Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: sebastian_kubatz on March 31, 2013, 09:02:51 am
-
Hey everyone,
I had the opportunity to use the Hasselblad H4D and PhaseOne P45+ and IQ160 on several occasions.
I'm really stoked by the image quality they deliver but felt really comfortable using the PhaseOne system.
So I've been thinking about making the move into the medium format world for about a year at least.
Living in uncertain times right now I'm not sure if it is a good idea to spend so much money.
I'm just finishing my bachelor thesis in about 2 months and from there on everything still seems doubtful in terms of future work or internship abroad.
I'm not a starving student are anything like that. I do have to money for a medium format system and I do not need to raise a credit to buy me into the medium format world.
But with all that in mind I was thinking about how good the resale value of a PhaseOne medium format system is right now.
It might be the case that I'll need that money in one or two years and will have to sell the whole system.
So does anyone of you know anything about the resale value? Any experiences?
Other than that where would you sell the system? Would you insert it on a forum like this or does PhaseOne buy those used systems?
Also I'm thinking about an IQ160 or IQ260 right now.
I'm not shooting a lot in a studio... most of the time I'm on location and need to judge the image on the screen. So the P+ series is not an option for me right now.
I hope someone can help me with my decision.
Thanks a lit in advance and Happy Easter to everyone!
Sebastian
-
I resold my MF system recently via this forum.
I got some money back but nothing like I paid for it - camera gear depreciates almost as fast as electronics.
The good thing is that the resale value of an MF system will allow you to buy a mass of different equipment of about the same age, so in effect you are not locked into your MF choices, especially I guess if you have a good dealer who is willing to organize the swap.
Edmund
Hey everyone,
I had the opportunity to use the Hasselblad H4D and PhaseOne P45+ and IQ160 on several occasions.
I'm really stoked by the image quality they deliver but felt really comfortable using the PhaseOne system.
So I've been thinking about making the move into the medium format world for about a year at least.
Living in uncertain times right now I'm not sure if it is a good idea to spend so much money.
I'm just finishing my bachelor thesis in about 2 months and from there on everything still seems doubtful in terms of future work or internship abroad.
I'm not a starving student are anything like that. I do have to money for a medium format system and I do not need to raise a credit to buy me into the medium format world.
But with all that in mind I was thinking about how good the resale value of a PhaseOne medium format system is right now.
It might be the case that I'll need that money in one or two years and will have to sell the whole system.
So does anyone of you know anything about the resale value? Any experiences?
Other than that where would you sell the system? Would you insert it on a forum like this or does PhaseOne buy those used systems?
Also I'm thinking about an IQ160 or IQ260 right now.
I'm not shooting a lot in a studio... most of the time I'm on location and need to judge the image on the screen. So the P+ series is not an option for me right now.
I hope someone can help me with my decision.
Thanks a lit in advance and Happy Easter to everyone!
Sebastian
-
In general, Phase One backs have better resale value than Leaf, and even Hasselblad. Precisely, P+ series P65+ and especially P45+.
There are a lot of factors determining the success of your sale. Where you live(it's easier to sell in big markets - US and EU then in Africa), is there an economical crises at the time of sale, how patient you are (it can take ages to sell, answering to numerous questions of potential and not so potential buyers) - it's pain in the a..., you could say.
I've seen people losing a lot of money at the time purchase. They are buying equipment that doesn't suit their needs. I've seen them selling it few months later. They bought the equipment from skilled sellers for high price and since they are not skilled sellers themselves, they sell it way too cheap. I've never seen more stupid way to lose the money.
So buy wisely, that's the most important thing.
-
If you are running a depreciation schedule on your back of choice, against your business, then the choice you make is a bit more complicated now.
The value of a used 160 IMO has come down with the announcement of the 260. The 260 has yet to show all of it's true capabilities but as time rolls on I expect it to. Another issue is the "perceived need" for a new 160. I really don't believe there is much of that now with the 260 announcement. Perceived need drives residual value. Most people that were considering a new 160 will move to the 260. Another question is when the 260 stars to ship, will it have all it's expected features available or will Phase One implement some of them later with firmware updates. Examples of this on previous backs:
P45+ and 1 hour exposures at initial ship. A firmware release was needed and it came some time after first ship. The firmware did deliver the 1 hour exposures. Mine was purchased in March of 2008. At that time I was told by the dealer to only consider a 30 minute maximum exposure until the firmware fix was delivered. I don't remember the actual date of the release of the firmware. I did not attempt to take my back to the necessary firmware till 2010.
IQ Series, USB 3. Not available at 1st ship and is just now coming on line with a beta firmware. I have not followed it that closely but the results seem positive.
Phase to my knowledge has always delivered on promised features which again helps on a back's residual value.
Then this leaves open the used market for 160's and what the price point for these will be. That price point will most likely not get very solid till the 260 starts to ship in volume at the beginning of the 3rd quarter of 2013. If a used 160 has value add warranty left or not will be a factor on price since Phase allows the value add to move with the serial of the back.
P45+ value seems to be holding in the same range, however as more of the images from the 260 come out, this also may drop a bit.
Lot to consider before you make your decision.
Paul Caldwell
-
Cameras are not investment tools. If you cannot afford or willing to take a loss, do not buy.
You are finishing a thesis? Then you are not a photo student. This is a personal purchase and so buy it if you want it. Unless you have some great contacts, you are hardly going to get a great job in photography--it is a really competitive business and supply is far greater than demand. If you are pursuing your own projects, you might find the most expensive part is not the camera.
Hold onto the cash until you know what you are doing.
-
If you run a business or use a camera in your business, I would disagree. A camera is like any other piece of equipment, in a business, it can and should be depreciated over time depending on your tax schedule, just like a vehicle, studio, etc. I am not using the camera as investment tool I use it as a tool to further my photographic business. I am simply depreciating it over a set schedule the way it's done in most business models I am aware of, small or large. At the cost of entry in MFD it's a mistake to overlook real world dollar issues such as depreciation and value over time.
Paul Caldwell
-
This is the really hard question these days for anyone who is not (a) amortizing the gear in paying work or (b) rich beyond caring.
The depreciation on new MF backs is kind of staggering. I recently turned down a basically new H4D-60 for well under $20K, because I can't be sure it will have any value four years from now. Now granted, it would have ongoing value as a great photographic tool, but I need to maintain some liquidity in my capital investment. There is a good chance that one of the major MF cos. will not be around in four or five years, and even a measurable chance that neither will (a sad thought).
For $4000 to $600 a year in depreciation, plus opportunity cost on the capital, I can rent when I really need one quite a few times, and in particular if I (loose my mind and) take paying work.
FWIW, however, the P65+ is now in a pretty sweet place for value. Indeed, the P45s are starting to be downright reasonable, as are HD3-39s. To say it these can't be used for outdoor work is simply untrue.
We all have to make peace with our own wallets...so have fun!
- N.
-
Hey everyone,
I had the opportunity to use the Hasselblad H4D and PhaseOne P45+ and IQ160 on several occasions.
I'm really stoked by the image quality they deliver but felt really comfortable using the PhaseOne system.
So I've been thinking about making the move into the medium format world for about a year at least.
Living in uncertain times right now I'm not sure if it is a good idea to spend so much money.
I'm just finishing my bachelor thesis in about 2 months and from there on everything still seems doubtful in terms of future work or internship abroad.
I'm not a starving student are anything like that. I do have to money for a medium format system and I do not need to raise a credit to buy me into the medium format world.
But with all that in mind I was thinking about how good the resale value of a PhaseOne medium format system is right now.
It might be the case that I'll need that money in one or two years and will have to sell the whole system.
So does anyone of you know anything about the resale value? Any experiences?
Other than that where would you sell the system? Would you insert it on a forum like this or does PhaseOne buy those used systems?
Also I'm thinking about an IQ160 or IQ260 right now.
I'm not shooting a lot in a studio... most of the time I'm on location and need to judge the image on the screen. So the P+ series is not an option for me right now.
I hope someone can help me with my decision.
Thanks a lit in advance and Happy Easter to everyone!
Sebastian
Hi, unless you have a LOT of money to spare and/or make good money with your photography gear I would not buy a MFDB system.
The D800e basically killed the lower end MFDB market for many photography applications including landscape. (For people photography the depth of field and color characteristics of the larger chips are still a factor for a lot of photographers so there is a niche, and also for people who want/need to use a technical camera). The dynamic range of the D800e is amazing and the cleanliness of the deep shadows is unmatched in any digital camera imho. The color depth is also great and only slightly bested by the IQ160 and IQ180 and slightly by the P65+.
And once Canon releases their high MP DSLR the resale value of the lower MP backs will probably decrease further. They have some awesome lenses that can take advantage of it.
