positive and constructive comments on the thread but also negative ones, it goes with the territory!
In my view the thread is quite civilized.
Best regards
Erik
They are comments on reality and the barrage that MF needs to compete with is not on the threads, but in the studios and retail stores.
-
How could I manage shooting horses in the seventies with Tri-X pushed to 1600 ASA and without motor drive?
I wondered about a similar thing about how sculptors were able to work without power tools and diamond blades, until I went to Italy and saw the 80 year old knock out huge pieces of stone with simple hand tools. It had so little to do with their strength, I mean 80 years old... The answer to both questions is knowledge and skill. Too many people today expect the camera to do the work for them, but in reality it takes skill, advance planning and experience with the equipment.
If you are happy with the horse image that's great, but I wouldn't have been for a variety of reasons including that its front focused. See this is what I mean by camera usability is more important than anything else.
-
Hi,
Yes, I know it is front focused. I was using manual focus and prefocused at 1/3 of the poles on the fence using live view. It seems I moved back after focusing. Interestingly, the camera also has peaking, and according to the peaking everything was in focus. So that says something about the accuracy of peaking.
I'm not happy about the focusing issue, but this is how things turned out, still the image makes a decent A3 print and the lady is perfectly satisfied and I have learned a bit.
What I found was that 6 fps was good enough to get 1-2 usable images on each jump. I have not shot show jumping since the nineties, but knew from experience that it is not easy to foresee the response time of the camera and myself. So I had three cameras one with OVF but not so good ISO capability one with EVF and 10 FPS and one with EVF and 6 FPS but having decent image quality at high ISO. So I chose latest one.
Best regards
Erik
If you are happy with the horse image that's great, but I wouldn't have been for a variety of reasons including that its front focused. See this is what I mean by camera usability is more important than anything else.
-
The point wasn't to knock your image, but rather that whatever camera products come next, the ease of use is going to be more important than how great the sensor is, or some other component. I like a lot of how smart phones and cameras are merging. The idea that one could download an app for a dedicated camera and edit and e-mail photos from it is really cool, but will it be more usable? Will it allow the shooter to get the image he/she wants? Erik, you had 6 frames / sec, ISO 6400, and focus peaking but did it get you a perfect image?
I'll bet someone with a 60 year old Rolleiflex TLR might have done about as well since I consider it to be more 'usable'. When you are looking down into its nice WLF you also see the exposure meter and aperture and shutter settings at the same time as you do focus. You can adjust both shutter and aperture with finger wheels that you can adjust without changing your hand positions. If you had decided to shoot with flash you could have done so. There's less detail in high speed film, but if the image is blurry then it hardly matters.
-
Hi,
On the other hand, I was never really good at manual focus. Also I would have problems following a galloping horse with a WLF. I had a WLF for my Pentax 67 but almost never used it and I always needed the built in loupe for focusing.
Of course, with a manual focus camera you prefocus, which I did in this case also did, but something changed.
I could have used flash, but camera mounted flash usually looks awful.
Anyway, sorry for the diversion, the discussion is really about the future of medium format.
Best regards
Erik
The point wasn't to knock your image, but rather that whatever camera products come next, the ease of use is going to be more important than how great the sensor is, or some other component. I like a lot of how smart phones and cameras are merging. The idea that one could download an app for a dedicated camera and edit and e-mail photos from it is really cool, but will it be more usable? Will it allow the shooter to get the image he/she wants? Erik, you had 6 frames / sec, ISO 6400, and focus peaking but did it get you a perfect image?
I'll bet someone with a 60 year old Rolleiflex TLR might have done about as well since I consider it to be more 'usable'. When you are looking down into its nice WLF you also see the exposure meter and aperture and shutter settings at the same time as you do focus. You can adjust both shutter and aperture with finger wheels that you can adjust without changing your hand positions. If you had decided to shoot with flash you could have done so. There's less detail in high speed film, but if the image is blurry then it hardly matters.
-
And the discussion needs to include facets of use, and usability.
Viewfinder, User Interface, Human factors, ...
-
Hi,
I don't disagree, but we need to keep in mind that it is a small market with limited resources of development.
I essentially feel there are two markets, one is large sensor DSLR, that sector is served by Leica S and Pentax 645D. Integrated systems. Usability I don't know. Got the impression that the Leica S2 has good usability and a great viewfinder. Some authors have problems achieving focus.
The other market is the modular systems with removable back that you can put on any camera. Phase is also building a system to put their back on. Developing something that work for everyone is not easy.
Take for instance AF, some need it some do not need it. Microlenses or not? Long exposure or not?
Best regards
Erik
And the discussion needs to include facets of use, and usability.
Viewfinder, User Interface, Human factors, ...
-
The S2 does have a nice viewfinder - at least compared to a DSLR. Coming from a Rollei Hy6/AFi, personally I wasn't impressed. I had higher expectations on the build quality too, having used the R8 and R9 in the past. Regarding the S2's AF.... when you can count off the seconds it takes to move the lens from one end of the focus range to the other....
I've posted this before as have others. Phase would do well to pick up the Hy6 rather than to continue to iteratively improve the mamiya 645 platform. I guess they've got so much inertia they can't turn back.
-
I've posted this before as have others. Phase would do well to pick up the Hy6 rather than to continue to iteratively improve the mamiya 645 platform. I guess they've got so much inertia they can't turn back.
That would be nice, but I think there is more to it than just camera choice. Mamiya was competition on the low end. ZD. And now is no more.
Mamiya also makes lenses while Rollei use Zeiss and Schneider. High production costs in Europe.
-
Hi,
Well, when Hasselblad closed down H-system Phase One tried to acquire rights to Contax 645 and Leaf, Sinar, Jenoptic and Rollei built a consortium around Hy6. Phase finally acquired Mamiya. Actually, I think Mamiya is not a bad choice, they seem to have good lenses.
I guess that part of the reason Phase went with Mamiya is that it is 645, Hy6 is more like 6x6, meaning that even the IQ180 is a crop sensor.
Best regards
Erik
The S2 does have a nice viewfinder - at least compared to a DSLR. Coming from a Rollei Hy6/AFi, personally I wasn't impressed. I had higher expectations on the build quality too, having used the R8 and R9 in the past. Regarding the S2's AF.... when you can count off the seconds it takes to move the lens from one end of the focus range to the other....
I've posted this before as have others. Phase would do well to pick up the Hy6 rather than to continue to iteratively improve the mamiya 645 platform. I guess they've got so much inertia they can't turn back.
-
Yes, but in the end Phase bought Leaf. I think the Mamiya 7 rangefinder lenses are amazing and I like the RZ lenses pretty much. But I would not go as far as to say the same for the 645. Some of them are great, but not all. The real hold up hasn't been lenses but the camera body. Oh well. That's what happened.
