Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 16   Go Down

Author Topic: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???  (Read 65118 times)

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #120 on: March 05, 2013, 02:16:35 AM »


2.    Telling someone that their opinion doesn't matter because they "can't afford it" is shitty and alienating, and is in fact not true.  Anyone can get credit, at least in the states.

This is not what I said. I said that they do not belong to the target audience because they do not intend to spend the money to buy a MF. It is like luxury cars: I would be rejected at the door of a Ferrari or Rolls Royce dealership, because I am not a prospective customer and they know it. They don't care about my opinion on their motors or the colour of their seats, because I am not a prospective customer. There are people driving Ladas who bash at Rolls Royce or Ferrari for being too expensive. Rolls Royce and Ferrari do not care about them, because they are not prospective customers. They are not part of their business model.

All cars drive you from A to B like all cameras take pictures. Some cars like Ferrari and Rolls Royce are marketed as Veblen goods. They cost considerably more, the added benefits as to speed or comfort are small in relation to the added price. But they sell very well, because they sell on the frustration of people who cannot afford them (this is the principle of Veblen's paradox, read about it). The customer pays for the privilege to show the world that he or she can afford that kind of car. The intangible benefits can be real, BTW. Some say that Ferraris attract girls like honey attract flies...  ::)


4.    The arguments about color and tonality are misleading, mostly.  Almost all digital devices need some color grading in post.  The only digi cameras I've used that nail color out of the box are the Arri Alexxa, Aptus 75, and Fuji X100, S3, S5.  It's mainly a matter of how much time you need to spend on a file.

For someone charging for their time a camera giving nice colours without much time spent on its file is an attractive proposition. That is part of the attraction for MF: they give nice skin tones out of the box (nice, not accurate). You can tweak a Nikon to give similar colours, but that is not the point.


5.    Arguments about sharpness are lame.  Its mastabatory.  There are very few digital cams made that are not good enough for print publication.

Some people need very high resolution, especially in technical photography. For them it is not lame. Try to visit an exhibition by Hiroshi Sugimoto or Andreas Gursky.
Logged

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #121 on: March 05, 2013, 02:31:36 AM »

If I make a test and it is not sharp I may not know why it was not sharp. But I can go back and retest. But I certainly feel that I would not feel OK about that image.

If you are going to dismiss all the tests which do not find out that your camera of choice is the best one, you will certainly find out that your camera of choice is the best one.

The reason why that particular picture appears less sharp than what you believe is the average picture one gets out of a D800 is because it is an average picture and not one for which the conditions have been chosen to favour the D800, as in other tests. If I take a picture of a young girl with a small tele, the D800 will appear better because:
-the skin of a young girl has little high frequency content
-small tele lenses are easier to build than wide angle for SLRs.

I said it already: that picture is a direct jpeg (raw appears a bit sharper), from a D800 (not "E"), taken with a 14-24 in poor light. There are other samples on my flickr account if you can be bothered to clic around and I intend to upload a few more in the coming days.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10122
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #122 on: March 05, 2013, 03:04:23 AM »

Hi,

I have seen dozens of images from D800/D800E and have processed quite a lot of those from raw. Admittedly, I didn't have the opportunity to analyze images from 14-24/2.8.

I never shoot jpeg, so I have little experience with in camera image processing.

I would also point out that the Nikon D800/D800E is not my camera of choice, but it is the only camera 36 MP camera around 3000 USD. Nikon can also take Zeiss lenses and even Leica lenses with Leitax adapters so it is an interesting alternative for those seeking a cost effective way of achieving maximum image quality.

The new Zeiss 24/2 seems to be an interesting lens, about the sharpest one I have seen at center, but it probably has weak corners.

And no, I don't own the Zeiss 24/2. I own three Zeiss lenses, 24-70/2.8 ZA, 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA and a Zeiss Sonnar 150/4. The Sonnar is old but T*.

Best regards
Erik

If you are going to dismiss all the tests which do not find out that your camera of choice is the best one, you will certainly find out that your camera of choice is the best one.

The reason why that particular picture appears less sharp than what you believe is the average picture one gets out of a D800 is because it is an average picture and not one for which the conditions have been chosen to favour the D800, as in other tests. If I take a picture of a young girl with a small tele, the D800 will appear better because:
-the skin of a young girl has little high frequency content
-small tele lenses are easier to build than wide angle for SLRs.

I said it already: that picture is a direct jpeg (raw appears a bit sharper), from a D800 (not "E"), taken with a 14-24 in poor light. There are other samples on my flickr account if you can be bothered to clic around and I intend to upload a few more in the coming days.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 03:08:49 AM by ErikKaffehr »
Logged

Guy Mancuso

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1133
    • http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/index.php
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #123 on: March 05, 2013, 08:01:06 AM »

Sure you don't mean a Zeiss 25mm F 2 for Nikon. I have it , very nice sharp lens and corners look very good too. Maybe the best lens in this focal length for Nikon.
Logged

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #124 on: March 05, 2013, 08:12:25 AM »

I have seen dozens of images from D800/D800E and have processed quite a lot of those from raw. Admittedly, I didn't have the opportunity to analyze images from 14-24/2.8.

