Question for James

[mcfoto]

Hi James
Great to see you back on this form! I just have a question as you have shot with Leaf & now are shooting with Phase. How do you find the difference between the two backs or systems? We  use the Aptus 22 ( rent ) for the bigger jobs & are using the 1DsMkIII for editorial. Really enjoyed your post on the Hy6 thread.
Denis

[James R Russell]

Hi James
Great to see you back on this form! I just have a question as you have shot with Leaf & now are shooting with Phase. How do you find the difference between the two backs or systems? We  use the Aptus 22 ( rent ) for the bigger jobs & are using the 1DsMkIII for editorial. Really enjoyed your post on the Hy6 thread.
Denis
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Denis,

It's difficult to answer this without starting brand wars, or to come across completely objective.

Early on I had excellent use from the Valeo as long as I shot to V-8 tethered and had a lot of wattage.

The Aptus was also good tethered to V8 and I learned V8 top to bottom.  Actually V8 was very good software and would run on almost any computer, though it was an older interface and lacked some controls but I learned to make it work and was even a fan of the software as it ran so reliably.

It was LC10 that really was the issue and some versions of it changed the firmware in the camera making V8 less realiable so at that point I had so much pressued work to do I moved on.

 But I have to qualify this and be clear that I was early on with an A-22 it went from good to difficult to good to finally difficult for my workflow, but that was more software related than anything else and it had a lot to do with my specific workflow.

Now once again to be fair, I've been told that LC11 is a much better and more stable software, espeically in tethered mode, and the people I know that continue with Leaf report very good things about LC11, though I know nothing about using it in post processing.

I will admit I loved the aptus processed in photoshop CS as it added some grain and I also liked the fact the lcd could be turned to black and white.

I didn't like the battery use with the Contax or the fact that when tethered the lcd on the camera is blanked out and with the P21 I get an extra useable stop and with the p30 2 extra stops, but also keep in mind that is compared to the older A-22, I would imagine the A-65 and A-75 have more useable higher iso and are probably comparable.

There is a lot of talk about the film look of all these cameras and backs and honestly I think that is all down to specific processing, post produciton and sometimes specific lighting.

I still process some older Aptus files and as long as everything is equal even the 22mpx Aptus is very close in detail to the 31mpx P30 and P30+, but once again as long as there is a lot of light.

It really depends on what you shoot, the volume, the post production workflow and the conditions you work in, but I think like any camera digital or film once you learn it you can make it look anyway you want.

In fact I think once an image goes through post processing and retouching I think even the manufacturer's would be hard pressed to tell what an image was shot with.

[a href=\"http://www.russellrutherford.com/p30_ny.jpg]http://www.russellrutherford.com/p30_ny.jpg[/url]

Still, I think all the major brands are good, but in my case it comes down mostly to workflow and stability first.  I've had great luck with the Phase, others may have a different experience.

I think the only way to really know is to shoot them for exactly the way you work and then decide, but I'm  sure eveyrone knows this by now.

JR

[mcfoto]

Hi James

Thanks.

[EricWHiss]

James,
Thanks for the reply and everything you wrote made sense.  Now that you've answered the first question,  I'm wondering how much you feel the lenses add to an image?  May I ask you to elaborate a bit about a comment you made about the RZ lenses being better for fashion in another thread?

Thanks,
Eric

[James R Russell]

James,
Thanks for the reply and everything you wrote made sense.  Now that you've answered the first question,  I'm wondering how much you feel the lenses add to an image?  May I ask you to elaborate a bit about a comment you made about the RZ lenses being better for fashion in another thread?

Thanks,
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185148\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have a farily large range of lenses I use on the Contax, from just about every Contax lens (except the zoom), two Pentax 6x7 lenses, the 110 f2 blad lens and that russian tilt shift.

Honestly, though I love the look of the pentax lenses for beauty as I think they have a softer curve and less bite than the Zeiss lenses, I rarely use anything anymore but the Contax lenses as it is just easier and faster to use a lens that will usually autofocus and doesn't require stopped down shooting.

Actually the only lens I would like to see for the Contax that isn't available is an F2 110, but since I would rarely use it for anything but F2, the blad lens works fine.

Still, the more you play around with this stuff and really learn a file deep and learn the attributes of different processors, from lightroom, Capture one V4 (which I like a lot), C1 3.78 and Raw Developer (which I also love for the final file), you realize you can easily change contrast and softness of the image with just a few slider corrections.

I should stress that you really have to learn these files well.

Just testing the other day with the P21+ I noticed that shot at 800 iso and even pusing the file +.65 worked very well in fact it was excellent in all ways as long as it is shot on large IQ.  just switching to small IQ gave it too much noise reduction or something and it turned painterly, so this is something that could go from a great look to a problem if you didn't know the back and file very, very well.

JR

[EricWHiss]

.
.
.
Still, the more you play around with this stuff and really learn a file deep and learn the attributes of different processors, from lightroom, Capture one V4 (which I like a lot), C1 3.78 and Raw Developer (which I also love for the final file), you realize you can easily change contrast and softness of the image with just a few slider corrections.

I should stress that you really have to learn these files well.

.
.
.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185149\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, that's what I was wondering - if you felt that one could replicate the look of a certain lens by just reducing contrast in the RAW conversion or making some tweaks here and there in post.

To me the lens rendering seems to make more difference than which back or sensor. My Schneider/Rollei lenses give me an image that just looks a lot like reality and makes my display feel like a window, but my leica R lenses always give me a look like it was a memory a moment frozen in time ( even the 80 lux does this but with a more dreamlike element to it).  I have a few older lenses like my zuiko 55mm f/1.2 that give me something entirely different.  

I'm going to have to play more with trying to recreate the different looks in post - it will save me a lot of money in gear!

[James R Russell]

Yes, that's what I was wondering - if you felt that one could replicate the look of a certain lens by just reducing contrast in the RAW conversion or making some tweaks here and there in post.

To me the lens rendering seems to make more difference than which back or sensor. My Schneider/Rollei lenses give me an image that just looks a lot like reality and makes my display feel like a window, but my leica R lenses always give me a look like it was a memory a moment frozen in time ( even the 80 lux does this but with a more dreamlike element to it).  I have a few older lenses like my zuiko 55mm f/1.2 that give me something entirely different. 

I'm going to have to play more with trying to recreate the different looks in post - it will save me a lot of money in gear!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185157\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Somethings you can and cannot replicate in post, though those lines are converging.

I'm not saying not to use different lenses or platforms because at the moment of capture they can and will make a difference in what you and your client sees, but for me, I move around so much stuff and I work so fast that it usualy doesn't make a lot of sense to try to work with a manual focus, stopped down lens for a 10% different look.

Then again I say that today and tomorrow I could change my mind.

JR