Valid MF criticism or not?

[Quentin]

To answer the original question, here's an exercise:

Go to the DSLR manufacturers' websites, download some of the product shots of their flagship cameras and check the EXIF data....

Many of these are shot with digital backs, which is kind of like saying "we produce a great camera but we don't think it's good enough to produce its own marketing material..."

I don't think the mentioned file is truly bad, but to download a (badly compressed) jpeg that comes up tilted 90º, can only add to my "first know them, then talk about them" belief.

Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136653\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yair,

Spot on  

My view is Canon has blown it with their latest releases in comparison to Nikon. MF is going the be the preferred choice for high resolution and studio capture.  Why take a product seriously as a studio tool if its not good enough to do the product shots for its own advertising?  

Quentin

[MarkKay]

Paul I am quite surprised by your comments. I did some comparisons with the hassy 100mm/2.2 and Canon 85/1.2 II and found the former to give more better detail, more accurate color (although this might reflect that we were comparing different backs), and while the bokeh was different, I did not find one better or more pleasing, just a bit different.

i agree. i was shooting with my canon and h1/p25 side by side on quite a few jobs, but when the pressure got up, or the light fades i tend to reach for the canon. the p25 was sharper by a nose out of the camera, but the canon files sharpen up nicely in shop.
the times when the p25 out did the canon by a conciderable margin is when you are shooting high contrast situations, like back lit stuff- there is quite a lot more information in the highlights that the 1dsmk2.
but canon seems to have been listening to its users, 14 bit files will be a world of improvement over the 12, but i doubt there will be the same level of difference between 14 and 16bit.
the highlight recovery (i hope) will improve things as well.

i also find the look of the canon lenses (the fast ones - ie 1.2 85, 50) a lot nicer than even the 100 2.2 on the hassy.

right now, im not sure what im going to invest in next in medium format. but a couple of days ago i quite happly bought three new canon lenses- with none of the apprehension of buying the h1 lenses.

paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[paul_jones]

Paul I am quite surprised by your comments. I did some comparisons with the hassy 100mm/2.2 and Canon 85/1.2 II and found the former to give more better detail, more accurate color (although this might reflect that we were comparing different backs), and while the bokeh was different, I did not find one better or more pleasing, just a bit different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136747\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i find the blur from the 1.2 is stronger, more beautiful and cinematic looking than the 100 2.2.
maybe the 100 just isnt long enougth to effect the pic in the same way as the 85.
the blur from the 100 looks like it done in photoshop, clearer and "linear looking", less mushy than the 85. when i use a contax/80 i get a similar look as the canon 85, as well as the mamiya 80/1.9.

its just my opinion, i own both and im a bit disapointed in the 100 because of this aspect only .

 paul

[Chris_Brown]

The gauntlet is thrown down to the MF back manuafacturers:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think Canon has thrown down any gauntlet, even if their marketing department wants to think they have.

Perhaps some on this forum compare camera differences at only the pixel-to-pixel level, and I don't think this is a valid argument. It's like comparing a 24x36mm rectangle of an 4x5 chrome to a 35mm slide. There's a lot more to the image capture than the size of the sensor.

Some obvious advantages of the DSLR format:

• Speed of the lens
• Speed of autofocus
• Range of lens' focal length
• Image proportions relative to a 2-page spread
• System portability
• Ease of hand-held use in wider variety of environments (surfing, mountain climbing, etc.)

Some obvious advantages of a digital back format:

• Better image proportions for vertical portraits when framing in-camera
• Can be adapted to a mini-view camera for optimum swings & tilts
• Greater bit-depth
• Higher pixel count improves quality of large display prints
• More headroom for higher pixel count in future versions

Perhaps others would like to add to these lists.

These things boil down to a difference in image production -- what the photographer uses and manipulates to acquire the image. They're the means to an end. However, once the image is printed on a SWOP press or posted in an 8-bit sRGB web gallery the differences at the pixel-to-pixel level are moot.

[MarkKay]

Yes i do understand your points.  I also should add that depending on the content of the  background and distance from the focus subject, there will be a lot of subjectiveness in how one interprets the appeal of the respective  bokeh. THere are definitely differences and I can see why one may be more appealing to some. Based on some previous comments by others, I had expected there to be more substantial differences.

i find the blur from the 1.2 is stronger, more beautiful and cinematic looking than the 100 2.2.
maybe the 100 just isnt long enougth to effect the pic in the same way as the 85.
the blur from the 100 looks like it done in photoshop, clearer and "linear looking", less mushy than the 85. when i use a contax/80 i get a similar look as the canon 85, as well as the mamiya 80/1.9.

its just my opinion, i own both and im a bit disapointed in the 100 because of this aspect only .

 paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136771\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Ray]

In theory, shouldnt the "large-photosite 39mp image" also be better in high ISO? This is a statement that is always used in the 5D vs APS-C format cameras. Hence the assumption that the larger sensor and photosites automatically deliver superior image quality seem to be somewhat flawed.

