Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: The modern car vs. horseless carriage: Dragging MF into the electronic era?  (Read 8935 times)

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram

As the Alpa most vividly, Mamiya and H body  design show, Medium Format cameras are basically digital sensors in the back bolted on to conventional film camera designs in front. I would say that even the idea of cards and  "developing" the Raw images with an external computer are relics of the film age.

We are seeing the first signs of front-back integration with main-sensor focus -which is a bit like ground glass focus- and tricks like focus stacking and multishot, but we're still a long way from true electronic camera designs in "pro" cameras. 35mm amateur devices have on-sensor stabilisation and video that is in fact feature-film grade, but we still mock them as being toys.

The phones with their ability to stream live video, post to social media, apply filters, edit clips in-camera, retouch, annotate and publish images are very different devices, and one can see how they have eaten the lunch of almost all the cheaper "cameras". I'm not making this up - go and ask Canon or Nikon what happened to their compact and point-and-shoot ranges.

A "Photojournalist" can now be more relevant with an iPhone streaming to Periscope and posting seamlessly from an event than with a pro camera that has at best cumbersome interconnections. It's got to the point where pro equipment gets in the way, rather than help: The citizen journalist cannot be censored, the pro can be.

I do wonder whether we will finally see more invention and integration in the MF and 35mm prosumer cameras, or whether the manufacturers will to the end refuse to incorporate phone-class hardware, displays, and app-programmable communication stacks.

It *is* clear that a Rebel cannot have the image processing abilities or the screen of a $800 iPhone, unfortunately this is presently also true of a $30K MF system.

Edmund
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 11:21:49 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio

An MF camera does not have all the processing capabilities of an iPhone, but neither does the iPhone have the image capturing capabilities of an MF camera.

Are you waiting for an MF camera that can run Prisma and upload to Instagram to make your first Medium Format purchase in more than a decade, Edmund?


« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 11:25:15 am by synn »
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454

MF (and LF even more so) is traditionally targeting the advanced photographer who needs to perform different tasks and doesn't need features already offered by smaller formats which are of use only to the "press the button" kind of the (lets call him) "photographer"... Having makers in MF that are trying to justify the cost of it by the same terms as smaller formats (that are traditionally made as to serve the masses) do, is by definition the wrong way to compare things... If I was to use MF only to "improve" on my image analysis or other (completely) irrelevant to larger formats, I would never do so... After all the (usual) parameters compared by reviewers is more a matter of skills than anything else... It's what (extra) I can do with MF that makes it essential to me... nothing more nothing else...
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074

Perhaps one has to look at the different digital camera formats anew.

In film days, format use was determined by two factors: the job's requirements; your ability to buy into the required tools. Some cameras were more versatile than others, depending of course on final use of the image. Nobody seemed either surprised or indignant about that.

Why, then, should digital photography be any different in that respect? Horses for courses strikes me as a sensible approach even today. Why not just use the appropriate tool and be happy? All the world has a cellphone; it can handle any info problems you can invent for yourself. I think there's a general mood/world view coming on that merges lazy with convenience.

Rob

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454

Just to add to the above (comment of mine)... makers that their "policies" oppose photographers to do the above, are (by definition of MF tradition) opposing photography progress... Their financial status or market penetration, or ability to create funboys of the firm, is both irrelevant to (the few real) photographers, or ..."photography" (as a medium of art creation) it self!
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454

Perhaps one has to look at the different digital camera formats anew.

In film days, format use was determined by two factors: the job's requirements; your ability to buy into the required tools. Some cameras were more versatile than others, depending of course on final use of the image. Nobody seemed either surprised or indignant about that.

Why, then, should digital photography be any different in that respect? Horses for courses strikes me as a sensible approach even today. Why not just use the appropriate tool and be happy? All the world has a cellphone; it can handle any info problems you can invent for yourself. I think there's a general mood/world view coming on that merges lazy with convenience.

