Which MF Would you use to Shoot weddings

[Doug Peterson]

It's always interesting in this type of discussion to see how well the industry has beat into a photographers head, that a CCD can really shoot anything but base iso.  Excepting being a sensor plus enabled Phase One back, I don't believe by increasing ISO on a CCD, you gain (no pun intended) anything.  The readout on a Phase is the same, it's just a metadata writing that shows you set the iso higher. 

This has been shown to be true with many tests, I have read both on this site and others, where a 50 iso sample is compared to a 200 iso sample and basically the image will look the same, either with the 50 sample way underexposed, or vise versa. 

So I ask again for the experts, does a real "higher than base" iso really exist on a CCD MF back, besides moving to sensor plus, where you do see a definite improvement, still not sure it's really a higher iso, but it's sure 4:1 pixel binning.  So with a good lens, you can get a good iso 800 image from a IQ180 albeit it's a 20MP file, thus it's not really a result of a higher iso, due to the loss in 3/4's of the resolution.

I fully understand with CMOS, you can actually increase the "gain" of the chip via the higher iso settings.  But with CCD, you best case is maybe 1 step from base, thus on a 50 iso chip, you might increase to 100 iso, but that's not going to do much for a wedding in low light or natural light.

If anyone has information to prove that CCD's in a MF back really can write a high iso file, say true 400 or 800, I would love to see it, as I have never found anything to show this. 

Paul

In real world shooting:
- I've used ISO1600 Sensor+ files from the CCD based P65+ for large (30" x 40") prints for wedding clients and been very happy for them. I've used a handful of ISO3200 Sensor+ files for album images (10"x10" or 12"x12" or 10"x20" cropped from the frame) with the addition of a bit of film grain.
- It's much easier to know how far you're pushing the base ISO when using "ISO1600" and seeing the histogram in that way, than to try to guess at how badly underexposed you are using the system at base ISO.

[Doug Peterson]

Sorry, for wedding only CMOS will do the game. A Pentax 645Z will fall within the range of your budget, but you are limited to 1/125 flash sync. However it is not that bad since you can rely on the state-of-the-art dynamic range of the sensor instead of flash.

If you had more budget then perhaps get H5D-50C/Credo50/IQ150/IQ250. (Credo 50 is most cost efficient but you might want to check compatibility.)

Other than these, stay with Nikon D4/D4S.

"Only CMOS will do the game" ?

We have clients that shoot weddings with CCD backs and I myself have shot many.

You'll get no argument from me that having useable ISO6400 (or two billion or whatever) is a nicety at weddings, but it's not an absolute necessity. I know photographers who shoot 90%+ of each wedding on Portra 160 and Portra 400.

For what it's worth, I'd personally rather have native high speed sync from a suite of modern autofocus leaf shutter lenses than ISO 6400, but I'm obviously biased. There are more times where my main issue is there is too much light (direct sunlight from a bad angle), than too little and having the option to simply change shutter speeds to knock down ambient without impacting the flash exposure is very nice for me.

This is especially true for me since, like most wedding photographers I know, I carry two cameras at any wedding (with a third, emergency backup in the car or hotel room just in case) and my second camera is an X-Pro 1 which I am happy shooting in very low light for night time or dark indoor receptions, after parties etc.

[Paul2660]

In real world shooting:
- I've used ISO1600 Sensor+ files from the CCD based P65+ for large (30" x 40") prints for wedding clients and been very happy for them. I've used a handful of ISO3200 Sensor+ files for album images (10"x10" or 12"x12" or 10"x20" cropped from the frame) with the addition of a bit of film grain.
- It's much easier to know how far you're pushing the base ISO when using "ISO1600" and seeing the histogram in that way, than to try to guess at how badly underexposed you are using the system at base ISO.

I fully agree that the sensor plus files are excellent. But I don't see them as a true higher ISO setting of the chip as the resolution is now 1/4th of the full resolution of the chip. I am sure a CMOS that pixel binned would deliver a similar if not better result when binned.

