Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: esox on January 21, 2013, 04:01:03 pm
-
I see many posts about the fact that D800 killed MFDB. But... As far as I know (I may be wrong) you can't do tilt/shift with a D800 as you do with a view camera. Because of micro lenses used on the D800. Right or wrong ? The Nikon 24mm Tilt/Shift lense doesn't do it the you do it with a view camera. Only digital backs can do it no ? Doing a nice Scheimpflung with a D800 seems to be not possible.
Also when one needs to do big enlargements (2m or more) then the DB still is the king in its realm no ?
diffrence of my
So why comparing the two systems ? Is a Honda supercar better than a Ferrari ? It's as fast, as safe (or as unsafe...). But... And it's not olny a cosmetic subject. For sure using a Hassy H or a Phase one system to shoot sport is not the easiest choise. Bit some do it and it's just beautiful.
Why do all the images I love and that the aspect nails me on the wall are all coming from MFDB ? Question of precision/sharpness allied to smooth transitions. A bit like the difference between my beloved Hassy V lenses compared to the Mamyia RZ lenses. Both are wonderful, but different. I highly prefer the presision and smouthness (sorry I'm not english, so I may not use the correct words, I hope you will understand my thought).
A question : if you can have a Hassy H or phase one system or Alpa system for the price of a D800 system, wich one will you choose ?
-
There are several tilt-swing options for Nikon: first party and third party TS lenses and adapters for view cameras. There are several tilt-swing options for digital backs: TS SLR lenses (though fewer than for 35mm) and tech/view camera mounts. If using a tech camera and/or view camera is acceptable in your workflow (it's slower in most cases, requiring more time per shot) then I'd argue that there are more/better tilt-swing options for digital backs than a D800. However, I don't think such sweeping statements are very useful in comparing two very different systems. Each system comes with a set of advantages, disadvantages, capabilities, and limitations. Much better to ask yourself how you would use what is available for each system to get the results you want.
A question : if you can have a Hassy H or phase one system or Alpa system for the price of a D800 system, wich one will you choose ?
It depends entirely on what I want to shoot and how I want to shoot it*.
For instance I wouldn't shoot sports with a Phase+TechCam even if you gave me the system for free.
Sweeping landscape shots? I'd take the Phase+TechCam every time.
-
So we agree, except that I souls take the phase one to shoot sport, but I soule never go to the stadium, instead I would go to the Rocky mountains to do paysage
-
I just read that noted landscape photographer Jack Dykinga has switched from 4x5 view camera to a Nikon d800e and all three Nikon T/S lenses.
Mike Sellers
-
Hi,
Dead wrong! You can used TS on Nikons, there are T&S Nikon lenses, although they don't seem to be specially good. You can put almost any MF lens on a Nikon with tilt/shift adapters from Mirex or tilt adapters from ARAX. Any lens designed for an SLR will be telecentric and have very little problems with lens cast.
With MF you would either use T/S lenses, the Hasselblad HTS or use symmetric (Biogon type) lenses on technical camera. The last option will have significant problems with lens cast, specially on backs using microlenses. The IQ 180 is said to have microlenses.
If you want to use Scheimpflug, live view is essential in my humble opinion.
I actually believe that MF has some advantages over latest generation DSLR. Lenses may be better, in part. The larger sensor collects more photons, all other factors kept equal, that would result in smoother midtones. The larger format gives advantages in sharpness.
I got some great comparison images from IQ180 compared to Nikon D800 from two owners of both cameras. One of the owners is selling off his IQ180 and the other seems to use it less frequently.
This page compares IQ180 on Alpa with a D800E with a Leica lens (with kind permission of Marc McCalmont):
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=5
This page compares IQ180 with Zeiss 24/2 on Nikon D800 (with kind permission of Tim Parkin), IQ 180 wins I would say.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=6
I played around with Scheimpflug on my Sony Alpha 99, here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/73-sonnar-150-cb-on-dslr-using-arax-tilt-adapter?start=5
To sum up:
DSLRs will have less problems with lens cast when using TS than MF technical cameras.
DSLRs also have wide range of options to use MF lenses for TS.
The best choice may be an MF-back on a "pan cake" technical camera like the Hartblei H-Cam or the Alpa FPS.
Would a medium end digital back cost like a Nikon D800 I would go and buy Hartblei H-Cam with a Canon 17/4 TS (which works well with MF backs according to Stefan Steib). Than I would buy a Mirex adapter and use dirt cheap Hasselblad V lenses and my Pentax 67 lenses. That's what I would do.
I still think live view is essential on digital backs. I don't know how well that works on the IQ-series, but IQ does not cost like a D800.
Best regards
Erik
I see many posts about the fact that D800 killed MFDB. But... As far as I know (I may be wrong) you can't do tilt/shift with a D800 as you do with a view camera. Because of micro lenses used on the D800. Right or wrong ? The Nikon 24mm Tilt/Shift lense doesn't do it the you do it with a view camera. Only digital backs can do it no ? Doing a nice Scheimpflung with a D800 seems to be not possible.
Also when one needs to do big enlargements (2m or more) then the DB still is the king in its realm no ?
diffrence of my
So why comparing the two systems ? Is a Honda supercar better than a Ferrari ? It's as fast, as safe (or as unsafe...). But... And it's not olny a cosmetic subject. For sure using a Hassy H or a Phase one system to shoot sport is not the easiest choise. Bit some do it and it's just beautiful.
Why do all the images I love and that the aspect nails me on the wall are all coming from MFDB ? Question of precision/sharpness allied to smooth transitions. A bit like the difference between my beloved Hassy V lenses compared to the Mamyia RZ lenses. Both are wonderful, but different. I highly prefer the presision and smouthness (sorry I'm not english, so I may not use the correct words, I hope you will understand my thought).
A question : if you can have a Hassy H or phase one system or Alpa system for the price of a D800 system, wich one will you choose ?
-
Tilt and shift in my opinion is a very useful function.
I have shot for many years with the Fuji gx680 as well as 8x10.
I find tilt shift to be a tremendous asset even in fashion, beauty and portrait.
For example I love to shoot fashion with shallow depth of field. With the Fuji regardless of focal length I
can do both perspective correction and focus correction.
I use shift a lot in portraits especially when shooting slightly up.
Here is an example:
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5180/5458121808_279291c8e8_b.jpg)
I find it lets me get closer with a slightly shorter focal length for a more intimate feel
while still having faltering perspective.
Here i used swing (horizontal tilt) for keep two models on two different planes in focus
while shooting wide open:
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6118/6241351131_aa6f1963ec_b.jpg)
No swing
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6168/6241351155_3ceef9d332_b.jpg)
With swing.
Here are the lens movements:
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6160/6239328568_28ba0eac56_b.jpg)
All independent.
Unfortunately medium format digital does not have much support for Lens movements
unless you go with a tech camera, but they are a pain to use with tilt shift due to the lack of true fast live view
Using a tilt shift with a Hasselblad H or Phase One camera I find focusing to be a pain in the ass.
Viewfinder magnification is too low and autofocus points are only in the center of the screen.
Then there is the limitation of available lenses for MFD. With the DF you are limited pretty much to the
Schneider 120mm PC-TS f 5.6. It's slow and dark.
and the 645 Hartblei 45mm 3.5 Super Rotator.
Both Canon and Nikon offer a broader range.
Canon has:
17mm 4.0
24mm 3.5
45mm 2.8
90mm 2.8
Nikon has :
24mm 3.5
45mm 2.8
85mm 2.8
All have automatic iris, live view and on sensor focusing on both Canon and Nikon make
focusing and setup very nice, especially when using a 2K HDMI monitor.
