Getting into MF digital from DSLR

[Jonathan Lee]

First post here. I am considering moving back into Hasselblad MF, this time with a digital back. I am an amateur who does mainly urban and nature landscape. Right now, I use a Leica DMR. I also have a Leica M8 for travel.  Their IQ is superb, but I like the square format and the WL viewfinder experience of Hasselblad. I found a used P20 back for an affordable price and I can pretty much buy an entire 500CM system for what I just sold my M6TTL for.

My objective is to recreate an LF creative experience: previsualize, setup, meter etc without going back to LF film.  I am also thinking that a Phase One 20 is going to be a setup in IQ over the DMR, especially since I end up cropping a lot of my DMR shots square.  I also assume that at some point, a full frame 6x6 sensor will become available for V-series cameras at a reasonable price. Any thoughts on any of these ideas?

[Juanito]

I also assume that at some point, a full frame 6x6 sensor will become available for V-series cameras at a reasonable price. Any thoughts on any of these ideas?

I wouldn't hold your breath on that. Hasselblad and all the others seem pretty committed to their 645 systems. Unless you have money to burn, I'd stick with small format. The new Canon's have the pixels and the have the tilt-shift lenses. I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference in the final prints either. Not $20k worth anyhow.

I'm shoot with the H1 because I want the faster sync speed. I'm more of a fashion/lifestyle guy although I do shoot landscapes (even had my own gallery for awhile). With landscapes, I don't think you'd see much of an advantage. I do like the slower process of MF; I just don't know if it's worth it. You lose the longer exposure times and I hate how the highlights just blow out. There may be more DR in the shadows, but when an MFDB image blows out - it's gone. With small format, you can get those highlights back. MF is cool, but it ain't all that.

John

[bradleygibson]

Welcome, Jonathan.

My objective is to recreate an LF creative experience: previsualize, setup, meter etc without going back to LF film.  I am also thinking that a Phase One 20 is going to be a setup in IQ over the DMR, especially since I end up cropping a lot of my DMR shots square.  I also assume that at some point, a full frame 6x6 sensor will become available for V-series cameras at a reasonable price. Any thoughts on any of these ideas?

First question I'd ask is how much of a role will your gear play in this?  With previsualization, for example, it doesn't matter what camera format you use.

If you like the technical camera setup process, consider a technical camera with your digital back.  There are many here with lots of experience who can help.  Many will tell you that geared movements are essential with the small size of digital sensors.

Don't hold your breath on the affordable 6x6 sensor thing.  Even near 645 (56x42) are up in the 40K range.  The only 6x6 (56x56mm) sensors I've ever even heard about were reputed to be around $75K.  You're looking at many, many years--(unless those kind of numbers were what you meant by "affordable", of course!)

-Brad

[BernardLanguillier]

My objective is to recreate an LF creative experience: previsualize, setup, meter etc without going back to LF film.  I am also thinking that a Phase One 20 is going to be a setup in IQ over the DMR, especially since I end up cropping a lot of my DMR shots square.  I also assume that at some point, a full frame 6x6 sensor will become available for V-series cameras at a reasonable price. Any thoughts on any of these ideas?

My personnal view is that a good stitching head and one of the latest DSLR, starting with the D3x, is a cheaper and more powerful option than single frame MFDB set ups. Pro architecture shooters have some constraints that make a classical single frame approach from MFDB appealing, but as a amateur you cannot beat stitching IMHO.

Architecture is not really my thing, but the 2 following 100+ megapixel images were shot with a D3x.

Handheld with a Zeiss 100mm f2.0 lens (3 rows of 4 images):


Using a ReallyrightStuff spherical pano head and a 60 mm f2.8 lens (4 rows of 4 images):


Both stitches were computed using PTgui Pro 8.1.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Anders_HK]

You lose the longer exposure times and I hate how the highlights just blow out. There may be more DR in the shadows, but when an MFDB image blows out - it's gone. With small format, you can get those highlights back.

