Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: medium format "look"  (Read 18336 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #20 on: October 26, 2016, 11:25:37 am »

Hi Ulf,

Sorry for misunderstanding…

I have not shot larger formats than 6x7 on film, so I don't have the experience, but I have seen quite a few large format images with very short DoF and they did have a special look.

I think it is a bit of a combination of film gradation curves, long lens at moderate aperture and also simple symmetric lens designs with a good bokeh.

Best regards
Erik

Just for the record, I was talking about about image ratio, not aspect ratio. Of course aspect ratio needs to be adjusted for the intended use. The image ratio (how big the object is projected on film or sensor, so the relation of object size to image size) is quite influential. I remember a portraiture we shot on 8x10 inch B/W polaroid, the image was printed in a size of only may be 1,5x2 inches but no matter how I would have tried I would have never been able to recreate that look with a small format. If stepped down like in your examples the difference might be negligible.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #21 on: October 26, 2016, 02:41:26 pm »

once you've used Medium Format and seen what it can do it's very difficult to go back.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2016, 03:31:15 pm »

Hi,

I have shot MFD and don't find it hard to go back 24x36. I guess it depends on what you compare and what your perceived needs are.

I have no doubts that full frame 645 MFD at the high end can deliver better image quality. With crop frame 645 it may be a different case. I guess that 24x36 at 42-50 MP can give 50 MP cropped frame a run for they money with the right lenses.

It may be that he X1D and the Fuji GFX hit some sweet spot. Great lenses optimised for 33x44 mm at a decent price point with functional AF…

Best regards
Erik

once you've used Medium Format and seen what it can do it's very difficult to go back.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

minicoop1985

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2016, 09:24:30 am »

I think the MF "Look" was mainly due to the MASSIVE increase in dynamic range over most 35mm based cameras. Now that today's Sony sensors have almost caught up with the DR of MF backs, the difference in the "look" is negligible. There will always be that DOF difference and the purity of the image at 100% compared to the smaller sensor, but that "look" can be achieved with the faster lenses available on 35mm based cameras.

Let's take my 5DII and a Hasselblad with a Phase One back, for example. There's a remarkable difference in dynamic range. I know a Leaf Aptus is around 12 stops, so I would assume that the Phase would be in that territory as well. The 5DII, however, I believe only handles about 8.5 stops. That's the main thing that differentiated MF from 35mm based, IMO.
Logged
Michael Long
Hasselblad H3D 39, Canon 5D mark II

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2016, 09:26:40 am »

once you've used Medium Format and seen what it can do it's very difficult to go back.


I used a mix of MF and 135 formats all my career and I never found any difficulty in deciding which to use; they were different tools and one knew instinctively which one to use for what. The problems came with clients who thought that they knew better than you did, and forced you to MF when the other was the sensible choice. I once had to negotiate a calendar shoot that was supposed to take place in southern France aboard a yacht. The owner was willing to have his boat used, but wanted to screw pictures of his boat as a sweetner. And get this; he wanted 4x5. The subject of the calendar was girls... I refused to tie myself to that idea; the job fell through and never got shot, though I had offered to go 6x6, which was already a financial nuisance as I'd already quoted for the shoot.

As I say, you know the format you need. Or at least, you should!

Rob

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #25 on: October 28, 2016, 12:10:16 pm »

Hi,

That has changed with the 5DIV.

But, Sony Exmoor sensors are nothing new they have been around since 2007 or so. Present day MFD uses Sony Exmoors, too. Sensor size would give them a 1-1.5 EV advantage in DR.

Historically the Nikon D3X and Sony Alpha 900 were the first full frames with Sony Exmoor.

This link illustrates that developemnt: http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D3X,Nikon%20D810,Phase%20One%20IQ250,Phase%20One%20IQ260

This shows Bill Claffs "Photographic Dynamic Range" and it is based on a set of samples photographed with different cameras. The figures are normalised, so magnification is taken into account.

Best regards
Erik

I think the MF "Look" was mainly due to the MASSIVE increase in dynamic range over most 35mm based cameras. Now that today's Sony sensors have almost caught up with the DR of MF backs, the difference in the "look" is negligible. There will always be that DOF difference and the purity of the image at 100% compared to the smaller sensor, but that "look" can be achieved with the faster lenses available on 35mm based cameras.

