I mentioned the Pentax 645D review on this site to a poster (Jalmod90) on dpreview.
He wanted to know: Is it worth stepping into the world of Medium Format photography? (film or digital)
Norm Neely wrote:
The Pentax 645D is a medium format digital camera. Less expensive than going the digital back route.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax_645d___a_first_review.shtml
Check out the forums on the above sight. They also have reviews of digital backs.
The site is a very good resource for info on medium format photography.[/font]
Barrie Davis wrote:
Hmmm...I think DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund as Medium Format film photography, and I don't think the decline is going to be reversed for either.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50952043
Thoughts on this?
So we are importing DPreview BS to this forum?
Look around and see for yourself.
Sorry! This was my first post on this site.
Myself I just use a point and shoot camera for my picture taking. So wondered if high mega pixel DLSRs are closing the gap on Medium Format?
Moderator feel free to delete my post if you think it's best?
Sorry! This was my first post on this site.
... So wondered if high mega pixel DLSRs are closing the gap on Medium Format?...
Now, they have selected a high price business model that forces them into a small volumes vicious circle that has rarely been successful in the long run in the high tech industry where the highest performance nearly always results from high technology investements requiring large sales volumes.
Now, you just have to come up with some data supporting that claim. Photographic manufacturing has always had high-end, low-volume products. Why should that suddenly change? Leica does not seem to be going bankrupt with monochromatic rangefinders and big SLRs. Rodenstock and Schneider seem to be doing well with lenses for MFD backs. Alpa, Arca, and Cambo keep making new models. Scientific cameras don't seem to be getting any cheaper. A confocal microscope will still cost you a half a million dollars.
But what do mean by the "high tech industry"? Computers? I don't think the model for that industry can simply be applied across the board.
BTW, they did not "select" a high price model. It happens to be expensive to produce this equipment. Lower the price does not always translate into more sales. Lowering the price is not always optional. MFD is not exactly going to be household consumer products you find on the ground floor of Yodobashi Camera next to the cell phones.
Now, you just have to come up with some data supporting that claim. Photographic manufacturing has always had high-end, low-volume products. Why should that suddenly change? Leica does not seem to be going bankrupt with monochromatic rangefinders and big SLRs. Rodenstock and Schneider seem to be doing well with lenses for MFD backs. Alpa, Arca, and Cambo keep making new models. Scientific cameras don't seem to be getting any cheaper. A confocal microscope will still cost you a half a million dollars.
But what do mean by the "high tech industry"? Computers? I don't think the model for that industry can simply be applied across the board.
BTW, they did not "select" a high price model. It happens to be expensive to produce this equipment. Lower the price does not always translate into more sales. Lowering the price is not always optional. MFD is not exactly going to be household consumer products you find on the ground floor of Yodobashi Camera next to the cell phones.
Now, the main shortcoming of the other backs is the lack of usable live view. The lack of live view prevents the backs from delivering reliably their image quality potential.
There will always be some rich amateurs buying stuff simply because it is differentiating, but I am speaking here about the relevance of the backs as pro tools delivering higher performance/productivity in real world applications.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard do you not think that this is statement is irresponsible? What about all those thousands of professional photographers who use their MFDBs daily and deliver high quality images to their clients, in real world applications, reliably and consistently, shooting people, product, architecture, landscape, cars, etc. etc. etc. ???
I respect you man but this statement takes away a lot of your credibility, sorry for being blunt...
Bernard do you not think that this is statement is irresponsible? What about all those thousands of professional photographers who use their MFDBs daily and deliver high quality images to their clients, in real world applications, reliably and consistently, shooting people, product, architecture, landscape, cars, etc. etc. etc. ???
I respect you man but this statement takes away a lot of your credibility, sorry for being blunt...
The 645D was not designed as a true professional camera, hence to low-ish price point, the lack of usable tethering solution and slow previews on the LCD. It does not mean it is not a good camera but it was not targeted at the professional market.
IMHO
Yair
Bernard do you not think that this is statement is irresponsible? What about all those thousands of professional photographers who use their MFDBs daily and deliver high quality images to their clients, in real world applications, reliably and consistently, shooting people, product, architecture, landscape, cars, etc. etc. etc. ???
Yair
Hasselblad has been very shaky a long time, little is known of their economy.
Hasselblad is the world’s most renowned camera brand. We are proud to have such an iconic brand in our portfolio and are convinced that with solid financial support and a suitable growth strategy, Ventizz can further strengthen Hasselblad's position as the first class producer of medium format digital camera systems. Furthermore, we plan to develop Hasselblad cameras to appeal to a wider circle of ambitious photographers“, said Dr. Helmut Vorndran, Managing Partner and CEO of Ventizz Capital Partners AG, the exclusive advisory to the Ventizz funds.
As a strong financial partner, Ventizz Capital Fund IV L.P. will support Hasselblad and its management team in entering new market segments as well as in the further technological development of existing product lines.
Yair,
My view is that this applies to all high res cameras. Live view is the only way to get 100% focused images every single time.
Does it means it is impossible to get a sharp image with a back? Of course it doesn't.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard,
Since we had the first camera to offer live view in 1996 and as we often use it as a USP for our backs I cannot disagree that this is a very handy tool. But it is far from being essential to delivering high quality images and it is not always useful (moving subjects etc.)
Yair
Yair,
My view is that this applies to all high res cameras. Live view is the only way to get 100% focused images every single time.
Does it means it is impossible to get a sharp image with a back? Of course it doesn't.
Cheers,
Bernard
I respect you man but this statement takes away a lot of your credibility, sorry for being blunt...
The 645D was not designed as a true professional camera, hence to low-ish price point, the lack of usable tethering solution and slow previews on the LCD. It does not mean it is not a good camera but it was not targeted at the professional market.
IMHO
Yair
Hasselblad has a problem.
Nikon just came pout with a 24mp crop sensor DSLR. The same sensor technology scaled up to a full frame
would be over 50MP .
The D700 was 12 MP the D800 is 36MP and with significantly improved dynamic range.
That is a 3x MP count increase in one generation. Hasselblad made zero MP count increase from the H4D to the H5D.
MF sensor development has come to a standstill in both Hasselblad and Phase/Mamiya/Leaf.
Dalsa that makes MF sensors no longer mentions MF photography under the list of applications of it's products.
Hi Fred,
......
There may be other, more subjective, factors for using MF. As long as customers buy Hassleblad and Phase One products it is just fine.......
Best regards
Erik
If things were going so well Shriro the ex owner of Hasselblad would not have sold it off.
Keep in mind that Shriro was also the distributor for Hasselblad in the fast growing oriental markets.
If the numbers were there it would have kept Hasselblad. The problem is that the sales of MF Digital
are in decline and the quality level in 35mm DSLRs is growing very fast. New emerging photographers and markets are not already
invested in MFD so they go for high end 35mm DSLR for the most part.
The other problem is development resources and what investors are willing to put into Hasselblad.
I think that the moves Ventiz made are a good indication that they wanted to cash in on the brand and the
Lunar was their big move in that direction. The big mistake was that outside of the pro and small enthusiasts market
the Hasselblad brand does not carry the weight they expected. Hasselblad has been borrowing (paying for) other peoples brands for a while
thus effectively weakening it's own. Pimping the Nex to make the god awful Lunar was the nail in the coffin
for the Hasselblad brand. In the age of the internet you don't
recover from that sort of fiasco very easily.
Shriro in the mean time is doing very well with it's investments in it's See's Chocolates buisness.
Shriro sells 100% of Hasselblad share and makes investments in See's chocolates
It is also very interesting that Shriro is the Pentax distributor in some markets.
http://www.seescandies.jp/fs/seescandies/c/ (http://www.seescandies.jp/fs/seescandies/c/)
The problem is that the sales of MF Digital are in decline and the quality level in 35mm DSLRs is growing very fast. New emerging photographers and markets are not already invested in MFD so they go for high end 35mm DSLR for the most part.
If things were going so well Shriro the ex owner of Hasselblad would not have sold it off.
Keep in mind that Shriro was also the distributor for Hasselblad in the fast growing oriental markets.
If the numbers were there it would have kept Hasselblad. The problem is that the sales of MF Digital
are in decline and the quality level in 35mm DSLRs is growing very fast. New emerging photographers and markets are not already
invested in MFD so they go for high end 35mm DSLR for the most part.
The other problem is development resources and what investors are willing to put into Hasselblad.
I think that the moves Ventiz made are a good indication that they wanted to cash in on the brand and the
Lunar was their big move in that direction. The big mistake was that outside of the pro and small enthusiasts market
the Hasselblad brand does not carry the weight they expected. Hasselblad has been borrowing (paying for) other peoples brands for a while
thus effectively weakening it's own. Pimping the Nex to make the god awful Lunar was the nail in the coffin
for the Hasselblad brand. In the age of the internet you don't
recover from that sort of fiasco very easily.
Shriro in the mean time is doing very well with it's investments in it's See's Chocolates buisness.
Shriro sells 100% of Hasselblad share and makes investments in See's chocolates
It is also very interesting that Shriro is the Pentax distributor in some markets.
http://www.seescandies.jp/fs/seescandies/c/ (http://www.seescandies.jp/fs/seescandies/c/)
If things were going so well Shriro the ex owner of Hasselblad would not have sold it off.
Keep in mind that Shriro was also the distributor for Hasselblad in the fast growing oriental markets.
If the numbers were there it would have kept Hasselblad. The problem is that the sales of MF Digital
are in decline and the quality level in 35mm DSLRs is growing very fast. New emerging photographers and markets are not already
invested in MFD so they go for high end 35mm DSLR for the most part.
The other problem is development resources and what investors are willing to put into Hasselblad.
I think that the moves Ventiz made are a good indication that they wanted to cash in on the brand and the
Lunar was their big move in that direction. The big mistake was that outside of the pro and small enthusiasts market
the Hasselblad brand does not carry the weight they expected. Hasselblad has been borrowing (paying for) other peoples brands for a while
thus effectively weakening it's own. Pimping the Nex to make the god awful Lunar was the nail in the coffin
for the Hasselblad brand. In the age of the internet you don't
recover from that sort of fiasco very easily.
Shriro in the mean time is doing very well with it's investments in it's See's Chocolates buisness.
Shriro sells 100% of Hasselblad share and makes investments in See's chocolates
It is also very interesting that Shriro is the Pentax distributor in some markets.
http://www.seescandies.jp/fs/seescandies/c/ (http://www.seescandies.jp/fs/seescandies/c/)
Barrie Davis wrote:
Prove it.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Just to correct some misinformation FredBGG always likes to present as facts...
Sales for Team Phase One (Leaf, Mamiya, Phase One) are up several years in a row now. I strongly expect this year to continue that trend.
From my observation of them Leica and Pentax's entries into medium format have both met moderate success, and given that they are new to the market they can only be considered increases/expansions from several years ago.
Well things were not looking good even quite a few years ago when competition from 35MM DSLRs was not as strong as it is today.
According to CIPA (of which Mamiya is a memeber) in 2005 only 5,842 medium format cameras were manufactured.
And that included Pentax, Fuji, Mamiya, Contax.
Sales...
2005 7,950 Cameras (over 2,000 of them comming from unsold 2004 stock).
2004 10,507 Cameras
2003 18,006 Cameras
Sales less than halved in two years.
CIPA no longer publishes medium format numbers on it's main website.
Apparently, Barrie Davis is a professional poster to DP Review as he has posted 19,990 times when he posted the message you referenced...
about 20K posts does not an expert make, ya know?
Just sayin'
We have our own problems here on LuLa, we seriously don't need DP Review crap here as well.
Fred: I went to your website and looked through your posts and I couldn't find your public disclosure of how many photo shoots (and at what margin) you did per year since you started your career.
I did find numbers related to world wide pandabear stock photo sales from 2002 to 2004. They were not very good.
The only natural assumption I can make is you're going bankrupt.
Well things were not looking good even quite a few years ago when competition from 35MM DSLRs was not as strong as it is today.
According to CIPA (of which Mamiya is a memeber) in 2005 only 5,842 medium format cameras were manufactured.
And that included Pentax, Fuji, Mamiya, Contax.
Sales...
2005 7,950 Cameras (over 2,000 of them comming from unsold 2004 stock).
2004 10,507 Cameras
2003 18,006 Cameras
Sales less than halved in two years.
CIPA no longer publishes medium format numbers on it's main website.
The 645D was not designed as a true professional camera, hence to low-ish price point, the lack of usable tethering solution and slow previews on the LCD. It does not mean it is not a good camera but it was not targeted at the professional market.
