Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Camera choice  (Read 8679 times)

fredjeang

  • Guest
Camera choice
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2010, 07:03:05 am »

Quote from: Ray
Aw! Shucks! Such a pity. And I thought you might be a woman masquerading as a man.    (No offense I hope).
Ahhh Ray...No ofense at all, just enjoying some of your...gentleman?..posts  
I have pretty much resolved my balance between Yin and Yang, although my wife has no doubt I'm a man.

But you made me laugh with this one    

Cheers,

Fred.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2010, 07:21:13 am by fredjeang »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Camera choice
« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2010, 02:33:40 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

Stitching is very useful and easy to do. I'm often shooting images to be stitched instead of cropping. It's really easy.
 
Hi Erik,

I agree. Stitching is nowadays very easy. It didn't used to be. In the past I recall wasting many hours on the computer readjusting parameters in order to get a better stitch, and sometimes eventually giving up because the parallax errors were just too great.

Nowadays, programs like Autopano Pro can automatically stitch and merge RAW images to HDR in one go, thus producing even greater resolution and DR than any single shot from an MFDB.

Of course, the standard response to this argument is that one can also stitch MFDB images to get even higher resolution. What size prints do you imagine you would ever want to make? 6ft x 20ft? If so, then it's true you would need to stitch fewer images using an MFDB system.
Logged

Dick Roadnight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1730
Camera choice
« Reply #22 on: March 15, 2010, 07:23:53 am »

Quote from: Ray
Hi Erik,

Of course, the standard response to this argument is that one can also stitch MFDB images to get even higher resolution. What size prints do you imagine you would ever want to make? 6ft x 20ft? If so, then it's true you would need to stitch fewer images using an MFDB system.
Even for 24" you would get better prints using MF.

The 60Mpx sensors let you print 24" wide (for shift and stitch or perhaps cylinder stitch) at 360 original camera pixels per print inch (or 240 ppi in landscape).

For prints bigger than 30" (with a 60Mpx sensor) I would want to use double row stitching.
Logged
Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses

LaurensvanKol

  • Guest
Camera choice
« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2010, 07:10:34 pm »

I'm at the same crossroad as the poster of this topic: low-end MFDB or high-end DSLR.

Unlike most other members my purpose isn't low-volume fine art printing, but high-volume offset printing, from appr. 30 inch up.

I can buy a FF D3x or A900 with 6000 pixels and have about 200 ppi.

But Phase One now brings us:
7216 pixels P45+ > around 240/250 ppi
6496 pixels P30+ > around 220 ppi
5436 pixels P25+ > below 200 ppi

(upscaled to 300 ppi of course to make the printer happy!)

At a printing forum I was told that I don't need magazine quality for such large prints ... but I do.

I was hoping to meet someone at this forum with actual experience with offset printing using both systems (MFDB/DSLR).

Thanks
Laurens
Logged

larkis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 330
    • My photography blog
Camera choice
« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2010, 10:58:39 pm »

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
What 5 * 4 do you have?

Could you use a digiback with it, and buy digital lenses as and when you can pick them up at as good price?

I have an ebony, i believe they did have digital back adapters for it as well.

That pentax that was announced recently sounds interesting as well.

BrianWoolf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Camera choice
« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2010, 03:50:48 pm »

I am a pro and have used various tethered backs since 2003, the Betterlight, Phase H25(22megapixel) anf the Leaf Valeo 17wi(17megapixel). For my personal work, mostly landscape and urban stuff, I have been using a Nikon D300 with a 17-55mm lens. While I have been very satisfied with the D300 images, I was made aware every day at work how good the Leaf 17 back is, in comparison. From Ebay, after a year of searching, I obtained a used Leaf Aptus 22megapixel to go on my Hasselblad 503cw with an older 50mm lens. I got the back about 5 months ago, but have only done a few outdoor tests, back problems and lousy weather in NYC did not help.

   I print to an Epson 7600 and the 'small' prints I make are 20" wide. In the case of the D300 - 20x13.5"high and The Leaf Aptus - 20x16" (a 4x5/8/10 proportion). Unfortunately I am old, with old eyes and at that size while I see a difference, it is not great, but younger eyes see a bigger difference. Once you go to a 20x30" or 20X28", the difference becomes much wider, more obvious. In film terms, a 11x14" print from 35mm panatomic-x (slow, fine grain, asa 25, I think) will be easily outclassed by a 11x14" print from a 4x5 neg(asa 125). The MFDB has cleaner, smoother, healthier pixels, that how I would describe or characterize it.

   There is something very important to consider and that is shooting style. In my case, I compose in the view finder. I think I see a shot, put the camera to my eye and use the zoom to crop and decide if I have a photo. With the Leaf Aptus 22, I found that a tripod is necessary to gain the full potential of the back. This was in my head, needing a tripod, before I purchased the back, so it wasn't a surprise. The biggest problem was composing a photo with a fixed lens. All I can do is move forward or back with my feet, to change the composition and often this doesn't work, because the landscape you are in goes up and down. Two steps forward, can lower the photo by 2 feet and the shot is not there anymore. I was realizing that some shots were no longer there and what other lenses would I need to carry to get those shots back. If I carried the D300 and a days shooting yielded 10 good images, how many might the Leaf Aptus yield. I am guessing 2-3 images, so am I giving up too much to obtain the highest quality, especially if you consider that the Leaf might come up with the #3, 7 and 8 of the 10, I might get with the D300. If I was getting 7-8 images with the Leaf, that would be great, 2-3 is disappointing. I am not sure that I like the trade off, but need more time to do real landscape work before I can decide. I did try an overall photo to be cropped later, after all I have an abundance of pixels, right. I do not like working this way, I might get home and find out that I have nothing. With the D300, if images are not working, I might try many different angles and crops to get something.
   This was a way of working that I thought I could handle, enjoy and be productive. At the moment I am not at all sure. These are the intangibles that rise up and bite us.

Good Luck, Brian
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up