Let's take my 5DII and a Hasselblad with a Phase One back, for example. There's a remarkable difference in dynamic range. I know a Leaf Aptus is around 12 stops, so I would assume that the Phase would be in that territory as well. The 5DII, however, I believe only handles about 8.5 stops. That's the main thing that differentiated MF from 35mm based, IMO.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

JV

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1013
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2016, 06:12:36 pm »

once you've used Medium Format and seen what it can do it's very difficult to go back.

Digital MF images tend to have slightly more depth, smoother transitions between in and out of focus areas, it is all very subtle though...

Like many others I do also find that (especially square) Film MF (Hasselblad/Rollei) did give a more distinct different look...
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2016, 03:47:56 am »

Digital MF images tend to have slightly more depth, smoother transitions between in and out of focus areas, it is all very subtle though...
Like many others I do also find that (especially square) Film MF (Hasselblad/Rollei) did give a more distinct different look...

The new MF sensor is 33 x44mm  1.7x larger sensor area than Full Frame 135mm
The film MF was 66 or 67;  3.5x or 4.5 larger area
Then in the film days the film was the weakest link- so the lens could actually use that area without problem and the technical quality was about a factor 4 better.
Film grain was reduced by that same factor.

Since then the lenses have become better because the demanding sensors asks for better lenses.
The digital FF now has a quality that is comparable with a film Hasselblad then and even at high ISO.
Lens choice and quality for Full Frame also has grown immense.
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2016, 06:13:05 am »

Even in film days, it was somewhat difficult to make statements about image quallty regarding 135 and 6x6 formats that stood much analysis. Perhaps the most telling thing about the two formats was shape: 135 tied you into the experience of never cropping unless it was essential, whereas 6x6 gave you the freedom to be much more flexible if you resisted the strong temptation to conceive everything as that delightfully perfect square!

The actual format of 135 flms was as close as dammit to 24mm x 36mm and 6x6 was around 56mm x 56mm and not the imaginary 60mm x 60mm. Film types varied across the ranges, and you could get more grain from 6x6 than from 135 formats if that was your intention or simply an effect from the film choice you'd been obliged to make.

A very popular fallacy was the concept that stepping up from 135 format to 6x7 format would instantly give you the performace of the best 135 format lenses spread equally right across the entire 6x7 area. Mistake. The lenses for the smaller format were often better because they only had to cover that tiny area; lenses for larger areas couldn't deliver the same quality (whatever you take to mean quality). I once ran a test using my 4/150mm Sonnar on the 'blad and the 3.5/135mm Nikkor on an F body. Cropping the 'blad negative to the same area as the Nikkon one did not produce as good an image quality; in both negs the subject was held to the same actual size, thus comparing the same actual, physical areas in both cases, and proving my point to my own satisfaction. (Whether Mick Jagger did or did not inspire this test I cannot now remember.)

Lenses then, as I presume today, were designed within the economical limits placed on the makers. As our current movie lenses are much more expensive because they can afford to be, meeting the needs of a richer market than stills photography appears to be, it's difficult for an utsider such as myself to know for sure whethere the limits today are actually physical ones or mainly economical boundaries.

The most reliable way to judge the quality question, I suppose, is from the point of view of how good or bad an image looks when it's up on a wall, but even then, so many factors come into play, and we haven't even touched on the little matter of stitching...

Conclusion? Use what gives you what you want at the price that is comfortable, and never forget that somebody else can make the same equipment appear to be far better or much worse than you can.

Life.

Rob

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2016, 07:33:40 am »

Hi Rob,

Quite interesting…

My experience in film times was that I achieved better results with my Pentax 67 than with Minolta's, but that was a bit of using the Pentax 67 to it's advantage. Once I was stranded without 135 film and shot typical 135 stuff with the Pentax 67, the results were just like 135.

I have been shooting a Hasselblad 555/ELD with a P45+ for three and a half year and really enjoyed the experience. Regarding image quality it was a bit of a mixed bag. The P45+ delivered very good image quality at base ISO, and that was the speed I was using, but so did my 135 Sony A99. Under optimal conditions I would say that the P45+ yielded better resolution than the Sony, but I couldn't really tell the difference at A2 size. At A1 there would be a visible advantage to the larger format.