But I don't see sensor plus as a true higher ISO of the chip as now 4 pixels are doing the job of one.

Plus with sensor plus you don't have any gain with longer exposures from what I have seen. Unlike how well a CMOS back like the 250/150 can still take a very good 2 to 10 minute exposure at ISO 400. Just like a 35 CMOS camera can shoot. This follows the way CMOS works with a higher ISO setting is totally different than CCD.

Paul

[Joe Towner]

Depends on your style of shooting and what you're looking for.  Generally speaking, the budget is really low, to the point of MF being a hindrance.  How much flash power are you taking onsite?  Are you shooting the entire wedding on MF, or only posed formals?

The 645Z is much faster than the D, so if that is the only thing holding you back go try the current Pentax model - good luck finding a used one for under $8k.

The older Hass stuff is a concern in that repairs may not be viable, or if they are, at an extreme cost.  Phase/Leaf are an option - the older backs will outlast the older bodies, but there is a price premium for their newer stuff.

What else are you going to shoot, as having the camera just for weddings is a huge push.

[voidshatter]

"Only CMOS will do the game" ?

We have clients that shoot weddings with CCD backs and I myself have shot many.

You'll get no argument from me that having useable ISO6400 (or two billion or whatever) is a nicety at weddings, but it's not an absolute necessity. I know photographers who shoot 90%+ of each wedding on Portra 160 and Portra 400.

For what it's worth, I'd personally rather have native high speed sync from a suite of modern autofocus leaf shutter lenses than ISO 6400, but I'm obviously biased. There are more times where my main issue is there is too much light (direct sunlight from a bad angle), than too little and having the option to simply change shutter speeds to knock down ambient without impacting the flash exposure is very nice for me.

This is especially true for me since, like most wedding photographers I know, I carry two cameras at any wedding (with a third, emergency backup in the car or hotel room just in case) and my second camera is an X-Pro 1 which I am happy shooting in very low light for night time or dark indoor receptions, after parties etc.

Yes of course CCD "can" shoot it, but I can easily challenge the image quality with APSC CMOS in most situations where the light condition is less than ideal.

Of course you could achieve great results in day light with leaf shutter sync, but again that is only a small part of the wedding photos. For all those indoor photos I can use APSC CMOS to capture a lot more moments without disrupting the ceremony.

[Doug Peterson]

I fully agree that the sensor plus files are excellent. But I don't see them as a true higher ISO setting of the chip as the resolution is now 1/4th of the full resolution of the chip. I am sure a CMOS that pixel binned would deliver a similar if not better result when binned.

I am not aware of any CMOS cameras doing true pixel binning.

The sRaw for instance from Canon simply produces a smaller file.

Pixel binning, done at the hardware level, significantly outperforms simply downsampling or producing a smaller file.

[Paul2660]

I am not aware of any CMOS cameras doing true pixel binning.

The sRaw for instance from Canon simply produces a smaller file.

Pixel binning, done at the hardware level, significantly outperforms simply downsampling or producing a smaller file.

I am not either, my point was that if a CMOS chip was developed to pixel bin, then I would expect the same results or better than pixel binning with a CCD, but as none exist it's moot. 

Only the photographer can make the determination if the investment in a 25K plus back for 60MP is worth using it at 1/4 of the resolution, in the case of the P65+ 15MP vs 60MP.  I  sure can't make the case that it's something I  want to do very often even with a tech camera.  There are plenty of 16MP to 24MP CMOS 35mm chips that will get the job done, for my work.  It's a decision everyone has to make based on their needs for the photography, i.e. web based, or printed media.

As I stated, originally, I am not trying to say the quality of the sensor plus files is bad, it's just to me not true high iso, as you have pulled 3/4 of the resolution out of the chip to get there and did not push the chip in gain, instead pulled 4 pixels to do the work of 1.  Just my way of looking at it.

