Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Norm37 on March 01, 2013, 03:04:36 PM

Title: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Norm37 on March 01, 2013, 03:04:36 PM
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?

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: TMARK on March 01, 2013, 03:11:29 PM
So we are importing DPreview BS to this forum?

Look around and see for yourself. 
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 01, 2013, 03:43:52 PM
Hi,

I don't think so. There is some advantage to size and there is some advantage to technical cameras. Some folks simply like the stuff.

Best regards
Erik

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?


Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: sgilbert on March 01, 2013, 03:45:56 PM
"So we are importing DPreview BS to this forum?"

Surely the posts here on this subject are bad enough, don't you think?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Norm37 on March 01, 2013, 03:52:03 PM
So we are importing DPreview BS to this forum?

Look around and see for yourself. 

Sorry! This was my first post on this site.

I have always referred people to this site on medium format related things.

I was just curious (???) on the comment Barrie Davis made.

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?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 01, 2013, 04:06:47 PM
Hi,

I'm just an onlooker, but anyway...

I would say that smaller formats indeed close the gap. This is true for all formats, 4/3 is going into full frame territory and some MF guys are quite happy with their new Nikon D800s. MF is also developing.

There are some advantages with larger formats. Also, MF digital backs offer a great flexibility. You can use an MFDB on an MF SLR or a technical camera.

For many shooters cost and size does not play a paramount role.

Best regards
Erik

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?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 01, 2013, 07:39:36 PM
You mean Barrie Davis, the amateur wrestler? Who is Barrie Davis anyway and why do you care what he thinks? Having read a few threads on DPreview, I would not put a lot of weight into any conclusion there.

Sure, MFD is dead. Just like film is dead.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 01, 2013, 07:40:09 PM
MF camera manufacturers and their eco system still seems profitable today and the equipment they produce can deliver amazing performance and cover some unique applications.

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.

This is the case for imaging sensors, imaging DSPs, AF modules, lens glass, lens coatings, lens stabilization, weather sealing,... It is also the case for design, manufacturing and testing processes/equipments.

Pentax has chosen a different pricing model and seems better positionned overall.

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. My personnal opinion is that Phaseone and Hassy are likely to have a very hard time moving forward if their next gen back is not based on CMOS sensors enabling a competitive live view. Those backs are probably in their development cycle now with annoucements some time in 2014/2015... We will know by then.

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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Ed Foster, Jr. on March 01, 2013, 09:03:47 PM
Sorry! This was my first post on this site.
... So wondered if high mega pixel DLSRs are closing the gap on Medium Format?...

Welcome to the site, Norm. I do have to say that subject has been discussed here ad nauseum, so for your own edification might I suggest a search here and you'll see an overwhelming amount of opinions.

Again, Welcome!
Ed
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 01, 2013, 11:33:38 PM
Hi,

This samples are used with the kind permission of Marc McCalmont.

(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/MFMythsReality/McCalmont_upsize.jpg)

(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/MFMythsReality/McCalmont_2.jpg)

The images were shot using the Phase One IQ 180 with a technical camera and Rodenstock HR lens and a Nikon D800E with a Leica lens. The images on top are scaled to IQ 180 resolution  and the bottom is downsampled to Nikon resolution.

Now, there are other factors. For instance, the area of maximum sharpness in the IQ180 image above is very thin. If you stop down to say f/16 to increase DoF there will be some loss of sharpness.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Norm37 on March 02, 2013, 12:15:21 AM
Thanks! everybody for all the replies and the welcome to this sight.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 02, 2013, 12:59:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 02, 2013, 01:16:43 AM
Hi,

Leica has been on the wedge of bankruptcy for many years. They seem to fine now, with transition to digital.

Hasselblad has been very shaky a long time, little is known of their economy.

It is very well possible to make a decent living with high end low volume products. Competing in the high volume market is not easy.

Best regards
Erik


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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 02, 2013, 02:32:24 AM
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.

Photographic manufacturing indeed used to have high end, high price items...but:
- they were around 10 times cheaper that the current high end backs,
- they were relying on very basic technology just like the rest of the industry, the only reason why they were expensive were small series mostly from a manufacturing standpoint (essential mold and press dies), a lot less from an R&D standpoint. It was not about developing technologies, it was about developing products.

The example you mention of companies doing fine in the high end are real, but they essentially focus on niche applications where there is no competition. My point was that when looking at the domains relying on technologies also developed by consumer electronic companies, the high end doesn't stand a chance in the long run.

I could provide more details, but time is a bit limited today.

One the last point, please explain me then my Pentax can sell higher performance full cameras twice+ cheaper than standalone backs relying on the same sensor...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: yaya on March 02, 2013, 03:44:52 AM
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...

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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 02, 2013, 03:57:22 AM
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...

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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 02, 2013, 04:01:06 AM
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

What about your credibility?

Usable tethering solution for Pentax 645D

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/888259-REG/Pentax_39030_Image_Transmitter_S_SW123_Software.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/888259-REG/Pentax_39030_Image_Transmitter_S_SW123_Software.html)

Anyone can take a look at the Pentax 645D forums and compare them to the Phase One Mamiya Leaf forum.

The Pentax 645D is fully weather sealed and a very reliable camera. The DF body is far inferior.

The Pentax 645D is also the only MF camera to offer image stabilization.

It is also very interesting that Shriro that used to own Hasselblad and sold 100% of it
is now the Pentax distributor in several countries.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 02, 2013, 04:04:09 AM
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

Architecture seems to be drifting away from MF quite a bit ....

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75370.0 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75370.0)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 02, 2013, 04:18:58 AM
Hasselblad has been very shaky a long time, little is known of their economy.

Hasselblad has had problems and the previous owner that was also the distributor for the orient sold the company to Ventiz
a German venture capital group, but this comes after a series of different owners... non of whome managed to turn the company around:

The timeline...

1972 Säfveån AB (a Swedish investment firm)
1985 Incentive AB (a Swedish investment firm)
1996 UBS AG (a Swiss investment firm) and CINven (a British investment firm)
2003 Shriro Group (a Hong Kong heavy equipment manufacturer, and Hasselblads Asia/Pacific distributor).
2011 Ventizz Capital Fund IV L.P (a German investment firm, part of VENTIZ Capital Partners Advisory AG).

This is what Ventiz ahd to say:

Quote
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.


Ventiz bought the company with the intention of cashing in on the brand name "entering into new market segments".

What they came up with is an idiot called Allesandrini that came up with the Lunar that is a horribly pimped up Sony Nex camera.

The Lunar was the laughing stock of Photokina. A $ 6,000 pimped up plastic Nex with a snakeskin grip.

As far as "the further technological development of existing product lines" goes Hasselblad came out with the H5D that has the same sensors and image quailty
as the H4D, but a different paint job.

With little progress on the flagship cameras and the disastrous Lunar project Hasselblad does not seem to be in a strong position.

Things look even worse if you compare their $21,000 40MP sensor camera and macro lens to Nikon's 36MP D800E
and 105 mm Macro for $ 3,700.

Photogy article here:

http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/ (http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/)

Full frame

(http://www.photigy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Nikon-d800e-test-review-sample-image.jpg)

Crops

(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69391.0;attach=64261;image)

$17,000 dollar difference?

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.













Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: yaya on March 02, 2013, 04:25:26 AM
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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 02, 2013, 04:50:31 AM
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

I'll take live view auto focusing on the D800 compared to the slow inaccurate auto focusing of the DF anyday even for moving subjects.


Also if we really want to be sticklers the first cameras with "live view" were video cameras that shot stills. ;)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 02, 2013, 05:12:30 AM
Hi,

I agree with Bernard. Live view at actual pixels is accurate, AF and manual focus less so.

Best regards
Erik


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

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 02, 2013, 05:22:20 AM
Hi,

I don't feel there is a need to question Bernards credibility. He is entitled to his opinion and he is not on any vendor's pay list. It just that his opinion differs from yours.

Regarding the Pentax 645D, I got the impression that it is a robust and workable camera with excellent weather sealing. It is not intended for studio work and the sensor is built in. That gives less flexibility. Pentax can also probably draw on electronics from the K-series.

It's really for the customer to decide which platform suits their needs best, Leica S, Phase, Leaf or Pentax.

Your definition of the professional market may be a bit to narrow. You think all professionals shoot tethered?

Best regards
Erik






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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 02, 2013, 09:28:36 AM
Hi Fred,

I don't know if Hasselblad has a problem. Perhaps they have a problem, perhaps they have no problem, or may be they even have have multiple problems.

I'm familiar with 24 MP APS-C sensors, as I have been shooting one for about a year. It is quite correct that scaled up to full frame it would be 54 MP. On the other hand, it is not all about resolution. To make use of all those pixels we need very good lenses. It's about the whole system. Also, a larger sensor will collect more photons and will therefore have less noise if the image is optimally exposed "to the right". It may be that modern CMOS has made enough gain in FWC (Full Well Capacity) to compensate for the larger size of the MF sensors.

There may be other, more subjective, factors for using MF. As long as customers buy Hassleblad and Phase One products it is just fine. If the customer find that their money would be spent wiser on competing products, that is also fine.

Best regards
Erik



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.














Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 02, 2013, 01:30:49 PM
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/)

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: erstwhile on March 02, 2013, 02:48:05 PM
That's interesting trivia, thanks for sharing. Having grown up in California, See's was always a favorite (and still is). They're really very good chocolates, and the stores typically hand out lots of free samples.

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/)


Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: BJL on March 02, 2013, 06:21:12 PM
There is an important difference bewen film and digital for the larger, high end formats: a new film emulsion from major film makers could routinely be coated onto films in many formats, from mainstream up to 120, 4”x5” and beyond, but new photosite designs do not scale up nearly as easily, and in fact the companies at the cutting edge of sensor design are so far not scaling beyond 36x24mm. That greatly increases the ecomomies of scale gap, and contributes to the far greater price gap.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: sgilbert on March 02, 2013, 07:52:48 PM
"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."

Really?  Exactly how well are they doing?  See's seems to think that they're owned by Berkshire Hathaway.  http://www.sees.com/index.cfm/about_us/history 
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Doug Peterson on March 02, 2013, 09:15:20 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Steve Hendrix on March 02, 2013, 09:32:37 PM
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/)




Prove it.



Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: JohnCox123 on March 02, 2013, 10:30:56 PM
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/)



Keep in mind that at that time Leica was going belly up. The identity crisis in the industry is over now.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Schewe on March 02, 2013, 11:19:39 PM
Barrie Davis wrote:

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 03, 2013, 12:08:13 AM

Prove it.

Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

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.



 

 
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 03, 2013, 12:13:19 AM
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.

Being that the cameras are made by Mamiya and that Mamiya is a CIPA member it should be easy for them to supply some numbers.
I wonder why they don't.
Nikon and Canon report their numbers.

If things are so good why don't they report their numbers. I'm sure it would help significantly towards making sales of such expensive equipment
I the changing photography market.

I also wonder why Dalsa no longer mentions medium format photography as one of the many applications listed on their website.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Marlyn on March 03, 2013, 01:21:52 AM
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.

Gotta love it when 8 year old numbers from a single source of general, unverified, market information, are presented as 'current fact'.

If you like 'facts' like that,  then I've got this bridge for sale.....

Shouting it from the rooftops, over and over again,  doesn't make it so.

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Norm37 on March 03, 2013, 03:31:22 AM
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?

True! That is the main reason I came to this forum (my first post here) to get clarification on the comments MR. Barrie Davis made about my reply to Jalmod90 on dpreview.

Just sayin'

We have our own problems here on LuLa, we seriously don't need DP Review crap here as well.

Jalmod90 Started a thread on dpreview.

Is it worth stepping into the world of Medium Format photography? (film or digital)

I mentioned the Pentax 645D (with a link to the review on this site) would be less expensive than going with a digital back.

I also referred him to the forums on Luminous Landscape for information on medium format.

Feel free to ask the moderator to delete my post (or ban me) for dpreview crap if you wish.

Until then! I will continue to refer posters from dpreview to this website for information on medium format photography. Or if someone puts a ? (medium format) in my head I will come to this site for clarification.

Norm


Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Doug Peterson on March 03, 2013, 07:27:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 03, 2013, 10:37:19 AM
Hi Doug,

Poor Fred. Do you think GX680 shooters should be put on the "endangered list"?

For real: The customers you see, are they newcomers to MFD or up graders from elder backs?

Best regards
Erik


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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: BobDavid on March 03, 2013, 11:28:12 AM
It is true that some MF photographers are migrating over to 35mm. I count myself among them. I got years of good service out of my CF39-MS, H2f, along with various configurations of tech cams and digitar lenses. My six-year ownership of MF digital handily paid for itself many times over. The quality of MF files is astounding.

My service offerings have evolved, thus compelling me to migrate over to the Nikon D800. I like the flexibility of the Nikon 35mm system. I am having fun exploring ways to adapt the system to suit various requirements. My attitude regarding MF is that if a job requires it, I will happily rent a blad plus a few HC lenses and pass the cost of rental aong as a line-item onto the client. I've done that once over the past few months.

As far as the health of one camera company versus the health of another camera company goes, I haven't let that issue occupy much of the grey matter between my ears. The great thing about the state of photography today is that there are so many options. The marketplace will determine who shall live and who shall die ala Kodak and Polaroid.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Steve Hendrix on March 03, 2013, 12:36:09 PM
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.



 

 


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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 03, 2013, 12:44:49 PM
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.

And the Phase/Mamiya DF series cameras were targeted towards professionals?  :D :D :D :D ;D I happy to take the "amateur" model.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 03, 2013, 01:03:22 PM
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.



 

 

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 03, 2013, 01:17:06 PM
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. ;)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on March 03, 2013, 01:31:31 PM
Well, I did read about the feature-loaded, problem-free DF cameras before I decided I need something more amateur. ;)

hahahaha
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 03, 2013, 03:00:43 PM
I own a D800 and just got a second hand Hasselblad H3D-31. I find the AF of the H3D just as accurate as the live view of the D800 and the H3D to give slightly sharper results as the D800 and much nicer colours. The lenses are also much better. And of course, the H3D-31 is 7 years old and recent MF cameras have higher resolution.  ::)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 03, 2013, 03:21:02 PM

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

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.





Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 03, 2013, 03:23:51 PM
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.

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.

