Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: The leap  (Read 8265 times)

DeeJay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
The leap
« on: January 04, 2011, 06:12:29 pm »

Hi, first post here.

So after 6 years using a Canon 5D, it's time to step things up. I'm waiting to see what happens with Canon, but it seems my best bets are with MF. Either a Phase One or Hasselblad.

Sorry for what may seem an obvious question but is the jump really worth it? The Canon really has done me well - I shoot editorial and mostly single page, often double page where the 5D starts to show it's limits. What I'm mainly concerned with is not only resolution but tonality and colour. Obviously there's a difference when looking at 100% crops but in a real world 11x14 or 16x20 is there a big enough difference?

Not sure if it will be phase one (I find the Mamiya a rather uninsipring camera) or a Hasseblad. I shoot fashion, usually tethered.

I would appreciate any real world experience in moving from dslr, 5D if there's anyone, to MFD.

Thanks,
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 06:20:46 pm by DeeJay »
Logged

marcmccalmont

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1780
Re: The leap
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2011, 06:49:01 pm »

I went from a 5d To a p30/mamiya then a p45+ and 5dII
Yes it is worth it but I would go for the pentax because of price and it is a fully integrated product
Color, resolution, tonality are noticeably improved worth the jump!
Marc
Logged
Marc McCalmont

DeeJay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
Re: The leap
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2011, 06:58:51 pm »

Thanks Marc,

I did consider the  Pentax, but you I believe you can't shoot tethered with it? And RAW write time is super slow? I shoot tethered and pretty quickly too.

DJ
Logged

Gigi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 548
    • some work
Re: The leap
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2011, 08:35:15 pm »

Its the last 2% - if you see it, its worth it. If you don't, then its not. And of course, its not pain free. Fun, yes?
Logged
Geoff

marcmccalmont

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1780
Re: The leap
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2011, 12:32:15 am »

I'm sure those gripes will be ironed out in the next few months wait till summer and reevaluate you might save a lot of $$$ with the pentax
Marc
Logged
Marc McCalmont

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Re: The leap
« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2011, 08:00:28 am »

Hi, first post here.

So after 6 years using a Canon 5D, it's time to step things up. I'm waiting to see what happens with Canon, but it seems my best bets are with MF. Either a Phase One or Hasselblad.

Sorry for what may seem an obvious question but is the jump really worth it? The Canon really has done me well - I shoot editorial and mostly single page, often double page where the 5D starts to show it's limits. What I'm mainly concerned with is not only resolution but tonality and colour. Obviously there's a difference when looking at 100% crops but in a real world 11x14 or 16x20 is there a big enough difference?

Not sure if it will be phase one (I find the Mamiya a rather uninsipring camera) or a Hasseblad. I shoot fashion, usually tethered.

I would appreciate any real world experience in moving from dslr, 5D if there's anyone, to MFD.

Thanks,

Photographically no doubt You will see an increase in quality the question you should be asking is will it make you richer or poorer? Can you charge more for the extra quality, could your clients really give a toss etc, will you get more work with MF? You need to justify a good return on your investment and quickly, todays top end is soon an also ran. If the bottom line does not justify the huge extra cost then you are funding a hobby under the business banner. Yes I would like to shoot MF, yes I can see it's better...... photographically. Would it earn me one penny more, nope. So I stick to my Canon's, I would like an excuse for a Phaseone, but other than making me feel good and bragging rights, in my position with my clients there is no reason to fund one. How about you and your clients?

Kevin.
Logged
Kevin.

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: The leap
« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2011, 08:08:16 am »

There are now cheap Hassy and Phase solutions. I think the Hassy is probably as useful / more useful to the studio shooter as the Pentax - good tethering, fast sync, and shift system available.

By the way, those new radio links described on RG push up the shutter sync speed on a dSLR by about a stop.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: The leap
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2011, 08:42:37 am »

I'm sure those gripes will be ironed out in the next few months wait till summer and reevaluate you might save a lot of $$$ with the pentax

Bear in mind that Phase One, Leaf, and Hasselblad have spent more than a decade EACH refining the protocols, firmware, software, and hardware to allow very fast, very stable tethered shooting. Each has a dedicated software package which is built from the ground up for tethering - rather than rely on tethering functionalities built on top of existing generalized software packages.