Paul

[Ken R]

I am not either, my point was that if a CMOS chip was developed to pixel bin, then I would expect the same results or better than pixel binning with a CCD, but as none exist it's moot. 

Only the photographer can make the determination if the investment in a 25K plus back for 60MP is worth using it at 1/4 of the resolution, in the case of the P65+ 15MP vs 60MP.  I  sure can't make the case that it's something I  want to do very often even with a tech camera.  There are plenty of 16MP to 24MP CMOS 35mm chips that will get the job done, for my work.  It's a decision everyone has to make based on their needs for the photography, i.e. web based, or printed media.

As I stated, originally, I am not trying to say the quality of the sensor plus files is bad, it's just to me not true high iso, as you have pulled 3/4 of the resolution out of the chip to get there and did not push the chip in gain, instead pulled 4 pixels to do the work of 1.  Just my way of looking at it.

Paul

I have the IQ160 and I initially I did not think I would use Sensor Plus as much as I have. The file quality is superb and the smaller file size is enough and at actually a benefit in quite a few instances. The sensor size (image capture area) stays the same during sensor plus capture obviously so you still get the look of a larger format which is what I love. Larger sensors, like larger film, have a different look. I mean yes, it is hard to rationalize and justify in value terms the purchase of an expensive digital back but that is not what the format is about. If you want the best image quality for your dollar look elsewhere but If you are looking for something different then it is great to have alternatives.

[mmbma]

why would you want to shoot a wedding with MF digital? You will not have much of a gain in image quality compared to latest DSLRs, (even DOF, you can achieve quite easily with the pano stitching method). But you will be losing a lot of functionality that are critical to weddings (fast AF, high speed sync, fast shutters, portability, fast continuous shooting, easy of swapping lenses, etc.).

[Joe Towner]

why would you want to shoot a wedding with MF digital? You will not have much of a gain in image quality compared to latest DSLRs, (even DOF, you can achieve quite easily with the pano stitching method). But you will be losing a lot of functionality that are critical to weddings (fast AF, high speed sync, fast shutters, portability, fast continuous shooting, easy of swapping lenses, etc.).

Lots of reasons.  Start out with exclusivity - lots of folks own Can/Ni/Sony gear, Uncle Bob and such, and by shooting MF you start out by offering something just about everyone else doesn't have.  Then consider the event, a wedding, a huge investment/expense, and what may be the only time a large group of people gets dressed up.  Some folks turn to wedding photos for a formal photo of someone who has passed, so the personal value is higher.  Next you talk about print size and quality - nothing in the 35mm realm holds a candle to the Sony 50mp CMOS or for that matter any MF based formal photo.  In MF, with 50mp shots, you can reframe/crop the images a lot more while maintaining image quality.

I love what is possible with MF - the shot below is amazing at 24x36, and the original has a photographer across the bottom of the frame shooting up.

[Doug Peterson]

why would you want to shoot a wedding with MF digital? You will not have much of a gain in image quality compared to latest DSLRs, (even DOF, you can achieve quite easily with the pano stitching method). But you will be losing a lot of functionality that are critical to weddings (fast AF, high speed sync, fast shutters, portability, fast continuous shooting, easy of swapping lenses, etc.).

Not sure what you mean by losing high-speed sync. You do lose HSS mode for Canon/Nikon speedlights and the Profoto flash-arc version of high speed sync. But having native high speed sync using leaf shutters is a significant improvement over those hacked version of higher speed sync. You lose a ton of power from the flash when using the hack modes. Using a leaf shutter your 580EX becomes a very powerful flash in comparison.

