Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: The Cost of MF Digital  (Read 8200 times)

ThierryH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 409
The Cost of MF Digital
« Reply #20 on: September 23, 2009, 10:26:49 am »

15 to 20% of professional photographers, actually, and according to my statistic.

I said it clearly: "depending what you are shooting ..."

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote from: John-S
Mulitshot mode - needed by maybe 0.01% of users. Fact is table top product shooters, art repro are about it.
Logged

ThierryH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 409
The Cost of MF Digital
« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2009, 10:46:33 am »

Well, Sinar is STILL doing and selling multishot backs.

I don't think it is "poor taste", when the OP is asking if and what backs are available for this low price, to mention that these 6, 11 and 16 MPx backs still exist and still produce wonderful images. All depends WHAT the OP wants to shoot. If I was today to buy a digital back, it would for sure be an 11 MPx multishot back, I know what it is capable of, but that's for my use. Period.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote from: John-S
Sorry Thierry but that "statistic" must be only in some bubble and not the real world.

If I remember correctly, Phase has never made a multishot back, Leaf hasn't made one in 8-9 years (Cantare or Volare), Hasselblad/Imacon easily made fewer multishots than single shots, but yes, Sinar made some. Then lets add all those Canon and Nikon and other brands, oh yes and film shooters to the "professional photographers" of the world and 15-20% is not the case.

I am done with these discussions. I think it's poor taste to give advice to buy a 6-11mp digiback to someone who has never owned MFDB regardless of cheap cost.
Logged

shutay

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 203
    • http://www.asiaphotohub.com/Jason/
The Cost of MF Digital
« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2009, 10:51:47 am »

Quote from: christian_raae
Hasselblad  V96C 16mp Digital Back  + ImageBank     
1795.00
Very Good Condition (CPH) #IX04281043  C    
     
Hasselblad  V96C 16mp Digital Back  + ImageBank    
1795.00
Very Good Condition (MM) #IX05311013  SOLD    
     
The prices are british pounds.

Found at http://www.procentre.co.uk/secondhand_Equi...ml#hasselblad_h


These are tethered 36*36 backs.

Christian - assuming you are referring to the fact that the Ixpress backs are tethered only to their ImageBanks. Otherwise you can use them with or without tethering to a computer as you feel appropriate.

I think that's an amazing price for the Ixpress V96C.
Logged

shutay

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 203
    • http://www.asiaphotohub.com/Jason/
The Cost of MF Digital
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2009, 11:02:45 am »

Quote from: ThierryH
Well, Sinar is STILL doing and selling multishot backs.

I don't think it is "poor taste", when the OP is asking if and what backs are available for this low price, to mention that these 6, 11 and 16 MPx backs still exist and still produce wonderful images. All depends WHAT the OP wants to shoot. If I was today to buy a digital back, it would for sure be an 11 MPx multishot back, I know what it is capable of, but that's for my use. Period.

Best regards,
Thierry

Have to chime in for Thierry here. Before I got an Ixpress V96C 16mp back, the grand plan I had worked out was that I wanted to get an Eyelike M11 back. I don't know about anyone else, but I had a bit of a tough time finding one, and even when I was finally approached by a guy wanting to sell his 6mp multishot back, I accepted, but then he never got back in touch again! Maybe he changed his mind...

Not too long ago, I saw a guy shooting a Phase one H5 on a Fuji GX680 on a product shoot. I think he also had a Kapture Group OneShot release. I was pretty amazed. 6x8cm down to 2.4cm x 3.6cm? Talk about a major crop factor. But it works for him? Still, I would also not be surprised if he had a newer Phase One back as well as that H5. I didn't ask, but maybe his newer back had been sent in for service so he was using his venerable H5 as backup? Who knows, just speculation.
Logged

SCQ

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
The Cost of MF Digital
« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2009, 12:39:24 pm »

Is a 16 MPX square format back for $1600-$2000 unrealistic? It's still a bit out of my price range since a good condition 500C/M would still cost me $7-800 with a lense - but in the short term, if I can forsee getting a back for that price in a year or two - that would definitely be a realistic goal for me. I was considering shooting 120 with an A12 magazine, so any back would work for me as long as it larger than 24x36.
Logged