But the future of MF may include a move to even larger sensors since that's been the pattern. If they already are close to the limits of 645, then 6x6 and 6x7 are next? Would be good to have a platform and lenses that can support it.
I'd be excited to see a graflok style mount 4x5 digital back to work with all the view and tech cameras. That would be cool! But of course just a dream.
-
But the future of MF may include a move to even larger sensors since that's been the pattern. If they already are close to the limits of 645, then 6x6 and 6x7 are next?
The pattern has been moving to sensors that fit the format of the dominant modern high quality auto-focus lens systems: high end DSLRs getting to 36x24mm and the high end of DMF getting close to the 54x42mm of ”645” format. Lens development for larger formats like 6x6 and 6x7 has apparently ended, in particular at Hasselblad and Mamiya/Phase One, so for this and other reasons, I see very little chance of DMF in formats larger than 645.
On the other hand, another pattern is that steps up in format size usually have to be substantial, at least a doubling of sensor area, to give a clear enough advantage, so with 36x24 format now so strong, it seems natural for DMF to mostly consolidate at full 645 format, and evolve beyond half measures like 45x30 or 44x33 or even 49x37.
-
I guess if they don't go bigger, there is always film!
;)
-
I guess if they don't go bigger, there is always film!
;)
Hmmm
Bigger than 645.....
Two potential players.
Mamiya with the RZ.
And then the sleeping giant.. Fuji. Think about it... Fuji has made all sorts of interesting MF cameras and they are a sensor manufacturer
with some original sensor designs. Expertise in CCD and Cmos manufacturing. They are still in the MF manufacturing game. They manufacture Hasselblads
and have 6x8 lens designs with the largest selection of tilt shift lenses. They have quite advanced live view functionality as well as very nice hybrid optical and EVF finders.
They are also the only medium format company with very deep pockets. FujiFilm sales were $ 26 billion. If anyone has the cash and know how to make a radical new system
it's FujiFilm.
The question is... are they interested?
Some interesting examples of MF originality from Fuji.
(http://www.dannyburk.com/images/fuji-617-1.jpg)
(http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/fujifilm-gf670-medium-format-film-camera-announced-13918/images/fuji_gf670_front.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/FujiGX680III_10.JPG)
-
And then the sleeping giant.. Fuji.... They are still in the MF manufacturing game. They manufacture Hasselblads...
Rather than endlessly repeating this it would be nice if you could actually prove this...
-
It's well known in the industry that Fujifilm does the manufacturing for Hasselblad camera bodies. No secret, just not something that is discussed publicly or widely. They sell the same camera (though not backs) in Japan under their own brand.
Same thing with the late lamented XPan. It was designed and built by Fuji, as were the lenses, and sold everywhere except Japan under the Hasselblad brand. The H series camera were (are) designed by Hasselblad though.
I was at the New York product launch in 2002 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/hasselblad-h1.shtml), met with the engineers, and at the time the joint development program with Fuji was openly discussed with journalists. Indeed mentioned in my preview article. That openness changed over time to the point that many people are unaware of it, and it's a totally understandable position for both companies. OEM manufacturing deals are rarely if ever discussed publicly.
In any event, most people would be amazed if they know who really manufactures what for whom in this business. Simply amazed.
Michael
-
Hello,
I was told by a Rollei rep in Brisbane Australia back in the mid 80’s when the Rollie 6006 came out the the cheaper Rollei branded lenses which manufactured under licence by Tokina.
Cheers
Simon
-
In any event, most people would be amazed if they know who really manufactures what for whom in this business. Simply amazed.
Michael
Well obviously its common knowledge that Seitz manufacture Alpa.
What other examples are there?
-
Hello,
I was told by a Rollei rep in Brisbane Australia back in the mid 80’s when the Rollie 6006 came out the the cheaper Rollei branded lenses which manufactured under licence by Tokina.
Cheers
Simon
Never heard that, but I guess anything is possible. Rollei had a cheaper EL line of lenses for a little while and also some named Rolleigon's ... maybe those?
I suppose it really doesn't matter where they or the H bodies are made so long as they perform well. Maybe phase/mamiya should think to get their DF body built by Fuji? Just kidding!
-
Hi,
Zeiss lenses for Nikon and Canon are mostly produced at Cosina in Japan. The assembly lines are set up in cooperation with Zeiss and Zeiss has quality control personnel.
I have two Zeiss labeled lenses from Sony, and they are definitively made in Japan. The two lenses I had came with a small Zeiss QC certificate signed by a japanese employee of Zeiss.
Best regards
Erik
Never heard that, but I guess anything is possible. Rollei had a cheaper EL line of lenses for a little while and also some named Rolleigon's ... maybe those?
I suppose it really doesn't matter where they or the H bodies are made so long as they perform well. Maybe phase/mamiya should think to get their DF body built by Fuji? Just kidding!
-
It's well known in the industry that Fujifilm does the manufacturing for Hasselblad camera bodies. No secret, just not something that is discussed publicly or widely. They sell the same camera (though not backs) in Japan under their own brand.
Same thing with the late lamented XPan. It was designed and built by Fuji, as were the lenses, and sold everywhere except Japan under the Hasselblad brand. The H series camera were (are) designed by Hasselblad though.
I was at the New York product launch in 2002 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/hasselblad-h1.shtml), met with the engineers, and at the time the joint development program with Fuji was openly discussed with journalists. Indeed mentioned in my preview article. That openness changed over time to the point that many people are unaware of it, and it's a totally understandable position for both companies. OEM manufacturing deals are rarely if ever discussed publicly.
In any event, most people would be amazed if they know who really manufactures what for whom in this business. Simply amazed.
Michael
I was shown a Fuji 645 prototype or sample before the Hasselblad H was ever announced. I had been shooting with the GX680 and was rather popular with Fuji having got their camera on national television twice.
I was also the first to buy a gx680 in Italy. From what they told me Hasselblad was having a terrible time making the transition to more electronic cameras and approached Fuji about marketing the new 645 under the
Hasselblad brand and through the vast Hasselblad pro network. I think that a clear give away is the format. Fuji had no square format cameras. Hasselblad had always made 6x6 cameras.
I remember Fuji asking me if I would miss the square format.. My answer was "Do you know any square magazines?"
Some have said that some body assembly was done in Sweeden just so that they said it was made in Sweeden. Personally I think some assembly/manufacturing was done in Sweeden more for Hasselblad's loyalty to it's workers.
The lack of transparency regarding manufacturing was more about the marketing crowd...
Fuji had even developed it's own digital back that ended up never going onto the 645 due to Hasselblad buying Imacon, but if you look at the Fuji digital back that was sold for the Fuji gx680 it clearly
looks like a 645 back modified to fit on the GX680.
(http://www.pma-show.com/2003/news/fuji/DB_02.jpg)
Fuji recently decided to not sell anymore of it's new high end cameras under other brands and wanted to keep them under their own brand to drive sales and reputation of their consumer cameras.
