Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: MF vs MKIII information  (Read 14754 times)

witz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 199
    • http://www.chriswitzke.com
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2008, 08:31:08 pm »

Quote
To Dwdallam-  I think you should use whatever equipment is going to fulfill your vision, or perhaps your client's vision, and for most pros that I know, this means several different types of cameras and several different formats.  Don't let the equipment dictate the aesthetics of your pictures.  Decide what you want to achieve and use the proper equipment.  Of course, this means that you'll need to become familiar with many different types of equipment, and the differences, in order to choose what will work best.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176949\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

ya... for me, I like to dirty up my images in post.... I mean its nice to start with a really clean and proper image but then have the option to mess with it till it really speaks your vision.

I think a lot of art directors get their taste from comm arts, cmyk, and print magazines... then they kind of regergitate those looks and styles into their layouts.... dirty mangled scratched shalow dof is still the in look. at the same time they want us to have the best gear avail.

I knew my comments above would scratch a few blackboards.... just trying to keep the conversation lively.

I think what it comes down to is buy the best you can afford. and then push it to its limits!
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2008, 09:55:43 pm »

Quote
No offense, but looking at your website I don't see why you would possibly need a DB. I say use what you got and develop your photography skills instead.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176871\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why not do both?
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2008, 10:11:27 pm »

Quote
Hurray!  Ding ding ding.

Only reason I got the mfdb was for #1.  I was using 35d for architecture, a scanback for repro, and 6x12 for FA, but just put it all together for a one camera solution.  Now I have an overly nice camera for my piddly little market in architecture and fine art work, which is fine too   Let's not even go into the time saving for shooting a piece of art with a scanback.  NEVER NEVER again.

Obviously if you are shooting fashion/lifestyle in a big city and booking high profile jobs I'd add MFDB there too.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176883\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's good information for sure, but I know first hand at least one fashion/commercial photographer in Manhattan using 5Ds in his studio and having no problems with quality as far as his clients go, which include the Dave Mathew's Band and the prince of India, who he shot for in the past. It surprised me, but one of his assistants (female friend) visited me here in CA last year, and showed me images she, and he, took of a shoot for a Broadway musical (I can't pronounce or spell it, but something like Cirque Dela sa?) . They used 5Ds.

I have no problem with the 5D shooting people portraits really. I don't see the need for much more, but maybe the MKII for the ability to increase crop and keep ppi up enough for larger prints, say 12 x 18 or so.

My question was only to obtain information on the quality, portability, and price point of MF kits.
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2008, 10:22:35 pm »

Quote
To the OP.  Looking at your work I see nothing that MFDB will make any better, and can think of many things MFDB will make much more difficult.  The 1DSIII is a really sweet camera.   If you still feel like you need MFDB check out the mamiya bundle.  Amazing price point if you shoot at iso 100.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That's good to know because I really could care less about learning new systems--as one person put it, keep practicing photography--and I don't care what i use, as long as it's good enough for my work and clients.  I agree with that philosophy 100%, but wanted to make sure I wasn't spending money in the wrong place. However, my "website" is 700 pixels either direction, which is REALLY small, and they are pretty much straight out of the RAW converter onto the web page, resized using an upload applet, and set to sRGB without me even looking at the results. I just can't get too interested in my "web presence" right now because I'm busy doing other things.  When I print, I print as large as 20 x 30. If the MKIII is going to give me enough quality to print at that resolution compared to a MF, then of course I'd go hands down with the MKIII.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2008, 10:38:31 pm by dwdallam »
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2008, 10:24:18 pm »

Quote
You missed out a few important things, imo.

MFDBs have better IQ at low ISO
MFDB will work on view cameras. Essential if you want to use lots of tilt/shift.
MFDB cameras offer much higher flash sync speeds (1/1000 on Hy6/6008 compared to 1/250)
MFDB cameras have larger viewfinders which help a lot with manual focus. Sometimes MF is necessary, and some people just prefer it.
MFDB sensors are easier to clean.

DSLRs have more wide angle lenses, and extreme telephoto too
DSLRs have rapid frame rate capability
DSLRs have lazy options such as shooting in JPEG format
DSLRs are better at high ISOs
DSLRs are cheaper and lighter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Very nice run down. you get a A+ for coherence and being concise. Clear, crisp, and capable!  lol

I appreciate your time.
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #25 on: February 23, 2008, 10:30:57 pm »

Quote
hard to swallow huh?