The MFDBs are lacking several key features that would make them MUCH more versatile and easy to use. Live View is the most significant, specially for technical camera users. Phase One has found some workarounds to achieve it in their most recent backs, kinda, its implementation is a bit rough still and not that convenient. You can mount MFDBs on several SLRs (mainly 645's) for a quasi integrated MF Digital Camera solution. But its still a bit dated compared to the best DSLRs (Phase One is working on an all new camera to replace the 645DF+ which its core they basically inherited from Mamiya (645). Phase One has worked hard to upgrade their lens line. It has lots of good choices now. Hasselblad has some good options and a lot of good lenses for their system.
I would not count on resale value. But it's best to buy a used back obviously so as not to take as large a hit if and when you sell it.
Right now the best back for the money is the Phase One P65+, specially if you want to use it on a technical camera. It basically has the same image quality as an IQ160. Next would be the Pentax 645D (if you do not need a technical camera). If you want a great people / studio camera the Hasselblad H4D-40 can be had at great prices.
-
Hi Sebastian
Before replying to your questions I took a look at your website to get a better idea
of what type of photography you do.
First let me say that your work is really nice. I see quite a mature look to your work... it does not look like
the work of a young student.
You portraits of women are really nice. Beautiful and strong while being "delicately beautiful".
I like the compositions... in particular because they are not "formula based".
You landscape work is excellent too.
I also see you are a student and want to travel, I imagine both for access to landscapes and fashion/beauty markets.
As an excellent portrait/fashion photographer and landscape photographer the Phase One and Hasselblad systems could be a good fit for you
if selling large 40x60 inch landscape work is part of your bushiness plan.
However I see from your portrait work that you like to shoot shallow depth of field. There are two things you should keep in mind regarding this.
Hasselblad has the better focusing system for shallow depth of field if used within it's limitations true focus will be an advantage.
However the Phase One system has another shallow depth of field advantage over Hasselblad in that the DF has a top shutter speed of 1/4000th
This will hake it easier to shoot wide open if you are out in bright light.
However the DF body is not the strong point of the system as it has issues and apparently the new DF+ has problems to;
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/44999-focusing-df.html (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/44999-focusing-df.html)
Dan Santoso wrote:
I had very bad experience with DF+
1st : very slow focus, will not lock even outdoor.
2nd : Defective viewfinder out of the box
3rd : Demo unit so I can play around, much better than first body.
4th : finally open my 3rd unit out of the box, focus beat all 3 previous copy. faster. So I bought it.
I just found out last week that my body produces softer images than the demo unit 645 DF my dealer uses. It is very obvious in side by side comparison. Micro adjust will not fix it because it does nothing at all.
I am sending it for service.
So after 4 experiences with DF+ body, my conclusion is that phase one has very bad QC problem!!
another in the thread has other problems:
Steve Cor wrote:
I have 2 issues with my 645DF+, but they are not with the autofocus.
I don't have any complaints about the autofocus. I think Jack said he doesn't need the second and third tap anymore with accuracy mode.
One issue is, I have to setup the custom fuctions I want every time I use the camera. When the camera is off for a while, it forgets them.
The other thing I've found is, the autofocus assist beam can actually come on during an exposure. Then the red beam on the subject would ruin the picture, like this example:
However IMO neither come close to what you can do with a D800 (or top of the line Canon) when it comes to shallow depth of field and precision focus.
There is a much larger choice of faster of lenses with shallower depth of field and far superior focusing, both manual and automatic.
Regarding depreciation of the value of MF digital it is quite staggering.
Plenty of examples around of how much is lost on the resale of high end MFDB.
This is a pristine Phase One IQ180, 80-megapixel digital back, with only 1,150 actuations. The Value-Added Warranty is good until June 2016. I purchased this back from Capture Integration in June 2011.
This back despite being mint and still having 3 years of value added warranty it sold for $22,500 (that was what it was last offered for when it sold).
It's $47,740.00 new at Calumet. That is a $ 25,000 loss.
Up for auction is this Phase One IQ160 digital back in a Hasselblad H mount.
This is a gently used item in mint condition. This digital back has been owned by a single owner, a professional photographer who carefully houses all his equipment.
Warranty available. Purchased new on 6/18/2012 with a transferable warranty good thru 6/18/2013.
The back was used mostly in studio with only 8901 actuations.
This did not sell for $ 21,000 even though it's practically new still under warranty and $14,000 less than new.
IF you do buy, this is the kind of deal you should look for so as to not take the hit of being a first owner of a back.
Two years from know who knows what MFD gear will be worth money wise especially if we look at the faster progress being made in 35mm DSLRs.
We are on the verge of a rather big change. Sony, Canon and Nikon are all working on non bayer array sensors along the lines of the Sigma foveon
sensor. This has the potential of changing things dramatically.
Another thing you must consider as a professional photographer is back up gear. You cannot rely on a single camera or camera and back.
IF you are sellling MFD as your format to your clients as you should to cover the extra cost you cannot really have them accept another format as backup.
A client will not really see the difference if he does not know, but changing half way through the job can be a problem.
Either way it can be an issue. IF he's satisfied with the results from your backup camera they he will ask why use MFD... slower, more expensive etc etc.
IF a bit of a catch 22 situation. A D800 as a backup for MFD is such a worthy backup that it could simply do the job in the first place.
Going back to depreciation. Lets look at lenses for a moment.
Phase One lenses depreciate significantly while Nikon and Canon lenses hold their value much better. (I'm obviously talking
about money value as the best Nikon, Canon and Phase One lenses are all brilliant lenses). On top of that Nikon and Canon lenses sell very quickly as the market is huge.
You mentioned internship... well one thing you could consider is making yourself available as a MFD assistant with camera package.
When I rented MFD I always preferred to rent from an assistant/photographer. This could be a good way to increase access to assisting jobs and access to certain types of shoots. However that is dependent on a continued demand for MFD in that area.
One last word of advice. In my opinion at this point in your career there are much better things to spend your money on.
The quality difference between a D800 and a digital back is not that significant at all compared to what travelling can do for you.
If it's fashion... going to work for a stint in Milan, Paris and New York will do much more for you than a few megapixels.
Another thing to consider is the look of larger formats and fashion.... The difference in look between a D800 and a MFDB
is not really all that different. However if you are looking for a significantly different look one should consider film and larger than 645 MF or large format.
What is interesting about it is that the investment in gear is very small. Personally I find that a combination of for example a D800 system and a 6x7 or 6x8
film camera is far more empowering as far as looks go than a MFD. There is also a certain something about how film is perceived.
Everyone shoots digital.. not many shoot film.
For landscape photography.... well travel is the number one ingredient. IF you also consider what stitching can do for ultra high res landscape
this argument is even stronger.
To help put this discussion into perspective here is a comparison between MFD 40MP and D800.
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)
In reality both have a quality level to cover just about anything except a side by side comparison
of a 40x60 print shot with an 80MP on a technical camera and great lens.
Here is a comparison between an iq180 and a D800E
http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/ (http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/)
-
Fred,
Good points, especially on a back up solution. It does tend to get expensive if you intend to have a back MFD digital solution. Knowing I wanted to lead with MFD in my work, I choose to pay the extra for the Value Add warranty. In my years of ownership of MFD, I used the Value Add on my P45+ 4 times, each time I had a working replacement in 24 hours. In the case of my 160, I have used the value add once and again received a replacement in 24 hours. Each time the replacement was either the same level or one camera higher. I realize in the studio, if a camera goes down, no value add will help continue the shoot. In my workflow the value add turn around has always been fine.
However on the IQ180 example, I would be surprised if the original owner paid list. When Phase first announced the 180, they had a trade-in offer for P65+ users that was excellent. Since that time, Phase has continued to offer upgrade offers for various IQ solutions. If the owner of your 180 example was purchased in 2011, more than likely it was part of this type of upgrade. Also the warranty reference is a value add warranty since it runs through the 2016 year. If the owner of the 180 took advantage of the original upgrade/trade-in offer by Phase One, they paid much less than the list price of 47K.
Of course you have to also consider their book position of the P65+, and where it was on a depreciation schedule.
Paul Caldwell
-
Hello Sebastian,
In my opinion don’t waste you hard earned money on medium format gear.
Sebastian if you can speak English I would be happy to phone you and explain my reasoning.
Ciao
Simon
-
If you run a business or use a camera in your business, I would disagree. A camera is like any other piece of equipment, in a business, it can and should be depreciated over time depending on your tax schedule, just like a vehicle, studio, etc. I am not using the camera as investment tool I use it as a tool to further my photographic business. I am simply depreciating it over a set schedule the way it's done in most business models I am aware of, small or large. At the cost of entry in MFD it's a mistake to overlook real world dollar issues such as depreciation and value over time.
Paul Caldwell
Right, you depreciate it over time and get the tax benefit. When the life of the equipments is over, so is its value. To sell it means you need to square that with your taxes.
So, tell me, what will the value of an IQ160 be in say 5 years? Lets pretend you can predict the future and know about all the technical advances and pricing that can take place. You are not entitled to any particular resale value. If you need to run a business, I would advise that the resale value of secondhand gear not be part of that model.