Fuji decided that the x1-pro would only be branded Fuji and would not be the next xpan. This resulted in Hasselblad's scramble to find an alternative and we all know how that went....
The Lunar ... a pimped out Sony Nex.
Who knows what Fuji's next moves will be. They have made it known that they want to be the No 3 camera maker. They are a huge corporation with deep pockets.
I think that they will be very cautious of going into MF Digital and they have shown that they can achieve very high quality with smaller sensors of their own design.
Just imagine the image quality of the X1-pro scaled up to 24x36 or maybe 33x44mm. Their own camera, their own sensors and their own lenses.
-
I certainly agree Fuji are the ones to watch.
The X1-pro couldn't of been an Xpan as it isn't a panoramic. I fully expect Sony to take over Sensor development in the next year or two.
A Fuji equivalent of the S2 would be nice to see but I would have to be able to remove the back to clear the damn sensor though.
A digital XPAN would be awesome.
-
I certainly agree Fuji are the ones to watch.
The X1-pro couldn't of been an Xpan as it isn't a panoramic.
I wasn't referring to the format, but the type of relationship.
-
Fred Strikes again..
Fred I get that you have issues with medium format, I think you are trolling but it's not my forum..
I must however correct you for what you state as facts are in fact not.
The H system was designed, developed, and prototyped by Hasselblad IN SWEDEN (I know the product manager well) the Fuji 645 is a licensed version of the H to be sold in Japan only.
Kodak and Phase one both consulted in the back interface IN SWEDEN
The H cameras are MADE IN SWEDEN it even says so on the camera.
The digital components are MADE IN DENMARK/SWEDEN
The H lenses are designed by Hasselblad MADE IN JAPAN but with a shutter that is MADE IN SWEDEN
The X-Pan was MADE IN JAPAN
Please stop spreading misinformation.
Nick-T
-
__________________
OFF TOPIC (sorry)
You also seem to have some idea that you cannot analyze an image that you didn't shoot your self. Can you perhaps explain why?
Yes. I think you have to have some experience with the gear used for testing. Only if you know what the gear is actually capable of you can judge about whether or not a respective capture is representative for the gear at all.
For instance in the D800e-IQ180-comparision (T. Ashley's shots you've referred to in your arcticle: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=2 ) the focus plane of the 2 captures is very different. This makes a comparision almost impossible especially when it comes to comparing noise. Of course you can look at OOF areas and say the IQ180 shows more noise. It does, that's not the point. But it also shows a lot more details where the D800e looks a bit washed out and dull when pushed in post. The latter is only apparent when you look at image ares that are correctly focussed… and I have only found one spot in the images where a comparision could make sense. The D800e vs IQ180 comparision has been made for personal purposes (on behalf of T. Ashley) and that's perfectly okay. But I think it's absolutely inappropriate to draw generalizing conclusions from such a (sloppy) comparision.
Another example (from your article) is the comparision made by Tim Parkin. In general it's a great comparision and I assume care has been taken to make the comparision as solid as possible. I do use a P45 which is also in the list of the cameras/films/backs compared. So I know pretty good how captures from a P45 can look like (with good lenses as well as with mediocore lenses). There's also a Sony A900 in the list which I also know a little. The A900 seems to outperform the P45 in terms of resolution. Now, I've made exactly this comparision (A900 & P45 & also P21+) myself 3 years or so ago and the result was very different (the A900 had a hard time to show the same amount of details than the P21+ … at low ISO). So I can tell you either T. Parkin's copy of the P45 had a faulty or miscalibrated sensor, an extremely bad lens, a bad color profile (the greens show almost no differentiation… which is in fact a weak point of the P45 but the samples in that comparision look really horrible) or he screwed up the post processing (looks like a lot of Luminance NR) or whatever.
Who cares. I mean … it's just a comparision made by someone. But, again, it's inappropriate to draw generalized conclusions from it (well, at least as far as the P45 is concerned… but since I have noted post processing … who knows how he did the processing of the IQ180 files…??).
So you've made a whole essay titled "MF Digital, myths or facts?" and it is based on 2 or 3 shootings made by someone else. That's amazing. Really amazing!
Don't get me wrong … it's fine when you have fun in analyzing technical things. But the "facts" your findings are based on are, well… questionable. IMHO.
My point is: if you would use MFD you also would have a better idea whether or not certain samples published somewhere are meaningful. So, yes, I think it's important that "testers" know the stuff they are testing (at least to some degree).
__________________
some folks need live view, mostly those who want to use MFD on technical cameras
I do use a tech cam and although I don't have Live View I get sharp images. For wide shots the lens is set to infinity. As long as the infinity setting of the lens is adjusted to exactly match the sensor plane (which is easy to achive) infinity is "save ground". You can also use a laser distometer and for instance Alpa's HPF focus rings (I don't use them and still get good results using a laser disto and some additional markings on the focus ring of my lenses). Close distances are relatively easy to focus on the groundglass. And finally a 11'' Macbook Air provides a decent screen to check focussing while not being much larger than an iPad... so it's also usable in the field for tethered shooting. I have not yet used an IQ or Credo back but from what I have heard the LCDs are good enough to reliably check focus. Of course only after the capture ...
Now, all that is a bit cumbersome and inconvenient. You can just as well say it's a PITA. This is why live view would be a great and very helpful feature - no question about it! But MFD is not unusable today only because LV is not there yet. Focussing is doable ...
-
Fred Strikes again..
Fred I get that you have issues with medium format, I think you are trolling but it's not my forum..
I must however correct you for what you state as facts are in fact not.
The H system was designed, developed, and prototyped by Hasselblad IN SWEDEN (I know the product manager well) the Fuji 645 is a licensed version of the H to be sold in Japan only.
Kodak and Phase one both consulted in the back interface IN SWEDEN
The H cameras are MADE IN SWEDEN it even says so on the camera.
The digital components are MADE IN DENMARK/SWEDEN
The H lenses are designed by Hasselblad MADE IN JAPAN but with a shutter that is MADE IN SWEDEN
The X-Pan was MADE IN JAPAN
Please stop spreading misinformation.
Nick-T
It's well known in the industry that Fujifilm does the manufacturing for Hasselblad camera bodies. No secret, just not something that is discussed publicly or widely. They sell the same camera (though not backs) in Japan under their own brand.
Same thing with the late lamented XPan. It was designed and built by Fuji, as were the lenses, and sold everywhere except Japan under the Hasselblad brand. The H series camera were (are) designed by Hasselblad though.
I was at the New York product launch in 2002 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/hasselblad-h1.shtml), met with the engineers, and at the time the joint development program with Fuji was openly discussed with journalists. Indeed mentioned in my preview article. That openness changed over time to the point that many people are unaware of it, and it's a totally understandable position for both companies. OEM manufacturing deals are rarely if ever discussed publicly.
