Why Medium Format Digital?

[ErikKaffehr]

I agree with Hans. I do often stitch, but higher resolution is better.

I am not sure low end MF makes a lot of sense, though, and high end MF is very expensive.

Best regards
Erik

If you can afford the Phase One camera and the Schneider lenses and need to print really big and the business supports it, then why bother with stitching? Stitching is in my opinion not practical as a general approach. Stitching is fine for the occasion where you need it, but stitching every picture? Not really

[BernardLanguillier]

You guys are killing me. :-)

Maybe I should buy a cheap 2004 era Canon 6mp EOS 10D and stitch about 12 images to equal the pixel count....

Andy,

You are of course right.

Stitching is IMHO a generic technique that can be used for a majority of landscape images (in fact I am not sure why anyone concerned by image quality would not want to stitch those) but only a small sub-set of environmental wildlife images.

I only commented about stitching because of the nature of the images you had originally shown. They gave me the impression that you were using your MF gear less for pure wildlfe and more for images showing the animal in its wider environment. Stitching makes sense for a sub-set of those shots IMHO.

Cheers,
Bernard

[abiggs]

Even the images that are wide and are as much about landscapes as wildlife just don't work as stitched panoramas. Wildlife moves. Setting up a camera to shoot on a tripod is a luxury. Post processing / merging images with wildlife isn't simple, due to all of the movement. I shoot from a bean bag, not from a tripod on a gimbal mount from some remote location. I am in the mix in a vehicle, moving around with agility to anticipate the best shooting position.

Stitching for wildlife just doesn't work. It's much much easier to take 1 photograph with equipment that is suited for that. It frees up more time to drink beer at the end of the day. :-)

[BernardLanguillier]

Stitching for wildlife just doesn't work. It's much much easier to take 1 photograph with equipment that is suited for that. It frees up more time to drink beer at the end of the day. :-)

I really wish I had the opportunity to challenge that statement in the coming months (because I am confident it can be done with the right focus), but that will unfortunately probably not happen so I'll have to agree with you about the importance of beer drinking time. 

Cheers,
Bernard

[uaiomex]

Stitching is a godsend for constructing bigger files when needed. Only problem is, it kind of destroys that unique moment of joy of knowing you just achieved a small masterpiece after hearing the subtle click of your camera.

On the opposite, the stitching process is a mechanical sequence that will retribute after the computer work.

Stitching is like having to drink the whole liquid of a very cold beer to exhale long and loud with pleasure. Single frame pictures is like being able to to do it after each ingestion.

So, in short, shooting stitches have one satisfaction. Shooting single frames have two moments of satisfaction.
That along, is reason enough to go the medium format way. If only I could afford it.

Eduardo

[abiggs]

I am eager to hear how stitching works for all of the wildlife I ages I have posted in this thread. Please illuminate. If you have not been on safari before take some time to consider the environment, shooting conditions and shooting platform as part of your process.

[BernardLanguillier]

I am eager to hear how stitching works for all of the wildlife I ages I have posted in this thread. Please illuminate. If you have not been on safari before take some time to consider the environment, shooting conditions and shooting platform as part of your process.

Not all of them would be manageable obviously.

My safari experience is very limited (elephants in Ski Lanka many years ago) and photography was not part of the experience. So I do fully acknowledge that I am not speaking from first hand experience, just looking at the final images in terms of the elements they contain.

IMHO, but again I wasn't there so this is just theoretical, the 2 giraffe images would be manageable with stitching, probably 5 vertical frames for the first one, basically as many frames as you want for the second one with the giraffes in the distance. This could probably be done handheld or with a monopod depending on the lens being used, how good the VR/IS is,...

The last one with the 2 elephants groups also. It is a good candidate for a 2x2 stitch with images in landscape orientation.

The lions ones I would probably not risk if getting the shot is critical, although it may be manageable depending on how much they move.

But I am not discussing the fact that a one shot capture is a lot more relaxing in terms of shooting experience nor that the only way to know for sure is to try it out in the field, which, as mentioned above, I will not have the opportunity to do in the foreseeable future.

Cheers,
Bernard

[abiggs]

The challenge is that you never know what is around the next bend, and stitching opportunities doesn't happen very often. So it is easier to bring the right tool for the job and have peace of mind.

[BernardLanguillier]

The challenge is that you never know what is around the next bend, and stitching opportunities doesn't happen very often. So it is easier to bring the right tool for the job and have peace of mind.

