Plea to Michael: separate place for 35 vs DMF debates

[ThierryH]

with all due respect to all and for any opinion here, my belief is that such a discussion is going nowhere and can't be solved. There will always be somebody disagreeing or preferring to have it the other way.
Why not simply let things go the way they have been, means with a self-policy? I didn't see any major problem so far, and facts are that 35mm and its lenses are now overlapping into MF's field, like it or not.
What seems more important to me is that one sticks to and cares about the "professional photography" side of this particular forum, which IMO has been the case so far.

Best regards,
Thierry

[PdF]

with all due respect to all and for any opinion here, my belief is that such a discussion is going nowhere and can't be solved. There will always be somebody disagreeing or preferring to have it the other way.
Why not simply let things go the way they have been, means with a self-policy? I didn't see any major problem so far, and facts are that 35mm and its lenses are now overlapping into MF's field, like it or not.
What seems more important to me is that one sticks to and cares about the "professional photography" side of this particular forum, which IMO has been the case so far.

Best regards,
Thierry

I agree with you, Thierry. I hope especially that it will show the professional photography rather than Sunday's photography. That's the most important to conserve a high level.

PdF

[stewarthemley]

Having started this thread, I’m almost wishing I hadn’t. I posted after reading yet another discussion/debate/argument about which is better. These “discussions” do tend to pop up in threads where they don’t belong, and begin to take on the feel of a virus. They are often (though clearly not exclusively) populated by people who have clearly never used MF and feel the need to criticise those who do – goodness knows why. That was why I had the knee jerk reaction (never advisable, sensible or particularly intelligent) and posted. Often, the discussions either end with someone saying “Enough, it’s horses for courses. Use what’s appropriate for your needs,” or people resorting to sarcasm and insults.

But, trying to be positive, some useful opinions have been voiced and made me think again. Rainer’s comparisons are great and useful because they are made by a skilled (actually, gifted) photographer looking for his own answers. Actually, my plea for a separate space would not have discouraged such comparisons and so I don’t feel bad about that aspect. What has made me consider whether I’m right or wrong is that several people have made the point that 35 and MF are getting closer for most people in most situations. And that makes comparison/discussion legitimate and useful, although I still wonder whether they would be more useful if concentrated in a dedicated space. Someone said we shouldn’t get hung up on titles, I agree, but neither should threads be laden with irrelevancies. It’s not an easy decision but I see no harm in at least asking the question. And I certainly don’t see it as a waste of bandwidth.

Which leads me to a disappointing aspect of this thread and that was the use of sarcasm by some people, one of them I found particularly surprising. When has sarcasm ever moved a discussion in any direction other than downwards?

It was not my intention to offend, merely to divert the irrelevancies somewhere less intrusive. I had hoped it could be a simple exchange of views…should have known better, shouldn’t I.

[pcunite]

Which leads me to a disappointing aspect of this thread and that was the use of sarcasm by some people, one of them I found particularly surprising. When has sarcasm ever moved a discussion in any direction other than downwards?

I don't know if your referring to me, but I do want to extend an olive branch on the subject. I want MFD for personal reasons. I do my own retouching and love the look of MFD at 100%. As of 2007 35mm became a perfect workflow and all my frustrations are now gone. For me to move to MFD at a cost of $50,000 and then fight all the frustrations of the format just does not make business sense to me... I said business sense, emotionally I love the format. I was truly frustrated to see the Leica S2 not be the 35mm killer it was supposed to be. Now when the 1Ds Mark IV arrives next year what will MFD companies say then? Rise and shift? It is all about workflow (in terms of business needs) and MFD is failing miserably on this point. To all who own MFD, yes your images are better, it is just my customers can't tell the difference.

[guyharrison]

I most definitely DO NOT favor censorship in this thread to "only" MF topics?  Just what exactly would that entail?  Who would enforce it and how?  The OP?   If the OP does not like the subject matter, then don't read the thread!