Above is incorrect (unless maybe for very old digital back which i do not know about). I gave up on DSLRs and was prior also shooting 35mm slides. With my Leaf Aptus 65 compared to DSLR I have gained:

1. Wider DR, both highlight and shadows. Thus can gain highlights back far better than a DSLR.

2. Significant more pleasing color rendering. At default with Camera RAW already good departure point.

3. Slower more planned shooting, not automation that encourage machine gun shooting.

I do shoot landscapes and people on travels. Film though never cease to amaze me. Not even MFDBs are there when it comes to color and rendering of an image... 30 seconds no problem at night exposure for newer MFDBs, for mine black becomes black. For longer check Phase One.

If DSLR and do not need the pixels, take a look at Sigma. The Foveon sensor is more medium format like than any DSLR, because high DR. I use Sigma DP1 in my pocket. For high ISO DSLR is better.

Regards
Anders

[ErikKaffehr]

Sorry, this is a stupid argument. If you wan't to slow down just put your camera on a tripod.

You can get excellent pictures with any decent camera. View cameras offer more degrees of freedom.How rapid or slow you work is your aptitude or attitude not that of your camera.

Erik

3. Slower more planned shooting, not automation that encourage machine gun shooting.

[Juanito]

1. Wider DR, both highlight and shadows. Thus can gain highlights back far better than a DSLR.

Maybe on paper... I'm not an expert on this other than what my eyes see. My Aptus 22 is a CCD chip which seems to have far more latitude in the shadows where the Canon is a CMOS which has more latitude in the highlights. I remember reading somewhere that this is the case with these respective chips. I definitely see it though in the images.

When I'm shooting a white shirt with the MF, I have to be super careful otherwise I'm going to lose detail. With the small format, I can let the highlights clip a little knowing that I can get them back. MF may have more dynamic range, but in practice it's not that big a deal. For landscapes, once you lock the camera down on a tripod, you've got all the DR in the world.

John

[BernardLanguillier]

Maybe on paper... I'm not an expert on this other than what my eyes see. My Aptus 22 is a CCD chip which seems to have far more latitude in the shadows where the Canon is a CMOS which has more latitude in the highlights. I remember reading somewhere that this is the case with these respective chips. I definitely see it though in the images.

When I'm shooting a white shirt with the MF, I have to be super careful otherwise I'm going to lose detail. With the small format, I can let the highlights clip a little knowing that I can get them back. MF may have more dynamic range, but in practice it's not that big a deal. For landscapes, once you lock the camera down on a tripod, you've got all the DR in the world.

John,

This is mostly a matter of exposure accuracy/histogram display/default curve isn't it?

For a given DR, it is always better to expose for the highlights, and cameras like the D3x or most of the MFDB who provide you accurate information about how close you are from highlight clipping help tapping into the DR potential.

Highlight recovery should only be referring to the ability to reconstruct blown channels from non blown ones and surrounding data.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Anders_HK]

Sorry, this is a stupid argument. If you wan't to slow down just put your camera on a tripod.

You can get excellent pictures with any decent camera. View cameras offer more degrees of freedom.How rapid or slow you work is your aptitude or attitude not that of your camera.

Erik

Erik

Yes, can get excellent photos with any camera, also a pocket camera using FILM from the 70s  

Slower camera helps you to plan an image, with better yield in results in return, and yes... coming with such "stupid argument" indeed I used tripod most of time also with DSLR   (except people photography and walk around shooting)... You are forgetting that people may have different preferences than yourself. What I pointed out above was what I myself have gained by stepping away from DSLRs.

Anders

[jing q]

Maybe on paper... I'm not an expert on this other than what my eyes see. My Aptus 22 is a CCD chip which seems to have far more latitude in the shadows where the Canon is a CMOS which has more latitude in the highlights. I remember reading somewhere that this is the case with these respective chips. I definitely see it though in the images.

When I'm shooting a white shirt with the MF, I have to be super careful otherwise I'm going to lose detail. With the small format, I can let the highlights clip a little knowing that I can get them back. MF may have more dynamic range, but in practice it's not that big a deal. For landscapes, once you lock the camera down on a tripod, you've got all the DR in the world.

