The leap

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... but in a real world… is there a big enough difference?...

No.

[bcooter]

No.

This week I used a 7d for the first time, mostly as a video camera to get into tight places the RED would not fit.

I also used a 5d2 for the first time as a still camera, to shoot some prop photographs for the video we are working on.

My conclusion is they are both wonderful machines that do everything that you could ask, exactly when asked, are easy, fast, compact, inexpensive and have all the tactile feel and romance of a hair dryer.

I'm not nostalgic for old cameras, will never go back to film, but in shooting the video we also used an old hasselblad 500 with a polaroid back as a prop camera.  It is the 180 opposite of the Canons.   It doesn't do everything you want, just changing the F stop and shutter requires more than a millesecond, maybe a few seconds, heck if it sticks sometimes a few minutes.  The viewfinder is beautiful but somewhat dark, the ergonomics of a box camera are not that good, but when you focus and push the button you feel like you've done something human, with a device made by a human. 

If medium format missed the boat on any one thing, it's the fact they never produced a real full frame 2 1/4 square sensor, which sounds kind of strange considering I've only shot about 2 dozen square images in my life.  Well more than that but only seen about 2 dozen square images I've shot run in my life.

I think a lot of this comes down to what you want to be.  Some people just love the instantness of a dslr, the got it now I can leave the room function it serves, but I just can't help but think something is missing in the 5d/7d/d whatever process.

I know, it's all about the final image, but if anyone can tell me the process doesn't matter,  then I think they've played one too many ninetindo games.

But I'll tell you something funny.  This week were shooting with this, which is far from intuitive, far from instant:



Around the set are all kinds of cameras, Nikons, the 5d/7d's and of course twenty two million I phones.  But the camera everyone picks up, actors, assistants, gaffers, grips, the sound guys, EVERYONE picks up is the Leica M-8.

So draw your own conclusions about image quality, what is good or not good, but don't tell me that if you love photography the process doesn't matter.

IMO

BC

[John R Smith]

So draw your own conclusions about image quality, what is good or not good, but don't tell me that if you love photography the process doesn't matter.

Well, at last someone said it. I've never dared mention it here, for fear of ridicule, but actually this probably the only important reason that I keep and use my old 500s and all the rest of my Hasselblad kit. These things, and old Rolleis, are so beautifully made that it makes any modern digital camera look like a bad joke.

John

[cyberean]

Around the set are all kinds of cameras, Nikons, the 5d/7d's and of course twenty two million I phones.  But the camera everyone picks up, actors, assistants, gaffers, grips, the sound guys, EVERYONE picks up is the Leica M-8.

So draw your own conclusions about image quality, what is good or not good, but don't tell me that if you love photography the process doesn't matter.

the hypnotic power
of the little red dot ...

[DeeJay]

I've come to realise that the more a camera is capable of doing for me and the more reliant I am on the camera doing it for me the more my images suffer. It's a lesson learned.

Brilliant. So true.

[ndevlin]

+1 to everything Dermot said.

[DeeJay]

So I just have been shooting a big job which has budget for some decent kit hire. I've been shooting a P65+ on a V System for a couple days.

I don't know know that I can ever return to dslr again! 

There is no comparison, not even in the slightest, and in answer to my own question (and for anyone else that's interested), yes it will dramatically reduce retouching time. I used to spend hours working in maybe a third of the tonality and colour depth that this thing has native. These files really don't need hardly any retouching.

The client is over the moon too so it just seems like a no brainer to me. Time for the Leap! And I would imagine that with the new IQ Backs the cost of these P65 backs is going to get better.

[fredjeang]

Agreed, certainly, the process or journey matters. Having said that, what amuses and concerns me - often in equal measure - is when I see the process becoming the driving force, all that passion and emotion for cameras and the process of photography, and at the expense of images.
 
Over the years I've come to realise that the more a camera is capable of doing for me and the more reliant I am on the camera doing it for me the more my images suffer. It's a lesson learned.

I agree. I saw the same.
It's true what BCooter said, that those Canons works brillantly but have the touch of a hair dryer, specially the 5D (that I do not like the feeling in hands at all). A little fight with the equipment is indeed healphy.
What is Canon? in fact it's an obedient wife, she does all what you ask her to do, and she does it well, she blows well, the highlights of course...but...maybe a less domesticated foxy lady, that forces you to find the best of you is a better experience, but you need to give-up the confort zone.