Well things were not looking good even quite a few years ago when competition from 35MM DSLRs was not as strong as it is today.
According to CIPA (of which Mamiya is a memeber) in 2005 only 5,842 medium format cameras were manufactured.
And that included Pentax, Fuji, Mamiya, Contax.
Sales...
2005 7,950 Cameras (over 2,000 of them comming from unsold 2004 stock).
2004 10,507 Cameras
2003 18,006 Cameras
Sales less than halved in two years.
CIPA no longer publishes medium format numbers on it's main website.
Hey, you already have it!
Sorry :-[
Well, I did read about the feature-loaded, problem-free DF cameras before I decided I need something more amateur. ;)
Fred
Here's the problem. You state MF Sales are in decline as if it is a fact. If you do not know it is a fact (which you don't), then that is a mis-representation. Mis-representation is an obvious sign of manipulating data or impressions to support one's agenda. You have done this again and again - stated declining medium format sales as if it was a fact. You've taken considerable effort to try and prop up your mis-representation by digging through numbers from 8 years ago.
I don't even really want to comment on those numbers, but the fact is, 2 of the companies you mentioned stopped making cameras (effectively went out of business in that sector, or altogether) and never really ever successfully launched a digital version of their medium format product. And the third (Pentax) did not realize a viable digital solution for medium format until 6 years after the numbers you cite. So, citing declining numbers at the point which 35mm digital finally became full frame from 3 of the 4 companies you mention, who were essentially still film-based companies for the most part, tells me that medium format film cameras took a tumble. Wow, there's a news flash.
It still does nothing to backup your claims with anything factual. Medium format film camera production has been in decline ever since the Canon 1DS was released. Yawn.
So I asked you to prove your allegation and you failed. Not surprising.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Those numbers go to 2005. They really reflect the fall of medium-format film camera production, which was imploding. Only Mamiya were producing a MFD body at that time. Bronica went bankrupt and lots of medium-format cameras were discontinued.
Hasselblad, Alpa, Arca Swiss, Phase, and Leaf are not members and do not report.
Sorry, you have not really shown anything. Correlation does not equal causation.
What is really funny is that both Steve Hendrix and Doug respond, but cannot or do not want to
supply numbers.
Phase One cameras and lenses are made by Mamiya. IF they are still reporting numbers as they should being members of Cipa they should be reporting them.
We all know that the technological advances by 35mm DSLR cameras have reached a point where they
exceed the quality needed for commercial photography and have much better productivity while consisting a fraction
of the price.
Doug and Steve are too professional to engage in battle with such arguments.
Then why do they respond at all? Actually I think that they do "engage in battle" , but strangely cannot supply
numbers despite encouraging people to buy MF.
I just heard neither Phase nor Mamiya/Leaf are going to be showing at Focus in Birmingham.
As this ought to be the most important show in the UK I find this quite astonishing.
Hasselblad with the fresh Ventizz money is there.
Any background infos on that ?
Regards
Stefan
Actually I was not proving anything, just referring to the numbers and the tendency.
It's funny that you bring up the fact that these numbers were from the days of the first FF 35mm DSLR, so there really was no competition from FF 35mm DSLRs yet.
Now the competition is very strong and budgets overall are lower while MFD prices keep going up in order to stay in business.
I'm not selling cameras so I don't have to prove anything.
What is really funny is that both Steve Hendrix and Doug respond, but cannot or do not want to
supply numbers.
We all know that the technological advances by 35mm DSLR cameras have reached a point where they
exceed the quality needed for commercial photography and have much better productivity while consisting a fraction
of the price. I think it is quite logical to think that any company in the business of selling high priced gear
that has to be a much longer term investment would publish numbers if they were reassuring enough.
Phase One cameras and lenses are made by Mamiya. IF they are still reporting numbers as they should being members of Cipa they should be reporting them.
Mamiya-OP the company that used to own the Mamiya Optical sold it getting out of the photography buisness.Nippon Kogaku sold Nikon to the Mitsubishi Group. Does that mean Nikon is a failing company? Does this matter? I don't think trafficking of businesses determines the financial viability of a market.
Mamiya-OP makes sporting equipment, thin film measuring devices, and electronic Japanese pinball type machines.
It's a publicly traded company and has had a 133% rise in stock value over the last 5 years. 57% in the last year.
It has a market Capitalization of $168 million and $285 million in sales.
It seems Mamiya-OP has done well for itself after selling off it's diminishing camera division.
Kyochera that also got out of the medium format camera business (Contax 645) and focused on miniaturization and electronics is
doing well for itself .... market capitalization of $ 15 billion and $10 billion in cash reserves. A stable growth cash rich company.
Among other things it has 70% of the ceramics components market.
Here again, Kyocera was an electronic company. Its one and only medium-format camera came just as digital came out. The camera division was tiny and Kyocera saw no point in trying to save an already small business. It would be too expensive to turn it into a digital camera company. Especially since camera sales for them must have been tumbling. They had a very tiny share of the MF market, BTW. But here again you are talking about the film camera market, not the MFD market.
But should we put the shoe on the other foot. Medium- and large-format photography is dead? Look at the industry. I bet you can't even buy film. So what do you shoot with?
Nippon Kogaku sold Nikon to the Mitsubishi Group. Does that mean Nikon is a failing company? Does this matter? I don't think trafficking of businesses determines the financial viability of a market.
Koyata Iwasaki, the son of Yanosuke, took over the presidency from Hisaya in 1916 at the age of 38. Like Hasaya, he had studied abroad and was a graduate of Cambridge University, in the United Kingdom. Koyata led the Mitsubishi organization for nearly three decades and played a pivotal role in shaping the development of Japanese industry.
Under Koyata's stewardship, important Mitsubishi divisions became separately incorporated companies: Mitsubishi Shipbuilding (now part of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries), Mitsubishi Corporation (trading), Mitsubishi Bank, Mitsubishi Mining (now part of Mitsubishi Materials), Mitsubishi Electric, and Mitsubishi Estate. Koyata also oversaw the creation of the companies that now are Nikon, Mitsubishi Trust and Banking, Mitsubishi Oil, Mitsubishi Steel, Mitsubishi Kakoki, Mitsubishi Rayon, and Mitsubishi Chemical.
Nikon started out as Nippon Kogaku. It became Nikon when it merged into the Mitsubishi shell. Of course we could split hairs and say Mamiya is really Mamiya Leaf and called Mamiya back when it was owned by Mamiya OP.
Sorry, Nippon Kogaku was already under the Mitsubishi holding company by WWII. Folks, camera history has nothing to do with this. You are not going to bolster your positions about the MFD market because of internet searches in Japanese history. LOL
If, as the dealers here continue to assert (without any evidence) that sales at Phase are booming, I'd love to hear what the excuse is for the farcical situation that their flagship products still don't have a key promoted feature working 2 years after their introduction.
Someone point me to another example of a successful company - in any industry - with the lack of budget to fix something so fundamental. Because a lack of budget is the only viable excuse for USB not to be working on the IQ backs a year ago.
One also has to wonder how good business must be when hard-sell tactics such as pouncing on unrelated threads to promote the products one sells, or unsolicited PM's to forum members to also promote one's business, are necessary.
It seems Mamiya-OP has done well for itself after selling off it's diminishing camera division.
Kyochera that also got out of the medium format camera business (Contax 645) and focused on miniaturization and electronics is
doing well for itself .... market capitalization of $ 15 billion and $10 billion in cash reserves. A stable growth cash rich company.
Among other things it has 70% of the ceramics components market.
Because a lack of budget is the only viable excuse for USB not to be working on the IQ backs a year ago.
Could it be that Ferrari is a smaller player in percentage terms in the car market than MF manufacturers in the camera market?
Ferrari may take exception to be labelled moribund.
If, as the dealers here continue to assert (without any evidence) that sales at Phase are booming, I'd love to hear what the excuse is for the farcical situation that their flagship products still don't have a key promoted feature working 2 years after their introduction.
Someone point me to another example of a successful company - in any industry - with the lack of budget to fix something so fundamental. Because a lack of budget is the only viable excuse for USB not to be working on the IQ backs a year ago.
One also has to wonder how good business must be when hard-sell tactics such as pouncing on unrelated threads to promote the products one sells, or unsolicited PM's to forum members to also promote one's business, are necessary.
Look around, there is not a single high end sports car brand that managed to remain credible without being integrated in a larger conglomerate whose IP results from the income resulting from mass produced goods revenue.
Cheers,
Bernard
Gerald - who are you referring to?
By the way I agree the issue with USB 3 is a glaring fail, although I don't agree that budgetary reasons have anything to do with it (IMO).
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Now, as Yair mentioned, there is certainly a market for high end backs not offering live view, but it sadly fails to attract people like myself who would otherwise have been prime candidates to be on their customers list.
So why do I not own a Phaseone/Hassy back for my - mostly - landscape needs? The main objective reasons today are:
- [Show Stopper] Lack of live view makes accurate focusing difficult in low light/near infinity,
- [Show Stopper] Price for value compared to the competition/actual needs (this is getting worse generation after generation),
- Issues with color casts when using some movement with some lenses. I know they can mostly be corrected with a second frame and software corrections,
- Concerns about the weather sealing of backs/cameras,
- [Potential show Stopper] Concerns about battery life in cold weather, various data were published but nothing super clear on this front. Just tell us how many frames it can shoot at -10C on a full battery charge with 3 sec review per image between captures.
- Weight/Bulk, particularly for long lenses,
- Doubts about the ability of Phaseone/Hassy/the whole ecosystem to remain competitive technology wise with their current low volume business model (as mentioned, I am not too concerned about their ability to stay in business).
Why would I want to own one?
- [High value] Reduced need for stitching thanks to higher native resolutions,
- [High value] Ability to work on a variety of camera platforms (tech,...),
- [High value] Typically larger viewfinders provide a nice shooting experience,
- [High value] Network of highly skilled VARs such a Capture Integration,
- Perhaps a different look, although I am being careful here as looks for landscape can be a tricky avenue,
- Probably a slightly higher DR for the latest backs (although it remains to be quantified - DxO sees the opposite),
- Availability of Leaf shutter lenses could provide some more creative options in the studio (not my main application by any means through).
You guys know what remains to be done if you want my business, come up with a 80mp back with usable live view around 10,000-12,000 US$ I will start looking at the offering very carefully. Don't forget that the D4x/3D will be even better than the D800e though. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
The major issues for me is the price point of the backs and lack of live view.
So, if I understand correctly, you don't have the money to buy a MF camera or back. How does that make you a prospective customer?
MF has always been about selling 20000$ cameras for people who have that kind of cash. When Nikon brought a 2500$ camera on the market, that business plan did not change. I am a bit under the impression that, now that the D800 is around, some photographers who never thought about buying a camera for 20000$ are suddenly frustrated that Hasselblad or Phase One do not lower their price to that level. But their business is still to sell cameras for 20000$, isn't it?
In fact most companies think of their products in terms of the value they deliver to their customers.
As I posted earlier, I tried an Hasselblad H3D-31 next to a D800. There is no doubt in my mind that the H3D gives better results than the D800 (sharper, better colors, etc...) on static subjects or landscape. Maybe not by much, but the H3D-31 is 7 years old. I would believe that a H5D-60 or Phase One IQ180 would simply trounce the D800.
So, quite frankly, I don't quite understand what the discussion is about. The MFs are considerably more expensive, yes. So what? I someone wants to buy one because they need the resolution or simply because they have the cash and enjoy spending it on cameras, more power to them.
I have seen that young lady already. Since you like to peep pixels, click here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8518182765/sizes/o/) and there (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8519303752/sizes/o/) (full resolution pictures taken with a H3D-31 and a D800).
I’m a whisker away from buying a D800E but Fred’s incessant polemic keeps putting me off.
I have seen that young lady already. Since you like to peep pixels, click here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8518182765/sizes/o/) and there (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8519303752/sizes/o/) (full resolution pictures taken with a H3D-31 and a D800).Wow! That's amazing! Anyone looking at D800 should check this out first.
D800E vs Hasselblad 40MP close crops and keep in mind that the hasselblad shot was ...............
I doubt he shot the test.
So, if I understand correctly, you don't have the money to buy a MF camera or back. How does that make you a prospective customer?
MF has always been about selling 20000$ cameras for people who have that kind of cash. When Nikon brought a 2500$ camera on the market, that business plan did not change. I am a bit under the impression that, now that the D800 is around, some photographers who never thought about buying a camera for 20000$ are suddenly frustrated that Hasselblad or Phase One do not lower their price to that level. But their business is still to sell cameras for 20000$, isn't it?