-
I would rent the equipment and then bill your client. It is rather a lot of money to spend when you don't have any work.
However, is money is not an issue and this is simply something fun you would like to have, then get an MFD camera. You won't get your money back, but you can have fun taking photographs.
-
Sebastian,
I think the main question is not about the investment or how to resell the gear sooner or later. The main question is in how far do you feel limited with the camera you are using now and why do you think MFD will be an improvement ... ?
-
It doesn't sound like you have budgetary constraints---at least not in terms of missing putting food on the table.
Life is short. Shoot with whatever gives you the most photographic enjoyment---regardless of platform.
:)
-
Wow.
Thanks to everyone for the input. I didn't expect so many people to join in here. Thanks a lot to all of you.
Well I guess there are a lot more things to consider than I thought.
I will meet up with my PhaseOne dealer next friday and talk with him about all that.
First of all I thought electronic prices in that price range would be a lot more stable. Like when buying a TAGHeuer, IWC or Breitling.
I resold my MF system recently via this forum.
Why did you sell your system, Edmund?
Lot to consider before you make your decision.
You're right Paul.... lot's of things to consider.
Thanks for the extra information you provide.
Hold onto the cash until you know what you are doing.
That's the way I always went up to now. So yeah, you're right with that.
To say it these can't be used for outdoor work is simply untrue.
I didn't say that. It's just personal preference. I'm not going to spend that much money and have a display and menu that's worse than my old 5D2. ;)
Sebastian,
I think the main question is not about the investment or how to resell the gear sooner or later. The main question is in how far do you feel limited with the camera you are using now and why do you think MFD will be an improvement ... ?
Thomas,
I do own a 5D2 and several really good lenses. But when talking about MFD it's a whole other league image quality wise.
And what I noticed while shooting MFD is the whole process of taking pictures gets slowed down so you appreciate the moment a lot more.
Other than that there are clients demanding MFD.
Hello Sebastian,
In my opinion don’t waste you hard earned money on medium format gear.
Sebastian if you can speak English I would be happy to phone you and explain my reasoning.
Ciao
Simon
Hey Simon,
thanks a lot for the offer. I'll send you a PM asap.
I also thought about renting a medium format system for several jobs.
But then I do travel a lot and why wouldn't I want to always have the best image quality available with me.
Like I said, a lot of things to consider and now after reading all your comments there is even more to think about. :o
Anyway thanks a lot to all of you guys.
More comments are really appreciated.
cheers,
Sebastian
-
I do own a 5D2 and several really good lenses. But when talking about MFD it's a whole other league image quality wise.
And what I noticed while shooting MFD is the whole process of taking pictures gets slowed down so you appreciate the moment a lot more.
cheers,
Sebastian
I shot with Canon (5D2 and 1Ds series) for a long time, but recently switched to the Nikon D800. The sensor in the D800
is a game changer, better all round. I still have a couple of Canon's and they served me very well and can only speak highly of Canon service.
I expect Canon to match or exceed Nikon in it's next offerings.
Regarding the whole process being slowed down... you should not let the camera dictate the speed at which you work, at least not when you want to slow down.
The speed at which I work is my own choice, but I prefer to do so with a camera that will let me throw in a fast burst of frames if something happens like a gust of wind
or a models reaction like a burst of laughter etc.
There are times where I will work slower with a DSLR (either MF or 35mm) than with film.
A little while ago I was shooting an a-list comedian and he threw insults at me for shooting one frame here and one frame there.....
hey but when Don Rickles throws and insult at you it is the highest compliment you can get.
-
Yes, before you jump into medium format test out the D800e. Also, try to take your current gear to the limit of its performance. That means using the best lenses available at optimum apertures with perfect technique and then printing it as large as possible in increments and looking critically close at the print. Usually that means working methodically slow on a tripod. No matter which camera.
IMHO, on a 20x30in print you might be at the limit of any Canon DSLR. (I am talking single image capture) The D800e can print much larger, about 40-60in, and has at least similar quality to all but the 60-80MP backs in regards to resolution but its amazingly clean and deep shadow detail makes it superior in some situations. Keep in mind that not all of the DSLR lenses are up to the task.
That is where the Leica S2 rules supreme. Lens quality. So do not rule it out if budget is not an issue. If it is, check out the Pentax 645D. Huge lens selection on the used market. If you work with flash and mostly tethered the Hasselblad is a great choice and also the Phase. If you work with technical cameras the newer PhaseOne IQ Backs are unbeatable. Also, the upcoming IQ260 is probably the best all around MFDB ever made from what I have seen posted (including some full quality files).
-
Why did you sell your system, Edmund?
When I got the Mamiya/P45+ I was doing some fashion, but since stopped; it was never really my job, but I did publish some and did some catalog work. I was also doing personal work, and selling a few prints.
Initially, I made very large prints of my personal work with this system, but could never sell them, although I sold quite a few A3-sized prints.
I found that although the files were very good, the effort of making MF work was too big for me; I then got a D3x, and the Nikon essentially did all I needed, it could easily go to poster size, so I stopped using the MF system, and eventually sold it.
For some reason, although I'm a pretty old guy, I take my images very quickly, never use a tripod, and so SLR-like speed is a necessity for me.
If there is some MF system which you really like using, get it; if it's just extreme image quality you are after but you do not have much MF experience, then be aware that moving to MF is much harder than moving from one SLR to another, and in fact it can be so hard that you simply fail to incorporate the MF into your work.
Edmund
-
WFirst of all I thought electronic prices in that price range would be a lot more stable. Like when buying a TAGHeuer, IWC or Breitling.
A wise friend of mine put it this way: "Today, a camera is just a computer that takes pictures. Would you buy a four years old computer? What's it going to be worth in three of four years?"
He's totally right. I recently looked at an H2/39 kit that I would have given my left arm for when it came out. The price was under $5K, yet I knew within seconds that I couldn't stand working with it in the field, for exactly the same reason I recently threw out a seven year old laptop that was state-of-the-art when I bought it. Value = zero.
Sad, but that is the modern world. My Leica M6 and Mamiya 6.....those are still worth something ;) ;)
Cheers,
- N.
-
I think that from a purely economic point of view, it isn't really a wise choice to buy a MFD system. You can get by very well with saya Nikon D800. But it is a pure joy to be able to shoot with MFD and the look of the files as well as the pace of work is different than 35mm digital. The fact that you can use the MFD system as marketing proposition with clients is a bonus too.
Just be aware that you WILL lose a significant amount of money down the road if you think in terms of reselling your gear in two years. But if it is your job and the camera is your daily tool - so in that regard, and considering that you might get tax deductions for the investment, go for it.
I think for professionals, who earn hard good cash with their MFD systems, a Phase system is a no-brainer. After two to three years, you can usually upgrade for c. 10-15k USD to the next best system and you can also deduct the investment from your taxes. So in the end, depending where you are, the upgrade cost is reduced.
If you earn 100k per year and invest 7k p.a. for an upgrade - in my view this seems pretty reasonable.
On the other hand, if you are a hobbyist, rich dentist or a retired guy shooting flowers in the garden, then you must decide more on joy terms if you want such a camera ... because then, economically, it surely will make a lot less sense.
In the end, you only live once and you WILL have a lot of fun with your system!
-
Finaly some sense!
Keith, thank you.
-
Hi,
I sort of presume that cameras are tools and not investment objects. I don't think cameras age very rapidly. A five years old camera still will make images that are just fine, but it may have been worth a lot a few years ago and that price you never get back. I would also guess that few digital cameras turn into collectors item.
It's a bit parallel, I have bought a couple of Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad V for a couple hundred dollars each. They are quite nice.
I guess I could put together a Hasselblad 500 kit with 3-4 lenses for the price I paid for my Sony Alpha 99 body, but I would have little use without a decent digital back.
Best regards
Erik
A wise friend of mine put it this way: "Today, a camera is just a computer that takes pictures. Would you buy a four years old computer? What's it going to be worth in three of four years?"
He's totally right. I recently looked at an H2/39 kit that I would have given my left arm for when it came out. The price was under $5K, yet I knew within seconds that I couldn't stand working with it in the field, for exactly the same reason I recently threw out a seven year old laptop that was state-of-the-art when I bought it. Value = zero.
Sad, but that is the modern world. My Leica M6 and Mamiya 6.....those are still worth something ;) ;)
Cheers,
- N.
-
I am with Ken R and FredBGG on this point: no camera impedes a competent, serious photographer from working slowly and deliberately if and when that is what one wants, so that should never be taken seriously as an argument for buying a bigger, heavier, more expensive camera, or in favor of a camera that lacks automation and convenience features that can easily be ignored, but which might help to catch some fleeting opportunities.
People who know me will vouch for how frustratingly slow I can be with any camera, even just getting the composition right when the only camera I have with me is the phone in my pocket. (Or maybe that because of another canard: "prime lenses are better because they force you to think about camera position, framing and such".)