Of course we all know the reality to be that at higher ISO the digibacks look like crap
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe this poor performance of MFDBs at high ISO, despite their larger photosites, is due to the differences between the CCD design and the CMOS design. Is this not so?

The CCD has a greater fill factor, holds a greater charge, produces a greater dynamic range for which it needs a greater bit depth.

The CMOS photodiode is relatively small compared with its pixel pitch, in order to make room for on-chip processors and preamplifiers. However, because each photosite has its own preamplifier, much more can be done with the weak signals resulting from a high ISO.

[Graham Mitchell]

Its weak in some technical areas, but what do you expect at f1.8?

The camera is being held back by the lens to some extent, but that's part of the reason many of us chose to use MFDB over Canon et al. The lenses are more capable. If Canon can't give you shallow DOF and sharpness at the same time, well medium format lenses can. As always, this will be important to some and not to others.

[sundstei]

I believe this poor performance of MFDBs at high ISO, despite their larger photosites, is due to the differences between the CCD design and the CMOS design. Is this not so?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136809\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

But...only Canon has really been using CMOS as the main design. Cameras such as D200 still uses CCD type sensors.

[Ray]

But...only Canon has really been using CMOS as the main design. Cameras such as D200 still uses CCD type sensors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 

That must be why Nikon has never excelled on the noise front. The recently announced D300 appears to be in a different category though. On paper at least, noise at high ISO is outstanding. The D300 has a CMOS sensor, doesn't it?

Perhaps CMOS will be the future for MFDBs.

[Henry Goh]

That must be why Nikon has never excelled on the noise front. The recently announced D300 appears to be in a different category though. On paper at least, noise at high ISO is outstanding. The D300 has a CMOS sensor, doesn't it?

Perhaps CMOS will be the future for MFDBs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136827\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I thought CMOS was supposed to be noisier than CCD.  However, Canon has been very successful in its signal processing to reduce noise in the camera and Nikon has not.  CMOS is cheaper than CCD to manufacture though.

[Ray]

I thought CMOS was supposed to be noisier than CCD. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136828\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 

I think it used to be. Unfortunately there are still some out-of-date websites giving incorrect information.

[nicolaasdb]

I have to say Yiar...that what you saying might go for Leaf...but I know for a fact that Canon used a Nikon camera for one of their campaigns....year ago...how do I know...I was the model in the shot and the photographer shot (film back them..10 yrs ago) the whole campaign with a Nikon camera and a big nikon lens!!
They (canon) hired the photographer for his creative vision...and couldn't really care less how the shots were created!! And they used the images on a camera body box in an international campaign.

However nowadays this would not be possible since every camera manufacturer has their own signature (because we can't change chips, like we did film).

I recently was hired as one of the photographers for the new Nikon D2Xs worldwide campaign and YES I photographed everything with the new D2Xs.....the whole shoot was "supervised" by a Nikon tech..flown from Japan..to make sure we photographed everything with the new Nikon and within the limits of the histogram...so no creative white or black clipping.

Just saying that there is a lot possible to market you new system and I wouldn't bet my life on camera manufactures using the camera of the competition to create an image...because after all manipulation (like what Leaf does in their campaigns----> the image quality on the digital back doesn't even come close to reality!!! and you know it.....it is pure marketing!! lucky for you the phase image doesn't look much better...actually worse!..maybe you can ask your company to work on that!! wouldn't it be great to have a real jpg preview as clear as on the canon camera?? so you can actually judge your exposure and shadows on the model face....I would pay for this!)

[samuel_js]

I have to say Yiar...that what you saying might go for Leaf...but I know for a fact that Canon used a Nikon camera for one of their campaigns....year ago...how do I know...I was the model in the shot and the photographer shot (film back them..10 yrs ago) the whole campaign with a Nikon camera and a big nikon lens!!
They (canon) hired the photographer for his creative vision...and couldn't really care less how the shots were created!! And they used the images on a camera body box in an international campaign.

However nowadays this would not be possible since every camera manufacturer has their own signature (because we can't change chips, like we did film).