I have seen that young lady already. Since you like to peep pixels, click here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8518182765/sizes/o/) and there (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8519303752/sizes/o/) (full resolution pictures taken with a H3D-31 and a D800).
Wow.
He's shown it so much, I'm sure he did.
Right Fred?
IMO
BC
Hmmm zoom lens (ultra wide 14 to 28mm 2.8 fast lens) on the D800 and a prime (28mm f 4 ) on the Hasselblad.......
I'm sorry but I am pretty sure that your Nikon image is below par, and my guess is that you have a focusing error. The image also shows a lot of sharpening halos.
The reason I guess that you have a focusing error is that it is not possible to find a sharpest plane, so I guess that plane of best sharpness is behind the wall.
Samples I have seen from the Nikon D800 and 14-24/2.8 combo have been pretty sharp and the sample you show is simply not sharp. Could of course be that you have a bad sample? Did you try to focus using live view?
Naturally, focusing errors and lack of quality controls is not exactly to Nikon's advantage, I know.
Which is what the respective users of these cameras use in practice. Besides, the 14-24 is better than most equivalent primes.
Focus was done using live view and is spot at the centre of the picture. Interestingly, the H3D AF is as accurate as live view, the camera is really well calibrated. The halos you noted are from Nikon's internal jpeg processing and the slight unsharpness at some places come from the slightly wavy shape of the 14-24 locus of focus. This is normal for small format wide-angle lenses, BTW, and I don't have a prime lens which is better than the 14-24.
There are more sample pictures on my flickr account, taken at different isos or in raw mode here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/sets/72157632871812709/detail/). I intend to add a few others taken outside in sunlight in the next days as well.
Please also consider that the H3D-31 is a 7 years old camera. Today, Hasselblad sells cameras with 60 mpix, about double the pixel count (and up to 200 mpix with multishot).
Erik, to be sure you need to conduct your own test.
Eric, agreed, but as it's not our own test we'll never be sure why.
There's a moral here somewhere.
Some observations:
1. These debates are pointless. The D800 is awesome. So is the H5D. So is Leaf and Phase. So is Pentax.
2. Telling someone that their opinion doesn't matter because they "can't afford it" is shitty and alienating, and is in fact not true. Anyone can get credit, at least in the states.
3. Endlessly bashing a format is tiresome.
4. The arguments about color and tonality are misleading, mostly. Almost all digital devices need some color grading in post. The only digi cameras I've used that nail color out of the box are the Arri Alexxa, Aptus 75, and Fuji X100, S3, S5. Its mainly a matter of how much time you need to spend on a file.
5. Arguments about sharpness are lame. Its mastabatory. There are very few digital cams made that are not good enough for print publication.
6. The most important thing you can do to improve your photography is to take pictures and think about what you are doing, think about how lenses look and how focal length affects the subject. Wheather you do that with a Hy6 and an 80mpx back or a 5D is unimportant.
The funny thing about this entire conversation is there is actually a MFD industry and associated market. From the people who actually sell in this market, they are saying sales are good. There are certainly folks on this forum that are buying and using this equipment. Yet despite this, there are folks convinced that the market is dying. It is kind of like looking out the window and seeing a sunny day and then arguing it is raining. Arguing that someone personally does not want to buy something is not an indication something is wrong. I do not want to buy a Ferrari, but that does not mean that Ferrari's are bad cars and the sports car market is doing badly.
"It is kind of like looking out the window and seeing a sunny day and then arguing it is raining" - love it.
And clearly Phase one has no budget, as per early 'fact'. They obviously developed 3 brand new backs, with new sensors using last weeks pocket money from the paper run.
MF Digital is dead, long live MF Digital.....
snip.........
Sorry but I don't see how the "new" backs are going to expand .........snip.......they will contribute to a faster depreciation of the value of the IQ180/IQ160 owned by ......snip
Sorry but I don't see how the "new" backs are going to expand the market reach of phaseone.
Sorry but I don't see how the "new" backs are going to expand the market reach of phaseone.
Only time will tell whether the business model of Phase One is shortsighted or not. Right now it quite frankly does not appear to be...
Phase seems to have moved into its own 60-80 MP space, little to no competition, only Hasselblad a bit with their 60 MP backs...
Existing users seem willing to upgrade and enough new users are stepping in.
If you are not willing to spend $30-40K and/or upgrade to 60-80 MP backs then you are probably not part of their target audience.
You can then choose between Hasselblad, Leica, Pentax, Nikon D800... or buy a 4-5 year old used Phase back for around $10K...
Fred,
When you shot this test, did you have the slight shutter delay set on the Hasselblad? It has a huge mirror and even though it looks sharper in your samples, I think with the slight mirror shutter delay makes for a even sharper image.
Also when you do a test like this did you shoot any full length images? I always test detail (which I rarely test) by shooting a horizontal framed full length adult.
I've always found that a head a shoulders image doesn't really show me as much as full length, as most cameras look very good at this distance.
One more thing, what was the light source you tested with? Flash, HMI, daylight, tungsten.
The few times I've tested and compared cameras just for the sake of comparison I've always tried all four of these light sources because every sensor/camera/processor reacts differently.
I've found medium format, at least my phase and previous aptus backs, worked very well with tungsten, much better than my 35mm cameras.
I also test hand held and with a tripod. Some cameras really require a tripod, some don't.
Did you shoot this test with a tripod?
IMO
BC
Well said but the problem is most folks do not understand exactly what you just said or maybe better phrased is understand it. Phase like Leica is a niche product supported though by top end end shooters, big studios, big productions, industrial, scientific fields, government and the arts are there biggest customers along with hobbyists that simply want the best they can shoot. Money is very secondary to the purchase of them and most folks on these forums are a very small percentage of the target audience and even fewer that actually make a purchase. Problem is some folks cannot for the life of them understand what we both just said. For them its money as primary and/or how can they cheat around these type of products. As you can see in these posts how that thought pattern runs rapid is how can they get away from spending this kind of money . Understandable but they need to realize they are not the target audience anyway. Prices will not drop to the floor and MF will not die because Nikon has a new freaking toy. The DSLR world is a completely different target audience. MF was and never will be a mass market product and even when we shot film was it a mass market product. Not sure why people simply do not understand that. Seriously MF has not changed since the beginning, it got updated with digital but not market share.
The medium format market share among professional photographers was much larger in the film days. The vast majority of MF film cameras were replaced by 35mm DSLRs.
Just looking at the numbers for MF cameras made in the transition years.
2003 18,006 Cameras
2004 10,507 Cameras
2005 7,950 Cameras (over 2,000 of them coming from unsold 2004 stock).
Being a "professional photographer" just means that you take pictures for living.
Not to get off topic, but I work with many "professional" photographers through my store. Your definition fits many of them, but probably isn't the accepted definition. Most that represent themselves as a professional photographer in the U.S. make the substantial portion of their living from some other profession, but because they charge money for doing photography they classify it as professional. This side profession of photography is usually priced accordingly ... if they were to do photography full time, they wouldn't make enough money to support their needs.
There is nothing new about this, but the numbers of these types of professionals has grown exponentially over the past 8 to 9 years. The number of full time professional photographers has declined dramatically as this process has fragmented the market and eroded prices, forcing many full time professionals into either part time photographers with a another means of income or out of photography altogether.
2. Telling someone that their opinion doesn't matter because they "can't afford it" is shitty and alienating, and is in fact not true. Anyone can get credit, at least in the states.
4. The arguments about color and tonality are misleading, mostly. Almost all digital devices need some color grading in post. The only digi cameras I've used that nail color out of the box are the Arri Alexxa, Aptus 75, and Fuji X100, S3, S5. It's mainly a matter of how much time you need to spend on a file.
5. Arguments about sharpness are lame. Its mastabatory. There are very few digital cams made that are not good enough for print publication.
If I make a test and it is not sharp I may not know why it was not sharp. But I can go back and retest. But I certainly feel that I would not feel OK about that image.
If you are going to dismiss all the tests which do not find out that your camera of choice is the best one, you will certainly find out that your camera of choice is the best one.
The reason why that particular picture appears less sharp than what you believe is the average picture one gets out of a D800 is because it is an average picture and not one for which the conditions have been chosen to favour the D800, as in other tests. If I take a picture of a young girl with a small tele, the D800 will appear better because:
-the skin of a young girl has little high frequency content
-small tele lenses are easier to build than wide angle for SLRs.
I said it already: that picture is a direct jpeg (raw appears a bit sharper), from a D800 (not "E"), taken with a 14-24 in poor light. There are other samples on my flickr account if you can be bothered to clic around and I intend to upload a few more in the coming days.
I have seen dozens of images from D800/D800E and have processed quite a lot of those from raw. Admittedly, I didn't have the opportunity to analyze images from 14-24/2.8.
I never shoot jpeg, so I have little experience with in camera image processing.
I would also point out that the Nikon D800/D800E is not my camera of choice, but it is the only camera 36 MP camera around 3000 USD. Nikon can also take Zeiss lenses and even Leica lenses with Leitax adapters so it is an interesting alternative for those seeking a cost effective way of achieving maximum image quality.
The new Zeiss 24/2 seems to be an interesting lens, about the sharpest one I have seen at center, but it probably has weak corners.
And no, I don't own the Zeiss 24/2. I own three Zeiss lenses, 24-70/2.8 ZA, 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA and a Zeiss Sonnar 150/4. The Sonnar is old but T*.
What does this have to do with the discussion?
What does this have to do with the discussion?
It is an answer to your posting. You seem to assume that I base my opinion whatever it may be on the image posted by Mr. Koskolov, the one with the young girl. That is however not the case. The only point I made that there is somevthing odd about the image you have posted. The D800 images I have seen where mostly sharp.
Never ceases to amaze how folk get their knickers in a twist over other's choices.
You'd be forgiven for thinking this is a testosterone fuelled play pit.
But wait...
For amateur photographers, cameras are not an investment. Nor are they an investment if you think of resale value. If you have this economic model, you are working in the wrong field. If you want to invest, stocks, bonds, and real estate are better options.
For amateur photographers, cameras are not an investment. Nor are they an investment if you think of resale value. If you have this economic model, you are working in the wrong field. If you want to invest, stocks, bonds, and real estate are better options.
It depends on how you use the word "investment". If you mean "investment" in terms of selling it later for a larger amount of money than you bought it for it is as you say. However, in daily speak one can say "investment" about pretty much anything that costs a lot of money is important to your profession, hobby or lifestyle and is intended to be used for many years to come.
In that sense a "good investment" is a system you can have for many years while affording to maintain and to upgrade at reasonable costs to keep it up to date compared to alternate offers in the market.
How MFD systems fit into this today depends on who you ask...
Sure you don't mean a Zeiss 25mm F 2 for Nikon. I have it , very nice sharp lens and corners look very good too. Maybe the best lens in this focal length for Nikon.
It depends on how you use the word "investment". If you mean "investment" in terms of selling it later for a larger amount of money than you bought it for it is as you say. However, in daily speak one can say "investment" about pretty much anything that costs a lot of money is important to your profession, hobby or lifestyle and is intended to be used for many years to come.
In that sense a "good investment" is a system you can have for many years while affording to maintain and to upgrade at reasonable costs to keep it up to date compared to alternate offers in the market.
How MFD systems fit into this today depends on who you ask...
Anyway, the issue I had was that I felt that the church image Jerome has posted with the Nikon 14-24/2.8 is probably not typical. It is not sharp and it doesn't respond to sharpening at it also has some halos from JPEG processing.
It also depends greatly upon your particular business model. As in investment in my business, my P65+ has been highly lucrative. Here's how I look at it... I charge $100/image capture fee. I deliver on average 500 images a year (625 in 2012). In the 5 years I've owned my P65+, that's $250,000 in capture fees. So... about $217,000 profit on that particular investment. Yesterday I ordered an IQ260. I have little doubt that investing in medium format will continue to prove particularly profitable... for me.
CB
If you want different samples, there is another one on my flickr account...
Why do you dismiss the sample from the D800 as "not typical", but accept a sample from a 7 years old Hasselblad camera with a resolution too low to be offered today? "Typical" for an Hasselblad would be a H4D-50...
How do you manage to capture an image with just a digital back?
Or do you bill for lenses, cameras, software, computing time, etc etc under separate accounts?
I only mentioned the capture fee. That is specifically relevant to the digital back and is what used to be our film, processing and polaroid part of the budget. Retouching, licensing and DayRate are all separate from this of course. I don't charge rental fees on my camera gear, that is more common in the motion industry.
Hi,
It is about pixels being sharp. If you look at an image at actual pixels the pixels should look sharp, that is sensor resolution would limit sharpness and not the lens. An OLP filtered image would be slightly fuzzy, but would respond well to sharpening.