There are also 3rd party options for Canon and Nikon from Schnieder, Hartblei, and "toy lenses" from lens baby.
There are also adapters that let you use many MF lenses such as Hasselblad V lenses on Nikon and Canon that let you tilt shift them.
-
That means that he is also switchîg from film to digital. Wich is another thing to take into consideratin.
Interesting Thérèse regarding long exposure http://scottreither.com/blogwp/tag/d800e/ (http://scottreither.com/blogwp/tag/d800e/)
-
I just read that noted landscape photographer Jack Dykinga has switched from 4x5 view camera to a Nikon d800e and all three Nikon T/S lenses.
Mike Sellers
Yup:
Jack's Pack?
Now a complete Nikon convert, Jack carries two Nikon D800e cameras and a D3s Nikon as well. All have Really Right Stuff “L” brackets.
He has all three Nikkor perspective correction lenses: 24mm, 45mm, and the 85mm.
In addition, the 70-300 VR Zoom, and the incomparable 14-24mm Nikkor wide-angle zoom.
A 200mm Micro-Nikkor, a 200-400 Nikkor zoom and a loaner 600mm lens offers a wide range of coverage possibilities.
Nikon’s intervalometers help with long time exposures and The Lightning Trigger help capture storm drama.
Field downloads are to a Apple MacbookPro equipped with both and standard 500mb hard drive and a 500mb solid-state drive. It has 8 gigs of ram and Jack always wants more….
[/url]
In particular the full set of tilt shift lenses.
-
Hi,
If you stay with film there are plenty of options...
Most MF backs are not suited to long exposures, the P45+ is an exception.
I have not seen problems with long exposures, but I seldom expose long. In general, when using long exposures you need to do dark frame subtraction. The cameras ten to do this automatically. No issue with 30 second exposures but would be bad for two hours.
Best regards
Erik
That means that he is also switchîg from film to digital. Wich is another thing to take into consideratin.
Interesting Thérèse regarding long exposure http://scottreither.com/blogwp/tag/d800e/ (http://scottreither.com/blogwp/tag/d800e/)
-
Well I wasn't précise enough : I was considering T/S on a view camera vs DSLR (médium or small format). As I do it with my brave Sinar f2 on 4x5 films. Of course all of that depends of the image circle of the lense.
Regarding what Erik said on using Hassy V lenses on DSLR. It works, of course, but the résolution of those lenses (I havé a few of them) semés to be far from the size of the pixels on a DSLR.
-
F..ck m'y damned ipad still but me some french words as i type in english...
-
Another concern : I very often shoot sunsets with the sun right in the middle of the lense. No issue with my Hassy V with T* lenses. But with my dslr (oly) it´s a nightmare, no way to have a sharp sun with color into it, it´s a wite circle and the light kind of overflaw the photosites. It seems to be problem with small photosites. I also had the issue on a canon dslr ( dont remember wich one). I.m afraid the D800 has lts of chances to have the same issue. Didńt have that issue with a H4D50.
-
Hi,
OK, you are moving from film to digital?
I have tested an old Sonnar 150/4 on my Sony Alpha 77 (and also 99). It was nearly perfect indoor, but had problems outside with flare.
Regarding the issue with shooting into the sun, it is a problem with digital, irrespective of pixel size. Film saturates softly, digital clips. The best way to handle in digital may be HDR. It doesn't work perfectly, but the technique can be polished.
I enclose two images, one is a HDR made from two exposure 3EV apart and one made from a three stop underexposed picture.
May be of some assistance.
By the way, here is a link to one of my Scheimpflug demos, full image 6000x4000 pixels (I believe) http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/Zeissness_3/Scheimpflug/Full_image-4.jpg
Sonnar 150/4 at f/11 8degree tilt on ARAX adapter, no shift.
Best regards
Erik
Another concern : I very often shoot sunsets with the sun right in the middle of the lense. No issue with my Hassy V with T* lenses. But with my dslr (oly) it´s a nightmare, no way to have a sharp sun with color into it, it´s a wite circle and the light kind of overflaw the photosites. It seems to be problem with small photosites. I also had the issue on a canon dslr ( dont remember wich one). I.m afraid the D800 has lts of chances to have the same issue. Didńt have that issue with a H4D50.
-
Here is what I want to do concerning the sun: http://jeanmabar.fr/route-des-cretes-et-pointe-rouge/ (http://jeanmabar.fr/route-des-cretes-et-pointe-rouge/) specialy the images where the sun is still yellow.
Regarding your scheimpflung, what body did you use ?
-
The D800 has it's strengths but for pure unadulterated image quality the something like the H4D40 or 50 beat it hands down.
The D800 is one of those 'It's nice but' cameras.
You can get movements on a H body with the TS 1.5 albeit not full spread like the GX680. Like with anything though it's all on balance. I like to shoot film but even though I have an RZ67 I won't take that everywhere. So the H1 and back will suffice.
-
Sony Alpha 99, focused by live view on WMF mark on the knife.
Best regards
Erik
Here is what I want to do concerning the sun: http://jeanmabar.fr/route-des-cretes-et-pointe-rouge/ (http://jeanmabar.fr/route-des-cretes-et-pointe-rouge/) specialy the images where the sun is still yellow.
Regarding your scheimpflung, what body did you use ?
-
F..ck m'y damned ipad still but me some french words as i type in english...
Add the English keyboard in the prefs (qwerty) and use that when writing in English. Spelling correction changes automatically according to the selected keyboard.
-
Hi,
I am typing on an iPad, too. I think you can do sun shots on DSLR, but you need to avoid overexposure. I will check if I have any images like that. Film handles that stuff better.
Best regards
Erik
Here is what I want to do concerning the sun: http://jeanmabar.fr/route-des-cretes-et-pointe-rouge/ (http://jeanmabar.fr/route-des-cretes-et-pointe-rouge/) specialy the images where the sun is still yellow.
Regarding your scheimpflung, what body did you use ?
-
Sony Alpha 99, focused by live view on WMF mark on the knife.
Best regards
Erik
Because it seems there is moiré on the tablecloth... ;)
-
Here is what I want to avoid, it is really underexposed, but still no texture in the sun. With Hassy and a provia ou ekta, I wouldn't have such problem.
-
Here is what I want to avoid, it is really underexposed, but still no texture in the sun. With Hassy and a provia ou ekta, I wouldn't have such problem.
Is that so? Do you have an example?
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, in that picture you see the sun is yellow. Done with Hassy 503CX, Tessar 8/500 and provia 100F. f22.
-
i could have generated that shot in photoshop and saved loads of time hanging around waiting for the sun.
::)
-
Yes, in that picture you see the sun is yellow.
Foreground seems rather underexposed ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
i could have generated that shot in photoshop and saved loads of time hanging around waiting for the sun.
::)
So you should be horrified by the price of a painting of rodko (http://www.google.fr/imgres?hl=fr&sa=X&tbo=d&biw=1920&bih=1042&tbm=isch&tbnid=HRtq5g6I-SKBVM:&imgrefurl=http://d6metropolefroide.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/12-quelques-references-de-branzi/&docid=ZQ1jmjY5HmcvyM&imgurl=http://d6metropolefroide.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/colorfield-painting-rothko.jpg&w=801&h=1036&ei=GZ7-UOCxM8W0hAf1g4HwBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=155&vpy=449&dur=1433&hovh=255&hovw=197&tx=85&ty=121&sig=111921211158828726772&page=1&tbnh=138&tbnw=106&start=0&ndsp=67&ved=1t:429,r:23,s:0,i:158)
Regarding the underexposed background of course yes. But same exposition on DSLR, same sky color, only white in the sun and lots of bull...t around it.
-
Esox, you may get yellow sun when it's coming next to the horizon because of the atmosphere which blocks shorter wavelengths. We know that.
