professional usage of DMF backs vs DSLRs: which uses and why?

[BJL]

This question seems to have got bogged down in a thread devoted to a different topic in a different forum, so perhaps I should start again.

It seems that within the wide range of professional photography, some areas have moved largely from medium format to DSLRs in formats 35mm or smaller, and of course some areas were already dominated by 35mm format with film cameras, but there is also some level of digital MF usage, keeping our friends Doug, Steve, yaya, Thierry and Stefan in work.

So I am curious about what the main current professional use cases are for digital medium format. Does anyone who works with DMF professionally, either as a photographer, or provider of equipment and support to professional DMF users care to comment? Both on the use cases and if possible on which specific advantages of MF are important for particular situations?


The main answers I have received so far is the areas of "fashion" and maybe "high end portraiture" and for reasons, "flash sync at all shutter speeds". along with the suggestion from several people that resolution is no longer a significant factor in the choice between DMF and DSLR.

[tom_l]

In my case,
art reproduction, museum photography, scientific photography (for archeologic research)

I think that 1-shotDMF can pretty much replace Multishot backs for a lot of work. (Some people can afford both)

But I have to admit that I have no problem to switch to DSLR sometimes when I think DMF is just a PITA, for example doing 200 roman coins in a day, and I know the few coins that are finally published, will be printed in 1:1 or 2:1 scale.

Tom

[bcooter]

I don't think it's a one camera or system fits all world and though this thread will turn into the billion times discussed which is better 35mm or 645 issue the real answer is if you work professionally, whatever you buy, make sure it either gives you the look your after, is profitable or you enjoy it. 

Hopefully all three.

That said, I don't see resolution as a factor anymore.  Not with our work.

What I do see is a need for medium format to go to higher iso, to match the motion work we do.

You know it's all changed.  There was a period where double the file size made a difference and for some it still does, but overall clients are looking for concept, style, look and options.  I haven't had a client ask about file size in 5 years.

In fact the market has changed, at least in our business.  Use to we shot for a specific media, or media plan.   The creative brief "might" say national/international print run in periodicals, listing such, might add outdoor, usually mention print collateral with web as kind of a throw away.

Now you rarely get any of that.  If you ask a client the questions do you want vertical or horizontal, shot to layout or wild, still or motion, mos or dialog, outdoor, or web, national or international, etc. etc., the answer is  . . . yes.

Not that they'll use it in all of those functions, but they want the options in case it scores well in testing, or the big, big boss likes it.

It's that simple and with the crunch of time, numbers, costs of production, they don't seem to care if it's a 22 or 24 mpx dslr or a 30/ 40/60 mpx medium format.

Once again that doesn't mean you shouldn't use what you want or reaches your goals, but it will always be your goals, rarely your clients.  They don't know if you camera has 12 or 16 bits, 10 or 14 stops of dr and don't really care.  They care about the look, the use, the final costs of production.

Now coming from a still background and enjoying larger format cameras, when we shoot for ourselves or we shoot an editorial, most of the time I'll shoot the stills with our medium format cameras, because I want to, not because anyone is asking.

There is no absolute answer to any of this because everyone has a different business model.

IMO

BC

[Dustbak]

I use MF because I can. I like working with it. I use it for Lookbooks, Advertorials, webshops, stills, portraits, food, accessories, etc.. Having said that I also use 35mm and switch whenever it is more appropriate.

[Carl Glover]

I use Medium format because it's great for LP covers, especially the gatefold ones...

[ctz]

In my case, there's nothing sentimental. I'm a product shooter and I just need that back shift (and other movements) of a decent view camera. I know there are 4 TSE lenses (for Canon), but I still need to shift the sensor, not the lens. (And, uhum, I would only use two of them, the 45 and the 90mm, not 17 and 24mm, since I don't do architecture).
So, no thanks.
I know, I can only dream of a Canon-style Live View, but in the end my Sinar/P45+ combination wins.

[BJL]

Thanks for all the response so far; please keep them coming.

I intended to just sit back and read, but I have to post to thank Carl Glover in particular for checking in from the 1970’s.

[Carl Glover]

I intended to just sit back and read, but I have to post to thank Carl Glover in particular for checking in from the 1970’s.

No problem - vinyl, like medium format is for connoisseurs.

[theguywitha645d]

I use an MF back on a camera with movements in the studio and it is tethered.

I use an integrated DSLR for field work or occasionally in the studio for portraits. I went with the integrated DSLR over the modular DSLR for its weatherproofing and its better design.

[BJL]

I intended to just sit back and read, but I have to post to thank Carl Glover in particular for checking in from the 1970’s.

No problem - vinyl, like medium format is for connoisseurs.

Here's one from my LP collection that seems appropriate: Elvis Costello, This Year's Model

P. S. With thanks to Mark Guertin, this is what I mean:

[torger]

Why only professional use? I'm an amateur, the reason I use MF is to be able to use a technical camera in my landscape photography which gives me a more pleasing shooting experience. I like having all the geared knobs for movements and feel it is high mechanical quality. Image quality-wise I do it because there is a greater choice of tilt-shiftable lenses with good corner-to-corner sharpness than for example in the Nikon system. If it was only about image quality though, a Nikon D7000 and a pano head would do it since my scenes are mostly static, but I prefer the traditional one-shot way to work when possible, it is to me a more pleasing photographic experience, and as an amateur the joy of the photographic work is kind of more important than the result. I think it is the same among professionals, the choice is not strictly about image quality although that is an important factor.