I recently was hired as one of the photographers for the new Nikon D2Xs worldwide campaign and YES I photographed everything with the new D2Xs.....the whole shoot was "supervised" by a Nikon tech..flown from Japan..to make sure we photographed everything with the new Nikon and within the limits of the histogram...so no creative white or black clipping.

Just saying that there is a lot possible to market you new system and I wouldn't bet my life on camera manufactures using the camera of the competition to create an image...because after all manipulation (like what Leaf does in their campaigns----> the image quality on the digital back doesn't even come close to reality!!! and you know it.....it is pure marketing!! lucky for you the phase image doesn't look much better...actually worse!..maybe you can ask your company to work on that!! wouldn't it be great to have a real jpg preview as clear as on the canon camera?? so you can actually judge your exposure and shadows on the model face....I would pay for this!)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This post is kind of interesting.. 10 years ago?

About the last part of your post:
There's people who can really see the difference between a DB,  a Canon, and a Nikon. There's also people who will never be able to see this differences. A lot of us choose a DB because we can really see the advantages and the performance in terms of quality. For me there's no contest.
And about the jpeg preview... do you know a DB has about 12 stops DR? How much does your DX has? I understand you need to look at the preview and that you'd pay for it. For me working with the DB is like working with B&W film. No problems with the exposure.
The only way Nikon and Canon comes near to medium format is in the megapixel count, and thats because it's the only way to fool customers. "Like someone said to me: don't buy the P21, soon you'll be able to buy a 1ds MK III much cheaper. It's 22Mpx!!". UUFF, that was a good one....

[Frank Doorhof]

The problem is sometimes you will be shouting against a wall.

I teach alot of workshops and when I changed to MF I had some students who could not understand it, untill I showed them the pictures on the monitor in the studio, at the moment four of my students are looking into switching themself while before they were certain to get the 1DsIII.

The problem is that the 3D look of the pictures of MF and the dynamic range are often discarted as in your mind and we don't need them.
For me it was VERY CLEAR from the first shot I did with MF that there was a HUGE difference between that and a DSLR.

I think Drew Gardner said it all in his interview about the 1DsIII which he demonstrated.

If I recall correctly the interviewer asked him if this would mean he would use the 1DsIII now instead of MF.
His answer echoed EXACTLY my thoughts, for most work I will use the 1DsIII but MF is a totally different medium and will of course still be used when the job requires it.

(I hope I quoted it right).

For me the same thing goed.
I will still use my 5D for sports, ZOO visits etc.
But the MF system is with me on street photography, Studio work and even my private shots are done with it.
When you get used look of MF it's hard to swallow the lower dynamic range and flatter pictures of the DSLR.

[nicolaasdb]

let me be very clear: If your image SUCKS! no camera in the world will make it look any better.

I am shooting with a 65 and like it very much.....but when I have a model that needs a lot of exposures to get the job done...I use my ds1mkII....say what you will, but if you mis asbout 20 shots in a minute that could have been THE shot...are you going to tell the client: Look this has more dynamic range and a better 3D look....RIGHT!! Most clients do not see the difference!

I just worked on 2 images same shoot one with the leaf and one with the ds1....yes there is a difference, but is the difference big enough? In most situations it is not...especially in fashion/glamour/body photography...in product and beauty photography I completely agree, there you need all the detail, etc you can get!

I know there is a 12 stops DR...and I know I am being fooled...but a little sharper screen with a bit better image preview isn't to much to ask...I like to see if the shadows on my models face are where I want them..without downloading them first or being a dog on a leash ( I mean shooting tethered)....but what do I know? Most shooters on this forum are the best of the best..I just make ends meet!

And YES samuel for your kind of work..I would use the biggest sensor MF I could get....landscapes don't need you to shoot an emotion..you have time to setup and wait for the best time of day/light etc. You need all detail you can get!

Frank...in Nederlands....vertel je verhaaltjes durende je workshops....maar voor jouw en mijn werk is een MF camera a luxe...maar een ds1 goed genoeg. In fashion moet je het moment fotograferen en all technische nonsense kan allen maar in de weg zitten....Ik ben blij met mijn leaf 65, maar de belangrijkste reden voor deze MFDB is om de klanten te laten zien dat ze al dat geld niet voor niets betalen. En Ik ken jouw situatie niet, maar ik weet dat een heleboel fotograferen diep in de schuld zitten on een MFDB te hebben....terwijl ze eigenlijk hun oog moeten trainen om betere foto's te maken en een $20K+ en MFDB met camera en lensen etc. een andere $10K/$20K al dit geld had ze better kunnen besteden aan goede makeup/hair artists, wardrobe stylist en locaties.

