Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: >61MP image files for peepers  (Read 38069 times)

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5987
Re: >61MP image files for peepers
« Reply #80 on: October 09, 2010, 02:37:27 PM »

I think some here think I am obsessed with "certain gear", but the courses for which I want horses include old stone architecture and landscapes, and I want grass not to look like a billiard table, stonework not to look like toffee, and skin not to look like plastic.

Hi Dick,

Can also be achieved by using a longer focal length and stitching more tiles ..., it also allows to adjust focus to the tile in question, and thus achieve focusstacking. Of course stationary subjects are easiest with such an approach.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14720
Re: >61MP image files for peepers
« Reply #81 on: October 09, 2010, 02:48:19 PM »

I think some here think I am obsessed with "certain gear", but the courses for which I want horses include old stone architecture and landscapes, and I want grass not to look like a billiard table, stonework not to look like toffee, and skin not to look like plastic.



Dick, you already held the answer in your hand: film.

I'm not joking. I have been struggling with a project of my own - the planning stage, trying to find co-operation (much as one often did with fashion and calendar travel) and the fact is that most of the subject matter is going to be more or less exactly what you specify, with the addition of water. I am seriously thinking of using my venerable Nikon F3 or a rangefinder instead of the two digitals I have, D200 and D700. Why? I have never been convinced that the beautiful colours that digi gives me are also giving the detail I think is there. I base that opinion of the way I see my own A3+ material, most of it from Kodachrome, and I don't know that digi outperforms it; yes, Kodachrome's just a song now, I know.

Rob C

Dick Roadnight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1730
Re: >61MP image files for peepers
« Reply #82 on: October 09, 2010, 02:58:18 PM »

Hi Dick,

Can also be achieved by using a longer focal length and stitching more tiles ..., it also allows to adjust focus to the tile in question, and thus achieve focusstacking. Of course stationary subjects are easiest with such an approach.

Cheers,
Bart
Yes, Horses for courses...
I have chosen Apo-Digitars with large image circles for shift-and-stitch, and I have a 300mm I intend to use on a Clauss... so, when I do want lots of pixels, I will have options.

...then, to photograph a train at speed, I am toying with the idea of using 2 P3's, 2 Hassy digibacks, 2 eShutters, a matched pair of Apo-Digitars and a pocket Wizard system to sync them.

This would, of course be a relatively flat subject for which Virtual viewpoint should work well, especially if most of the background was steam!
Logged
Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses

Dick Roadnight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1730
Re: >61MP image files for peepers
« Reply #83 on: October 09, 2010, 03:07:53 PM »

Dick, you already held the answer in your hand: film.

I yes, Kodachrome's just a song now, I know.

Rob C
Hi, Rob...

I really appreciate the advantages of digi, but I appreciate that for hi-res large landscapes including moving trains, waves, boats etc., sheet film can be an asset, but (back on topic) 60 or 80 Mpx backs allow you to print quite large at high res without having to stitch.

Film is ideal for stone buildings and beach scenes, as long as the grain is only evident where you want to see grains of sand! (but Kodachrome was grain-free).
« Last Edit: October 09, 2010, 03:09:33 PM by Dick Roadnight »
Logged
Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses

JSK

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re: >61MP image files for peepers
« Reply #84 on: October 09, 2010, 04:09:59 PM »



I believe if there was a 31mpx option closer to the price of the Canon he'd buy it, or if the used market was more friendly in regards to repairs and dealer/maker support he'd probably go that direction.

BC


thats the area Pentax should have covered instead they are (without digital MF customer base) going against Phase Leaf Hasselblad
and with similar prices.. not to mention their presence as far as renting availability replacements troubleshooting experience etc.. sure
I can support their effort and nostalgia aside but who are they kidding?
Logged
⨀ LEICA ⨀ PHASE 1 ⨀ HASSELBLAD ⨀ MAMIYA ⨀ NIKON ⨀ CANON ⨀ PROFOTO ⨀ BRONCOLOR ⨀ ARRI ⨀ BRIESE ⨀

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14720
Re: >61MP image files for peepers
« Reply #85 on: October 09, 2010, 04:33:25 PM »

  Re: >61MP image files for peepers
Reply #91 on: Today at 10:35:02 AM Reply Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: Fritzer on Today at 09:56:48 AM
"Every time I read the phrase 'it's the artist, not the gear, stupid' , I know there is nothing to learn from the person writing this."



Quote from: Fred
"I completly agree with that. Repeating over and over again "gear does not matters, it is the artist" is the same as the opposite "gear is all". I never beleived that statement in a way or another.
IMO, gear should respond, embrasse, suits a particular artist's approach and style of working."



Well, take another look at the Peter Lindbergh site and run through the movie clips. If anyone still agrees with the first quotation, they haven't been paying attention to what they've been seeing.

The truth is, he (Lindbergh) could be working with any similar camera, but he happens to be a Nikonista; but the point is, the shoot is all his and his girls' work, not the equipment that is the star.

