MF DSLR P&S why........

[Frank Doorhof]

Maybe nice to have it in one thread for future reference ?
Although it's just my opinion.

Mainly this is posted because of the numerous threads on DSLR vs MF and recently a review on LL on a G10 beating a MF system

For me it's always a questionmark why people would even bother with the comparisions ?
It's absolutly no use in my opinion, but maybe the forum thinks otherwise ?

Let me explain my vision.

A few years ago my opinion was that Full Frame DSLRs were my future and I was looking at the 1DsII (later 1DsIII).
While demoing on an exhibition someone gave me a Hasselblad H2D and later a H3D and I shot several hours with both.
Back home I found that the quality of the files was absolutly stunning compared to my 5D.
Not only in resolution, I love resolution but not as number 1.
Mainly the difference were the subtle transistions between skintones, the incredible detail in the hairs and a wonderful ultra real look, my 5D files looked digital at once.

I however discarded the whole system simply because of price.
In the weeks after the exhibition I had some problems with my tethered solution, not something that wasn't solvable but it was very frustating.

I got the change to test the Mamiya 645AFD/II with a ZD digital back and decided to just do it and see what happens.
That review went wrong when I decided to buy the back and in the end I opted for the Leaf Aptus 22 digital back.

Why would a photographer spend so much money for a system that is slower, heavier, limited in ISO range, and EXPENSIVE......

Very simple and this is why I really don't understand all those compare and MF killer threads.
I choose MF (and I think many with me) for the dynamic range of the files, the 16 bits rendering, TETHERED software solutions but most of all the bigger sensor.
And that last option is for me number one, that's why I still shoot with the Aptus 22 and did not upgrade to the Aptus 65.
That bigger sensor of me is the most important factor for the switch.

Why ?
Not better pixels although that also helps but simply because the bigger sensor gives me more control over DOF the way I want it.

Also ISO25 and a sync time for flash of 1/400 is very nice to have (RZ67ProII).

But even when a Canon/Sony/Nikon can do that, they still have a smaller sensor......

So why all the MF killer threads ?
For me it's simple, horses for courses.
MF is a different system than a DSLR, as a crop camera is a different system from a FF camera.

Sorry for the rant

[bcooter]

So why all the MF killer threads ?
For me it's simple, horses for courses.
MF is a different system than a DSLR, as a crop camera is a different system from a FF camera.

Sorry for the rant

Frank,

by everyone's admission your a nice guy and I guess what you use works for you.   good.

I also don't know what you shoot for commerce, other than the images you post and I have to assume that every photographer's photographs are important to their career so for you you see the value.

all of this doesn't take away from the fact that medium format is on a very strange road right now.

the new products introduced are expensive, like crazy expensive and on the other hand all the other products and most of hasselblad's line are cutting prices like wall street.  the leica s2.  other than the red dot bling factor I don't get it.   a price range of 10,000 to 20,000 euro (whatever that will be on the day it's delivered), probably slow/low iso and lenses that costs more than a used car don't make for something that looks like a world beater.  other than to own a red dot, why would anyone dump their current cameras, buy a 10,000 euro ccd body that produces pretty much the same image quality of a p30?

regardless .   16 bits vs. 14 bits or 25% more resolution, medium format has dug themselves a very big hole.   they got into the studio, tethered, complicated, need a course to understand mindset and to compete with each other make annoucements that never meet a real deadline.

what your talking about in final look is just a small percentage over the dslrs and what your talking about in time and effort invested, the slowness of the systems is lights years in difference.

all of this doesn't really matter because medium format is not going to change things quickly, (if ever)  the dslr makers do and will.  it's been obvious from the start of the first 1ds and now that Nikon and Sony has raised their game we all know that the dslr photography world is going to change.

it's like new software.  obviously phase's 4.5 is ahead of canon's eos utility and dpp, but it doesn't render a preview any better, if as well, it's not faster, it's not today really cross platform for tethering and it requires installation codes and dealer instruction to learn.  you can pretty much say the same for lc11, because if it was cross platform and worked on a pc, you would never have bought a mac.

once again, I don't know what you shoot, or how much you shoot but I and a lot of other photographers are on digital overload.

we have to shoot, process and deliver on time and on the money, usually from the road and we don't have weeks or sometimes even days to effect the color and look of an image and most of us won't stick a camera companies logo on our photos.  that's not our intended market.

we have large crews and large shoot overhead and clients are demanding more, not less.  a few years ago a 4 day shoot became 3 days, then 2 days and now it's 2 very long days for the same setups, even more.