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Marlyn on March 03, 2013, 03:40:54 PM
Doug and Steve are too professional to engage in battle with such arguments.   They cannot be fought on logic and fact, as so far, certain posters don't start with either of them (fact or logic).

Stating things as fact, doesn't make them so !.   i.e.  "We all know that the technological advances by 35mm DSLR cameras have reached .. "  Who is WE ?  what sample group did you use, where is the empirical evidence of such grandiose all encompassing statements.   What you are really saying is YOU believe it is so, and some other people you've heard of say it is so, therefore it must be GLOBALLY so, in all markets, for all definitions of 'commercial' etc etc.   Patently not so, otherwise there wouldn't be a market for all types of cameras, commercially.

Sorry, that is up there with "Grass is green,  this bottle is green, therefore this bottle must be made from grass".

Strawman arguments at best:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

And as for the sentiment,  well,  that is up there with 'A Toyota corolla gets you from A to B,  who needs a BMW,  or even an Astin Martin".
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Nick-T on March 03, 2013, 03:41:37 PM

What is really funny is that both Steve Hendrix and Doug respond, but cannot or do not want to
supply numbers.


Fred How much do you make a year? Gross and net profit please.

How are your savings looking? Shares investments? Just a total $ will be fine.

Thanks for sharing.

Nick-T
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Marlyn on March 03, 2013, 03:42:13 PM
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.



Says who ?  Last I checked privately held foreign businesses can do and report (or not report) whatever the hell they want.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Stefan.Steib on March 03, 2013, 04:03:46 PM
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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: JV on March 03, 2013, 04:19:15 PM
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.

The same can be said about cars and other luxury articles, I don't see that stopping people from buying them...

Once more Fred, where are you going with this?  Why the endless ranting and repetitions? 

Quite frankly, why be such a pain in the b*##...?

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Gigi on March 03, 2013, 04:29:58 PM
I remember that line of logic: "Have you ever been and are you now ...."

There may be a fact lurking in the story, or not, but such reasoning is a real turn off. Truly I (and others probably) beg you to cease and desist. Please. Please.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 03, 2013, 04:31:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Marlyn on March 03, 2013, 04:58:50 PM
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.

This continues to crack me up.

"But strangely cannot supply numbers despite encouraging people to buy MF"

I love how this leaps headlong into assumptions, plus seed planting with no facts.

1. "cannot supply numbers".   Todate they havn't,   So this has suddenly become the fact that they 'can't'  despite no evidence to the contrary one way or the other.   Just because someone hasn't done something you want, doesn't in anyway make a vauge assumptions as to their reasons for doing so,  'Fact'.


2. My favorite:  Statement A: "Cannon supply numbers"   Linked with 'despite'  to 'Statement B: "encouraging people to by MF'.

      Classic misdirection, often used by politicians, attempting to link  your point 'A'  with someone else's actions 'B'.   In effect, trying to tie some causal relationship between your point, and their actions, whilst at the same time attempting to make their actions seem 'dubious'  because how can they do B, without providing A.   Even though there is absolutely no linkage demonstrated between the points.

Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc.

Logical Fallacy at its finest.       


Fred. Accept that people have different opinions, desires, needs and wants to your own,  and please, end this barrage of white noise.

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Ken Doo on March 03, 2013, 05:29:16 PM
Phase One didn't become a major shareholder of Mamiya until ~ March 2009.

Not that it matters to those who have an axe to grind or so deeply entrenched in bias to care.

I guess all that matters is that the vision of Mary See continues, and we can keep enjoying those chocolates.

 ;)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: yaya on March 03, 2013, 05:36:37 PM
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

We're all there

Mamiya Leaf on M10 & N1
Phase One on G20, Q14, G31 & F40
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Stefan.Steib on March 03, 2013, 06:01:25 PM
Hi Yair

I was looking to the Focus Website and couldn´t find you neither were there any hints on the Mamiya/Leaf Website on Events.
So these are dealer booth´s I guess.

Have a good fair ! Would love to be there, but need to write my column and the 3rd part of highend imaging for "DIGIT!".
Also we are preparing the B2............ :)

Regards
Stefan
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Tony Jay on March 03, 2013, 06:03:51 PM
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.
Perspective correction - not just a photographic term.

Disclaimer: Commercial affiliations - nil.

Tony Jay
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: JoeKitchen on March 03, 2013, 06:29:44 PM
I find this whole conversation silly, however it is keeping the loonies out of some of the other forums.  

I just read an article today on Apple, they were described as a bumble bee that should not be able to fly, but does.  Why, who knows.  Their computers doe the same thing, if not less, than any other computer on the market and cost over twice as much.  So why buy?  This is one way of looking at it.  

Or...

They are reliable and what they do, they do very well.  They rarely crash.  They are incredibly well designed and last much longer then their competitors.  That is why I use Apples.  

Do I drive a Ferrari?  Hell no, they are too damn expensive.  Too much money to spend on a device that only gets you from point A to point B.  Not to mention I've found my life companion and do not need the sex appear any more.  Kind of funny, I write this and think the same mind set could be put towards Apple and MF, but in the end I am willing to spend the money for great design in these two markets.  

Not to mention, just like with Ferrari, many more wealthy hobbyists buy MF then professionals.  I spoke to a camera salesman the other day trying to move a used Schneider 35mm.  They got it when a hobbyist came in to buy an IQ180 only to be told that that lens does not work well with that back.  With out even thinking about it, he traded the 35mm in for the new Rodie 32mm.  There you go, some wealthy hobbyist dropped over $40K for something that will make him no money just like car lovers (who dont race professional) drop a quarter mil all the time for a Ferrari. 
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Steve Hendrix on March 03, 2013, 06:52:19 PM
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.








Because you don't sell cameras you can lie or misrepresent? Is that it? That is how you justify your innuendo? It's kind of worse - you don't sell cameras, so have even less first hand knowledge of sales figures, yet continue to state misleading information about them.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration


Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 03, 2013, 06:54:08 PM
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.



Should? Do you know CIPA reporting rules? Film cameras are no longer being reported because of volume. CIPA does not report on the MFD equipment from what their web site indicates. They also do not report on microscope cameras which are produced by Olympus and Nikon. But Nikon and Olympus does well with their microscope products, so you cannot infer the MFD is not doing well.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 03, 2013, 07:07:10 PM
BTW, Mamiya was sold in 2006. It is not the same company that brought you those great cameras like the 7, RB/RZ67, etc (that company makes fishing rods and pachinko ball dispensers). I am not sure about the relationship among them and MAC and Phase. I suspect it is rather complicated. They seem to be suppliers to Phase. It is a very small company (160 employees and $3.5M capital) and I doubt their sales figures are significant where reporting them to CIPA is worthwhile.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 03, 2013, 08:10:14 PM
Mamiya-OP the company that used to own the Mamiya Optical sold it getting out of the photography buisness.

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: JohnCox123 on March 03, 2013, 08:28:42 PM
Mamiya-OP the company that used to own the Mamiya Optical sold it getting out of the photography buisness.

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.
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 03, 2013, 08:31:57 PM
You are still making a logical mistake. The medium-format film camera market was a well developed industry that was wiped out when digital came on the scene. Fuji discontinued all their MF camera including your GX680. They only came back with a fairly insignificant folder and wide-angle fixed lens cameras, but nothing like their former selves. Bronica went under taking three SLR models and a rangefinder. Pentax limped along, but both their 67 and 645 camera are gone. Even Mamiya lost some models through the sale. But those are film cameras.

Naturally, when your products cost an order of magnitude more, you don't get the same market size--it is one thing to buy a $2,000 camera and quite another to buy a $20,000 one. But there is no indication that the MFD market is not successful. Pulling out old film camera sales numbers don't mean anything. The Mamiya camera division was always the smallest part of the company and if you fished, you would know that, just as the camera divisions at Minolta and Konica were not very large. Are you saying that APS digital camera market is going down the tubes because Konica Minolta was sold to Sony?

Now, I understand you dislike MFD, but you have not built any kind of case for your argument that MFD is dead or dying. Just like film is still here when the "experts" on LuLa gave it five years back in 2000. And they cited sales figures too--except the MFD market seem to be growing since 2000. I have no idea why the existence of MFD is so personally distasteful to you, but wishing it will go away will not make it do so.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 03, 2013, 08:38:43 PM
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?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: JohnCox123 on March 03, 2013, 08:58:02 PM
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?

Some nostalgia on Kyocera, my boss when I was 20 was Chuck Flesher (at one point head of Kyocera north america). They made a lot of nice 35mm SLRs. Of them, I used an RTS II and a Yashica that I cannot recall the name of but I know was manufactured but Cosina(Voigtlander). Chuck advised me against buying a used mamiya because he thought I couldn't afford the lenses, this was 10 years ago (I was 20).
Kyocera made good cameras but I know from several levels that they were slow in getting ideas to fruition (the almost non-existent AF line of SLRs is an example). If things had been structured differently and markets managed not the way they were the Contax 645 AFD would be the best camera out now bar none.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 03, 2013, 09:28:41 PM
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.

Nikon was always part of the Mitsubishi group of companies.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: JohnCox123 on March 03, 2013, 09:48:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 03, 2013, 10:02:45 PM
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.

In 1988? Koyata-san must have been very old then.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: JohnCox123 on March 03, 2013, 10:09:15 PM
Your right it became Nikon after the merger.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 03, 2013, 10:14:23 PM
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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: JohnCox123 on March 03, 2013, 10:21:24 PM
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

That's my exact point!
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: gerald.d on March 03, 2013, 10:27:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 03, 2013, 10:42:06 PM
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.

I know it is very fashionable to bring out frustration you have had and bash companies you don't like. And you are now going to carry that over to Hasselblad, Alpa, Arca Swiss, Pentax, Rollei, and Leica? Well, send your MFD gear back and use 35mm. You seem so dissatisfied.

But that is what a lot of these threads are really about--bashing stuff to make yourselves feel better. Or is this a bullying tactic to get dealers to bend to your will?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Marlyn on March 03, 2013, 10:49:17 PM
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.

Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc.    (After, therefore, Because of it) Logical Falacy strikes again.

They sold there camera business and they are doing well.  Therefore they are doing well because they sold it,  therefore the camera business was bad.
I've still got that bridge for sale. 

Man, I could use you as a case study for business classes.  Keep them coming, this is hilarious.
 
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Marlyn on March 03, 2013, 10:54:41 PM
Because a lack of budget is the only viable excuse for USB not to be working on the IQ backs a year ago.

How's about 'technical challenges',  or 'oops, we made a mistake someplace, now we are trying to fix it',  or any number of engineering problems that I wish they would tell us (but won't). (btw I wish they would fix it also, but I highly doubt it is lack of R&D budget). 

Seriously guys.  If you are going to add 1 + 2 and come up with 9,  at least come up with something other than raw speculation. Even SOME reference to someone that actually might KNOW would be nice.

It is absolutely BAD logic or reasoning  in any shape or form, to infer negative (or positive for that matter) things about a LACK of information. Especially when you have absolutely no idea why that information is not provided. Btw, they never said it was booming, just that sales were up.  I also happen to be annoyed Phase haven't fixed USB 3.   But leaping to conclusions as to the cause? pass.

Regards   Mark

Disclaimer: No vendor affiliation or interest:  Yes I own Medium Format, and DSLR, and Point and Shoot, and 4x5, and well, the list goes own.
              
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: gerald.d on March 03, 2013, 10:55:11 PM
Lol.

No. I'm very happy with my IQ180. Even more so with my TC, Max, and FPS. I also enjoy - less frequently these days it must be said - my Phase AF and collection of old Mamiya glass. Even my GX680 makes me smile everytime I see it sat on the shelf.

But my personal satisfaction has no bearing on the purported financial performance of Phase One, nor their apparent lack of R&D budget that led them to launch a range of backs that still don't work as advertised.

It's called objectivity.

Regards,

Gerald.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Marlyn on March 03, 2013, 11:04:20 PM
I really really wish they would fix USB3 in the IQ's, I agree totally.   Only today I had to run off to apple to get firewire adapter for thunderbolt to tether.  Minor annoyance, but one none the less.

My personal OPINION, is they screwed something in the engineering which has made it either really hard, or impossible to enable USB3 in a current back without some kind of hardware change.
This is based on nothing more than past experience as an embedded systems designer/firmware developer.  That is my supposition on why its taken this long, but it is, at best, a guess.

But other than that, I LOVE my IQ back, without reservation.  Are there somethings I'd like better, sure. (like better liveview, wouldn't we all).  But frankly what is there no is so far ahead of what else there was in MF before, it is still very good. I have only being doing it (MF digital) 1 year now, but I am utterly hooked on the technical camera.  Right tool for the job and all that.

Phase AF- Sits in the draw.  When I want an SLR, I use the 1Dx.   Biggest complaint. Focuses as speed-of-snail.

Regards

Mark
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 03, 2013, 11:05:13 PM
You are confusing sales with customer satisfaction. With all the complaints I hear from a whole bunch of releases from Leica, it still seems not to have dampened sales. Some people like to buy British cars too.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 03, 2013, 11:07:02 PM
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.

That's an interesting example for various reasons:
1. It validates the proposition that small series companies in the high end can be very profitable (the luxury segment as a whole validates this as well),
2. But it does in fact not really validate the position that independant high end brands in competitive technological fields can remain at the forefront of technology based on their own revenues alone (even with very high prices).

Why so?

1. Ferrari is similar to Boeing in that one business line (F1/military) manages to fund to a large extend the high end technological developement of another business line (sports car/civilian planes). In the case of Ferrari, the sports car division is in fact fed with technologies both from high end (F1) and mass products (Fiat/Chrysler group). It is of course more complex than that because their involvement in F1 also serves a clear marketing purpose whose monetary value only themselves can assess.

2. When you look more into the details of the components making up the value of a car (Ferrari or VW), you'll quickly realize that a lot of that is coming from suppliers like Bosch who spread the cost of their R&D over basically all the Automotive OEMs (tens of millions of cars). This is especially true for ECU (Engine Control Units), etc...

This is even more obvious for Lamborghini whose 4x4 powertrain is directly inherited from Audi who owns them. There is no way Lamborghini could have developped by themselves the Quattro technology, even when they sell their cars 200,000+ Euros a pop. 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.

