Interesting Q&A from a fashion pro on giving up his Phase One system.

[torger]

That the long-term availability of the camera type I like depends of what others think about it (as I can't finance a whole camera sector on my own) makes trends in pro photography camera choice interesting to me. Tech cameras move much quicker in terms of fundamental changes than other type of cameras though.

When I see a photographer whose work I like I am curious about what system they have used, I'm curious about how they do their post-processing, well I'm simply curious about the process end-to-end. For the sake of curiosity and perhaps one can learn a thing or two. Not only as a photographer, but as a software developer too. I find it more strange to not be curious about how the images were made.

When it comes to large format cameras and their digital counterparts they're so unpractical to use, they're slow and you can't shoot hand-held, so when I do come across a photographer that uses it I am curious why they made that choice. Was it only for the image quality, or do they feel that the limitations contributes to their art in some way? I get happy every-time when someone mentions some other motivation than purely image quality.

The often extreme amounts of post-processing used in the digital world adds another interesting dimension when it comes to photography as art, was the art created in the shooting moment, or was it gathering raw material to a digital artwork created in the computer, or something in-between? I find those questions interesting too.

[torger]

I have seen some absolutely stunning photography from people like Murray Fredericks who sometimes posts on here, http://www.murrayfredericks.com.au/ I find his work absolutely jaw droppingly inspirational, some of which was shot on a P45+, some shot on other stuff, what is inspirational is the dedication, the effort to get to the places and the final images

I like the Salt images very much, thanks for posting, and indeed I think the process of how he made them is part of the art. I like to have that background story. Going in there, camping for weeks experiencing the solitude while making those photographs is different from flying in there. That he used 8x10" large format is surely of less importance, but fits the nature of the images and prints well.

[mjrichardson]

I find his Salt and Greenland images are amongst the absolute best of what inspires me as a photographer. I wouldn't want or have the skill to make shots the same, I guess that's why I don't care what he shot with, I would love to have the experience and shoot on what I love using and in turn makes images unique to me. I feel the same about a lot of really great photographers, it's mainly down to location and light that I find wonderful, the challenge would always be to produce my own work in my own way, in that regard how or why he used what he did is of no importance to me personally, the fact that he did is what is inspirational.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

He used Nikon as backup gear.

My understanding was that with the upgrades he did he felt the Nikon was good enough for the work he was doing and he found it is easier to travel with one set of equipment than with two.

Photographic systems are evolving all the time. Small format cameras can do the job that larger format cameras were needed for a while ago.

MFD doesn't stand still either. There is 100 MP CMOS in MFD now. In my view, MFD was handicapped due to lack of CMOS as CCDs don't have great live view and suffer at high ISOs. Both those issues were fixed by the new CMOS backs.

On the other hand, it is possible to pretty large prints from smaller formats. Saving money and weight makes a lot of sense to me. So if the smaller format meets my criteria there is little reason to buy a larger format.

That of course applies to any format.

Best regards
Erik

To me a "backup" means something I can use in case my primary equipment fails. It has to be good enough to finish the job, not equal to or better than my primary equipment. If you want to buy everything brand new you can't really complain about the price, especially when there are a lot of options that are just as good and useful on the second hand market.

But: If his style does not need MF and he himself is content without it, then the whole price and reliability debate is a moot point. A magazine doesn't care if the photos are shot on a small, medium or large format camera, whats important is that it's good enough to print and that the content is good.

[torger]

I find his Salt and Greenland images are amongst the absolute best of what inspires me as a photographer. I wouldn't want or have the skill to make shots the same, I guess that's why I don't care what he shot with, I would love to have the experience and shoot on what I love using and in turn makes images unique to me. I feel the same about a lot of really great photographers, it's mainly down to location and light that I find wonderful, the challenge would always be to produce my own work in my own way, in that regard how or why he used what he did is of no importance to me personally, the fact that he did is what is inspirational.

I think most of us find most inspiration in images that are similar to our own style or intentions, or use similar concepts. Certainly one likes a broader range of images and can be inspired in a spiritual sense, but some have that extra relevance in relation to our own work. That's very personal. In my own work I'm not so much into special locations and special lighting conditions, in fact I like it when both light and location are played down and other elements in the image takes precedence. So Fredericks's work doesn't talk that much to me as a photographer as our styles are so different, but looking at it as a gallery visitor I'm both impressed and inspired by his work.

[Christoph B.]

Hi,

He used Nikon as backup gear.

My understanding was that with the upgrades he did he felt the Nikon was good enough for the work he was doing and he found it is easier to travel with one set of equipment than with two.