Here are some images I got from Tim Parkin with different sharpening. Just to make clear, all these images were processed by me, using LR 4.3. I used my standard sharpening EKRNES which uses deconvolution at a small radius and another setting I call Tim Parkin which is a bit wider radius, higher amount and halo supression.
D800 - no sharpening
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/Tim/_DSC0957_NikonD800_no_sharpen.jpg)
D800 - EKRNES (LR, 45,0.7,100, 17, 20)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/Tim/_DSC0957_NikonD800_EKRNES.jpg)
D800 - TimParkin (LR, 100, 1, 0, 0)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/Tim/_DSC0957_NikonD800_EKRNES.jpg)
The images below are from Tim's test image with the same sharpening settings as above
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/Tim/CF006492_IQ180_no_sharpen.jpg)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/Tim/CF006492_IQ180_EKRNES.jpg)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/Tim/CF006492_IQ180_TimParkin.jpg)
This is your image as from camera JPEG (which also has some sharpening)
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/Tim/8519303752_fa0752fb53_o_D800_jpeg_from_camera.jpg)
And this is your image with my sharpening
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/Tim/8519303752_fa0752fb53_o_D800_jpeg_from_camera_EKRNES.jpg)
You may note that the unsharpened IQ180 image is a bit soft, this depends on the pixels being small so the lens transfers little contrast at the pixel level. The higher the resolution the worse the pixels look. But the IQ180 has a lot of pixels.
I hope I have Tim's permission to use the images. He permitted me to use them in this article:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts
Tim Parkin is the editor of On Landscape: http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/
Best regards
Erik
TOO MANY TROLLS ???
I don't understand what you are asking from me. Do you want the raw files to try your own sharpening on it?
If you want different samples, there is another one on my flickr account...
Why do you dismiss the sample from the D800 as "not typical", but accept a sample from a 7 years old Hasselblad camera with a resolution too low to be offered today? "Typical" for an Hasselblad would be a H4D-50...
Jerome
I took a look at some of the other samples you have on flickr and compared these two:
Jerome
I took a look at some of the other samples you have on flickr and compared these two:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8517989977/sizes/o/in/set-72157632871812709/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8517989977/sizes/o/in/set-72157632871812709/)
and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8517975831/sizes/o/in/set-72157632871812709/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8517975831/sizes/o/in/set-72157632871812709/)
I found that there was not the difference that was visible in the previous comparison you showed.
Nice church, where is it located if I may ask?
I call that just buying the right camera. ;)
I also think the "upgrade" idea is wrong. No matter what camera is released, my 645D will continue to produce wonderful images. Those images are not diminished because something else has better noise or high ISO or a nicer finish. THE most important factor in the quality of my work is me. If my work is only valued because of the number of pixels, I should start looking for another career.
I essentially would be interested to have raw from both Hassy and Nikon.
I agree. However, the whole MFD business model is designed for frequent upgrading, so the business depends on people desiring to have the latest and greatest :)That applies equally to the 35mm SLR model only the refresh rate there seems to be faster and the incremental "improvements" in larger steps.
In these pictures, I was not particularly interested in comparing sharpness, but rather to find about dynamic range, color and noise of the H3D-31 in a low-light situation.
That applies equally to the 35mm SLR model only the refresh rate there seems to be faster and the incremental "improvements" in larger steps.
Against that the 35mm SLR had big steps to take to catch up eg at the time of the P20 it was untouchable (base iso) to SLR (on pure quality) now with the D800E we have this thread which has moved from the SLR versatility argument to one on outright quality.
Arguably the versatility has been diminished with the requirement for optimum results to MLU and tripod the SLR. Has that levelled the playing field ?
That church as its own wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asamkirche,_Munich)... ;)
Hi Jerome,
Working on it, will send you a PM with login info this evening.
Best regards
Erik
I will send you the files, but I can already predict what you will find out: namely, that the two cameras show the same detail at the pixel level. Quite simply because your tests are designed in that way. By reducing all variables to the most limited set for which the D800 can equal a MF camera and refusing to consider MF cameras with higher resolution, you will necessary find out that the D800 gives equal results.
What I am trying to demonstrate here is that the problem in this discussion is not the cameras. The problem is the test. It is not a fair test. I post a couple of images which do not favour the D800, and immediately you argue that I should have used MLU and a Zeiss lens. You did not argue once that I should have used a better Hasselblad or a different MF lens. You did not even answer when I suggested, twice, that a better MF should be used. You are biased.
Interestingly, the reason why the D800 looked less sharp is because Nikon chose to process the jpeg in that way. That alone should prove to all of us how flawed that particular test is, but nobody noticed.
I'll say it again: the real advantages of a MF camera over a D800 have nothing to do with how sharp each camera is at the pixel level. Now, find out what they really are.
Hi,
I got two RAW files from "Jerome_m", thanks a lot!
Here is what I did:
Loaded both into Lightroom 4.3
Match exposure
Adjusted exposure to be similar on tablecloth at center
Adjusted white balance on table cloth at center
Activated removal of later chromatic aberration on both
Used similar sharpening on both (Amount 100 (104 on Nikon) and radius 1 all others at zero.
I'll recheck settings and images tomorrow, this is a first look.
Hasselblad left Nikon right.
If we had a higher resolution Hasselblad, then I would upsize the Nikon image to that size. But these images are same width (short dimension).
Sharpening setting always to taste, but the ones I use were quite OK in my eyes.
My findings? Somewhat more fine detail contrast on the Hasselblad. Corners on the Hasselblad sharper.
Best regards
Erik
Three crops, two central and one corner. All at actual pixels. The images have similar short side so I did resample neither. This corresponds to both images printed same size.
You should scale down the Nikon so that the subject matter is the same size on screen for the side by side images.
Lenses always have been small format's Achille's heel
That's not my experience at all.
Having has Nikon F, F2 Photomic, F3 and F4s with an arsenal of primes from 24mm to 500mm and run two 500 Series Hasselblads beside them; having had Rollei TLR, Mamiya TLR, Bronica 6x7 and Pentax 67 ll, all with a range of primes. I would say that the opposite conclusion to yours is my view on the matter.
I've never owned but have printed from M3 with 21mm and that was out of this world. Leica is still regarded as maker of perhaps the world's best lenses and that reputation was built on 135 format.
The lure of going to 6x7 was always the imagined idea that one was going to spread the same optical quality over four times (+ or -) the area of the film: doesn't work like that. All you get is a different 'look' to your prints or transparencies because of smaller enlargement at same-size prints, and I've actually run tests using a 24mm x 36mm section of a 'blad negative and compared the same thing from a Nkon negative covering exactly the same subject area. The result: a cropped section of a 120 film neg compared with a full 135 neg does not offer the same quality: the full 135 format is better than the cropped 120 format. (I'm talking about using the same film in each format, of course.) Apparently, optical engineering does not allow for the simplistic idea of just scaling up and maintaining the same level of highest quality across formats.
Resolving power or contrast, take your pick. You cannot optimize a lens design for both at the same time. As the format gets smaller, you need to go toward resolving power and sacrifice contrast. That is why small format lenses, while having great resolving power, look flat.
some M film shooters used to look for older Leitz glass because they tried to achieve a different look to that possible from the modern lenses.
This is not intended to fan any format war.
I don't know if this is true, mainly because my experience with certain M mount lenses. The Summicrons I have experience with never appeared flat, in fact are very close to Mamiya 7 images of the same subject matter. The Zeiss ZM mount 28 2.8 has more contrast than any lens I've ever used. In any format. It is also one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used.
I think "flatness" is more a function of shooting conditions (lighting, focal length, F stop, distance to subject), the sensor, and any post work put into a file (or the default curve of film).
Hi Fred,
I don't think so. I would normally scales the images so short size of the image would match, but in this case the image size are so close that I don't think it really matters, Nikon is 4912 and Hassy is 4872. Resizing affects image quality, BTW.
Best regards
Erik
What I see a lot when I did my comparisons to the IQ 160 and 140 backs with my D800E is Nikon cannot handle the specular highlights anywhere near the bigger backs. That was pretty obvious outside the normal things we look for like micro contrast/ tonal range/color and such which the backs won those races. I still believe also the differences in sensors CCD and CMOS as they just handle data completely different. End of day no matter how I sliced the cheese and threw everything at those tests MF still won the game but Nikon has done a very nice job with upping its game. You have to give them credit for that. I think a Version 2 of this sensor or some more advanced technology would help it more no doubt but this VS that stuff I am so far over it that I dont read any of it anymore and just go about and getting work done. There are a lot of downsides which never get mentioned here on the Nikon and trust me its not perfect by any stretch. I use 5 different brands of lenses to get the best images i can from it and frankly that is not right Nikon cannot get a damn good wide angle out the door when a 500 dollar Samyang 14mm distorts like a banchee but is damn sharp. Clean up the distortion and its a damn nice lens. Really whats Nikons excuse , so hearing how great it is only half the story.
MF is a niche market for a select photographers that want to work in that medium regardless of costs, hassle and limitations. Good for those folks they like to work at getting the best they can from it. I loved the tech cam and it for me was a load of fun to shoot and after 40 years your looking for fun trust me. LOL
People love Leica M cams which is maybe the worst focusing, framing cams on the planet. But folks love shooting them and frankly I do too. The day these systems are perfect is the day humans wont be shooting them.
But if you are making a visual comparison you need to match the scale at which the subject is displayed. This will also give a better indication of what a print will look like if it's printed very large.
Resizing will effect the quality slightly.
If you scale down a lot it helps, but if you scale just a little it makes either little difference or is detrimental.
In this case the Nikon was scaled down very slightly so no gain ...if anything a little loss as I also rotated the image so as to make the comparison
line up better.
IF you look very carefully at the animated gif you can see that one is sharper
than the other.... but only very slightly.
It's the Nikon one and it was shot with a 14 to 24mm zoom. Yes the 14 to 24 mm zoom is very sharp but that just adds to the advantages of
the Nikon. It would also explain why many architectural photographers are using 35mm DSLRs more and more.
Hi,
I think the statement the we can have either have high contrast or good resolution is an old myth. My guess is that it comes from old times when antireflex coating was rare. God resolution needed many lens surfaces, but using more surfaces resulted in more flare. Now days I don't think this applies.
Guy,
I have great respect for your photography, but I'm pretty sure that you are given false information. Both CCDs and CMOS devices are linear, when they clip they clip.
My guess is that MFD tends to either underexpose by default, or that the raw converter is better at reconstructing lost channel data.
I can very well see that it is your practical experience that MF retains highlights better, but that is simply not feasible unless some cheating is involved.
On the other hand, some cheating is OK, it is really results that matters. Except, that there are some techy types like me who want to understand what is behind what we see...
Best regards
Erik
Guy,
I have great respect for your photography, but I'm pretty sure that you are given false information. Both CCDs and CMOS devices are linear, when they clip they clip.
My guess is that MFD tends to either underexpose by default, or that the raw converter is better at reconstructing lost channel data.
I can very well see that it is your practical experience that MF retains highlights better, but that is simply not feasible unless some cheating is involved.
On the other hand, some cheating is OK, it is really results that matters. Except, that there are some techy types like me who want to understand what is behind what we see...
Best regards
Erik
(http://christopherbarrett.net/forum_images/Maury_Bundt.jpg)
CB
Technically your probably right. Maybe the differences that I see might be a size thing. Really can't put my finger on it but I have never seen a CMOS act like a CCD no matter what can I have shot. I had a lot if CCD sensors too not just backs. DMR,m8,m9. And even the DMR way back when compared to Canons 1DSii which I wrote a bible on there was a big difference and they where relatively the same size . DMR actually smaller. But back to specular highlights I think it's the bigger sensors ability and yes the color tonal range that handles it better even if they clip at the same point.
Science may say different and freely admit I'm not a science guy. It's all visual to me and my impressions. Maybe it's bad eyesight . Lol
I read about the Minolta/Konica merger. Minolta was a camera maker and Konica was a film maker. I have read that Konica and Minolta had very different priorities.
There are a lot of downsides which never get mentioned here on the Nikon and trust me its not perfect by any stretch. I use 5 different brands of lenses to get the best images i can from it and frankly that is not right Nikon cannot get a damn good wide angle out the door when a 500 dollar Samyang 14mm distorts like a banchee but is damn sharp. Clean up the distortion and its a damn nice lens. Really whats Nikons excuse , so hearing how great it is only half the story.
