Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples  (Read 40893 times)

HarperPhotos

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1309
    • http://www.harperphoto.com
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #60 on: February 18, 2010, 03:19:09 am »

Quote from: GBPhoto
BS

Why, after all these years of desperately seeking answers in the great DMF vs. DSLR debate, have you never made the effort to test them yourself?  You seem to know the best way to perform these comparisons.  I'm sure there's a pro shop or DMF-toting fellow LL'er in your part of the world you could meet up with and satisfy your quest for answers.  With all the time you've spent on this topic on these boards, you could have worked a part-time job at McDonalds, saved up enough dough for a rental, done your tests and have your answers.

Hi Allen,

I think the reason that Ray hasn’t ever tried a MFDB himself is that he is a bit like Sheldon on the sitcom “The big bag”. He wouldn't be able to admit that my be there are some advantages over 35mm digital.

Nikon D3x and Leaf Aptus 75 owner.

Cheers

Simon
Logged
Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #61 on: February 18, 2010, 10:03:40 am »

Quote from: GBPhoto
BS

Why, after all these years of desperately seeking answers in the great DMF vs. DSLR debate, have you never made the effort to test them yourself?  You seem to know the best way to perform these comparisons.  I'm sure there's a pro shop or DMF-toting fellow LL'er in your part of the world you could meet up with and satisfy your quest for answers.  With all the time you've spent on this topic on these boards, you could have worked a part-time job at McDonalds, saved up enough dough for a rental, done your tests and have your answers.

I've never tested any camera before buying. It shouldn't be necessary. We have the internet and now DXO Mark. I can always find sufficient information about a camera's performance in order to make a decision whether or not to buy it. If I can't find the information I need to make a decision, I figure I'm not missing much and don't buy the camera.

Since I have a general academic interest in photography and techniques, I was simply curious about the benefits of this so-called greater flexibility of the MFDB system which some of you claim.

There's absolutely nothing desperate about my enquiries. Can't help wondering how you got that idea.
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #62 on: February 18, 2010, 10:34:33 am »

Quote from: Ray
I've never tested any camera before buying. It shouldn't be necessary. We have the internet and now DXO Mark.

I agree! Likewise I've never test-driven a car before buying. It shouldn't be necessary. We have lots of car review magazines and now Consumer Reports infallible and universally applicable ratings.




After all everyone's driving style is the same, and we all drive in the exact same scenarios, and handling isn't subjective. Moreover everyone values the same attributes in cars, so their judgments are perfect proxies for my own. The opinion of the car review guy from NYC who drives in snow in heavy Manhattan traffic will surely apply equally well to my own leisurely drives to the Florida Keys in the Florida summer. Of course his recommendations differ from my friend Stephen Gilbert who enjoys watching land-speed-record events in the desert. So I'll probably have to go with consumer reports rating - just like dXo it is a single rating which fully and wholly encompasses every attribute of car quality. It's science you know!

----

There is absolutely no substitute for extended real world testing of a camera. Put the camera in your hands - shooting the things you shoot in the style you shoot them (allowing perhaps some slight changes when changing types of platforms - don't try to shoot a 4x5 camera the same as a P+S digicam) and see what happens. Extensive research of the available reviews, tests, and user-feedback is great due-diligence - but until you shoot it yourself and look at your own images it's all just academic.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 11:09:14 am by dougpetersonci »
Logged

AlexM

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 138
    • Alex Maxim fashion and glamour photographer in Toronto
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #63 on: February 18, 2010, 01:30:00 pm »

Quote from: dougpetersonci
I agree! Likewise I've never test-driven a car before buying. It shouldn't be necessary. We have lots of car review magazines and now Consumer Reports infallible and universally applicable ratings.

Exactly

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #64 on: February 18, 2010, 06:29:25 pm »

Quote from: dougpetersonci
I agree! Likewise I've never test-driven a car before buying. It shouldn't be necessary. We have lots of car review magazines and now Consumer Reports infallible and universally applicable ratings.


Doug,
Sarcasm aside, it just goes to show the difference of attitude between us. For me, a car is just a tool to get me from A to B in an efficient, comfortable and safe manner, carry my gear in the back and sometimes 3 or 4 passengers. However, I realise that for many people a car is a status symbol. Some people actually appear to 'be in love with' their car. I can imagine them test-driving cars as they would window shop, drooling over the quality of the suede upholstery. For me, I'll select the car based on features, size, fuel economy, luggage space, leg room, appearance (I like a bit of styling; many small cars look like biscuit boxes), price and warranty period.

