Topic: DXO now has MF cameras (Read 41712 times)

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #60 on:** February 05, 2009, 10:44:20 am »

Quote from: Anders_HK

That photo looks good for a Nikon sensor, but not many pixels as posted... and too digital clean and too neutral tones for my eyes... such as too much shadow detail such as many digital posts.

Something like this maybe?

Cheers,
Bernard

csp · « **Reply #61 on:** February 05, 2009, 11:04:11 am »

Quote from: woof75

It depends what you call significant, if I can see any difference that contributes to the look I want then I call that significant.

but what makes you sure that the difference you see is caused by the camera only and not post processing ? i do a lot of retouching and color editing and i never had a problem make files from different sources like mf or dslr look the same.

lisa_r · « **Reply #62 on:** February 05, 2009, 11:09:02 am »

Hey TMARK, do you care to mention which issues you are referring to (bergdorf goodman.) I have about 8 years worth of issues sitting right here.

woof75 · « **Reply #63 on:** February 05, 2009, 11:17:52 am »

Quote from: csp

but what makes you sure that the difference you see is caused by the camera only and not post processing ? i do a lot of retouching and color editing and i never had a problem make files from different sources like mf or dslr look the same.

I shoot both cameras and I know that I can't make my dslr look like my phase back. It totally depends upon your style, for most things you probably can, I have a very distinct style though that pretty much pushes the camera to the extreme where the phase is quite happy and the dslr starts to break up. I guess that in a "normal" scene you can make almost any of the new backs/dslr's look like anything else. I wish I could use the dslr for my work as I hate carrying a heavy mf round with me and I hate the way the camera works but it's the only way for me to get my look.

lisa_r · « **Reply #64 on:** February 05, 2009, 11:21:15 am »

Quote from: woof75

. I wish I could use the dslr for my work as I hate carrying a heavy mf round with me and I hate the way the camera works but it's the only way for me to get my look.

May we see one of these photos with the look?

woof75 · « **Reply #65 on:** February 05, 2009, 12:46:59 pm »

Quote from: lisa_r

May we see one of these photos with the look?

No, sorry, anonymity is my preference.

csp · « **Reply #66 on:** February 05, 2009, 01:14:56 pm »

Quote from: woof75

I guess that in a "normal" scene you can make almost any of the new backs/dslr's look like anything else.

yes i understand, but is this not the opposite what you claimed before ?

woof75 · « **Reply #67 on:** February 05, 2009, 02:14:34 pm »

Quote from: csp

yes i understand, but is this not the opposite what you claimed before ?

I don't want to get caught up in a pointless back and forth, what I see is that for my work and my style there is a worthwhile difference between a back and a dslr that cannot be made up for in post processing, also I can often see that difference in other people's work. With say a normal, low or medium contrast landscape then I think it would be hard to tell the difference between mf and dslr.

Steve Hendrix · « **Reply #68 on:** February 05, 2009, 02:41:23 pm »

Quote from: woof75

I don't want to get caught up in a pointless back and forth, what I see is that for my work and my style there is a worthwhile difference between a back and a dslr that cannot be made up for in post processing, also I can often see that difference in other people's work. With say a normal, low or medium contrast landscape then I think it would be hard to tell the difference between mf and dslr.

What seems pretty obvious to me is that while there are many who have migrated to 35mm from medium format (and most of these from medium format film it should be pointed out), there are many others who would only allow you to pull their medium format digital product from their hands over their dead bodies.

And from that perspective, what DXO thinks they're analyzing and how they're doing it and what they're concluding from the process doesn't mean a damn thing, if I may be so bold.

Steve Hendrix
Phase One

Guy Mancuso · « **Reply #69 on:** February 05, 2009, 03:16:14 pm »

You can and i agree. Dead cold hands sounds like my best answer also. The DXO is completely meaningless just like MTF charts are. Tells me nothing

Sorry folks there is no real person behind these test that can actually think.

woof75 · « **Reply #70 on:** February 05, 2009, 03:19:32 pm »

Quote from: Steve Hendrix/Phase One

What seems pretty obvious to me is that while there are many who have migrated to 35mm from medium format (and most of these from medium format film it should be pointed out), there are many others who would only allow you to pull their medium format digital product from their hands over their dead bodies.

And from that perspective, what DXO thinks they're analyzing and how they're doing it and what they're concluding from the process doesn't mean a damn thing, if I may be so bold.