Personally, I learn a lot from this thread.  The 35 vs MF threads are of interest to me because I get a lot of information about their relative strengths and weaknesses.  I am on the fence about moving to dgital MF and this information has value to me.  Is there repetition, and, sometimes, just silly tirades? Sure, but not that often.  This forum is very sophisticated and civilized compared to a lot of others out there.

Please, let the information and opinions flow.  There are those of us out there that appreciate it.

Guy

[stewarthemley]

Hi PCunite. I didn't feel that your replies were sarcastic and I agree with much of what you say. But all the same, olive branches are great things to have offered: I'll use them to make a hide when the heavy flack is coming in.

My position on the subject (MF vs 35), FWIW, is that I really wish I didn't have to use MF EVER. I like to be spontaneous, produce much better work when I am (within my own obvious limitations) and would love the next Canon/Nikon to make it worth MY while to sell my MF stuff. Fact is, I now have a couple of clients who I suspect are closet photographers and are heavily into the technical aspects and demand the highest technical quality their budgets will allow. If I don't give it them, someone else will. Their fees have now paid for my MF kit so I shouldn't complain but given a choice, I'd always take the Canon to work. But I think I'm taking my own thread OT.

edit to answer Guy: No Guy, no way would I want to censor people. Did I ever claim I want to? I don't see suggesting a separate space for discussion as censorship. And neither would I want to be any sort of enforcer. I also learn much from the whole forum. Would you learn any less from the 35MF debate if it had its own space?

[uaiomex]

What does this forum become now?   The Temple of Denial?  

[Khun_K]

As if it is not confused enough.  Let me try this. I just have a nice talk with a friend, non-profssional, but very much into photography, as many here have seen a lot. Today's many serious amatuer may be better than some pros, certainly not nearly as good as those top ones, but bette than some.  Same thing about the cameras, and sendors.  But this is not to discussed the size and pixel number.  
Back on my talk with my friend, we discussed a lot of cameras, from film to digital, from small to big, from a Canon iXus 400 to P65+, from fast like the coming 1Ds4 (or already landed) to Sigma DP-1/DP-2, and from range finder to no finder.
Quality aside, I think one of the biggest difference between medium format and DSLR is speed.  But depend on what to shoot, slow and speed is both good. I remember the days when Konica Hexar RF came out, I got one to shoot along with my M6, but quickly find out my M6 produce better image - or I shoot better with my M6 - I guess because I need to work on exposure so the process of making picture involved more elements than simply aim-and-shoot + focus on Hexar RF.
Now with this size and pixel debate, I think what is mattered is how one work on the camera. I joked to my friend that I shoot a higher averaged quality picture from my Sigma DP-1 because it is slow so I want to make sure I got a good one rather than few seconds later I need to repeat the process again - and in those seconds waiting, one can rapid fire tens of pictures, at higher megapixels, with those high end Nikon and Canon.  But I realized it is not a joke.  Speed gets you a lot of picture, but not necessary the picture wanted.  Slow allows (and sometimes force) one to think, and perhpas enjoy more on the process of photography itself as a fine craft. No offence to those who has to shoot fast.
And the speed and preparation is what I think set the medium format and DSLR apart.  For me, medium format is not just about larger pictures, it is the process that photographer is more involved in getting the picture although more involve does not equal to better work - sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. But work is one thing, fun is another, to me, using medium format whole day in studio, and at the end of day, I want a cup of coffee to grasp the last bit of photographic excitment.  But with DSLR, at the end of day, I am ready to leave.

Regards, K

[aaron]

#this time i dont understand you. if 2 or 3 photographers express that they want to see mf ONLY treads and 20 or 30 say
the opposite, which ( nearly ) all are using both systems ( 35 + larger ), where was the problem ?

The problem i believe is that your belief that 'nearly all are using both systems' is inaccurate.