Agreed Andy.

Cheers,
Bernard

[tsjanik]

Why is it necessary to wait for the end of the day to drink beer ?   

[abiggs]

thumbs up

[uaiomex]

Only if you stitch. 

Why is it necessary to wait for the end of the day to drink beer ?   

[NancyP]

I get it. You shoot differently with different tools. Most wildlife photographers don't like, can't afford, and/or can't carry the MF arsenal in addition to the 135-format arsenal. Those that do their wildlife photography largely based from a Range Rover, instead of using their own two feet to hike miles into a wildlife venue with cameras, food, camping gear, etc, can take lots of weight. If you have the luxury of being able to use MF and you find MF causes you to compose differently, etc, your images look different from the run of the mill wildlife photography images, hence, more saleable. MF satisfies desire to see the animal in detail and satisfies desire to seen animal in the context of the landscape.

[abiggs]

Ironically my camera bag actually weighs less now than when I shot with 35mm gear.

[NancyP]

Fewer possible lens choices, so you don't have to take the whole CPS inventory    (cue amazing closet photo: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=225362 )

Makes sense to me. One of these days I will get it together to really get comfortable with my genuinely portable 4 x 5" aluminum monorail, which weighs 3# with one lens (admittedly the tiniest lens I have seen, 150 f/6.3 Seiko 0, at 135 grams including its shutter - my Canon wide-normal prime 40 mm f/2.8 weighs the same, and it is plastic and doesn't have a shutter). A pro-grade gripped DSLR and the new Zeiss Otus 55 would weigh more than that tiny LF camera plus tiny lens plus several film holders, loupe, black cloth, and spot meter or compact digital camera used as meter.

Speaking as an amateur, sometimes it is a lot of fun to just shoot with a single prime as I did back in the 1960s as a teenager.

[JohnBrew]

Ironically my camera bag actually weighs less now than when I shot with 35mm gear.

Andy, as I age (reluctantly!) I'm much more appreciative of lighter gear.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I sort of go in the other direction. 5 MF lenses (40, 50, 80, 120 and 180) + 2-3 135 lenses (10 mm fisheye, 24-70 and 70-400) and a DSLR. For long walks, MFD is left behind. I love shooting MFD, but 135 gets those shots…

Best regards
Erik

Andy, as I age (reluctantly!) I'm much more appreciative of lighter gear.

[David Mantripp]

This discussion of stitching / not stitching strikes a chord with me. I know that some people don't feel tied to the camera's framing and are happy to stitch, or crop, post-capture, but it doesn't work like that for me. I compose through the viewfinder, and I'm pretty precise in getting what I want. Post-capture composition usually doezn't work for - i'd probably forget what struck me in the first place. As for stitching, well, been there, done that. I was stitching with the first version of QuicktimeVR back in the early 90s, for professional reasons, and it was frustration with the process that pushed me in tbe direction of the then new XPan. Now, i'm seriously considering what is probably an absurd acquisition, a Linhof 612PC, because the 6x12 frame is my absolute favourite.  I do wish camera manufacturers would let us define our own frames - with EVFs would that be so hard? I'd gladly give up "art filters" and "selfie mode" to be able to have such a feature.  On a Pentax 645z maybe...

[BernardLanguillier]

This discussion of stitching / not stitching strikes a chord with me. I know that some people don't feel tied to the camera's framing and are happy to stitch, or crop, post-capture, but it doesn't work like that for me. I compose through the viewfinder, and I'm pretty precise in getting what I want. Post-capture composition usually doezn't work for - i'd probably forget what struck me in the first place. As for stitching, well, been there, done that. I was stitching with the first version of QuicktimeVR back in the early 90s, for professional reasons, and it was frustration with the process that pushed me in tbe direction of the then new XPan. Now, i'm seriously considering what is probably an absurd acquisition, a Linhof 612PC, because the 6x12 frame is my absolute favourite.

6x12 is nice but there are much cheaper ways, such as using a Horseman 6x12 roll film back on a cheap 4x5 camera.

As far as stitching goes, I only started more than 11-12 years ago, am aware of the limitations and I am not trying to convince anyone, but will still mention that both hardware (pano heads) and software are much better today.

Cheers,
Bernard

[David Mantripp]

Yeah, but i'd look a bit daft with a 4x5 hanging from my neck :-)

Agree about the tools being being better, but still, the satisfaction is missing, for me. Doesn't make sense, I know.