-
Hi,
I am a bit doubtful that D800E can produce images twice the size a Canon 5DIII. The 5DIII has 23 MP and the D800E has 36MP, that would give a 25% advantage, so if Canon does 20x30" Nikon would do 25x37.5". Now, the nikon D800E lacks OLP filter so add a few inches or increase capture sharpening on Canon. Now, that is theory, practice is something else.
Don't misunderstand me, I think that the D800/D800E is a game changer, I'm just saying that it should not change the game so it offers undiminished quality over four times the area.
I made a quick check on test images from Imaging Resource and run Imatest on a central slanted edge. If we require SQF=95% we could have a 31x46.5 cm image from the Nikon and 24x36 cm from the Canon. MTF50 values for Nikon was: 3944 and for Canon: 2937, a 34% advantage. So Nikon has an advantage but twice the size? Not in my humble opinion.
While I am at it I also run the corresponding test on the Pentax 645D on data from Imaging Resource and got 5446 LW/PH and print size 34x45.4 cm at 95% SQF. These were all calculated wit "Landscape preset" in Lightroom 4, you can push the limits with more sharpening, see the figures below and check out "standard sharpening".
Here is a good introduction to QSF: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/mtf/mtf4.html
I can also mention that Diglloyd compared the Leica S2 with Nikon D800 (not E) using the Zeiss Macro Planar 100/2 on the Nikon. The Leica was perhaps a tad sharper at center but the Nikon quite a bit sharper in the corners.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, before you jump into medium format test out the D800e. Also, try to take your current gear to the limit of its performance. That means using the best lenses available at optimum apertures with perfect technique and then printing it as large as possible in increments and looking critically close at the print. Usually that means working methodically slow on a tripod. No matter which camera.
IMHO, on a 20x30in print you might be at the limit of any Canon DSLR. (I am talking single image capture) The D800e can print much larger, about 40-60in, and has at least similar quality to all but the 60-80MP backs in regards to resolution but its amazingly clean and deep shadow detail makes it superior in some situations. Keep in mind that not all of the DSLR lenses are up to the task.
That is where the Leica S2 rules supreme. Lens quality. So do not rule it out if budget is not an issue. If it is, check out the Pentax 645D. Huge lens selection on the used market. If you work with flash and mostly tethered the Hasselblad is a great choice and also the Phase. If you work with technical cameras the newer PhaseOne IQ Backs are unbeatable. Also, the upcoming IQ260 is probably the best all around MFDB ever made from what I have seen posted (including some full quality files).
-
Hi,
I think that putting the camera on tripod is what slows down. A good tripod with a good head slows down and let the photographer concentrate on composing instead of holding the camera. Personally I have a geared tripod head and I feel it is one of the best investments I ever made.
But, that just me! YMMV!
Best regards
Erik
I am with Ken R and FredBGG on this point: no camera impedes a competent, serious photographer from working slowly and deliberately if and when that is what one wants, so that should never be taken seriously as an argument for buying a bigger, heavier, more expensive camera, or in favor of a camera that lacks automation and convenience features that can easily be ignored, but which might help to catch some fleeting opportunities.
People who know me will vouch for how frustratingly slow I can be with any camera, even just getting the composition right when the only camera I have with me is the phone in my pocket. (Or maybe that because of another canard: "prime lenses are better because they force you to think about camera position, framing and such".)
-
I am with Ken R and FredBGG on this point: no camera impedes a competent, serious photographer from working slowly and deliberately if and when that is what one wants, so that should never be taken seriously as an argument for buying a bigger, heavier, more expensive camera, or in favor of a camera that lacks automation and convenience features that can easily be ignored, but which might help to catch some fleeting opportunities.
People who know me will vouch for how frustratingly slow I can be with any camera, even just getting the composition right when the only camera I have with me is the phone in my pocket. (Or maybe that because of another canard: "prime lenses are better because they force you to think about camera position, framing and such".)
There is more to it too.
At times I will use the D800 with live view and a broadcast HDMI monitor attached ... either small of large.
This beats and live view over Firewire or USB3. It gives you more than any viewfinder would.
You can also use smaller HDMI monitors attached to the camera in the same position as a waist level finder.
Shooting live view is slower, but you can still do bursts.
I highly recommend using a spiral HDMI pigtail to avoid damage to the HDMI socket on the camera.
-
Why slow down? Is the smile on the face of the girl going to get sunnier if I need another 2 seconds for a Mamiya to focus?
Edmund
Hi,
I think that putting the camera on tripod is what slows down. A good tripod with a good head slows down and let the photographer concentrate on composing instead of holding the camera. Personally I have a geared tripod head and I feel it is one of the best investments I ever made.
But, that just me! YMMV!
Best regards
Erik
-
In theory I should be able to hold to a healthy diet regardless of whether my apartment is full of junk food or completely free of it. In practice I find I eat more junk food when there is more junk food available. Maybe someone can have their grandma's cookies lying on the counter and only eat one a day. I am not such a person.
Likewise in theory cameras should have no impact on shooting style. In practice any digital tech or assistant will tell you that most (nearly all?) photographers shoot faster and looser with a camera which is capable of shooting faster. If you do not fit in this category, great. But don't make the assumption that all photographers are like you when all the evidence in my experience suggests otherwise.
It's definitely not everyone. I have seen shooters using a D800 like an 8x10. It's just rare.
Logically this should not be the case and shooting style would be dependent only on needs and desires, not on capabilities. But humans are not logical machines.
-
A wise friend of mine put it this way: "Today, a camera is just a computer that takes pictures. Would you buy a four years old computer? What's it going to be worth in three of four years?"
He's totally right. I recently looked at an H2/39 kit that I would have given my left arm for when it came out. The price was under $5K, yet I knew within seconds that I couldn't stand working with it in the field, for exactly the same reason I recently threw out a seven year old laptop that was state-of-the-art when I bought it. Value = zero.
They key to this though is when you said "I couldn't stand working with it in the field". It's NOT that the kit is x years old, it's that it doesn't suit your needs.
In comparison we still sell a good number of pre-owned H25 backs (2003) each year, to still-life/product photographers. It has NO LCD, no CF card, and you have to tether it to a computer to take any picture at all. It makes a very poor on-location solution (relative to any recent option) and would hold almost no value to a photographer with those needs. But for the still life photographer it still produces better color, tonality, sharpness, and detail than a brand new 5D3 and offers full compatibility with view cameras and specialty cameras well suited for still life.
Likewise we sell a lot of P45+ (2007) for those who want long exposure. We likely still will for several years as it's the best long exposure option in it's price range.
I'd argue an IQ1 was, at release, several years ahead of the competition in terms of interface and image quality. It will be a valued and sought after back for many years. Also buying used and selling used will reduce your loss of resale value. If resale value is just something you're looking at as part of your overall consideration then I think a medium format system might be a great path for you. If resale value is your #1 priority I think you're barking up the wrong tree; these are cameras meant to help you generate creative, compelling, interesting, profitable, enjoyable imagery - not an investment asset class.
By the way, Fred's examples (which should not surprise anyone that knows Fred) are not really a fair representation of examples of resale value. For instance he puts the list price as the point of comparison when there is almost always a "street" price lower than the list price that the person would have paid in the first place. Also, the largest possible hit (versus what you might expect if you expect a linear depreciation) you can take is by buying the top end product new and then selling it very quickly. The market for the top end backs is a market that strongly prefers to buy from a value added dealer. The market for mid-tier and low-end backs is much more open to the risk of purchasing from an individual on eBay or via a forum.
It's really about needs, capabilities, and alternatives. Not age.
-
@ sebastian_kubatz
Whatever, success in this industry isn’t dependant on camera choice, but rather it’s about individualism, talent and determination.
I was going to write this long essay on why one camera is different than the other, ccd vs. cmos, lens choice, weight, tethering, whatever and it doesn't matter.
You should test whatever you want and use whatever you want.
Personally I like the cameras I use, probably because they're different, probably because I use everything I buy.
The project I'm on at the moment is a motion commercial of mixed stills and motion media and I'm using my panasonic GF 1 with a (gasp) kit lens.
Because I can in camera crop the still frames to 16x9, and go straight and seamlessly to motion. I have other reasons, but it doesn't matter.
Would I suggest this for you . . . nope . . . wouldn't actually suggest it for anyone, but I don't need the validation of anyone to tell me what's right or wrong and I'm not in the camera selling business and I definatley don't have a negative agenda to diss any brand, or to prove that my way is right. I'm also not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking. That's high school crap.
I may be an insecure photographer, but not that insecure.
The only real advice I can give is don't get caught up in the electronic buy it now BS. Or for that matter the more megapixels only matter, or the live view is the only way or whatever else someone feels they can't do without.
Great photographers have used all kinds of equipment to make great photographs and the best I know do not follow the herd.
I do know for me, I like medium format cameras and have used my old phase backs for a long, long time and will continue to.
