Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 16   Go Down

Author Topic: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???  (Read 64756 times)

theguywitha645d

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 970
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #180 on: March 07, 2013, 03:10:20 PM »

Guy,

I have great respect for your photography, but I'm pretty sure that you are given false information. Both CCDs and CMOS devices are linear, when they clip they clip.

My guess is that MFD tends to either underexpose by default, or that the raw converter is better at reconstructing lost channel data.

I can very well see that it is your practical experience that MF retains highlights better, but that is simply not feasible unless some cheating is involved.

On the other hand, some cheating is OK, it is really results that matters. Except, that there are some techy types like me who want to understand what is behind what we see...

Best regards
Erik


Well capacity vs. noise floor?
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 #181 on: March 07, 2013, 03:10:56 PM »

Guy,

I have great respect for your photography, but I'm pretty sure that you are given false information. Both CCDs and CMOS devices are linear, when they clip they clip.

My guess is that MFD tends to either underexpose by default, or that the raw converter is better at reconstructing lost channel data.

I can very well see that it is your practical experience that MF retains highlights better, but that is simply not feasible unless some cheating is involved.

On the other hand, some cheating is OK, it is really results that matters. Except, that there are some techy types like me who want to understand what is behind what we see...

Best regards
Erik


Technically your probably right. Maybe the differences that I see might be a size thing. Really can't put my finger on it but I have never seen a CMOS act like a CCD no matter what can I have shot. I had a lot if CCD sensors too not just backs. DMR,m8,m9. And even the DMR way back when compared to Canons 1DSii which I wrote a bible on there was a big difference and they where relatively the same size . DMR actually smaller. But back to specular highlights I think it's the bigger sensors ability and yes the color tonal range that handles it better even if they clip at the same point.

Science may say different and freely admit I'm not a science guy. It's all visual to me and my impressions. Maybe it's bad eyesight . Lol
« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 03:13:04 PM by Guy Mancuso »
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10039
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #183 on: March 07, 2013, 03:27:46 PM »

Hi,

CCDs are from Kodak or Dalsa. I don't know much about Dalsa but I know Kodak has been in photography for long.

I read about the Minolta/Konica merger. Minolta was a camera maker and Konica was a film maker. I have read that Konica and Minolta had very different priorities.

My guess is that some of the purported advantages of CCD over CMOS are coming from the companies behind CCD being involved with photography for a long time. I also think most of the differences come from the color grid array design and the way the images are processed.

Best regards
Erik



Technically your probably right. Maybe the differences that I see might be a size thing. Really can't put my finger on it but I have never seen a CMOS act like a CCD no matter what can I have shot. I had a lot if CCD sensors too not just backs. DMR,m8,m9. And even the DMR way back when compared to Canons 1DSii which I wrote a bible on there was a big difference and they where relatively the same size . DMR actually smaller. But back to specular highlights I think it's the bigger sensors ability and yes the color tonal range that handles it better even if they clip at the same point.

Science may say different and freely admit I'm not a science guy. It's all visual to me and my impressions. Maybe it's bad eyesight . Lol

theguywitha645d

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 970
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #184 on: March 07, 2013, 03:33:27 PM »

I read about the Minolta/Konica merger. Minolta was a camera maker and Konica was a film maker. I have read that Konica and Minolta had very different priorities.

Konica was a camera manufacturer as well. It had a long history of manufacturing cameras. Konica is one of the oldest photographic companies in Japan, or used to be. As a former employee of Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, I had no idea that Konica and Minolta had different priorities.
Logged

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1633
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #185 on: March 07, 2013, 04:56:20 PM »

There are a lot of downsides which never get mentioned here on the Nikon and trust me its not perfect by any stretch. I use 5 different brands of lenses to get the best images i can from it and frankly that is not right Nikon cannot get a damn good wide angle out the door when a 500 dollar Samyang 14mm distorts like a banchee but is damn sharp. Clean up the distortion and its a damn nice lens. Really whats Nikons excuse , so hearing how great it is only half the story.

Nothing is perfect...

However I think it's safe to say that Nikon makes some very fine lenses and if we talk about wide angles the 14 to 24mm is quite exceptional.

Lets see how it compares to the Samyang you praise.



At 2.8 the Samyang looks like it has a fine stocking over the lens.



At 5.6 the Nikon has better contrast and resulting in better detail.

More full res examples here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hhackbarth/with/7638840722/#photo_7638840722

Even considering the price difference the Nikon is a good deal being a 14 to 24 zoom that replaces three focal lengths and is infinitely more useful.

Being a zoom it does have CA in the corners, but that is correctable very well.

Also if we really look at this in a realistic manner with the Nikon you have both quality and more choice.

MF has no very wide zooms. No inexpensive options like the Samyang for a focal length someone needs , but cannot justify spending more.