Experienced opinions of both formats (such as yours Rainier) is a great resource and surely welcomed, the problem is that most threads go south as the hardcore 'my 5dII is better than a P65+' group start their broadcasting.

Theres a big difference between someone with genuine experience giving their considered opinion and someone sitting at their office desk in kmart moonlighting as an expert on everything photographic.

For some reason there's a handfull of posters who regularily chime in on mfd threads with looooong posts deriding anyone foolish enough to have purchased anything other than a 5dII or d3x. They seem to hang around here like horseflies waiting to pounce with the now customary bullet pointed list of drivel detailing why 35mm digital is the only sensible option. I doubt most of them have ever held a mfd back let alone seen what you can do with one if you are capable, but they're certainly not busy with either. These posters unfortunately pollute the pond for everyone.

[uaiomex]

I don't have a "brand" name like Rainer but I've being a pro for over 25 years. I've shot film with 35, 6X6, 6X9 and 4X5 cameras. Nowadays I practically do all my assignments with only one camera, suffice to say, a 5D2. Why? Apparently that's all I need these days to keep my clients happy.

I don't pretend to say my 5D2 is better than even a P25, much less a P65+. I'm the first to chime in to say that usually I can see the "delusional" (as some call it) 3D effect from MF pics right from the internet. I'm no enemy of medium format manufacturers or users of its products. I don't own a DB because simply I can't afford it. So that goes for the much said "most of them have ever held a mfd back".

I read this forum because I'm interested in DMF and what it can and can't do. I love posts asking about all the corners in DMF photo taking and answers from those that are lucky enough to own one. I "eat" all the information generated here in this very forum because it helps me understand the differences between these 2 formats.

For the past 6 years, I've been thinking about making the jump to DMF trying to figure it out how to raise this amount of money while at the same time trying to justify it. I loved shooting with my Hasselblad V. I miss it horribly. The huge difference in prices turns it into a real brainstorm and that is what we see here in these forums, nothing else.

The superiority in IQ is real. The advantages in picture making versus expenditure is debatable and perhaps it will always be.

I hope Michael exercises a lot of lax with the new rule. This is quite possibly the most useful and entertaining forum in the world. Let it be!
Best
Eduardo

The problem i believe is that your belief that 'nearly all are using both systems' is inaccurate.

Experienced opinions of both formats (such as yours Rainier) is a great resource and surely welcomed, the problem is that most threads go south as the hardcore 'my 5dII is better than a P65+' group start their broadcasting.

Theres a big difference between someone with genuine experience giving their considered opinion and someone sitting at their office desk in kmart moonlighting as an expert on everything photographic.

For some reason there's a handfull of posters who regularily chime in on mfd threads with looooong posts deriding anyone foolish enough to have purchased anything other than a 5dII or d3x. They seem to hang around here like horseflies waiting to pounce with the now customary bullet pointed list of drivel detailing why 35mm digital is the only sensible option. I doubt most of them have ever held a mfd back let alone seen what you can do with one if you are capable, but they're certainly not busy with either. These posters unfortunately pollute the pond for everyone.

[EricWHiss]

I'm against censorship of the forum, but have found it useful for me personally to ignore a small set of posters.  

Almost all of the debate over what's better makes the *flawed* assumption that a shooter will only use one camera.  Many of us have both MF and 35mm systems and use both for different jobs.  Probably most of us also carry either a pocket camera or camera phone too.

[Carsten W]

Well, I will post in support of Michael's move, although the name ended up a little longer than I had hoped

I think that there are very few people who want no 35mm talk whatsoever, but there are equally few who want the forum to talk primarily about 35mm. The problem is the balance, and where to put it. The old name was fine, the new name will be fine, but something happened with the name in between, and I wasn't the only one to notice it: a lot more of the pointless "35mm vs. MF - which is better" topics and posts suddenly appeared.