Wrong better contrast only gives the appearance of better detail. Fred give it a rest I have had them both and the Zeiss 18 as well. For the money the Samyang is very good and at F8 down right outstanding. I have bunch I shot actually posted on GetDPI. What you failed to mention and what you probably don't know is the 14-24 has terrible focus shift. Why I sold it
For 500 it is really good that was the point.
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/41004-samyang-14mm.html
Do us all a favor RUN YOUR OWN TESTS.
We have no idea how these things you post where actually shot or not and by who. I actually post images what a freaking novel idea that is of what I done.
What you failed to mention and what you probably don't know is the 14-24 has terrible focus shift. Why I sold it
Konica was a camera manufacturer as well. It had a long history of manufacturing cameras. Konica is one of the oldest photographic companies in Japan, or used to be. As a former employee of Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, I had no idea that Konica and Minolta had different priorities.
...
But what you don't see from the pictures is more important:
-the H3D has much better and much more accurate AF, I must use live view on the D800 to come close (this was a real surprise of mine)
-the Hasselblad lenses are much better and perfectly usable wide open. Nikon does not have a prime coming close to the Hasselblad 28mm (which has about a 21mm equivalent FOV on the H3D-31). The 12-24 is Nikon's best wide angle lens. The only alternative would be the Zeiss 21mm and the Hasselblad lens is still better and has AF. Lenses always have been small format's Achille's heel
-the H3D has much, much better colours out of the box, especially skin colours. Sure, I can spend an hour to tweak the Nikon's output to look better, but for a pro in fashion, the capability to output perfect skin colours without effort is invaluable.
-the H3D is much easier to shoot tethered, which is again invaluable for many pros (most of them shoot catalogues pictures)
-medium format will make limited depth of field look nicer, which is essential for portraits. The reasons here are complex, I may come back to that later
-and of course recent MF cameras have much higher resolution.
Hi,
A lot of good points. A well working AF is important, and even more important if the system has no live view.
Best regards
Erik
BTW since someone here cant seem to give the artist or his reviews any credit around here. Here is a gentleman's review that was posted. I read this before deciding on buying the Zeiss after I already had and sold the 14-24 since it focused shifted like a banchee regardless what was said I owned it and it was all over the place. I figured the Samyang was worth a try as some of you may have seen what I shot with it, the results are pretty impressive and about 6 people I know bought one after I posted those images here. Its worth a look if you need a extreme wide and want to save some money for other glass which is what I did at the time was bought 2 other lenses as well. No question it needs work in post and care in shooting but its fun
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/41004-samyang-14mm.html
http://3d-kraft.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127:uwa-comparison&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
If the type of shooting you are doing requires AutoFocus, then live view is generally useless anyway.
For example, tracking moving subjects of any kind (sports, models, action, wildlife, birding), and picking the moment, there is no time to liveview on any camera. The shot is over in a split second.
To me, AF and live view are, as a rule, mutually exclusive use cases. It is nice if the one system does both of course !!
Regards
Mark
If the type of shooting you are doing requires AutoFocus, then live view is generally useless anyway.
For example, tracking moving subjects of any kind (sports, models, action, wildlife, birding), and picking the moment, there is no time to liveview on any camera. The shot is over in a split second.
To me, AF and live view are, as a rule, mutually exclusive use cases. It is nice if the one system does both of course !!
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2013/03/07/0307-grumpy-cat-sub-3.jpg)
BTW since someone here cant seem to give the artist or his reviews any credit around here. Here is a gentleman's review that was posted. I read this before deciding on buying the Zeiss after I already had and sold the 14-24 since it focused shifted like a banchee regardless what was said I owned it and it was all over the place. I figured the Samyang was worth a try as some of you may have seen what I shot with it, the results are pretty impressive and about 6 people I know bought one after I posted those images here. Its worth a look if you need a extreme wide and want to save some money for other glass which is what I did at the time was bought 2 other lenses as well. No question it needs work in post and care in shooting but its fun
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/41004-samyang-14mm.html
http://3d-kraft.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127:uwa-comparison&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
..... and frankly that is not right Nikon cannot get a damn good wide angle out the door
I want to nominate Fred BGG for the role of "Most Determined Poster On The Web Award" or forever known as the "Ditty".
We have now gone from a useful photography forum . . . passed DP review . . .
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2013/03/07/0307-grumpy-cat-sub-3.jpg)
. . . and now on the way to TMZ.
If somebody would just start a thread why photographing Justin Bieber with a Nikon is the only "right" solution, the process would be complete.
IMO
BC
Hi Bernard,
Since we had the first camera to offer live view in 1996 and as we often use it as a USP for our backs I cannot disagree that this is a very handy tool. But it is far from being essential to delivering high quality images and it is not always useful (moving subjects etc.)
Yair
Hi,
It just takes a calibrated distance scale with three full rotations, a couple of shims and laser distance meter.
That is the Alpa way.
Best regards
Erik
The Samyang is an OK lens. Actually quite excellent for the price. However i find it ridiculous to trash Nikon wide angles
if you love the Samyang.
Incase you missed it Nikon went through some pretty serious problems with the tsunami and floods.
While they already have some excellent wide angle lenses and one of the best ultra wide zooms I'm sure they are working
on even better lenses since they moved up to making 36MP cameras.
It's like a 5 year old here where dealing with.
Hi Erik,
I use a technical camera on a regular base with Aptus and Credo backs and with/ without Live View. I do not use a distance meter and I do not shim any of the backs. I very rarely have any focusing issues
Hope this helps
Yair
Hi Yair,
I don't know about Phase One AF or Mamiya AF but most AF systems can not achieve critical focus at large apertures. It also seems that a few people cannot achieve perfect focus with ground glass focusing either. I know that Diglloyd has problems with AF on all of Nikon D800E, Leica S2, Pentax 645D. This is not really about calibration, he found AF calibration does not really hep.
It seems that Alpa came up with a focusing system that allows the users to shim the backs, and several authors posted tutorials on achieving correct shimming, among others Mark Dubovoy (frequent author on LuLa). I don't think Alpa added the shimming option just out of vanity.
With live view you see the actual pixels when you focus, so you actually now that your point of focus is perfect.
Steve Hendricks indicated in a posting that photographers may be a bit tolerant on focusing errors.
Best regards
Erik
As you may know most helical lens mounts on tech camera have got 3 little screws holding the focusing scale so the scale can be adjusted, placing infinity when it should be for a specific back. This can be done by the camera manufacturer or by the user.
Arca Swiss use a different helical mount that allows you to place infinity wherever you want without adjusting anything. Take a few shots, find the sharpest one and mark the number on the scale as your infinity. If you do this tethered through an open window with some very far objects it takes about 2-3 minutes not more
But as always I would suggest to try this for yourself, you don't need to take my word or anyone else's really...
Yair
Fred,
Be honest man, you got boner for Nikon and really, really, really, spend a lot of time trying to pounce on Phase.
IMO
BC
The wifi implementation direct to iPad sending low res Full image and then tiles for zooming in
is a very smart approach. Minimal data is sent around saving battery and minimizing how much your optic nerve is exposed
to the wifi signal.... the antenna is really very very close to your eye. Smart to send just what the screen needs to display.
Efficient and a "fuel efficient" way to make it fast.
Nice work by Phase on this.
If I understand correctly it is not a substitute for tethering to save all raws to the computer or iPad.
However it is a very nice review tool. Particularly nice that it can send rating back to the camera.
I have adjusted all three of my Cambo mounted lenses through resetting the infinity scale. My 35 XL was off a great deal. I did it tethered and shot at infinity and never had a issue since with focus. Like Yair I rarely used any aids in focusing my tech cam. The IQ or Credo does help a great deal though with the 100 percent zoom and for the IQ which I had the focus mask also is a great aid. Arca uses a unique system and Alpa and Cambo are basically the same type of setups. Cambos you can adjust the the back though through the mounting of the back, there are four screws on each corner t make that adjustment . Never found the need for that though as checking each lens seemed a far better way to achieve excellent focusing. Adjusting the back is a generic adjustment one lens may need more or less and my reason for going to adjust each lens.
Hi,
What I read was that there was much discussion regarding color rendition between the the two groups of engineers.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Yair,
I don't know about Phase One AF or Mamiya AF but most AF systems can not achieve critical focus at large apertures. It also seems that a few people cannot achieve perfect focus with ground glass focusing either. I know that Diglloyd has problems with AF on all of Nikon D800E, Leica S2, Pentax 645D. This is not really about calibration, he found AF calibration does not really hep.
It seems that Alpa came up with a focusing system that allows the users to shim the backs, and several authors posted tutorials on achieving correct shimming, among others Mark Dubovoy (frequent author on LuLa). I don't think Alpa added the shimming option just out of vanity.
With live view you see the actual pixels when you focus, so you actually now that your point of focus is perfect.
Steve Hendricks indicated in a posting that photographers may be a bit tolerant on focusing errors.
Best regards
Erik
There are a large numbers of 645D and S2 user that come to a very different conclusion from Mr. Chambers. I do not think that he is the final word on cameras.Well he has tons of examples to show. I guess that he shoots a lot at large apertures and tests the very best lenses. Anyway, problems with AF on Nikon and Canon are well documented. Myself, I am shooting Sony, and what I see is that LV is much more reliable than AF, but I mostly shoot at f/8 and that masks most AF errors.
Mr. Dubovoy has written some very dubious articles showing he may not be a great person to have a final word either. As far as image plane tolerance, it is not a problem with focal length, but f-number. Also, I have seen shimming videos and many do not shim to infinity, but something closer, so an operator could be convinced the shims are required.I see your point.
Naturally, what is "perfect" focus in a 3-dimensional space. As pixel resolution goes up, an operator can be fooled into thinking that focusing tolerances are going up as well. Unfortunately, it is more complicated than that.Hi, you mean focusing tolerances go down? Else it does not make sense.
I did not try to correct that (I find interesting that the H3D gives better results automatically) and it would not have been easy anyway (I could barely see the D800 screen under the sun, so manual focussing using live view would have been tricky). There is probably also a teaching in that. ;)
On the tree, both cameras focussed on the same point (the lens cap).
Hi, you mean focusing tolerances go down? Else it does not make sense.Yes, down.
Best regards
Erik
My Sony cameras have electronic viewfinders
The other observation I may have is that MF lenses can achieve short DoF at moderate apertures, most large aperture lenses have axial chromatic aberration, sometimes called LoCA or color bokeh. So smaller format lenses can give short DoF but color fringes is the price you pay. Zeiss has designed a new 55/1.4 Distagon that is free from color fringing at full aperture and they are very proud about it.
Electronic viewfinders are what made me leave Sony after 26 years (starting with Minolta) and buy a D800.
Indeed. People don't realise how important longitudinal chromatic aberration is (and spherical aberration as well). I wonder how the soon to be released SAL-50F14Z will compare to the 55 f/1.4 Distagon, BTW.
Just one more voice to hear - latest Diglloyd Blog about stitching and oversampling with the Sony RX100
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130307_3-oversampling-RX100.html
"............the future involves DSLRs in the 100+ megapixel range. Not for the sake of resolution alone, but for image quality.
DSLRs ought to come on the market relatively soon whose image quality will be spectacular even without downsampling to lower resolution.
But the oversampling will make possible images in the 70 megapixel range (from ~140 megapixel sensors) that will rival any medium format camera available today. Pick any numbers you like, the idea remains the same.
There is no reason that 72 megapixel images of superb quality cannot be generated from a DSLR of ~144 megapixels. "
and the next entry at Lloyds Blog is about the Sigma DP3 Merril with the foveon chip. Sony and others are also working on the concept.
If anyone releases such a 24Mpix (Sony) the res will triple immediately elegantly solving any problems discussed here before.
As a nice side effect these cameras will have a global shutter, rendering any syncing problems to fairy tales of the past, as well as any blade and leaf shutters.......
Regards
Stefan
Just one more voice to hear - latest Diglloyd Blog about stitching and oversampling with the Sony RX100
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130307_3-oversampling-RX100.html
"............the future involves DSLRs in the 100+ megapixel range. Not for the sake of resolution alone, but for image quality.
DSLRs ought to come on the market relatively soon whose image quality will be spectacular even without downsampling to lower resolution.
But the oversampling will make possible images in the 70 megapixel range (from ~140 megapixel sensors) that will rival any medium format camera available today. Pick any numbers you like, the idea remains the same.
There is no reason that 72 megapixel images of superb quality cannot be generated from a DSLR of ~144 megapixels. "
and the next entry at Lloyds Blog is about the Sigma DP3 Merril with the foveon chip. Sony and others are also working on the concept.
If anyone releases such a 24Mpix (Sony) the res will triple immediately elegantly solving any problems discussed here before.