I think it really depends who your clients are.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176937\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'll probably never be at the level you all are, but I think this is an accurate assessment of the situation overall.

 I shot a client for advertising "head shots." The agency said they didn't want anything fashion, fine art, or other oriented, but clean, head and 3/4 shots with only matte on the face to cut down on reflections so they could really see what the model looked like, from body to skin texture. They were more than pleased with the results from my 5D because that's all they needed. They didn't inquire into the equipment I was using. The client found my website and called me--go figure since the website isn't yet even an honest attempt to market myself, with mostly old stuff.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2008, 10:40:25 pm by dwdallam »
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #26 on: February 23, 2008, 10:33:22 pm »

Quote
To Dwdallam-  I think you should use whatever equipment is going to fulfill your vision, or perhaps your client's vision, and for most pros that I know, this means several different types of cameras and several different formats.  Don't let the equipment dictate the aesthetics of your pictures.  Decide what you want to achieve and use the proper equipment.  Of course, this means that you'll need to become familiar with many different types of equipment, and the differences, in order to choose what will work best.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176949\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

James, of course.

I just didn't know the intricacies of MF and wanted to understand IF I needed one at this point.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #27 on: February 23, 2008, 10:48:17 pm »

Quote
higher flash sync is only useful in certain strobe/avail light situations... one could always use ND or even put leaf shutter lens' on 35d cams
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176919\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not so sure about that. My 5D has a maximum flash sync of 1/200th. That's not enough to freeze movement in acrobatic dance sequences, for example.
Logged

klane

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 931
  • I live in a c-stand fort.
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #28 on: February 24, 2008, 03:38:19 am »

Quote
Not so sure about that. My 5D has a maximum flash sync of 1/200th. That's not enough to freeze movement in acrobatic dance sequences, for example.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Freezing motion with with strobes is based on flash duration and not shutter speed.

The adavantage of high sync speeds is to be able to control ambient light mixed with strobes.
Logged

Henry Goh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #29 on: February 24, 2008, 04:23:15 am »

Quote
Freezing motion with with strobes is based on flash duration and not shutter speed.

The advantage of high sync speeds is to be able to control ambient light mixed with strobes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=177029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are right klane. Seems many are confused these days.
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #30 on: February 24, 2008, 04:44:35 am »

Quote
You are right klane. Seems many are confused these days.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=177032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm gonna take a logical stab at this, but I I may be missing the point:

This is technically correct, but only when the flash is the ONLY light available. If there is ambient light, and your shutter stays open long enough to record it AFTER the strobe fires, then you get a blurring effect when the subject is moving, such as when shooting acrobats in an uncontrolled environment, or even when you don't want the acrobat to land on his or her head due to pitch black studio controls. You could, I suppose, raise the strobe to a very high output and use a very high fStop to black out ambient light. But what if you don't want a really high fStop and you have ambient light?
Logged

Henry Goh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #31 on: February 24, 2008, 06:41:26 am »

Quote
I'm gonna take a logical stab at this, but I I may be missing the point:

This is technically correct, but only when the flash is the ONLY light available. If there is ambient light, and your shutter stays open long enough to record it AFTER the strobe fires, then you get a blurring effect when the subject is moving, such as when shooting acrobats in an uncontrolled environment, or even when you don't want the acrobat to land on his or her head due to pitch black studio controls. You could, I suppose, raise the strobe to a very high output and use a very high fStop to black out ambient light. But what if you don't want a really high fStop and you have ambient light?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=177033\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Higher output may end up giving you longer duration.  You need to check specs of the strobes you want to use.  One way is to use several similar strobes and share the lighting load.
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #32 on: February 24, 2008, 07:08:07 am »

Quote
higher flash sync is only useful in certain strobe/avail light situations... one could always use ND or even put leaf shutter lens' on 35d cams

That's not the same.

Quote
higher IQ is marginal other than resolution.

Which MFDB system do you use? I found the colour and especially shadows of the MFDB much better than Canon. The dynamic range is better and the files look much better after being pushed in P'shop.