I never shoot jpeg, so I have little experience with in camera image processing.

I would also point out that the Nikon D800/D800E is not my camera of choice, but it is the only camera 36 MP camera around 3000 USD. Nikon can also take Zeiss lenses and even Leica lenses with Leitax adapters so it is an interesting alternative for those seeking a cost effective way of achieving maximum image quality.

The new Zeiss 24/2 seems to be an interesting lens, about the sharpest one I have seen at center, but it probably has weak corners.

And no, I don't own the Zeiss 24/2. I own three Zeiss lenses, 24-70/2.8 ZA, 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA and a Zeiss Sonnar 150/4. The Sonnar is old but T*.

What does this have to do with the discussion?
Logged

Guy Mancuso

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1133
    • http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/index.php
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #125 on: March 05, 2013, 08:33:47 AM »

What does this have to do with the discussion?

Guess you missed the memo. Anything Nikon is now MF. LOL
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10122
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #126 on: March 05, 2013, 09:17:43 AM »

Hi,

It is an answer to your posting. You seem to assume that I base my opinion whatever it may be on the image posted by Mr. Koskolov, the one with the young girl. That is however not the case. The only point I made that there is somevthing odd about the image you have posted. The D800 images I have seen where mostly sharp.

Best regards
Erik

What does this have to do with the discussion?

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #127 on: March 05, 2013, 09:44:38 AM »

It is an answer to your posting. You seem to assume that I base my opinion whatever it may be on the image posted by Mr. Koskolov, the one with the young girl. That is however not the case. The only point I made that there is somevthing odd about the image you have posted. The D800 images I have seen where mostly sharp.

So your experience with the D800 is that you have seen and processed images made by others. Is that correct?

I still wonder why you mentioned that you own the 24-70/2.8 ZA, 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA and a Zeiss Sonnar 150/4, none of which is relevant to the discussion, or why you wrote about the Zeiss 24 f/2.0 lens being an interesting lens with poor corners. Is your reasoning that you own 3 Zeiss lenses and find them sharp, therefore a different, unrelated Zeiss lens must be just as sharp and I should consider using it in place of the 14-24 zoom to improve what you perceive as a lack of sharpness?
Logged

Iluvmycam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 533
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #128 on: March 05, 2013, 09:52:33 AM »

I have 2 - 645D's. They offer a differnt color look than a dslr and love them for many types of shots.
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #129 on: March 05, 2013, 10:37:26 AM »

Never ceases to amaze how folk get their knickers in a twist over other's choices.

You'd be forgiven for thinking this is a testosterone fuelled play pit.

But wait...


As we say in the States:  No Shit. 
Logged

theguywitha645d

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 970
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #130 on: March 05, 2013, 10:44:07 AM »

For amateur photographers, cameras are not an investment. Nor are they an investment if you think of resale value. If you have this economic model, you are working in the wrong field. If you want to invest, stocks, bonds, and real estate are better options.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3056
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #131 on: March 05, 2013, 11:02:30 AM »

For amateur photographers, cameras are not an investment. Nor are they an investment if you think of resale value. If you have this economic model, you are working in the wrong field. If you want to invest, stocks, bonds, and real estate are better options.

It depends on how you use the word "investment". If you mean "investment" in terms of selling it later for a larger amount of money than you bought it for it is as you say. However, in daily speak one can say "investment" about pretty much anything that costs a lot of money is important to your profession, hobby or lifestyle and is intended to be used for many years to come.

In that sense a "good investment" is a system you can have for many years while affording to maintain and to upgrade at reasonable costs to keep it up to date compared to alternate offers in the market.

How MFD systems fit into this today depends on who you ask...
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14683
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #132 on: March 05, 2013, 11:12:54 AM »

For amateur photographers, cameras are not an investment. Nor are they an investment if you think of resale value. If you have this economic model, you are working in the wrong field. If you want to invest, stocks, bonds, and real estate are better options.




You're having a friggin' laff, aren't you?

You buy rather old Leica M filmies and Nikon rangefinder cameras if you want to invest.

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14683
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #133 on: March 05, 2013, 11:19:39 AM »

It depends on how you use the word "investment". If you mean "investment" in terms of selling it later for a larger amount of money than you bought it for it is as you say. However, in daily speak one can say "investment" about pretty much anything that costs a lot of money is important to your profession, hobby or lifestyle and is intended to be used for many years to come.

In that sense a "good investment" is a system you can have for many years while affording to maintain and to upgrade at reasonable costs to keep it up to date compared to alternate offers in the market.

How MFD systems fit into this today depends on who you ask...


How any digital camera fits the formula of 'investment' is in doubt! Lenses may just have a slim possibility of being investments but cameras  - never!

How different to the Hasselblads of the 500 Series, the Nkons of the F range... those were indeed investments that could carry you through much of a career and were replaceable at reasonable cost, inflation notwithstanding.

Rob C

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10122
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #134 on: March 05, 2013, 11:32:11 AM »

Guy,

Thanks for putting me right.