In any event, most people would be amazed if they know who really manufactures what for whom in this business. Simply amazed.
Michael
Michael runs this forum and was at the launch....
Maybe you can explain why I have never heard the same story from various Hasselblad staff when ever I asked about the manufacturing of H system even years ago.
Nick it seems you can't get your story straight either:
Nicktnz wrote:
This is wrong.
The camera is made in Sweden as are the shutters. The lens elements are made by Fuji and assembled in Sweden. The backs are
made in Denmark.
Nick-T
Nicktnz wrote:
Hassie bodies are made in Gothenburg Sweden. Hasselblad lenses are made by
Fujinon to Hasselblad designs with Swedish made shutter assemblies. Hasselblad
choose Fujinon to partner with in making the HC and HCD lenses because they had
the best fab facilities on offer.
Nicktnz wrote:
I have visited the Danes often and worked closely with them so I have
a fair idea of what I'm talking about. hasselblad went to Fuji for glass because at the time Zeiss did not have a compelling
offering in terms of technology (clean rooms). Fuji do have the rights to manufacture the "Fuji 645" under licence but that
does not mean they make Hasselblads, I stand by my statements.
Zeiss doesn't have clean rooms????
Really Nick?. Zeiss manufactures 13.5 nanometer lithography systems for micro electronics
manufacturing.
(http://smt.zeiss.com/content/semiconductor-manufacturing-technology/semiconductor-manufacturing-technology/en_de/products---solutions/lithography-optics0/lithography_13_5_nanometer0/_jcr_content/stagepar/stage/slide/stageimage_0/image.img.png/1343716846265.png/starlith-euv-optic.png)
Just to give people here an idea of what we are talking about here is that Hasselblad sensors have 9 to 6 micron photosites..... that's 6,500 nanometers.
(http://smt.zeiss.com/content/semiconductor-manufacturing-technology/semiconductor-manufacturing-technology/en_de/products---solutions/optic_systems/oem-optic_systems/_jcr_content/stagepar/stage/slide/stageimage/image.img.png/1344936718998.png/oem-systems.png)
Zeiss Clean Room
-
tho_mas +1
Beautiful!
-
tho_mas +1
Beautiful!
I have to jump in and ad a plus to Thomas post as well. I find it pretty peculiar that people keep using others test results constantly in there own posts to make a point. My belief as I test myself is if your not willing to buy, rent , borrow the gear you want to talk about than your really doing a injustice not to mention infringing on someone's copyrights. These type of posts bring no legitimacy for anyone since we have no idea if tests done are correct to begin with. Only the tester knows what he did and on top of that most of these tests are not done properly. Just a reminder you are infringing on someone's copyright reposting there images. Legally you are liable for posting them. It's something we fight very hard as working Pros is our copyright. It's something you should be aware of regardless if no one pushes the issue the fact is they can.
-
Maybe you can explain whey I have never heard the same story from various Hasselblad staff when ever I asked about the manufacturing of H system.
Well, this Hasselblad employee is certainly telling the same story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmow2-PMq5g&feature=youtu.be
-
Hi Tho_mas and Guy,
Just to make a few issues clear. I don't infringe on the copyright of the pictures as I have obtained permission from each photographer. I would gladly have used more images, but those are not easily find.
Another point you miss entirely that I never state that MF is not superior to DSLRs in some areas, what I discuss is pretty much the theoretical background.
Another point you miss entirely in the article is that image by Tim Ashley is only used to check out dynamic range or really the dark noise. It is not used at all for comparing sharpness. The area I have choosen was intended to show shadow noise. Tim was very specific about where focus was in the images, and the place I looked at was different from that area, but noise is not dependent on focus and probably more visible in out of focus details then parts showing more texture. http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=2
Another comparison is done for sharpness, here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=5 and in that case the IQ 180 clearly wins. That comparison is based on Marc McCalmont's images and used with his permission. There is also a comparison of OLP filtering based on Tim Parkins images clearly showing sharpness advantage of MF here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=6
Regarding color rendition I conclude that chapter with: "I have no first hand experience with MF, what I write is a drill down based on reading and looking at files available on the net. Still I have seen a couple of direct comparisons of Digital MF and DSLRs and got the impression that Digital MF camera had better color. This thread on LuLa forums is a good example." On the other hand I refer to Tim Parkins article and also use some of his images. Tim seems to dislike the P45, it is possible that the copy he had is substandard. What I found interesting in Tim's article is that he claims color rendition is different. I don't really agree with Tim's observation on Metameric Rendition Index, but I didn't feel necessary to comment on that. Tim may know a couple things I don't.
If you have issues with my posting about testing why are you discussing it on the thread called "The future of MF"? Why don't you discuss on the original thread.
Getting back original thread and live view. It is quite obvious that many posters regard live view important. If you look at the Alpa FPE it's not really intended to be used with ground glass. Also I probably would be a bit nervous switching back and forth between a viewfinder and a digital back, specially in a cold morning with numb fingers.
__________________
OFF TOPIC (sorry)
Yes. I think you have to have some experience with the gear used for testing. Only if you know what the gear is actually capable of you can judge about whether or not a respective capture is representative for the gear at all.
For instance in the D800e-IQ180-comparision (T. Ashley's shots you've referred to in your arcticle: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=2 ) the focus plane of the 2 captures is very different. This makes a comparision almost impossible especially when it comes to comparing noise. Of course you can look at OOF areas and say the IQ180 shows more noise. It does, that's not the point. But it also shows a lot more details where the D800e looks a bit washed out and dull when pushed in post. The latter is only apparent when you look at image ares that are correctly focussed… and I have only found one spot in the images where a comparision could make sense. The D800e vs IQ180 comparision has been made for personal purposes (on behalf of T. Ashley) and that's perfectly okay. But I think it's absolutely inappropriate to draw generalizing conclusions from such a (sloppy) comparision.
Another example (from your article) is the comparision made by Tim Parkin. In general it's a great comparision and I assume care has been taken to make the comparision as solid as possible. I do use a P45 which is also in the list of the cameras/films/backs compared. So I know pretty good how captures from a P45 can look like (with good lenses as well as with mediocore lenses). There's also a Sony A900 in the list which I also know a little. The A900 seems to outperform the P45 in terms of resolution. Now, I've made exactly this comparision (A900 & P45 & also P21+) myself 3 years or so ago and the result was very different (the A900 had a hard time to show the same amount of details than the P21+ … at low ISO). So I can tell you either T. Parkin's copy of the P45 had a faulty or miscalibrated sensor, an extremely bad lens, a bad color profile (the greens show almost no differentiation… which is in fact a weak point of the P45 but the samples in that comparision look really horrible) or he screwed up the post processing (looks like a lot of Luminance NR) or whatever.