It is NOT an arbitrarily easy thing to enable good tethering of very high resolution files. A P65+ (60 megapixels) shows up on the monitor (or iPad) in 2-3 seconds and can shoot without slowing down for many minutes at a time at max speed with shot to shot times the same every time (very consistent - easy to get into a rhythm). It has a several gigabyte buffer and compresses the raw file prior to placement in the buffer - on the other side Capture One can play around with direct memory access to dump the raw file into the computer as quickly as possible and draw a preview before writing it to disk.

One need only look at the Leica S2. At launch the tethering was awful (I say this as a rep of a company that sells S2s). After a year plus and several firmware revisions the tethering is now "ok" and is probably usable in some tethering situations. I don't, frankly, expect much more improvement in S2 tethering.

Pentax may very well knock it out of the park - only time will tell. However, given that they seem to be primarily targeting the landscape/nature shooter it seems unlikely to be their top priority for improvement, and it's not an easy thing to do (well).

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: The leap
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2011, 08:50:38 am »

There are now cheap Hassy and Phase solutions. I think the Hassy is probably as useful / more useful to the studio shooter as the Pentax - good tethering, fast sync, and shift system available.

That describes also Leaf and Phase One backs. Hassy has an advantage on number of leaf shutter lenses for sure (Phase/Leaf have only four: 55/80/110/150), though Phase One has an advantage on absolute sync speed (1/1600 without light loss vs. 1/800 with some light loss) and is adding more Leaf Shutter lenses every year. Anyway - they are all three mature, reliable, high quality systems worth looking at.

They are all also (though not equally) known to digital techs and assistants, which is no small deal if you do shoots with a medium or large crew where you have to rely on your crew for camera setup, tethering setup, etc. And they are all more readily available in rental in case of needing an extra lens, body, or back. All also have some form of advance/pro/premium warranty - the Phase One VA warranty includes a hot-swap of the back in case you have issues so you cannot be down for more than one day.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 08:53:08 am by dougpetersonci »
Logged

DeeJay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
Re: The leap
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2011, 10:22:08 am »

Thanks all, very useful information with some really good points. Much appreciated.

I'm torn in both ways to be honest, and the costs are certainly balancing out between the high end dslrs and mfbs. I do actually like shooting with a dslr - It's mobility and simplicity suits my work. I don't want to have to be tripod bound, after years of using an RZ and a Fuji GX680, I don't thikn I could ever go back that way, being static just isn't my style. But while I see that the 5D is good enough to get the job done, I do see it's flaws and spend more time in post, which I believe will be reduced with a mfb. So another score in productivity. I can't buy into a system which doesn't have tethering, and Pentax's omission on that, which I thinks is just ridiculous, strikes it off the list for me despite it's good early reports on quality. I also love my canon lenses and would miss them, the 85 1.2 is hard to beat for the style of images it lends itself too, yet at the same time I think I would gain in tonailty and quality with the change anyway.

Surprisingly sync isn't a huge deal to me. Having come from an RZ system (which I'd never go back now to due to relative ergonomics) I was worried about the sync of the 5D but I've done perfectly fine with the 200th that it has to offer and has and it has served me fine even in the glaring deserts of New Mexico. Those times that it's needed I can get away with ND's or polariser. Most of my work is in the studio and often with a flash/hmi mix so it really isn't an issue.

Maybe it's not a great time to invest in mf with all the rumours of Canon dropping the 1ds and launching an all new product similar to the Leica S2. But I need to invest soon before the end of the tax year.

Does anyone believe they have a definite answer on what they prefer and for what reasons? Blad or Mamiya/Phase?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 11:03:01 am by DeeJay »
Logged

MrSmith

  • Guest
Re: The leap
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2011, 12:56:45 pm »

a 5D II and the good L lenses are a significant jump in quality from the 5D, if you treat it like a medium format (tripod/mirror up) the results are excellent, you still have the option of handheld 1200asa if needed.
a cheaper option than medium format and more versatile
Logged

Snook

  • Guest
Re: The leap
« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2011, 02:24:27 pm »

Don't waste your money.... Buy nice glass for a 5DII... Unless your blowing up HUGE prints DB's are over kill and just a PIA..
I went through the whole route and the 5DII is WAY easier and faster than ANY DB..
I would not waste your money if you asked me.. I have not posted in a while here but just could not give my opnion.. If you have specefic job where you need it... RENT it and keep your money for lighting,Lens etc...
The MFDB world is dying rapidly and just way to slow and a PIA to use...
I was with Phase for a couple of years and now have been back to my 5DII and 1DSMII and I would not go back to DB's if they gave them to me..
I have a P30 collecting Dust in my camera safe... Only pull it out when I am doing some art stuff that needs to be blown up really big for some reason..
Good luck
Snook :P
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: The leap
« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2011, 03:07:34 pm »

For what you do, I agree with Snook.  The backs are nice, have great files, a different look than 35, but for most work, including big budget productions, 35 dig is fine, and in many cases, even better because you find you don't have to edit for focus and strong aliasing in fabrics and hair.  If you shot architechture I'd have a different recomendation. 