Steve Hendrix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1662
    • http://www.captureintegration.com/
The Cost of MF Digital
« Reply #25 on: September 23, 2009, 01:05:24 pm »

It's very interesting how those who criticize the focus on megapixels don't understand that someone may have other reasons for shooting medium format. Obviously many photographers have migrated to 35mm from medium format. But there is still a sizable population that shoots or desires to shoot medium format. What is the big deal? Who says just because you like your Canon or Nikon that everyone else has to use that? Producing a photographic image is a process and whatever tools stir the pot of a photographer attempting that process are completely justified in my opinion.



Steve Hendrix
Logged
Steve Hendrix • 404-543-8475 www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Alpa | Cambo | Sinar | Arca Swiss

Steve Hendrix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1662
    • http://www.captureintegration.com/
The Cost of MF Digital
« Reply #26 on: September 23, 2009, 02:35:27 pm »

Quote from: John-S
Oh Steve, you brought me back into this because I know your intent is always thought out very well and respectful.

My only contention with part of this discussion is that a 24x36mm sensor shoved into a digital back case for medium format cameras is not medium format, it's just shooting a 35mm sensor in a grossly oversized system. If people want that, then by all means. But outside of multishot 35mm sensor digibacks (you really have to or want to shoot with one of these in this day), there is little to no benefit, really lets be honest, there's no benefit to shooting these over a full frame DSLR. I get tired of hearing oh this pixel is higher quality to that pixel. I think what should be said is, it's a pain in the ass to shoot this pixel over shooting that pixel to get the same or marginally better quality in print.

36x36mm sensors, to me, are the smallest sensors in the medium format world that are worth the possible hassle, pitfalls, older gear crux. Each 16mp square back has it's own good and bad. I would tell someone get a (self contained) P20 maybe the Ixpress 16mp backs if they have never experienced using any of this stuff. I actually feel for shooters who have not had hands-on use of some gear and they should be told honestly what they're getting into, it ain't always a bowl of cherries in medium format land as so often reported.


Thanks John. And you know how I feel about you - always have enjoyed our time together.

I only commented because SCQ specifically mentioned that he liked the handling of the V series and doing something different than shooting Canon. He hasn't mentioned the sensor or pixel quality - that came from everyone else. So I just saw someone saying the camera is what they're interested in (for a change). For my part, I do believe files from 11 and 16 megapixel backs hold up very well compared to any 35mm. I think 6 megapixels is a stretch unless using multi-shot. The biggest issue with the low resolution legacy sensors will be colored artifacts and moire. Higher resolution backs (and naturally 35mm) handle those issues much better. But from a color, detail, sharpness, and dynamic range standpoint, they still hold up quite well up to a certain print size. Yes, an 11 or 16 mp sensor is a small sensor in a big camera body, but - wide angle coverage aside - that doesn't appear to matter in this case.

I think what I'm trying to say is that creative photographers are individuals who follow the course that feels best to them when it comes to producing an image. I just communicated with a photographer who shoots with Canon, a 6 megapixel multi shot digital back, a 22mp digital back and a 17mp digital back. And finds uses for all of them. When I asked him why he uses the 6mp digital back, his answer was completely plausible. Which didn't mean it had to be. It could have made no sense to me whatsoever. But one thing I have always tried to do is respect the gear and choices photographers have and make, at least if they are satisfied with it. The most important thing is that the photographer is satisfied and happy with what they're using - it works for them and allows them to do what they need/want to do. This doesn't mean I will not make them aware of new technology or workflows which they may appreciate. But if it works for them, great. So someone wants to shoot medium format because they like this camera (the way it handles), and they don't feel like shooting with a mainstream product. Well I think....good for them! Go your own way. As long as it's a choice made with (their) eyes wide open, go for it.


