Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: MichaelEzra on August 21, 2008, 01:50:48 pm
-
It would be interesing to see what is are the opinions of MF shooters on D700 as a possible backup system.
I find D700 to be a very versatile camera; It is very responsive, has a decent dynamic range and ultimate high ISO capability.
Personally, I am concerned with pixel-level sharpness in comparison to no AA DB. Yet, even that can be of benefit in cases when DB struggles with moire problems.
Please share your thoughts and views on this subject.
Thanks,
-
It would be interesing to see what is are the opinions of MF shooters on D700 as a possible backup system.
I find D700 to be a very versatile camera; It is very responsive, has a decent dynamic range and ultimate high ISO capability.
Personally, I am concerned with pixel-level sharpness in comparison to no AA DB. Yet, even that can be of benefit in cases when DB struggles with moire problems.
Please share your thoughts and views on this subject.
Thanks,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216507\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My opinion applies to commercial shoots. To be honest, I don't think what you use as a a backup matters. It would be nice to have a second back, but for 99% of things any dslr will do. Better yet, to match the MF look, just shoot some MF film that is close to digital in look, such as a chrome like Provia or E100GX.
-
I have not had a chance to pick up and use a d700 yet, but I think it starts at a base of iso 200?
That might be an issue for you, and if I'm wrong someone please correct me!
-
Personally, I am concerned with pixel-level sharpness in comparison to no AA DB.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216507\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With regard to pixel sharpness maybe the Leica M8 (with IR filter) - if you don't need AF and mirror.
With regard to overall resolution 1DsMKIII or maybe (probably) the upcoming Sony or EOS 5D upgrade.
I'd wait and take a look at the Sony...
I'm wondering about the popularity of D3/D700. In low ISO it's not really better than the EOS 5D. But of course a great step forward in high ISO and frame rate. So from my point of view these two cameras are specialized high speed cameras and I wonder if everyone now is shooting action photos in the night or sports...
-
A back-up for a digital back is a second digital back. A 6Mp will do and will give you the same look as your other back. It's the same as asking : will a porche be a good back-up for my scania truck??? answer : yes it will ; it will transport you to an other place, it's faster, more ergonomic, better looking but.... thats it. It never is a replacement for a truck... nor will a dslr be a back-up for a MD digital.
It will make photos, just as all other digital stuff but never the same look or feel.
Why don't just pick up a used 6 Mp?????
-
A back-up for a digital back is a second digital back...
Why don't just pick up a used 6 Mp?????[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216526\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
or P21 refurbished. The Nikon with some glass will be about the same...
But I noticed that Michael has a ZD ...
-
Same here, I have another MFDB as a backup.
I will get a D700 to go with the D300 but that is for a different purpose and different circumstances. In some cases I take the D300 with me just in case I cannot get the job done with the MFDB. I always hope I can keep the Nikon in the bag but will revert to it if necessary.
-
A used H5 or valeo6 goes about 1000 euro, thats for free!!!
-
A used H5 or valeo6 goes about 1000 euro, thats for free!!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216532\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yes... but I think IQ will suffer a little bit when he mounts the back on the finder...
-
The truth is, that in my case, I already have Nikon lenses.
I wanted to have a second system, fast and reliable versatile 35mm DSLR, which would also serve as a backup if necessary. D700 seems like the best candidate and I am interested in your guys opinion on this, hence the poll.
What I would ultimately like to have is the MF system that would be as versatile as D700 is interms of usability, but we would need to wait for that another 3-5 years at least.
-
I already have Nikon lenses. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216534\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
isn't there a 24MP FF Nikon annoncend or at least rumors about one? So maybe you'd wait for Photokina...
-
What I would ultimately like to have is the MF system that would be as versatile as D700 is interms of usability, but we would need to wait for that another 3-5 years at least.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216534\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Amen to that. And it will cost more than a nice sail boat when they do introduce it.
-
It would be interesing to see what is are the opinions of MF shooters on D700 as a possible backup system.
I find D700 to be a very versatile camera; It is very responsive, has a decent dynamic range and ultimate high ISO capability.
Personally, I am concerned with pixel-level sharpness in comparison to no AA DB. Yet, even that can be of benefit in cases when DB struggles with moire problems.
Please share your thoughts and views on this subject.
Thanks,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216507\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i've been shooting with a leaf back mated to a mamiya body, a 1ds3 and a 5d for a while. i recently replaced the 5d with a d700. i never really thought of the canons or now the canon and the nikon as being a back-ups, as all the cameras have different strenghts. which system or camera i use is largely a function of what i am shooting, and for whom. there have been times when i have shot a session with both the leaf and a canon, and the canon produced "the shot"; and other times the dslr never makes it out of the bag. when i look at the money i have spent on canon and nikon gear, i could have easily bought a second back, but i actually like the idea of having the different systems which cover the spectrum from high resolution to high iso performance.
-
Thank you all for your replies.
It is interesting that at this moment there is 21 votes in the poll, all equally spread across the answers: Yes - 7, No - 7, In some cases - 7.