but it's not just the money factor of the camera, back and lenses.  if I believed any medium format back or camera would work as easy as a 1ds3 and deliver better quality I'd spend the money and be done with it, though I don't believe it's going to happen and I don't think you see it either, because if you did you'd have written a check for the new afi with the flip up screen and hy6 body and lenses.

it's not that the dslr's are perfect, they're not.  I think the canons have a too aggressive aa filter and under certain lighting just go strange, but then again medium format color under soft subdued lighting or very hard direct light can cast and go crazy also, so medium format does not have the perfect film look system down yet.

regardless, do the horses for courses thing and maybe your right, but as everyone says it all changes when the rubber meets the road and you have a half dozen people standing behind you waiting for the shot.

pr people, managers, art directors and clients  and if you want to see a buzz kill, watch the software crash, or watch what happens when a camera jams, or you get green previews, half frames or strange color shifts.

work out the numbers for a large shoot of 20 models and a truck of lighting and gaff and see what the savings is if you can move the iso to 800 instead of 200.  

medium format works but we gloss over it's issues way too often and you know as well as I if sony, nikon or canon had some of the issues all of the medium format camera companies have produced  there would have been screams that would have deafened the online world.

[Dustbak]

In part I understand what Frank is saying. I have the same. I work with MF. The quality of the files is excellent, better than what DSLR can provide at least at this moment and I expect that edge to remain. The main thing that I use MF is that I like using it.

Many of the misery I read about I have seen, even experienced myself. However most of it can be fed back directly to mistakes I made myself (be it from stupidity or from being lazy). Also I have not had those things on any shoot for any client. At least not in a way beyond repair. I might have been lucky for the last 5 years or so!

Even now when the quality of DSLR's is coming closer to MF I still work with MF. Let's not forget these things are tools and everybody has his own wishes for his tools. Getting the shot is more important than the tool that was used in the end. For some that could be a DSLR and some a MF, I even know people that still work 8x10 mostly. What I do not like is what I call the 'one tool fits all mentality' that sometimes seem to be forced upon us

I do carry a Nikon in the bag just in case, which you might consider to be a disclaimer for the things mentioned above

I totally agree with the statement that the DSLR manufacturers will be shred to pieces if they would have the same glitches some of the MFDB's sometimes can have.

[Frank Doorhof]

Hi,
Most of the work I do (maybe everything) can be done on a DSLR, 16MP would be more than enough.
When shooting RAW and having a good workflow I cannot imagine anyone in fashion or glamour needing more than 16 MP (read NEEDING).

However maybe I'm a strange person but I like to push the envelope on quality, even if my clients don't ask for it I want to deliver the absolute best.

I have choosen a maybe strange road as a photographer but I choose to specialise in teaching lightcourses in photography and releasing instructional DVDs etc.
In the workshops I shoot with both DSLRs and MF system, depending on what or where I shoot.

In the rest of my work I shoot mainly whatever is asked from me from artists, models, designers to models for a day.
With the artists I often need the high MP's for big banners and posters but I also did them with the 5D, but sometimes an AD has the feeling he can crop 10% for a banner or billboard, so the clean files of the MF system and the MP's help there.

My point is, if comparing photography to audio.
For most people a good MP3 or CD is more than enough played through a Denon/Marantz receiver.
For some people however a Meridian set and DVD-Audio is the only way.

I will not say that one group is stupid or not passionate about their work but with the difference in the system being so huge how can one compare.
In my view one can never compare a system when the sensor size is different.
Of course one can COMPARE results and judge what they need for their needs, but in the end a G10 or DSLR can never be a MF killer simply because the sensor size, ISOrange etc.

I love my 5D (soon 5DMKII) to dead, and I will never sell it. I use it often and would absolutly be lost without it.
But I also love my G9, some pictures I could only take with the stealth (looking like a bloody tourist ) G9.
However I also know that when I have the time, the light etc. I will only shoot with the MF system.
They all coexist to each other but being totally different.

About your remarks on the having to study to shoot.
As mentioned before I teach workshops, when my students see the workflow of MF they all want to shoot tethered.
My wife owns a PC store and she sells to 90% of my students USB and firewire cables after the workshops (her store is only 100mtrs from the studio).
However I get ALOT of questions and remarks from students on the tethered workflow on the DSLR's, most of them find the workflow instable, not as quick as my MF setup and much more troublesome with lost connections or hitting buffers and loosing shots than what I experience.