If some things are not covered by Nikon but done well by say Canon you can buy both and still be far below the prices of MFD. Ultra wide TS lens for example.

There are also excellent Carl Zeiss lenses and a whole new line of ultra high end lenses coming from Zeiss with the 55mm already announced and shown.
Even with these being high priced they still come in below the cost of equivalent MF lens and back.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 07:10:36 PM by FredBGG »
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 #186 on: March 07, 2013, 05:19:24 PM »

Wrong better contrast only gives the appearance of better detail. Fred give it a rest I have had them both and the Zeiss 18 as well. For the money the Samyang is very good and at F8 down right outstanding. I have bunch I shot actually posted on GetDPI. What you failed to mention and what you probably don't know is the 14-24 has terrible focus shift. Why I sold it

For 500 it is really good that was the point.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/41004-samyang-14mm.html

Do us all a favor RUN YOUR OWN TESTS.

We have no idea how these things you post where actually shot or not and by who. I actually post images what a freaking novel idea that is of what I done.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 06:13:40 PM by Guy Mancuso »
Logged

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1633
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #187 on: March 07, 2013, 07:15:26 PM »

Wrong better contrast only gives the appearance of better detail. Fred give it a rest I have had them both and the Zeiss 18 as well. For the money the Samyang is very good and at F8 down right outstanding. I have bunch I shot actually posted on GetDPI. What you failed to mention and what you probably don't know is the 14-24 has terrible focus shift. Why I sold it

For 500 it is really good that was the point.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/41004-samyang-14mm.html

Do us all a favor RUN YOUR OWN TESTS.

We have no idea how these things you post where actually shot or not and by who. I actually post images what a freaking novel idea that is of what I done.


It's a little more than appearance, but even if it were isn't the appearance of an image what we look at?

Also the industry standard is based on MTF charts when it comes to measuring resolution and it is based on the resulting contrast between fine black and white lines.
Maybe I should have been more precise and written micro contrast.
Logged

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1633
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #188 on: March 07, 2013, 09:59:10 PM »

What you failed to mention and what you probably don't know is the 14-24 has terrible focus shift. Why I sold it

I am perfectly aware of focus shift on fast lenses and how much the 14 to 24 mm has.
Personally I find it blown out of proportion. Focus shift is there if you focus a 2.8 and shoot stopped down half way or more.
However the problem totally disappears if you focus with live view, something that is advisable for very wide lenses.
Also the focus shift is more when stopped way down when the depth of field is very very deep.

It is IMO no where near the problems of focus and recompose with wide angle lenses on MF. Hasselblad
found this to be a significant issue and went to great lengths to improve the situation with True focus.

« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 11:24:51 PM by FredBGG »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10039
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #189 on: March 07, 2013, 10:37:05 PM »

Hi,

What I read was that there was much discussion regarding color rendition between the the two groups of engineers.

Best regards
Erik


Konica was a camera manufacturer as well. It had a long history of manufacturing cameras. Konica is one of the oldest photographic companies in Japan, or used to be. As a former employee of Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, I had no idea that Konica and Minolta had different priorities.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10039
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #190 on: March 07, 2013, 11:37:01 PM »

Hi,

A lot of good points. A well working AF is important, and even more important if the system has no live view.

Best regards
Erik

...

But what you don't see from the pictures is more important:
-the H3D has much better and much more accurate AF, I must use live view on the D800 to come close (this was a real surprise of mine)
-the Hasselblad lenses are much better and perfectly usable wide open. Nikon does not have a prime coming close to the Hasselblad 28mm (which has about a 21mm equivalent FOV on the H3D-31). The 12-24 is Nikon's best wide angle lens. The only alternative would be the Zeiss 21mm and the Hasselblad lens is still better and has AF. Lenses always have been small format's Achille's heel
-the H3D has much, much better colours out of the box, especially skin colours. Sure, I can spend an hour to tweak the Nikon's output to look better, but for a pro in fashion, the capability to output perfect skin colours without effort is invaluable.
-the H3D is much easier to shoot tethered, which is again invaluable for many pros (most of them shoot catalogues pictures)
-medium format will make limited depth of field look nicer, which is essential for portraits. The reasons here are complex, I may come back to that later
-and of course recent MF cameras have much higher resolution.


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 #191 on: March 08, 2013, 12:18:29 AM »

BTW since someone here cant seem to give the artist or his reviews any credit around here. Here is a gentleman's review that was posted. I read this before deciding on buying the Zeiss after I already had and sold the 14-24 since it focused shifted like a banchee regardless what was said I owned it and it was all over the place. I figured the Samyang was worth a try as some of you may have seen what I shot with it, the results are pretty impressive and about 6 people I know bought one after I posted those images here. Its worth a look if you need a extreme wide and want to save some money for other glass which is what I did at the time was bought 2 other lenses as well. No question it needs work in post and care in shooting but its fun

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/41004-samyang-14mm.html


http://3d-kraft.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127:uwa-comparison&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
Logged

Marlyn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #192 on: March 08, 2013, 12:38:57 AM »

Hi,

A lot of good points. A well working AF is important, and even more important if the system has no live view.