OK, it is true that Dalsa is somehow behaving like Bosch and that their defense R&D does, to some extend, certainly contribute to the technology they are using in their MF sensors. But those are pretty small series also with arguably pretty different sets of specs/needs. I would love to be told wrong and see them come up with a live view enabled nex gen sensor performing as well as that of the D800. I mean this. But I have serious doubts about their ability to come up with the R&D/process goods.

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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Steve Hendrix on March 03, 2013, 11:15:09 PM
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.


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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 03, 2013, 11:17:56 PM
Bernard, these companies don't have to appeal to everyone. Obviously, there are some that are fine with the limited technology. There are folks still using 8x10 view cameras and making wet plates. I like the Live View in my RX-1 and I can happily live without it in my 645D. And basing a successful product line because it has the cutting-edge bells and whistles falls flat when the field is subjective. Look how people are swayed by the "rangefinder style" of the Nex 7/6 or the "DSLR style" of the OMD, when both are neither and are the same type of camera.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Norm37 on March 04, 2013, 01:07:40 AM

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


I hope SSC North America remains credible?

http://www.sscnorthamerica.com/about-ssc.php (http://www.sscnorthamerica.com/about-ssc.php)

Norm
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 04, 2013, 01:09:49 AM

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

So what is the problem?

Phase One and Mamiya Leaf tout this as a feature on their websites and it still does not work.. even two years later.




Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 04, 2013, 01:34:22 AM
Hi,

I pretty much agree with Bernard.

What I would consider would be a digital back with live view on a technical camera (probably Hartblei). The Hartblei can be adopted to almost any lens (like my set of Pentax 67 lenses) and all those yield TS with Mirex adapters. 

The major issues for me is the price point of the backs and lack of live view.

Best regards
Erik




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

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 04, 2013, 02:29:13 AM
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?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 04, 2013, 03:07:07 AM
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.

That's where the "you don't have the money" questions is highlighting the lose-lose situation we are currently in. The real question is not whether one has the cash (or the means to get credit for the required amount), but whether it is the best way to use this amount considering the value being delivered relative to other available options.

So mentioning price as one show stopper doesn't mean that the cash is not there, just that the current value offering is not convincing relative to one's need.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 04, 2013, 09:18:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 04, 2013, 10:03:09 AM
In fact most companies think of their products in terms of the value they deliver to their customers.

But if you are not one of those buying the products, you are not a customer. Wishing for things does not make you a customer either. And the MFD market certainly has customers and from the folks that have posted here and actually have purchased this equipment, they seem to think they are getting value.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 04, 2013, 10:09:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 04, 2013, 12:24:17 PM
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.

D800E vs Hasselblad 40MP close crops and keep in mind that the hasselblad shot was shot closer and the face filled more of the frame
so the comparison favors the Hasselblad.

(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69391.0;attach=64261;image)

http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/ (http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 04, 2013, 12:38:47 PM
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).
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: evgeny on March 04, 2013, 12:53:14 PM
Fred, I think you should close a 645 lens one stop more and compare 120 macro to a 85mm (35mm format) lens.

I don't believe this MF photo is a good capture

Evgeny
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 04, 2013, 01:01:19 PM
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).

Hmmm zoom lens (ultra wide 14 to 28mm 2.8 fast lens) on the D800 and a prime (28mm f 4 ) on the Hasselblad.......
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 04, 2013, 01:04:11 PM
I’m a whisker away from buying a D800E but Fred’s incessant polemic keeps putting me off.

Ridiculous  ;)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: EricWHiss on March 04, 2013, 01:40:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: bcooter on March 04, 2013, 02:02:06 PM
D800E vs Hasselblad 40MP close crops and keep in mind that the hasselblad shot was ...............


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

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: bcooter on March 04, 2013, 02:16:32 PM
I doubt he shot the test.

Wow.

He's shown it so much, I'm sure he did.

Right Fred?


IMO

BC
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 04, 2013, 02:26:20 PM
Hi,

Many of us can afford what we want to have, it may just be the matter of priorities. I have been considering MF a few times, but mostly in the context of technical cameras.

It is not just about money, it is also about utility. When I shoot with camera on tripod, which I mostly do, I use live view to focus. So that is clearly important to me. Also I'm not sure about the advantage in image quality, my standard print size is A2, although I have a few prints at 70x100cm.

One thing I would like to point out is that the original posting was: "DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???"

I don't know, for me there are some good reasons for MF. On the other hand MFD has taken a high cost route, to keep healthy MF vendors need to find enough customer to finance infrastructure and development.

I guess that one of the reasons that Pentax 645D can be sold at a lower price is that they sell trough the normal channels, and don't need to support a chain of dealers. Phase One, which is a small operation needs to keep Mamiya alive. I don't know how large Phase One in Denmark is but I guess less than 30 people. Mamiya is said to have around 160.

Personally I don't think that MFD is moribund, but it may very well be if customers find that the utility of MF does not justify the cost.

Best regards
Erik




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?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Ed Foster, Jr. on March 04, 2013, 02:27:30 PM
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).

That is my experience owning both a Nikon D800 and H4D. Tight and close in, with exception of tonality and depth, there is hardly a dime's worth of difference. But, IMHO, MFD excels at the type of work shown in this comparison.  Fred's link to those tight close-ups is not how I would evaluate the two cameras side-by-side.

Ed

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 04, 2013, 02:35:47 PM
Hi BC,

I see your point.

As far as I know the images were shot by a gentleman named Alex Koloskov and I'm pretty sure he used studio flash. I am also pretty sure it was a reasonably well made test, and Mr. Koloskov stayed with the Hasselblad, mainly because he wanted to use the back with technical cameras. In my view, Mr. Koloskov made a great contribution to the community making this test and sharing raw images.

On the other hand I would say that images care little about about who has taken them, as long as the tests are well made they have something to tell.

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr


Wow.

He's shown it so much, I'm sure he did.

Right Fred?


IMO

BC
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 04, 2013, 03:07:25 PM
Hmmm zoom lens (ultra wide 14 to 28mm 2.8 fast lens) on the D800 and a prime (28mm f 4 ) on the Hasselblad.......

Which is what the respective users of these cameras use in practice. Besides, the 14-24 is better than most equivalent primes.


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.

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).
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 04, 2013, 03:18:06 PM
Hi,

I agree on the 14-24/2.8 being a good lens.

I did presume that the halos may come from JPEG pipeline in camera, but I did presume that you would compare either unsharpened raw or optimally processed raw for both.

Whatever the problem I wouldn't call that Nikon image sharp.

Best regards
Erik

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).
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 04, 2013, 03:36:14 PM
Hi Keith,

I'm just saying that image is not sharp.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, to be sure you need to conduct your own test.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: TMARK on March 04, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
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.

 


Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 04, 2013, 04:19:14 PM
Hi,

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.

A larger sensor would probably give a better image even if sensor resolution in pixels would be similar, so I would expect the "Blad" to have some advantage.

I have tested an old Sonnar 150/4 recently on a 24 MP APS-C sensor and it was actually performing better than the other two lenses I compared with. By the way, I also compared the Sonnar 150/4 to a Pentax 67 165/2.8 I have and the Sonnar was significantly better.

Best regards
Erik
Eric, agreed, but as it's not our own test we'll never be sure why.

There's a moral here somewhere.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 04, 2013, 04:29:59 PM
Hi,

There is much to that. I agree mostly on all points.

Best regards
Erik  



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.

 



Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Marlyn on March 04, 2013, 05:00:09 PM
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.....


Regards

Mark.

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 04, 2013, 07:41:32 PM
"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.....

Hum... I am sure that some users will invest and fine value, but to me these look like point updates that do not solve any of the fundamental issues (ok, long exposures, but that was a regression) and try to solve non existing problems.

DR was already excellent, wired thethered shooting was not an issue and it was probably already possible to use an eyefi wifi card to stream images if needed. As DSLR users have understood for long, the only way it makes sense is if you are able to stream smaller size camera generated jpgs, and even that is not all that useful considering how good camera screens are. Doing this requires a good in camera jpg engine and double memory card slots.

Sorry but I don't see how the "new" backs are going to expand the market reach of phaseone.

On the other hand, they will contribute to a faster depreciation of the value of the IQ180/IQ160 owned by existing users. They have probably just lost 5,000+ US$ overnight.

Progress is of course good and the IQ280 is obviously a better product than the IQ180 (and seems to be a bit cheaper perhaps), but why focus R&D resources on things that won't change the game plan?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: bcooter on March 04, 2013, 08:14:32 PM

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



As T says, these comparisons are pointless.

I doubt seriously if Phase One thinks there going to sell near as many cameras as Nikon. 

I doubt if Phase even considers Nikon the competition.  (I don't mean that in a bad way, just a logical way).

Though they may like to have that "problem", they probably couldn't fill the orders Nikon does anyway.

But Phase doesn't have to convince the non buyers.  They're already convinced to go to another direction. 

I don't think it's the same market.

Phase just needs to convince their own established buyers and a some new photographers that want to step up further.

But T's right all of these cameras are good, though I should add all of them are different.  Not necessarily better but different.

Now me, I find this interesting.  My backs are a few generations old and though really functional and still useful, this is the first complete upgrade that I find interesting.

Going to an Ipad is street useful.  If it's dead ass reliable, I can't begin to explain how that will speed up production. 

We shoot a lot on the beach, parks, homes in a lot of places where tethering is an issue, due to time, space, permits, etc.

The AD can't see the shot without us stopping and either downloading to a powerbook, or thumbing through the images on the camera which are both non productive.

Handing the AD an Ipad is nice because he/she can personally view it, or show it to the clients if they so chose.

Good idea.



IMO

BC

P.S.

Anyone that buys a camera and worries about the depreciation, probably shouldn't have bought the camera.

My RED 1's dropped a trillion dollars in price last year, but they are still the two of the most cost effective pieces of equipment I own, in a lot of ways and still work as well as they ever did.

Then again, I use stuff until I wear the paint off of it.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: JV on March 04, 2013, 09:37:44 PM
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...
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 04, 2013, 10:07:17 PM
Sorry but I don't see how the "new" backs are going to expand the market reach of phaseone.

Why? The Japanese just released a bunch of DSLRs that have no big jump from the previous models. New models are for new customers. They keep the lines fresh and address old problems or weaknesses. I think you also probably missed they also released a monochrome 60MP back, which should make it a lot easier for their customer base to get those as well as being innovative--no Japanese manufacturer has come out with a monochrome camera. You seem to have a strange idea that every new product must have some technological break through. Not in the camera industry--there is so much a camera can do.

You are also missing the point. Phase does not have to expand its "market reach" as you call it. They simply need to develop the market they target. Apparently, it is big enough to support them.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Guy Mancuso on March 04, 2013, 10:16:09 PM
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...

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 04, 2013, 10:16:46 PM
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



Test was done by these guys. Studio with strobes.

http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format (http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format)

MichaelEzra from the forum here did the processing and made this file:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69391.0;attach=64261;image (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69391.0;attach=64261;image)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 04, 2013, 10:37:41 PM
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).



 
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 04, 2013, 11:36:42 PM
Hi,

There is a difference between professional photographers and professional photographers. Being a "professional photographer" just means that you take pictures for living. Some professional photographers work on small scale and some on large scale.

I'm pretty sure that serious photographers also care about money and return on investment. Our frequently posting friend BC illustrates this a bit. Most of his productions are resource intensive and he prefers using MF. But he seems quite happy with a couple of old Contax 645 and a few Phase backs of yore. BC says that they are the best investment he ever made. So my impression is that BC has an extensive operation but does care about money.

I don't think Phase is getting a lot of money from BC. That said I'm pretty sure that BC would go for an expensive Phase back if he needed it. Or a Hasselblad, but good customer experience and working relations also matter a lot for a businessman.

On the other hand I don't think business is insensitive to cost. I have been in the computing business a long time. When I started in my present job, thirty years ago the business was dominated by "mini computers", they were horribly expensive and slow. Market offered new computers called "Work stations" with ten times the performance at a tenth of the price. The old computers survived quite a few years, it took our company 7 years to make the first switch. The dominant work station vendor was Sun Microsystems at that time. Once the Workstation/UNIX environment was established hardware cost went down, except the need for performance going up. So we essentially replaced very expensive low performing system with quite expensive high performance systems.

Than, PC-s came around. Management lowed PC-s, because it was what was on they desktop. We started converting our simulators to PC-s much sooner than we switched to work stations. The switch has been painful, but no simulator is now days built on work station (UNIX) technology. But, Microsoft licensing is expensive, so we are moving to Linux. We would not make that move was it not for the young and enthusiastic engineers we have who love Linux. The conversion is of course painful, it always is.

To me it seems that Phase now what they do. It seems that they make the money to develop their backs and build their own camera platform. It also seems that they develop a new camera, which is more than an upgrade of the Mamiya based platform. To me Phase seems to be an innovative company making good business.

Best regards
Erik

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).



 
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Wayne Fox on March 05, 2013, 12:10:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 05, 2013, 12:17:52 AM
Hi Wayne,

I am much aware of that, just intended to keep it a bit simple. But my emphasis was really that many professional photographers work with small budget and some with large budgets.

Than I of course started talking about large business...

Best regards
Erik



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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 05, 2013, 02:16:35 AM

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.

This is not what I said. I said that they do not belong to the target audience because they do not intend to spend the money to buy a MF. It is like luxury cars: I would be rejected at the door of a Ferrari or Rolls Royce dealership, because I am not a prospective customer and they know it. They don't care about my opinion on their motors or the colour of their seats, because I am not a prospective customer. There are people driving Ladas who bash at Rolls Royce or Ferrari for being too expensive. Rolls Royce and Ferrari do not care about them, because they are not prospective customers. They are not part of their business model.

All cars drive you from A to B like all cameras take pictures. Some cars like Ferrari and Rolls Royce are marketed as Veblen goods. They cost considerably more, the added benefits as to speed or comfort are small in relation to the added price. But they sell very well, because they sell on the frustration of people who cannot afford them (this is the principle of Veblen's paradox, read about it). The customer pays for the privilege to show the world that he or she can afford that kind of car. The intangible benefits can be real, BTW. Some say that Ferraris attract girls like honey attract flies...  ::)


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.

For someone charging for their time a camera giving nice colours without much time spent on its file is an attractive proposition. That is part of the attraction for MF: they give nice skin tones out of the box (nice, not accurate). You can tweak a Nikon to give similar colours, but that is not the point.