Steve Hendrix
Logged
Steve Hendrix • 404-543-8475 www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Alpa | Cambo | Sinar | Arca Swiss

E_Edwards

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 245
The Cost of MF Digital
« Reply #27 on: September 23, 2009, 03:21:20 pm »

Well, Thierry did qualify his answer with "depending on what you are shooting"

When you read a forum such as this one, you don't get the representation and variety of photographers that people like Steve, Yaya, or Thierry have had to deal with. This includes a hell of a lot of still life studios who shoot with view cameras every single day. I'm a still life photographer and I don't use DSLRs or Medium format. I use Sinar view cameras with a digital back attached. I would not use anything else, too many compromises.

I like to use movements to control focus, perspective, alignment, etc. You simply can't do this properly and effectively with the same flexibility of a view camera/back. And don't tell me you can correct with Photoshop, you can't and I don't want to, I want to shoot like a photographer, not spend time afterwards trying to create something that just happens so naturally (and for real) when you know how to use a view camera.

From my own experience, an older square multi-shot back attached to a view camera will give you a better working solution than a DSLR or medium format in most cases if you are a still life photographer. And not all still life photographers shoot food photography.

However, if shooting people, I personally prefer to use my 5dMKII, and I don't like medium format for this. I've never really liked medium format much anyway.

Maybe still life photographers are a misrepresented minority here, but there are still a lot of us around for whom a DSLR is not a viable solution.

Edward

Logged

photo570

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192
    • http://www.shoot.co.nz
The Cost of MF Digital
« Reply #28 on: September 23, 2009, 04:50:29 pm »

Quote from: E_Edwards
Well, Thierry did qualify his answer with "depending on what you are shooting"

When you read a forum such as this one, you don't get the representation and variety of photographers that people like Steve, Yaya, or Thierry have had to deal with. This includes a hell of a lot of still life studios who shoot with view cameras every single day. I'm a still life photographer and I don't use DSLRs or Medium format. I use Sinar view cameras with a digital back attached. I would not use anything else, too many compromises.

I like to use movements to control focus, perspective, alignment, etc. You simply can't do this properly and effectively with the same flexibility of a view camera/back. And don't tell me you can correct with Photoshop, you can't and I don't want to, I want to shoot like a photographer, not spend time afterwards trying to create something that just happens so naturally (and for real) when you know how to use a view camera.

From my own experience, an older square multi-shot back attached to a view camera will give you a better working solution than a DSLR or medium format in most cases if you are a still life photographer. And not all still life photographers shoot food photography.

However, if shooting people, I personally prefer to use my 5dMKII, and I don't like medium format for this. I've never really liked medium format much anyway.

Maybe still life photographers are a misrepresented minority here, but there are still a lot of us around for whom a DSLR is not a viable solution.

Edward

Yes indeed, I do feel like a bit this way sometimes, I am the guy Steve refers to in the post above, I live camped behind my p2 shooting on an old single/multi shot back, breaking out the canon for people and the H1(Valeo22) for ad jobs. Old MFDB's never die, they just keep on keeping on, finding uses. Just a case of using the right tool for the job.

Cheers,
Jason.

:-)
Logged
Jason Berge
www.shoot.co.nz

SCQ

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23
The Cost of MF Digital
« Reply #29 on: September 23, 2009, 07:17:29 pm »

It would seem that all the backs on eBay are newer and more expensive. If I was looking for an older 6-16 MPX back - just something that can make a Hasselblad V digital to speed up the workflow, where could I find these things? I know some are them are almost a decade old, but certainly, they must be floating around somewhere as people move up to newer backs.
Logged

Professional

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 309
The Cost of MF Digital
« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2009, 04:47:45 am »

How can do comparisons tests between systems [digital 35mm, MF, LF,...] on let's say: still life, portraits, macro,.... whatever?

I really would like to do comparisons so i can see by myself, it is not an issue of "Depends on what you shoot" because with those comparisons tests i can decide which i should use for what i shoot because simply all cameras can do a great perfect job for what we do but must choose one or 2 not 10 cameras, so this 1 or 2 cameras should last for long time, and to make this more easier, i want  camera capable of so large prints with high quality.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 04:48:19 am by Professional »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up