Photographic systems are evolving all the time. Small format cameras can do the job that larger format cameras were needed for a while ago.

MFD doesn't stand still either. There is 100 MP CMOS in MFD now. In my view, MFD was handicapped due to lack of CMOS as CCDs don't have great live view and suffer at high ISOs. Both those issues were fixed by the new CMOS backs.

On the other hand, it is possible to pretty large prints from smaller formats. Saving money and weight makes a lot of sense to me. So if the smaller format meets my criteria there is little reason to buy a larger format.

That of course applies to any format.

Best regards
Erik

If you don't need liveview or high ISO performance...well there's nothing to complain about Besides the new CMOS isn't a good idea if you want to use a lot of camera movements - and small format is a bad idea if you want to use tech cams.

Sure you can get big prints but the size of the print does not give you the same perspective and overall look.

Of course a smaller camera gear is much more portable. But does that 'revelation' really require much notice? I think everyone knows that. We also know that MF is very expensive and that the early 645DF/+ models were a bit unstable needed required new firmware updates. I think it's much like it was in the analog era with small format being the cheaper solution, medium format more expensive and large format extremely expensive (think of the Maxback comissioned by Mitchell Feinberg). Even back then you could produce great and stunning prints from small format negs and it was easier to travel with a 35mm than 120, 4x5 or 8x10 or bigger.

Personally I can live with the weight. I can live with the stability of the PhaseOne system, the bad AF etc. I don't care about that, the MF cameras I was using were all completely manual film cameras without the luxury of liveview or instant replay, screens or whatever - and I was happy with that. I'm glad I don't have to scan my photos and I get files with great quality, high resolution, lots of detail and very pleasing colour - it's better than what I got with 4x5 colour slides or negatives and right now I'm going to sell my 8x10" gear as well because the digital MF files _are_ that good.

I'm wondering: has anyones back ever failed? I mean like really really failed? I only heard from cameras failing but never digital backs themselves...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

As a matter of fact, ISO matters. There is something in real life world called wind causing motion in leaves. Sometimes you need to increase ISO to get a decent picture.

Live view is very helpful if you are working with tilts or want to focus of the optical center where MF cameras have their AF.

Perspective doesn't change with camera or lens, it just depends on viewpoint and subject. A simple fact that every photographers should now, but quite a few choose to forget.

Now, the ISO stuff has been taken care of by the new CMOS backs and they also deliver working live view. Great.

It is no sensation that a small camera is smaller than a big camera. But it matters a lot if you go on an airline trip with one bag and 10 kg carry on limit. It is of course different if you are flying a big set up with 50-100 checked in equipment.

I would think that Phase One backs are quite reliable, although I have read about half a dozen or so that have failed. I had my P45+ for two and a half years and never had any issue with it. I must say that I have enjoyed using it and still enjoy using it. But, that doesn't say I would feel it was a very smart move to buy it.

I could have made half a dozen workshops with Hans Kruse in the Dolomites for that money or travel trough the US a couple of times. Spending on travel would give me a lot more great pictures than buying a digital back.

Below is a link to another posting on LuLA, a user who bought an A7rII who bought it as a replacement for a Canon 7D that was whacky but found it replaced all his equipment, mostly:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106854.msg892420#msg892420

The A7rII is interesting for a lot of people as it can be used with almost any lens on the planet. Chris Barret finds that his Hasselblad V-series lenses give him around 20mm of shift on the A7rII, that is a lot for 24x36. Personally, I cannot get more than 12 mm (or so) with my T&S adapter, but I can have my T&S adapter in my pocket.

Chris is also happy that there is no need to shoot LCC with his Hasselblad lenses. I was never in the need of LCC shots, so I cannot comment on how much nuisance that may be.

So, my take is that if a photographer is happy with 40 MP or so the A7rII is worth a look. If T&S is not needed the Canon D5s and the Nikon D810 are fine options and both still have some T&S capability.

If more than 50 MP is needed, high end MFD is the only choice, if you cannot stitch. So, printing really large, MFD is the way to go. But, you need to make best use of it and that can be hard as you are limited by both depth of field and diffraction. Again that applies to every camera on the planet and quite a few in orbit, not MFD specific at all.

Best regards
Erik

If you don't need liveview or high ISO performance...well there's nothing to complain about Besides the new CMOS isn't a good idea if you want to use a lot of camera movements - and small format is a bad idea if you want to use tech cams.

Sure you can get big prints but the size of the print does not give you the same perspective and overall look.