Steve Hendrix
Phase One

I agree, pro's aren't stupid, the novelty of new cameras soon wears off when you use them all the time and you just don't use them because it sounds flash to use a phase back or whatever. There generally a pain to use compared to canon or nikon or whatever, we use them because there great tools. Another thing that happens when you eat sleep dream and work with images every day is you get a bit of an ability to perceive image quality things that others may not. It would be great to be able to break it down to numbers and the numbers are partially useful but only when used with intelligence. Find a number for beauty of tonality.

geesbert · « **Reply #71 on:** February 05, 2009, 04:35:51 pm »

If we are talking about proffessional advertising photography: 99.9% of people buying and looking at a magazine don't give a shit about micro contrast and tonality. some photographers or art buyers might see the difference, sometimes I do, but i can't think of one single page in a magazine that would have been a better image if a digital medium format camera was used. i see a lot crap postproduction or dreadful lighting or horrible styling or all the bits that make or break a successfull ad. Micro contrast is not what makes a picture saleable. no photographer is booked because of micro contrast and fine detail @100%. i see an advantage for big fine art prints, definitely, but for magazine work i don't.

i very much second bcooters opinion about usability of current Medium Format systems.

Steve Hendrix · « **Reply #72 on:** February 05, 2009, 10:15:51 pm »

February, 2009 PDN Article: DSLR vs MF

http://tinyurl.com/dkhze2

Steve Hendrix
Phase One

woof75 · « **Reply #73 on:** February 06, 2009, 05:42:03 am »

Quote from: geesbert

If we are talking about proffessional advertising photography: 99.9% of people buying and looking at a magazine don't give a shit about micro contrast and tonality. some photographers or art buyers might see the difference, sometimes I do, but i can't think of one single page in a magazine that would have been a better image if a digital medium format camera was used. i see a lot crap postproduction or dreadful lighting or horrible styling or all the bits that make or break a successfull ad. Micro contrast is not what makes a picture saleable. no photographer is booked because of micro contrast and fine detail @100%. i see an advantage for big fine art prints, definitely, but for magazine work i don't.

i very much second bcooters opinion about usability of current Medium Format systems.

Yes, but great photographers care about tonality and micro contrast and great photographers get the great jobs.

csp · « **Reply #74 on:** February 06, 2009, 06:31:09 am »

Quote from: woof75

Yes, but great photographers care about tonality and micro contrast and great photographers get the great jobs.

really ? this can not be true considering the huge amount of horrible work, aesthetically and technically you can find everywhere. i don't believe this is all shot exclusive with 35mm. talking about professional advertising photography the real art is to know how to make a camera file look good in cmyk, this soft-skill is more important than the mythically advantage of MF.

Carsten W · « **Reply #75 on:** February 06, 2009, 07:02:01 am »

Quote from: csp

really ? this can not be true considering the huge amount of horrible work, aesthetically and technically you can find everywhere. i don't believe this is all shot exclusive with 35mm. talking about professional advertising photography the real art is to know how to make a camera file look good in cmyk, this soft-skill is more important than the mythically advantage of MF.

This type of argument holds no water. This soft-skill can easily be combined with MF imaging to get even better quality.

Anders_HK · « **Reply #76 on:** February 06, 2009, 08:55:30 am »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier

Something like this maybe?

It is funny, what seem to reveal in above posts in this thread is that those who appreciate MFDB digital and the quality that those bring to their images are those who indeed have eyes to see differences and that are using high quality digital backs for that reason. I know Bernard had ZD before, but the ZD is a BIG gap from Leaf Aptus and Phase One digital backs, at least per my experience. When I bought the Aptus I said ^&*%^ to money because I wanted to enjoy photography and not the crap that Nikon had sold me, and if it would have failed, that I would returned to film. I like the image quality from the Aptus, it is much different from any that I seen from DSLR. For those who do not see the difference, what is possibly the point of arguing with those who do see it? It is silly and insulting.

For those who keep changing camera and camera, upgrading each cycle... are you sure you are into photography or simply just camera technologies?