Quote
shift/tilt can be done with lens'

I guess you missed my point. Get a view cam and you have lots of movement across all focal lengths. No 35mm system can even begin to compare.
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #33 on: February 24, 2008, 07:14:59 am »

Quote
I'm gonna take a logical stab at this, but I I may be missing the point:

This is technically correct, but only when the flash is the ONLY light available. If there is ambient light, and your shutter stays open long enough to record it AFTER the strobe fires, then you get a blurring effect when the subject is moving, such as when shooting acrobats in an uncontrolled environment, or even when you don't want the acrobat to land on his or her head due to pitch black studio controls. You could, I suppose, raise the strobe to a very high output and use a very high fStop to black out ambient light. But what if you don't want a really high fStop and you have ambient light?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=177033\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're on the right track. You could either run out of higher apertures, or not want that large a DOF, or run out of flash power. There is no substitute for leaf shutter lenses with flash sync at all shutter speeds.

Henry makes a good point too. Higher flash output generally means longer flash duration which is usually not desirable.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2008, 07:15:56 am by foto-z »
Logged

geesbert

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 642
    • http://www.randlkofer.com
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #34 on: February 24, 2008, 08:53:31 am »

Using a tilt shift lens on a 35mm body doesn't compare to a viewcamera, but is has the undeniable advantage of hand held portability and speed, try tht with a Sinar p. if you just need a bit of tilt or shift it is a fantastic tool, which allows images not possible with a techical camera
Logged
-------------------------
[url=http://ww

NicholasR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #35 on: February 24, 2008, 11:41:05 am »

Quote
It's good information for sure, but I know first hand at least one fashion/commercial photographer in Manhattan using 5Ds in his studio and having no problems with quality as far as his clients go, which include the Dave Mathew's Band and the prince of India, who he shot for in the past. It surprised me, but one of his assistants (female friend) visited me here in CA last year, and showed me images she, and he, took of a shoot for a Broadway musical (I can't pronounce or spell it, but something like Cirque Dela sa?) . They used 5Ds.

I have no problem with the 5D shooting people portraits really. I don't see the need for much more, but maybe the MKII for the ability to increase crop and keep ppi up enough for larger prints, say 12 x 18 or so.

My question was only to obtain information on the quality, portability, and price point of MF kits.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=176988\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So now I am lost.  Now the 5D is good enough for commercial work far exceeding yours (and mine for that matter).   All I mentioned is that for a large city fashion shooter a MFDB is a justifiable option, as is a 5D, as is a holga.  I certainly didn't say the 5D wasn't good enough.  

 If all you want to obtain is those 3 things then you just need to visit a dealer? Portability and price point are obvious, and quality can be determined by a demo.  Asking random people on the internet how to spend your money is a little questionable.  If you want 20x24's, shoot a day on the 1Ds3, and a day with a MFDB and print them.  Decision made in the only logical manner.

Oh, I watched the video.  Looked like a bunch of marketing crap to me.  Owning a Hasselblad I've had my fill of marketing crap thank you  
« Last Edit: February 24, 2008, 11:43:12 am by NicholasR »
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2008, 02:32:41 pm »

Quote
If you want 20x24's, shoot a day on the 1Ds3, and a day with a MFDB and print them.

...and push the files around a bit in Photoshop. Shoot natural skin. Pick a scene demanding high dynamic range. Try to capture a range of colours, etc.
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
MF vs MKIII information
« Reply #37 on: February 24, 2008, 10:46:27 pm »

Quote
So now I am lost.  Now the 5D is good enough for commercial work far exceeding yours (and mine for that matter).   All I mentioned is that for a large city fashion shooter a MFDB is a justifiable option, as is a 5D, as is a holga.  I certainly didn't say the 5D wasn't good enough. 

 If all you want to obtain is those 3 things then you just need to visit a dealer? Portability and price point are obvious, and quality can be determined by a demo.  Asking random people on the internet how to spend your money is a little questionable.  If you want 20x24's, shoot a day on the 1Ds3, and a day with a MFDB and print them.  Decision made in the only logical manner.

Oh, I watched the video.  Looked like a bunch of marketing crap to me.  Owning a Hasselblad I've had my fill of marketing crap thank you 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=177076\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yeah the marketing was really obvious, but I had nothing to compare it to. My point about the 5D was that printing smaller files, such that get no bigger than 12 x 12 in either direction, and doing commercial work as I explained and the same size, the 5D seems to work for a great amount of clients. He bought them because he needed 5-10 cameras, and the MKIIIs would have been a LOT more. However, and I might be wrong about this, I think the Broadway dance/musical did print posters in the 20x30 range. I could be mistaken though.

I think after reading all of your comments, I'll stick with the MKIII. At this point, it will do everything I need it to do and be easily portable--relatively speaking.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up