Who cares. I mean … it's just a comparision made by someone. But, again, it's inappropriate to draw generalized conclusions from it (well, at least as far as the P45 is concerned… but since I have noted post processing … who knows how he did the processing of the IQ180 files…??).
So you've made a whole essay titled "MF Digital, myths or facts?" and it is based on 2 or 3 shootings made by someone else. That's amazing. Really amazing!
Don't get me wrong … it's fine when you have fun in analyzing technical things. But the "facts" your findings are based on are, well… questionable. IMHO.
My point is: if you would use MFD you also would have a better idea whether or not certain samples published somewhere are meaningful. So, yes, I think it's important that "testers" know the stuff they are testing (at least to some degree).
__________________
I do use a tech cam and although I don't have Live View I get sharp images. For wide shots the lens is set to infinity. As long as the infinity setting of the lens is adjusted to exactly match the sensor plane (which is easy to achive) infinity is "save ground". You can also use a laser distometer and for instance Alpa's HPF focus rings (I don't use them and still get good results using a laser disto and some additional markings on the focus ring of my lenses). Close distances are relatively easy to focus on the groundglass. And finally a 11'' Macbook Air provides a decent screen to check focussing while not being much larger than an iPad... so it's also usable in the field for tethered shooting. I have not yet used an IQ or Credo back but from what I have heard the LCDs are good enough to reliably check focus. Of course only after the capture ...
Now, all that is a bit cumbersome and inconvenient. You can just as well say it's a PITA. This is why live view would be a great and very helpful feature - no question about it! But MFD is not unusable today only because LV is not there yet. Focussing is doable ...
-
Hi Guy,
Regarding the copyright issue I just want to point out that all images used in the article Tho_mas is discussing have been used with the kind and explicit permisson of the authors. Where images are linked, those images were also linked with the proper permisson of the authors. The authors of those images have read and to some extent contributed to the images.
I used a few additional images from Imaging Resource and Alex Koloskov without explicit permission but those images were only used to generate data (MTF graphs color rendering measurements).
I would also add, that the images themselves care very little about the photographer. A shot of a color checker is a shot of a color checker weather made by myself or at Imaging Resource.
The posting discussed is the initial the thread here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=73323.0 , the intention was to start a discussion on testing but on that thread and a not a thread discussing the future of MF.
Best regards
Erik
I have to jump in and ad a plus to Thomas post as well. I find it pretty peculiar that people keep using others test results constantly in there own posts to make a point. My belief as I test myself is if your not willing to buy, rent , borrow the gear you want to talk about than your really doing a injustice not to mention infringing on someone's copyrights. These type of posts bring no legitimacy for anyone since we have no idea if tests done are correct to begin with. Only the tester knows what he did and on top of that most of these tests are not done properly. Just a reminder you are infringing on someone's copyright reposting there images. Legally you are liable for posting them. It's something we fight very hard as working Pros is our copyright. It's something you should be aware of regardless if no one pushes the issue the fact is they can.
-
If you look at the Alpa FPE it's not really intended to be used with ground glass.
who cares? This is one of the reasons why I would favour the original H-Cam over the Apla FPS anytime. A groundglass is not only a "focus-aid". It's also a way to compose an image (as opposed to catch an acurrately focused capture).
-
Stefan Steib, the man behind the original H-Cam cares and so does Wayne Fox: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=73210.msg581777#msg581777
Best regards
Erik
who cares? This is one of the reasons why I would favour the original H-Cam over the Apla FPS anytime. A groundglass is not only a "focus-aid". It's also a way to compose an image (as opposed to catch an acurrately focused capture).
-
Erik appreciate your reply and honestly was just making a point on copyright and not accusing you of anything. Others do a fine job of that. LOL
More my point was a lot of these tests have a lot of variables in them that you really have to watch how carefully things are done. Testing is very hard when your dealing with apples and oranges. I have done these tests and a lot of them I simply did not post because its just not worth my time or energy a lot of the times plus people use them in negative ways to either system. I have compared all three Phase backs against a D800 and D800e. I know what I need to know between them and end of day all I care about so I do ignore many of these comparisons just simply too much going on about it. I really have no agenda either way. I like both systems and when the time is right I will jump back in to MF. Regardless of all the millions of posts between them I mostly ignore a lot of them simply because we pick features, functions, ergos and image quality for each individual needs. My needs are very different than others and as it should be. Anyway testing is great for a lot folks to see specific details that one wants to know but the results are always going to face certain variables that are hard to overcome correctly especially between systems. Again my point carefully analyze what's being done that's my only point. Honestly if you want to get into MF or not but want to know than get with a dealer test it yourself and make a call for yourself. DT and CI would be happy to rent you a system. If you need help there let me know be glad to help.
-
Stefan Steib, the man behind the original H-Cam cares.
I know. Live View, however, will not replace a groundglass. When Stefan will remove the sliding back and groundglass only because future DBs provide Live View ... well, then I'll neither buy a H-Cam nor an Alpa FPS ;-)
edit:
... and so does Wayne Fox
another one?! Who would have thought...
Erik, you can add me to that list - again (proclamation): Live View would be really useful.
But I also love optical viewfinders (for several, totally personal/subjectiv reasons). Photography is not only about getting something in focus or to catch an accidential moment. First and foremost photography is a creative, artstic process. Therefore we all have different "needs"...
-
Hi Guy,
My interest is coming much from my background in engineering. I want to find out.
My interest for MF is mainly theoretical, I did consider MF from time to time, but I find cost of entry a bit high. Also I'm not negative about MF, but there are some statements which I have issue with. The article that "tho_mas" was commenting on was not really a comparison of DSLR to MF but more of a drill down in the data behind.
This is the summary of my article: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=11
I don't think it's pro or contra MF.
Best regards
Erik
Erik appreciate your reply and honestly was just making a point on copyright and not accusing you of anything. Others do a fine job of that. LOL
More my point was a lot of these tests have a lot of variables in them that you really have to watch how carefully things are done. Testing is very hard when your dealing with apples and oranges. I have done these tests and a lot of them I simply did not post because its just not worth my time or energy a lot of the times plus people use them in negative ways to either system. I have compared all three Phase backs against a D800 and D800e. I know what I need to know between them and end of day all I care about so I do ignore many of these comparisons just simply too much going on about it. I really have no agenda either way. I like both systems and when the time is right I will jump back in to MF. Regardless of all the millions of posts between them I mostly ignore a lot of them simply because we pick features, functions, ergos and image quality for each individual needs. My needs are very different than others and as it should be. Anyway testing is great for a lot folks to see specific details that one wants to know but the results are always going to face certain variables that are hard to overcome correctly especially between systems. Again my point carefully analyze what's being done that's my only point. Honestly if you want to get into MF or not but want to know than get with a dealer test it yourself and make a call for yourself. DT and CI would be happy to rent you a system. If you need help there let me know be glad to help.