Rob

In film days (which are still there for anyone that is interested), one could use whatever image area he liked without asking the maker of the camera... This is a major (among others) fundamental behind MF design approach... Fundamentals are set to back up philosophy behind products and ought to be respected... Traditionally with MF, the customers sets the demand to the maker... not vise versa...
Logged

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623

Manufacturers, generally speaking, try to build what their customers want. Apple and Google know that their average customer wants a portable Facebook terminal, so they build that and they add a camera function because Facebook needs more pictures. Hasselblad or Phase One know that their customers want a studio camera with tethering abilities, so that is what they build.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 11:11:30 pm by landscapephoto »
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454


 Hasselblad or Phase One know that their customers want a studio camera with tethering abilities, so that is what they build.


So do Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax and everybody else these days... Sinar only makes tethered for years...

PS: Did Erik remove his own post?
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/18/article-2424437-1BE4F390000005DC-412_634x515.jpg

300SL I think; James Roberston Justice had one; I think I remember BB sitting in his at one stage. Tantallon Castle...

Beautiful cars, if slightly beyond my pockets - now as ever!

Thanks for posting the shot - brings back happy memories.

Rob
« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 04:05:56 am by Rob C »
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454


300SL I think; James Roberston Justice had one; I think I remember BB sitting in his at one stage. Tantallon Castle...

Beautiful cars, if slightly beyond my pockets - now as ever!

Thanks for posting the shot - brings back happy memories.

Rob

It would be best if one posts his own shots in an argument (or discussion) instead of using somebody else's... Especially if the one that captured the image isn't a member and may never know that his image was used by somebody in an argument...
Logged

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio

It would be best if one posts his own shots in an argument (or discussion) instead of using somebody else's...

How many of your own images have you posted in this forum till date, Theo?
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454

How many of your own images have you posted in this forum till date, Theo?

LOL... I (and all other sensible) never post images in forums buddy for any nameless, troll or fanboy to see... Nor I use other peoples images (with or without permission) as to make a point... Who are you (for example) that one should advance you to a judge of images? After all, skills are above equipment for making an image as to prove anything and this is a gear thread...

EDIT: Nor I ever comment (but once that was too obvious) on other people's "images"...
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 04:26:12 pm by Theodoros »
Logged

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio

LOL... I (and no other sensible) never post images in forums buddy for any nameless, troll or fanboy to see... Nor I use other peoples images (with or without permission) as to make a point... Who are you (for example) that one should advance you to a judge of images? After all, skills are above equipment for making an image as to prove anything and this is a gear thread...

It's a simple question with a simple answer.

How many images have you posted here? Is it higher than zero?
You claim to be the epitome of repro shooting and most camera gear is apparently beneath you, but no one has ever seen anything you shot. You have no portfolio or web presence and no one has heard of your name outside this forum.

What is your claim to fame? Why should your opinions count higher than that of several esteemed gentlemen here with real portfolios and references?

I am all ears. So how many images have you posted?
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074

It would be best if one posts his own shots in an argument (or discussion) instead of using somebody else's... Especially if the one that captured the image isn't a member and may never know that his image was used by somebody in an argument...


Theo, I think you missed the entire point of the photograph.

As I said, for me it brought back very nice moments and mental reruns of Mlle Bardot, for which I thank Keith from the bottom of my professional photography memory bank! Mind you, I don't need a lot of prodding to think about her...

Rob C

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454


Theo, I think you missed the entire point of the photograph.

As I said, for me it brought back very nice moments and mental reruns of Mlle Bardot, for which I thank Keith from the bottom of my professional photography memory bank! Mind you, I don't need a lot of prodding to think about her...

Rob C

But it wasn't you that posted the (great IMO) image Rob... My comment never was on you... it was a reply as to make sure that people will understand the irrelevance of the image to whatever  meaning the (again irrelevant to the image) poster was thinking of making by using (without license) an image that he never captured...
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 04:40:31 pm by Theodoros »
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram


Theo, I think you missed the entire point of the photograph.

As I said, for me it brought back very nice moments and mental reruns of Mlle Bardot, for which I thank Keith from the bottom of my professional photography memory bank! Mind you, I don't need a lot of prodding to think about her...