John

I just shot a job with a 75S and a 5D MkII
art director was asking for whites on a piece of bread to be toned down and I was ratehr impressed that the Leaf really could pull more realistic colour details from the white than the 5D mkII

[Jonathan Lee]

Sorry, this is a stupid argument. If you wan't to slow down just put your camera on a tripod.

Snottiness aside, I disagree with you.  Slowing down is much more than simply putting a camera on a tripod. Compsosing an inverted and reversed image on an LF groundglass is a very very different experience the looking through a DSLR, even if both of them are on a tripod.  Ditto for rangefinder and a WL camera.  

[Anders_HK]

Since some photos were posted above, let me repost some from my India travel in February last year with my then new Aptus 65... and add, not much processing, just light Camera Raw CS3. Of the three below, the two with people were hand held. For the man on the boat I had about 5 seconds to capture it, including getting camera ready. That goes to say that a simple camera that allow you control the image photographically without all crummy auto features of modern DSLRs can at times be far superior   , at least... that is my preference . Also per what I recall was written of film SLR vs. Medium format, when stepping up to medium format one makes an instant improvement to ones photography, simply because of difference in seeing and operating the camera...

Or... for my comparison of ZD to Fuji Velvia 50 in Mamiya 7... check this old post http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....w=&st=&, but be sure to scroll to the end to see the drum scans of Fuji Velvia... As a poster stated there "While looking at these last 100% crops, I find that I'm really drawn to them and the ZD images that looked so great before look lifeless in comparison." I agree. I still think film is beautiful... thus ordering myself the Schneider 6x7 loupe for my 6x7s... one peek into it on a sample slide in a shop in Shanghai and I was sold on it. Awesome! Sure blow the ^&^%** away of D3X & 1Ds Mk3   .

My experience is that Leaf Aptus 65 beats the faulty ZD by very far. It is almost like shooting film again  , albeit I mean ISO wise...  The Aptus 22 has same sensor as ZD but is far superior to ZD, albeit not up to the lower noise and better handling of higher ISO of Aptus 65.

If anyone wants to see some of my older photos they are here http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=601809

Erik, do you have any updated from your Sony??

Cheers + Hejsvejs,

Anders

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Sorry for the snotiness, I just feel that the argument that DSLRs lead to 'machine gunning' is repeated like a mantra. What I mean is that it's the person behind the camera that matters.

Different technologies have additional benefits, with view cameras you can use Scheimpflug and shift. With zooms you can have exact framing even if you cannot change your vantage point. DSLR:s give you the option of machine gunning and rapid autofocus which can be useful.

The technology we use give us certain limitations, like DR and resolution, this applies both to film and digital. As long as we work within this limitations excellent results can be achieved with almost any camera.

Erik

Erik

Yes, can get excellent photos with any camera, also a pocket camera using FILM from the 70s  

Slower camera helps you to plan an image, with better yield in results in return, and yes... coming with such "stupid argument" indeed I used tripod most of time also with DSLR   (except people photography and walk around shooting)... You are forgetting that people may have different preferences than yourself. What I pointed out above was what I myself have gained by stepping away from DSLRs.

Anders

[ErikKaffehr]

Hejsan Svejsan,

I have some pictures here: http://www.pbase.com/ekr, mostly taken with a Sony Alpha 700. There are also sample pictures from my new Alpha 900 here: http://www.pbase.com/ekr/a900_samples , these have been shot the first few days I had the Alpha 900 and mostly intended for those who are interested in the performance of that camera.

I still have a Pentax 67, but I took just 20 pictures with it this year. Mostly it stays in the trunk of the car. The DSLRs are just much more flexible IMHO, I normally carry all my gear.