It's not a matter of DSLR vs MF.
Nice shot, but I find the ghost image over the sun itself to be quite annoying.
-
Thanks mac_paolo. This ghost... well you are right, the thing is that I have a kind of religion : do the photoshop to the point of what's on the slide. You are right on the fact that no ghost would make the picture more simple and "direct". But I find interesting the presence of this ghost, it's also shows the strength of the sun. In fact I'm in the middle of two religions : the one that put the impact and the reading of the picture in itself number 1 and the one who put in number 1 the subjects on the pictures. As we say in french : between the two, my heart swings... Sorry for the awful translation. I'm opened for a better one or maybe the english equivalent...
BTW, I always shoot the same picture with DSLR to double check the exposure with same parameters. The DSLR version has a white sun...
-
I guess it's a question of getting the right exposure for the sun, it doesn't have to be burnt out, regardless of the camera you use...
(http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/215664_10151228627878915_2117343454_n.jpg)
-
Nice shot yaya, with what toy did you do it ?
-
So you should be horrified by the price of a painting of rodko (http://www.google.fr/imgres?hl=fr&sa=X&tbo=d&biw=1920&bih=1042&tbm=isch&tbnid=HRtq5g6I-SKBVM:&imgrefurl=http://d6metropolefroide.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/12-quelques-references-de-branzi/&docid=ZQ1jmjY5HmcvyM&imgurl=http://d6metropolefroide.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/colorfield-painting-rothko.jpg&w=801&h=1036&ei=GZ7-UOCxM8W0hAf1g4HwBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=155&vpy=449&dur=1433&hovh=255&hovw=197&tx=85&ty=121&sig=111921211158828726772&page=1&tbnh=138&tbnw=106&start=0&ndsp=67&ved=1t:429,r:23,s:0,i:158)
Regarding the underexposed background of course yes. But same exposition on DSLR, same sky color, only white in the sun and lots of bull...t around it.
That's Rothko in most languages.......
-
You are perfectly right and my automatic speller is now disabled :'( rodko as les talent than rothko...
-
You know that photographer (http://www.sugimotohiroshi.com/) ?
-
Nice shot yaya, with what toy did you do it ?
A lowly DSLR but don't tell anyone ;)
-
Hi,
Digital works fine until one of the channels is clipped. So you need to keep exposure low enough to avoid clipping. All digital stuff works that way.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, in that picture you see the sun is yellow. Done with Hassy 503CX, Tessar 8/500 and provia 100F. f22.
-
Hi,
With digital you can always get moiré. That essentially means that the lens outresolves the sensor. Most DSLRs have an OLP (Optical Low Pass) filter that reduces aliasing by softening the image. MF and some 135 cameras don't have (Leica M9 and Nikon D800E). Sigmas have no OLP and a Foevon sensor, producing aliases but no color moiré.
Would be thankful if you could point out the moiré in my picture because I cannot find it.
Best regards
Erik
Because it seems there is moiré on the tablecloth... ;)
-
A lowly DSLR but don't tell anyone ;)
I promise
-
Hi,
Would be thankful if you could point out the moiré in my picture because I cannot find it.
Best regards
Erik
I can see some red/magenta ghosts in the texture on the tablecloth behind the last cup. It doesn't seem to be the color of this tablecloth.
-
Hi,
I don't think it is moiré as moiré looks very different from that. The shot is made in my living room. The "table cloth" is a dust cover for a slide projector I have. The table is glass. What I guess you see (and me too) are some weak reflections of a few colored books standing outside the picture either in the glass below the table cloth or in the lens itself.
Best regards
Erik
I can see some red/magenta ghosts in the texture on the tablecloth behind the last cup. It doesn't seem to be the color of this tablecloth.
-
Excellent do i understand that you sqatched strawberries on thentable close before having a coffee ?
-
No,
I guess the color you see are reflection of items outside the image.
Moiré arises when a lens has high MTF at sensor resolution, in practice low to medium apertures. It is also a sharp pattern. The reason I'm pretty sure it is not moiré are because it doesn't look like moiré and it's not in a situation I think it would arise.
The MF cameras you consider will be much more prone to moiré than my Sony Alpha 99 as they don't have OLP filter.
Best regards
Erik
Excellent do i understand that you sqatched strawberries on thentable close before having a coffee ?
-
You know that photographer (http://www.sugimotohiroshi.com/) ?
I had the pleasure to visit his current exhibition in Munich. Very impressive technique.
The exhibition plays till the end of february.
-
I love the control of my 4x5 but can't keep it fed with the film it expects, so for several years, I've been using my PC lenses on my Nikon digital bodies and now on the D800 as needed.
Is it as easy and full of control as the 4x5? No this is a PIA to use compared to even my Tachahara and any lens I would put on it. However, it doesn't cost me a couple of Polaroids, and a couple sheets of film for each image.
For the most part, using the 24 PCE and the 85 PC within the limitations of the focal lengths and using a modified TC-14e, combined with the crop features of the D800 and I'm happy, especially since I can now shoot more quickly in the field and see the results as I shoot.
Sure, there are limitations such as not being able to shift other than parallel or perpendicular depending upon how the lens is set up, but being able to not have to pack all the bulk of the larger format, having to get the film processed and today, getting it scanned on top of it all, and despite the limitations on geometry control, I'm still quite happy with the results I get and simply work within the limitations.
Geometry control using the PC lenses on a D800 can be done and it works fine for most situations. There are times that these limitations do get in the way but with some forethought and mastery of the craft gets me by and my clients are none the wiser. It's still the final image that counts and being able to fine-tune in Photoshop lessens the physical limitations the tools.
Is it worthwhile for one to go to a MFD back and specialized bodies and lenses to regain total control? If you've got the money, time and patience, go for it. If you need to get the job done and not have your time and money dumped into the most expensive moving target, than a D800 and PCE lenses will do the job.
-
Hi,
I would add that a great advantage with DSLRs may be live view. I write "may" because I don't know how well live view works on the latest MFDBs. Using LV and best magnification it is easy to pinpoint focus.
Best regards
Erik
I love the control of my 4x5 but can't keep it fed with the film it expects, so for several years, I've been using my PC lenses on my Nikon digital bodies and now on the D800 as needed.
Is it as easy and full of control as the 4x5? No this is a PIA to use compared to even my Tachahara and any lens I would put on it. However, it doesn't cost me a couple of Polaroids, and a couple sheets of film for each image.
For the most part, using the 24 PCE and the 85 PC within the limitations of the focal lengths and using a modified TC-14e, combined with the crop features of the D800 and I'm happy, especially since I can now shoot more quickly in the field and see the results as I shoot.
Sure, there are limitations such as not being able to shift other than parallel or perpendicular depending upon how the lens is set up, but being able to not have to pack all the bulk of the larger format, having to get the film processed and today, getting it scanned on top of it all, and despite the limitations on geometry control, I'm still quite happy with the results I get and simply work within the limitations.
Geometry control using the PC lenses on a D800 can be done and it works fine for most situations. There are times that these limitations do get in the way but with some forethought and mastery of the craft gets me by and my clients are none the wiser. It's still the final image that counts and being able to fine-tune in Photoshop lessens the physical limitations the tools.
Is it worthwhile for one to go to a MFD back and specialized bodies and lenses to regain total control? If you've got the money, time and patience, go for it. If you need to get the job done and not have your time and money dumped into the most expensive moving target, than a D800 and PCE lenses will do the job.
-
I think that, from what I saw, the gape between dslr and mfdb isn't filled by the D800, depends on what makes a good picture for the one who looks at it.