-
You asked "who cares"? Just responding to your question ;-)
Erik
I know. Live View, however, will not replace a groundglass. When Stefan will remove the sliding back and groundglass only because future DBs provide Live View ... well, then I'll neither buy a H-Cam nor an Alpa FPS ;-)
-
Hi,
The reason I started this thread I really because there was another thread about the demise of medium format.
My take is that MF needs to maintain a critical mass. I guess that just having a bunch of satisfied customers may not be sufficient for that critical mass to be upheld. People using five year old backs don't generate income for Phase and Hasselblad, or do they?
- They need existing customers upgrading to latest stuff or reinvesting in MF otherwise
- Expand into new markets, I have seen that Phase One is doing that and that is a good thing
- They need new customers
Keeping development, manufacture, service and value added resale channels takes a lot money.
The other issue on my mind was some communication I had with Stefan Steib (the developer of the Hartblei H-Cam). Stefan feels that MFD industry needs to cooperate to ensure long time survival.
Best regards
Erik
-
Maybe you can explain why I have never heard the same story from various Hasselblad staff when ever I asked about the manufacturing of H system even years ago.
Well, this Hasselblad employee is certainly telling the same story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmow2-PMq5g&feature=youtu.be
What I meant is that each time I asked a Hasselblad employee or rep about the H series /Fuji relationship I get different stories each time, even right when
the H came out.
Regarding the video..... there are a few interesting points and quite a lot said, but still leaving quite a few questions.
It's interesting that when the question of what lenses are better was asked Ove did not say anything about Hasselblad designing the lenses as claimed by
Nick-T earlier in this thread. I also find the part about the focusing point interesting....
http://youtu.be/Kmow2-PMq5g?t=8m49s (http://youtu.be/Kmow2-PMq5g?t=8m49s)
He claims that they only used one focusing point because as a manufacturer they were limited buy what components they could find on the market and that all the ones available were for 35mm and that would have meant having all the focus points clusters in the center.
That part is really rather bogus. First of all the components for 35mm would not work at all as the mirror box of an MF camera is a completely different size and would need to be rebuilt
completely for the different lens light paths in the body. Even if they focus points were clustered they would still cover a very large area of the screen if a system similar to the d700 or d800 were used.
Also Pentax can doe it with the 645D as well as Leica with the s2 and s3. Hasselblad is at it's 5th generation of the camera and they can't do it?????
Another part that is bogus is the one on lens correction
http://youtu.be/Kmow2-PMq5g?t=4m28s (http://youtu.be/Kmow2-PMq5g?t=4m28s)
He claims that only Hasselblad knows the focusing distance and that the others don't use focus distance values and that their corrections just don't work.
This is bullshit.....
Canon and Nikon record focus distance in the metadata
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8504/8286005881_ae563f7c03.jpg)
and DXO as well as Adobe use focus distance for corrections as well as zoom focal length.
From DXO
DxO Optics Pro automatically corrects all types of lens distortion by taking into account such signification factors as the focal point and focusing distance.
From Adobe
Shooting Iteration: A single “set” of images of the printed calibration chart, shot with the user’s desired camera/lens combination.
An iteration (set) of images should have constant camera settings throughout and be of a single camera body and lens model.
The lens should be set to a single aperture, focal length, and relative focus distance (focus should remain about the same from shot to shot) for a single iteration.
A typical iteration consists of nine images in the set.
Different iterations may be shot and profiled for the same camera/lens combination while using a different aperture, focal length, or focus distance for each respective shooting iteration.
Also when asked why the Hasselblad Zeiss lenses don't have software correction he answers that they haven't done it yet... well they've had years and years to do it!
With Adobe's lens profile creator you can make your own in an hour or so for each lens.
-
Wall street has a term.
The Greater Fool.
The people that buy long, sell short hoping for a positive financial reward.
Nearly all Artists, photographers especially qualify.
Small entrepreneurial companies like Phase/Leaf/Hasselblad/RED also.
The upside is they move the ball forward, offer diversity, produce a product not just for maximum corporate bottom line and the throngs of people shopping at Best Buy, but build specialty equipment that is different, for anyone that wants a choice.
For people that just want to work differently.
Apple, prior to the I-world was the greater fool, Phase/Leaf/Hasselblad fall into this group and thank God, because without them we would all be shooting with whatever plastic cameras large conglomerates offered and all of us would be processing out orange flesh toned jpegs in one software suite.
This thread started out as a semi positive and like all of these threads, is pushed by a few people with a negative agenda, with every word twisted to suit a purpose that doesn't do anything for anyone.
It's like Sarah Palin invaded a photography forum.
Which is a shame because every day, a lot of greater fools pick up every type of camera and shoot something interesting.
They don't care what I or anyone use, what is more logical, cheaper, faster or easier. They use what they use because they believe it suits their purpose.
Those are the stories worth listening to and it's a shame we don't have more of them.
(http://spotsinthebox.com/greater_fool.jpg)
Julia Lescova.
Photographed with RED R1 camera.
Broncolor 800 Watt HMI Key light, with Par reflector.
Fill 4-4'x8' white foam core with one matthews shiny board on lower portion of stage, out of frame, for fill.
(http://spotsinthebox.com/rugby_rain.jpg)
Photographed with Kodak DCS 760
Key light, Matthews shiny boards (2)
Backlight, natural sun.
Rain from Sprinkler heads and 10,000 gallon water truck
(http://spotsinthebox.com/mustang_at_marios.jpg)
Photographed with Phase One P21+
Key Light, Kobal Bron 800 Watt with Par Reflector
Background lights, two Broncolor 575 HMI's with 1/2 spun.
All of these cameras are different formats. All of them were purchased and used by me because I liked them.
Nothing more.
IMO
BC
-
bcooter: great post! ... as always...
Thanks!
-
bcooter: great post! ... as always...
Thanks!
+1. bcooter right on target. Except for that part about Sarah Palin. I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but we shouldn't insult her.... ;D
-
A
...They use what they use because they believe it suits their purpose.
Those are the stories worth listening to and it's a shame we don't have more of them.
A breath of fresh air, BC, Thanks!
Ed
-
Hi,
I agree that we had a great contribution from 'BC' and some great pictures. I think the thread is drying up and what needs to be said has been said. So, if nobody minds, I'll close the thread tomorrow. OK?
Thanks for all contributions!
Best regards
Erik
-
The upside is they move the ball forward, offer diversity, produce a product not just for maximum corporate bottom line and the throngs of people shopping at Best Buy, but build specialty equipment that is different, for anyone that wants a choice.
For people that just want to work differently.
Apple, prior to the I-world was the greater fool, Phase/Leaf/Hasselblad fall into this group and thank God, because without them we would all be shooting with whatever plastic cameras large conglomerates offered and all of us would be processing out orange flesh toned jpegs in one software suite.