The really good lenses I had/have for the "Blad" were the two Sonnars (150 and 180) and the Planar 100/3.5, the other lenses I hade Distagons (40/50/60) and Planars (80/120) were one or two notches below.

With 135 most expensive lenses are at f/1.4, but I think that moderate aperture lenses like f/2.0 - f/4 may be quite interesting. Question is if 135 with the very best lenses can match or surpass MF-gear. Just as an example, we have the Otuses 28/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 and the Apo Planar 135/2 from Zeiss and all those lenses are full apochromats. I don't know if there are true apochromats for MFD in production.

So, I could buy the three Otuses and a Sony A7rII for the price of the Hasselblad X1D with a lens. Which would perform better? It may be a close match.

I did some comparison between my A7rII with my Canon 16-35/4L and the "Blad/P45+ combo using my two present Distagons with somewhat surprising results:

  • The A7rII outclasses the Blad/P45+/Distagon at pixel peeping distances on screen and on 80x100 cm print.
  • But, backing off to longer viewing distance the weakness of the Distagon is masked and the P45+ image may be a tiny bit more brilliant
  • Standing back (say 1m), I don't think you could see the difference if the prints were hanging side by side. I was comparing A2-size crops on top of each other.

I did also "pixel peep compared" the Planar 100/3.5CF and the 120/4CF to the Sony 90/2.8 G Macro and the Sony 90/2.8G macro was superior in both cases. But, the Sony macro has some skewness, while the Hasselblad 100/3.5 is flat.

Recently Fuji released the GFX. They don't see it as MFD just as their step up from APS-C. An interesting development.

Best regards
Erik

Even in film days, it was somewhat difficult to make statements about image quallty regarding 135 and 6x6 formats that stood much analysis. Perhaps the most telling thing about the two formats was shape: 135 tied you into the experience of never cropping unless it was essential, whereas 6x6 gave you the freedom to be much more flexible if you resisted the strong temptation to conceive everything as that delightfully perfect square!

The actual format of 135 flms was as close as dammit to 24mm x 36mm and 6x6 was around 56mm x 56mm and not the imaginary 60mm x 60mm. Film types varied across the ranges, and you could get more grain from 6x6 than from 135 formats if that was your intention or simply an effect from the film choice you'd been obliged to make.

A very popular fallacy was the concept that stepping up from 135 format to 6x7 format would instantly give you the performace of the best 135 format lenses spread equally right across the entire 6x7 area. Mistake. The lenses for the smaller format were often better because they only had to cover that tiny area; lenses for larger areas couldn't deliver the same quality (whatever you take to mean quality). I once ran a test using my 4/150mm Sonnar on the 'blad and the 3.5/135mm Nikkor on an F body. Cropping the 'blad negative to the same area as the Nikkon one did not produce as good an image quality; in both negs the subject was held to the same actual size, thus comparing the same actual, physical areas in both cases, and proving my point to my own satisfaction. (Whether Mick Jagger did or did not inspire this test I cannot now remember.)

Lenses then, as I presume today, were designed within the economical limits placed on the makers. As our current movie lenses are much more expensive because they can afford to be, meeting the needs of a richer market than stills photography appears to be, it's difficult for an utsider such as myself to know for sure whethere the limits today are actually physical ones or mainly economical boundaries.

The most reliable way to judge the quality question, I suppose, is from the point of view of how good or bad an image looks when it's up on a wall, but even then, so many factors come into play, and we haven't even touched on the little matter of stitching...

Conclusion? Use what gives you what you want at the price that is comfortable, and never forget that somebody else can make the same equipment appear to be far better or much worse than you can.

Life.

Rob
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: medium format "look": normal viewing vs print sniffing
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2016, 09:30:02 am »

Thanks Rob C for that wonderful discussion; how rare it is in the endless format comparisons to hear from someone with many years of professional experience with both candidates, and who has had the opportunity and motivation to compare their merits, and sees the advantages of each!

I will avoid my geeky temptation to add other optics-based reasons why the move to a larger format and corresponding adjustment of focal length tends to improve print resolution" (more ”lines per picture height”) and such, but less than in proportion to format size (due to less "lines per mm" on the sensor).  That sort of consideration should only reduce the larger format's advantage, not nullify or reverse it.