Any serious issues with the handling or comfort of a particular model of car would be picked up by reviewers. Since I'm a very flexible and adaptable sort of person with no physical peculiarities that would require a special type of design, that is, I'm neither short like a dwarf nor tall like basket-ball player, I've never found the handling of any car I've selected to be a problem.

Quote
There is absolutely no substitute for extended real world testing of a camera. Put the camera in your hands - shooting the things you shoot in the style you shoot them (allowing perhaps some slight changes when changing types of platforms - don't try to shoot a 4x5 camera the same as a P+S digicam) and see what happens. Extensive research of the available reviews, tests, and user-feedback is great due-diligence - but until you shoot it yourself and look at your own images it's all just academic.

If I were to adopt that approach, I would hardly have time to take my usual non-test photos. There are dozens of models of cameras out there. I rely upon reviewers to save me the time, trouble and expense of hiring gear to test. They provide an invaluable service. Once again, my approach is that you should decide upon the performance level of the tool you require/desire, and if you're sensible like me, you should realise that using a 4x5 technical camera is a lot different from a P&S, and you adapt accordingly.

The last two pieces of equipment I bought were a Nikkor 14-24/2.8 zoom, and a Nikon D700, sight unseen. Both were bought over the internet. I didn't feel the need to fondle them in the shop before making a decision.

My general impression is that 35mm equipment is far more flexible than MFDB equipment. When I read comments that is not the case, I'm curious.

Can you give me just one example of a type of image that might not be possible, or at least more difficult to take using 35mm instead of MFDB, apart from the higher flash syc of some MFDBs which might be necessary in certain conditions.?
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #65 on: February 18, 2010, 08:05:08 pm »

Quote from: Ray
Can you give me just one example of a type of image that might not be possible, or at least more difficult to take using 35mm instead of MFDB, apart from the higher flash syc of some MFDBs which might be necessary in certain conditions.?

Multiple strobe hits without building ambient exposure (e.g. interiors with lighting where the power of the pack cannot build enough exposure in one hit but there is enough undesirable ambient light that you cannot simply exposure for multiple seconds and fire the flash multiple times). This can be done with a Phase One back (explanation).

True multiple exposures (the exact equivalent of doing it on film where the medium remains actively exposing while the camera body allows exposure independently). One can try to simulate the effect in post, but both technically and creatively many would prefer to do it in camera. Haven't seen this on a dSLR lately (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Triggering an exposure with zero mechanical movement (for extreme macro work where registration is measured in fractions of a mm). This can be done with a Phase One back using a simple wakeup cable.

Sync speed (as you mentioned) - the 1/1600 sync speed of a Phase One P40+/P65+ is the highest in the world.

High resolution single-capture images. Stitching may be an option for some types of images (assuming you don't mind sitting at the computer running stitching programs all day), but some types of images MUST be captured in a single frame.

Multi-purposed images in a commercial environment - it is very common for our customers to report back to us that (long after a shoot ends) an Art Director has asked them for a very small crop of a frame. With a P65+ you can crop in very very tight and still end up with a magazine sized image that will look sharp in print. It's very hard to produce those crops after the fact with a dSLR - and even if it would have been better to

The "look" from Alternative lenses. As one example you can buy a Holga lens for a Canon (I have one) - but the smaller sensor really fails to look of that lens that you got used to with 120 film. Or take the Canon 85mm f/1.2 lens used on a Mamiya body - again, the look from the MFDB cannot be accomplished via a dSLR. (Maybe if you got a kubric lens - hey I wonder if that would cover 645!?)

While not an "image you produce" - working with a traditional view camera, or a particular medium format body may provide you tools (e.g. a waist level finder, ground glass, swing/tilt/shift with any lens) that allow you to create images differently.

Friends just arrived or I would continue. Also came to mind just now but don't have time for:
True B+W capture (available on the Phase One Achromatic sensor)
Very long exposures (some dSLRs are surprisingly good at this - but none can match a P45+)

And of course these are just things that are nearly impossible with a dSLR and ignores the higher overall image quality etc etc.

Doug Peterson
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

Henry Goh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 574
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #66 on: February 18, 2010, 10:17:17 pm »

This kind of thread gets really boring and negative.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2010, 10:38:36 pm by Henry Goh »
Logged

RobertJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 706
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #67 on: February 18, 2010, 10:54:41 pm »

Quote from: Guy Mancuso
Not sure why i am even replying to this nonsense.