As a nice side effect these cameras will have a global shutter, rendering any syncing problems to fairy tales of the past, as well as any blade and leaf shutters.......
Regards
Stefan
Did anyone mention that photography is light dependent and light happens to be a particle and wavelength? And I really hope the price of storage and processing power goes down because you are getting huge files that really don't reflect the increase in quality.
I´m sometimes really astonished how firm beliefs in "superiority of gear" are.
I really care not much about technology, the only interest I have is in the resulting image.
The way I get there are secondary........ if even that.
And if something is for certain: things change.
Regards
Stefan
Bieber attacks A list celeb photographer with a canon ;-)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/celebrity-news-video/9918848/Justin-Bieber-lashes-out-at-camerman.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/celebrity-news-video/9918848/Justin-Bieber-lashes-out-at-camerman.html)
??? Are you implying that other here are not interested in the image also?
You do understand as pixel pitch is reduced and the optics try to compensate for the increase in resolution, contrast falls--you can't maintain the amplitude of the frequency as the frequency increases. Pixels need photons and as the pixel size goes down, the few photons they intersect.
But from your same argument the technology does not matter, then change can be irrelevant. One thing I do know, the skill of the photographer will always be a greater factor in whether and image is successful than any technology that can be introduced.
Bieber attacks A list celeb photographer with a canon ;-)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/celebrity-news-video/9918848/Justin-Bieber-lashes-out-at-camerman.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/celebrity-news-video/9918848/Justin-Bieber-lashes-out-at-camerman.html)
I am still testing the H3D versus the D800 (not necessarily for this forum, I would do it for myself alone) and I tried to compare the bokeh of the two systems. This time I will not be criticised for using a zoom lens, but I will probably be criticised because the two focal length do not match ::) I used the HC 80mm f/2.8 on the H3D-31 and the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4G on the D800. The pictures are taken from the same point: I took one camera from the tripod and mounted the other one in its place.
The whole set with the pictures is here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/sets/72157632950617544/detail/). There are two tests, one with flowers and one with a tree.
As expected, the Nikon could get a smaller depth of field because of the much larger aperture (and also because the H3D cannot always use its largest aperture in bright light). The results as to bokeh, on the other end, are less convincing for me, see for yourself if you like them.
The colours are not quite the same, even if the pictures are treated by the same software (and for the flowers the light changed). I did not try to match the colour, I find the difference instructive. On the flower, the D800 focussed on the wrong object (in live view AF mode). I did not try to correct that (I find interesting that the H3D gives better results automatically) and it would not have been easy anyway (I could barely see the D800 screen under the sun, so manual focussing using live view would have been tricky). There is probably also a teaching in that. ;)
On the tree, both cameras focussed on the same point (the lens cap).
People enjoying pixel peeping may download the full resolution pictures using the flickr menus. There is little point, since nothing is really sharp, but I know that some people will want it anyway.
Here an example with the flowers: f/4 on the Nikon versus f/5.6 on the Hasselblad (the pictures are clickable):(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8518/8539121397_51d9022e93_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8539121397/)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8226/8540229252_883893a46b_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8540229252/)
I am still testing the H3D versus the D800 (not necessarily for this forum, I would do it for myself alone) and I tried to compare the bokeh of the two systems. This time I will not be criticised for using a zoom lens, but I will probably be criticised because the two focal length do not match ::) I used the HC 80mm f/2.8 on the H3D-31 and the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4G on the D800. The pictures are taken from the same point: I took one camera from the tripod and mounted the other one in its place.
The whole set with the pictures is here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/sets/72157632950617544/detail/). There are two tests, one with flowers and one with a tree.
As expected, the Nikon could get a smaller depth of field because of the much larger aperture (and also because the H3D cannot always use its largest aperture in bright light). The results as to bokeh, on the other end, are less convincing for me, see for yourself if you like them.
The colours are not quite the same, even if the pictures are treated by the same software (and for the flowers the light changed). I did not try to match the colour, I find the difference instructive. On the flower, the D800 focussed on the wrong object (in live view AF mode). I did not try to correct that (I find interesting that the H3D gives better results automatically) and it would not have been easy anyway (I could barely see the D800 screen under the sun, so manual focussing using live view would have been tricky). There is probably also a teaching in that. ;)
On the tree, both cameras focussed on the same point (the lens cap).
People enjoying pixel peeping may download the full resolution pictures using the flickr menus. There is little point, since nothing is really sharp, but I know that some people will want it anyway.
Here an example with the flowers: f/4 on the Nikon versus f/5.6 on the Hasselblad (the pictures are clickable):(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8518/8539121397_51d9022e93_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8539121397/)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8226/8540229252_883893a46b_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8540229252/)
Here an example with the tree (same apertures):(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8092/8540241334_74b6be0120_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8540241334/)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8527/8539136093_d385925e57_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8539136093/)
When using live view on something like this you need to select the smaller focusing area.
I used the smaller focussing area and it pointed on the flowers, as far as I could tell from the limited view of the screen in bright sunlight. You can check the exifs if you like, I think that Nikon saves that information.
Just one more voice to hear - latest Diglloyd Blog about stitching and oversampling with the Sony RX100
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130307_3-oversampling-RX100.html
"............the future involves DSLRs in the 100+ megapixel range. Not for the sake of resolution alone, but for image quality.
DSLRs ought to come on the market relatively soon whose image quality will be spectacular even without downsampling to lower resolution.
But the oversampling will make possible images in the 70 megapixel range (from ~140 megapixel sensors) that will rival any medium format camera available today. Pick any numbers you like, the idea remains the same.
There is no reason that 72 megapixel images of superb quality cannot be generated from a DSLR of ~144 megapixels. "
and the next entry at Lloyds Blog is about the Sigma DP3 Merril with the foveon chip. Sony and others are also working on the concept.
If anyone releases such a 24Mpix (Sony) the res will triple immediately elegantly solving any problems discussed here before.
As a nice side effect these cameras will have a global shutter, rendering any syncing problems to fairy tales of the past, as well as any blade and leaf shutters.......
Regards
Stefan
At this point in the development of digital photography, the thing that most concerns me is not resolution, dynamic range or noise (those these are certainly still a concern). It is the way that digital sensors respond when overloaded. Except to a small degree, where it might have a slight aesthetic appeal similar to modest film halation, sensor "bloom" is for me one of the more objectionable digital artifacts.
Absolutely. I love the way hot hilights would halate on Tri-X. From my streetwork, shot on 35mm.
(http://christopherbarrett.net/personal/street_work_01/gallery/album/large/Street_Book01_009.jpg)
The really surprising thing in all of this is why anyone would care about the antics of a person wearing the crotch of his pants in the wrong place. I can see it endearing, as in a baby with a soiled nappy, but for a 'youth'? But, having said that, the really, really surprising thing is that anyone in the world gives a damn about any of those people to the extent it becomes rewarding to snap a snap.
Rob C
At this point in the development of digital photography, the thing that most concerns me is not resolution, dynamic range or noise (those these are certainly still a concern). It is the way that digital sensors respond when overloaded. Except to a small degree, where it might have a slight aesthetic appeal similar to modest film halation, sensor "bloom" is for me one of the more objectionable digital artifacts.
At this point in the development of digital photography, the thing that most concerns me is ... the way that digital sensors respond when overloaded.I heartily agree: blown-highlight handling is the one place where in practice digital causes me more problems than film, while on the other hand, better handling of shadows and thus greater tolerance for underexposure is one of the greatest gains. To me this suggests that when lighting cannot be fully, reliable assessed ahead of a shot, there should be a shift in practice from what we did with film in the direction of erring more on the side of underexposure and having too much rather than too little highlight headroom.
FWIW, I noticed that for a given iso, aperture and speed, the H3D-31 pictures are a bit darker with less blown out highlights than the D800 pictures.
As I predicted, you found out that the two cameras give very similar results at the pixel level. This is no surprise: if you design the test so that:
-the subject has the same size per pixel
-the optics are used in a way to minimise aberrations
-processing is the same
-colours are matched and
-there is enough light and not too much dynamic range,
you will find out that all cameras give similar results at the pixel level. The simple reason is that the only difference would be the presence or absence of an anti-moiré low pass filter. The test is designed to make all other factors equal.
But what you don't see from the pictures is more important:
-the H3D has much better and much more accurate AF, I must use live view on the D800 to come close (this was a real surprise of mine)
-the Hasselblad lenses are much better and perfectly usable wide open. Nikon does not have a prime coming close to the Hasselblad 28mm (which has about a 21mm equivalent FOV on the H3D-31). The 12-24 is Nikon's best wide angle lens. The only alternative would be the Zeiss 21mm and the Hasselblad lens is still better and has AF. Lenses always have been small format's Achille's heel
-the H3D has much, much better colours out of the box, especially skin colours. Sure, I can spend an hour to tweak the Nikon's output to look better, but for a pro in fashion, the capability to output perfect skin colours without effort is invaluable.
-the H3D is much easier to shoot tethered, which is again invaluable for many pros (most of them shoot catalogues pictures)
-medium format will make limited depth of field look nicer, which is essential for portraits. The reasons here are complex, I may come back to that later
-and of course recent MF cameras have much higher resolution.
Sure, the D800 has other advantages. I am not listing them here not because I want to minimise them, but because we all know about them. The point is that your "test" does not show all the practical advantages that count to people who buy MF cameras, because of the way it is designed.
However more dynamic range I find results in better black and white, especially for hair on brunettes or black hair.
Less muddiness into the deep blacks. However this is not as massive difference as both cameras do very well, with the D800 having the edge.
Regarding catalog..... from what I have seen most of it is shot with 35mm DSLRs
Which Hasselblad model did you use for the B&W comparison?
Perhaps my experience with usable focussing screens and well-corrected lenses makes me a dinosaur, but why does anyone need AF to photograph a flower or a tree? Does anyone else feel that trying to out-smart an AF system to photograph a non-moving subject takes more effort than looking at the image and adjusting focus until it looks sharp?
The H3Ds I've used were accurate, no doubt, for static subjects. I wouldn't say more acurate that the D800.
I'm of the mind that if you need fast AF, use the appropriate camera. If you need the look of MF, use an MF camera. If you need something small and unobtrusive, use a Leica or a Fuji. If you shoot landscapes, use an MF or stitch, whatever works.
The AF on MY D800e is spot on with all of my lenses.
You are lucky. That is pretty rare.
My 800e requires an adjustment of 8 for the 70-200, 4 for the 14-24. on my 3 zeiss lenses, when the camera indicates they are in focus, they are in fact very close but I can get them sharper with 10x live view. I think I can actually dial in an offset for these lenses as well, but haven't tried it yet. Even though the lens doesn't focus, the camera still provides feedback when it thinks the lens is sharp.
We calibrate 2 or 3 cameras a week with normally between 3 and 5 lenses each Less than 10% require no adjustment. Using FoCal, we also test for focus consistency, and haven't seen a lens yet without some variation. Personally for landscape, 10x liveview focus is the only thing I trust.
Hi my guess is that Fred mixes up things a bit. I'd suggest that darkness of hair is more of a rendition thing. I think DR is overexclaimd, mostly it is limited by lens and camera internal flare. I analyzed a lot of images using raw digger recently and has found one with DR in excess of 9 stops and it was a velvia dupe, with all surrounding light shielded in a dark room.
Best regards
Erik
I haven't needed to calibrate any of my lenses. They are all on the money, ... These light up the indicator when in focus.
My "luck" might have to do with using older lenses. I don't know but my 30 year old Nikkors light up the focus indicator and are spot on, even at 10x live view.
My experience with the AF of the D800 (phase AF, not live view) is that it is generally accurate and much faster than me. It works like magic to detect the subject out of its array of sensors, when that subject is a human. But, especially with fast lenses, it sometimes misses a little bit. The H3D surprised me as 100% consistent. Then there is also the saying you'll find on the forum that nothing less than live view will do if one needs accuracy and my real life observation that live view is not always possible in bright sunlight and that contrast detect AF (in live view then...) also sometimes misses. I am not saying that the H3D is superior, just observing that forum talk does not reflect my practice.
Words of wisdom to which I readily agree. I'll even add that for fast AF, the Hasselblad is not the appropriate camera at all. ;)
Fred: could you be more specific. WHICH medium format digital backs have you observed this with? The P25 you briefly owned? Other more recent digital backs? If so, could you share any files you've shot with these backs which illustrate this?
Don't get your kickers in a twist ;). The difference is very small. Both MFD and the D800, D600 as well as the dinky little D7100 have excellent dynamic range.
My knickers are thoroughly untwisted.