5.    Arguments about sharpness are lame.  Its mastabatory.  There are very few digital cams made that are not good enough for print publication.

Some people need very high resolution, especially in technical photography. For them it is not lame. Try to visit an exhibition by Hiroshi Sugimoto or Andreas Gursky.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 05, 2013, 02:31:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 05, 2013, 03:04:23 AM
Hi,

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*.

Best regards
Erik

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Guy Mancuso on March 05, 2013, 08:01:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 05, 2013, 08:12:25 AM
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?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Guy Mancuso on March 05, 2013, 08:33:47 AM
What does this have to do with the discussion?

Guess you missed the memo. Anything Nikon is now MF. LOL
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 05, 2013, 09:17:43 AM
Hi,

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.

Best regards
Erik

What does this have to do with the discussion?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 05, 2013, 09:44:38 AM
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.

So your experience with the D800 is that you have seen and processed images made by others. Is that correct?

I still wonder why you mentioned that you own the 24-70/2.8 ZA, 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA and a Zeiss Sonnar 150/4, none of which is relevant to the discussion, or why you wrote about the Zeiss 24 f/2.0 lens being an interesting lens with poor corners. Is your reasoning that you own 3 Zeiss lenses and find them sharp, therefore a different, unrelated Zeiss lens must be just as sharp and I should consider using it in place of the 14-24 zoom to improve what you perceive as a lack of sharpness?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Iluvmycam on March 05, 2013, 09:52:33 AM
I have 2 - 645D's. They offer a differnt color look than a dslr and love them for many types of shots.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: TMARK on March 05, 2013, 10:37:26 AM
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...


As we say in the States:  No Shit. 
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 05, 2013, 10:44:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: torger on March 05, 2013, 11:02:30 AM
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...
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Rob C on March 05, 2013, 11:12:54 AM
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.




You're having a friggin' laff, aren't you?

You buy rather old Leica M filmies and Nikon rangefinder cameras if you want to invest.

Rob C
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Rob C on March 05, 2013, 11:19:39 AM
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...


How any digital camera fits the formula of 'investment' is in doubt! Lenses may just have a slim possibility of being investments but cameras  - never!

How different to the Hasselblads of the 500 Series, the Nkons of the F range... those were indeed investments that could carry you through much of a career and were replaceable at reasonable cost, inflation notwithstanding.

Rob C
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 05, 2013, 11:32:11 AM
Guy,

Thanks for putting me right.

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.

I do not have Nikon D800 or D800 and have not used neither the 14-24 nor the 25/2.8 Zeiss. I have seen, and analyzed, samples from  25/8 on both D800 and the D800E and those were very sharp. The MTF curves that Zeiss publishes indicate that extreme corners loose sharpness, the samples I have seen did not have good enough corner detail for me to judge.

The original posting talked about the demise of MFD. Personally, I think that MFD is around for good reasons. It is nice to hear that Phase is doing good business.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "The reports of the demise of MF digital are greatly exaggerated".

Best regards
Erik

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Chris Barrett on March 05, 2013, 11:34:51 AM
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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 05, 2013, 11:47:23 AM
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...

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 05, 2013, 12:16:25 PM
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.

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...
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: gerald.d on March 05, 2013, 12:41:51 PM
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

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?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 05, 2013, 12:56:28 PM
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

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...
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Chris Barrett on March 05, 2013, 12:56:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: gerald.d on March 05, 2013, 01:07:05 PM
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.

Thanks for the explanation - I know nothing of the professional side of things, and it initially seemed odd that you'd consider the ROI on just the back, without taking into account the cost of lenses, cameras, and other kit (personally, I have considerably more value in my cameras and lenses than I do my back).
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: pixjohn on March 05, 2013, 03:02:05 PM
TOO MANY TROLLS ???

Why do you even bother responding to them.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: HarperPhotos on March 05, 2013, 03:13:55 PM
Hello Pixjohn,

Sorry but I have to disagree with your comment “TOO MANY TROLLS”

This is a open forum where people can freely write there opinions on the subject at hand.

You don’t have to agree with them but calling them trolls just make you look like a bigot.

I for one have personally decided to keep out of this discussion as its my business and no one else's what equipment I think is better for my work.

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 05, 2013, 06:05:55 PM
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


I don't understand what you are asking from me. Do you want the raw files to try your own sharpening on it?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 05, 2013, 06:07:56 PM
TOO MANY TROLLS ???

Do you mean me?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 05, 2013, 11:27:36 PM
Hi,

I'm not asking. Just try to explain why I'm skeptical about that image. Very clearly, a D800 image would need much more sharpening than a MFD image as it has an optical low pass filter which the MFD has not.

I presume that the MFD image is not a in camera JPEG but a raw image converted by Phocus, Capture One, LR, ACR or some other converter. All those converters apply (or may apply) significant sharpening. Having raw images for comparison may help.

In general I would a good lens stopped down to f/8 (or f/5.6) on an MFD produce better sharpness than a good lens at similar aperture on a smaller frame. This is described here: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Stuff/i-465SpQG/0/O/20121112-_DSC0235.jpg (using an APS-C to MF comparison).

Best regards
Erik

I don't understand what you are asking from me. Do you want the raw files to try your own sharpening on it?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 06, 2013, 12:41:20 AM
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:

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.

While it is remarkable what the Hasselblad can do considering it is 7 years old, however it is remarkable that Nikon
can achieve this quality at a fraction of the price and with the significantly more flexible option
of an ultra wide zoom compared to a fixed focal length, not to mention the much wider angle the Nikon zoom is capable of.

Add to that that Nikon also makes a TS 24mm. The 14-24mm plus the 24mm TSE would be $ 4,000 while the Hasselblad 28mm only is $ 5,300.

It is also worth noting that the D800 is not quite as fine detailed as the D800E for this sort of thing

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 06, 2013, 12:47:02 AM
Hi Fred,

And what did you find? Much interested about your findings.

Best regards
Erik



Jerome

I took a look at some of the other samples you have on flickr and compared these two:
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 06, 2013, 02:02:04 AM
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.

You are now comparing a H3D sample to a D800 sample treated from a NEF (raw) file. The D800 in camera jpeg is here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8518007997/sizes/o/).

But you chose a comparison taken at ISO 800. I took the same pictures at iso 100 (and 200, 400, 1600) and they are here (H3D) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8519104492/sizes/o/in/set-72157632871812709/) and here (D800 from RAW) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8519082332/sizes/o/in/set-72157632871812709/) or here (D800 from jpeg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8519082332/sizes/o/in/set-72157632871812709/).

The whole set of pictures can be seen here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/sets/72157632871812709/detail/).

This is what the whole picture looks like:
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8092/8519104492_4e698e5d5f_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8519104492/)

And this is a crop showing the two cameras side by side at ISO 100 when the colour balances are matched (click for pixel level detail):

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8236/8518078549_3d88deaf83_c.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8518078549/sizes/o/in/set-72157632871812709/)

In these pictures, I was not particularly interested in comparing sharpness, but rather to find about dynamic range, colour and noise of the H3D-31 in a low-light situation.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 06, 2013, 02:25:37 AM
Hi Jerome,

Thanks for the images. It would be nice to have the 100 ISO raw images. Phocus does some lens corrections in software, for instance it would eliminate lateral chromatic aberration. LR 4 would do that (by checking a checkbox) but it seems Aperture does not.

I essentially would be interested to have raw from both Hassy and Nikon.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 06, 2013, 02:26:23 AM
Nice church, where is it located if I may ask?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 06, 2013, 02:28:22 AM
Nice church, where is it located if I may ask?

That church as its own wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asamkirche,_Munich)...  ;)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: torger on March 06, 2013, 02:29:26 AM
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 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 :)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 06, 2013, 02:29:55 AM
I essentially would be interested to have raw from both Hassy and Nikon.

How do you suggest I send you the files? They are quite big.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Chris Livsey on March 06, 2013, 02:44:43 AM
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.

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 ?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 06, 2013, 02:45:50 AM
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.

I compared both the ISO 800 and the ISO 100.

However to compare them more clearly when viewing crops I scaled down the Nikon so that
the features in the image were the same size.

The result was that the Nikon and Hasselblad were the same as far as detail goes, but that the Nikon
has better highlights and shadows thus being more descriptive. The difference is not huge, but it's there.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 06, 2013, 02:54:27 AM
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 ?

D700 >>> D800    12MP >>> 36MP  One generation 3x the MP count as well as improved dynamic range.

The D7100 sensor scaled to FF would be 54MP

Also take away the tripod going hand held and compare the D800 with an image stabilized lens to the Hasselblad
at slow to slowish shutter speeds and the Nikon produce better results.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 06, 2013, 02:54:35 AM
Hi Jerome,

Working on it, will send you a PM with login info this evening.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 06, 2013, 03:29:53 AM
That church as its own wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asamkirche,_Munich)...  ;)

Thanks. Too bad, I was in Munich in Jan 2011... wish I had known about it then.  :)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 06, 2013, 07:33:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 06, 2013, 02:23:26 PM
Hi,

I don't know what I would find.

Regarding high resolution MF I have published an article, comparing IQ-180 with a very good lens and the Nikon D800E also with a very good lens here (IQ 180 to the left Nikon to the right:

(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/MFMythsReality/McCalmont_upsize.jpg)

(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/MFMythsReality/McCalmont_2.jpg)

In the upper image I upsized the Nikon image to IQ180 image size and in the lower one the IQ180 image was downsized to Nikon size and still kept a significant advantage.

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

In general I'm pretty sure that a larger sensor has advantages in two areas:

Higher MTF on fine detail.

Smoother midtones.

Smaller formats may compensate with better lenses and larger apertures. I am not sure this is the case, especially after I have tested an old Sonnar 150/4 comparing to an old Minolta 80-200/2.8 APO and a Sony 70-400/4-5.6G on a Sony Alpha 77. The data here are based an APS-C sensor. Little doubt that this lens would give superior performance on a much larger sensor.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/73-sonnar-150-cb-on-dslr-using-arax-tilt-adapter

(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Images/Zeissness_3/F8/Results/MTFs.png)

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 06, 2013, 04:10:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 06, 2013, 09:18:34 PM
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.

Here are your crops with the Nikon scales to match the Hasselblad

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8251/8535969394_67d91f7c32_o.gif)

Here they are side by side.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8523/8534907099_f19fd1344c_o.jpg)

or here http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8523/8534907099_f19fd1344c_o.jpg (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8523/8534907099_f19fd1344c_o.jpg)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 06, 2013, 11:50:41 PM
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.

This is not a scientific test, like shooting res charts in lab conditions and evaluating MTF. In a scientific test distance and zooming would be adjusted so FOV would match. This is a real world comparison.

I would expect Hasselblad to have a small advantage, as the pixels are larger. Also the Nikon is OLP filtered and that would demand more sharpening than the blad, so optimal processing would be different. Here I choose a reasonable sharpening for the Nikon and the same sharpening also seems to be OK on the Hasselblad.

As Jerome pointed out, Hasselblad backs are available with higher resolution and that is not the case with Nikon.

Would I make one m wide prints (short side one meter) I'm pretty sure I couldn't tell prints apart if not looking for known problems. Like color moiré on some subjects or not very sharp corners on the Nikon image.

Jerome is also right that the seven year old Hasselblad still delivers very good image quality. A seven year old Nikon DSLR would not even come close. A very high end back will give much better sharpness, and I'm pretty sure there are limits on how far DSLRs can improve. I am sure that 50-60 MP are possible with DSLR but precision, lenses and alignment issues seem to be common with the Nikon D800, at least for really critical users.

Best regards
Erik





You should scale down the Nikon so that the subject matter is the same size on screen for the side by side images.


Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 07, 2013, 03:28:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Rob C on March 07, 2013, 05:28:56 AM
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.

Rob C
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 07, 2013, 07:10:28 AM


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.

You are right, small format lenses can achieve a higher resolution on their format and MF lenses usually do not spread the same optical quality over a larger area (certainly for the ones designed for film). But this is not at all what I had in mind. What I meant is that, in current photographic practice, large format lenses can use a relatively primitive optical formula and that does not cause noticeable optical defects and photographers always experienced problems with small format lenses (unless -maybe- when the optical designer pulled all his tricks) and MF sat somewhere in between.

Part of the reason is that we do not need the same enlargements, as you rightfully noted. Another part is that we do not use the same apertures. A third reason is, in the case of MF, that the optical engineer allows the lenses to become quite large.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 07, 2013, 11:05:16 AM
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.

But the "it is made for a larger format and so it will be worse than a smaller format lens" hypothesis can be taken so far. There are some great medium-format film lenses that are great on formats smaller than they were designed for.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: TMARK on March 07, 2013, 12:05:26 PM
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.


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). 
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Rob C on March 07, 2013, 12:31:39 PM
I think you're right, T; having said which, 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.

That's partly why so many photographic discussions don't really have anywhere to run: it depends on who is using what and for which ultimate purpose.

Rob C
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 07, 2013, 12:48:56 PM
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.

Some older Leitz glass suffered from quite large spherical aberration. While this reduces contrast, it can also give a kind of "glow" to the highlights of a picture, which looks very nice.

In the 19th century, some manufacturers like Pinkham & Smith hand ground portrait lenses for the same reason: increase spherical aberration. This can have desirable effects on depth of field, the rendering of sharp-unsharp transitions, the rendering of small skin blemishes, etc... Other quality than sharpness can be desirable in lenses.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 07, 2013, 01:08:54 PM
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). 

This is why I stated you could take the lens format things so far. You are also comparing Leica optics which tend toward contrast anyway to Japanese optics that tend toward resolving power and two lenses from different formats. There is a whole sliding scale, which is why I said you can take things so far.

Oddly enough, you can see contrast difference in Erik's posts. Look at the marble pattern and it has a bit more pop in the Hasselblad image. I noticed this comparing a m4/3 lens with the same focal length of a CV 35mm lens--the m4/3 had more resolution and the 35mm had more contrast. This has nothing to do with lighting or such. It is an actual property of the optics.
Title: A few comments...
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 07, 2013, 02:09:53 PM
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.