I can take my P40+ back today put it on a DF body( AFD, AFDII, AFDIII) from 28mm to 300mm plus shift( Plus a hundred old Mamiya manual lenses). Than within 5 seconds have it on a Horseman , Cambo, Silvestri, Arca or almost any full tilt and shift solution. Than take that same back hand it to a friend grab a leaf back in any flavor or a Phase back in any flavor and run it through all the same cams that I want and have options that I could never get with a 35mm because i have a sensor that can move around you can't do that with a 35mm. Not to mention I can take any V lens, Zeiss lens , Rodenstock, Schnieder and move them around to different systems maybe not all but some at least.

Guy, if you have an old Horseman LS or LX 4x5 view camera (which are very cheap now) with a removeable rear frame, you can buy a conversion kit, which is basically a wide angle bellows that's attached to a Canon EOS or Nikon F mount, then it attaches in place of the rear frame.  

Have you ever shot a 5D2 at ISO 50 with a Rodenstock 100mm f/4 HR?  

Not to mention the camera has REAL live view on a high res LCD, with 10x zoom, while the digital backs are a pain in the a$$ to work with in this manner.

I'm not saying DSLRs are better, but contrary to what you believe, there are ways to use 35mm digital with the Schneider/Rodenstock digital lenses along with movements.  You can also use RZ67 lenses, and V lenses with Cambo systems (X2 Pro, Ultima 35, etc).

Canon and Nikon DSLRs can be moved around to different systems, because these companies have made solutions for them.  The MF DSLR cameras such as the Leica S2, Mamiya ZD, and the upcoming Pentax 645D DO NOT have this flexibility.

Anyway, 8x10 for the win!  
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #68 on: February 18, 2010, 11:12:50 pm »

Quote from: T-1000
Guy, if you have an old Horseman LS or LX 4x5 view camera (which are very cheap now) with a removeable rear frame, you can buy a conversion kit, which is basically a wide angle bellows that's attached to a Canon EOS or Nikon F mount, then it attaches in place of the rear frame.  

Have you ever shot a 5D2 at ISO 50 with a Rodenstock 100mm f/4 HR?

dSLR solutions for view cameras solutions are severely limited in their options for wide-angle which makes them very hard to use for most landscape, architecture, and interior shooting and the maximum movements are somewhat limited by the mirror box.

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #69 on: February 19, 2010, 02:47:24 am »

@Ray,
You admitting you only drive your opinion by internet and Dxo gives me LOTS of insights on your posts.

When users that use BOTH systems on a daily basis, like myself tell you that there is a difference why not believe them over some site that only does measurements that for MF.

It's very simple, MF is a totally different system than a DSLR.
Yes it's not that good at 1600ISO as a good DSLR, it's not as fast.
But quality simply is a lot better.

Look at files if you can shot with both cameras and I'm afraid that you will be ashamed of what you have posted over the last few months

And yes on print you won't see a difference.
But bring me a DSLR that can shoot outside with strobes on 1/400 or up, still has a nice DOF and gives me the dynamic range I need and for me I will switch to DSLR
As long as the sensors are totally different from what is used in the DSLRs you really never can tell which is better.
Both are DIFFERENT, one person will be better off with a DLSR, the other with a MF.

When I calibrate both systems I find my 5DMKII still lacking in skintones (overtendency to love red), my Leaf Aptus is very natural.
Because I mainly shoot people that can be a reason to not switch to DSLR.

In a magazine print you won't see a difference, that is true.
But what most people that say this don't realize is that you first have to get the shot, and in some cases a DLSR will do just fine and in some you need a MF camera.

Try it out yourself and than continue your quest (but I think the quest will be over by then).
Logged

teddillard

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 717
    • http://www.teddillard.com
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #70 on: February 19, 2010, 07:15:53 am »

I agree that this kind of debate can get pretty boring after a while.  

Thanks, Doug, for that list, it brought up some stuff I wasn't aware of, and some I'd forgotten...    

One of the aspects of this whole thing that fascinates me, however, and something I try to put my discussion in the context of, in my reviews, is the way different cameras literally dictate the style and process of shooting.  This isn't a film/digital or DSLR/MFDB discussion, it's been the case since the first camera was made, and it started, for me, when I began shooting 4x5.  Because the tool is so different, the process is different, and consequently the style of work is different too.  