One simple but important change from film to digital is in the realm of "under what circumstances are the differences noticable?”. With 36x24mm film (most film types anyway; maybe not slow, super fine-grained B&W ones), the limitations are already visible in 10"x8" prints and more so at 14"x11", meaning under more or less normal scrutiny from a viewing distance comparable to the print's diagonal length. With today's sensors instead, it seems that even far smaller formats down to 1” and below handle normal viewing quite well — at least as far as resolution/detail/"grain"/pixelation, and also handle tonal gradations in scenes of fairly normal subject brightness range, scenes not needing substantial contrast compression to fit into the brightness gamut of a print.

If I am right, this means that the vast majority of even professional photography that is intended for "normal" viewing, which with film often benefits from the step up from 36x24mm to 56x42mm ("645”), now sees little or no advantage from any "medium format".  In fact, apart from special needs like extreme low light and high shutter speeds or the desire to massively snd artificially blur much of a scene, the requiremrnts of "normal viewing" are now met far further down the format size scale.

Of course there are legitimate needs for images where viewers will move in close to examine parts of the scene, or the photographer will crop heavily, but I have to think that a lot of the online enthusiasm about larger formats and higher pixel counts is driven by hobbyist "print sniffing" and its modern counterpart of 100% pixel peeping, rather than by legitimate artistic or professional goals.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: medium format "look": normal viewing vs print sniffing
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2016, 10:01:34 am »

Hi,

Just a pair of remarks…

Regarding pixel peeping, when peeping pixels we see the pixels. It doesn't matter if it is MFD or 4/3" it is still pixels. The latest generation of MFD has Sony pixels, like say the A7rII or the Nikon D810. When we pixel peep we see Sony pixels and if we use a normal 24" screen we can see two million of them. The older sensors had "fat pixels", I never liked that idea, but they may had a different look to them.

The other point is that I don't think it is illegitimate to strive for higher image quality, it may be meaningless but in no way illegitimate.

Let's throw in a car analogy. You can be perfectly happy with a small SUV by Toyota that I own, but you may feel you need a big SUV, say a Hummer. Or you can feel that you need the cornering speed of a Porsche. All that is absolutely legitimate, even if the environmental footprint of the Hummer may be a bit heavy.  But, if you use the cornering speed of that Porsche on almost any public road you would probably violate a lot of laws and endanger other motorists, because they don't expect a car coming out at 75 MPH on the wrong side of that next curve.

I don't think that you put anyway at risk by spending on photography.

Best regards
Erik




Of course there are legitimate needs for images where viewers will move in close to examine parts of the scene, or the photographer will crop heavily, but I have to think that a lot of the online enthusiasm about larger formats and higher pixel counts is driven by hobbyist "print sniffing" and its modern counterpart of 100% pixel peeping, rather than by legitimate artistic or professional goals.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: medium format "look": normal viewing vs print sniffing
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2016, 01:11:01 pm »

One simple but important change from film to digital is in the realm of "under what circumstances are the differences noticable?”. With 36x24mm film (most film types anyway; maybe not slow, super fine-grained B&W ones), the limitations are already visible in 10"x8" prints and more so at 14"x11", meaning under more or less normal scrutiny from a viewing distance comparable to the print's diagonal length. With today's sensors instead, it seems that even far smaller formats down to 1” and below handle normal viewing quite well — at least as far as resolution/detail/"grain"/pixelation, and also handle tonal gradations in scenes of fairly normal subject brightness range, scenes not needing substantial contrast compression to fit into the brightness gamut of a print.

My experience as well with 24x36mm and digital formats.

Of course there are legitimate needs for images where viewers will move in close to examine parts of the scene, or the photographer will crop heavily, but I have to think that a lot of the online enthusiasm about larger formats and higher pixel counts is driven by hobbyist "print sniffing" and its modern counterpart of 100% pixel peeping, rather than by legitimate artistic or professional goals.

Have you seen the works of, say, Alex Soth? In a museum or gallery, on large prints as it was intended to be presented? It is overwhelming.

Of course, Alex Soth uses a 8x10 view camera. But maybe he could use a 100 mix digital back and get the same effect (I don't know).

Still: the idea to present large, detailed prints to overwhelm the assistance is a legitimate artistic goal, isn't it?