-
I see many posts about the fact that D800 killed MFDB. But... As far as I know (I may be wrong) you can't do tilt/shift with a D800 as you do with a view camera. Because of micro lenses used on the D800. Right or wrong ? The Nikon 24mm Tilt/Shift lense doesn't do it the you do it with a view camera. Only digital backs can do it no ? Doing a nice Scheimpflung with a D800 seems to be not possible.
First, you're wrong.
Second, have you ever tried "doing a nice Scheimpflung [sic]" of a scene with tall mangroves in the foreground straddling the waterway receding into the background? No? Because you CAN'T, since DOF along the adjusted plane of focus expands outward as a WEDGE. But focus stacking CAN capture both the vertical foreground flora AND the horizontal background. Oh, but focus stacking can be done with ANY digital sensor. So let's not bring that up.
Lately it seems there's a ton of posters coming out of the woodwork trying to use more and more contrived situtations to justify to themselves why MFDB is better than 35mm DSLRS. And how has D800 killed MFDB? My IQ140 still works, even after I got a couple of D800 bodies. Sure, I hardly use the back anymore, but so what? When I want to use it I can still use it.
Also when one needs to do big enlargements (2m or more) then the DB still is the king in its realm no ?
One of the things I use backs for is large prints, yes. But for REAL large prints, I'm still using 8x10. So, no. It's not the king of its realm.
So why comparing the two systems ?
As far as I can tell, it's only the amateur MFDB users comparing the two systems. Folks who are using the d800 more or exlusively now are just using it. Folks who are still using their backs are still using them. It seems to me only the people who overreached in the first place are now trying to justify to themselves why their low ROI purchase is still "superior" to newer sensor tech.
Is a Honda supercar better than a Ferrari ? It's as fast, as safe (or as unsafe...). But... And it's not olny a cosmetic subject. For sure using a Hassy H or a Phase one system to shoot sport is not the easiest choise. Bit some do it and it's just beautiful.
Honda doesn't have a supercar. But I'll take the Toyota LFA over a Ferrari anyday. I have a friend who brought along his 645d (with the 400mm AF) for a superbike race. He let me try it out, and I politely handed it back to him and went back to my 1DX and 600mm. Don't get me wrong, the pentax's autofocus seemed better than my Mamiya AFD III, and the shutter lag was comparable. But let's be honest, that's like doing a mythbusters test between a snail on concrete vs a snail on sheet metal to see which one goes faster.
Why do all the images I love and that the aspect nails me on the wall are all coming from MFDB ? Question of precision/sharpness allied to smooth transitions. A bit like the difference between my beloved Hassy V lenses compared to the Mamyia RZ lenses. Both are wonderful, but different. I highly prefer the presision and smouthness (sorry I'm not english, so I may not use the correct words, I hope you will understand my thought).
You THINK you do. Do you really? Can you REALLY tell the difference without knowing what sensor/system was used to capture which image a priori? Straight out of camera? What about after just the slightest hint of post?
If you have some time, I suggest looking up the Kuleshov Effect on wiki.
Also, there's this new philosophy going around where if you cannot measure something quantitatively, consistently, and repeatably, then "it" might be only as good as ether. I think the new kids call this philosophy "science" or something like that.
A question : if you can have a Hassy H or phase one system or Alpa system for the price of a D800 system, wich one will you choose ?
Even Doug answers this question realistically, and HE'S A DEALER.
Come on, really? Do you really think price is the ONLY issue? Or even anywhere CLOSE to the main issue? Live view, low light, long macro, autofocus, frame rate, video, long exposure, blah blah blah. Medium format systems are good for some niche things. For those areas, they are quite good, but they do NOT do things that 35mm systems can't (albeit with some more effort). On the otherhand, what 35mm systems are good at, is impractical or impossible for MFDB.
Plus, it seems like one of the main reasons that amateurs and some, uh, "professionals" get MFDB is for the exclusivity. In English it's called "outgunning the client": meaning to have more expensive equipment than the client in order to APPEAR more professional. But, if medium format systems cost the same, wouldn't that then eliminate the MAIN PURPOSE of buying medium format systems (for some people at least)???
Another concern : I very often shoot sunsets with the sun right in the middle of the lense. No issue with my Hassy V with T* lenses. But with my dslr (oly) it´s a nightmare, no way to have a sharp sun with color into it, it´s a wite circle and the light kind of overflaw the photosites. It seems to be problem with small photosites. I also had the issue on a canon dslr ( dont remember wich one). I.m afraid the D800 has lts of chances to have the same issue. Didnt have that issue with a H4D50.
Here is what I want to do concerning the sun: http://jeanmabar.fr/route-des-cretes-et-pointe-rouge/ specialy the images where the sun is still yellow.
Trying not to be too rude here, but: have you considered using acrylics? Or maybe oils? I won't comment on what I think about these images subjectively, but objectively from an information entropy point of view there's not much content in those images. You really don't even need a camera to convey whatever message/feeling you're trying to convey with those.
Here is what I want to avoid, it is really underexposed, but still no texture in the sun. With Hassy and a provia ou ekta, I wouldn't have such problem.
Yes, in that picture you see the sun is yellow. Done with Hassy 503CX, Tessar 8/500 and provia 100F. f22.
Except you shot at F22 (or so you claim) for the film, and only f16 for the digital. And there's bracketing. It might take some sleight-of-hand for something moving as fast as the sun, but it can be done with some practice. That's sarcasm by the way.
I think that, from what I saw, the gape between dslr and mfdb isn't filled by the D800, depends on what makes a good picture for the one who looks at it.
Why should the d800 fill the gap? That'd be going backwards.
OH SNAP!
-
Trying not to be too rude here, but: have you considered using acrylics? Or maybe oils? I won't comment on what I think about these images subjectively, but objectively from an information entropy point of view there's not much content in those images. You really don't even need a camera to convey whatever message/feeling you're trying to convey with those
I did suggest generating them in photoshop, if you don't have the skills it doesn't take long to acquire them with practice.
-
Plus, it seems like one of the main reasons that amateurs and some, uh, "professionals" get MFDB is for the exclusivity. In English it's called "outgunning the client": meaning to have more expensive equipment than the client in order to APPEAR more professional. But, if medium format systems cost the same, wouldn't that then eliminate the MAIN PURPOSE of buying medium format systems (for some people at least)???
Are you kidding me? With all due respect. This is very board generalization. Unless you have some sort of Jedi mind reading ability, how could you possibly know the reasons "uh, "professionals" get MFDB? I don't know your client base since you didn't include a link to your professional website, but I can say that since I have switched over to MF in 1990, then MFDB in 2006 my revenues have increased.
And by the way. You can bill for MFDB. Not every client of course.
I apologize to the OP for going off topic. I'm a hybrid who has both 35 Digital and MFDB. I like both palettes and carry BOTH on assignments.
Have a good shoot,
Jeffery
-
erstwhile, are you happy in your life ? You should read Confucius and watch the moon.
-
Watching the Moon doesn't pay dividends: the finest minds in the world contemplated it, supposedly went there, and eventually decided it was better wasting more money thinking about Mars.
The good thing about Mars, since nobody will ever get there, is that any old crap can be written about it without fear of informed contradiction! How's that for the perfect, positive spin on Catch 22?
Far better than attempting to fix this world today.
Rob C
-
The good thing about Mars, since nobody will ever get there, is that any old crap can be written about it without fear of informed contradiction!
Don't tell me you do not belive in aliens !!! You don't think Star Wars is a true story ?
:o
How's that for the perfect, positive spin on Catch 22?
Sorry, my english is too poor to enderstand that one, could you explain ?
Far better than attempting to fix this world today.
And tomorrow ?
Next week ? ;D
-
Don't tell me you do not belive in aliens !!! You don't think Star Wars is a true story ?