But that, this will not be given by the gear either, or the process. Going Phase from a dslr to feel more "photographic" is a romantic but a lost cause, but going that particular equipment because of the image first you have in mind, IMO this is the most powerfull path, although the shift in process can also help, it's not the goal.

Chalenging things are the things that make us move forward.

Ps: On the Canon's, trying not being sexist, if you're a Lady reading this you just have to replace the wife by husband, the she by he, and the blows by...here I have a blank.  

[tesfoto]

 

[Frits]

(Also posted elsewhere)
Well, here I am a few months after getting my H1 / P25+ (and this after almost a year with a 500 C/M / P21).
Up first: I am totally in love with MF and the IQ is something to behold. I like to print big and those who keep saying that the new generation DSLR's (à la Nikon, Canon, Sony etc.) produce the same IQ just have not shot MF. I get a thrill out of each time I shoot with it.
That said....
Let me be very frank: I am not entirely sure whether I did the right thing going MF (I have no professional need for it, just the desire of a spoiled advanced amateur).
Coming off a Nikon DSLR system (which I still have), I must say that I miss its portability at times. MOST times I will be fine with MF and I know I will love it but I somewhat fear that the odd time that I would appreciate less bulky gear will eventually get to me.
Maybe getting a D3x to replace my D700 would have been the better thing to do, at this time I HONESTLY don't know...
I love my MF gear to death. I know the resolution of a D3x would be good enough for me, although I would take a hit in other aspects of IQ (especially in DR, which is sooo sweet and the beauty of the overall shallower DOF).

The next few months will tell whether I will stick with MF (I want to!) or whether I will let it go in favor of a D3x (my only other option, as I am quite invested in Nikon gear and like it a lot).

[fredjeang]

(Also posted elsewhere)
Well, here I am a few months after getting my H1 / P25+ (and this after almost a year with a 500 C/M / P21).
Up first: I am totally in love with MF and the IQ is something to behold. I like to print big and those who keep saying that the new generation DSLR's (à la Nikon, Canon, Sony etc.) produce the same IQ just have not shot MF. I get a thrill out of each time I shoot with it.
That said....
Let me be very frank: I am not entirely sure whether I did the right thing going MF (I have no professional need for it, just the desire of a spoiled advanced amateur).
Coming off a Nikon DSLR system (which I still have), I must say that I miss its portability at times. MOST times I will be fine with MF and I know I will love it but I somewhat fear that the odd time that I would appreciate less bulky gear will eventually get to me.
Maybe getting a D3x to replace my D700 would have been the better thing to do, at this time I HONESTLY don't know...
I love my MF gear to death. I know the resolution of a D3x would be good enough for me, although I would take a hit in other aspects of IQ (especially in DR, which is sooo sweet and the beauty of the overall shallower DOF).

The next few months will tell whether I will stick with MF (I want to!) or whether I will let it go in favor of a D3x (my only other option, as I am quite invested in Nikon gear and like it a lot).

Each system, from a point-and-shoot to a view camera has its own flavor and reason to be. There is no magical tool (apart from the D3x I know...) but tools.
When the tool itself becomes the goal for some, here you are.

I think personaly that you are making too much brain questions. You already have an MF gear, you don't have pro needs (all the time available) and you like to print big. What would you gain with a D3x? Is that camera strenghs in relation to what you really need for your style of shooting? if so go for it. If you can, get both system but my humble advice would be that if you had to choose one just stick MF. Then you can dig into view cameras etc...much more interesting than a hair dryer no?

ps: about the D3x, it weights a lot. I remember in my early ages in Paris I had a Nikon F3, then a F4 and I hated it because it weighted tons, was very unfriendly in my hands. The F3 was a guepard but this F4, being an excellent camera was just an elephant. I remember thinking that if I had to handle such a weight, I'd better go Pentax MF, wich I did but not with Pentax. That was film age and I was young.

[Frits]

I think personaly that you are making too much brain questions...

You are probably quite right in that respect  .
Thanks for your comments.