Then, there are the works of Richard Learoyd. Look it up.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: medium format "look": normal viewing vs print sniffing
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2016, 03:25:27 pm »

My experience as well with 24x36mm and digital formats.

Have you seen the works of, say, Alex Soth? In a museum or gallery, on large prints as it was intended to be presented? It is overwhelming.

Of course, Alex Soth uses a 8x10 view camera. But maybe he could use a 100 mix digital back and get the same effect (I don't know).

Still: the idea to present large, detailed prints to overwhelm the assistance is a legitimate artistic goal, isn't it?

Then, there are the works of Richard Learoyd. Look it up.


So, what did I do to deserve this?

;-)

Rob C

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: medium format "look": normal viewing vs print sniffing
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2016, 04:34:02 pm »

Have you seen the works of, say, Alex Soth? In a museum or gallery, on large prints as it was intended to be presented? It is overwhelming.

Of course, Alex Soth uses a 8x10 view camera. But maybe he could use a 100 mix digital back and get the same effect (I don't know).

Still: the idea to present large, detailed prints to overwhelm the assistance is a legitimate artistic goal, isn't it?

Then, there are the works of Richard Learoyd. Look it up.
I have no dispute with the idea that there are some artistic endevours that go well beyond "normal viewing" — that was the gist of the beginning of my paragraph that you quoted. Some professional ones too — say life-size photos of clothing and jewelry models to be displayed in stores and viewed at close quarters. But I do have the suspicion  that a lot of users of large format, high pixel count cameras are not doing that, but instead are staying with a format out of various kinds of inertia (some legitimate, like owning lots of nice lenses for it and just knowing how to work with a certain brand and format) and a vague "bigger is better" sentiment, rather than the sort of comparisons and rational decision making that Rob C illustrated.

P. S. Erik: I was only commenting on when certain gear is or is not needed to produce photographs that meet certain professional or artistic goals. It was not my intent to delegitimize the emotional and social needs that lead to spending large amounts on luxury cars whose performance attributes are never used, or watches hand-made by Swiss elves that are no more accurate or functional than a $100 Swatch, or big, expensive prestige-brand cameras whose images are never displayed in a way that distinguishes them from what a good mainstream ILC can produce.
Logged

Phil Indeblanc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2017
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #35 on: November 07, 2016, 12:41:06 am »

Another gain the MF had was the non AA filter. this gave a chunk more in sharpness and a more 3D look.
Lack of this filter gives you texture differences on smooth surfaces. Now this too is taken out on some bodies, which is fantastic. Canon really needed to do this to their 5DmIV as an option.
Now you are left with leaf shutter advantage, and how some lenses look. .....and the CCD did do something, but that may have been the DR/?
Logged
If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #36 on: November 07, 2016, 05:50:15 am »

Hi Phil,

There is something to the AA-filterless design, personally I still feel it is a bad design, and I have seen a lot of artefacts on my P45+. Canon now has the 5DsR, with zeroed out OLP filtering and 50 MP resolution. Gapless microlenses decrease the MTF of the sensor, and that acts as a mitigating factor. When the IQ-250 was released it could be noticed that it had much less aliasing then the IQ-260 and IQ-280 tested simultaneously, these tests were done by DigitalTransitions, the "library shots".

If there is an MFD look, it may be there are small pieces adding up.

  • In many cases the 4:3 MFD crop factor works better than 3:2 crop factor of 135
  • At least some MFD lenses are pretty good
  • Comparisons may be made against a Canon 5DII with a 24-70/2.8L lens
  • That lens is subject to much wear, the bushings holding the front element wear out, so most well used 24-70/2.8 lenses are in no good shape. It is an easy repair, though.
  • Canons and Nikons using Nikon designed sensors don't have great DR at base ISO.
  • Camera profiles may not be as good. As an example, some Capture One users tried out the ICC profile for the IQ-250 on the Nikon raws in capture one and got superior results. Phase One spending more time on developing profiles for their own cameras?
  • Phase One workflow is a bit biased to protect highlights. At least some of the cameras have overrated ISO-settings. The film curve in Capture One tends to rend images bright, so Phase One users are led to expose a bit under ETTR.