Remember that most MF systems when shooting tethered DON'T hit a buffer, and all DSLR's do.
When shooting fashion/glamour shooting 20 frames and having to wait untill the buffer clears is a drag and can really slow down a session, especially when shooting under time pressure.

That are things were MF shines.

I'm not "fighting" for MF, don't get me wrong, sometimes I hate the system, but than I pick up my 5D.
Overall I'm in love with my work/photography and I use my TOOLS for all the jobs they are fitted for.....

Speaking on tools.
I never heard a plummer comparing a screwdriver to a hammer

[eronald]

True, the MF systems don't hit a buffer but their rame rates are a joke.


Edmund

Remember that most MF systems when shooting tethered DON'T hit a buffer, and all DSLR's do.
When shooting fashion/glamour shooting 20 frames and having to wait untill the buffer clears is a drag and can really slow down a session, especially when shooting under time pressure.

I never heard a plummer comparing a screwdriver to a hammer

[Frank Doorhof]

do you need 3 fps for a fashion shoot ??
Yes for sports, yes for catwalk but both are areas where you normally won't use a MF system.

For my normal studio shooting I'm having more than enough headroom with app 1 fps, and the AFi's for example are already faster.

When you need more I wonder what kind of model you are shooting (or what she is using )

What I often do need is more than 20 frames in a buffer (with my 5D I got about 12-15 when shooting tethered).
When I have a flow going with a model it's often, shoot, change pose, shoot, change pose, shoot, change pose.
Most of the models I work with can't change their pose as fast as I can shoot, so 1 second per shot is a wonderful pace I think.

That's what I meant with comparing the systems on paper.
Work with it and than make an opinion, you can't say that 1 fps is slow, talk to a landscape photographer he/she needs maybe 1 each half hour.
Talk to a sport shooter and he will claim he/she needs 9.5 fps.

Tools for the job.
Or as I said a hammer is something else than a screwdriver, although if you hit the screw hard enough it will go in of course

[RSPhoto]

do you need 3 fps for a fashion shoot ??
Yes for sports, yes for catwalk but both are areas where you normally won't use a MF system.

For my normal studio shooting I'm having more than enough headroom with app 1 fps, and the AFi's for example are already faster.

When you need more I wonder what kind of model you are shooting (or what she is using )

What I often do need is more than 20 frames in a buffer (with my 5D I got about 12-15 when shooting tethered).
When I have a flow going with a model it's often, shoot, change pose, shoot, change pose, shoot, change pose.
Most of the models I work with can't change their pose as fast as I can shoot, so 1 second per shot is a wonderful pace I think.

That's what I meant with comparing the systems on paper.
Work with it and than make an opinion, you can't say that 1 fps is slow, talk to a landscape photographer he/she needs maybe 1 each half hour.
Talk to a sport shooter and he will claim he/she needs 9.5 fps.

Tools for the job.
Or as I said a hammer is something else than a screwdriver, although if you hit the screw hard enough it will go in of course

Frank

You are contradicting yourself; if you shoot your Canon at 1fps it won't hit the buffer so MF and Dslr are equal here.

Anyway, I don't think anyone has a doubt that any MF back is not superior to any Dsrl on the market and all the people that post here and complain
do so because they are working photographers that are frustrated by the limitations of MF.
There is a big difference of doing a workshop and playing around in a nice studio with models and students and a shoot with an AD, big budget and a deadline.
In the end, most of us are more preoccupied of being better photographers, rather than having better tools.

RS

[Frank Doorhof]

Frank

You are contradicting yourself; if you shoot your Canon at 1fps it won't hit the buffer so MF and Dslr are equal here.

Anyway, I don't think anyone has a doubt that any MF back is not superior to any Dsrl on the market and all the people that post here and complain
do so because they are working photographers that are frustrated by the limitations of MF.
There is a big difference of doing a workshop and playing around in a nice studio with models and students and a shoot with an AD, big budget and a deadline.
In the end, most of us are more preoccupied of being better photographers, rather than having better tools.

RS

Hummm I don't play arround don't get me wrong.
When 5-300 people are watching you shoot I feel more pressure to get everything working than when I'm working an an assignment.

I do both I don't only teach. When working with "talent" I often have 5-10 minutes to make at least 3-5 shots suitable cor publication. I love both area's and both carry the same stress factor.

So please don't think I only play a

[bcooter]

Hummm I don't play arround don't get me wrong.
When 5-300 people are watching you shoot I feel more pressure to get everything working than when I'm working an an assignment.