A HUGE step up from a 5D is a D3x and a few lenses, if you have money burning a hole in you accounts.  You could spend the balance on shooting editorials to get new work.  Or a 5D2 and some new primes, even cheaper.  I like the dsIII as well.

I think it important to just get on and create rather than buying gear. Buying gear usually happens when we run out of inspiration, hoping something with a "better file" that costs a trunk load of cash will propel us forward.  It doesn't.  The only thing that makes your work better is breaking down barriers in your mind and pushing yourself forward.

Good luck!
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: The leap
« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2011, 03:11:48 pm »

For what you do, I agree with Snook.  The backs are nice, have great files, a different look than 35, but for most work, including big budget productions, 35 dig is fine, and in many cases, even better because you find you don't have to edit for focus and strong aliasing in fabrics and hair.  If you shot architechture I'd have a different recomendation. 

A HUGE step up from a 5D is a D3x and a few lenses, if you have money burning a hole in you accounts.  You could spend the balance on shooting editorials to get new work.  Or a 5D2 and some new primes, even cheaper.  I like the dsIII as well.

I think it important to just get on and create rather than buying gear.Buying gear usually happens when we run out of inspiration, hoping something with a "better file" that costs a trunk load of cash will propel us forward.  It doesn't.  The only thing that makes your work better is breaking down barriers in your mind and pushing yourself forward.Good luck!


Best advice yet - been there, wasted the dough, when all I needed was a better wine and some cleaning away of the cobwebs.

Rob C

D_Clear

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
    • DERMOT CLEARY PHOTOGRAPHER
Re: The leap
« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2011, 12:48:32 am »

It's fun to read the bradaggio, as if cameras were dates "I wouldn't shoot with her even if she threw herself at me...". But I don't think that it does much to address your real world questions of which MF system to go with.

I read that you've pretty much decided to make the jump to MF and you shoot editorial. I hope you are excited.

As someone who also shoots editorial and worked (every day) for years with the RZ and the Fuji 680, I now shoot two systems; D3X and Phase P65+/Contax, so I have some personal experience with your decision.

Maybe it's because a lot of us start out with more utilitarian gear, maybe its as simple as it's exciting to get the next-and-better-version of our camera but regardless we seem to be weaned on the upgrade path (be honest it's fun) as a way to improve our work. Sometimes buying new gear is that simple to improve the work, but then that stops... oh-oh.

I can appreciate that if you haven't had a lot of experience with MF it can seem like that's "what the big-boys use", it can seem like the next logical next step in evolution from DSLR. As much as I love my P65+, the MF jump is not necessarily the answer for you if editorial is a big part of what you do.

My personal approach (in editorial) is to use two systems interchangeably (watch Annie on YouTube and she will show you this approach better then I ever could), both are tethered and I switch back and forth (when I feel like it). I realize that if your budget or preference is to run with one system then you won't shoot this way, but the result of me shooting like this, is I get to see which tools perform best in different situations then work the files like dough on my 30" Eizo - two systems are hugely advantageous as an empirical comparison.

Tethered is faster then I can advantage on the Phase, I wait a bit for the Nikon in C1, especially if it gets backed-up. I'd say you want to consider weaning yourself from monitoritis if you are evaluating every capture after you dial-in in an editorial shoot anyways.

If you want to explore MF I say pass-Go, collect $200., go for it.

You may end up going back to DSLR, or you may find the MF platform works super-well for your style of shooting and the images you make, I can't get a sense of that because you are not sharing them.

If you don't like the gear you can always sell it. To be blunt, who the hell is anyone to tell you what tools to use, you'll discover this for yourself, as you should. Invest the time, grow, get excited.

Editorially I have photographed 20ish cover features in the last 20 months, mostly people-based imagery. In other words I have a fair amount of practical experience in the genre, my tools are not not just decided based on model tests or some motionless vista - as special as the position and sharpness of branches or water may be in determining the merits of a system. In my world Art Directors and Photo Editors have the final word.