:o
Sorry, my english is too poor to enderstand that one, could you explain ?
And tomorrow ?
Next week ? ;D
Catch 22.
From the book of that tiltle by Joseph Heller. In effect, it’s when something must happen before another thing can but because the first won’t happen, then neither can the second.
As I vaguely remember from the book, a character wants to get the hell out of the Air Force and the war, but the only grounds for getting out are madness. So, since he wants to get out he obviously can’t be mad, so he has to remain.
Rob C
-
Thanks for the explanation.
But one can see that from another angle : it is because some people watched a the moon since man exist that you can have frying pan that don't burn your eggs.
-
Although T/S lenses do work well on DSLRs, automated DoF stacking is the best strategic answer.
There are more and more smart phone based solutions showing up to control DSLRs through local wifi, it is only a matter of months till something perfect shows up.
All the classic "rocky" South West kind of landscape are a done deal to start with. Nothing can come even close in absolute image quality to a stitched DSLR with DoF stacking if front to back sharpness is what you are looking for (that includes of course 8x10). Perfect quality down to the very corners, zero light fall off,... I am wondering why the question is even asked.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You are perfectly right if it is possible to make the picture in several shots.
-
Plus, it seems like one of the main reasons that amateurs and some, uh, "professionals" get MFDB is for the exclusivity. In English it's called "outgunning the client": meaning to have more expensive equipment than the client in order to APPEAR more professional. But, if medium format systems cost the same, wouldn't that then eliminate the MAIN PURPOSE of buying medium format systems (for some people at least)
While most photographers base their choice more on IQ, images look and economics MF vendors do push the whole out gun the competition
angle in their marketing and there are a lot of photographers that do feel they need to outgun their client.
From the Hasselblad marketing on the H5D:
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.
Video from the Hasselblad website.
http://htv.hasselblad.com/video/karl-taylor-shooting-with-a-hasselblad?current-channel=all-channels&page=4 (http://htv.hasselblad.com/video/karl-taylor-shooting-with-a-hasselblad?current-channel=all-channels&page=4)
And you'll see a lot of this going on.
http://youtu.be/9UBTE4xpvpk?t=15m46s (http://youtu.be/9UBTE4xpvpk?t=15m46s)
The truth is that the quality difference between these systems is such that it is more about personal preference.
As this difference gets smaller and smaller and especially less relevant when both systems exceed most
publication formats it is really the rest that counts. Photographer, casting, makeup. services etc etc.
It is a democratization of professional photography.
-
You are perfectly right if it is possible to make the picture in several shots.
Yes, which is in fact very often the case.
Besides, larger formats also don't like movement much...
I would argue that as soon as something moves in your image, well the hope to achieve super high resolutions where a small difference could potentially be seen between a DSLR and the best MFDB... pretty much disappears. Yes, there are cases when this is not true, but do you want to size your equipement to get a few extra % for super niche applications? If you can afford to, by all means go for it. :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, you are right, usually when you need a scheimpflung that means you have time in front of you.
The problem is not really the price. It depens how much you buy it. Of course at the price for a new equipment MFDB 60mpix, it is not affordable. But I just found a phase one 645df+/80mm LS/P65+ for around 8.000 euros, 6000 shots for the back, body + 80mm new. And with warranty. So of course it is more expensive than a D800, but the first thing is that I'm used to MF (film) since a long time and or 4x5 (since a shorter time), I don't like to shoot with a DSLR (I'm not confortable with the view finder and the small size of the body), I prefer bigger equipment.
What I don't understand in that discussion is that I started it to have a objective viewpoint and I almost always have answers about the price. It's like if you speak about super cars possibilities and the answer is always : Toyota is cheaper and is also a fast car. That is not the subject.
The advantage of a DB is that it can be mounted on a various type of equipement. I'm used to work at iso 100 on my HAsselblad. I don't need high iso.
For me shooting landscape with a DSLR is a non sense, not because of the resolution only (right the D800 can do a lot), I didn't see any review or test that shows a equal IQ in similar conditions between D800 and DB. Not even one. I can see a very good resolution, good shadows, in fact good and quite equivalent technical specification regarding the output file. But not the same IQ, far from that. The IQ isn't only a comparison between numbers. For me if one limits his appreciation of the IQ to numbers, that means the person don't look at the right things in the picture. It is only my humble viewpoint. And the difference between many people writing in this topic is that I consider that my viewpoint is my viewpoint it has no absolute value. It is my truth, a viewpoint. Not THE truth.
It's a little bit like the difference between using a 50-100 iso film on a MF instead of a 400 iso film, for small prints. You do not see the grain in both cases. But it is not the same result. None is better than the other one, it is just different. Or it is like sayin that a 4x5 negative is better that a 6x6 MF negative only because it has more grain for the same part of the scenery. That's stupid. Not the same lenses, not demanding the salme thing to the lebnse, not the same way to work with, etc. Considering a picture is good because it sharp and has lots of details and another one is bad only because it has only few details is a very very narrow viewpoint.
Anyway I bought the phase one and am very happy with it ! And prefere a lot to shoot with it than with my DSLR.
-
Esox,
Now go out and shoot some great images!!! Let your big heart and eye crash together create something with that blackbox. Don't come back to this forum until you are ready to invite us your photo exhibition.
Thank you,
Jeffery
-
Hi,
I shot a lot of slide film in my days and I felt anything above 100 ISO was worthless. I was shooting Pentax 67 and mainly projected slides on Götschman 67, so I seldom have seen small prints. The problems I had with fast films were:
1) Lack of density
2) Lack of color
3) Grain
4) Bad sharpness
Getting back to the MFD/D800 issue, I would say that DSLRs have a few advantages:
- If we discuss Scheimpflug, DSLRs can use MF lenses with tilt and shift. Live view makes it reasonable easy to get focus points right.
- Using LV on tripod is quite comfortable, I use the viewfinder to set up but then I work mostly with LCD
- For me, LV is one of the most important aspects. I'm not a strong believer in AF and I am not good at manual focus.
Regarding those car analogies, most people buy normal cars.
There used to be a very decent poster on this forums, airline pilot and former loudspeaker designer. He is a proud owner of an IQ180 on Alpa and of a D800 with a set of Leica lenses and a Pentax K5. He drives a ten year old Ford Bronco (if I recall it right).
By the way, cars don't make images. Cameras don't make images, either, photographers do. And that Ferrari of yours would not take you to a great spot in the wild, but Marc's Bronco may do.
Best regards
Erik
Well, you are right, usually when you need a scheimpflung that means you have time in front of you.
The problem is not really the price. It depens how much you buy it. Of course at the price for a new equipment MFDB 60mpix, it is not affordable. But I just found a phase one 645df+/80mm LS/P65+ for around 8.000 euros, 6000 shots for the back, body + 80mm new. And with warranty. So of course it is more expensive than a D800, but the first thing is that I'm used to MF (film) since a long time and or 4x5 (since a shorter time), I don't like to shoot with a DSLR (I'm not confortable with the view finder and the small size of the body), I prefer bigger equipment.
What I don't understand in that discussion is that I started it to have a objective viewpoint and I almost always have answers about the price. It's like if you speak about super cars possibilities and the answer is always : Toyota is cheaper and is also a fast car. That is not the subject.
The advantage of a DB is that it can be mounted on a various type of equipement. I'm used to work at iso 100 on my HAsselblad. I don't need high iso.