IMO
BC
Refreshing? I find this post is borderline snobbery.
the throngs of people shopping at best buy????
I'd like also like to point out that the Hasselblad H would pretty much not exist without the "conglomerate" Fuji. And if we want to talk about choice....
Fuji makes luxury compacts, leading optical and EVF in the same camera and STILL MAKES FILM CAMERAS.
Your beloved and fabulous Contax was made by a conglomerate that also made point an shoots.
If we really want to talk about choice for ANYONE. I think it is indisputable that Nikon and Canon have empowered photographer
with a range of choice that is outstanding. For a fraction of the price they have reached IQ that rivals MF at the mid to entry level and is close to the top of the line and with a much vaster
selection of lenses, accessories and functionality.
You also won't find a company like Canon or Nikon putting out this type of bullshit
that is totally disrespectful of photographers:
A Hasselblad camera is not a reward for having achieved a successful career. A Hasselblad camera is the tool with which you build your successful career to begin with.
There is never any time like the present to start building for the future. And if you think 35mm is good enough for this stage of your career, then you’d better hope that your clients are also willing to settle for “good enough”. The best clients, however, are almost never willing to settle for “good enough”. And why should they, when there are photographers out there who can provide the best? And providing the best is what Hasselblad and the new H5D are all about.
Regarding the disparaging comment of orange skin tones... that is just plain silly and misleading.
I would suggest reader of this thread pop over to flickr and look at the absolutely lovely NATURAL skin tones that this lovely lady achieves with her Nikon
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurenrosenbaum/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurenrosenbaum/)
-
Hi Fred,
I see what you mean. On the other hand, BC has a point that small companies do some thinking out of the box and try to make stuff outside the main stream. I would say that many belowed products belong there. The Fuji 68 (a camera I admire), Mamiya RZ67 and also Contax 645 and the Hy6. In the end I ended up with a Pentax 67 and Minolta/Sony stuff.
For my part I'm pretty mch interested in both technology, physics and photography. But I see myself as an engineer having photography as his hobby, not an artist.
Best regards
Erik
Refreshing? I find this post is borderline snobbery.
the throngs of people shopping at best buy????
I'd like also like to point out that the Hasselblad H would pretty much not exist without the "conglomerate" Fuji. And if we want to talk about choice....
Fuji makes luxury compacts, leading optical and EVF in the same camera and STILL MAKES FILM CAMERAS.
Your beloved and fabulous Contax was made by a conglomerate that also made point an shoots.
If we really want to talk about choice for ANYONE. I think it is indisputable that Nikon and Canon have empowered photographer
with a range of choice that is outstanding. For a fraction of the price they have reached IQ that rivals MF at the mid to entry level and is close to the top of the line and with a much vaster
selection of lenses, accessories and functionality.
You also won't find a company like Canon or Nikon putting out this type of bullshit
that is totally disrespectful of photographers:
Regarding the disparaging comment of orange skin tones... that is just plain silly and misleading.
I would suggest reader of this thread pop over to flickr and look at the absolutely lovely NATURAL skin tones that this lovely lady achieves with her Nikon
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurenrosenbaum/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurenrosenbaum/)
-
For 95% of clients, 35mm is good enough.
I'll say this now, I did a reasonably thorough test and the Canon 5D3 was almost indistinguishable from the Phase One P25
Products move on, the 5D3 wouldn't be indistinguishable from the H4D 60 though, but in 4 years time, will it be the same with the 5D4?
Bcooter illustrated some fine examples, the last two of which could be shot on today's latest cameras. So the question is, what's good enough?
Is there enough business for people to pick up a Hassy and start charging $1000 a day? I don't think there is.
That's the problem. The barrier to entry isn't that high, just buy a used H3D. There is just a distinct lack of clients who will pay enough to justify the spend.
Nikon were damn smart with that thar D800. Obvious strengths of the Medium format back = High Pixel Count, Depth of field due to the larger format.
So make something that targets landscape photographers who don't mind Depth of Field that much and make it have huge pixels with great shadow pull.
Chip, chip, chip away at the user base. I guess they have to do something to increase DSLR sales in face of the reduced number of compacts being sold (because people are using phones instead)
-
Erik,
I think that this thread, unfortunately, has exhausted itself.
Any meaningful discussion that people are trying to develop on this forum gets killed by someone who believes that medium format, in order to have a future, has to either turn into 35mm digital or to become an already dead 6x8 film camera system.
As this year is coming to its end I suggest that we all take some time off and think about the future of this forum and what kind of place we want it to be next year...
Happy holidays
Yair
-
Regarding the disparaging comment of orange skin tones... that is just plain silly and misleading.
Heaven forbid anyone should make silly and misleading comments Fred!
-
Regarding the disparaging comment of orange skin tones... that is just plain silly and misleading.
I see them in my 5D2, 5D3 and 1Dx files.
Maybe I should switch to Nikon, or just accept it's a downside to CMOS tech.
Has anyone mentioned Hitler yet?
-
Harry H. C!
MF was great for what it was used to accomplish in the recent past, as I guess it still is today; 35mm /135) was also perfect for its uses and still is, if not even more so with the wonderfully high ISO possibilities it offers.
The thousand bucks a day jobs? They certainly did exist, and probably much more so now if only because of the lower value of money; but the thing about MF, then, was that it was a simple tool to operate, required no more investment than the camera and the few focal lengths that you needed, and I got by with three: 50, 80 asnd 150mm. The rest, even the developing tanks were the same because reels were able to accomodate different formats and one enlarger could usually handle from 135 to 6x7 or at least 6x6.
It wasn't that big a financial frontier, but now it most certainly is, cash being the single greatest obstacle that I've read here as barrier to MF popularity (as in buying the damned thing).
Those already up in the higher planes of the business won't feel any pinch buying; the rest do.
Looking at all the shots posted here and in other threads on the topic, on the monitor there isn't much difference. At the end of the day, buy what you want/can afford and what suits your way of shooting. The 'blad 500 Series and all the F, F2, F3 and not F4 Nikons were perfectly good tools for me and none required any greatly different technique, and that was without any idea of tethering yet on the horizon. Now, all people talk about is technique and learning curves: what fun!
Seems to me that digital has opened new doors for some and errected impossible barriers for others. So much for it being the great new democracy.
Coot produces lovely work and so does Fred; let's not get into dumb slanging matches over bloody camera manufacturers - they ain't worth it - all they want is your money, not your love.
Rob C
-
This thread reminds me of the question - what's the largest sexual organ? The answer is the brain.
So what's the future of MF? That question while valid can also be asked "What's the future of photography". While just about any camera is capable of producing stunning work it's the brain behind the system that tells it where to go. It's the brain behind the final outcome in post.
For some the future holds great promise while for others it's nothing but doom and gloom.