I bought second hand gear so my 33 megapixel MF system with 3 lenses costs about the same as my Canon system with a number of pro lenses which I bought new.

[BJL]

Why only professional use? I'm an amateur, the reason I use MF is to be able to use a technical camera in my landscape photography which gives me a more pleasing shooting experience. ...

Anders,
Thanks for you reply; all responses from both amateurs and professionals are interesting to me. The only reason I specified "professional" is that there has been some discussion lately about what camera capabilities are actually needed for various kinds of professional work, as opposed to gear chosen for reasons other than "need". There is even an idea floating around that the highest image quality demands are those of some amateurs answering only to their own open-ended aspirations for excellence, rather than professionals working to more concrete specifications like (and third is purely hypothetical) "up to double page spread at 300ppi".

[gazwas]

I always wondered which photographers shot all those amazing "out there" stills for modern vinyl.

Loving the work on your site. Are all the stills your images?

[torger]

There is even an idea floating around that the highest image quality demands are those of some amateurs answering only to their own open-ended aspirations for excellence, rather than professionals working to more concrete specifications like (and third is purely hypothetical) "up to double page spread at 300ppi".

I think it is true, with the addition that also professionals can have open-ended aspirations for excellence. This happens in every craft, some people want and enjoy the best tools despite that there is no real business need for it, and then there is the strict businessman type that would not use anything more than needed for a particular job.

MF companies are entering a dangerous time now, because it seems like they may have to make their income from those of us that don't look strictly from a business price/performance perspective. Today a D800 can do most high resolution jobs at sufficient quality at 1/5th of the price.

[Carl Glover]

I always wondered which photographers shot all those amazing "out there" stills for modern vinyl.

Loving the work on your site. Are all the stills your images?

Most of them - a few are from vintage negs/slides that I have collected over the years and some feature photography by a Danish photographer/film-maker called Lasse Hoile - a very talented chap!

[Weldon Brewster]

For some of us it's a quest for excellence.  We want the best images possible with no regard for the cost.  I know it doesn't sound like smart business but I've been doing this for 25 years.  Back in the film days, I was constantly pestering my clients to pay for shooting 8x10 film instead of 4x5 film.  Not because we needed to but because it created the ultimate image quality of the time.  That being said, I always carry different format cameras on jobs.  It's little difficult to shoot from a helicopter or from horse back with a technical camera.  My kit from film days was 4x5 (or 8x10) camera and 6x7 medium format camera.  My kit today is a tech camera with a medium format back, extra medium format camera and a dslr.  The dslr sits unused in a pelican case but it's there if I need it.  I shoot static or slow moving objects on a tripod so all the advantages of dslr are lost for me.  Honestly, I could care less about the cost.  It's about the quality.  There should be no such thing as "good enough" for your reputation or your work.

[BernardLanguillier]

I shoot static or slow moving objects on a tripod so all the advantages of dslr are lost for me.  Honestly, I could care less about the cost.  It's about the quality.  There should be no such thing as "good enough" for your reputation or your work.

Out of curiosity, do you stitch with your back?

In case you have not tried, this could further increase the level of quality, if applicable to your type of photography of course.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ChristopherBarrett]

I carry an Arca Rm3d, M Line 2 and a 5d2.  I use the Canon for scouting and sketching with.  That's about it.  It actually works really nicely with C1 Pro on the rare occasion that I pull out my 17mm TS-E.  For shooting architecture, though, which is what I do...  Tech cameras and view cameras just feel more natural.  I compose better with them.  The quality is awesome, sharper and with more DR than DSLR's.  I couldn't really give a shit about resolution.  Hell, I'd be inclined to switch to my 14 Megapixel Red cameras because of their superior dynamic range, but it all comes down to sharpness and ease of use for me.  For now, the Arca and the digi back still win hands down.

CB

[Weldon Brewster]

Out of curiosity, do you stitch with your back?

I do stitch when I need too.  It's super simple with a tech camera.

[bcooter]

What is interesting about all of this is there is a resurgence of professional film use, mostly in 6x7 and larger formats.

I've known a few professionals dabble back in film, usually for smaller projects, editorial, advertising and personal work,  obviously nobody is going to shoot a 200 image lifestyle, or retail shoot on film, but for that 6 page magazine spread or just adding to your portfolio, film does offer a different look.

Film is obviously a different workflow but also a different look, one that usually takes less computer time than digital which we try to make look like film.

Interesting read that if Kodak wasn't so large and could spin off it's film operation, the film division would be profitable in a smaller company.

Something to think of considering a fuji GX 680III sells for about 700 u.s. with a standard lens.

Think about that next time you look at a $3,000 Nikon or a $30,000 digital back.

I use to say film is just a romantic notion of the past and I guess it still is, but I think there is a longing for that look that we're not seeing in the standard 12 stops of digital, roll your own color.



IMO

BC