I also don't think that it is not possible to make large format lenses with high resolution. It's just a question of cost. Larger formats were mostly used at small apertures and lens constructions were designed to reach optimum performance at the commonly used apertures. It would be possible to design better lenses, but the advantage would be negated by diffraction anyway. (I did not find pixel pitch data for the H3D-31, so I used H4D-31 data instead.)

Rodenstock's HR lenses have impressive MTF plots, if they are fake or real, I don't know.


When we compare a 36 MP Nikon D800 with a 31 MP Hasselblad we need to keep in mind that the Hasselblad's larger pixels make much less demand on the lens than the Nikon's smaller pixels. The enclosed MTF plot is calculated on a test shot from a 85/1.4 lens on Nikon D800E by Michael Reichmann. In this case we can see that this lens would transfer about 13% contrast at Nyquist limit on Nikon, would we put the same lens on the Hassy, it would transfer around 33%, because of the larger pixels. So if a Nikon D800E comes even close to the Hasselblad H4D-31 at the pixel level, it is quite an engineering feat! If we add that the D800 has OLP filtering and the Hasselblad does not the demand on the Nikon lens is even higher.

I have seen a paper from Schneider stating that MTF at Nyquist should be below 20% to avoid excessive moiré. This indicates that the 31MP Hasselblad would have problems with moiré but not the 36 MP Nikon.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Guy Mancuso on March 07, 2013, 02:29:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 07, 2013, 02:32:35 PM
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


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 and other 35mm systems. It would also explain why many architectural photographers are using 35mm DSLRs more and more.


  
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 07, 2013, 02:40:03 PM
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

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Chris Barrett on March 07, 2013, 02:43:11 PM
(http://christopherbarrett.net/forum_images/Maury_Bundt.jpg)

CB
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 07, 2013, 02:49:32 PM
Hi,

I don't think that we need to have perfect comparisons. Why, because you can shot a slanted wedge and have much better comparison. Also, I don't think we need to adjust image size. Any small differences can be adjusted in post.

I would say that Jerome's test gives good info for anyone interested in buying an elder MFDB or a D800 and that the lenses are OK at large apertures. All that is good info.

Jerome also points out that Hasselblad's AF actually works.

Best regards
Erik

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.


  
Title: Re: A few comments...
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 07, 2013, 03:08:12 PM
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.

It has nothing to do with flare. Since I have seen the effect myself in modern multicoated lenses, it is hardly a myth.

BTW, I did not say it was either/or. I stated, you cannot optimize a lens for both. That does not mean lens design cannot improve on both, but the qualities are mutually exclusive. When designing a lens, you take the format into consideration and so make design decisions based on that.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 07, 2013, 03:10:20 PM
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


Well capacity vs. noise floor?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Guy Mancuso on March 07, 2013, 03:10:56 PM
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


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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: TMARK on March 07, 2013, 03:11:58 PM
(http://christopherbarrett.net/forum_images/Maury_Bundt.jpg)

CB

Thumbs up!
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 07, 2013, 03:27:46 PM
Hi,

CCDs are from Kodak or Dalsa. I don't know much about Dalsa but I know Kodak has been in photography for long.

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.

My guess is that some of the purported advantages of CCD over CMOS are coming from the companies behind CCD being involved with photography for a long time. I also think most of the differences come from the color grid array design and the way the images are processed.

Best regards
Erik



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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 07, 2013, 03:33:27 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 07, 2013, 04:56:20 PM
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.

Nothing is perfect...

However I think it's safe to say that Nikon makes some very fine lenses and if we talk about wide angles the 14 to 24mm is quite exceptional.

Lets see how it compares to the Samyang you praise.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8375/8537860678_a6e4689197_o.gif)

At 2.8 the Samyang looks like it has a fine stocking over the lens.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8230/8536756959_e6161aff52_o.gif)

At 5.6 the Nikon has better contrast and resulting in better detail.

More full res examples here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hhackbarth/with/7638840722/#photo_7638840722 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hhackbarth/with/7638840722/#photo_7638840722)

Even considering the price difference the Nikon is a good deal being a 14 to 24 zoom that replaces three focal lengths and is infinitely more useful.

Being a zoom it does have CA in the corners, but that is correctable very well.

Also if we really look at this in a realistic manner with the Nikon you have both quality and more choice.

MF has no very wide zooms. No inexpensive options like the Samyang for a focal length someone needs , but cannot justify spending more.

If some things are not covered by Nikon but done well by say Canon you can buy both and still be far below the prices of MFD. Ultra wide TS lens for example.

There are also excellent Carl Zeiss lenses and a whole new line of ultra high end lenses coming from Zeiss with the 55mm already announced and shown.
Even with these being high priced they still come in below the cost of equivalent MF lens and back.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Guy Mancuso on March 07, 2013, 05:19:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 07, 2013, 07:15:26 PM
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.


It's a little more than appearance, but even if it were isn't the appearance of an image what we look at?

Also the industry standard is based on MTF charts when it comes to measuring resolution and it is based on the resulting contrast between fine black and white lines.
Maybe I should have been more precise and written micro contrast.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 07, 2013, 09:59:10 PM
What you failed to mention and what you probably don't know is the 14-24 has terrible focus shift. Why I sold it

I am perfectly aware of focus shift on fast lenses and how much the 14 to 24 mm has.
Personally I find it blown out of proportion. Focus shift is there if you focus a 2.8 and shoot stopped down half way or more.
However the problem totally disappears if you focus with live view, something that is advisable for very wide lenses.
Also the focus shift is more when stopped way down when the depth of field is very very deep.

It is IMO no where near the problems of focus and recompose with wide angle lenses on MF. Hasselblad
found this to be a significant issue and went to great lengths to improve the situation with True focus.

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 07, 2013, 10:37:05 PM
Hi,

What I read was that there was much discussion regarding color rendition between the the two groups of engineers.

Best regards
Erik


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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 07, 2013, 11:37:01 PM
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

...

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.


Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Guy Mancuso on March 08, 2013, 12:18:29 AM
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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Marlyn on March 08, 2013, 12:38:57 AM
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


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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 08, 2013, 01:00:27 AM
Hi Guy,

I have also bought the Samyang 14/2.8, in part after reading Tim Ashley's review, here:
http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2012/11/the-samyang-14mm-f2-8-ed-if-umc

My copy is not as good as some other's I guess but it is just fine the way I work. It is a very good lens for a very good price.

I always use it with live view, magnified for focusing.

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

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 08, 2013, 01:30:42 AM
Hi,

An AF that works well with things in motion may not be good enough for critical sharpness at large apertures.

If a camera doesn't have live view, you either focus on ground glass or rely on AF. I don't think old Hasselblads backs have LV so good AF is a very good thing.

Best regards
Erik


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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 08, 2013, 02:30:54 AM
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 !!

Mark,

I see you have never used a Nikon J1/V1.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: bcooter on March 08, 2013, 04:39:52 AM
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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: yaya on March 08, 2013, 04:59:05 AM
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2013/03/07/0307-grumpy-cat-sub-3.jpg)

How come they're not using a tripod with MLUP and WTLV (whisker tracking live view) ???? Must be amateurs...
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: MrSmith on March 08, 2013, 05:05:31 AM
This forum needs more pics of sunsets and 'glamourous girlfriends/wives, it has been proven that cats alone cannot sustain photography forums.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 08, 2013, 05:20:46 AM
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


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.

..... and frankly that is not right Nikon cannot get a damn good wide angle out the door

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 08, 2013, 06:01:05 AM
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

Well Cooter it seems you are hear at all times waiting to pounce on me.
Congratulations!
And them have your buddy Yaya from Leaf play along.

Oh and for your information when I photographer Mr Bieber it was with a Canon.
Also why do you have it in for Bieber. He's a really nice kid, bloody hard worker and
entertains millions. He recently gave Half a million dollars to a children's charity,
gave generously to Hurricane Sandy victims. Not bad for a teenager.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: bcooter on March 08, 2013, 07:02:47 AM
Fred,

In life you gotta either laugh, cry or scream.

Nobody has it in for  you, or a teen star.  Heck I don't know anything about  anyone that's 15,  other than anytime I see one of those celeb links that litter my mail,  his name is on it.

Be honest man, you got boner for Nikon and really, really, really, spend a lot of time trying to pounce on Phase.

Phase or Leaf could announce free cameras made out of gold bars and I swear you'd say gold will make you hands turn green.

As far as Yair and the other reps on this forum, man your jackin' with them all the time and these people are professionals in every sense of the meaning

They are a positive resource for any professional photographer whether you buy their products or not.

I'd list it all, but you'd think I was getting free stuff or something and then you'd be jackin' with me.

All I know is if someone messed with my profession I'd be a lot less kind than they are.

This and every public forum has a lot of junk.  And camera forums are always talking one brand or format compared to another, but since you rode into town with your Nikon's blazin', this place has gone up a notch on the who gives a s**t level.

You know, you've shown a few nice photos and if you really shoot A list celebs for money, why not post a few decent images, or give a rundown of the shoot.  A lot of people would find that cool, (or is that kewl)?

But  . . . you can do what you want.  I don't own this place and it's really none of my business what anyone does, though don't think you can throw rocks and not wear a helmet.

IMO

BC
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 08, 2013, 07:03:14 AM
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

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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: yaya on March 08, 2013, 07:47:50 AM
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


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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Guy Mancuso on March 08, 2013, 08:27:30 AM
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.


I find it completely incompentant to trash MF and you do it on every breath you take. It's like a 5 year old here where dealing with.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: JV on March 08, 2013, 09:15:18 AM
It's like a 5 year old here where dealing with.

At least with a 5 year old you can still hope he will grow up and change...
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 08, 2013, 11:13:26 AM
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


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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: yaya on March 08, 2013, 11:43:42 AM
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

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Don Libby on March 08, 2013, 12:02:15 PM
Typical bully response in attempting to deflect.  Hope someone here wakes up sooner than later...
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Guy Mancuso on March 08, 2013, 12:30:56 PM
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



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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 08, 2013, 12:41:28 PM
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

Hmmm... from one of my recent posts

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.


Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 08, 2013, 02:01:12 PM
Guy and Yair,

Thanks for making that clear!

Best regards
Erik

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 08, 2013, 02:30:56 PM
Hi,

What I read was that there was much discussion regarding color rendition between the the two groups of engineers.

Best regards
Erik



Never saw it. Didn't seem to be an issue. I doubt you can really see a shift in color from Minolta cameras and Konica Minolta cameras in terms of their color rendering. I doubt what you read was anything more than speculation.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 08, 2013, 02:41:58 PM
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 08, 2013, 02:52:51 PM
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/)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 08, 2013, 03:30:37 PM
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.

I obviously cannot say about system I have not used, only report findings by others.

Check for instance this:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-1-center-point-single-shot-accuracy
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-ii-1-vs-2-and-old-vs-new
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-3a-canon-lenses

The latest generation of Canon lenses on latest generation Canon cameras seem to do very well.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 08, 2013, 03:41:54 PM
Hi,

Thanks for the samples. My Sony cameras have electronic viewfinders so I may have less problems with visibility of LV than you have. My old Sony Alpha did not have LV and that was the feature I felt I was lacking. I actually bought 3 cameras just because of LV.

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 bookeh. 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. http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/images/2013-0215-ZeissVideo.html

Best regards
Erik


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).


Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 08, 2013, 03:53:30 PM
Hi, you mean focusing tolerances go down? Else it does not make sense.

Best regards
Erik
Yes, down.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 08, 2013, 04:01:42 PM
My Sony cameras have electronic viewfinders

Electronic viewfinders are what made me leave Sony after 26 years (starting with Minolta) and buy a D800.

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.

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 08, 2013, 04:23:33 PM
Hi,

The electronic viewfinder is a mixed bag. I like the live view, also virtual horizon and live histogram. But in bright light it is to dark.

Regarding the SAL 50/1.4 ZA I guess it is an old design, while the 55/1.4 is a Distagon design. It may be extra smart, today's sensors may not be able to handle light rays at high angles, so much of the large aperture is wasted: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues

I tested a Zeiss Sonnar 150/4 I bought on Tradera (Swedish E-Bay) and it was very good except for flare and ghosting, I have also a Planar 120/4 incoming. The Sonnar 150/4 was about the Zeiss lens for Hassy according to Zeiss MTF graphs, the 180 being even better but I wanted a smaller one. The Planar 120/4 doesn't really impress in the MTF graphs at infinity but pretty good at close up 1:5, interesting to see what I will find. Those lenses can be bought very cheap.

Best regards
Erik

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Stefan.Steib on March 08, 2013, 04:41:46 PM
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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 08, 2013, 05:21:12 PM
Hi Stefan,

The future is bright, but it is not here, yet.

Thanks for the link.

Best regards
Erik


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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 08, 2013, 06:08:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 08, 2013, 07:09:57 PM
Hi,

Price of storage and processing power is going down much faster than file sizes are going up, so file sizes are not really a concern of mine. I just upgraded from striped 2 Tbyte disks to single 4 Tbyte disks.

Best regards
Erik

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Stefan.Steib on March 08, 2013, 07:13:01 PM
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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 08, 2013, 11:59:39 PM
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

??? 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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 09, 2013, 01:28:22 AM
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)

These types of Paparazzi are the scum of the earth..... I see them in Malibu quite often.
Actually there needs to be a new name for this video Paparazzi. They mob people even if they are out with their kids.

The Papparazzi of the past were another breed. They had taste and generally received smiles or theatrical pranks.

A while ago on a dangerous downhill road a so called paparazzi  was so damn intent of getting photos of Beibers car, even though Beiber was not there
that when asked to leave by a cop he ran straight for his car probably to grab a longer lens and hit by a passing car. The guy had even parked in a very dangerous place where it is illegal to park right on a blind corner. While it is unfortunate that he was killed he could have caused an even worse accident.

Anyway they are not all the same. The other day I was kitesurfing and a famous actor showed up to surf too.
Some paparazzi shoved kiters out of the way and did the same to the surfers. A couple of surfers put and end to that.
A little later another Paparazzi showed up and waved from way up on the bluff. The actor gave him a greeting wave and smile.
The guy shot his stuff without shoving his camera in anyone's face. The actors kids showed up and the Paparazzi kindly said Ciao.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 09, 2013, 01:31:54 AM
Hi,

If you reduce size, DoF will increase at comparable apertures and FoV. So larger apertures could be used and the lens can be optimized for those apertures. Some 4/3 lenses are very good, just to mention an example.