Since I also shoot other things such as high production-value advertising, industrial landscapes and fashion I'm right in the middle of the whole format debate. Shutter sync, depth of field and iso aside - and these should be a big part of your personal evaluation, shooting is a physical skill, it's athletic to some extent and if you are prepared to push the MF it is capable of producing amazing SLRish results in shooting movement, etc.

As example take a look at Avedon who often created LF images which the new pups can't seem to replicate with auto focus. In fact I'm surprised at how little time is devoted to that aspect of the shooting chain, but perhaps that's due to the (understandable) emphasis on field and fauna on this site.

In my experience the challenges of editorial; strobes and their f-stop output, limited time, varying shutter speed, flash sync, iso, depth of field, movement, etc can all very quickly become tricky with MF. On the other hand; aspect ratio, increased crop flexibility, higher bit rate, better colour, etc all make a strong case for MF. This is probably not what you want to hear, but only from your own testing will you know if the mix of qualities from either system works for you.

I know what editorial pays, I know what MF costs to implement including the computer upgrade. The system you describe as your current setup is not really the top. If I were in your position,  I would seriously consider pushing, I mean really pushing the limits of DSLR.

I know you are a Canon guy, my experience with the D3X next to my Phase is very, very impressive. If I compose carefully DPS's are remarkable out of that camera. Canon's answer to the D3X while quite not as good in my tests, would still improve on what you have especially if you evolve into best wide (zeiss?) glass.

Lastly, I read that you expect retouching to take less time with MF, forget what the shrub-shooters tell you, in my experience retouching takes more time whenever there's skin involved, due to the greater resolving power.

BTW IF cameras were dates, I'd be all over the S2, after all she is sexy, German, modern, curvy but not too big.... and expensive :)

Good Luck

DC
www.dermotcleary.com







« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 01:42:18 am by D_Clear »
Logged
DC

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Re: The leap
« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2011, 02:02:58 am »

I shoot both on a daily and commercial base.
If you love dynamic range and better control over DOF and of you need higher sync speeds with flash outside MF is the way to go.

However in the end it doesn't matter as long as you're delivering the goods to your clients.
If they are happy you get paid and we all live happily ever after.

All talks about what is better or what is worse has gone more and more less important to me over the years. I love both and could not live without my leaf digital back at the moment, but I also could not live without my DSLR.

Horses for courses and in reality they only have one thing in common, give it to a master and with both you will get the job done give it to a fool and both will suck. It's that easy.

Quality wise there is no competition for me comparing a 5dMKII to an aptusII7. But again both pay my bills I just grab which one I need.
Logged

tesfoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 145
Re: The leap
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2011, 04:16:25 am »


I think it important to just get on and create rather than buying gear. Buying gear usually happens when we run out of inspiration, hoping something with a "better file" that costs a trunk load of cash will propel us forward.  It doesn't.  The only thing that makes your work better is breaking down barriers in your mind and pushing yourself forward.



Hey TMARK - I totally agree, I takes one to know one ;-)

Cheers


Logged

DeeJay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 250
Re: The leap
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2011, 02:17:07 pm »

Wow. Thankyou so much for all your real world experiences with MF and DSLRs. I really appreciate it.

I totally agree with most points made hence the difficult decision, but there are some new factors here as I thought retouching would be less...

The two camera systems together sounds like the best of all worlds. THikn I'm going to go down that route.

Again, thanks so much for your experiences.

Next decision, which MF...
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: The leap
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2011, 07:16:55 pm »


If you don't like the gear you can always sell it. To be blunt, who the hell is anyone to tell you what tools to use, you'll discover this for yourself, as you should. Invest the time, grow, get excited.




That statement I agree with 100% and with that in mind can't tell anyone what they should use, just try to explain what I think.

The trap is getting into a mindset of good enough, which it seems what the op is trying to avoid.

I don't mean the constant reference to  "ultimate image quality" because most of thaf  is just dealer talk.  

What I mean is a dumbing down of the process.  Whether your a full fledged professional, or a serious amateur, digital has taken photography to a mid quality level where almost any camera at any price point will allow you to technically produce an acceptable 11x14 print.

Where the dslr mindset becomes a 10w-30 slope is when we start saying the high end Nikon is almost as good as a medium format back, the 5d2 is almost as good as a 1ds3, a 7d is almost as good as a 5d, a cellphone is almost as good as a 7d.