MFDB, especially back when it was just tethered, is a different animal and I'd argue, one that you can only really understand in the context of your own style by using it.  When the ProBack 645 first came out, I went around doing what I called "large-format handheld street photography".  The prints looked like they were shot with a 4x5, yet the camera was like shooting with an SLR.  Well, more like that than the tethered studio cameras I'd used before...  

Recently, before it blew up, I was shooting constantly with my Canon G9 using the LCD exclusively.  One thing I loved about it was the feeling that I was peering into a ground glass, much like my old Hassey 500CM, except it wasn't inverted.  It was a different way of shooting than peering through the viewfinder of a DSLR, or any SLR for that matter.  Now I shoot with a D5000 a lot, and on a tripod with the swivel LCD at horizontal, it's just like back in the studio with the 'blad.  

Throughout this transition from film to digital, it's been, for me at least, a really exciting period where, rather than fit my old style of work into a new set of tools, I've explored how this new set of tools can push my work into new directions.  I realize a lot of photographers have a lot at stake in keeping to a style or look, it's their stock in trade.  For me, and others, though, I'm always, well, a little bored with what I've done in the past...  some form of OCD, or ADD I guess.  heh.  

Rather than versatility, I'm a lot more interested in unique capabilities.  What makes this tool special?  What makes it able to do what no other tool can do?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 07:16:45 am by teddillard »
Logged
Ted Dillard

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #71 on: February 19, 2010, 08:55:54 am »

Main Entry: cur·mud·geon
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)kər-ˈmə-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1568
1 archaic : miser
2 : a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man
— cur·mud·geon·li·ness  \-lē-nəs\ noun
— cur·mud·geon·ly  \-lē\ adjective

Main Entry: con·ten·tious
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈten(t)-shəs\
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 : likely to cause contention <a contentious argument>
2 : exhibiting an often perverse and wearisome tendency to quarrels and disputes <a man of a most contentious nature>
synonyms see belligerent
— con·ten·tious·ly adverb
— con·ten·tious·ness noun

Main Entry: troll
Pronunciation: \'troll\
Function: noun
Etymology: unknown
1. A large, brutish creature of European myth, often lacking in intelligence. Sometimes compared to the Japanese oni.
2. A dumbass who makes idiotic posts in message boards newsgroups for the sole purpose of pissing people off, remarks usually showing lack of intelligence.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 09:14:29 am by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

teddillard

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 717
    • http://www.teddillard.com
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #72 on: February 19, 2010, 09:04:38 am »

now wait one minute, there fella.  Troll is one thing, but curmudgeon?  I wear that with PRIDE!  Cantankerous old FART, too, but still...  



Quote from: Jack Flesher
Main Entry: cur·mud·geon
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)kər-ˈmə-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1568
1 archaic : miser
2 : a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man
— cur·mud·geon·li·ness  \-lē-nəs\ noun
— cur·mud·geon·ly  \-lē\ adjective

Main Entry: troll
Pronunciation: \'troll\
Function: noun
Etymology: unknown
1. A large, brutish creature of European myth, often lacking in intelligence. Sometimes compared to the Japanese oni.
2. A dumbass who makes idiotic posts in message boards newsgroups for the sole purpose of pissing people off, remarks usually showing lack of intelligence.
Logged
Ted Dillard

gwhitf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 855
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #73 on: February 19, 2010, 09:32:20 am »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
2. A dumbass who makes idiotic posts in message boards newsgroups for the sole purpose of pissing people off, remarks usually showing lack of intelligence.

Or maybe there's an alternative motivation, like trying stirring up emotion in order to drive people to your website or your workshop?

Some of these posts, you wonder if they ought to be paying Display Ad Rates for their posts?
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #74 on: February 19, 2010, 10:05:22 am »

Quote from: teddillard
now wait one minute, there fella.  Troll is one thing, but curmudgeon?  I wear that with PRIDE!  Cantankerous old FART, too, but still...  


   Good point!  I guess by itself, curmudgeonliness (?) can be an endearing trait.  But probably not so endearing when it's combined with a contentious disposition on internet forums  
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

teddillard

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 717
    • http://www.teddillard.com
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #75 on: February 19, 2010, 11:40:02 am »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
curmudgeonliness

(new favorite word)

 
Logged
Ted Dillard

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #76 on: February 20, 2010, 07:01:49 am »

Quote from: dougpetersonci
Multiple strobe hits without building ambient exposure (e.g. interiors with lighting where the power of the pack cannot build enough exposure in one hit but there is enough undesirable ambient light that you cannot simply exposure for multiple seconds and fire the flash multiple times). This can be done with a Phase One back (explanation).

