Best System for Under $12K

[MrSmith]

Is that just the fickle general public though? If you are dealing with agencies or direct with bigger businesses they tend not to care as long as the tiff is big enough for their their needs, they are more interested in what images you produce for them. Sure they might be a bit miffed if you turn up with just one DSLR and a zoom but I don't know anyone who works like that (advertising/design photography)

[Ken R]

One thing to add that I heard from a pro photographer using Hasselblad when asked why Hasselblad and not Nikon or Canon at half the cost. He said that while image quality from either Canon or Nikon would be perfectly fine for his work, he found that his clients took him more seriously and, more importantly, never quibbled about the bill when he shot with a camera they didn't have and couldn't afford. He said that clients see the name Canon and Nikon and figure the work can't be that special as they have the camera at home, but with the Hassie, clients "knew" (thought) they were getting something special. You and I and every decent photographer know the reality of this situation, but as they say: "Perception is reality."

I am regularly hired by global Ad agencies like DRAFT-FCB, Y&R et. al. to photograph for ad campaigns and I also do work as a still photographer during motion projects and honestly only a few times have someone working for said clients has mentioned something about my gear and it's usually due to their particular interest. I don't think it factors in the hiring. Its more about the service, quality/speed/reliability, value you provide and what you ad to the project as an artist. Clients have loved the tethering workflow of C1pro w/ the iPads (and also the WiFI w/ eyefi card with the Canon). They have mentioned it quite a few times. The key to working with others is communication and with the iPads I can work freely but the client knows exactly what is going on and can give instant feedback. It makes the process much more interactive and collaborative. I know a lot of people here and in other photo forums work mainly alone so all this might not factor in their photography but for us that work with others it is a very big deal. The camera really needs to be transparent and yes, the quality needs to be there but generally the clients do not go into specifics in regards to the files. Most top end DSLRs can produce files big enough and clean enough for most needs if you do your part.

[torger]

One thing to add that I heard from a pro photographer using Hasselblad when asked why Hasselblad and not Nikon or Canon at half the cost. He said that while image quality from either Canon or Nikon would be perfectly fine for his work, he found that his clients took him more seriously and, more importantly, never quibbled about the bill when he shot with a camera they didn't have and couldn't afford. He said that clients see the name Canon and Nikon and figure the work can't be that special as they have the camera at home, but with the Hassie, clients "knew" (thought) they were getting something special. You and I and every decent photographer know the reality of this situation, but as they say: "Perception is reality."

Hasselblad's marketing material often play on this, that clients (and models) are impressed by the camera gear itself, a real camera and not a common DSLR. As a photographer I feel it's like a desperate market message, but maybe there's some relevance in it. It feels kind of sad though that they bring it up as a key advantage of medium format. Rare and expensive, therefore good.

[douglevy]

Agree that it's annoying...but it's true. When I break out the Hassy (mostly older clients who remember the V series) react completely differently than to the Nikons.

[MrSmith]

i think it’s more of a thing in the amateur world, it’s a good way for the weak minded to separate themselves from the everyday snapper, instead of photographing well worn scenic hotspots/cats/their kids with a DSLR a MFD camera will elevate their images above those of the flikr/camera club hoi polloi.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have actually seen that a few times when I am shooting with the Hasselblad V-series camera. People recognise it and say that "he must be a professional photographer". No one ever asked if I plan to go to moon.

Best regards
Erik

Hasselblad's marketing material often play on this, that clients (and models) are impressed by the camera gear itself, a real camera and not a common DSLR. As a photographer I feel it's like a desperate market message, but maybe there's some relevance in it. It feels kind of sad though that they bring it up as a key advantage of medium format. Rare and expensive, therefore good.

[Justinr]

Hi,

I have actually seen that a few times when I am shooting with the Hasselblad V-series camera. People recognise it and say that "he must be a professional photographer". No one ever asked if I plan to go to moon.

Best regards
Erik

Well, do you?   

[Justinr]

i think it’s more of a thing in the amateur world, it’s a good way for the weak minded to separate themselves from the everyday snapper, instead of photographing well worn scenic hotspots/cats/their kids with a DSLR a MFD camera will elevate their images above those of the flikr/camera club hoi polloi.

The web has always been full of pro/am photographer 'debates' but the weak/strong minded photographer division is, I will admit, a new one to me. How are we to classify ourselves?

[MrSmith]

"How are we to classify ourselves?"
That's up to the individual, I think of it as photographers who think about taking/making images as opposed to thinking about camera gear.

[LKaven]

In another life as a recording engineer, I noticed that musicians would always feel flattered when I put the biggest microphone in the collection on them.  Some would even ask why they couldn't have the big microphone, or feel slighted when they got the smaller microphone.  

Of course the cheap knockoff microphones are made big these days just for that reason.