I think the sensible thing to do is to *promote* and *encourage* this forum as an MF (and up) discussion arena, and *allow* the occasional side discussion of various aspects of 35mm vs. MF, such as Rainer's interesting 17 T/S vs. Rodenstock 23mm, or Christopher Barrett's D3X vs. P65+ at the pixel level thread. Those were informative and useful.

[Phil Indeblanc]

This is why I consider MFD to be a personal choice.

The real point I am making is that we choose the format we want for ultimately personal reasons as most of us could convince any customer that the image they are looking at was made with the finest equipment and given a few years we ourselves will forget which camera took the picture. All these micro differences between them are simply lost when you step away from the computer and look at the image on the wall from five feet.

I just wish current MFD owners would just be honest and say they are guilty of perfectionism instead of going on and on about how they have to use $40,000 backs for business reasons. I want a Bugatti Veyron to make travels to the post office more enjoyable... but really... I just don't need it.

It is not a simple choice across the board.
I am not sure about a wall from 5ft, but....

When you see a Cartier ad, Chanel, Tiffany, High end watches, perhaps even beauty, cosmetics... you don't compromise, period.
You make the best image possible. that right now it's a MFdB. This is not by personal preference, it is to stay competitive, and demand the best work from yourself possible.  The sharpness you get, the meaty 16bit file you get(that will be PS edited), is the standard. Its not a matter of convincing someone, it is seeing it in print, and seeing that there is this edge of overall "tacky snap polish". Most agencies in this area know exactly what they are dealing with.  When you see them side by side is when you will get the "aha" factor, Until you have tested this for yourself, you will always argue the 2.

I will admit I have not used the latest in 35, as I was an early adopter of working with the kodak SLR (closest to MFdb so far as I have seen), and then a 1Ds (much better than the Kodak on almost every point, but not 3D quality).  Once I used the MFdB, I have not looked back....But I will always try new things.

Sometimes I wish Kodak would take all they learned in this past, and from their shortfalls, and apply it to making another 35(or larger, SLR like body) camera and include some of the great featuers the Pro-SLR had. The good ideas were there. Or its time for Canon(or Nikon) to step up and offer 16bit files, without a AA, and maybe without a mirror(if that would work?), 1200+HD or more live view,  more flexible lens options with bellows...... Then the lights are out.

[EricWHiss]

is it the place here for doing such comparisons as i did recently or no.

Rainer,
I thought your comparison was very useful - thanks for sharing that.  What made it useful was that you had both cameras and you made a real life test.     I'd like to see more like that AND less of the armchair conjecture by software geeks who don't even own cameras.
Eric

[TMARK]

When you see a Cartier ad, Chanel, Tiffany, High end watches, perhaps even beauty, cosmetics... you don't compromise, period.
You make the best image possible. that right now it's a MFdB. This is not by personal preference, it is to stay competitive, and demand the best work from yourself possible.  The sharpness you get, the meaty 16bit file you get(that will be PS edited), is the standard. Its not a matter of convincing someone, it is seeing it in print, and seeing that there is this edge of overall "tacky snap polish". Most agencies in this area know exactly what they are dealing with.  When you see them side by side is when you will get the "aha" factor, Until you have tested this for yourself, you will always argue the 2.

For beauty work, real beauty work that was shot on 4x5 or 8x10 in 2005, a back is where its at.  No question.  For products a back is a better choice, because the file is better, and there are fewer set ups, less time constraints than with fashion/lifestyle.  When I shot beauty regularly I used a Sinar 54m on the RZ, bolted to a Gitzo Studex, then the Aptus 22, P25, P45, then I bought a P30+ and stopped shooting beauty.  I also shot a few beauty editorials with teh 1ds2, and you know, they looked great in the mag, at least no one said they looked 12 bit.  The only person who bitched was the retoucher.

If I were shooting beauty today I'd use a Leaf 54s, which is what I own.  But for fashion and lifestyle, the backs are cumbersome, need too much light, and don't really give you too much of a better file, especially under HMI or window light, which is the prevailing style in my markets.