See where this is going?

I think this all depends on what you want to be.  

Even good photography is a damn difficult thing to do and not that it needs to be any harder but Im not sure it needs to be any easier either.  

We now are caught up in a flicker/facebook world where any photograph posted will get a response of that's great, that's tremendous, when in reality, it's just acceptable.  

The knock on medium format is the usability.  Nobody really complains about the quality of the file, except in instances where there is moire or you really need a billion iso.  The real problem with medium format cameras is the little things like fast focus lenses, lcd's that are readable, having to use tripods to get the most out of the image, but heck if it was easy anyone can do it and that's the second rub.  Most dslrs have become easy enough to let almost any person do it in an acceptable manner.  I think the word acceptable sucks.

I agree with T-mark that buying equipment is something that a lot of people do to replace the creative spark, though the flip side to this is buying an exceptional tool to improve your art or craft is a commitment and can force you to work in a more dedicated manner.  If money is important to you, spending should move you to be better.   If it doesn't then nothing ever will.

What is missing at the highest levels of photography today is the camera, not the digital capture.  A Phase camera will capture as technically good image as a Hasselblad and I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but few people build an inspirational bond with a Mamiya 645.   In fact most 645 cameras are a real step back in quality compared to their older film counterparts.

One exception was the hy6/afi/rolleiflex or whatever it was called.  It had the possibility to become the camera a professional would love to own for a long time, with a rotatable back, autofocus, a waist level finder and fast lenses.  Unfortunately it also was a camera that was born under tough economic times with a limited market.   It almost had everything it took, but never came to market with every glitch smoothed out, every lens and accessory on the shelf ready to buy and the real information on this camera was murky at best.

Actually, in my mind the only new "medium format" camera that has some cache, a full modern lens line and tethers well is the Hasselblad.   It's far from perfect, but it will get the blood flowing a lot faster than an plastic covered, black dslr of any make.

FWIW I use Contax's for no other reason than I like them.  I like f stops on the lenses, I like the sound the camera makes, for print I like a 4:3 crop and I like that you can add a waist level finder for horizontals.

A lot of people here, sometimes myself included will tell you that any dslr is easier to use and most of the time they're right.  They will tell you that it's a waste of money and time to go to a larger camera and some of that is valid, except most of the people saying this really learned their art and style using difficult, thoughtful larger cameras before they went back to the dslrs.  Maybe there is a lesson in there somewhere.

What will move you forward is the mindset of striving to be better than acceptable.

If the purchase of a difficult hard to use camera only serves the purpose to force you to be better, to learn more, then the investment is probably worth it.

In fact if I was selling medium format cameras my headline would read, "Hell yea it's hard to use, that's the point".

IMO

BC

« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 07:20:59 pm by bcooter »
Logged

uaiomex

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1211
    • http://www.eduardocervantes.com
Re: The leap
« Reply #19 on: January 09, 2011, 02:06:41 pm »

I'd say Cooter's post is pure enlightenment. I've been through all the circle starting from 35mm to 6X6, 6X9 and 4X5. I knew then what to use for what job.Then came my 10D and everything turned upside down. I realized then I could shoot everything with digital. I sold my darkroom 4 years before the 10D because I could see the big switch was imminent . Digital photography evolved so fast nobody saw it coming. I've thought it too that, all digital formats are almost to the next bigger one. Phones are near P&S quality, P&S are near the next one and so on. I think that in rounded numbers the difference in quality might be around +/- 10%. If true, you'd need to go from 4/3 to true d645 to double the quality in just about every "any day" enlargement or print on any hi-gloss magazine. 645 is many times bigger than 4/3. In film it only took from 35 to 645 to double the quality. A 2.5X size increment.

Where does this takes us? Digital made "formats" fuzzy. For example, where does digital MF start? At 25X37mm? or so it seems.

Nowadays, I can shoot every assignment and enlarge to a gorgeous 24X36" with just a 5DII, 6 pieces of fine glass and a tripod. If I could afford a P45+ for my 500CM I would certainly buy it. For the quality increase of course but also for the sheer joy of composing with both eyes through the waist level finder and for the tactful true human-scale experience of rotating, pulling, pushing, pressing, hearing real physical controls that are easy to remember and locate while keeping your eyes on your subject. Now, that is photography!
Hope this helps.
Eduardo


I try to stay out of these format threads but have to say that Cooter's post is as good a summary as I've seen.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 02:23:56 pm by uaiomex »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up