Rob C

I knew a guy who owned 3 of these, slightly different from the one pictured, and it brings nice memories of riding in them. I'm sure I would prefer memories of moments with Ms Bardot :)

It's strange how one remembers the cars of one's youth - the wonderful back compartment of the roller, the veneer of the jag, the plush of the DS, and in this case the multiple horns of the rough modded versions which this ex-Merc race driver was allowed to keep, by the terms of his contract. For some reason these horns were a necessary race fitting. Don't ask - in those days everybody we knew who owned a car had much more money than we did :)

Edmund
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 05:09:22 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto

Hi,

If that mobile phone is good enough, that is perfectly OK with me. For me the cell phone camera is a bit like the Leica when I started with photography. Often used with a standard lens or a 35 mm, always there where action was. A lot of more or less authentic images were made with the Leica.

If action is right and the message is interesting, no one will ask about DR or megapixels. The photojournalistic value of cell phone pictures may be very high.

On the other hand, all those photographers standing rink-side with those white supertelephoto lenses will not switch to iPhone, I guess.

Personally, I like supertelephoto lenses and ultrawides. When possible shooting from tripod and naturally always using "raw". But my images have no photojournalistic value, let's hope they are time less.

No, I don't think a cell phone camera will be able to match medium format. But certainly it will be good enough for 98% of the images taken, unless you need a telephoto or an ultrawide. But, again, Leica did reform photojournalism without really offering ultrawide or long telephoto. F/8 and be there goes a long way, but with cell phones it may be f/2.8 and be there.

What a large sensor will deliver is image quality, high DR and high SNR (Signal Noise Ratio) paired with good high ISO performance.

Best regards
Erik


As the Alpa most vividly, Mamiya and H body  design show, Medium Format cameras are basically digital sensors in the back bolted on to conventional film camera designs in front. I would say that even the idea of cards and  "developing" the Raw images with an external computer are relics of the film age.

We are seeing the first signs of front-back integration with main-sensor focus -which is a bit like ground glass focus- and tricks like focus stacking and multishot, but we're still a long way from true electronic camera designs in "pro" cameras. 35mm amateur devices have on-sensor stabilisation and video that is in fact feature-film grade, but we still mock them as being toys.

The phones with their ability to stream live video, post to social media, apply filters, edit clips in-camera, retouch, annotate and publish images are very different devices, and one can see how they have eaten the lunch of almost all the cheaper "cameras". I'm not making this up - go and ask Canon or Nikon what happened to their compact and point-and-shoot ranges.

A "Photojournalist" can now be more relevant with an iPhone streaming to Periscope and posting seamlessly from an event than with a pro camera that has at best cumbersome interconnections. It's got to the point where pro equipment gets in the way, rather than help: The citizen journalist cannot be censored, the pro can be.

I do wonder whether we will finally see more invention and integration in the MF and 35mm prosumer cameras, or whether the manufacturers will to the end refuse to incorporate phone-class hardware, displays, and app-programmable communication stacks.

It *is* clear that a Rebel cannot have the image processing abilities or the screen of a $800 iPhone, unfortunately this is presently also true of a $30K MF system.

Edmund
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638

synn,

Quote
It's a simple question with a simple answer. How many images have you posted here? Is it higher than zero?

Yes.
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454


No, I don't think a cell phone camera will be able to match medium format. But certainly it will be good enough for 98% of the images taken, unless you need a telephoto or an ultrawide.

Actually it is 99.98% (slightly different method of counting than yours  :o)) so I suggest you only use a cell phone unless it is an Ultra tele or an UWA...  ;D I'll use whatever else than cell phone for two reasons... One is that I oppose the (official) statistics of 98% that you post (as I said it's 99.98% according to my measurements  :P ) and the other is because I don't have a phone that can take pictures... (but I do have same MF gear I can use instead)  ;D  :'(
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram

Actually it is 99.98% (slightly different method of counting than yours  :o)) so I suggest you only use a cell phone unless it is an Ultra tele or an UWA...  ;D I'll use whatever else than cell phone for two reasons... One is that I oppose the (official) statistics of 98% that you post (as I said it's 99.98% according to my measurements  :P ) and the other is because I don't have a phone that can take pictures... (but I do have same MF gear I can use instead)  ;D  :'(

Ah, you were an early adopter of the cellphone and got one that lasts forever :)

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up