Of course a smaller camera gear is much more portable. But does that 'revelation' really require much notice? I think everyone knows that. We also know that MF is very expensive and that the early 645DF/+ models were a bit unstable needed required new firmware updates. I think it's much like it was in the analog era with small format being the cheaper solution, medium format more expensive and large format extremely expensive (think of the Maxback comissioned by Mitchell Feinberg). Even back then you could produce great and stunning prints from small format negs and it was easier to travel with a 35mm than 120, 4x5 or 8x10 or bigger.

Personally I can live with the weight. I can live with the stability of the PhaseOne system, the bad AF etc. I don't care about that, the MF cameras I was using were all completely manual film cameras without the luxury of liveview or instant replay, screens or whatever - and I was happy with that. I'm glad I don't have to scan my photos and I get files with great quality, high resolution, lots of detail and very pleasing colour - it's better than what I got with 4x5 colour slides or negatives and right now I'm going to sell my 8x10" gear as well because the digital MF files _are_ that good.

I'm wondering: has anyones back ever failed? I mean like really really failed? I only heard from cameras failing but never digital backs themselves...

[JV]

Here on Reddit

Interesting read!  Thanks for posting!

Now, the ISO stuff has been taken care of by the new CMOS backs and they also deliver working live view. Great.

Neither of them seem to have been much of a consideration for the author in question though.

It seems he was mostly concerned with the reliability of the body and the price tag of Phase One system.

Besides that, nobody needs 100MP (or 60MP for that matter) for shooting people... as he says himself (in the comments) he often shot the back in Sensor+ 15MP mode...

[Christoph B.]

Hi,

As a matter of fact, ISO matters. There is something in real life world called wind causing motion in leaves. Sometimes you need to increase ISO to get a decent picture.

Not really. I like movement, if there's motion blur that doesn't make it an 'indecent' picture. All depends on what you need and what you do. I prefer longer exposures to higher ISO..I rarely shoot with an ISO higher than 400 - ever.

Live view is very helpful if you are working with tilts or want to focus of the optical center where MF cameras have their AF.

If you need it and if you use it - maybe. But only maybe. I'm used to optical viewfinders and ground glasses. The liveview on my 35mm DSLRs was nice but only because I wasn't able to focus with the small finder. Now that I have the microprism GG I don't need it.

Perspective doesn't change with camera or lens, it just depends on viewpoint and subject. A simple fact that every photographers should now, but quite a few choose to forget.

The illusion of depth and distance is a major factor when it comes to the format size. Perspective doesn't always mean "the place where I stand" or "what's in my viewfinder".
I don't think you own the meaning of the word and can dictate to others what specific meaning they should interpret - especially if there are a lot of sensible definitions the term encompasses.

Now, the ISO stuff has been taken care of by the new CMOS backs and they also deliver working live view. Great.

Hoooray!

Still don't need it.

It is no sensation that a small camera is smaller than a big camera. But it matters a lot if you go on an airline trip with one bag and 10 kg carry on limit. It is of course different if you are flying a big set up with 50-100 checked in equipment.

Jup. As I said.

Chris is also happy that there is no need to shoot LCC with his Hasselblad lenses. I was never in the need of LCC shots, so I cannot comment on how much nuisance that may be.

LCCs aren't always necessary, mainly if you use movements you'll need it. But then you'll also need it on Hasselblad lenses. A few weeks ago I shot a beauty editorial for a magazine - took one LCC for the 120mm macro and that's it. No big deal, no effort and a nice result. I also take LCCs when I'm doing serious landscape stuff but other than that...not so much.

I know a lot of photographers who are happy with 12-14mpx but that doesn't mean it's automatically a good thing and/or worth a look. Granted, 40mpx are plenty. Probably more than enough and I didn't got for 60 because I wanted "more " than 40. I wanted a big sensor size and make the transition from medium format film to medium format digital.

It all depends on what you're doing and how you're doing it, I would also be content with a P45+ (especially for long exposures) but in the studio for portraits I prefer a bigger canvas.

By the way - good to hear that the backs are reliable, especially when you think about how old they are today!

[Wayne Fox]

So is the author of this original post on reddit a top shelf fashion shooter?  Can't really seem to figure out who it is and what their skill and reputation is like as well as their client list.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Nobody claimed a top shelf fashion shooter, but he is obviously someone who makes his earning doing photography, which is the definition of a pro.

But I really think the story is that the guy reconsidered his needs and found that the Nikon filled his requirements.

I was shooting with Hans Kruse in the Dolomites and he told me that he was leading one of those Phase One workshops in the Dolomites so he had a Phase One camera as loaner.