The latest generation MFD uses CMOS from Sony, pretty similar to the sensors used on the Nikon D810. Having a larger sensor is obviously better. Regarding DR, CCD was essentially passed with the introduction of the Exmoor sensor, back in 2008. I attach some data measured by DxO. These are normalised to same print size, so the advantage of size is taken into account.

The large sensors obviously have a benefit resolution and Phase One has beefed up their lens line. From the MTF data published by Hasselblad the lenses for the X1D are very good. The X1D needs less magnification and it may outperform say a canon 5DsR with the Otus, or it may not. I would guess the Otus is better corrected for out of focus fringing, for instance.

We will see higher resolution sensors from Sony and they will migrate upwards to MFD, so 50 MP is not that end of thing for 1.3X crop MFD and nor is 100 MP for full frame 645. And yes, Sony will make those sensors as long there is a business case.

Best regards
Erik


Another gain the MF had was the non AA filter. this gave a chunk more in sharpness and a more 3D look.
Lack of this filter gives you texture differences on smooth surfaces. Now this too is taken out on some bodies, which is fantastic. Canon really needed to do this to their 5DmIV as an option.
Now you are left with leaf shutter advantage, and how some lenses look. .....and the CCD did do something, but that may have been the DR/?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Phil Indeblanc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2017
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #37 on: November 07, 2016, 11:43:11 am »

I wish all manufacturers woiuld deal with the AA filter as a removable option. Just as easily you clean your sensor, it should be an overlay to remove (I know easier said than done, but maybe as easy as replacing the viewfinder screen or something.
In the 15+ of shooting digital, I have had rare and easy fix situations on moire, and I will take a no filter camera any day over a filter cam for my type of work, and play shooting. The ONLY time I might want the AA is if I do any clothing , or perhaps I have to buy a camera that incorporates video, and I make myself use it as a video camera. Of course this is something many shooters like, and that is why it should be a snap in option.

The sooner mfg's start doing this the sooner that discussion can rest.
Why is it that in 15+ I have had a rare occassion?  I mean if your looking to test for it, sure you will get it to come in, and even if it has happened, I would rather deal in post than lose that 3D sharp look. Blow up a print next to each other and people would rest about it.

I can't remember a time My P25 MF had issues due to non AA, nor the SLR/C Kodak.

Why force folks to another camera, or to a service that would void warranty?


As far as small pieces adding up...YES! I can see this, as you list, lens, crop?, I would not compare a zoom lens to any MF look...yes DR I see, Profiles, sure, the Phase color!   I guess many people wait for Nikon to get the 42mp sensor, I wish Canon did as well. But the mount of the SonyE makes adapting to older studio lenses easier as well., so its fun stuff :-)

Do you still use the A7rII Erik?  I was reading the negative reviews on Amazon, and I agree with just about all of them. The Auto focusing regardless of lens is pretty horrible. The lag and reaction time is also horrible. Menus are whatever. When you need to take the time to reframe refocus and such, the menu issues become less importnat(or more, when needing to dig in short times). The feel of the grip area in my hand feels flexible. Sometimes functions like wheels don't kick in right away after you turn the device On. etc.
Otherwise I do love it. As you said, its not for pro use, at least in a number of areas. But it sure is working as a MF replacement.
Logged
If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #38 on: November 07, 2016, 01:50:06 pm »

Hi,

Regarding the AA-filter I often have issues with both the P45+ and the A7rII. I am living at the seashore and I often shoot water and sailboats. Small waves on water often have colour aliasing and sailboat rigs are very problematic. So, it depends on use. Just to say, the OLP filters used on most cameras are a compromise. They reduce MTF to around 0.15 at Nyquist while an OLP filterless camera may have around 0.25-0.3.

Sony RX1R II has a variable AA-filter, and Nikon has patented a similar solution. So, I think that variable OLP filters are around the corner.

I still use the A7rII, and it is the best camera I ever had. But…

  • I am a long time Minolta and Sony user, the menu system was always the same.
  • I almost never go into the meny system. I have two preset all buttons assigned to functions and a lot of options in the Fn menu.
  • Only use menu system för "picture effects on/off", formatting cards and some rare options.