[ziocan]

Like it says in the title, Michael, any chance of removing (banishing?) this endless and pointless debate to its own little space then all the people who find it worthwhile can go there and fight themselves to a standstill while the rest of us can get on with exchanging useful info about MF BACKS? I know we don't have to read them but they crop up often and really don't belong here. Goodness knows how much bandwidth they must waste.

I'd rather opt for more sex activity.

[Frank Doorhof]

What strikes me is that some people still talk about MF with prices up to $50,000.00 in mind.
That proves they are not aware of the current market where you buy a complete set NEW for app 10,000.00 the price of a 1dsMK with a good lens.

Look second hand and you buy a RZ67proII with WLF lens and film back for under 1000.00 add a used aptus 22 for maybe 3000.00 and you're in business for less than a 1D with a good lens.

Add to that the lenses for the RZ are app 100.00-300.00 each on the second hand market and blow away any other glass and that whole discussion on price is rendered useless.

It strengthens my opinion that most people in these discussion never worked with MF seriously and don't even know what you can buy. Offcourse you can spend a lot more but 22MP is a great ammount of pixels and more than adequate for most.

But it's all horses for courses I understand why some/a lot of people are prefering a DSLR however don't force that down the throat of MF users as the ultimate truth becaus all MF users I know also own a DSLR so the reallyknow thedifference on a day to day basis.

[erick.boileau]

I find interesting to compare  35mm vs Medium Format

[Phil Indeblanc]

I find interesting to compare  35mm vs Medium Format

I do too, as long as it comes from knowledge of experience or contributive addition, insite, it is surely worth the digital space.
But to have people intrrupt a healthy thread with sideswipes of "Well you can do it much easier with a 35" or "the new xxx is just as good quality as your MFx"  is a pure waste of digital space.

  Its just another harddrive Michael...Hitachi's are on sale for $70 per 1TB...perhaps we have room for the discusion afterall...Maybe Michael can add a toggle that allows the viewer to display the 35 remarks, or fade them grey.  It would be interesting to register with your gear info so those that are 35exclusive, can be greyed out...hahahaha.  You get best of all worlds...35ers can post, and everyone can read..if it is in the way...toggle it out.

I think I just discovered a new way of forum posting to filter relevant content!  I will call it...."Philfader"
Soon all forums will use Philfader.  You will hear people saying..."Ya I just hit the PhilFader button, and I got to my info without a hickup".  Everytime you use the PhilFader button, I will have licensed it out with Royalty everytime it is used.  I will make very affordable, so every forum will use it, and I will be filthy rich, just by the numbers....mmmuuhaaahhahaha!!  

Michael...PhilFader is now copyritten as this posting goes live....You will be the first...And you get it for FREE...Well besides maybe dropping that heavy loaded MF back, since you like the new Leica to lug around so much.....Ok, maybe I can borrow it sometime, for $hits and giggles.  

Ok...so...All registrations would change and require  more info...just like when you subscribe to a magazine...."How large is your company 10-100 employs ?"..."What is your position?" Do you make purchasing decisions?" (thats the one they wanna know) etc....Except, here it would be much more simple....In fact it was optionally available when you registered...."What gear do you use/own?"

tbc

[lisa_r]

I am reluctant to enter this debate, but it seems to me that perhaps a more useful way to segregate the discussions would be by subject. i.e., Fashion/Portraiture, Architecture, Landscapes, Food, etc.  Then you could go where the subject interests you, and see which tools are being used to get the job done. I guess this would bring the focus onto how to go about achieving the end results, rather than on certain categories of cameras. (This especially makes sense when you consider that almost any pro camera these days can be used successfully for almost any purpose. Almost.)

I am not so presumptuous as suggesting that Michael change the site based on my suggestions here. They are just thoughts...