I also know the next camera I buy will be medium format and will probably be the Hasselblad H5. I haven't had time to test and decide and I could list all the reasons why the H5 is on my list, but it would raise too much of a shit storm with the Nikon evangelists that have turned this forum into a d800 sales tool.
Buy what you want and make beautiful photographs and I wish you the very best of luck.
Seriously.
IMO
BC
-
I have a Pentax 645D and a Nikon D800E. The Nikon is a really nice camera, but I use the Pentax much more because of the better image quality. When the light is good, any camera can make a nice picture. When the light is less than ideal, then you can start to see differences. I also have a P25+ back. No 24MP 35mm sensor produces as nice a file. The 35mm sensors have better ISO, DR, and such, but the images from the P25+ still come out on top as far as sharpness and contrast.
My 645D is two-years old. I am not limited because it is an "old computer." It makes marvelous images and is a very competent camera. No product release ever changes that. True, I don't have sweep panorama and focus peaking, but I have never needed them before.
You can think of photography as an economic problem. Return on investment and such. You can think of it as purely an quantifiable technical exercise--how much DR, maximizing MFT, etc. I like to think of photography as an art form. I do so much better with tools that inspire me. Any limitations to those tools are for me to compensate for--there is a difference between a sharp cut and a skilled cut. If photography is a labor of love and you can afford it, then go for stuff that inspires you--no one has ever asked what camera I use in my books or exhibitions; I have never been chastised for not having enough DR; I certainly do not present my balance sheets.
I would get my hands on these cameras and shoot a bit. Find out how they work. I think MFD is a great format for any type of photography--I use my 645D for studio, landscape, street, documentary, and astrophotography.
-
... panasonic GF 1 with a (gasp) kit lens.
I have filmed with a GF2 that I gifted to a friend who broke his camera. It was a very nice camera. They even made a hack for it with different flavours as the GH2 and it could climb to pretty high bitrates, takes PL lenses. Unfortunatly the footage even hacked couldn't stands with the Hacked GH2 and a real hassle to mix with because outputs were too different animals, but for a web it was perfect as I was doing 25p. I had one GF2 unit for filming in remote Little corners like inside a fridge etc...it worked brilliantly and now I sort of miss it because it was really usefull and could fit in a pocket and allowed crazy takes. (the kit lens, as for being a kit lens, is not as garbage as other brands kit lenses IMO). It also had some fancy color modes that could really look nice pre-graded footage just out-of the box with a Little bit of tricking the menu.
I by-passed the AVCHbloodyD because this horrible codec bands more than a Vasarely painting and hacked it in motion jpeg and it had a fantastic cine 16mm look. But the buffer didn't like it at all and takes had to be short.
Nice cameras the GF line.
-
By the way, Fred's examples (which should not surprise anyone that knows Fred) are not really a fair representation of examples of resale value. For instance he puts the list price as the point of comparison when there is almost always a "street" price lower than the list price that the person would have paid in the first place.
Well I was not far off....
This digital back package cost me $43,990 brand new, not including Value-Added warranty, and it's still in pristine condition. I'm selling it for $22,500.
$21,490 loss and that is without knowing the extra what he paid for the value added warranty that he says was not included in his original purchase.
-
First of all I thought electronic prices in that price range would be a lot more stable. Like when buying a TAGHeuer, IWC or Breitling.
Unfortunately not. This are expensive tools for the professional photographer, not exclusive luxury items. The MFD business model is designed for photographers that get paid for their work and relate the gear cost to that. Actually I'd say that the business model is designed such that you should follow the trade-in programs and stay with the latest as long as you are in MFD. Many stay with older gear anyway as it's very expensive to stay with the latest, and often the newer generations don't provide much new in terms of image quality.
Problem is that electronics age much faster than purely mechanical items. Although some claim it I doubt that digital backs are designed to last any longer than any other electronic gear. I've seen 5-6 year old backs losing their time since the clock battery is out, something that would not happen for many more years if the back was designed to last. Official support for a product usually ends after about 10 years, so if it breaks after that you can throw it away. And even if you could repair it the repair costs as much as if the back was new, ie more than the resale value is after 10 years. When you get problem with an older back it's very dependent on dealer how good support you get, my experience is not that great. All this affects the value. It starts at $30-40K, after ten years it shall be down at ~$0K. Usually it falls steeply in the beginning and then evens out. It's only $4K a year if you see it over the full 10 year life span, but a pro photographer would typically upgrade more often of course.
Also make sure when you make calculations, look at the absolute value of money, not percentage. A $30K product losing 50% is $15K down the drain, which is more than 100% of a $10K product.
Future product launches within MF and to some extent within the DSLR world will affect resale value. It is hard to predict what will happen after CMOS backs start to appear, and when Canon also enters the high MP game. I would guess that technology breakthroughs in the MF products will affect pricing more than competition from the smaller formats. I'd say that the coming five-year period is likely to be more dynamic in terms of technology affecting MF than the last five, which also makes resale value more difficult to predict.
It could become more unstable due to new interesting and very desirable technologies, but it could also become more stable due to that the image quality and usability is now in absolute terms is very high, i e when you gain very little in terms of usability and image quality from having the latest the price of second hand will be more stable, and probably more related to product life cycle status than feature set.
If you want to try out for a few years buying pre-owned (or on the private market if you dare to take the risk) and selling again to the private market may be a better alternative.
-
$21,490 loss and that is without knowing the extra what he paid for the value added warranty that he says was not included in his original purchase.
??? How much did he make with the gear? A $21k loss is really not bad if you made $200K. How much do you make reselling your seamless paper backgrounds after you finish using them? If you are running a business, it does cost money. Just think of all the electricity you use that you cannot resell to make your money back.
-
People also need to remember these are HUGE tax write offs for Pros. ;D
Just FYI and I know all the dealers there is no such thing as list price when you actually WRITE the check. Yes the depreciation is heavy sometimes and lately our economy has had a lot to do with that not to mention new backs especially Phase IQ series sales have slowed down since the initial release which is pretty normal. There is also a big run on used backs and when new products come out people will eventually trade the used backs bought during this time and upgrade to new backs. Its a cycle and MF has been at the bottom end of that cycle maybe a little longer than expected. Value added warranties have been around 4k I believe but they also help a great deal in resale and its the first question a dealer will ask when trading up because it has value over a non warranty back. And much easier to resell.
-
??? How much did he make with the gear? A $21k loss is really not bad if you made $200K. How much do you make reselling your seamless paper backgrounds after you finish using them? If you are running a business, it does cost money. Just think of all the electricity you use that you cannot resell to make your money back.
The OP clearly asked the question of resale value....
So I've been thinking about making the move into the medium format world for about a year at least.
Living in uncertain times right now I'm not sure if it is a good idea to spend so much money.
I'm just finishing my bachelor thesis in about 2 months and from there on everything still seems doubtful in terms of future work or internship abroad.
I'm not a starving student are anything like that. I do have to money for a medium format system and I do not need to raise a credit to buy me into the medium format world.
But with all that in mind I was thinking about how good the resale value of a PhaseOne medium format system is right now.
It might be the case that I'll need that money in one or two years and will have to sell the whole system.
So does anyone of you know anything about the resale value? Any experiences?
Sebastian
What is wrong with giving him an answer with an actual example...
I gave the numbers. Did I say that the resale price was unacceptable... no.
I think that it will help the OP in making his decision either way he decides to go.
As for how much the seller of the gear made I'm not sure, that would be a question for the guy that sold the gear.
However regarding the OP he is a student just out of school and I think he is asking himself some realistic questions
as we all know it takes a fair bit of time to get a free lance career going. Looking at the economical situation
and the state of flux in both the media and camera technology he seems to be proceeding with care.
Also making assumption of making tax deductions on equipment without knowing the tax system of the country the OP is
not good advice. In some countries items that cost more than a certain amount have to be put on a multi year
tax deduction schedule. This becomes problematic if the photographer needs to sell the items say after a year or two.
-
I have to agree with Fred here. Although it probably could have been put in a less confrontational manner, there is nothing wrong with listing the resale value if that is of importance. The question really should be is it important.
As a student/enthusiast who is not going to be able to write off the purchase price of the equipment, I can see it being a very big deal. For us pros who can write it off, the importance would depend on you personal situation and how much you bring in. I think it is very important to take into consideration that you will not be able to magically charge more because you use this equipment.
-
Hey everyone,
I had the opportunity to use the Hasselblad H4D and PhaseOne P45+ and IQ160 on several occasions.
I'm really stoked by the image quality they deliver but felt really comfortable using the PhaseOne system.
So I've been thinking about making the move into the medium format world for about a year at least.
Living in uncertain times right now I'm not sure if it is a good idea to spend so much money.
I'm just finishing my bachelor thesis in about 2 months and from there on everything still seems doubtful in terms of future work or internship abroad.
I'm not a starving student are anything like that. I do have to money for a medium format system and I do not need to raise a credit to buy me into the medium format world.