I do both I don't only teach. When working with "talent" I often have 5-10 minutes to make at least 3-5 shots suitable cor publication. I love both area's and both carry the same stress factor.

So please don't think I only play a

No offense meant Frank and I know what you do is important to you and your business and art life, but 30 or 300 people in the room?  They are paying you to see a few soft box light tricks and a pretty girl.

a lot of us have a crew of 10 to 20 people  we drag around the planet and then top that off adding a crew of 10 more in each city,  with a half dozen clients sweating bullets.   Are your shelling out hotel rooms for those 30 students and waiting to get paid n 90 to 120 days, renting a dozen locations in a week, facing catering, lighting, travel, and wardrobe/prop/accessory and talent bills that look like the national debt?

trust me, the level of pressure is quite different and until you've untethered that aptus and tried to show the lcd image to a group of people that don't want just a nice picture but demand it's dead on the money before they spend millions in media you'll start thinking hard about how wonderful that 5d really is.

I hear this best image quality line all the time on these forums and if you believe it then that's great, it works for you, but honestly thumb through any magazine or ad you aspire to work with and tell me honestly if you really know if it was shot with a 22, 31, 39 mpx camera, or for that matter film.

I'm not saying your works not important to you, but the scenarios I am describing have little to do with "horses for courses".  They have to do with get it done or get gone from the business, probably forever.

there is a reason Annie shoots Coppola and the Queen with a Canon and it ain't because she's into less image quality.

she has no option other than to get it right and get on the road to the next pressured gig.

understand I'm not knocking what your doing, actually if it works for you it's great, but don't lay out the line that only the best image quality will do.  that's cutting medium format way too much slack for buggy software, semi compatible backs to cameras, low iso, roll your own color and promises that only seem to come close to true by the time the next new product is announced.

but since all of these conversations usually end up with money, I think you as well as anyone should know that nobody pays you for the camera you use or own, but if that camera keeps you from getting the shot, I can promise you they are not going to call again.

now with all of this said, would I like a 30mpx camera with high iso, an adjustable frame size, great lcd,  easy stable tethering and processing and a delivery date they actually meet,  all for a price that allowed me to own two for backups?  Yes but I believe when this happens it will proably be Nikon, Canon or Sony that delivers.

I know the db makers are working hard, but 60 mpx isn't very high on my radar screen and until I see someone announce something that is ready to buy today, has been proven and bug free, I'll just keep what I have.

[Frank Doorhof]

it's a shame that there somehow is no respect sometimes.
The first two lines are I think unnecessary. Next week I'm in Denmark for workshops for a very large group two weeks later Ireland etc. In short I don't just play arround and try to do tricks.

I just opened this thread with good intentions when I would know it would end up in this I wouldn't.
We are all people and we are all passionate about our work you can't say someone has no stress because they don't do what you do. I travel a lot for the workshops and also have to arrange hotels cars studios models etc and I also need a system that doesn't fail me.

When a large group watches I also can't have a system hanging. Next week in danmark they expect 200-300 attendees just try to imaging what happens when my system locks up. At the moment I trust my tethered leaf more than my tethered canon.

Please don't make this a religious thread I openend the thread not to be put down but just to discuss it as pros.

[Morgan_Moore]

One thing that made me go MF was to digitally match the 50mb tranny scans that a magazine client was used to - the 6mp DSLRs of the time just didnt cut it - I used money to force a door open - use me and save on scanning costs (major error incedetally)

Before that I had made a lot of money doing PR phtography - one of my USPs was that I could stuff a picture down a phone line - magic - I used money to force another door open - but only when the price was right

I got into stuffing pictures down the phone with the $2000 coolscan and $4000 Black and white Apple Lapop

The folks with thier $120,000 hasselblad wire transmitters were horrified at the new kid on the block threatening them and thier grip and grins

Now anyone a can afford technology that can shoot a magazine file and move it around the globe in minutes

This is good because if I get any work it is on merit rather than a tecnology or money wall keeping my opposition locked out

Im just begining to play with video - something I couldnt have tried when cameras were $120k

That door has opened for me

Back to topic

it seems passe to question the quality and useability of the file produced by ANY current digicam (see the Sony Phone thread)

The only thing that MF brings to anything but the Gallery market is a different feature set..

Flash synch
View Cameras
Narrow DOF
Low ISO
Cleanable Sensors etc

All tools that are critical to producing the artistic vision of some

and of course

Crap AF
Low ISO
Crap Screens

S