Rob C


 

Fritzer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 211
Re: >61MP image files for peepers
« Reply #86 on: October 09, 2010, 05:00:33 PM »

IMO, gear should respond, embrasse, suits a particular artist's approach and style of working.
So, yes it is important. It is even important to know the gear that don't fit with one's needs.

Rhight. And as long as existing gear fits the needs of certain fotografers, that gear is spot-on .

Quote
The thing is that internet is full of tech addicts and commercial vendors and maybe, the cultural bombing about megapixels have been doing damages for the very beginning of digital tools.

Yo have the attitude of a DPR-forum laymann - MPs in the professional world are the 3rd coming - the 2nd one being larger sensors.

Quote
But the competition is tough. In short, dslr have improoved incredibly while MF makers have choosen the path of heavier and bigger artillery, basically. I'm not sure this is the correct path, but I don't have a cristal ball and wish they know their clients and targets enough.


MFDB is bigger, heavier, and delivers better quality. For those who know their cameras - MFDB systems have beome smaller and faster in the digital erea.

 DSLRs have gone nowhere really, with the 5DII being the only exception.
All other top models in DSLR are overprized; you can't get any compact FF non-DSLR at an affordable prize, and APS-C models have everything geared toward the amateur market, what with the lack of a finder, and even swiveling displays limited to vertical (movie) shooting at times .
« Last Edit: October 09, 2010, 05:02:11 PM by Fritzer »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10124
    • Echophoto
Re: >61MP image files for peepers
« Reply #87 on: October 10, 2010, 04:30:23 AM »

Hi,

I got the impression the Pentax 645D is selling well in Japan. The Pentax 645 was a well respected MF camera and the Pentax 67 was a classic. Also, it is my understanding that the 645D has pretty decent AF, much better than usual in MF. So I wouldn't count out Pentax.

Also, I'd say that the direct competitor to Pentax 645D is the Leica S2, and in that comparison the Pentax is almost free.

I cannot see that an MF camera would be possible at DSLR prices at least not with interchangeable components. I own a Pentax 67 myself and it was really cheap at the time I bought it. My guess is that development cost has been depreciated long ago and the construction is quite simple. A modular camera will always be more expensive.

Whether the Pentax 645D will be success or failure the market only can decide.

Best regards
Erik


thats the area Pentax should have covered instead they are (without digital MF customer base) going against Phase Leaf Hasselblad
and with similar prices.. not to mention their presence as far as renting availability replacements troubleshooting experience etc.. sure
I can support their effort and nostalgia aside but who are they kidding?

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14720
Re: >61MP image files for peepers
« Reply #88 on: October 10, 2010, 04:38:14 AM »

The Pentax 645 was a well respected MF camera and the Pentax 67 was a classic. Also, it is my understanding that the 645D has pretty decent AF, much better than usual in MF. So I wouldn't count out Pentax.
Best regards
Erik
[/quote


Yes, Eric, and so did I own a Pentax 67 II; and we both know the problems that baby gives with vibration from that two-ton shutter!

So it, along with most of the other MF cameras I tried, was as flawed as a three-wheeled car (which I have also owned, to my shame).

Hardly something that deserves the term classic, though that's indeed how the common history is rewritten, not only here but almost anywhere that people chew the fat and reminisce...

Rob C

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10124
    • Echophoto
Re: >61MP image files for peepers
« Reply #89 on: October 10, 2010, 01:55:12 PM »

Hi,

I sorted out the vibration issues on the Pentax by switching from Manfrotto 055 to Velbon Sherpa Pro. With film and a decent tripod the Pentax 67 was much better than 135. A friend of mine had a Hasselblad and I think that it could be that his images were a bit sharper than mine, I don't know. But I would say that he Pentax 67 definitively was OK once you learned to live with it.

Best regards
Erik


The Pentax 645 was a well respected MF camera and the Pentax 67 was a classic. Also, it is my understanding that the 645D has pretty decent AF, much better than usual in MF. So I wouldn't count out Pentax.
Best regards
Erik
[/quote


Yes, Eric, and so did I own a Pentax 67 II; and we both know the problems that baby gives with vibration from that two-ton shutter!

So it, along with most of the other MF cameras I tried, was as flawed as a three-wheeled car (which I have also owned, to my shame).

Hardly something that deserves the term classic, though that's indeed how the common history is rewritten, not only here but almost anywhere that people chew the fat and reminisce...

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14720
Re: >61MP image files for peepers
« Reply #90 on: October 10, 2010, 04:09:41 PM »

Eric

Mine lived on a Gitzo G410, G1371 head, a combination almost heavier and tougher than which I could lift!

I've just watched a rerun of a DVD that a friend sent me some time ago; it's about James Ravilious, a photographer of English rural life. He used an M3 and old lenses that were not coated. The work is beautiful... we have lost a hell of a lot along the way, mainly, I think, the power to see beauty in what might be thought ugly; but perhaps most seriously of all, the purity of black and white photographic tonality.

Rob C

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up