I was just asking for clarity. "MFD" covers at least 100 makes/models of back; everything from a 6mp Lightphase from the 90s to an 80mp IQ180.
So you meant the P25 you shot showed less detail in the shadows then your D800. Thanks for the clarification.
Not all of them weighted in favour of the medium format camera, though. For instance,
the D800E produced much more pleasing shadow areas on the prints of the photographs produced to test dynamic range.
http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/ (http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/)
In this test the D800 showed a bit more shadow detail...... and this test was done by an IQ180 owner.
A landscape photographer and instructor. I'm sure he has a good grasp on dynamic range being a landscape photographer.
It's what I've been bitchin' about for ages: there used to be Final Inspection, once upon a time, and you expected and got quality... now, I'm amazed to see that people expect to return new lenses a couple of times: I find that attitude shocking, both from the manufacturer's angle and from the way the buyers accept it as normal.
These are not my observations. For example, I photographed the interior of a church here at iso100 on the D800 and H3D-31 (I posted the pictures earlier):
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8094/8518182765_7b77ac5a30_z.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8518182765/)
To analyse the deepest shadows, I need to go back to the raw data files. There are three little paintings at the right of the column in the shade two thirds to the left. If I raise the shadows on the two raw files I can see the content of the pictures a bit better on the H3D-31, especially the one on the right. The colours are also more saturated on the H3D-31. Noise is a bit better on the D800, but can be reduced nicely on the H3D-31. Neither of these is great because the paintings were severely underexposed and the difference is not very large, but it is in favour of the H3D-31.
I took your full size jpegs and used the shadow highlight filter in Photoshop. Same settings applied to both.
I scaled the Nikon down to match the H3D
Here is the result:
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8380/8555690155_07c14bf61d_o.gif)
............Fast lenses with NF cameras with only center AF focus points have limited ..........
............Full length fashion for example where you want the eyes in focus.............
Now, this is quite surprising. I'll have to check the files to find out why the raws and jpegs give different results.
In practice I believe your 100% wrong.
This week I've been shooting thousands of full length fashion vertical frames with a third of them focus and recompose, many more with a single center point focus.
In our quick overview (we're still in production) only a very small percentage are not in focus.
(In a couple of months when the project clears embargo I may show them).
It's rare photographers shoot full length fashion wide open, 1.8, 2.8 or whatever. Most client's don't want just the eyelashes in focus they also want the garments which is their product in focus, regardless if it's editorial or for commerce.
I've probably shot a few fashion images at wide open on any camera.
Focus is never really easy, regardless of camera and even cameras with multi point focus, usually one point is more accurate than another.
The best focusing camera I've used is our Canon 1dx, better than our Nikons, but still not perfect.
No camera is perfect, all are different nearly all professional cameras today are very good.
I really don't understand why anyone compares them.
In fact the most famous 35mm cameras of all time were designed around focus and recompose . . . the leica.
Since you mention eyelashes in focus, well . . .
I shot this in Paris, almost wide open with an M-8 series using window light and practicals, by focus and recompose.
It was almost wide open because it was just a fun snap, when the model was still in hair and makeup.
(http://spotsinthebox.com/paris_LK_editorial_sm.jpg)
Also, one center point focus is also not near the end of the world, as you suggest.
This image was with my Contax 645/Phase p30+ focusing with weak modeling lights on the subject, strong in the lens lights poking through the background to flare into the lense and the subject moving fairly quick.
(http://spotsinthebox.com/ny_ling_editorial_sm.jpg)
I don't think one from this session was soft.
If my old Contax will do this, I can promise you a Phase DF/ Mamiya, A h4-5d, a Pentax will do it sleeping.
But here's a hint. If you really want to have sharp images and pixel peep until your eyes bleed, I suggest using a tripod.
Nothing improves sharpness like a tripod.
BTW: For someone who reports time and time again on the results of their medium format experience, by drawing charts and designing pulsating gifs, didn't you test your DF before you bought it.
If you dealt with a professional dealer, that's not difficult to do, before you actually spend the money and find yourself suffering buyers remorse.
IMO
BC
For some reason, the D800 gives better results from the jpeg files than from its raw files. That is quite surprising and I did not expect that at all. For my presentation, the raw files from the H3D-31 and D800 were converted with the same application (Apple Aperture), because I thought that using the same processing with the two cameras would give them equal chances.
In practice I believe your 100% wrong.
IMO
BC
The True Focus mode in the H4D camera is a refinement of
an already very precise autofocus system. It will allow focus
to be locked at a part of the subject and if the photographer
decides to recompose the image, the camera will calculate
a necessary focus correction to keep the area of interest
still in focus. This mode will allow the photographer to use
the shallow depth-of-field of the medium format camera in a
more flexible way.
Well that's interesting that you claim there is not problem at all with focus and recompose with a single center focus point when shooting wide open.
Because that was I was talking about.
Well it seems that the leading MF manufacturer Hasselblad happens to agree with me and developed True Focus to improve on focus and recompose.
It is a known issue and many upgraded to the H4D from previous models so as to be able to use one of the significant features of MF that is shallow depth of field.
Here is an article from Hasselblad regarding True focus and how it corrects focus and recompose errors:
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2234814/when%20true%20focus%20makes%20a%20difference.pdf (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2234814/when%20true%20focus%20makes%20a%20difference.pdf)
Here is the first paragraph:
Well that's interesting that you claim there is not problem at all with focus and recompose with a single center focus point when shooting wide open.
Because that was I was talking about.
................
Hi,
Here is a good article on the effects of the focus recompose technique: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/focus_recompose.html
The conclusion is that the effect exist but it is pretty negligible.
It would probably affect measurements more than real word subjects. The human vision can be quite forgiving sometimes. Also, the amount of sharpening I have seen often used with Capture One can mask some minor focusing errors.
Best regards
Erik
OK, you know what I replied.
Few fashion images for commerce or editorial are shot wide open.
Also photographers have been working around ways to focus for years.
My medium format film cameras were customized as I had the grease in the lenses removed for faster focus. Missed some, hit most.
My 35mm to medium format cameras all have focusing exactness and also focusing workarounds.
Live view, it's ok, but not that good for moving subjects. Haselblad's system, I'm sure it works, but it's not vital for me.
You know in the time it takes to focus an image on liveview I can fire a frame, view it, correct and shoot and hit almost every frame.
Everybody has a different system.
So far this week have shot over 6,000 frames. As I mentioned before I have a very busy schedule starting out the door at 6:30 am, arriving back with crew at 8:30, two hours of resetting for the next day, a few hours sleep and back at it.
Out of the 6,000 frames I haven't looked at every single one but briefly went over every days' session and only seen 3 images that were soft.
Then again we tether, I communicate with our first assistant working on the computer, I can look at almost any lcd including my p series and see if it's in focus or not, correct and shoot.
What i like about my Contax is they don't have to be auto or manual focus. I can have both at will. It's easy to let the auto focus work, if it's slightly off manually correct.
Maybe not automatic, but most decent photographs are not automatic.
Anyway, the difference between your view and mine is I respect the fact that a Nikon works for you, (though would love to see any compelling images YOU shot with it).
What I don't get is a lot of your responses you toss out are definitive in nature that "your" brand of Multi point focus is the BEST way and it's not.
If i felt you were offering real world experience, under pressure for something like you mentioned . . . full length fashion and you could show the results, there would be a lot more validity, but even if you did, that doesn't mean there are not other cameras that work.
This is just my opinion, but I think your attempting to compare and discredited a certain brand of medium format cameras, mainly the DF to your Nikon.
That is the part I don't understand, especially since good photographers use that camera everyday with excellent results.
But . . . if your goal is not to discredited, then i will stand corrected.
I am willing to accept that everyone has their own way of working and respect that.
Do you?
IMO
BC
The True Focus mode in the H4D camera is a refinement of
an already very precise autofocus system. It will allow focus
to be locked at a part of the subject and if the photographer
decides to recompose the image, the camera will calculate
a necessary focus correction to keep the area of interest
still in focus. This mode will allow the photographer to use
the shallow depth-of-field of the medium format camera in a
more flexible way.
Have to agree both my DF and Nikon the center points where or are very accurate. The Nikon outside the Center point is not very accurate. I just shot 4 models in two days in the studio at F8 shooting clothing. I would never shoot commerce articles wide open. Frankly I always used focus and recompose for years on every cam I have had. The Nikon does not have the market on focus , sorry its pretty much just like everything else inside the center very good outside and even one movement up to the top on a horizontal shooting podium type work was off. I went to manual focus that day and or focus recompose to get my take. I shot that stuff for 4 days and tried every trick in the book to get that upper point to be dead on. I resorted back to focus and compose . And no nothing wrong with my cam either. Ill give it maybe some issues when very tight on focus and compose can be problematic but its not the rule either.
I shot that stuff for 4 days and tried every trick in the book to get that upper point to be dead on. I resorted back to focus and compose .
And no nothing wrong with my cam either.
Or how about Peter Lindbergh shooting Natalie Portman for a fashion spread in Vogue....
Just to be clear shooting a 3/4 shot with a mid tele with subjects that are pretty flat to the focus plane is not really the issue its with a 200mm wide open shooting someone giving a speech and your very tight on the face. The center focus point is basically on there neck not the face at all and to keep the framing you would have to move the center point up higher which is not critically on the mark. Longer lenses pose a much bigger focus error than a short tele at 3/4 length.
Peter Lindberg shoots both MF and Nikon dslrs, wide open or not. It just depends, but I personally find those recurrent threads completly meaningless.
Those are just tools and it's very common that high-end image makers wouldn't limit themselves with one system only but a vast palette .
Lindberg likes to shoot untether in some cases, uses often 1 or 2 assistant following his movements with CLs. In other cases he would use a Blad tethered.
It just depends on what he has in mind for the final look and the requirements of prod.
Nikon is not better than Phase or Leaf or Hassy. It's as pointless as those debates about is Alexa better than Red. Any serious production house would
ever consider that there is one holly grail system vs the evil rest. Arri and Red are covering convergent and different territories and even within the Alexa workflow,
not always it's convenient to choose the ArriRaw workflow but Prores. It depends very much on the budget.
It's not really important if Fred may be an infiltrated Nikon's agent or if he has a top world portfolio. Everybody's free to opinate in a forum, from the wanabee
to the top pros, that's the rule; ultimately we are big boys and it's our business to filter what we read in internet, but I'm not sure a Peter Lindberg would have the time nor the interest to
spend on war threads about systems, deficiencies of brand engineering, magic properties of some and the hugly of others.
I know it from experience in the forum, but one has to have a lot of free time to be regularly involved into "vs" debates, otherwise we are busy doing our job and making money. And when one really
works like crazy under pressure, and specially in the demanding high-end, the little free time left will more likely be used in some more interesting areas, like for ex having sex with the abandoned wife.
(Coot in this aspect is a lucky man because the wife is involved in the job, so she understands why one is broken at 4 in the morning)
And by the way, for those who like spreading cataclysmic predictions on MF future, if tomorrow one of those "evil" brand close the door, I'm not sure people would jump in complete happyness about that.
Remember what happened to Contax.
Dslrs, MF, tethered or not, liveviewed or not, AFed or not, reliable or not...those are just tools, and the more tools we have in our arsenal,
the better IMO.
I've sometimes wondered why people feel obliged to use the focussing aid as if there is no alternative.
Its called manual focus, I use it all the time but i'm strictly speaking of the AF not working to my satisfaction and cant hit what I want. Than I switch to my fall back , manual focus. We are talking people here that move as well not a statue in the park.
I've also spent a lot of years behind cameras, and I also know that you can focus pretty well on eyes simply by using the groundglass provided in the camera; the eyes don't have to be central to focus upon them.
Manual focus on any new DSLR that has AF built in simply does not use the focusing screens we used with our older manual focusing Nikon/Canon bodies. Basically they suck for manual focus and have been in recent years. Let me be very clear I dont like AF, never have and I never trusted it because it simply can't think at all. It is useful at times though but I never depend on it
An answer is to ditch the monopod for a light tripod and open only two legs for those conditions where you'd usually have a mono. It instantly cuts down on movement off level, and holding the camera in the right vertical positon for the shot is no hassle at all compared to trying to steady a monopod which only saves you from gravity, but still lets you waltz around like a lunatic in all other directions!
Sorry in these kinds of shooting situations a tripod is actually a problem and a monopod in the right hands is a rock. Im a rock and I never move. I will give myself credit for that one.
I really do recommend any of you guys working out-of-studio with people shots try it; I wouldn't offer it unless I'd found it to work damned well. It'll take you ten minutes of down time to test; could save you a session.