True multiple exposures (the exact equivalent of doing it on film where the medium remains actively exposing while the camera body allows exposure independently). One can try to simulate the effect in post, but both technically and creatively many would prefer to do it in camera. Haven't seen this on a dSLR lately (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Triggering an exposure with zero mechanical movement (for extreme macro work where registration is measured in fractions of a mm). This can be done with a Phase One back using a simple wakeup cable.

Sync speed (as you mentioned) - the 1/1600 sync speed of a Phase One P40+/P65+ is the highest in the world.

High resolution single-capture images. Stitching may be an option for some types of images (assuming you don't mind sitting at the computer running stitching programs all day), but some types of images MUST be captured in a single frame.

Multi-purposed images in a commercial environment - it is very common for our customers to report back to us that (long after a shoot ends) an Art Director has asked them for a very small crop of a frame. With a P65+ you can crop in very very tight and still end up with a magazine sized image that will look sharp in print. It's very hard to produce those crops after the fact with a dSLR - and even if it would have been better to

The "look" from Alternative lenses. As one example you can buy a Holga lens for a Canon (I have one) - but the smaller sensor really fails to look of that lens that you got used to with 120 film. Or take the Canon 85mm f/1.2 lens used on a Mamiya body - again, the look from the MFDB cannot be accomplished via a dSLR. (Maybe if you got a kubric lens - hey I wonder if that would cover 645!?)

While not an "image you produce" - working with a traditional view camera, or a particular medium format body may provide you tools (e.g. a waist level finder, ground glass, swing/tilt/shift with any lens) that allow you to create images differently.

Friends just arrived or I would continue. Also came to mind just now but don't have time for:
True B+W capture (available on the Phase One Achromatic sensor)
Very long exposures (some dSLRs are surprisingly good at this - but none can match a P45+)

And of course these are just things that are nearly impossible with a dSLR and ignores the higher overall image quality etc etc.


Thanks for taking the trouble to itemise these advantages of the MFDB, Doug. I would not dismiss them as trivial. I've certainly experienced the limitation of the flash syc speed with my 5D, when photographing a performer doing a somersault on stage, for example. A 200th, or 250th with the latest DSLRs, is not fast enough to freeze the motion.

The fact that you can extend the flash range with multiple strobe hits, in a fill-flash situation, is also interesting. But I wonder how heavy, elaborate and expensive the equipment is to achieve this advantge over 35mm format.

I'm reminded of an occasion when photographing that marvelous architecture at Angkor Wat with my 5D. I regret I didn't use fill flash more often. But when I did, it seemed adequate, with the 580EX Speedlite.

Here's a shot without fill flash, showing the horrible noise in the shadows.

[attachment=20377:Ta_Prohm...ut_flash.jpg]   [attachment=20378:Ta_Prohm...ut_flash.jpg]

And here's a perhaps less appealing shot, because of the different angle, but which shows very clean shadows as a result of the fill flash.

[attachment=20379:Ta_Prohm...th_flash.jpg]   [attachment=20380:Ta_Prohm...th_flash.jpg]

Even the shadows at the furthest point in the scene are no too bad.

[attachment=20381:Ta_Prohm...th_flash.jpg]

The other issue that occurs to me is that many of these so-called advantages of the MFDB are actually expensive and elaborate procedures to overcome the disadvantages compared with 35mm. For example, if you need to shoot an architectural interior at 1 sec exposure, you may well need those multiple strobe hits to overcome the disadvantages of MFDB with respect to lower sensitivity and less DOF, compared with 35mm.

For example, the Nikon D3x has a base ISO of 200. The P65+ base ISO is 50. A 1 sec exposure with the P65+ at base ISO is equivalent to 1/4th sec exposure with the D3x. If you equalize DOF, presumably very important for interior archtectural shots, then that 1/4th sec becomes 1/8th sec with the D3X.