[Dustbak]

I can understand what Nicolaas says. Volume is exactly where I would take the DSLR as well instead of the Nikon DSLR. Sometimes you just cannot do without volume.

The great equalizer is print, an image from a MFDB looks a tremendous lot better on screen while after print the differences are often much less visible.

Still, when I get the chance I use my MFDB and leaf the Nikon at home. When I compare the difference on screen the Nikon images make me wanna cry.

My other experience is that though most clients don't see images have been taken with a MFDB but they do see they are really beautiful.

On the other hand I have clients that do not recognize a good shot from a bad one either!

I agree with the fact the preview is horrible! On my CF I cannot tell whether the images are good or not. If you put the sync speed on the back or the settings incorrect all images are magenta. No problem if you can see this on the screen, however this is virtually impossible! 2 weeks ago I came home with a bunch of magenta images which took a long time of color correcting  The only thing that I find kind of reliable is tethered on the monitor which is not always doable. The only thing that screen is good for is evaluating the overal histogram and even that is not that good (I also have not found a way of getting the histogram for the separate color channels but that might be my own inexperience).

So, no I don't think that is too much to ask. A decent screen.

Especially shooters that are not the best of the best need good screens

[nicolaasdb]

dustbak....I have to admit that I like the output of a ds1 better than a nikon...when shooting film I hated canon and loved my nikon before I switched to mamiya (MF film) I bought a d100 first...my partner in crime (wife) forced me to start shooting digital about 5 years ago (and I hated every moment of it...actual still do...I mis my days in the darkroom etc...now everything needs to be ready yesterday etc).

When I went from the d100 to the ds1mkII I noticed a HUGE difference...but when I tested the MFDB I was actually a little dissapointed...yes there is a difference and yes I see it, but my clients don't, not even the bigger ones, most people in fashion (the jeans, swimsuit...all the more glamorous designers) actually like the more golden and a little more digitized look of the ds1mkII.

When I worked with the Nikon d2xs I noticed how real to life (lots of greens and reds) the images looked....and I don't like realisime...but this is all personal. All I am trying to say is that when I examined the Nikon images recently, compared to the canon and the leaf 65 75 and phase one 45 and 30...yes I did my research I sawa difference, but just not that much...and when shooting MF I have to give up speed in shooting and focussing and the detail of the LCD preview screen...that's all I am saying.

[Dustbak]

I know what you mean. No need to try be diplomatic

I went from D1x to D200 (skipped the D2x). I must say sometimes I feel hurt because of the Canon 5D. Compare the D2 series with the 5D and I cannot say anything but Canon has a clear advantage over Nikon currently. Especially in people shots.

I came very close to switching but maybe the D3 series will close the gap somewhat. It is just that,  25 years of using one brand (since age 13) you get attached to it, even when considering equipment as mere tools. Some tools feel more comfortable than others and the rest might very well be perception, etc...

[nicolaasdb]

I know exactly what you mean.....i was hard for me to switch from Nikon as well....I never liked the canon...and can't give you an exact reason why.....BUT once I switched (because I had to!! you can't run a business on personal feelings) the difference was so HUGE.....it was like night and day.
But we are talking about a d100 for $1800 (back then-5yrs) and $8000 (ds1mkII). I have read good things about the D3. but for me it is too late I am not a canon junky...and yes a MF liker!! It is nice to have such a big piece of equipment with such large files....and when I have an easy job (like there are any!!) the MF is the way to go..it is like shooting film.
In the end it all depends on what you shoot! If I were a lanscape photographer I would shoot MFDB....if I were a landscape fotographer with less money I would use Nikon (because their real life colors)
If I were a product photographer I would us Phase one...amazingly sharp.
BUT I am not I shoot mostly scandely clad (half naked) women and they don't need to look real to life or extra crispy (sharp) they need to have a golden glow, no one want to see each wrinkle and poor. So the dsI and the Leaf 65 work well for me....but I can't wait for the 65s and hopefully ( in my life...but I don't think so) a better focusing system for MF and a better screen on my DB. Maybe for x-mas?? Please Santa!!

[Frank Doorhof]

Hear hear on the AF system.
I do find that it varies per lens but it's much worse than my DSLR.
On the other hand it is MUCH more precise, with the 645AFDII on spotfocus I can focus on the top of the eyeball with portraits, with the 5D this was never 100% accurate.
It's one of the tradeoffs