But with all that in mind I was thinking about how good the resale value of a PhaseOne medium format system is right now.
It might be the case that I'll need that money in one or two years and will have to sell the whole system.
So does anyone of you know anything about the resale value? Any experiences?
Other than that where would you sell the system? Would you insert it on a forum like this or does PhaseOne buy those used systems?
Also I'm thinking about an IQ160 or IQ260 right now.
I'm not shooting a lot in a studio... most of the time I'm on location and need to judge the image on the screen. So the P+ series is not an option for me right now.
I hope someone can help me with my decision.
Thanks a lit in advance and Happy Easter to everyone!
Sebastian
Hi Sebastian -
Anytime a client mentions concerns over money, there is reason for caution. You may have your own reasons for your financial concern. You are probably the best shepherd for those concerns. However, one thing for sure - digital camera depreciation is very real. Typically digital cameras can lose 2/3 of their value in just a few short years. This goes for all digital cameras, not just medium format. However, medium format costs more, so the dollar cost of the loss of value will of course be higher. You just need to know for yourself if your purchase puts you into a position you'll regret later. It may or it may not, you'll know more than others not as familiar with your circumstances. But don't count on the resale value of any digital camera holding up so well.
That said, in general, I like to think of medium format digital products as long term investments. They are not just a computer that takes pictures, as Nick's friend said. Computers really only do one thing of value - which is make fast calculations. Cameras, on the other hand - even digital cameras - create images of a certain quality. From that standpoint, if the usability is adequate and the image quality suffices for anything you would use it for, then the longevity of a digital camera can far exceed a computer. From that standpoint, a digital camera could actually have greater value and even usability, compared to a film-based camera. I have many clients using the same digital back they purchased 5,6,7 years ago - damn them! :D
Certainties:
*The digital camera you purchase will lose a majority of value over 3 years or longer
*If it is medium format digital, it could be a big number!
*If you buy what will resolve your needs regardless of whatever comes next, you may be ok and use that product for a very long time
*If you feel some concern about needing that investment back in cash in 2-3 years, listen to those concerns and proceed with caution. Don't rush things.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
I am with Ken R and FredBGG on this point: no camera impedes a competent, serious photographer from working slowly and deliberately if and when that is what one wants, so that should never be taken seriously as an argument for buying a bigger, heavier, more expensive camera, or in favor of a camera that lacks automation and convenience features that can easily be ignored, but which might help to catch some fleeting opportunities.
It depends a bit on the photographer's personality. I can find it less stressful to use my tech camera because it's limited to a certain genre, I can't do a quick wildlife shot or similar. With my Canon there's more opportunities, and that can put a little stress and less concentration of what I'm out there to do. I also find it a bit romantic to work with an all-mechanical camera. I simply like it. If I wasn't lazy I'd probably shoot 4x5" film :-).
However, I have noted now when I've worked more with my tech camera I have adopted the same way to work with my Canon, ie I come home with fewer but (hopefully) better images. I would also say that I'm glad that I started out with a DSLR, since you then can explore more, take more "random" shots and learn at a much faster rate than I could with my tech cam. Now when I've started to find my style I can work with the tech cam confidently.
So I do think that "slow & cumbersome" can be turned into an advantage in an emotional way. It's similar to why someone would buy a classic motorcycle instead of a Japanese sports bike.
I find it much easier to use these emotional arguments on a tech camera than on a 645 MF-DSLR though as the latter is so similar to a 135 DSLR. On a 645 MF-DSLR I'd like to have all automated features I could get.
-
Why slow down? Is the smile on the face of the girl going to get sunnier if I need another 2 seconds for a Mamiya to focus?
Slow does suck for people photography :). Slow tripod work with geared head is for landscape and still life and similar. In that case I find it more rewarding to slow down and really think about the composition, but also that is personal.
-
Slow does suck for people photography
http://cdn.jolie.de/bilder/lavazza-2012-mark-seliger-600x800-1319420.jpg
http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/14400000/Katy-Perry-Mark-Seliger-Photoshoot-Behind-The-Scenes-katy-perry-14453377-600-375.jpg
-
http://cdn.jolie.de/bilder/lavazza-2012-mark-seliger-600x800-1319420.jpg
http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/14400000/Katy-Perry-Mark-Seliger-Photoshoot-Behind-The-Scenes-katy-perry-14453377-600-375.jpg
Nice images :-). Good to point out that with professional models that can hold a pose it's easier to use slower systems, and of course MF is most often used in professional contexts with professional models, good lighting etc. Some still do portraits with large format film with very nice results. I would not say it is an advantage to have a slower system in that case though.
It would be interesting to know if the first image where a tech cam and the dancer is pictured actually became an image, or if the image is the image shown. It looks like the perspective on the model from the tech camera would be very strange, wide angle low position and all. And the lavazza cup would not be showing :-).
-
Nice images :-). Good to point out that with professional models that can hold a pose it's easier to use slower systems, and of course MF is most often used in professional contexts with professional models, good lighting etc. Some still do portraits with large format film with very nice results. I would not say it is an advantage to have a slower system in that case though.
It would be interesting to know if the first image where a tech cam and the dancer is pictured actually became an image, or if the image is the image shown. It looks like the perspective on the model from the tech camera would be very strange, wide angle low position and all. And the lavazza cup would not be showing :-).
In this scene it looks like he finally managed to get the cup into the composition :-) http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2011-11/07/gq-art-mark-seliger-photography-interview-lavazza-calendar/viewgallery/0 .
Not sure whether or not the capture taken with the LF camera made it into the campaign. However there's a series of celebrity photos by MS that was shot on LF (AFAIK): http://www.artnet.com/artwork/426202939/425206608/mark-seliger-david-bowie-new-york.html
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2323/markseliger.jpg
I also don't think it's an advantage to use a slower system... but given the powerful expression of theses image I'd say it is certainly not a disadvantage. In this particular case I suspect the whole workflow (including the camera used) contributed to the atmosphere.... which I would assume is one of the key factors to create such portraits...
Oh, and BTW... the images are also sharp... even without liveview ;-)
I didn't want to prove anything with these images. Just point to someone who uses any kind of format. There are also (some few) sports photographers using LF...
As far as "slowing down"... I never understood why a certain camera used may slow you down (or vice versa makes you shoot faster/more). MF and LF sure requires some more technical precission, okay. But to me it totally depends on the scene, the motif. I've taken Polaroids that took me 4 hours or more to arrange. I've taken MFD images that took me 6 months to capture (obviously that was not the time needed to get the scene in focus :-) ... ). I've also taken photos with my tech cam and digiback that didn't take much longer than 2 or 3 Minutes. It always depends on what and how you shoot ... it depends on what you (are trying to) create.
-
His subject is a dancer; dancers are a delight to work with because they understand that getting it right needs work and repetition - models are "I'm beautiful" starving bundles of insecurity, which is why I think a dSLR is what you need to catch the 1/10th of a second in the day when they feel strong enough to stand up and can manage a smile :)
I think this thread has just about run its straight course and will now meander off :)
Edmund
In this scene it looks like he finally managed to get the cup into the composition :-) http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2011-11/07/gq-art-mark-seliger-photography-interview-lavazza-calendar/viewgallery/0 .
Not sure whether or not the capture taken with the LF camera made it into the campaign. However there's a series of celebrity photos by MS that was shot on LF (AFAIK): http://www.artnet.com/artwork/426202939/425206608/mark-seliger-david-bowie-new-york.html
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2323/markseliger.jpg
I also don't think it's an advantage to use a slower system... but given the powerful expression of theses image I'd say it is certainly not a disadvantage. In this particular case I suspect the whole workflow (including the camera used) contributed to the atmosphere.... which I would assume is one of the key factors to create such portraits...
Oh, and BTW... the images are also sharp... even without liveview ;-)
I didn't want to prove anything with these images. Just point to someone who uses any kind of format. There are also (some few) sports photographers using LF...
As far as "slowing down"... I never understood why a certain camera used may slow you down (or vice versa makes you shoot faster/more). MF and LF sure requires some more technical precission, okay. But to me it totally depends on the scene, the motif. I've taken Polaroids that took me 4 hours or more to arrange. I've taken MFD images that took me 6 months to capture (obviously that was not the time needed to get the scene in focus :-) ... ). I've also taken photos with my tech cam and digiback that didn't take much longer than 2 or 3 Minutes. It always depends on what and how you shoot ... it depends on what you (are trying to) create.
-
Can you make great photographs of people with a tech camera? Even with an 8x10 view camera using film when your subject is not a professional model?
Master Series: Greg Heisler and Michael Phelps for Time Magazine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsqWP5hxQiM)
In my opinion, it improtant to know what you want and the best tool to get you there, which is why Greg Heisler is considered one of the best. Saying that a tech camera is not good for people is only true part of the time. And as much as I like a tech camera, I know that for quick details shots, it is not optimal. That is when it is time to break out the Canon (maybe a Mamiya RZ if the budget ever allows for it).