One of my pictures with that camera is here:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3084787

That picture is pretty sharp, as illustrated below:

http://photo.net/general-comments/image-at...ment_id=2787707
http://photo.net/general-comments/image-at...ment_id=2787722

One issue I would like to point out is that it is not really possible to evaluate sharpness in film with a standard loupe. You would need something like 30x enlargement for that! I used to have a peak 15x loupe for judging sharpness. Scanned images at 3200 PPI are good enough to judge sharpness.

In my film days I went trough quite a few slides using a Leitz microscope I had access to. I found about two images that were critically sharp. At that time I was using Minolta SLR:s.

Best regards
Erik

Since some photos were posted above, let me repost some from my India travel in February last year with my then new Aptus 65... and add, not much processing, just light Camera Raw CS3. Of the three below, the two with people were hand held. For the man on the boat I had about 5 seconds to capture it, including getting camera ready. That goes to say that a simple camera that allow you control the image photographically without all crummy auto features of modern DSLRs can at times be far superior   , at least... that is my preference . Also per what I recall was written of film SLR vs. Medium format, when stepping up to medium format one makes an instant improvement to ones photography, simply because of difference in seeing and operating the camera...

Or... for my comparison of ZD to Fuji Velvia 50 in Mamiya 7... check this old post http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....w=&st=&, but be sure to scroll to the end to see the drum scans of Fuji Velvia... As a poster stated there "While looking at these last 100% crops, I find that I'm really drawn to them and the ZD images that looked so great before look lifeless in comparison." I agree. I still think film is beautiful... thus ordering myself the Schneider 6x7 loupe for my 6x7s... one peek into it on a sample slide in a shop in Shanghai and I was sold on it. Awesome! Sure blow the ^&^%** away of D3X & 1Ds Mk3   .

My experience is that Leaf Aptus 65 beats the faulty ZD by very far. It is almost like shooting film again  , albeit I mean ISO wise...  The Aptus 22 has same sensor as ZD but is far superior to ZD, albeit not up to the lower noise and better handling of higher ISO of Aptus 65.

If anyone wants to see some of my older photos they are here http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=601809

Erik, do you have any updated from your Sony??

Cheers + Hejsvejs,

Anders

[Carsten W]

Sorry for the snotiness, I just feel that the argument that DSLRs lead to 'machine gunning' is repeated like a mantra. What I mean is that it's the person behind the camera that matters.

While true in the strictest, most clinically sterile sense, this completely disregards human psychology. To shoot slowly and in a considered and thoughtful manner with a camera that takes 9 fps requires about the same amount of restraint and forced internal zen as keeping a fast motorcycle below the speed limit. In other words, while it is possible, the vast majority of people will struggle with it every time.

IMO, looking for tools whose characteristics enforce the pace of shooting you want to do is very valid, and nothing to be poked fun at. We all have different ways of reaching our goals.

Similarly, preferring tools which don't have many options (e.g. Leica M8) over tools with a huge array of options (e.g. Canon 5D) allows many of us to focus on the photographic aspect of our hobby/work, rather than always fiddling with parameters.

[Jonathan Lee]

While true in the strictest, most clinically sterile sense, this completely disregards human psychology. To shoot slowly and in a considered and thoughtful manner with a camera that takes 9 fps requires about the same amount of restraint and forced internal zen as keeping a fast motorcycle below the speed limit. In other words, while it is possible, the vast majority of people will struggle with it every time.

In my case this is certainly true.  I have lucky/unlucky to use or to have used rangefinder, TLR, SLR and view in 35mm, 120, 4x5 and now digital.  My shooting habits are really different with different styles and formats.  When I used LF, I generally took a Grafmatic of TMAX and 3 holders of Velvia.  On a really full day I might take 6 shots in total.  With a DMR, I will likely fill at least one 2G card (~100 shots) during that same day. What I find myself doing a lot with the DMR is to previsualize a shot, point the camera, realize that the shot sucks but then take the shot anyway.  I know that this is wrong but I do it anyway.  On a view, I would simply walk away. I'm certainly not machine gunning but something is wrong here that I need to correct.

Thanks for all the images.  This is really helpful.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I see your point.