But the fact is, the best microphones in the cabinet were the tiny Schoeps CMC5 small diaphragm condensers.  They were exactly as big as they needed to be acoustically.  And they weren't cheap either.  But the sound is pure bliss.  Overall though, even a cheap microphone can be the best for a given application.

[eronald]

"How are we to classify ourselves?"
That's up to the individual, I think of it as photographers who think about taking/making images as opposed to thinking about camera gear.

Yeah, but in the same line, we need to admit that some cameras are more fun to use than others, and some require really hard lifting.

In my opinion you need extraordinary strength of will to use a camera all day long if you hate the experience. As an amateur, I hated every moment of using the Phamiya, although the files were extraordinary and the lenses sharp. I loved every moment of professionally using the Canon 1 series, although the files on some models (1Ds2, 1DII) never struck me as great.

MF bodies are NOT all equal. As we have all found out. Frankly, I am probably a total pervert, because I actually liked the old Hassy.

Edmund

[JoeKitchen]

Yeah, but in the same line, we need to admit that some cameras are more fun to use than others, and some require really hard lifting.

In my opinion you need extraordinary strength of will to use a camera all day long if you hate the experience. As an amateur, I hated every moment of using the Phamiya, although the files were extraordinary and the lenses sharp. I loved every moment of professionally using the Canon 1 series, although the files on some models (1Ds2, 1DII) never struck me as great.

MF bodies are NOT all equal. As we have all found out. Frankly, I am probably a total pervert, because I actually liked the old Hassy.

Edmund

+1 to this and what BCooter wrote.  Shoot with what you love to use.  Eronald could never produce great work if he used a camera he hated.  Plain and simple; use what you love!

I shoot medium format and love it; I mean I love the whole experience.  

I find the files to be great and much better than anything I've seen from a Canon or Nikon.  Also, I love the experience I have with my camera and the lenses I use.  I consider it to be an relationship, what I have between my process and the equipment I use, that would be hard to break.  I shoot what I love and have no regrets on dropping the $40K on the system.  

Keep in mind though, I am very specialized; I only shoot architecture and interiors, with some commercial landscapes here and there.  The camera I use, an Arca Swiss RM3Di, is very specialized for this type of photography and suits me very very well.  

My girlfriend, a food and drink photographer, is not so great with a Tech Camera.  She chose the DF+ with an IQ 260 to be her system and loves it.  Loves the camera, the lenses, and the files (color most importantly); her system is great for what she does and she does not regret dropping the $40K for it either.  

But we are both specialized and know exactly what we want to shoot.  Finding the system that was best for each of us was easy, since MFD is made for us specialists.  We have made no compromises for what we do and choose the system that works best for us.  

You, on the other hand, do not have an concrete idea of what you want to do.  MFD is great for the specialist, since the systems are made for us, but not so much for the generalist.  If you really feel your end goal is MF, I would recommend spending some time, and money, finding out what you want to do, and then determine what system is good for you.  

As (probably) the greatest portrait photographer of our time, Gregory Heisler, said, "shoot what you can't help but shoot."  Find out what you want to shoot and then determine what system is best for you.  

http://petapixel.com/2014/07/17/greg-heisler-talks-photography-career-true-style-brilliant-interview/

[JoeKitchen]

BTW, MFD to me is not MF size vs 35mm any more.  It is more CCD vs CMOS.

I find CCD to be just better then CMOS.  Better color, better grain, better depth, better color linearity, etc.  Even with BCooter's 800 ISO CCD shots, I find the tones to more appealing.  I even had a friend my age (around 29) say that the depth he sees with a CCD is still much deeper than what he see with a CMOS system.  

[eronald]

BTW, MFD to me is not MF size vs 35mm any more.  It is more CCD vs CMOS.

Even with BCooter's 800 ISO CCD shots, processed to hell and back, I find the tones to more appealing.  

Someone has become too good at post for his own good.
It's an interesting question though whether one should use extraordinary equipment or not; if one does one will always be spoiled ...
This guy has found his own solution, singeing every file, burning every steak to make a unique cuisine, canceling the camera variable in the creative equation. .

Edmund

[LKaven]

BTW, MFD to me is not MF size vs 35mm any more.  It is more CCD vs CMOS.

I find CCD to be just better then CMOS.  Better color, better grain, better depth, better color linearity, etc.  Even with BCooter's 800 ISO CCD shots, processed to hell and back, I find the tones to more appealing.  I even had a friend my age (around 29) say that the depth he sees with a CCD is still much deeper than what he see with a CMOS system. 

Still waiting for anyone to substantiate this claim in principle.  Are we comparing 35mm sensors against 35mm sensors?  Because there's only one CMOS sensor over 24x36mm, and it's only 33x44mm.  Surely we aren't comparing 35mm CMOS sensors against MF CCD sensors.  While cases from one person's experience might seem to point to this kind of conclusion, it's a long way from underwriting the claim that there is an inherent property in CCD sensors that explains a perceived difference in quality.