For me shooting landscape with a DSLR is a non sense, not because of the resolution only (right the D800 can do a lot), I didn't see any review or test that shows a equal IQ in similar conditions between D800 and DB. Not even one. I can see a very good resolution, good shadows, in fact good and quite equivalent technical specification regarding the output file. But not the same IQ, far from that. The IQ isn't only a comparison between numbers. For me if one limits his appreciation of the IQ to numbers, that means the person don't look at the right things in the picture. It is only my humble viewpoint. And the difference between many people writing in this topic is that I consider that my viewpoint is my viewpoint it has no absolute value. It is my truth, a viewpoint. Not THE truth.
It's a little bit like the difference between using a 50-100 iso film on a MF instead of a 400 iso film, for small prints. You do not see the grain in both cases. But it is not the same result. None is better than the other one, it is just different. Or it is like sayin that a 4x5 negative is better that a 6x6 MF negative only because it has more grain for the same part of the scenery. That's stupid. Not the same lenses, not demanding the salme thing to the lebnse, not the same way to work with, etc. Considering a picture is good because it sharp and has lots of details and another one is bad only because it has only few details is a very very narrow viewpoint.
Anyway I bought the phase one and am very happy with it ! And prefere a lot to shoot with it than with my DSLR.
-
I did suggest generating them in photoshop, if you don't have the skills it doesn't take long to acquire them with practice.
I'm curious to see that, couls you please show me the result ?
-
For me shooting landscape with a DSLR is a non sense, not because of the resolution only (right the D800 can do a lot), I didn't see any review or test that shows a equal IQ in similar conditions between D800 and DB. Not even one.
Can you point us to those comparisons? I have seen very few and those I saw were more pointing towards a very small gap in image quality.
As far as I am concerned, I have never seen a single MFDB shot getting close to the image quality that can be achieved with stitching with a D3x or D800.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
The tests I have seen in part point in the opposite direction, D800 having better image quality than MF, so I would be very interested in seeing evidence to the contrary.
I have seen a sample of IQ180 clearly outperforming a Nikon D800E in sharpness. But in general image quality, I don't really now,
I agree that it would be interesting to see those other comparisons.
Best regards
Erik
Can you point us to those comparisons? I have seen very few and those I saw were more pointing towards a very small gap in image quality.
As far as I am concerned, I have never seen a single MFDB shot getting close to the image quality that can be achieved with stitching with a D3x or D800.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm speaking about the same testśand reviews thant you. But as I told you in my post IQ is not a question of number. Someone who didn't want to be crude but who if fact 2 words later told about oil and acrylic painting. Wich painting technic gives the best quality ? Is picture taken by an arca-swiss or an alpa tech cam on a 60mpix withn shneider or rodenstock lense specialy designed for it the same IQ than a stitched image out of a D3x ? If you stitch a d3x images you can also stitch a IQ 180images isn't it ? What´s about "Modelé" (sorry don't know the word in english) in that case on a larger print for instance ?
All depends on what means image quality for you. Some people dream of ferrari, other dream of aston martin. One may have better "numbers" than the other one. So what ? It means it is better in all pardigms ?
I'm absolutely not interested in numbers. I've seen pictures taken with a film MF camera who have an inbredible IQ i've rarely seen. For sure it has bad "numbers". I think that oj my viewpoint what comes out of a hassy V has better IQ than what's out a RZ 67. Some think the contrary.
If you stitch pictures out of a D4 you can have the same resolution than a d800. So the D800 inferior in term of IQ than sitched d4 or d3x. So d800 is a useless camera. That´s what you mean ?
-
Here is what I want to avoid, it is really underexposed, but still no texture in the sun. With Hassy and a provia ou ekta, I wouldn't have such problem.
A pet hate I have with digital is what you are seeing, you are showing the extreme but you also get it even with white cloud and sun. It's not that film does not suffer in these situations but it just does it sweeter. Portra neg is the sweetest of the lot when scanned really well.
As for the D800 killing MF, what about the sub FF mirrorless killing the DSLR, then of course the Sony RX100 puts up a good case for making the mirrorless obsolete.
We just need a really decent Cameraphone and everything else is just jewellery.
-
Hi,
The tests I have seen in part point in the opposite direction, D800 having better image quality than MF, so I would be very interested in seeing evidence to the contrary.
I have seen a sample of IQ180 clearly outperforming a Nikon D800E in sharpness. But in general image quality, I don't really now,
I agree that it would be interesting to see those other comparisons.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
If you have the ability to rent an IQ180 and a D800. Could you please do your own independent testing and post the results. If possible people portraits as well as landscapes? Also available light and artificial light such as strobes. When you do your evaluations could you use a Eizo monitor? Also please make a print at 11 x14 and then a larger one say at 44 x 60? I look forward to your results.
Thank you,
Jeffery
-
If you have the ability to rent an IQ180 and a D800. Could you please do your own independent testing and post the results. If possible people portraits as well as landscapes? Also available light and artificial light such as strobes. When you do your evaluations could you use a Eizo monitor? Also please make a print at 11 x14 and then a larger one say at 44 x 60? I look forward to your results.
If you're ever in NYC we'd be glad to open our studio and inventory of demo backs to you for such testing at no cost.
-
But in general image quality, I don't really now,
Here, Erik, you are absolutely correct! ;D and you won't know until you have used both yourself. The big problem with relying on other people's data is that you can't be sure they rand the tests well. Almost everyone that tests has a bias - and wish to show a certain result. The funny thing is that there are tests out there that show film is still better than both the d800e and IQ 180.
-
Hi,
I checked for rental conditons and I don't know if it's possible for me to rent equipment as they need insurance to cover the rented equipment.
What I have seen and written about are:
Samples from a Leica S2 and a Nikon D3X, this article is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/38-observations-on-leica-s2-raw-images
My main interest here was aliasing effects. What I have seen that the Leica had superior sharpness except in on or more corners, but I was not looking into sharpness.
I also looked at shadow detail and Nikon D3X was clearly better on that. The images were used with the permission of the copyright holder.
I also wrote a lengthy article about MF compared to DSLR. For that article I was able to use images by Marc McCalmont and Tim Ashley who both own an IQ180 on Alpa and Nikon D800E. Both images were used with the permission of the copyright holders.
I used Marc McCalmonts image to study sharpness, which the IQ180 won by large margin: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=5
The image from Tim Ashely I used for judging shadow detail. Here Nikon D800 won in my view:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=2
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=3
I don't think the results would be different if I pressed the shutter release. Using images from other photographers is a good practice in my view.
In the same article I used test images from Alex Koloskov taken with a Hasselblad H4DIII50 and a Nikon D800E. I asked Mr. Koloskov for permission to use his images, but got no response. The only use I made of the images was to check color accuracy on his Color Checker shots. That control was done in LR and using Imatest. The Nikon had more exact colors.
Tim Ashley suggested I discuss more about color and suggested I link some of his images. That part of the article is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=9
I would add that my article was checked by all contributors. I have made prints from several of the images (using small crops). The differences are in general smaller in print than on screen.
Another article I checked was a comparison of the D800 with a Zeiss Macro Planar 100/2 with a Leica S2 and a Leica 100mm f/2 APO-Macro-Elmarit-R: http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/NikonD800/diffraction-mosaic.html
In that case the Nikon/Zeiss was sharper in the corners than the Leica.
I use a calibarated Eizo monitor.
I am in no way adversary to MF. On the other hand if someone is asking about low end MF and second hand equipment I think it is responsible to suggest that they also consider DSLR, and the Nikon D800/D800E is at least on the surface the best alternative of those cameras. Highest resolution, best DR at a very reasonable price. Canon 5DIII is another type of camera more geared to high ISO and action, so I think Nikon is the obvious choice.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
If you have the ability to rent an IQ180 and a D800. Could you please do your own independent testing and post the results. If possible people portraits as well as landscapes? Also available light and artificial light such as strobes. When you do your evaluations could you use a Eizo monitor? Also please make a print at 11 x14 and then a larger one say at 44 x 60? I look forward to your results.