Now, as you point out elsewhere, light comes in quanta, called photons and the finiteness of their number and the number of photons a sensor can hold sets a limit to noise. Smaller sensors get noisier than larger sensors of equivalent design.

Stefan has one of those Nokia cell phones with 41 MP and Zeiss lens, here is some insight from that lens:
http://conversations.nokia.com/2012/03/05/nokia-808-pureview-carl-zeiss-science-of-making-the-perfect-lens/

My understanding is that it's five elements , all aspheric, using high refraction glass and probably also AD glass. The small size means that very expensive glass can be used. Also they can probably use molded or hybride aspherics for all elements. So small size makes it possible to use best available technologies.

Another thing is that new technology is first included in small sensor camera. A new technology is BSI (Back Side Illumination) that puts wiring and gates behind the silicon catching the photons. I don't know if it increase Full Well Capacity, though. An increase in FWC would be helpful with noise.

Best regards
Erik



??? 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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Rob C on March 09, 2013, 03:53:20 AM
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)




That Bierber reacted as he did wasn't surprising: he had a gang of gorillas around him creating a shield no sane person would seek to break. How brave said kid would be if he found himself alone is another matter, ego or no ego.

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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 10, 2013, 03:16:09 PM
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 don't think that a bokeh comparison can be made with the image of the flower because your focus plane is not the same
in the images. The Nikon focus is on the grass behind the flowers. When using live view on something like this you need to select the smaller focusing area. Live view defaults to a larger focusing area. IF you use the large focusing area the camera will seek a result with the highers contrast for the whole focusing area.
In this case the foreground subject the flowers has less contrast than the texture of the grass. Choosing a smaller focus area would
make it easier to aim it right at the flower you want. The optical view finder focusing would not have had a problem when using a selected focus point.

When comparing bokeh one should also consider the type of irois used by the lens. Nikon on it's higher end lenses including the normal 50mm 1.4G use a
9 blade iris that produces a nice more natural circle on small specular highlights. Hasselblad use fewer blades (5 if I remember correctly) and Phase One use 5 blade irises in their "Schneider" lenses. This results in unnatural pentagon shapes. Whide open it's not a problem.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 10, 2013, 03:48:26 PM
Hi Jerome,

I did not look deeply in this test, but I look at some of the images and it somewhat confirms what I think I have seen before, namely that MFD lenses by and large perform decently at maximum aperture and have decent bokeh. Large aperture 135 lenses impress less on me. The new Zeiss Distagon 55/1.4 is said to be very good fully open.

Personally, I would only use full aperture at gun point..., or if the lens was perfect and I could use live view MF at 11X magnification.

Best regards
Erik

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/)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 11, 2013, 11:24:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 11, 2013, 03:00:43 PM
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.

Focus point is not recorded in live view mode. It's only recorded in optical view finder focusing mode.

Anyway a limitation of live view focusing is that it is based on achieving the highest contrast in the focus area.
Unlike phase detection it cannot determine if there is something closer or farther away in the focus area.
Most phase detection systems are designed to focus on the object that is closest within the focus area.
While this works most of the time it can actually be a disadvantage too. Sometimes a phase detection
system will focus on the tip of the nose of a person rather than the eyes. That is why it is preferable to have many small focus points
and feature recognition of some sort.


What may have happened is that you did not fill the focus area with the flower and there was too much of the grass texture in the
focusing area. The dry grass and shadows had more contrast than the petals of the flower so the camera settled on the higher contrast of the
grass, leaves and sharper shadows cast by them.

Out of curiosity I did a few tests on some flowers in my garden. I managed to replicate the error you had by pointing at a more flatly light flower, but with a more textured background and with the flower filling only about 1/3rd of the focus area in live view mode. The error was clearly visible in zoomed in focusing mode.

However the same thing on a furry petaled flower did not show this error.

Both the above situations focused perfectly using the optical view finder using any of the focus points.
Even the 3 d tracking option worked. This is where you start with a focusing point and the exposure meter sensor takes a snap shot of the feature in the focus point and changes the focus point if you recompose.

So one should judge the subject to determine if live view will find more contrast in the subject or the background.

It is also worth noting that in the Hasselblad shot there are bees in the shot with much more detail than the flower. Bright yellow and jet black as well as furry texture.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: David Eichler on March 11, 2013, 07:04:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Chris Barrett on March 11, 2013, 07:44:54 PM
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)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: David Eichler on March 11, 2013, 08:54:32 PM
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 halation effect can even be quite appealing for interior design photography, though perhaps not so much for architectural interiors. :-)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: JohnBrew on March 11, 2013, 09:30:26 PM

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

Amen.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 11, 2013, 11:59:03 PM
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.

I agree that this is important. Just out of curiosity, how do you see the various offerings stacking against each other along this metric?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: The worst of digital: handling highlight overexposure
Post by: BJL on March 12, 2013, 10:41:22 AM
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.

So it is strange to me that when some cameras default to having more raw highlight headroom than others, they are criticized for this, and accused of misrepresenting their ISO sensitivity by a certain camera testing web-site and some posters in these forums!

And to bring this back to MF: the fashionable emphasis with engineering measures like dynamic range can obfuscate the fact that a larger CCD sensor might have a better SNR than smaller CMOS sensor over the most photographically relevant levels in an exposure (say the top six or eight or ten stops) even if the very deep shadows (say twelve or more stops below highlights) have a better SNR on the smaller CMOS sensor with greater measured DR. In that case the larger sensor could give more latitude to choose exposure levels that avoid blown highlights, at least when the total subject brightness range is not too extreme (say not more than ten stops.)

P. S. One thing that this thread confirms is that debating the future of DMF is not moribund!
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 12, 2013, 02:11:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Chris Livsey on March 12, 2013, 02:36:08 PM
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.

Not all apertures are created equal  ;D
Not all iso's are created equal  ;D
Speeds are, these days, usually equal or so close we can't tell ;D
Not all software treats files from different cameras equally ;D

I think " a bit' is pretty good actually given the variables.
 
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 12, 2013, 05:51:42 PM
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.

Regarding AF focus accuracy both cameras are just as accurate when used correctly, however the Hasselblad has the distinct disadvantage
of having only one focus point and does not have True focus like the H4D. As a result anytime you need to AF a feature that is not at the center of the frame
the Hasselblad is at a distinct disadvantage, especially when shooting wide open.

As far a s skin colors go I shoot both fashion and portraits. Both the Hasselblad and the Nikon produce great skin tones.
Any professional photographer will tell you that perfect skin tones are more about casting, makeup and how long the model partied the previous night.
The differences between modern sensors are totally insignificant in comparison.

See here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69391.0;attach=64261;image (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69391.0;attach=64261;image)

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.

Tethering is just as easy with both cameras, but the Nikon has the advantage of a modern connection compared to hasselblad still having firewire.
On top of that the D800 in live view lets you monitor very very clean live view on an HDMI monitor.
Canon and Nikon offer wireless tethering while Hasselblad does not.
Regarding catalog..... from what I have seen most of it is shot with 35mm DSLRs
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 13, 2013, 09:41:52 AM
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.

Which Hasselblad model did you use for the B&W comparison?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: TMARK on March 13, 2013, 09:44:09 AM
I used to shoot lots of cataogues.  I used a 5D, 1ds,ds2, for the smaller, volume images because focus is so critical when you have 400 items of clothing to photograph on moving models in one day.  The hero shots, like the covers and lifestyle scenes in studio or on location, were shot with MFD, mainly a Leaf back on an RZ.  That was a while ago, I remember renting a Valeo 17.  

I wouldn't feel the need, today, to shoot the hero shots with an MFD, unless I wanted to work with an MF camera, which has its benefits.  This is not a knock on MFD at all, its just that the quality of almost every modern camera's sensor is so good that the image quality of a camera is not the deciding factor in what to use on a job.  Usability, look, tetherability, weather sealed, etc are more important considerations than IQ for COMMERCIAL work.  Use what is appropriate to the job.

Regarding catalog..... from what I have seen most of it is shot with 35mm DSLRs
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: TMARK on March 13, 2013, 10:03:25 AM
The AF on MY D800e is spot on with all of my lenses.  I never use live view unless I'm using third party lenses with an adapter and am static, as the D800 focusing screen is not precise enough for precision manual focus.

The H3Ds I've used were accurate, no doubt, for static subjects.  I wouldn't say more acurate that the D800.  I also found the AF to be acurate on the mamiya AFd1 and 2, although slow.

My experience is that 35mm cameras, even the lowly 1ds and 5d, hit focus where I want it at a higehr rate than the AF MF cameras I've used professionaly (AFd 1,2, H1,2,3).  This means no focus edit, and less work for the tech reviewing the images as they come in, less time waiting for confirmation that we have the shot.  I haven't used a DF DF+ or H4 H5, or Hy6.  I mainly used manual focus because I could focus faster and just about as acurately as the MF AF cameras I've used.  And then there is the RZ, which is of course all manual, but with the waist level magnifier was perfect.

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: telyt on March 13, 2013, 10:16:34 AM
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?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 13, 2013, 10:23:15 AM
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

Which Hasselblad model did you use for the B&W comparison?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: TMARK on March 13, 2013, 10:54:06 AM
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?

Exactly! 
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 13, 2013, 11:01:22 AM
The H3Ds I've used were accurate, no doubt, for static subjects.  I wouldn't say more acurate that the D800.

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.

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.

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. ;)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Wayne Fox on March 13, 2013, 01:30:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: TMARK on March 13, 2013, 02:37:02 PM
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.

I haven't needed to calibrate any of my lenses.  They are all on the money, even my 50 1.4 and 85 1.4, at 1.4.  I also use the 28 AI-s, 28 AF-d, 60 Micro D, and Hasselblad V 50 C, 80CF and 150CF.  These light up the indicator when in focus. 

I sat down with both of my D800s (one belongs to the office) and my "e" was a bit more acurate than the plain vanilla 800.  I have a Zeiss 35 F2 zf.2 on the way.  I will check acuracy when it shows up.

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 newer but still 10 year old AF-d lenses work as above.  No adjustment needed. 

Of note, I had to calibrate all of my Canon lenses on the 5D2 and ds3.  Some needed enormous adjustments, some none at all.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 13, 2013, 02:41:33 PM
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


Not mixing things up at all. L'Oreal and Wella are clients and I shoot a lot of hair, so it's quite important to me.
I used to process black and white with a water bath process to get nicer shadows. Also I really like deep shadows in my work.
As I mentioned the d800 has a slight edge over MFD backs in detail in the deep shadows and has a cleaners fall off of detail into the blacks
and an anti alias filter also helps keep this smoother even at the cost of losing a wee bit of detail.

That said the MFD backs are very close in this area to the D800. My Canons however are worse in this area.

I have also found that the D800 has the cleanest blue channel in and near the blacks. Using the blue channel in black and white conversions
for hair can really bring out contrast in fine detail while somehow smoothing large area differences helping significantly when retouching hair
using large area high pass technique.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Doug Peterson on March 13, 2013, 02:56:20 PM
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?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Rob C on March 13, 2013, 02:56:49 PM
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 Nikkors are also all manual except one... never needed to adjust anything.

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.

Rob C
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 13, 2013, 03:02:30 PM
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. ;)

Fast lenses with NF cameras with only center AF focus points have limited accuracy if the feature you want in focus is not in the center of the screen.
Full length fashion for example where you want the eyes in focus. It's better with the H4D and H5D, but still has it's limitations wide open with the fastest lenses.

Here is what the AF focus and recompose problem looks like. These were shot with the Phase One DF and 80mm lens.
There were shot on a tripod.

This is to show the extent of the recomposition that is actually not that extreme
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8204/8191340559_b8777a9847_c.jpg)

Focus error with Focus and recompose.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8197/8192451246_2dfaf9030a_c.jpg)

And here is the same feature, but framed in the center of the screen.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8202/8192461560_1e791c04f2_c.jpg)

The problem is not the lens being softer towards the edges. I did some focus bracketing and got results comparable to the center
as far as focus goes.

Nothing beats focusing without having to recompose.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 13, 2013, 03:12:12 PM
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.

That said MFD was getting better results in this areas than even the best Canons... even the P25 that you seem to want to attempt to discredit me with did a better job than newer Canons. The D800 changed all of that bringing high dynamic range to high end 35mm DSLRs


How briefly I owned the P25 has little to do with this and a lot to do with the DF being not up to the level of Phase One backs.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Doug Peterson on March 13, 2013, 03:18:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 13, 2013, 04:05:11 PM
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.

Nope I did not say that at all, but the D800 does have better shadows... and I had a P25+ with a claimed dynamic range of 12+.
The IQ180 according to phase one has a dynamic range of 12.5 so we are not talking about a massive difference.
In tests I did the detail in the blacks especially where there is little color is visibly better with the D800 putting the D800 right up there as far as this goes with the newer Phase One backs.
I have also found ... as have others.... that there is a bit more detail in the blacks with the D800.

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.
The IQ180 is the newest MFB from Phase One.

From the article.
Quote
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.

Anyway let me repeat that the difference is not very big, but the important point is that you can now get great dynamic range without the heavy investment
in a medium format system and have this great dynamic range in an agile and fast system.

I live in Southern California and we get a load of crisp sunlight and I like to shoot on the beaches and in the deserts.
having great dynamic range is so helpful. Even more helpful is shooting fast exposure bracketing so as to be able to blend multiple frames
to blend scenes with say one model slightly in the shade and one model in more direct sunlight. or shooting a black and a white model in the same shot.
Fast frame rates coupled with the great dynamic range is very useful.

Even highlight recovery is bloody great with the D800. I often shoot on location which is an added cost to the cleint so it's important to bring back the elements of the background that are over exposed when using diffusion on the model.

Here is a quick test I did that shows just how much can be recovered.

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5340/7412274614_0ab5f4bf2f_c.jpg)

Dynamic range:
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8521/8555871012_82f2e77132_o.gif)

Interesting if you take into account effective ISO.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 13, 2013, 05:07:32 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: telyt on March 13, 2013, 06:02:13 PM
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.