[eronald]

Still waiting for anyone to substantiate this claim in principle.  Are we comparing 35mm sensors against 35mm sensors?  Because there's only one CMOS sensor over 24x36mm, and it's only 33x44mm.  Surely we aren't comparing 35mm CMOS sensors against MF CCD sensors.  While cases from one person's experience might seem to point to this kind of conclusion, it's a long way from underwriting the claim that there is an inherent property in CCD sensors that explains a perceived difference in quality.

Let's give it few months, and then at least we'll have lotsa samples of the Sony sensor to discuss.
In the mean time, I guess we can agree that the Pentax 645Z wins the "Autofocus MF system under $12K that can do 6400 ISO" by default, while the still available Pentax 645D selling at something like $5K probably wins the "cheapest  AF MF system" competition, with the D800 and D810 getting thrown out of the ring for being ... welterweights. trying to win the heavyweight belt

Edmund

[bcooter]

never quibbled about the bill when he shot with a camera they didn't have and couldn't afford.

Maybe.

Though if a client is expecting a serious production, they expect a certain amount of serious equipment and crew and catering and locations and studios and . . .

I doubt seriously if many clients know or would care if your using a mamiya df or a 1dx because the Canon looks larger anyway.

Obviously if your shooting for any international brand and use three speed lights bouncing into an umbrella with one lens on a small camera, the clients may notice in a negative way.

Then again today with where business spending is, if your prudent, efficient and deliver what is requested, that is more important than a big show, as long as the production doesn't look cheap.

Funny thing is with all of the post production used in controlled genres like beauty, you could probably get away with less expensive equipment.

It's kind of irrelevant because any image maker that can secure a major brand will probably have a room full of equipment anyway, either owned or rented.

As far as client's not questioning fees if you use a medium format camera, I'd like to meet a client today that wasn't concerned with production costs.

It sounds to me a quote like that is more justification than actual practice, but there is always exceptions to every rule.

CCD vs. cmos, I don't know, who does?   Everybody works differently, other than Leica there are no ccd full frame cameras and even then nobody is going to make that test.  

Personally I think I see a difference but I don't always shoot three cameras on one setup and I rarely chose a camera thinking ccd of cmos.

I try to select a camera for the look I think it will produce.

This was shot with an M8 and 1 key hmi, slight spun for diffusion and two hmi's slightly bounced for fill.



I didn't want an overly detailed look, or a cmos smooth look, so used the m8.  Another photographer probably would approach it differently, who knows?

IMO

BC

[Manoli]

Though if a client is expecting a serious production, they expect a certain amount of serious equipment and crew and catering and locations and studios [...]
As far as client's not questioning fees if you use a medium format camera, I'd like to meet a client today that wasn't concerned with production costs.

Isn't that a mute point ? Most of the better known photographers I come across bill the magazine for MF rental anyway - at least for fashion editorials. The days of expensive 2 week trips to exotics went over a decade ago - replaced by reduced budgets, fees and 'fill-ins' such as MF rental !

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

What Luke writes makes a lot of sense, a lot of variables are involved.

• Different physical sensor sizes.
• All sensors are different. Different pixel count, pixel size, CFA design, AA-filte or not, microlens design.
• Some cameras are more optimised for high ISO, Nikon D4, Canon 1, while others are optimised for low ISO high DR. Examples of low ISO cameras are Nikon D800/D810, all Sony's except A7s
• Many sensors are made by Sony, Canon makes their sensors themselves
• CCD sensors are coming from either Truesense, the company formerly known as Kodak, or DALSA.
• CCD sensors are most often used with proprietary software like Capture One and Phocus. Both may be optimized for the makers own backs

So, I cannot see how CCD or CMOS can be singled out as a most important factor.

Best regards
Erik

Still waiting for anyone to substantiate this claim in principle.  Are we comparing 35mm sensors against 35mm sensors?  Because there's only one CMOS sensor over 24x36mm, and it's only 33x44mm.  Surely we aren't comparing 35mm CMOS sensors against MF CCD sensors.  While cases from one person's experience might seem to point to this kind of conclusion, it's a long way from underwriting the claim that there is an inherent property in CCD sensors that explains a perceived difference in quality.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Actually, DSLRs used to be CCD, too, except Canon. Early Nikons, Konica Minoltas, Pentaxes were all CCDs, mostly from Sony. When Sony developed the early Exmor type sensor, most vendors switched technology.

Best regards
Erik

CCD vs. cmos, I don't know, who does?   Everybody works differently, other than Leica there are no ccd full frame cameras and even then nobody is going to make that test.