Thank you,
Jeffery
-
If I may voice an opinion: if you try to test the difference between two cameras of similar resolution and different sensor size by selecting the conditions in which these cameras will give the same results, you will find out that the cameras give the same results. And this is a bit what you are doing here.
It should not be surprising that a medium format camera of about 30+ mpix (which uses a sensor developed 5-7 years ago... today's MF have 80 mpix and that does not exist in 24x36) gives the same results as a camera of the same resolution with a sensor about half the size (which is not a big step in size, actually) once the subject and light are selected so that any difference coming from the lenses is eliminated.
In real photographic practice, however, the cameras are very different in their handling, the lenses will be used at points remote from the ideal conditions which were chosen for the test and the photographers will produce very different images. Which is the point of the exercise: produce images and not just tests.
-
Hi,
Forty MP MF is still around, I thin IQ140 is around 40MP and so is the Leica S2. Essentially all lenses are corrected for infinity, but modern lenses have floating elements improving close up performance. I don't know whom you are responding to. The resolution test I posted was with an IQ180 and one the best lenses available for it at absolutely best point of focus, and it was clearly sharper than the Nikon. The Leica S2 vs Nikon was at long distance 30-40m I guess. Subject and lighting does not affect resolution or MTF.
Sorry, your statement "It should not be surprising that a medium format camera of about 30+ mpix (which uses a sensor developed 5-7 years ago... today's MF have 80 mpix and that does not exist in 24x36) gives the same results as a camera of the same resolution with a sensor about half the size (which is not a big step in size, actually) once the subject and light are selected so that any difference coming from the lenses is eliminated." Simply doesn't say me anything, I simply don't know what you are talking about.
I have not done any tests myself using MF and DSLRs. The images I have seen were all taken under nearly identical conditions (a few minutes apart, I would guess).
If you have done any testing of your own or if you have some reference images taken under controlled conditions demonstrating the effects you are talking about you are most welcome.
Best regards
Erik
If I may voice an opinion: if you try to test the difference between two cameras of similar resolution and different sensor size by selecting the conditions in which these cameras will give the same results, you will find out that the cameras give the same results. And this is a bit what you are doing here.
"It should not be surprising that a medium format camera of about 30+ mpix (which uses a sensor developed 5-7 years ago... today's MF have 80 mpix and that does not exist in 24x36) gives the same results as a camera of the same resolution with a sensor about half the size (which is not a big step in size, actually) once the subject and light are selected so that any difference coming from the lenses is eliminated."
In real photographic practice, however, the cameras are very different in their handling, the lenses will be used at points remote from the ideal conditions which were chosen for the test and the photographers will produce very different images. Which is the point of the exercise: produce images and not just tests.
-
I simply don't know what you are talking about.
Indeed. I think I'll stop this discussion here, I have nothing more to say.
-
"I have not done any tests myself using MF and DSLRs. The images I have seen were all taken under nearly identical conditions (a few minutes apart, I would guess)."
This tells it all.
You have over 4400 post and I would guess very many of those are in the medium format threads.
Why so engaged in equipments you do not use!!!
I cannot understand any serious working photographer wants advice
from somebody who just looks at other peoples pictures and form an
opinion based on those.
Its so lame.
I respected Fred for a long time, but know, me to, thinks he has gone overboard.
All this endless posting about D800 and how bad MFDB is, using
other peoples pictures to "prove" it.
There are 3-4 people destroying MFDB threads with all this comparing
and bashing of the very equipment we who use it, wants to have some
meaningful discussion about and sharing of pictures.
And I wonder what for?
Envy? Stupidity? Loneliness? Love of science and theoretical photography?
Misguided believe in ones own genius?
Maybe I now insults some of you, but I am so fead up with your noise.
Why not have your opinions and pictures in the DSLR threads??
The ones that have MFDB are ( for the most) not interested in your opinions.
If we want to know if D800 is any way better than what we have, we do our own tests.
Hei og hå
-
Hi,
I have a deep interest in technology, isn't that enough? I have been using MF for many years in the film time, so I now what an MF camera looks like.
Just to make a small point, the article I have written about MF has been read and commented by two IQ180 owners and also by Tim Parkin. Those persons had very positive comments about the article.
There is some obscure idea that you must take your own images to be able to evaluate. I don't think images care about who pressed the button.
I don't really why you are so upset by my writing, I try to be polite. I also think I try to keep me to facts. You may not like my views, but have you found any error in fact?
This gallery of mine is mostly medium format: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Sextener-Dolomiten/
Best regards
Erik
"I have not done any tests myself using MF and DSLRs. The images I have seen were all taken under nearly identical conditions (a few minutes apart, I would guess)."
This tells it all.
You have over 4400 post and I would guess very many of those are in the medium format threads.
Why so engaged in equipments you do not use!!!
I cannot understand any serious working photographer wants advice
from somebody who just looks at other peoples pictures and form an
opinion based on those.
Its so lame.
I respected Fred for a long time, but know, me to, thinks he has gone overboard.
All this endless posting about D800 and how bad MFDB is, using
other peoples pictures to "prove" it.
There are 3-4 people destroying MFDB threads with all this comparing
and bashing of the very equipment we who use it, wants to have some
meaningful discussion about and sharing of pictures.
And I wonder what for?
Envy? Stupidity? Loneliness? Love of science and theoretical photography?
Misguided believe in ones own genius?
Maybe I now insults some of you, but I am so fead up with your noise.
Why not have your opinions and pictures in the DSLR threads??
The ones that have MFDB are ( for the most) not interested in your opinions.
If we want to know if D800 is any way better than what we have, we do our own tests.
Hei og hå
-
I don't really why you are so upset by my writing, I try to be polite. I also think I try to keep me to facts.
And one fact is that you don't use any of the gear you write about day in and day out in lengthy posts. And believe it or not: one can see that you don't use the gear you are talking about. It's all just assumptions, collected quotes and collaged hypotheses ... all in all just half-truths.
Sorry for that. But it's really not fun to read. At least not for some of the users on this board ...
-
Hi,
I have nothing against MFD.
But I'm very much interested in technology and imaging. I don't think I have stated anything that is not true, except possibly by mistake.
I never stated I'd use MF or Nikon.
My conclusion are mostly based on raw images from MF-cameras. I have not found so many.
I have great respect for your postings, which I think are very helpful.
Best regards
Erik
And one fact is that you don't use any of the gear you write about day in and day out in lengthy posts. And believe it or not: one can see that you don't use the gear you are talking about. It's all just assumptions, collected quotes and collaged hypotheses ... all in all just half-truths.
Sorry for that. But it's really not fun to read. At least not for some of the users on this board ...
-
Hi,
I don't really use other peoples data. I have used essentially the following sources:
Raw images from Marc McCalmont (IQ180, P45+, D800E, Pentax K5) all published here on LuLa.
Raw images from Tim Ashley (IQ 180, D800E) published on GetDPI
Raw images from Lloyd Chambers (Leica S2, Pentax 645D, Hasselblad, Nikon D3X, Nikon D800)
Raw images from Miles Hecker (Pentax 645D, Nikon D3X)
Raw images from Alex Koskolov (Hasselblad 4DIII50 (?)) only used for color accuracy checking
Raw images from Tim Parkin
Communication with Tim Parkin.
Tim Parkin, Tim Ashley and I think also Marc McCalmont read my article and commented positively.
Tim Parkin recommended extending the section on color, which I did. Tim Ashley pointed out that I had put to much weight on resolution advantage of the IQ 180, I did not change that.