Agreed.  It seems now that features and initial price are all that matters to the majority of buyers.  The manufacturers are supplying what the buyers say they want.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 14, 2013, 01:12:45 AM
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)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 14, 2013, 02:21:50 AM
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)

Now, this is quite surprising. I'll have to check the files to find out why the raws and jpegs give different results.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 14, 2013, 02:32:28 AM
Hi,

I had run RawDigger on the files you sent me. The plots are not easy to interpret and there is some clipping of the highlights. The present version of Raw Digger has a few issues with 16-bit files, it seems, so I used an older version.

In many cases I would suggest that lens flare and camera internal reflections limit DR more than the sensor itself.

Best regards
Erik

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: bcooter on March 14, 2013, 03:18:54 AM

............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.............



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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on March 14, 2013, 06:17:49 AM
Now, this is quite surprising. I'll have to check the files to find out why the raws and jpegs give different results.

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Guy Mancuso on March 14, 2013, 08:53:31 AM

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

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: TMARK on March 14, 2013, 09:37:05 AM
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.

Different converters have much different results on D800 files.  C1 is sharpest, NX has the best color.  LR4 is a nice balance between the two, and the workflow is convenient.  It could be that the profile in Aperture clips shadows in the raw files.  That program, to my eye, is designed to make an image pop, so it crushes the blacks.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 14, 2013, 11:42:55 PM

In practice I believe your 100% wrong.


IMO

BC

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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 15, 2013, 01:31:37 AM
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




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:

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: bcooter on March 15, 2013, 04:42:06 AM
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.
................


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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 15, 2013, 04:49:29 AM
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


Erik... this little test by Biob Atkins is so full of flaws.... I surprized an analytically person like you would would miss them.

First of all he is using a crop sensor 8mp camera and a cheap consumer extreme wide angle that does not have a flat focus field.

However the icing on the cake is he focuses and then "locks the focus" or thinks he does by turning off autofocus.
Turning off the autofocus just turns off autofocus it does not lock the focus. More recent cameras have added a button on the back to engage autofocus
to use the AF in a sort of manual mode.

And one last thing... a 10mm 2.8 lens on a crop sensor has heaps of depth of field.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 15, 2013, 05:28:43 AM
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

Sometimes you are really pathetic. YOU STATE THAT I AM 100% WRONG on the focus and recompose issue but.....

The leader of MF digital cameras designed a system called true focus to correct the focus and recompose error.

Here is is again, maybe if you read it again you may understand it a bit better:

Quote
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.

Rather than discuss the technicality of the issue you choose to make you're petty attacks.

It's actually quite simple geometry and I find the Hasselblad article quite honest on the issue as well as the limitations of True focus.

Regarding Fashion photos shot wide open or with very shallow depth of field there are plenty.

Here is a random search: Jenifer Lawrence / Marie Claire

http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/celebrity/pictures/33819/10/jennifer-lawrence-for-marie-claire.html#index=2&slider=off (http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/celebrity/pictures/33819/10/jennifer-lawrence-for-marie-claire.html#index=2&slider=off)

Or how about Peter Lindbergh shooting Natalie Portman for a fashion spread in Vogue
http://popbee.com/image/2010/12/natalie-portman-by-peter-lindbergh-for-vogue-january-2011-161210-1.jpg (http://popbee.com/image/2010/12/natalie-portman-by-peter-lindbergh-for-vogue-january-2011-161210-1.jpg)

Arthur Elgort shooting Kate Moss for Italian Vogue
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3KvjyHSjCoY/SjWtRCszozI/AAAAAAAAArA/BQdRU0U-t_A/s1600/arthur+elgort+vogue+italia.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3KvjyHSjCoY/SjWtRCszozI/AAAAAAAAArA/BQdRU0U-t_A/s1600/arthur+elgort+vogue+italia.jpg)

Lets look at something far more fashion/commercial

http://www.victoriassecret.com/sleepwear/lingerie/lace-applique-satin-slip-very-sexy?ProductID=5896&CatalogueType=OLS (http://www.victoriassecret.com/sleepwear/lingerie/lace-applique-satin-slip-very-sexy?ProductID=5896&CatalogueType=OLS)

http://www.victoriassecret.com/clothing/supermodel-off-duty/mini-skirt?ProductID=105002&CatalogueType=OLS (http://www.victoriassecret.com/clothing/supermodel-off-duty/mini-skirt?ProductID=105002&CatalogueType=OLS)


Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 15, 2013, 06:47:52 AM
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 have no problem at all with external focus points I regularly use the far left and far right focus points on both my Canons and Nikons.
Here is a crop of the eyes from a 3/4 length shot using the far right focus points. Shot was shot at f4 with strobes through a tiny modified leko to produce very crisp
light. I had little light to focus with because my hacked together frankenstien leko/elinchrom hack would only give me f4 or f5.6 from a 3,000 w/s head for a full length coverage. So you can imagine how little light was coming from the pilot light.


Here is the crop from a 3/4 length shot with the eyes high up in the frame on the outermost focus point.

It was a cover and fashion spread so I was moving around quite a bit because when ever I liked the expression I would set in close and do head shots for cover options too for
each outfit. It was a 4 hour shoot for 8 pages and cover.

(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6005/6001011546_0f579076d0_z.jpg)

Here is another example

(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6021/5963259140_a5d90afb86_b.jpg)

Focus point chosen for models right eye shot at f2 with a 100mm lens had held.

Here is a crop:

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6009/5961735537_d78f0487f3_z.jpg

I also did a live view focus test when familiarizing myself with the D800. Lets see how it compared to
the DF test

Phase One DF. This is to show the extent of the recomposition that is actually not that extreme
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8204/8191340559_b8777a9847_c.jpg)

Focus error with Focus and recompose.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8197/8192451246_2dfaf9030a_c.jpg)

And here is the same feature, but framed in the center of the screen to show what it should look like.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8202/8192461560_1e791c04f2_c.jpg)

Here is a 100% crop from the very top of the frame shot with the Nikon d800 using live view
with no recomposition.
There is less contrast in this because it was cloudy, but the focus is spot on.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8064/8198367058_8890fe4b8d.jpg)

Here is a 100% crop using live view with target focus. This is a function where you start your focusing on a feature and you can more around and the camera automatically seeks the feature moving the focus area.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8483/8197914306_60484b5dc2.jpg)


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.

You say you tried every trick in the book. What did you try?
I'm not having the same problems you are having.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Guy Mancuso on March 15, 2013, 11:42:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: fredjeang2 on March 15, 2013, 11:53:39 AM
Or how about Peter Lindbergh shooting Natalie Portman for a fashion spread in Vogue....

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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Rob C on March 15, 2013, 12:05:00 PM
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.



I've sometimes wondered why people feel obliged to use the focussing aid as if there is no alternative.

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.

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!

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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Rob C on March 15, 2013, 12:07:21 PM
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.



Welcome back, Fred!

Rob C
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Guy Mancuso on March 15, 2013, 12:20:03 PM


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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: fredjeang2 on March 15, 2013, 12:31:08 PM


Welcome back, Fred!

Rob C

Nice to read you again Rob.

Cheers.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: TMARK on March 15, 2013, 02:49:15 PM


When I was 18 I worked for AP.  Did the PJ stint from the time I was 16 (local papers then a stringer of AP/UPI).  I shot lots of press conferences, lots of speaches, lots of important people talking in DC.  With the F4 and even the dim but acurate FM2 and manual lenses (which I still have and use on my D800) I could hit focus and get frames good enough for a newspaper, TriX at 1600, by the way.  Also of note is that I often times zone focused.  I had the distances from various spots in certain rooms memorized, or I took a distance reading by focusing on a fixed point and reading the scale.

I've tried zone focusing and manual focusing with every digital camera I've ever owned.  Zone focusing is out, as the distance scales don't translate to digital, and modern lenses don't really have them.  You can aproximate by taking an AF reading and chimping, but its not as fast as with 35mm film cameras and older lenses.  Manual focusing is a mixed bag.  The Canon S screens help LOTS, but still nowhere near as bright or accurate as an F4 or F5, or even the dim but acurate FM2 or Nikkormat screens.  The EOS lenses have inacurate distance scales, and that is being kind. The D800 screen is bright enough, but not accurate enough and doesn't have enough magnification.  The ds3 and d3x are big and bright enough, but not as good as the F4/F5/F3HP. 

For MF, its a mixed bag as well, but better than the modern crop of dslrs.  I could hit focus with the Afd1/2 manually more so than when using AF.  The H is a pleasure, so is the 6008/Hy6, as is the Hass V, even with the crop.   The RZ is great with teh waist level and magnifier.  This is, to me, the biggest advantage to MF:  The finders.

EVF's aren't there yet.  They may be soon, but not yet, even the clean HDMI out of the D800 into a Red monitor, while cool and usable in a studio, is a BIT cumbersome.

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 15, 2013, 02:54:07 PM
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.

OK longer lens... 200mm f2.8 and tight closeup. Focus point chosen on right eye as I normally do. No recomposition.
Heavy back light as well as sun striking a foreground object. Hand held

(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6166/6199503901_13ec738d92_b.jpg)

I'm just not getting the focus errors you are with focus points other than the center point.
I think your camera may have a problem. Have you sent it in to Nikon?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Guy Mancuso on March 15, 2013, 03:37:45 PM
Fred you can put a million samples up but Im finding outside the Center zone just not critical. Its good but it ain't great is my point and your not in low light which is much harder on any AF system . Trust me I nailed every shot I need to nail but like always AF sucks on every camera known to man . It cant think and they get fooled a lot. I depend on me to make the money and the results ergo i will go to manual almost every time or I will focus on center and recompose which BTW is a natural for many shooters. Lets cut to the chase here you dont need to defend Nikon its a great system and I own it as well. But it has its problems and there are a lot of known issues on its AF system. BTW I had my old D800 serviced by Nikon for AF left and right point and my new Sigma 35mm 1.4 is waiting on a firmware that corrects for Nikons weak right and left AF points. Im waiting for the repair shop to call me back in and work on my new Sigma more as they are waiting for firmware from Sigma. I have not found a real need to send the D800E in yet as i just simply do not depend on right and left AF points but mine does seem okay. Im baffled though by the one up center point which you would think would be good. Now given low light, high ISO, long lens brings on its on problems as well. Not to mention movement of subject even speaking. The results are acceptable and client would never pick up on any focus issues. But it bothers me.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 15, 2013, 04:38:29 PM
After writing my last post I did a few optical viewfinder focus point tests compared to recompose.
D800 with 70-200mm all at 2.8

I thought I'd do these to make sure all is still working fine.
Focus point was placed to the right of the number 5.

Center focus point no recomposition 50% magnification crop.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8237/8560742616_15d98961cc_o.jpg)

Center focus point recomposed 50% magnification crop.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8391/8559633919_951d3f48ef_c.jpg)

Look at the yellow handle to the right. It's clear that the focus is shifted back as I expected. There is also lower contrast due to the crop being from the edge of the frame
and it's a 70-200mm wide open at 2.8.

Far right focus point with no recomposition.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8097/8560742178_6894abea39_c.jpg)

I also did a quick low light check. Focus point placed on ethernet.
ISO 2500 @ 1/60th with IS on.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8370/8560742096_1290265413_c.jpg)

Even lower light. 200mm f2.8 using the right most focus point and placing the focus point in the flat medium brown area just to the right of the disc.
Underexosed so as to avoid camera shake. ISO 6400 no NR. Focus was found with no hunting. 100% magnification.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8518/8559716729_fac63d82e4_c.jpg)

And here is the center focus point for comparrison:

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8234/8560839464_a9003f83cf_o.jpg)

One thing to keep in mind I keep the mirror box of my cameras very clean.
Most of the time I do not remove lenses from the bodies. The two main lenses I use stay on their bodies 90% or the time.
I will not change lenses at the beach or in the desert if there is more than a little breeze.
When I clean the mirror box I use a combination of ionized compressed air and vacuum.

I also fine tuned focusing for my lenses with the in camera fine tuning menu.





Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Guy Mancuso on March 15, 2013, 05:28:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 15, 2013, 07:07:22 PM
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.

If your subject is moving around focus and recompose would be even more of an issue as because the subject would move while you recompose.

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.

Anyway I also did some movement tests.

This one is with the far right AF focusing point and I am walking forward towards the subject with the focusing point
wobbling around, even onto the book lying flat in the foreground. I just made sure I shot when the dot passed over the medium brown area
just to the right of the disk.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8514/8561058194_2f21ae2d28_b.jpg)

And this one is taken using the 3d tracking option where the camera takes a snapshot of the subject features in the focus point chosen and
selects alternate focus points if the subject of camera moves around. In this case I wobbled the camera around.
When it shot the feature of the subject was under an AF point two points to the left so the camera "intelligently" changed the focus point for me so as to keep the focus in the same place on the subject.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8514/8561058194_2f21ae2d28_b.jpg).

Both shot at ISO 6400 so low light and I chose a darkish difficult part of the subject to focus on. Both are 100% magnification.

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Ed Foster, Jr. on March 15, 2013, 07:40:08 PM
...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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Guy Mancuso on March 15, 2013, 08:05:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 15, 2013, 08:39:23 PM
Fred,
I would really like to see how the model shots appear in print. What magazine will they be reproduced in?

Thanks,
Ed

They looked fine in print.

The black and white is a model and was a test for my daughter (makeup artist).
The color is not a model, it's Kristen Cavallari from the TV show the Hills.
They already came out (or I could not post them here)

It was for TCHAD Magazine that is distributed in Toronto, Vancouver and Hollywood LA..... the movie cities.

Here are some lousy cell phone snaps of a few of the pages.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8234/8560090563_2977fe9d21_c.jpg)

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8521/8560091031_18dd5f744f_c.jpg)

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8111/8560091561_533957a05a_c.jpg)

I guess I could send you a tear sheet... have a few extras...
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Ed Foster, Jr. on March 15, 2013, 08:48:59 PM
Fred,

If the photographs were all made with the D800, I would appreciate that. I'll send you a PM.

Thanks,
Ed
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 15, 2013, 08:52:50 PM
Fred,

If the photographs were all made with the D800, I would appreciate that. I'll send you a PM.

Thanks,
Ed

Nope this was shot with the Canon 5D Mark II
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 15, 2013, 09:24:43 PM
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.

Yes you have made it clear that yours is off, but you are also saying that D800 and pretty much all other AF systems are crap.


.... but like always AF sucks on every camera known to man ....

I'm simply posting examples and tests to show others that it's not the case at least for my Canons and Nikons.