Regarding AF, I have mostly positive experience. The 24-105/4L I use mostly works very well with the Metabones. On the other hand the 28-70 kit lens often fails miserably and I got a lot of bad focus images with a Vello adapter one day. The long story is:

  • 24-70/2.8 works excellent with LA-3 adapter
  • 70-400/4.5.6G works excellent with LA-3 adapter
  • Canon 24-105/4L works excellent with the Metabones IV
  • Canon 16-35/4L works excellent with the Metabones IV
  • Sony 90/2.8G works excellent without adapter


You have not disabled Phase Detection by mistake? That would make AF slow and unreliable.

Mostly I work with a tripod and often focus manually.

My experience with all my Sonys was very satisfactory, no failures on any of the eight I had and all still work.  Why did I have eight? Because Sony was slow on delivering live view.

What I don't like?

- LCD could be larger
- Battery life (but it wouldn't fit on my HCam Master TSII with a bigger battery)
- Switches to 12-bit mode in continous shooting
- Menu system, of course
- Would be nice program any menu choice to buttons
- A lot of you cannot do that with this lens on that mode remarks

Jim Kasson has written a small article about the his two most used cameras the A7rII and the Nikon D5, I don't have a D5 but his words on the A7rII are spot on: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=14540

So, what happened to Hasselblad and the P45+. Both are in happy retirement, i very seldom use them. But they will go for walk now and than. The Hassy just got a new viewfinder.

Best regards
Erik









I wish all manufacturers woiuld deal with the AA filter as a removable option. Just as easily you clean your sensor, it should be an overlay to remove (I know easier said than done, but maybe as easy as replacing the viewfinder screen or something.
In the 15+ of shooting digital, I have had rare and easy fix situations on moire, and I will take a no filter camera any day over a filter cam for my type of work, and play shooting. The ONLY time I might want the AA is if I do any clothing , or perhaps I have to buy a camera that incorporates video, and I make myself use it as a video camera. Of course this is something many shooters like, and that is why it should be a snap in option.

The sooner mfg's start doing this the sooner that discussion can rest.
Why is it that in 15+ I have had a rare occassion?  I mean if your looking to test for it, sure you will get it to come in, and even if it has happened, I would rather deal in post than lose that 3D sharp look. Blow up a print next to each other and people would rest about it.

I can't remember a time My P25 MF had issues due to non AA, nor the SLR/C Kodak.

Why force folks to another camera, or to a service that would void warranty?


As far as small pieces adding up...YES! I can see this, as you list, lens, crop?, I would not compare a zoom lens to any MF look...yes DR I see, Profiles, sure, the Phase color!   I guess many people wait for Nikon to get the 42mp sensor, I wish Canon did as well. But the mount of the SonyE makes adapting to older studio lenses easier as well., so its fun stuff :-)

Do you still use the A7rII Erik?  I was reading the negative reviews on Amazon, and I agree with just about all of them. The Auto focusing regardless of lens is pretty horrible. The lag and reaction time is also horrible. Menus are whatever. When you need to take the time to reframe refocus and such, the menu issues become less importnat(or more, when needing to dig in short times). The feel of the grip area in my hand feels flexible. Sometimes functions like wheels don't kick in right away after you turn the device On. etc.
Otherwise I do love it. As you said, its not for pro use, at least in a number of areas. But it sure is working as a MF replacement.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2016, 02:39:30 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Phil Indeblanc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2017
Re: medium format "look"
« Reply #39 on: November 07, 2016, 11:23:41 pm »

Quote
The Hassy just got a new viewfinder.
Lol, Erik :-)

Yes, with your surrounding, which I wish I had, I can see how MF and tripod, and a non reflex need to shoot would be absolutely a dream using the A7RII. And I really should be more happy with it, and I am inside, but when I hear people say its the best for all your needs...I had this hope in my for it being my travel, street fast shooting side kick as well. But, anyway.

Yes I think I am at least NOW(I likely was then,Exif/Sony Maker Notes gives me little info on the focus I had set besides F7.1, @1/100 to 1sec), in the small green squares phase detect AF. I will do another shoot perhaps in a couple days and test it out again. As before I did have single shot center point set.

As for Canon glass, I have the Meta IVt.....
24-70 2.8 L USM I, not in the list of supported, but does OK in day light conditions
70-200 2.8 L USM I, not in the list of supported, not so good
Sigma 50 1.4 EX does pretty darn good
Sigma Sport 150-600 5.6 is OK.
Logged
If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up