-
His subject is a dancer; dancers are a delight to work with because they understand that getting it right needs work and repetition - models are "I'm beautiful" starving bundles of insecurity, which is why I think a dSLR is what you need to catch the 1/10th of a second in the day when they feel strong enough to stand up and can manage a smile :)
what you are saying here is the photographer is a "technician" who has to release the shutter in the right moment. Actually what you are talking about is the definition of a snapshot. Of course that's also part of the art. But just a small part. If a model is really that tensed I would say it's the photographers job to act like a "director" and to create (or at least stimulate) a certain moment...
-
...models are "I'm beautiful" starving bundles of insecurity, which is why I think a dSLR is what you need to catch the 1/10th of a second in the day when they feel strong enough to stand up and can manage a smile :)
This has got be some of the most ignorant and offensive crap I've ever read around here, it's blatantly obvious you've never shot with an actual model.
-
This has got be some of the most ignorant and offensive crap I've ever read around here, it's blatantly obvious you've never shot with an actual model.
Well, all I can say is that I've photographed models and dancers, and I loved every minute of working with the dancers. They came on time, they worked well with my make up artist - her being an ex-dancer helped - they held the pose and repeated an action when asked, and produced a sparkling smile on request, and were extremely professional in every way, up to making suggestions and making their opinion clearly heard if something displeased them. As far as models are concerned, almost all of the ones *I* managed to hire in my short career were a real pain, eg. arrived late, got into problems with the make up artist, brought male friends/bodyguards onto the set who were unmanageable, were hard to direct and refused to show a decent attitude in front of the camera when asked. One occasion I remember particularly vividly was a girl who was no fun at all, who in fact confided to my assistant that the agency threatened she would be fired because of her weight, so she hadn't eaten for two days which of course made her sick. I am sorry, I'd prefer to work with a dancer than a model every day of the week, and you can tell me I'm ignorant and offensive, but I prefer people who help get the job done pleasantly and leave everyone feeling happy rather than people who find various ways to ruin my day and create tension with others. BTW, my sets were for small editorial or catalog shoots with a single model, one make-up artist, two fashion people usually (eg. stylist+art director or designer+seamstress), and one assistant.
Edmund
-
Well, all I can say is that I've photographed models and dancers, and I loved every minute of working with the dancers. They came on time, they worked well with my make up artist - her being an ex-dancer helped - they held the pose and repeated an action when asked, and produced a sparkling smile on request, and were extremely professional in every way, up to making suggestions an making their opinion clearly heard. As far as models are concerned, almost all of the ones *I* managed to hire in my short career were a real pain, eg. arrived late, got into problems with the make up artist, brought friends/bodyguards onto the set who were unmanageable, were hard to direct and refused to show a decent attitude in front of the camera when asked. One occasion I remember particularly vividly was a girl who was no fun at all, who in fact confided to my assistant that had been threatened by the agency that she would be fired because of her weight, so she hadn't eaten for two days which of course made her sick. I am sorry, I'd prefer to work with a dancer than a model every day of the week, and please don't tell me I'm offensive if I prefer people who help get the job done pleasantly rather than people who find various ways to ruin my day. BTW, my sets were for small editorial or catalog shoots with a single model, one make-up artist, two fashion people usually (eg. stylist+art director), and one assistant.
Edmund
You might be able to sell that BS to someone who hasn't worked in the fashion business, but to someone who actually has it just comes off as absurd. Real models don't act like that, they are professionals just like those dancers you talk about, and would never work again if they acted like you claim. Neither do they bring friends/bodyguards to set, that sounds more like what you'd get if you're a creep with a camera cruising modelmayhem for "models" than if you're a working photographer using reputable agencies. Also, reputable agencies don't threaten their models to loose weight, they don't sign them in the first place. Having models that need to starve themselves to fit the measurements would be bad for business, as they would be unhealthy and tired all the time. The real fashion business is a very small world where everyone knows each other and word gets around quickly, the things you describe are just not feasible at all. The fact that you think it's ok to badmouth and belittle an entire industry of hardworking men and women that are as important to a successful shoot as anyone else on set (if not more), just so you can puff yourself up is not only pathetic, it's shameful. I can see why your "career" was short lived.
-
Probably a reaction to a cheesy pick up line...
;)
almost all of the ones *I* managed to hire in my short career were a real pain, eg. arrived late, got into problems with the make up artist, brought male friends/bodyguards onto the set who were unmanageable,
Edmund
-
amsp is right. Profesional models from real agencies are really profesionals, and the higher you jump in the level, the higher the profesionalism is. No fanfare, just people working.
In my experience, the most reputated models have always been the more friendly with me as an assistant, no complains of any means on set, job done very well, while yes at lower levels you can find hassles
and posing but it does not last very long and wanabee girls who are playing this (arriving late, complaining, etc etc...) would be rejected and their carreer soon ended.
Now, on "managable", they are, but the photographer has to be at the same level. It's like if you want to ride a race horse, you need to train first with less "difficult" animals.
In any profession at the high level is the same.
In fact, the really profesional models are among the nicest person to work with I ever met.
-
You might be able to sell that BS to someone who hasn't worked in the fashion business, but to someone who actually has it just comes off as absurd. Real models don't act like that, they are professionals just like those dancers you talk about, and would never work again if they acted like you claim. Neither do they bring friends/bodyguards to set, that sounds more like what you'd get if you're a creep with a camera cruising modelmayhem for "models" than if you're a working photographer using reputable agencies. Also, reputable agencies don't threaten their models to loose weight, they don't sign them in the first place. Having models that need to starve themselves to fit the measurements would be bad for business, as they would be unhealthy and tired all the time. The real fashion business is a very small world where everyone knows each other and word gets around quickly, the things you describe are just not feasible at all. The fact that you think it's ok to badmouth and belittle an entire industry of hardworking men and women that are as important to a successful shoot as anyone else on set (if not more), just so you can puff yourself up is not only pathetic, it's shameful. I can see why your "career" was short lived.
Of course you're right about the importance of the model; as regards the starving, well, it has got worse of late (http://www.ibtimes.com/former-vogue-editor-reveals-models-are-eating-tissues-stay-thin-tell-all-book-1165223), especially in Paris.
Clements, who was Vogue Australia's top editor for 13 years, recounts on one occasion she didn't once see a top model eat a single meal on a three-day gig. Even worse, Clements recounted that on the last day of the job, the model could hardly hold herself up or keep her eyes open. She also claimed that “When a model who was getting good work in Australia starved herself down two sizes in order to be cast in the overseas shows ... the Vogue fashion office would say she’d become ‘Paris thin.’”
Lastly, I'm sure everything unpleasant you say about me makes sense; I guess creeps like me just get on better with dancers than with models :)
Edmund
-
The fact that you think it's ok to badmouth and belittle an entire industry of hardworking men and women that are as important to a successful shoot as anyone else on set (if not more), just so you can puff yourself up is not only pathetic, it's shameful. I can see why your "career" was short lived.
Is that really necessary ?
-
A good an interesting post.
I have a D800e with prime f1.4 lenses and as long as you fine tune them individually, they are quite something.
I also shoot a Mamiya 7.
I was looking at spending some of my windfall on a MFD system, I have owned a Blad V series and liked the whole process, like putting it on a tripod and slowing it down.
I shoot mostly on location and will be in Mongolia for while soon, so the whole size camera size is also important. I was interested in the Phase 1 argument and the Blad being a tad too big for anything outside on location.
Leaving aside the 645, which may not be a big enough increase in MB / quailty to slate the thirst of "more".
I note that Taylor-Lind shot this month's National Geographic article in China square - I believe a Mamiya6, which does seem the camera of choice for many of the Seven agency photographers and Chloe Dewe Mathews and others at Panos Pictures shoot with the M6.
Keep it going...
-
Is that really necessary ?
No it wasn't, it's been unecessary harsh.
But asmp pointed something that many times would need to be understood more. Many people tend to think that fashion is not art, that all models are anorexic victims, that's not real work but parade, that it's all empty. And it really isn't like that at all. This is a highly and extremely demanding profesional activity, with very serious people involved. I'm not in it any more and found a much more exciting-rewarding activity for my personal route but I won't desprestige fashion because having being inside for awhile I know it's damn hard, damn serious and profesional.
The problem, as it's been discussed in another thread, is that all a certain corny celeb BS lite imagery that has been associated with fashion has deformed everything and created clichés as well as bad image.
-
Fred,
I paid for my education as a scientist partly by writing. As a freelance journalist, for the first 10 years of that work, I saw all the ugly sides of journalism, struggling and begging to be paid for published work, having my name taken off articles and a staff member's name put on instead, having to pay bribes and kickbacks to get work, etc. I remember going to the office of the CEO of one group that owned 13 magazines and getting told that they "had blocked payment to freelances that month".
That was nothing like the white gloves world of the top journalists where articles are commissioned on a phone call, signed when they appear, and invoices are paid. Strangely enough, once I had made a name for myself, things became that clean, everything got paid on time, but it took 10 years hard slog to get to this magical pure level of existence.