The facility of multiple strobe hits may simple not be necessary with 35mm format. I'm just speculating here. It would be interesting if we could have some carefully conducted comparison images, instead of the usual resolution and 3D comparaisons. It's a given that the larger sensor tends to provide better tonal range and higher resolution. 35mm format has 2.6x the sensor area of a Canon cropped format. I own several cropped format cameras and a couple of full frame 35mm cameras. I can see the qualitative difference. I don't need to be convinced in that respect. My complaint would be that the additional price of the MFDB system, compared with the additional price of 35mm FF in relation to the cropped format, is out of kilter with the additional benefits.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #77 on: February 20, 2010, 07:58:21 am »

Ray,

My take on this issue is that pro photographers investing in MFDBs do it for a reason. No doubt that DSLRs (especially full frame DSLRs) can more often than not do the job, but those authors who own both kinds of system say there is a significant advantage to MFDBs in many situations.

DSLRs have many advantages, good high ISO capability, excellent autofocus, high frame rate, long lenses, short lenses, zooms. They are tools of all trades. MFBDs are different. To begin with, they have no optics. The gear you put the MFDB on is more specialized. Many of the advantages of DSLRs go away in specialized shooting situations, like shooting in studio. In studio, high ISO is not really an advantage but low ISO capability is. If you are shooting scenics DOF is often not an issue, but resolution and freedom from flare is of outmost importance.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Ray
Thanks for taking the trouble to itemise these advantages of the MFDB, Doug. I would not dismiss them as trivial. I've certainly experienced the limitation of the flash syc speed with my 5D, when photographing a performer doing a somersault on stage, for example. A 200th, or 250th with the latest DSLRs, is not fast enough to freeze the motion.

The fact that you can extend the flash range with multiple strobe hits, in a fill-flash situation, is also interesting. But I wonder how heavy, elaborate and expensive the equipment is to achieve this advantge over 35mm format.

I'm reminded of an occasion when photographing that marvelous architecture at Angkor Wat with my 5D. I regret I didn't use fill flash more often. But when I did, it seemed adequate, with the 580EX Speedlite.

Here's a shot without fill flash, showing the horrible noise in the shadows.

[attachment=20377:Ta_Prohm...ut_flash.jpg]   [attachment=20378:Ta_Prohm...ut_flash.jpg]

And here's a perhaps less appealing shot, because of the different angle, but which shows very clean shadows as a result of the fill flash.

[attachment=20379:Ta_Prohm...th_flash.jpg]   [attachment=20380:Ta_Prohm...th_flash.jpg]

Even the shadows at the furthest point in the scene are no too bad.

[attachment=20381:Ta_Prohm...th_flash.jpg]

The other issue that occurs to me is that many of these so-called advantages of the MFDB are actually expensive and elaborate procedures to overcome the disadvantages compared with 35mm. For example, if you need to shoot an architectural interior at 1 sec exposure, you may well need those multiple strobe hits to overcome the disadvantages of MFDB with respect to lower sensitivity and less DOF, compared with 35mm.

For example, the Nikon D3x has a base ISO of 200. The P65+ base ISO is 50. A 1 sec exposure with the P65+ at base ISO is equivalent to 1/4th sec exposure with the D3x. If you equalize DOF, presumably very important for interior archtectural shots, then that 1/4th sec becomes 1/8th sec with the D3X.

The facility of multiple strobe hits may simple not be necessary with 35mm format. I'm just speculating here. It would be interesting if we could have some carefully conducted comparison images, instead of the usual resolution and 3D comparaisons. It's a given that the larger sensor tends to provide better tonal range and higher resolution. 35mm format has 2.6x the sensor area of a Canon cropped format. I own several cropped format cameras and a couple of full frame 35mm cameras. I can see the qualitative difference. I don't need to be convinced in that respect. My complaint would be that the additional price of the MFDB system, compared with the additional price of 35mm FF in relation to the cropped format, is out of kilter with the additional benefits.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Toto

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #78 on: February 20, 2010, 08:17:41 am »

Quote from: Ray
Here's a shot without fill flash, showing the horrible noise in the shadows.

I think I agree with another poster here, you should rent a MFDB for a while. Really, files are looking more "natural". How the colors are naturally looking better is a huge advantage for the backs.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
MFDB vs 35mm DSLR quick samples
« Reply #79 on: February 20, 2010, 08:24:23 am »

Quote from: KLaban
The fill shots just look so un-natural, particularly with the dense shadow that the fill failed to rectify. All the fill has achieved is to flatten the image.

Hey! I didn't notice any dense shadows that the fill failed to rectify, unless you are referring to the most distant shadows, about 40 or 50 metres away.

The point about having clean shadows is that it increases your options. If the image looks better with near black shadows, then you have that option, just as you have the option to reveal the the full detail in the shadows, if that's what you want.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9   Go Up