Most folks who do use MFDB and who post in this forum are professionals and many of whom are very skilled and knowledgeable. That frank is one additional pleasure with medium format, for these folks are kind to reply to many questions and are happy to provide much knowledge for free. Much thanks to you all, for indeed you know who you are! Also of course to the credible in medium format business who post and support here, and likewise you too know who you are. Myself I am an amateur but I guess my eye is sensitive. DSLRs have been disappointing to me, as compared to my F100 with Fuji Velvia 50 was. Forget the pixels, there is so much more to an image. That said, indeed D700, D3/D3X, 5DII, 1DsMk3, A900 are improvements to the D200 I had, but... that does not mean they are medium format. Heck, I find the Foveon sensor more medium format like, but with less pixels, although Canon and Nikon have indeed improved.

If I were to go professional, chances are I would pick also a 5DII or something to get images quickly captured and done. It seems sad, but it seem to be that what sell to magazines are quick images at not absolute image quality, some actually poor quality. That is the high-tech generation we live in, not quality. However for the upper level of pros that shoot fashion and advertising it seems a MFDB is rather predominant, but some use top of line Canon and Nikon too. It is a preference thing, sort of like Ansel Adams and the like shot mostly large format, but Galen Rowell shot 35mm. That does not mean that DSLRs have reached medium format. That is silly.

To be frank, I do not see that DSLRs have reached 35mm film. They are still different. So... why should possibly DSLRs be able reach MFDB? There will always be differences, and with that... why not enjoy photography instead?

For those who are interested in MFDBs, try them. You will see a big difference in image quality, if your eye is sensitive, and if you do appreciate high image quality. For an amateur they are expensive $$$, but... they can last you a long time. That is my own thinking, the Aptus is a keeper for me for many years still, and much kind thanks to those in this forum who advised me on that one and the Phase-One about a year ago. It is funny with Nikon's pricing of D3X... indeed looking at $$$, the D3X is in medium format range, especially if include the lenses in comparison (Mamiya 645 lenses are for most part cheaper than Nikon ). Nikon's pricing is silly. The most expensive part on a MFDB is the sensor itself because it is large, and that is a by a large margin of the cost, I think around 85% or so. Perhaps Yaya or Thsinar can fill me in on that? That way it appears as a rip off to throw the money towards Nikon..., yet... if one invest in a long time keeper... then perhaps it is not that bad with either, provided that image quality last. Though what happens when D4X comes out? It will for sure beat the D3X, but I honest do not believe it will beat my Aptus 65 , yet that is my eye... but we shall see. Yet who cares, as long as I can enjoy my PHOTOGRAPHY???

Anders

woof75 · « **Reply #77 on:** February 06, 2009, 08:59:15 am »

Quote from: csp

really ? this can not be true considering the huge amount of horrible work, aesthetically and technically you can find everywhere. i don't believe this is all shot exclusive with 35mm. talking about professional advertising photography the real art is to know how to make a camera file look good in cmyk, this soft-skill is more important than the mythically advantage of MF.

I think you need to use some intelligence to try and understand what I'm saying. If you want to just win the argument by misrepresenting and willfully misunderstanding me you can have it if you want it and you won't have learnt a thing.

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #78 on:** February 06, 2009, 09:35:26 am »

Quote from: Anders_HK

Ehh... not really, for could be (m)any camera, especially at that size. Last one... is near all white. Did you use a Canon G10 by chance?

Time to get you screen calibrated a bit better my friend... but I guess that you just don't see those things... why bother discussing.

More seriously, do you have some work visible somewhere, I'd love to see what you do (I really mean it).

Cheers,
Bernard

ziocan · « **Reply #79 on:** February 06, 2009, 01:51:06 pm »

Quote from: csp

i would call this - self fulfilling prophecy - and i too very much doubt that you are able to see a significant differences between perfect processed 35mm and mf files . using files for printing with resolution above what offset can handle leads to softer reproduction (rip interpolation ) and not increased detail. even under perfect conditions it is very hard to see a difference in a final offset print between 180 or 300 dpi.

Guys, to each his own.
Some people do not see it, some others do.

One of the reasons I decided to get a new back and a MF camera on top of my DSLR 24mp cameras, was because I could see the difference, not just on my photos but just flipping pages of well printed fashion magazines. I could not bear it and I had to buy one myself to have it in my bag and ready to be used any time i want to.
There is not full filling prophecy on my case and i do not need to justify my purchase since I spend 4 grands more for the mamiya 645 body with 5 used lenses and 31mp back combined, than buying a naked d3x body. Those money are spent and forgotten.

Author Topic: DXO now has MF cameras (Read 41712 times)

csp

lisa_r

lisa_r

csp

csp