I have done all raw conversion and other analysis on my own, with Imatest a widely accepted tool.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts
Regarding film being better than digital I had some interesting communication with Tim Parkin and Dominique Ventzke, so the discussion is not unknown to me. Tim has sent me a scan of Velvia 67 that would have outresolve IQ180. But that image was scanned at 10000PPI.
Best regards
Erik
Here, Erik, you are absolutely correct! ;D and you won't know until you have used both yourself. The big problem with relying on other people's data is that you can't be sure they rand the tests well. Almost everyone that tests has a bias - and wish to show a certain result. The funny thing is that there are tests out there that show film is still better than both the d800e and IQ 180.
-
Why not have your opinions and pictures in the DSLR threads??
The ones that have MFDB are ( for the most) not interested in your opinions.
If we want to know if D800 is any way better than what we have, we do our own tests.
I agree with you on the principle, but notice that 2 threads were started the past few days by posters interested in these comparisons. We are in one of these 2 threads.
It is a very real world question. The question wouldn't be quite as challenging if the backs were priced more reasonnably.
We all know that there are very good reasons to use MF equipment, but the thing is that many photographers considering MFDBs appear not to be that interested in most of those valid reasons... they only hope for better image quality. Whatever that means.
This is an old myth, we've known since the days of 12mp DSLR that tapping in 100% of their potential isn't easy. Technique is an order of magnitude more important than small differences in equipment. But when you look at the facts regarding image quality, you quickly reach the conclusion that DSLRs are close enough that their cost advantage is difficult to overlook.
Frankly I liked shooting with my Mamiya ZD and could afford cash many of the backs on the market today. But having gone there I know that the shooting experience and real world image quality is not always matching the money spent. I got extremely frustrated by small focus errors with my 22mp backs and know that it only becomes worse with higher res backs. Thanks to live view, I never get a D800 tripod shot that is not 100% optimally focused, be it in in pre-dawn light where I can hardly see my feet, and that alone has made my life better. :)
The reason why I personnally contribute to some of those threads (although a lot less than others) is simply to inform potential buyers about the pitfalls and available options. I am having the hell of an exciting time when I open in C1 Pro 7.02 images shot with the Leica 180mm f2.8 APO mounted on the D800! ;) That lens is a collector, one of the best pieces of glass ever designed by mankind, sharp and smooth at the same time, bokeh to die for, crazy expensive by 35mm standards, and yet... it is cheaper than most MF lenses new. Look no further, this is where the problem lies.
Some of those guys risk their financial life on such a purchase. Is the value there?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The reason why I personnally contribute to some of those threads (although a lot less than others) is simply to inform potential buyers about the pitfalls and available options.
Hi Bernard,
I don't really disagree with what you are saying but I believe most people in this forum have been over informed by now...
We are not talking about 2 threads here. We are talking about most of the threads being turned into a D800 versus MF discussion.
People (I am not talking about you) who are only here to provide negative input and who can hardly hide their contempt for certain companies and MFDB in general... what's the purpose of being here?
Thanks, Joris.
-
Hi Bernard,
I don't really disagree with what you are saying but I believe most people in this forum have been over informed by now...
We are not talking about 2 threads here. We are talking about most of the threads being turned into a D800 versus MF discussion.
People (I am not talking about you) who are only here to provide negative input and who can hardly hide their contempt for certain companies and MFDB in general... what's the purpose of being here?
Yes, I understand and agree. I have sharply reduced my contributions to LL for a few months and hardly ever comment in MF thread these days, with the exception of these 2.
But I do agree that some contributors seem to be spending too much time around for their own good. :)
Forums are a form of addiction that can be hard to get rid of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_addiction_disorder). ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There's cookies and cookies with chocolate chips in.
Both share similarities in shape and looks but the user experience of one is a lot better than the other.
-
+1 (despite the fact I prefere them with coffee AND chocolate chips).
-
The funny thing is that there are tests out there that show film is still better than both the d800e and IQ 180.
That's me!!! That's me!! woo!! HELLO!!! :-D
Oh and ... Ermmm..... but it is.... Or are you one of those people who think an 8x10 Portra 400 shot has less resolution, colour depth, dynamic range and poorer lens quality than a D800 (or IQ180)
Oh and certain 35mm B&W can still beat a D800E hands down
Tim
-
Hi Tim,
Could you post an example?
Yes, I think it is quite possible, with a very good lens and a very good film and a photographer capable of making best use of it.
Best regards
Erik
That's me!!! That's me!! woo!! HELLO!!! :-D
Oh and ... Ermmm..... but it is.... Or are you one of those people who think an 8x10 Portra 400 shot has less resolution, colour depth, dynamic range and poorer lens quality than a D800 (or IQ180)
Oh and certain 35mm B&W can still beat a D800E hands down
Tim
-
Oh and certain 35mm B&W can still beat a D800E hands down
You are probably thinking about adox cms 20: http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX%20Films/Premium/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html
-
Hi,
I'm not sure you need to go to Adox, I wouldn't rule out T-MAX 100.
But I would say that digital and film are different. I prefer digital, but opinions vary.
Erik
You are probably thinking about adox cms 20: http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX%20Films/Premium/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html
-
Well. a couple of months ago I ended up with a Mamiya 645 AFD II and a ZD Back.... and I compared with Canon 5D MKII, Canon 1DMKII, Nikon D800 and Olympus OMD....
and.... if results are that close baring in mind that the Mamiya is several years old.... I would not worry to mucho about Nikon D800 shading out MF:
http://www.photographyvideoblog.com/files/mamiya_645_afdII_zdback21mp.php (http://www.photographyvideoblog.com/files/mamiya_645_afdII_zdback21mp.php)
-
Well. a couple of months ago I ended up with a Mamiya 645 AFD II and a ZD Back.... and I compared with Canon 5D MKII, Canon 1DMKII, Nikon D800 and Olympus OMD....
and.... if results are that close baring in mind that the Mamiya is several years old.... I would not worry to mucho about Nikon D800 shading out MF:
http://www.photographyvideoblog.com/files/mamiya_645_afdII_zdback21mp.php (http://www.photographyvideoblog.com/files/mamiya_645_afdII_zdback21mp.php)
You note on your blog that the D800 has better shadows and worse highlights. My observations are that the D800 exposes about 1/3 stop hotter than my other cameras. So I used the built-in function to adjust the posemeter and now it has about the same highlights as everyone else.
-
You note on your blog that the D800 has better shadows and worse highlights. My observations are that the D800 exposes about 1/3 stop hotter than my other cameras. So I used the built-in function to adjust the posemeter and now it has about the same highlights as everyone else.
Yes, it could be the reason, thank you.
-
A question : if you can have a Hassy H or phase one system or Alpa system for the price of a D800 system, wich one will you choose ?
Soooo simple !!! if the Alpa and a hassy systems costs the same as D800, i will chose just to buy the Alpa and the Hassy together !!!
-
Why fo we still use time with these discissions ?..
-
That's me!!! That's me!! woo!! HELLO!!! :-D
Oh and ... Ermmm..... but it is.... Or are you one of those people who think an 8x10 Portra 400 shot has less resolution, colour depth, dynamic range and poorer lens quality than a D800 (or IQ180)
Oh and certain 35mm B&W can still beat a D800E hands down
Tim
Hi Tim,
Yes, I was referring to your excellent set of tests that you published a while back. Those were some of the most extensive and carefully done tests I have seen.
Yet, resolution isn't really the reason I'll put the film back onto my Hy6 and shoot film. I just like the look of it, and it handles some lighting situations better. Its really great to have choices.
-
100% Eric.
. . . resolution isn't really the reason I'll put the film back onto my Hy6 and shoot film. I just like the look of it, and it handles some lighting situations better. Its really great to have choices.