Hans was very much impressed by the sharpness of that system, but he told me that he had several glitches on the body. Foremost, he could not make a business case for it. For instance he seldom prints very large.

I think it is quite natural to reconsider one's needs and means from time to time.

It is also pretty obvious that 36-50 MP 24x36 mm can mostly fill the same requirements as low end digital backs. On the other hand it is also pretty obvious that if you put a larger Sony sensor in a camera it will be able to deliver better image quality than the smaller sensor under optimal conditions.

There was a posting from a guy on another thread who happened to buy a Sony A7rII and feels right now that he no longer takes his Fuji for mountain walks and he more and more shoots the A7rII in the studio.
So it is his workhorse camera for the few coming years.

Interesting read: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106854.msg892420#new .

I know that that you also own an A7rII and use it less than you have expected. I don't think any of the 24x36 mm cameras are all solutions to all needs, but it seems that they may be good alternatives to MFD in some cases and that is good info to consider.

Personally, I have a P45+ bought used, with a Hasselblad 555/ELD and some lenses. That solution is quite old fashion but I like shooting with it. But I also found the Sony delivers a tiny bit better image quality the few comparisons I made.

When I bought the P45+ I planned to buy a HCam B1 for the back that would allow some T&S functionality with my Hasselblad lenses and would also work with Canon's T&S lenses. The B1 has a sliding back for focusing. Finally I decided that the Sony A7rII would fulfil my needs in combination with a Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII and a HCam Master TSII offering T&S for my Hasselblad, Pentax 67 and Canon lenses

I also found out that the Canon 16-35/4 works quite well on the A7rII contrary to some rumours and it allows a decent amount of shifts above 20 mm. It is said that the 11-24/4 allows for a lot of movements, so buying that one instead of the 24/3.5 TSE and 16-35/4 combo may have been making more sense. It is hard to know until you actually have used the stuff.

I am hanging on to the P45+, too. I still keep the Hasselblad lenses and it is nice to shoot them on the camera they have been made for.

Best regards
Erik

So is the author of this original post on reddit a top shelf fashion shooter?  Can't really seem to figure out who it is and what their skill and reputation is like as well as their client list.

[eronald]

One can get a refurb 40MP Hassy H4D for hardly more than the Sony or Canon now, and a warrantied H3D31 or 39 for the same price, so people who really want the MF/CCD look do have the choice. I think that if I were doing fashion with studio flash the cheap Hassy would be a no-brainer: Big viewfinder, fast sync, clean skin tones, tethering that works. But matched against a full-price MF system, in all-purpose use, 35mm will win on flexibility and price.


Edmund

Hi,

Nobody claimed a top shelf fashion shooter, but he is obviously someone who makes his earning doing photography, which is the definition of a pro.

But I really think the story is that the guy reconsidered his needs and found that the Nikon filled his requirements.

I was shooting with Hans Kruse in the Dolomites and he told me that he was leading one of those Phase One workshops in the Dolomites so he had a Phase One camera as loaner.

Hans was very much impressed by the sharpness of that system, but he told me that he had several glitches on the body. Foremost, he could not make a business case for it. For instance he seldom prints very large.

I think it is quite natural to reconsider one's needs and means from time to time.

It is also pretty obvious that 36-50 MP 24x36 mm can mostly fill the same requirements as low end digital backs. On the other hand it is also pretty obvious that if you put a larger Sony sensor in a camera it will be able to deliver better image quality than the smaller sensor under optimal conditions.

There was a posting from a guy on another thread who happened to buy a Sony A7rII and feels right now that he no longer takes his Fuji for mountain walks and he more and more shoots the A7rII in the studio.
So it is his workhorse camera for the few coming years.

Interesting read: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106854.msg892420#new .

I know that that you also own an A7rII and use it less than you have expected. I don't think any of the 24x36 mm cameras are all solutions to all needs, but it seems that they may be good alternatives to MFD in some cases and that is good info to consider.

Personally, I have a P45+ bought used, with a Hasselblad 555/ELD and some lenses. That solution is quite old fashion but I like shooting with it. But I also found the Sony delivers a tiny bit better image quality the few comparisons I made.

When I bought the P45+ I planned to buy a HCam B1 for the back that would allow some T&S functionality with my Hasselblad lenses and would also work with Canon's T&S lenses. The B1 has a sliding back for focusing. Finally I decided that the Sony A7rII would fulfil my needs in combination with a Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII and a HCam Master TSII offering T&S for my Hasselblad, Pentax 67 and Canon lenses

I also found out that the Canon 16-35/4 works quite well on the A7rII contrary to some rumours and it allows a decent amount of shifts above 20 mm. It is said that the 11-24/4 allows for a lot of movements, so buying that one instead of the 24/3.5 TSE and 16-35/4 combo may have been making more sense. It is hard to know until you actually have used the stuff.