Just my 2¢ worth after a great lunch......
-
let's not get into dumb slanging matches over bloody camera manufacturers - they ain't worth it - all they want is your money, not your love.
Not here for you money Rob, no worries ;)
-
Wall street has a term.
The Greater Fool.
The people that buy long, sell short hoping for a positive financial reward.
Nearly all Artists, photographers especially qualify.
Small entrepreneurial companies like Phase/Leaf/Hasselblad/RED also.........
BC
The Greater Fool Theory means something else:
A theory that states it is possible to make money by buying securities,
whether overvalued or not, and later selling them at a profit because there will
always be someone (a bigger or greater fool) who is willing to pay the higher price.
The selling of a security that the seller does not own,
or any sale that is completed by the delivery of a security borrowed by the seller.
Short sellers assume that they will be able to buy the stock at a lower amount
than the price at which they sold short.
Neither of these have anything to do with taking high quality and or artistic images.
If anything it may have something to do with art dealers (or maybe equipment dealers).
I think if we look at the greater fool theory it really does not hold up at all as far as MFD goes.
Hell just look at used prices of current generation MFDB.
Ebay used from an ebay member since 2003 with a 100% favorable feedback based in New York:
Phase One IQ140 in exellent condition.
Sold for only $ 12,000.
New it costs $ 21,990
Loss $ 11,990 45% Loss
Phase One "Schneider" 110mm 2.8:
Sold for only $ 2,250
New it costs $ 4,790
Loss $ 2540 53% Loss
Phase One DF
Sold for only $ 2,800
New it costs $ 5,900
Loss $ 3,100 52% loss
While a camera isn't a security one would expect it to hold more of it's value if it really
has unbeatable qualities.
-
Hi Fred,
I see what you mean. On the other hand, BC has a point that small companies do some thinking out of the box and try to make stuff outside the main stream. I would say that many belowed products belong there. The Fuji 68 (a camera I admire), Mamiya RZ67 and also Contax 645 and the Hy6. In the end I ended up with a Pentax 67 and Minolta/Sony stuff.
For my part I'm pretty mch interested in both technology, physics and photography. But I see myself as an engineer having photography as his hobby, not an artist.
Best regards
Erik
Actually I don't think that the small companies are thinking out side the box.
Lets look at the cameras you listed.
Fuji 68 (I assume you mean the Fuji gx680). Well it's not designed, made or sold by a small company. Fuji is a qiant company.
Mamiya RZ comes from what is now a small company in difficulty, but it was designed 30 years or so ago when Mamiya was in full bloom.
Just look at the massive quantity of this camera for sale used today. Great camera ... I had several.
Contax 645 made and designed by Yashica Kyochera with lenses by Carl Zeiss. Both huge companies.
Pentax 67 made and designed by Pentax that was a large company at the time and is today part of Ricoh ($8.47 billion market Cap)
with the medical part of Pentax going to Hoya ($ 8.4 billion)
I think it is safe to say that Phase, Leaf and Hasselblad don't really think outside the box.
Rather that they are working within the constraints of their roots and the cameras they got started with.
Scanning companies merging with MF camera companies. 30 years later still pretty much making removable back
cameras.
On the other hand the big 4 other companies have made significant revolutionary changes
and at a fraction of the cost while matching the quality of MF offering 4/5 times the price.
They have also come up with all sorts of different camera types with a huge range of choices.
Look at all the far from mainstream cameras coming from Fuji, Canon, Sony and Nikon.
-
Ebay used from an ebay member since 2003 with a 100% favorable feedback based in New York:
Phase One IQ140 in exellent condition.
Sold for only $ 12,000.
New it costs $ 21,990
Loss $ 11,990 45% Loss
Phase One "Schneider" 110mm 2.8:
Sold for only $ 2,250
New it costs $ 4,790
Loss $ 2540 53% Loss
Phase One DF
Sold for only $ 2,800
New it costs $ 5,900
Loss $ 3,100 52% loss
While a camera isn't a security one would expect it to hold more of it's value if it really
has unbeatable qualities.
Here's were you fall over a bit Fred. I've been a user on ebay for much longer and I think what some people try to get for their used DB's is way off in la la land but....
My Canon 1DX was £5299 new from a UK retailer.
The Canon 1DX bought new from ebay is £4299
In three years time I'll be lucky to get £2000 for it.
Same thing happened with my 1DS3 5k outlay, 2k sale price when new tech came along. That's about 60-65% loss.
Lenses are no different
Canon 70-200mk II new list price : £2799
Canon 70-200mk II new from ebay : £1500
Canon 70-200mk II used from ebay : £1000
Hasselblad HC 50-110 new from Hasselblad: £4554
Hasselblad HC 50-110 new from ebay: £2549
Price I paid for my used one with 5k clicks: £1300
-
if you are a working photographer then any bit of 35mm kit thats sub 6k should be paid for in few jobs at the beginning of it's lifetime which for me is about 3 years for a body before it gets relegated to a back-up then finally sold. if you cant make the sums work i suggest you take up another career or look at your day rate.
lenses hold their value and i tend to hang on to them, those i have sold have 'cost' very little.
-
(http://spotsinthebox.com/ILLUS28.jpg)
I don't run this forum, the direction it takes is none of my business, but as I read some of the posts I wonder how many photographers under the age of 40 actually participate.
I know the assistants I work with don't. They're too busy reading and posting in the hundreds of blogs, twitter accounts and instigram sites to care.
They go on the web to learn and entertain themselves and honestly could care less what camera is a better deal.
What they do care about is what camera might help them produce a unique look.
What they are smart enough to realize is to do their own research, testing and post work so they can judge any camera on it's own merits, by using it as it's intended.
They use everything they can get their hands on from Iphones, 5d3's, Mamiya 7's and some . . . now hold on this might surprise some people, but they actually own or would like to own a medium format digital camera.
They make take a dozen Iphone images a day, but when they have something worthwhile, they ask to borrow in this order . . . our medium format backs, grip/hmi lighting, REDs.
That tells me something.
The Greater Fool?
I wasn't referring to cameras as commodities, any more than I think if I sell our studio rubbish bins, vehicles or filing cabinets we'll turn a profit.
Every successful person I know, in any business or endeavor that wasn't built on a trust fund was the greater fool. They took the unconventional road and made it work for them. When everyone looked right, they turned around and looked left.
They are realists, dreamers and explorers all rolled into one.
Anyway this is my last post on this thread as all it does is open another door for more negative camera bashing and it would be nice if that door was shut.
Everything that should not have been said has, anything worthwhile has been passed over.
Happy Holidays.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
I started this thread, and now I try to lock it. The idea was to talk about the future of MFD, but I think we got into to much discussion about old stuff, and I don't feel we are gaining any new ground.
Thanks for all contributions!
Best regards
Erik