My experience of photography leads me to believe that exactly the same situation holds in photography - you think my opinions of the *models* are bad? Well, sorry, the models are a bit flaky but they aren't evil. My really bad opinions concern the clients. I have a story I love to tell about a cosmetics rep sponsoring an "haute couture" show who asked me to shoot the show for free. Afterwards there was one particular iconic image that I retouched for an hour and blew up to A3 size and brought in. I said they could have it if they paid $10 for the paper. They said "they didn't know". I said ok, went to Habitat, bought a heavy metal frame, and told them they could "decide" whether they wanted the print but couldn't photocopy it - well, they broke the frame to copy the image, and prove they weren't going to pay $10 to an idiot photographer.
Edmund
No it wasn't, it's been unecessary harsh.
But asmp pointed something that many times would need to be understood more. Many people tend to think that fashion is not art, that all models are anorexic victims, that's not real work but parade, that it's all empty. And it really isn't like that at all. This is a highly and extremely demanding profesional activity, with very serious people involved. I'm not in it any more and found a much more exciting-rewarding activity for my personal route but I won't desprestige fashion because having being inside for awhile I know it's damn hard, damn serious and profesional.
The problem, as it's been discussed in another thread, is that all a certain corny celeb BS lite imagery that has been associated with fashion has deformed everything and created clichés as well as bad image.
-
Fred,
As a freelance journalist, for the first 15 years of working, I saw all the ugly sides of journalism, struggling and begging to be paid for published work, having my name taken off articles and a staff member's name put on instead, having to pay bribes and kickbacks to get work, etc, nothing like the white gloves world of the top journalists where articles are commissioned on a phone call, signed when they appear, and invoices are paid. Once I had made a name for myself, things became that clean, but it took 15 years hard slog.
My experience of photography leads me to believe that exactly the same situation holds in photography - you think my opinions of the *models* are bad? Well, sorry, the models are a bit flaky but they aren't evil. My really bad opinions concern the clients. I have a story I love to tell about a cosmetics rep sponsoring an "haute couture" show who asked me to shoot the show for free. Afterwards there was one particular iconic image that I retouched for an hour and blew up to A3 size and brought in. I said they could have it if they paid $10 for the paper. They said "they didn't know". I said ok, went to Habitat, bought a heavy metal frame, and told them they could "decide" whether they wanted the print but couldn't photocopy it - well, they broke the frame to copy the image, and prove they weren't going to pay $10 to an idiot photographer.
Edmund
Edmund, I wasn't thinking particularly of you about the opinión on models, but a certain idea that circulates and I read many times.
Of course! This milieu isn't at all tinted in pink. This is far from being fairland. Your story doesn't surprise me. I always when I could, asked the successful photographers about their debuts and I don't count the sordid stories of humiliations, rejections, unpayed assignements etc etc...
This is a world where nobody needs you, needs me, needs anybody. There are 10 Golden seats for thousands and thousands of people pointing at the doors. And the doors aren't closed, they are barricaded. Humiliations at first are the norm. All posible obstacles are made in such a way that only the most resistant with the goal in mind can handle and eventually enter and start to be respected. And yeah, it's zero fun at first. Very hostile.
You live in Paris. When I was Young, you could go to the cine studio in Levalois and ask for a job and they would give you a sweap. Not kidding. If you were interested, they would eventually show you the cables, then you could become a gaffer etc etc...doors were opened for the people who really wanted to work in this industry and you learned within. Now try to go and ask for sweaping the floor. They will bomb you, in fact they will not even answer. Things are barricaded. Too many people wanting the Golden eggs, too Little seats availables.
-
My experience of photography leads me to believe that exactly the same situation holds in photography - you think my opinions of the *models* are bad? Well, sorry, the models are a bit flaky but they aren't evil. My really bad opinions concern the clients. I have a story I love to tell about a cosmetics rep sponsoring an "haute couture" show who asked me to shoot the show for free. Afterwards there was one particular iconic image that I retouched for an hour and blew up to A3 size and brought in. I said they could have it if they paid $10 for the paper. They said "they didn't know". I said ok, went to Habitat, bought a heavy metal frame, and told them they could "decide" whether they wanted the print but couldn't photocopy it - well, they broke the frame to copy the image, and prove they weren't going to pay $10 to an idiot photographer.
This is more Events, not fashion. This is retail stuff, and your experience doesn't surprise me in that context. Shooting a show isn't fashion either, its events, more like press.
Models are pro's. The ones that are "new faces" and are sent out on tests to build their book can be inexperienced and even flakey, but this is part of the test. Bookers always called to ask about the model's comportment. Always. I only had two or three not show or be really late without a legit excuse. I had one girl show up two hours late and freezing, dripping wet. She got lost, lost her phone, couldn't get a cab in Brooklyn. She walked three miles through the driving rain to show up. Trooper. She is doing well now, by the way. She's had a very strong career, retired, went to NYU, opened a bar/restaurant.
-
TMARK,
There is a trend now where *in content* you are either at the very top or your life is hell, and I think that when I started in photography the trend was beginning as digital was taking hold. Be it in "events" or in studio editorial, or fashion design, people were expecting me to provide free images to run full page in their magazines or use on their web sites, and shoot whole catalogs for free. Of course from your lofty perch you can say "pay peanuts, get monkeys", but there really is an issue in getting paid for stuff that a few years ago would have been resolutely middle class photography and not floor sweeping.
A similar attitude has closed down a lot of print media that fed journalists, while enshrining the "Huffington Post" as the glowing paragon of contemporary media. I and my colleagues used to be quite well paid, by companies that made a profit. Our erstwhile employers have now been driven out of business by web sites who pay less, or like the Huffington Post not at all.
In photography, I think digital is responsible for a lot of this change. When every editor knew that an image meant film costs and lab fees, it was much easier to justify at least a minimal amount to cover your own time.
Edmund
This is more Events, not fashion. This is retail stuff, and your experience doesn't surprise me in that context. Shooting a show isn't fashion either, its events, more like press.
-
.... - models are "I'm beautiful" starving bundles of insecurity, which is why I think a dSLR is what you need to catch the 1/10th of a second in the day when they feel strong enough to stand up and can manage a smile :)
....
The problem, as it's been discussed in another thread, is that all a certain corny celeb BS lite imagery that has been associated with fashion has deformed everything and created clichés as well as bad image.
Models like any other field are of all sorts of types.
There are some insecure one's and there are ones that are remarkably secure.
There are also some that appear to be insecure because of circumstance.
It's a very competitive career and it depends on some very intimate things like the persons appearance,
in general and on a daily basis. Many are also very young... one should accept a bit of insecurity if one wants to work with 16,17 or 18 year old women that are coming of age.
The same should be said about working with celebrities. I've experienced all sorts of different characters and
behavior. The range of people that fit the label of celebrity is really vast. From oscar winning actors, directors to the pop culture figure like the
cast of Jersey shore. Personally as a fashion photographer and portrait photographer I find them nearly all of them intriguing.
While models are a historic part of fashion who are also mostly quite extraordinary young women I think there is much more to fashion.
Personally I think that shooting with an extraordinary actress, singer or comedian is just as interesting and in some ways more interesting as well as more of a challenge.
As far back as the early 90s I would shoot fashion with actresses and ballet dancers.
In thios whole Celebrity vs Model debate.... many models are celebrities... more in the past than today.
-
This is correct. These media outles, like HuffPo, need "content" to compete, and need more of it than they ever needed pre-web when they had set publication dates dictated by print, and they either don't have the budget or just have a business model of trolling for free "content" or abusing people.
HuffPo is an abusive organization. Since they rarely pay, what are they going to do when their writer's parents can no longer afford to support their kids, thereby subsidizng HuffPo's "content"?
TMARK,
There is a trend now where *in content* you are either at the very top or your life is hell, and I think that when I started in photography the trend was beginning as digital was taking hold. Be it in "events" or in studio editorial, or fashion design, people were expecting me to provide free images to run full page in their magazines or use on their web sites, and shoot whole catalogs for free. Of course from your lofty perch you can say "pay peanuts, get monkeys", but there really is an issue in getting paid for stuff that a few years ago would have been resolutely middle class photography and not floor sweeping.
A similar attitude has closed down a lot of print media that fed journalists, while enshrining the "Huffington Post" as the glowing paragon of contemporary media. I and my colleagues used to be quite well paid, by companies that made a profit. Our erstwhile employers have now been driven out of business by web sites who pay less, or like the Huffington Post not at all.
In photography, I think digital is responsible for a lot of this change. When every editor knew that an image meant film costs and lab fees, it was much easier to justify at least a minimal amount to cover your own time.
Edmund
-
I think this thread has just about run its straight course and will now meander off :)
Given what then happened in the next dozen posts, that was an excellent call!
Maybe we all need to work on our "slow, thoughtful forum posting".