Anyway. There are many reasons you would want to use MF at a wedding:
- resolution
- improved color in general
- improved skintone right out of camera
- improved lens look
- lenses that are sharp wide open and create excellent contrast between the out of focus bokeh and the subject
- leaf shutters for native high speed sync without power loss
- larger/brighter viewfinder
- better aspect ratio for vertical frames (subjective of course, but it's hard to find someone that loves 3:2 verticals)
- differentiation

You mention that you can provide a shallow DOF look on 35mm "quite easily with the pano stitching method" and I think that highlights the difference quite starkly. The idea of taking 8 shots and then later stitching and hand correcting any errors - for every final shot you want to produce with that look, is fine for some photographers ("quite easy"), and anathema to others ("a freaking pain in the butt"). Some photographers will be okay spending a lot more time in post getting a camera's raws to a place they are happy with, and others will value a system that provides great skintone out of camera, great tonality and dimensionality out of camera, that can take post processing adjustments with grace, and that can produce a large print from a shallow DOF shot from a single frame... this is far preferable to me.

[Theodoros]

I have the IQ160 and I initially I did not think I would use Sensor Plus as much as I have. The file quality is superb and the smaller file size is enough and at actually a benefit in quite a few instances. The sensor size (image capture area) stays the same during sensor plus capture obviously so you still get the look of a larger format which is what I love. Larger sensors, like larger film, have a different look. I mean yes, it is hard to rationalize and justify in value terms the purchase of an expensive digital back but that is not what the format is about. If you want the best image quality for your dollar look elsewhere but If you are looking for something different then it is great to have alternatives.

It's not landscape or stills we are talking about here, It is "just" ...weddings!

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Not really if sync time is 1/250 or longer. There is a range of shutter speeds were LF is clearly at advantage, the 1/500 - 1/800 or even 1/500 - 1/1600 range.

Sync speed is clearly a limitation of the Pentax 645Z.

Let's put it this way. Many systems can do the job. High end MFD can deliver resolution that 135 cannot match. MFD with leaf shutter lenses allows some advantages in flash photography, that can be quite significant. That said, you can see a lot of 135 work using flash at very high sync speeds, but it is mainly used as fill light.

With 135 there are some truly excellent f/1.4 optics and great liberty in expanding shadows, expect on Canons which have high readout noise at base ISO, go to 800 ISO and those Canons are highly competitive.

Finally, it may be more important to know the equipment deployed and make best use of it than any specific parameters. I have seen far more great images shot on Canons than on MFD. Well, I actually never have seen anyone shooting MFD in real life.

On the other hand, folks have noticed I am shooting a Hasselblad and so they feel I must be a professional, which I am not. Using a Hasselblad may awoke some interest. I don't know if Phase One has that capability. Hasselblad has been to the Moon, you know… Also, Hasselblad is a Swedish company and Sweden happens to be my choice of country to live in, so recognition factor here is pretty high.

Regarding short DoF with no colour fringing on the background, I don't think you can beat the two Otuses, the Apo Sonnar 2/135 and some other specialty lenses. Sony has a 135/2.8 with very delicate bokeh and Nikon has some corresponding lens, too. Quite a few MFD lenses don't even have round aperure…

Best regards
Erik

Not sure what you mean by losing high-speed sync. You do lose HSS mode for Canon/Nikon speedlights and the Profoto flash-arc version of high speed sync. But having native high speed sync using leaf shutters is a significant improvement over those hacked version of higher speed sync. You lose a ton of power from the flash when using the hack modes. Using a leaf shutter your 580EX becomes a very powerful flash in comparison.