Anyway, the issue I had was that I felt that the church image Jerome has posted with the Nikon 14-24/2.8 is probably not typical. It is not sharp and it doesn't respond to sharpening at it also has some halos from JPEG processing.

I do not have Nikon D800 or D800 and have not used neither the 14-24 nor the 25/2.8 Zeiss. I have seen, and analyzed, samples from  25/8 on both D800 and the D800E and those were very sharp. The MTF curves that Zeiss publishes indicate that extreme corners loose sharpness, the samples I have seen did not have good enough corner detail for me to judge.

The original posting talked about the demise of MFD. Personally, I think that MFD is around for good reasons. It is nice to hear that Phase is doing good business.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "The reports of the demise of MF digital are greatly exaggerated".

Best regards
Erik

Sure you don't mean a Zeiss 25mm F 2 for Nikon. I have it , very nice sharp lens and corners look very good too. Maybe the best lens in this focal length for Nikon.

Chris Barrett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 624
    • www.christopherbarrett.net
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #135 on: March 05, 2013, 11:34:51 AM »

It also depends greatly upon your particular business model.  As in investment in my business, my P65+ has been highly lucrative.  Here's how I look at it...  I charge $100/image capture fee.  I deliver on average 500 images a year (625 in 2012).  In the 5 years I've owned my P65+, that's $250,000 in capture fees. So... about $217,000 profit on that particular investment.  Yesterday I ordered an IQ260.  I have little doubt that investing in medium format will continue to prove particularly profitable... for me.

CB
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 11:50:06 AM by Chris Barrett »
Logged

theguywitha645d

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 970
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #136 on: March 05, 2013, 11:47:23 AM »

It depends on how you use the word "investment". If you mean "investment" in terms of selling it later for a larger amount of money than you bought it for it is as you say. However, in daily speak one can say "investment" about pretty much anything that costs a lot of money is important to your profession, hobby or lifestyle and is intended to be used for many years to come.

In that sense a "good investment" is a system you can have for many years while affording to maintain and to upgrade at reasonable costs to keep it up to date compared to alternate offers in the market.

How MFD systems fit into this today depends on who you ask...

I call that just buying the right camera. ;)

I also think the "upgrade" idea is wrong. No matter what camera is released, my 645D will continue to produce wonderful images. Those images are not diminished because something else has better noise or high ISO or a nicer finish. THE most important factor in the quality of my work is me. If my work is only valued because of the number of pixels, I should start looking for another career.
Logged

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #137 on: March 05, 2013, 12:16:25 PM »

Anyway, the issue I had was that I felt that the church image Jerome has posted with the Nikon 14-24/2.8 is probably not typical. It is not sharp and it doesn't respond to sharpening at it also has some halos from JPEG processing.

If you want different samples, there is another one on my flickr account...

Why do you dismiss the sample from the D800 as "not typical", but accept a sample from a 7 years old Hasselblad camera with a resolution too low to be offered today? "Typical" for an Hasselblad would be a H4D-50...
Logged

gerald.d

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 436
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #138 on: March 05, 2013, 12:41:51 PM »

It also depends greatly upon your particular business model.  As in investment in my business, my P65+ has been highly lucrative.  Here's how I look at it...  I charge $100/image capture fee.  I deliver on average 500 images a year (625 in 2012).  In the 5 years I've owned my P65+, that's $250,000 in capture fees. So... about $217,000 profit on that particular investment.  Yesterday I ordered an IQ260.  I have little doubt that investing in medium format will continue to prove particularly profitable... for me.

CB

How do you manage to capture an image with just a digital back?

Or do you bill for lenses, cameras, software, computing time, etc etc under separate accounts?
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10122
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #139 on: March 05, 2013, 12:56:28 PM »

Hi,

It is about pixels being sharp. If you look at an image at actual pixels the pixels should look sharp, that is sensor resolution would limit sharpness and not the lens. An OLP filtered image would be slightly fuzzy, but would respond well to sharpening.

Here are some images I got from Tim Parkin with different sharpening. Just to make clear, all these images were processed by me, using LR 4.3. I used my standard sharpening EKRNES which uses deconvolution at a small radius and another setting I call Tim Parkin which is a bit wider radius, higher amount and halo supression.

D800 - no sharpening

D800 - EKRNES (LR, 45,0.7,100, 17, 20)

D800 - TimParkin (LR, 100, 1, 0, 0)

The images below are from Tim's test image with the same sharpening settings as above




This is your image as from camera JPEG (which also has some sharpening)

And this is your image with my sharpening


You may note that the unsharpened IQ180 image is a bit soft, this depends on the pixels being small so the lens transfers little contrast at the pixel level. The higher the resolution the worse the pixels look. But the IQ180 has a lot of pixels.

I hope I have Tim's permission to use the images. He permitted me to use them in this article:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts

Tim Parkin is the editor of On Landscape: http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/

Best regards
Erik

If you want different samples, there is another one on my flickr account...

Why do you dismiss the sample from the D800 as "not typical", but accept a sample from a 7 years old Hasselblad camera with a resolution too low to be offered today? "Typical" for an Hasselblad would be a H4D-50...
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 03:31:14 PM by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 16   Go Up