Rob C
Welcome back, Fred!
Rob C
Just to be clear shooting a 3/4 shot with a mid tele with subjects that are pretty flat to the focus plane is not really the issue its with a 200mm wide open shooting someone giving a speech and your very tight on the face. The center focus point is basically on there neck not the face at all and to keep the framing you would have to move the center point up higher which is not critically on the mark. Longer lenses pose a much bigger focus error than a short tele at 3/4 length. This is diffrent type of shooting with low light on a monopod and high ISO work. It just flat out misses critical compared to the dead center AF point and this is one click up on a horizontal. Yesterday in another case outside tethering issues at one point with a 85 1.8 the whole AF system shut down. I mean completely would not give me anything. It was very strange and not sure what to make of that one but a reboot of cam did bring it back to life. Tethering was a big issue also but I'm going to blame the length of my USB3 cable for that one a 20 footer and I will change that out to a SIIG with repeater and see if it holds better. I was losing communication at several points one at about 413 frames one day the next day at about 583 with just completely shut down with communication between body and laptop.
Sorry but I don't care what anyone says my Phase one backs where bullet proof tethered and faster as well. I never lost a single frame with all 5 backs. The Nikon I lost and I mean lost twice during two days 5 frames one day to thin air and 6 the next to thin air. I don't give a shit what anyone says I'm not exactly thrilled to be embarrassed on set with clients having a model stand there for 10 minutes waiting for me to get this shit rolling again. I'm keeping my thoughts as a communication issue and leave it at that and revisit that next week with a repeater built in. That whole tethering crap I will chalk up to that but I am disappointed I had to fight this issue in the first place , good cam but sorry people can defend it to the cows come home its not any better than anything else either. BTW I had 5 Phase backs 2 DFs several versions of AFD1,2and 3 and sure I had my bitches with some of the bodies but never what I read here with the DF outside a battery issue which I solved with diffrent batteries. I understand a lemon does shake from a tree but that does not constitute a whole tree just like this Nikon issues I been running into, it takes nothing away from Nikon as a system. I ve been doing this 37 years as a Pro and have pretty much seen it all with failures and system glitches. This is not something new believe me. It's how you recover what counts. Not how much you whine.
Fred they are not moving back and forth. In that case either your on C continuous and let the AF follow it or your on S mode and need to reengage every time the person moves. Glad to see yours working in this case posted. My issue is a guy moving around and trying to nail him with the center point its fine, its outside that AF point Im not hitting on all cylinders.
Anyway we maybe off topic and we all made our points very well to others.
...The two shots of the models were moving and so was eye going from stepping forward for closeups for magazine cover options and stepping back
for wider shots. Wind in both shoots with hair occasionally blowing over the face and the focus having to reengage...
Fred,
I would really like to see how the model shots appear in print. What magazine will they be reproduced in?
Thanks,
Ed
Fred,
If the photographs were all made with the D800, I would appreciate that. I'll send you a PM.
Thanks,
Ed
I think I said this at least three times now the AF point on a horizontal that is above the center point not the right or left side which on every test you done is on the same plane of focus. Mine is off do not understand plan English here. My issues are a center point that hits a neck and moving that AF point to a upper level to hit the eyes is Not let me repeat it not critically sharp be it the subject is still or not .its simply Not giving me accurate focus. If I focus and recompose I nail it every time . Basically lift AF center point to eyes than drop camera down for composition. This has shit to do with left and right AF points which I said mine seem to be okay. Stop dancing around the actual problem I'm having which if you actually read what I wrote several ties now its hold the camera in a landscape position and the upper center point. My subject between center and upper center is not on the same focus plane. Okay I'm done with this. Have a nice weekend everyone.
.... but like always AF sucks on every camera known to man ....
Fred seriously I could give a rats ass what your tests show. It's your cam not mine. Yours is perfect we all know that as you remind of us how perfect Nikon is. If I think AF. Systems are crap it's my opinion. I think your opinion of Phase is extremely flawed for instance but its you opinion which I could really care less about. I don't look to you for any opinion on anything please stop giving it to me and I'm not going to sit here and try to prove you wrong on Phase gear like you constantly remind us of how good Nikon is and how Phase sucks. No one seriously gives a shit to be honest. Sitting here trying to prove me wrong on my Nikon is frankly about as lame as it gets. It's like the guy who says he has a problem with something than 24 morons try to prove the guy wrong. It's pretty fucking stupid dont you think.
Your still on the same plane of focus. Forget it I said it 3 times and you still do the same thing ignore what people say to prove your own point. Neck to eyes which is a totally different and I'm 30 ft away . Your not even close to where my issues are.
Moron is a term once used in psychology to denote mild mental retardation.[1] The term was closely tied with the American eugenics movement.[2] Once the term became popularized, it fell out of use by the psychological community, as it was used more commonly as an insult than as a psychological term.Also the comment you make about me going on about how perfect Nikon is ... is well really childish in this context, because the simple fact that I am discussing this at length
Your still on the same plane of focus. Forget it I said it 3 times and you still do the same thing ignore what people say to prove your own point. Neck to eyes which is a totally different and I'm 30 ft away . Your not even close to where my issues are.
Fred seriously I could give a rats ass what your tests show. It's your cam not mine. Yours is perfect we all know that as you remind of us how perfect Nikon is. If I think AF. Systems are crap it's my opinion. I think your opinion of Phase is extremely flawed for instance but its you opinion which I could really care less about. I don't look to you for any opinion on anything please stop giving it to me and I'm not going to sit here and try to prove you wrong on Phase gear like you constantly remind us of how good Nikon is and how Phase sucks. No one seriously gives a shit to be honest. Sitting here trying to prove me wrong on my Nikon is frankly about as lame as it gets. It's like the guy who says he has a problem with something than 24 morons try to prove the guy wrong. It's pretty fucking stupid dont you think.
Your still on the same plane of focus. Forget it I said it 3 times and you still do the same thing ignore what people say to prove your own point. Neck to eyes which is a totally different and I'm 30 ft away . Your not even close to where my issues are. BTW we all know focus and recompose does not work as well very tight to subject which you have done on every test to prove it don't work, we already know that. At distance its totally different.
Hi,
At close range I'd suggest that at close camera movement also play a major role and at a longer distance the angular error may play a lesser role.
I tried to look into this once, but it is very significant around which plane the camera is rotated. Would it be film plane, inlet pupil, exit pupil, first or second principal plane? What about field curvature, it may be with you or against you?
If you miss focus to often I guess you would loose customers. I guess that professional photographers develop a technique good enough to deliver the image quality the customers expect.
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
At close range I'd suggest that at close camera movement also play a major role and at a longer distance the angular error may play a lesser role.
I tried to look into this once, but it is very significant around which plane the camera is rotated. Would it be film plane, inlet pupil, exit pupil, first or second principal plane? What about field curvature, it may be with you or against you?
Best regards
Erik
But here's a hint. If you really want to have sharp images and pixel peep until your eyes bleed, I suggest using a tripod.
Nothing improves sharpness like a tripod.
The best advice I was ever given about fashion photography was that it's all about the woman....
The best advice I was ever given about fashion photography was that it's all about the woman....
Come on Fred !
You've got experience in this business right? Those sentences are empty words and you know it perfectly.
...Also it was not an empty phrase. I worked for her for many years.
It was not some silly catch phase that she would throw around...
Ok, I give you credit on that she didn't thrown the phrase for the parade, I wasn't there and you know her.
The great and very matter of fact Peter Lindbergh said it's all about the casting Totally thruth ... the woman but here is what I find it too shortcutted
the casting is not just the woman, it's the right woman for the righ brand, wich impllies deep knowledge on what the brand is actually making. Not just the hability to treat the
woman's essence.
But let me tell you one other dirty secret of mine that reinforces why it's all about the woman.
It's very important to get your images infront of clients before you ever meet them.
There is no better way that making it all about the woman. Why you might ask...
Well it's very simple. Every modelling agency has many copies of each models books.
They have their own little army of runners that endlessly deliver these books to clients.
And guess what ... if you take photos with the "it's all about the woman" philosophy
you images end up in models books. What is most important is that models books get looked at by clients
right when photography is their priority. Also there are times when a client will use a model and she won't come out as she did
in the book. I have been contacted more than once to reshoot for a designer after they had obsessively decided on a model.
Again a case of it's all about the woman.
That's exactly how Testino made it. I agree with that above
I actually think that my "all about the woman" way of doing things was instrumental to me getting into celebrity photography
and shooting some of the most interesting people around.
mmm...nothing to do with photography and this topic but "interesting" is a very relative concept. There are many celebs who are far from being interesting,
but I'm going away from the subject here.
Just look at the fashion magazines these days. Whose on the covers. Singers and actresses because it is about the woman.
What about Lady Gaga then? She is NOT the arquetype of the supermodel and the ideal of beauty. (I love her personaly and know you shooted her). I don't see the woman, I see a highly thought, designed and shapped character. It's a bit like Kiss. This is basically marqueting. In the case of LGG, I think she's talented, she works hard and she deserves her success.
Really greatly done.
Personally I find it rather inappropriate and missinformed that you jump on this advice that I chose to share.
You know Fred, I've been into the art milieu since my birth in France, and seen so much BS and crazy egos so far and so on that I tend to be very very cautious with given words and legendaries quotes. I've been learning that if there are some really really serious folks, there is also all the snobery and mystic involved.
In the end, the only real voice once can follow is the inner one. My intention wasn't to destroy your statements, but accept the fact that if I read "it's all about the woman", point, It might have
reminds me some of the parade I was talking about, and you know that those are legions. Well, in this case you precise that it is an important person you respect and
that you have been able to verify in your experience many times; this precision is now given and as I pointed above, I trust that you are sincere and didn't want to be effectist.
Cheers
Re. focus and recompose,
If I may be allowed an explanation for the trigonometrically challenged
For each lens, subject (and aperture), if you are far enough foc and rec works, if you are closer it don't.
Whether any of the secondary focus points on your average dSLR really improves on focus and recompose at f5.6 probably depends on your lottery number.
Edmund
I am still testing the H3D versus the D800 (not necessarily for this forum, I would do it for myself alone) and I tried to compare the bokeh of the two systems. This time I will not be criticised for using a zoom lens, but I will probably be criticised because the two focal length do not match ::) I used the HC 80mm f/2.8 on the H3D-31 and the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4G on the D800. The pictures are taken from the same point: I took one camera from the tripod and mounted the other one in its place.
The whole set with the pictures is here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/sets/72157632950617544/detail/). There are two tests, one with flowers and one with a tree.
I added more pictures to that address. This time, I compared the HC 80mm f/2.8 to the Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 (the focal lengths match better) and the HC 150mm f/3.2 to the DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2D. Here also the focal length match very well and the DC-Nikkor was chosen as a lens designed to render beautiful bokeh. The DC feature allows to adjust the bokeh either to the front or to the rear of the focus plane.
I try to summarize the finding in a single picture here:
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8386/8648770125_52da3ab3db_o.png) (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8386/8648770125_52da3ab3db_o.png)
Bokeh-compare (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8648770125/) by jerome_Munich (http://www.flickr.com/people/jerome_munich/)
As I already said, I am not doing this test for this forum, but to learn about the lenses myself. My conclusion is that the Hasselblad system gives much more natural results, but anyone is welcomed to download the pictures (the full resolution can be reached using the magnifier in the flickr interface) and come to their own conclusions.
Yes, there is a minute difference in focus between the two cameras, as is to be expected when one photographies a real life subject as this one. There is also a little difference in size, as is to be expected from the focal lengths.
Is this all what you have noticed from the pictures? Here a crop (clic the picture to see it bigger):
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8265/8649957626_c9964de0ab_o.png) (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8265/8649957626_c9964de0ab_o.png)
105f4.0-150f5.6 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8649957626/) by jerome_Munich (http://www.flickr.com/people/jerome_munich/)
Out of curiosity how did you process the Hasselblad images?
All images were processed identically with Apple Aperture. Had I used Phocus, the aberrations of the HC lenses would be automatically corrected. I wanted to avoid that.
The colors were matched by eye, the automatic WB on the D800 gave much cooler results.
Hi jerome
The reason I asked is that I can see some color fringing on the 105 DC at the wider apertures.
Take a look at the latest Adobe Camera Raw. There is a new version of the color fringing correction tool.
It works really well for fast lenses that have purple or green fringing. This would help you get more out of your 105.
As for the HC 150 it is a very clean lens very minimal CA.
The reason the HC 150 exhibits minimal CA is that it is not used at the same aperture to produce the same depth of field. Even wide open, it is f/3.2 while the Nikon opens at f/2.0.