Anyway. There are many reasons you would want to use MF at a wedding:
- resolution
- improved color in general
- improved skintone right out of camera
- improved lens look
- lenses that are sharp wide open and create excellent contrast between the out of focus bokeh and the subject
- leaf shutters for native high speed sync without power loss
- larger/brighter viewfinder
- better aspect ratio for vertical frames (subjective of course, but it's hard to find someone that loves 3:2 verticals)
- differentiation

You mention that you can provide a shallow DOF look on 35mm "quite easily with the pano stitching method" and I think that highlights the difference quite starkly. The idea of taking 8 shots and then later stitching and hand correcting any errors - for every final shot you want to produce with that look, is fine for some photographers ("quite easy"), and anathema to others ("a freaking pain in the butt"). Some photographers will be okay spending a lot more time in post getting a camera's raws to a place they are happy with, and others will value a system that provides great skintone out of camera, great tonality and dimensionality out of camera, that can take post processing adjustments with grace, and that can produce a large print from a shallow DOF shot from a single frame... this is far preferable to me.

[Theodoros]

Not sure what you mean by losing high-speed sync. You do lose HSS mode for Canon/Nikon speedlights and the Profoto flash-arc version of high speed sync. But having native high speed sync using leaf shutters is a significant improvement over those hacked version of higher speed sync. You lose a ton of power from the flash when using the hack modes. Using a leaf shutter your 580EX becomes a very powerful flash in comparison.

Anyway. There are many reasons you would want to use MF at a wedding:
- resolution
- improved color in general
- improved skintone right out of camera
- improved lens look
- lenses that are sharp wide open and create excellent contrast between the out of focus bokeh and the subject
- leaf shutters for native high speed sync without power loss
- larger/brighter viewfinder
- better aspect ratio for vertical frames (subjective of course, but it's hard to find someone that loves 3:2 verticals)
- differentiation

You mention that you can provide a shallow DOF look on 35mm "quite easily with the pano stitching method" and I think that highlights the difference quite starkly. The idea of taking 8 shots and then later stitching and hand correcting any errors - for every final shot you want to produce with that look, is fine for some photographers ("quite easy"), and anathema to others ("a freaking pain in the butt"). Some photographers will be okay spending a lot more time in post getting a camera's raws to a place they are happy with, and others will value a system that provides great skintone out of camera, great tonality and dimensionality out of camera, that can take post processing adjustments with grace, and that can produce a large print from a shallow DOF shot from a single frame... this is far preferable to me.

DOF with the speed of lenses provided, is certainly less with 35mm than MF for most same AOVs.... Not that one would care for less than 20 deg AOV ones...  

[Joe Towner]

Finally, it may be more important to know the equipment deployed and make best use of it than any specific parameters. I have seen far more great images shot on Canons than on MFD. Well, I actually never have seen anyone shooting MFD in real life.

On the other hand, folks have noticed I am shooting a Hasselblad and so they feel I must be a professional, which I am not. Using a Hasselblad may awoke some interest. I don't know if Phase One has that capability. Hasselblad has been to the Moon, you know… Also, Hasselblad is a Swedish company and Sweden happens to be my choice of country to live in, so recognition factor here is pretty high.

I blame Phase One and specifically their IQ260 World Tour and Bear Images whom visited Seattle way back in June 2013.  My first MF experience, and while I have never printed the photos I took that day at a size worth discussing, it got me onto this horrible path.  It has cost me a small fortune and if I were to consider how much I have spent to this point I would slap myself multiple times.  I've chatted with one other person shooting an Alpa FPS + IQ260 setup, and walked past someone with a GX680 hanging from a neck strap.  You just don't see MF out and about - literally had a guy walking past me ask 'Who walks around with a digital medium format camera' to which I replied 'me'.

On the flip side I will stand and chat with anyone who walks up to me inquiring as to what I am shooting.  I've done this with the Hasselblad and the Pentax a lot, and will easily contrast those systems plus the fun things that the Team Phase can do.  Want a shot from it - sure, I'll send you a raw.

[Chris Valites]

We have plenty of clients that use the Phase One DF+ for their wedding business, with the Credo 40 being the one off the top of my head as the kit that a lot of people gravitate to most naturally due to the price of the combination. However, the Credo 50's CMOS sensor's flexibility is certainly alluring, and balancing pricepoint vs the CMOS flexibility is something with which we have had customers come down on either side.