Best regards
Erik


If the type of shooting you are doing  requires AutoFocus,  then live view is generally useless anyway.

For example, tracking moving subjects of any kind (sports, models, action, wildlife, birding), and picking the moment,  there is no time to liveview on any camera.  The shot is over in a split second.

To me,  AF and live view are, as a rule, mutually exclusive use cases.  It is nice if the one system does both of course !!

Regards

Mark
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10039
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #193 on: March 08, 2013, 01:00:27 AM »

Hi Guy,

I have also bought the Samyang 14/2.8, in part after reading Tim Ashley's review, here:
http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2012/11/the-samyang-14mm-f2-8-ed-if-umc

My copy is not as good as some other's I guess but it is just fine the way I work. It is a very good lens for a very good price.

I always use it with live view, magnified for focusing.

Best regards
Erik


BTW since someone here cant seem to give the artist or his reviews any credit around here. Here is a gentleman's review that was posted. I read this before deciding on buying the Zeiss after I already had and sold the 14-24 since it focused shifted like a banchee regardless what was said I owned it and it was all over the place. I figured the Samyang was worth a try as some of you may have seen what I shot with it, the results are pretty impressive and about 6 people I know bought one after I posted those images here. Its worth a look if you need a extreme wide and want to save some money for other glass which is what I did at the time was bought 2 other lenses as well. No question it needs work in post and care in shooting but its fun

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/41004-samyang-14mm.html


http://3d-kraft.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127:uwa-comparison&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10039
    • Echophoto
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #194 on: March 08, 2013, 01:30:42 AM »

Hi,

An AF that works well with things in motion may not be good enough for critical sharpness at large apertures.

If a camera doesn't have live view, you either focus on ground glass or rely on AF. I don't think old Hasselblads backs have LV so good AF is a very good thing.

Best regards
Erik


If the type of shooting you are doing  requires AutoFocus,  then live view is generally useless anyway.

For example, tracking moving subjects of any kind (sports, models, action, wildlife, birding), and picking the moment,  there is no time to liveview on any camera.  The shot is over in a split second.

To me,  AF and live view are, as a rule, mutually exclusive use cases.  It is nice if the one system does both of course !!

Regards

Mark

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9758
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #195 on: March 08, 2013, 02:30:54 AM »

If the type of shooting you are doing  requires AutoFocus,  then live view is generally useless anyway.

For example, tracking moving subjects of any kind (sports, models, action, wildlife, birding), and picking the moment,  there is no time to liveview on any camera.  The shot is over in a split second.

To me,  AF and live view are, as a rule, mutually exclusive use cases.  It is nice if the one system does both of course !!

Mark,

I see you have never used a Nikon J1/V1.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #196 on: March 08, 2013, 04:39:52 AM »

I want to nominate Fred BGG for the role of "Most Determined Poster On The Web Award" or forever known as the "Ditty".

We have now gone from a useful photography forum  . . . passed DP review . . .



. . . and now on the way to TMZ.

If somebody would just start a thread why photographing Justin Bieber with a Nikon is the only "right" solution, the process would be complete.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 04:51:39 AM by bcooter »
Logged

MrSmith

  • Guest
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #198 on: March 08, 2013, 05:05:31 AM »

This forum needs more pics of sunsets and 'glamourous girlfriends/wives, it has been proven that cats alone cannot sustain photography forums.
Logged

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1633
Re: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???
« Reply #199 on: March 08, 2013, 05:20:46 AM »

BTW since someone here cant seem to give the artist or his reviews any credit around here. Here is a gentleman's review that was posted. I read this before deciding on buying the Zeiss after I already had and sold the 14-24 since it focused shifted like a banchee regardless what was said I owned it and it was all over the place. I figured the Samyang was worth a try as some of you may have seen what I shot with it, the results are pretty impressive and about 6 people I know bought one after I posted those images here. Its worth a look if you need a extreme wide and want to save some money for other glass which is what I did at the time was bought 2 other lenses as well. No question it needs work in post and care in shooting but its fun

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/41004-samyang-14mm.html


http://3d-kraft.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127:uwa-comparison&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2


The Samyang is an OK lens. Actually quite excellent for the price. However i find it ridiculous to trash Nikon wide angles
if you love the Samyang.

..... and frankly that is not right Nikon cannot get a damn good wide angle out the door

Incase you missed it Nikon went through some pretty serious problems with the tsunami and floods.
While they already have some excellent wide angle lenses and one of the best ultra wide zooms I'm sure they are working
on even better lenses since they moved up to making 36MP cameras.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 05:34:00 AM by FredBGG »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 16   Go Up