I am hanging on to the P45+, too. I still keep the Hasselblad lenses and it is nice to shoot them on the camera they have been made for.

Best regards
Erik

[Christoph B.]

One can get a refurb 40MP Hassy H4D for hardly more than the Sony or Canon now, and a warrantied H3D31 or 39 for the same price, so people who really want the MF/CCD look do have the choice. I think that if I were doing fashion with studio flash the cheap Hassy would be a no-brainer: Big viewfinder, fast sync, clean skin tones.


Edmund

Well the camera might be cheap/affordable, but the prices of the lenses are still pretty high and rather rare on the 2nd hand market.
At last with Mamiya/P1 you can also chose between LS and non-LS and AF, non-AF lenses etc.

[ErikKaffehr]

Yes,

I agree that it is a good time to go into second hand MFD.

A fashion shooter can possibly make do with just one lens, but a landscaper like me needs quite a few of those and I wouldn't think that neither architecture shooters or landscapers would be happy with the 1.3X crop. Well, there are some ultra wides for the Hassy, of course but fairly expensive.

Best regards
Erik

One can get a refurb 40MP Hassy H4D for hardly more than the Sony or Canon now, and a warrantied H3D31 or 39 for the same price, so people who really want the MF/CCD look do have the choice. I think that if I were doing fashion with studio flash the cheap Hassy would be a no-brainer: Big viewfinder, fast sync, clean skin tones.


Edmund

[eronald]

Well the camera might be cheap/affordable, but the prices of the lenses are still pretty high and rather rare on the 2nd hand market.
At last with Mamiya/P1 you can also chose between LS and non-LS and AF, non-AF lenses etc.

The Hassy 80 and 100/2.2 are often sold with the Hassy body, used.
There really is a used market now, maybe more for Hassy than for Phase.
Things changed since Pentax came on the market, and the Nikon D800.

Edmund

[Christoph B.]

The Hassy 80 and 100/2.2 are often sold with the Hassy body, used.
There really is a used market now, maybe more for Hassy than for Phase.
Things changed since Pentax came on the market, and the Nikon D800.

Edmund

Well perhaps it's better than it used to be - but on ebay lenses other than the 80mm and the 100mm sell for 1.500 - 5.000€ and that might scare away potential second hand Hasselblad users.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Having a suitable set of lenses is a problem whatever system we buy. It was much part of the reason I have chosen the Hasselblad V-system. Most lenses are very affordable. CFE-lenses, those with data bus are more expensive.

But, I wouldn't use a Hasselblad V-system professionally, at least not with a P45+ back. The sync cables are the most unreliable part of any system I ever used.

As far as I know, VFC backs and Leaf backs can do without the sync cable. The P45+ actually sucks out batteries quite fast, too.

Best regards
Erik

Well perhaps it's better than it used to be - but on ebay lenses other than the 80mm and the 100mm sell for 1.500 - 5.000€ and that might scare away potential second hand Hasselblad users.

[Rob C]

Yes,

I agree that it is a good time to go into second hand MFD.

A fashion shooter can possibly make do with just one lens, but a landscaper like me needs quite a few of those and I wouldn't think that neither architecture shooters or landscapers would be happy with the 1.3X crop. Well, there are some ultra wides for the Hassy, of course but fairly expensive.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, what in the name of glory makes you think that? It was my job, and I had to cart around many different focal lengths, even if most shots were made with perhaps three of them: you still had to be able to cover all the bases or die... I had 24mm to 500mm. And many 'stars' made a lot of good use of 21mm.

Rob C

[eronald]

Rob,

 I think on this forum one is allowed several lenses and even several entirely different cameras - we are very non-judgemental here

Edmund

Erik, what in the name of glory makes you think that? It was my job, and I had to cart around many different focal lengths, even if most shots were made with perhaps three of them: you still had to be able to cover all the bases or die... I had 24mm to 500mm. And many 'stars' made a lot of good use of 21mm.

Rob C

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Rob,

Please note the word 'possibly'. One of the reasons have written that is the "fashion pro guy" mentioned that he got a 50/1.4 Sigma Art.

Thanks for making things clear!

Best regards
Erik

Erik, what in the name of glory makes you think that? It was my job, and I had to cart around many different focal lengths, even if most shots were made with perhaps three of them: you still had to be able to cover all the bases or die... I had 24mm to 500mm. And many 'stars' made a lot of good use of 21mm.

Rob C