On the other hand even if we would have 9 FPS cameras we would mostly use them at single frame. The 5 FPS is nice to have for action, like birds landing on a lake. And I still maintain that putting the camera on a tripod slows you down.

Best regards
Erik

While true in the strictest, most clinically sterile sense, this completely disregards human psychology. To shoot slowly and in a considered and thoughtful manner with a camera that takes 9 fps requires about the same amount of restraint and forced internal zen as keeping a fast motorcycle below the speed limit. In other words, while it is possible, the vast majority of people will struggle with it every time.

IMO, looking for tools whose characteristics enforce the pace of shooting you want to do is very valid, and nothing to be poked fun at. We all have different ways of reaching our goals.

Similarly, preferring tools which don't have many options (e.g. Leica M8) over tools with a huge array of options (e.g. Canon 5D) allows many of us to focus on the photographic aspect of our hobby/work, rather than always fiddling with parameters.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I see your point.

On the other hand even if we would have 9 FPS cameras we would mostly use them at single frame. The 5 FPS is nice to have for action, like birds landing on a lake. And I still maintain that putting the camera on a tripod slows you down.


Best regards
Erik

While true in the strictest, most clinically sterile sense, this completely disregards human psychology. To shoot slowly and in a considered and thoughtful manner with a camera that takes 9 fps requires about the same amount of restraint and forced internal zen as keeping a fast motorcycle below the speed limit. In other words, while it is possible, the vast majority of people will struggle with it every time.

IMO, looking for tools whose characteristics enforce the pace of shooting you want to do is very valid, and nothing to be poked fun at. We all have different ways of reaching our goals.

Similarly, preferring tools which don't have many options (e.g. Leica M8) over tools with a huge array of options (e.g. Canon 5D) allows many of us to focus on the photographic aspect of our hobby/work, rather than always fiddling with parameters.

[BernardLanguillier]

On the other hand even if we would have 9 FPS cameras we would mostly use them at single frame. The 5 FPS is nice to have for action, like birds landing on a lake. And I still maintain that putting the camera on a tripod slows you down.

Erik,

I am with you. I believe that one of the driving force of most (male) human beings is laziness and using a tripod is such a pain that you end up being really careful about selecting those locations where the tripod needs to be used. In effect, it is very similar to shooting 4x5. If you shoot panos on top of that, the pain grows exponentially, and you end up shooting even less that 4x5.

This being said, it really is possible to shoot a D3 like a 4x5 camera even without a tripod, and that's mostly how I have been using mine. I don't remember the last time where I set the camera to Ch/Cl, so it really is a state of mind that can be worked on. Having experience shooting 4x5 is IMHO of great help here.

The great thing being that overall, the less I shoot, the more succesful images I bring back from my trips (and I am talking absolute numbers, not ratio). There are of course exceptions, and it is good to know when you need to shoot more vs when more restrain is an asset.

I sometimes play a little game with myself which is to focus on taking only 5 images per hour... jedi knowledge helps.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Bernard,

I'd suggest Nikon adds a custom function to show the live view image upside down on the D4x.

While they are at they can also add a Hasselblad Classic mode with live view horisontally flipped.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

I am with you. I believe that one of the driving force of most (male) human beings is laziness and using a tripod is such a pain that you end up being really careful about selecting those locations where the tripod needs to be used. In effect, it is very similar to shooting 4x5. If you shoot panos on top of that, the pain grows exponentially, and you end up shooting even less that 4x5.

This being said, it really is possible to shoot a D3 like a 4x5 camera even without a tripod, and that's mostly how I have been using mine. I don't remember the last time where I set the camera to Ch/Cl, so it really is a state of mind that can be worked on. Having experience shooting 4x5 is IMHO of great help here.

The great thing being that overall, the less I shoot, the more succesful images I bring back from my trips (and I am talking absolute numbers, not ratio). There are of course exceptions, and it is good to know when you need to shoot more vs when more restrain is an asset.

I sometimes play a little game with myself which is to focus on taking only 5 images per hour... jedi knowledge helps.

Cheers,
Bernard