Now the focus and recompose you are describing is a moderate recomposition compared to a full length vertical which is what I was describing.
In a moderate recomposition the change in camera angle is less and the error is less. You are moving from the center to the second AF point above,
the AF point you are saying is off.

I'll do a quick test with the focus point right above the center focus point in holding the camera in landscape.


Center focus point with no recomposition 100% crop @ 2.8
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8232/8560230343_c673ce8fb6_c.jpg)


Outer top AF point with no recomposition 100% crop @ 2.8
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8101/8560230881_5757c5c305_c.jpg)


Excuse the sleepy expression... he just got up from a nap  ;)

Top outer middle focus point no recompose
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8381/8561376728_04482f028a_o.jpg)


Center focus point with image recomposed moving the head up in the frame.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8094/8561377674_21d8b281c5_c.jpg)

It seems clear to me that my top middle focus point is more accurate than focus and recompose using the center focus point.
The focus is moved back in this shot despite the moderate recomposition.

There were also lower light as the sun had already gone behind the horizon.

And one very low light.
Top outer middle focus point in landscape mode. Low light  ISO 6400 and me moving forward and moving the camera around
shooting the shot when the focus point hits the medium brown area to the right of the disc. Camera on continuous AF.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8091/8560237165_b194203b30_c.jpg)


Top outer middle focus point camera in landscape and moving in and out in continuous focus.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8086/8561347560_1cf0bf2d7c_c.jpg)  
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: Guy Mancuso on March 15, 2013, 10:22:39 PM
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.

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 15, 2013, 10:42:46 PM
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.



I'm simply showing other readers on this thread that the AF points work at least on the two D800s I have.
You could also moderate the language.... rats ass... calling me a moron... now now... ;)
Quote
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
brings up the issue that some Nikon's appear to have a problem.

Also these last 2 shots are from 20 feet and are from neck to eyes. They are 100% crops, not closeups. 

I'm not trying to prove you wrong regarding your camera, I already stated that. I'm not saying you don't have a problem with your camera.
I'm not testing your camera, I'm testing mine and going out of my way to share it.

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.

So are you saying that this is the only situation where you are having problems? If there is an AF point problem it would be in various situations, not only one.

Look I did these today to also check that all is working fine on my camera.

To conclude all I want to say is that i find the AF on the D800 very good and I like using it
because it lets me focus (pun unintended) on the more creative side of my picture taking, dealing with clients etc etc and
deal less with the camera operator side of things.

There are things that bug me about the D800. For example I wish Nikon would make a nice clip on live view loup that clips on instead of the screen protector
as well as a folding one. I would like the 5x4 crop mode to have the option of moving it down when doing verticals so as to make better use of focus points.

 




 
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 16, 2013, 02:06:43 AM
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

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.


Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 16, 2013, 01:29:04 PM
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


When it comes to portrait, Fashion and everything in between the eyes are the mirror of the soul so to speak. Whenever you look at someone in reality and interact, converse with them etc you look at there eyes. You brain focuses right on the eyes ans takes in all the subtleties of the expression. If the eyes are crisp in your picture you get more of this reality and communication of sorts. There is a lot more to it than simply passing the clients "checkup". Also an important thing to remember is that if something is more in focus than the eyes it throws things off. There are of course times when deliberately throwing the eyes out of focus or even the whole face works from a creative point of view.

The best advice I was ever given about fashion photography was that it's all about the woman....
The woman has to be there all throughout the creation and consumption of fashion.
This advice was given to me by Gisella Boriolli director of many magazines during her career including Italian Vogue.

So it it's about the woman there is nothing like seeing everything in the eyes, that's if you cast the very best. There
are lots of models with all the other bits, but rather empty eyes.

To give you an idea of the importance of this concept the single photo that got me more fashion gigs is a portrait
where you can barely see the cloths...

Here it is.

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5206/5317146580_a9fd779e3c_b.jpg)

even from far away.. for me it's all about the eyes

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5286/5317147300_1be167529a_z.jpg)

They tell so much

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5289/5316551817_af1c0cb390_b.jpg)

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5281/5316551705_ec33084596_b.jpg)
these last two are bad scans (sorry)

And then there is the power of the eyes... but also real skin.

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5204/5317147602_bb1d0ca19b_b.jpg)

I have an aversion for photos with to much skin processing and visible retouching.
I also find it ironic that many of those that go on and on about skin tones of this or that CCD vs cmos sensor
are the ones that process the hell out of their files working them "deep". It gets to the point where it is illustration rather than photography.
Whats also ironic is that in some fields such as cars and watches this trend by photographers to over retouch has lead clients to go all out with 3D
rendering and skip the photography.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 16, 2013, 01:55:11 PM
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


You bring up an interesting point. While B Cooter in this discussion of focus and recompose rather sarcastically recommends using a tripod for maximum shapness.


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.


However he fails to mention that focus and recompose on a tripod is actually going to be worse because the axis on which the camera tilts with a tripod head is a few inches below the lens. This means that as the camera tilts down the camera also moves forward thus moving the focus plane even a bit more further back.

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: fredjeang2 on March 16, 2013, 03:21:50 PM
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.

You know as well as me that in the art milieu, every master, every minimally successful person has his-her own magic phrase(s) for the gallery that supposedly contain some sort of wisdom to make them shine.  That's part of the show, of the theater. I don't count the number of those "magical sentences" in the mouth of the elite; it's the parade, it's great in a dinner, always has a strong effect over satelites gravitating arround the stars, and are shortcuts for the press crowd.

Look at the NY Vogue. (no need to give names here, we all know who I'm refering to). Professionaly, I have a great, an inmense respect for her. But then, as a person who pee like everybody else by the way, she acumulates surch an amount of psy problems than 100 years of psychotherapy wouldn't be enough to cure just the 1% of the BS. If she doesn't suicide is just because her ego is too strong and maintains her at the top, in the elite position, deeply unhappy and ruling the boat with an iron hand very much like Louis 14 ruled Versailles. She's good at what she does, she's incredibly good, but she's fucked-up as a person. 90% of the advices and "great" quotes from the arty snobbish elite theater comes from people like that and tend to over-simplify realities. It's just the show.

The quote you're giving isn't wrong, not at all, but only a part of it. How many "fashion" photographers really know about woman, in fact, the vast majority of aspirant to fashion really understand woman, but very few have real clew of what fashion is about (and certainly not about just women), less few have real clew of the fabrics etc...a fashion photographer that has never ever enter a couture factory, that is unable to understand a brand trajectory, philosophy, and can picture clear differences between each brand, never will be a real fashion photographer. I met some of the top guys actually shooting fashion, in Spain we have 2 world wide fashion photographers and one the thing that impressed me a lot is their knowledge on the fabrics of the brands and what kind of issues they will have to deal with. Most of the time, they know and see things stylists do not see and can anticipate just by the name of a brand. And that's because they know how it's made, they fully understand the all process to the point that they almost could cut fabric in the factory. Someone who's not interested in fashion itself can not succeed in it with just understanding women. IMHO.

You're making good points, but there are oversimplified according to me. You can make a car campaing without a car (BMW for ex), but then it's not photography any more, it's advert. You can shoot Armani campaign without any clothes, but again, this isn't fashion, it's advertising.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 16, 2013, 04:13:01 PM
Quote
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.

Yes I have plenty of experience in the business. 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. Many iconic campaigns are an indication of this as are the huge contracts that are awarded
to the models.

The model in the the first picture I posted to underline my comment that it's all about the woman went on to get the Elizabeth Arden Campaign
with a huge contract. I remember sitting in my studio with her in Milan where I had a big stack of magazines and going through them with her
as she pointed out the type of pictures she wanted to do in the future of her career. She picked out all the images of great models that were
more personality driven than just looks.

The great and very matter of fact Peter Lindbergh said it's all about the casting... the woman.

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.
My first international ad campaign (in Time magazine) was from a client seeing a specific photo of a model (male) on a composite.
They did not even ask to see my book. I shot it and only afterwards found out it was for an international ad campaign... I almost fainted
when they told me what to bill them! I had only previously negotiated my day rate.

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.

Just look at the fashion magazines these days. Whose on the covers. Singers and actresses because it is about the woman.

Personally I find it rather inappropriate and missinformed that you jump on this advice that I chose to share. It was given to me by a WOMAN
that had put faith in me and I put faith in her. I owe a lot to her including putting up with my antics as a young photographer including
going way off in my own direction on my second shoot for her. My first shoot was color and very graphic, my second was moody shadowy black and white.
She was not expecting that.
BUT the casting was right one the nail for the mood. Two unusual models. One that looked like a Disney Persian princes
and one that had a curvy very feminine look. Gisella ran the spread ... a 10 page beauty spread and one of the featured brands
took out a multi publieditorial contract with the magazine.. all of which I shot.

Take it as you may, but I have had so many experiences that confirmed this "all about the woman thing".

Now with that I'm not saying you don't light well for the cloths or shoot them out of focus.

I was also given another piece of advice by Mr Newton himself. Never let photography get between what is in your head and the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18wmonxTjX0&feature=share&list=PLD22E66923E2F8D9C (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18wmonxTjX0&feature=share&list=PLD22E66923E2F8D9C)


 




Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: fredjeang2 on March 16, 2013, 06:12:23 PM
...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


 





Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: eronald on March 16, 2013, 09:14:27 PM
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.

Unfortunately, the distance at which it works is well above portrait distance with medium format, throwing focus off for portraits, but (stop me from a mistake, guys) it mostly works when you are doing full-body shots with good lights with a 35mm. Somewhere between those two comes a point when focus on the eyes with focus and recompose becomes a matter of chimping and checking.

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
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: telyt on March 16, 2013, 10:29:26 PM
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.

This mirrors Canon's advice.  Canon recommends against focus - recompose at close range with shallow DOF.  My experience too.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on March 17, 2013, 04:08:24 AM

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

If your cameras secondary focus points are accurate you are more likely to get more accurate focusing that focus and recompose for several reasons.

First of all with fast focusing lenses you focus right up to the instant in which you shoot the image.
With focus and recompose you have a delay while you recompose so if the subject moves forward the focus locked before
re-composition will be off. Also in my experience a model that is going through different poses always creeps forward.
When focus and recompose is used when the photographer his head has to tilt down. The fulcrum on which it tilts down is
below the cranium and a few inches behind the camera. Due to this the camera is going to move forward and the head tilts down.
This moves the focus plane even further back. Using a tripod will be similar as the rotation point is well below the camera.

There is also another reason why this whole focus and recompose issue is a problem and it is the high resolution of
the files. Art directors expect to be able to crop images quite a bit and we all know the closer you crop in on an image the more you see and focus errors.

It also depends somewhat on what you photograph.
If you shoot models they don't have much to do with the final selection of what is published.
No problem for the photographer to ditch the slightly off focus ones.
If you shoot celebrities for example it is not uncommon for the publicist to insist on reviewing
the images and choosing the one's to run or at least participate in the choice.
It's really annoying to have to tell them that an expression or pose they like should be rejected because of a focus error. 

Then there is the issue of wiggling the camera infront of your subject. Focus/recompose again and again... wiggle wiggle wiggle.
Personally I don't find it conducive to creating a mood or atmosphere.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on April 16, 2013, 01:33:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on April 17, 2013, 12:47:05 AM
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.

I downloaded the two files and it's quite clear that the hasselblad is focused closer and the scale of the subject in the Hasselblad image is larger.
The closer focus favors the Hasselblad lens as it blurs the background more as you can see in this crop.
It is clear in the crop that the Hasselblad is focused on the flower closer to the camera.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8110/8656277445_1c5d549755_o.gif)

Also the lighting has changed between the shots and the out of focus background in the Hasselblad shot is more in the shade and less contrasty while
in the Nikon shot it is in the sun and more contrasty and lighter. Shade will always look softer and favor bokeh.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8115/8657432130_99d82d0c3f_o.gif)

As far as sharpness goes the 105mm DC is an older lens and not really designed for the newer generation cameras.
Here is the difference between the older 105 DC and the 85mm 1.4G

(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Nikon-105mm-f-2D-AF-DC-Lens/Crop3/2009-12-17_16-58-54.jpg)
Nikon 105mm DC

(http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Lens-Tests/ISO-12233/Nikon-85mm-f-1.4G-AF-S-Lens/Crop3/2010-09-16_10-42-39.jpg)
Nikon 85mm 1.4G

The newer 85mm 1.4G has nicer Bokeh and detail compared to the 105 DC

here is a good example of the dimensional quality of the 85mm 1.4 and it's smooth bokeh.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/d_robert/8519631830/in/pool-nikkor85g/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/d_robert/8519631830/in/pool-nikkor85g/)

and this
http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankvilsack/8030971453/in/pool-nikkor85g/]]http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankvilsack/8030971453/in/pool-nikkor85g/ (http://)

even stopped down 2 stops it's still smooth thanks to the 9 blade iris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8084214646/in/pool-nikkor85g/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8084214646/in/pool-nikkor85g/)

That said the Fujinon  / Hassy 150mm is a very nice lens. It's also better with film or a full frame MF sensor where you see more of it's bokeh potential.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on April 17, 2013, 01:23:38 AM
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/)
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on April 17, 2013, 01:39:03 AM
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/)

Same difference in focusing distance.

Out of curiosity how did you process the Hasselblad images?
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on April 17, 2013, 03:05:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on April 17, 2013, 03:26:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: jerome_m on April 17, 2013, 04:49:34 PM
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.

Thank you for the reminder about the new Adobe tools, which I had not known about. You are right that they will help with the 105 DC, which indeed suffers a lot from fringing, and I will check whether the fringing can be corrected very well. The example I posted was at f/4.0, at f/2.8 the 105DC is worse:

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8546/8649958136_3afbf86706_c.jpg) (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8546/8649958136_9ff222263e_o.png)
105f2.8-150f4.0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8649958136/) by jerome_Munich (http://www.flickr.com/people/jerome_munich/)

Title: Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
Post by: FredBGG on April 17, 2013, 06:10:48 PM
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.

That is part of it, but there are other issues too. At wider apertures bokeh and color correction in lenses is a balancing act.

There is some discussion about it in this Hasselblad PDF....

www.hasselbladusa.com/media/.../the_evolution_of_lenses.pdf (http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/.../the_evolution_of_lenses.pdf)

Interesting article.