Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 17   Go Down

Author Topic: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???  (Read 62459 times)

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2788
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #140 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
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 13235
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #141 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
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 13235
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #142 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: 9488
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #143 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: 554
    • www.christopherbarrett.net
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #144 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 #145 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 #146 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

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2104
    • Website
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #147 on: March 05, 2013, 12:26:28 PM »

THE most important factor in the quality of my work is me.

Steady on now, remember where you are.
Logged

gerald.d

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 436
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #148 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: 9488
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #149 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

Chris Barrett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 554
    • www.christopherbarrett.net
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #150 on: March 05, 2013, 12:56:53 PM »

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?

I only mentioned the capture fee.  That is specifically relevant to the digital back and is what used to be our film, processing and polaroid part of the budget.  Retouching, licensing and DayRate are all separate from this of course.  I don't charge rental fees on my camera gear, that is more common in the motion industry.

gerald.d

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 436
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #151 on: March 05, 2013, 01:07:05 PM »

I only mentioned the capture fee.  That is specifically relevant to the digital back and is what used to be our film, processing and polaroid part of the budget.  Retouching, licensing and DayRate are all separate from this of course.  I don't charge rental fees on my camera gear, that is more common in the motion industry.

Thanks for the explanation - I know nothing of the professional side of things, and it initially seemed odd that you'd consider the ROI on just the back, without taking into account the cost of lenses, cameras, and other kit (personally, I have considerably more value in my cameras and lenses than I do my back).
Logged

pixjohn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 701
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #152 on: March 05, 2013, 03:02:05 PM »

TOO MANY TROLLS ???

Why do you even bother responding to them.
Logged

HarperPhotos

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1310
    • http://www.harperphoto.com
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #153 on: March 05, 2013, 03:13:55 PM »

Hello Pixjohn,

Sorry but I have to disagree with your comment “TOO MANY TROLLS”

This is a open forum where people can freely write there opinions on the subject at hand.

You don’t have to agree with them but calling them trolls just make you look like a bigot.

I for one have personally decided to keep out of this discussion as its my business and no one else's what equipment I think is better for my work.

Cheers

Simon
Logged
Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #154 on: March 05, 2013, 06:05:55 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


I don't understand what you are asking from me. Do you want the raw files to try your own sharpening on it?
Logged

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #155 on: March 05, 2013, 06:07:56 PM »

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9488
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #156 on: March 05, 2013, 11:27:36 PM »

Hi,

I'm not asking. Just try to explain why I'm skeptical about that image. Very clearly, a D800 image would need much more sharpening than a MFD image as it has an optical low pass filter which the MFD has not.

I presume that the MFD image is not a in camera JPEG but a raw image converted by Phocus, Capture One, LR, ACR or some other converter. All those converters apply (or may apply) significant sharpening. Having raw images for comparison may help.

In general I would a good lens stopped down to f/8 (or f/5.6) on an MFD produce better sharpness than a good lens at similar aperture on a smaller frame. This is described here: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Stuff/i-465SpQG/0/O/20121112-_DSC0235.jpg (using an APS-C to MF comparison).

Best regards
Erik

I don't understand what you are asking from me. Do you want the raw files to try your own sharpening on it?

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1633
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #157 on: March 06, 2013, 12:41:20 AM »

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...

Jerome

I took a look at some of the other samples you have on flickr and compared these two:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8517989977/sizes/o/in/set-72157632871812709/

and

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8517975831/sizes/o/in/set-72157632871812709/

I found that there was not the difference that was visible in the previous comparison you showed.

While it is remarkable what the Hasselblad can do considering it is 7 years old, however it is remarkable that Nikon
can achieve this quality at a fraction of the price and with the significantly more flexible option
of an ultra wide zoom compared to a fixed focal length, not to mention the much wider angle the Nikon zoom is capable of.

Add to that that Nikon also makes a TS 24mm. The 14-24mm plus the 24mm TSE would be $ 4,000 while the Hasselblad 28mm only is $ 5,300.

It is also worth noting that the D800 is not quite as fine detailed as the D800E for this sort of thing

« Last Edit: March 06, 2013, 01:40:34 AM by FredBGG »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9488
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #158 on: March 06, 2013, 12:47:02 AM »

Hi Fred,

And what did you find? Much interested about your findings.

Best regards
Erik



Jerome

I took a look at some of the other samples you have on flickr and compared these two:

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 671
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #159 on: March 06, 2013, 02:02:04 AM »

Jerome

I took a look at some of the other samples you have on flickr and compared these two:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8517989977/sizes/o/in/set-72157632871812709/

and

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8517975831/sizes/o/in/set-72157632871812709/

I found that there was not the difference that was visible in the previous comparison you showed.

You are now comparing a H3D sample to a D800 sample treated from a NEF (raw) file. The D800 in camera jpeg is here.

But you chose a comparison taken at ISO 800. I took the same pictures at iso 100 (and 200, 400, 1600) and they are here (H3D) and here (D800 from RAW) or here (D800 from jpeg).

The whole set of pictures can be seen here.

This is what the whole picture looks like:


And this is a crop showing the two cameras side by side at ISO 100 when the colour balances are matched (click for pixel level detail):



In these pictures, I was not particularly interested in comparing sharpness, but rather to find about dynamic range, colour and noise of the H3D-31 in a low-light situation.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2013, 02:08:26 AM by jerome_m »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 17   Go Up