This perfectly reflects my hopes and doubts. 12 MP 35mm dSLR with high IQ is great but not perfect. At the same time I feel that my MF system needs a complimentary speedy camera. I have some concerns about a hypothetical 24 mp Nikon (or Sony) - whether it will have good enough DR. Their pixels will be similar in size to those in high end DB-s, but will they be of the same IQ...
Due to the timing pressure with trip to Russia in the beginning of September, I guess I have already made a decision to go with D700 instead of 24 MP 35mm and just am trying to find peace with myself:)
-
I use D700 for editorial works now and I found base iso200 is a bit high too. My solution is add a PL in front of the lens, make it equal to iso64 or so, it works, especially when you shoot stills like bottles or lipsticks, whatever, add a PL always give me surprises, I like it.
I have not had a chance to pick up and use a d700 yet, but I think it starts at a base of iso 200?
That might be an issue for you, and if I'm wrong someone please correct me!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I'd love to have a D700 for the things it can do that a DB can't - fast AF, Shooting JPEGs and high ISO, but as a backup for a Digital back I would take another back of the same make (if possible) and probably a 2nd hand/ lower resolution one - cheaper but capable and still offers some future proofing.
Much of it depends on the type of work you do, of course.
Yair
-
My coffee hasn't kicked in yet - could you elaborate re: PL (?) and effect on (effective) base ISO?
Thanks
R
I use D700 for editorial works now and I found base iso200 is a bit high too. My solution is add a PL in front of the lens, make it equal to iso64 or so, it works, especially when you shoot stills like bottles or lipsticks, whatever, add a PL always give me surprises, I like it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216618\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I'm sorry for this. When I say PL I mean polarization lens, and CPL should be for Circular polarization lens. A CPL should be used for nikon D700, but PL is ok if AF is not that crucial for you.
A PL usually lower the light by 1.5-2 stops, so the effective base iso for D700 with a PL should be iso50-64. Did I make it clear? sorry if not coz my english really sucks...
regards,
dustblue
My coffee hasn't kicked in yet - could you elaborate re: PL (?) and effect on (effective) base ISO?
Thanks
R
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216642\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
The D700 is able to shoot at iso100. Don't know if it suffers in quality compared to the base iso 200. I often use my Canons (5D & 1DsII) at ISO50 and don't feel the IQ loss is much noticable with what I shoot.
But the problem in studio with 35mm cameras is that the glass is too fast for the strobes. If I like to get a similar image from 35m gear I need roughtly have my lenses 2 stops more open. This means that I need to shoot my 50mm lens at f/1.4 for similar focus depth as a 80mm lens at f/2.8 on a MF camera.
Here's a shot where ISO50 wasnt low enough using my 35mm gear. Here I needed to shoot using only the modelling lights since the glass was too fast fort the strobes for the desired dof. Remeber dof is way thinner on MF cameras, I need to use my 50/1.2 lens at f/1.4 for the same focus depth as a 80mm lens at f/2.8 on a 645.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2114/2304693832_35c8d9d94b_o.jpg)
-
The dynamic range will suffer AFAIK. So nikon don't suggest to use D700's iso100
The D700 is able to shoot at iso100. Don't know if it suffers in quality compared to the base iso 200. I often use my Canons (5D & 1DsII) at ISO50 and don't feel the IQ loss is much noticable with what I shoot.
But the problem in studio with 35mm cameras is that the glass is too fast for the strobes. If I like to get a similar image from 35m gear I need roughtly have my lenses 2 stops more open. This means that I need to shoot my 50mm lens at f/1.4 for similar focus depth as a 80mm lens at f/2.8 on a MF camera.
Here's a shot where ISO50 wasnt low enough using my 35mm gear. Here I needed to shoot using only the modelling lights since the glass was too fast fort the strobes for the desired dof. Remeber dof is way thinner on MF cameras, I need to use my 50/1.2 lens at f/1.4 for the same focus depth as a 80mm lens at f/2.8 on a 645.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2114/2304693832_35c8d9d94b_o.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I use Speedotron Force F10 monolights. These beasts can delivery huge amount of power, yet they also can be dimmed to very low output - thanks to 8 f-stops adjustable range! (http://www.speedotron.com/F10Spec.htm). Whats even better, at lower power levels they can let me shoot at 5 frames per second - a perfect match for D700 - something I could not do yet with any medium format camera.
-
The dynamic range will suffer AFAIK. So nikon don't suggest to use D700's iso100
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216808\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i haven't tried the expansion feature yet on the d700, but with the canons, i did/do find that in going below the native 100, there is a tendency for highlights to more easily burn out, so you do have to pay attention to the tonal range of the scene.
-
I wonder if there is any lens in Nikon family that could compare in sharpness to Mamiya lenses? So far I cannot get really sharp images with D700 - wonder if 35mm lenses are much inferior. Looking at MTF charts, it seems that Nikon lenses are starting to deliver sharpness from 200mm and up. Under 200mm you get mixed results while all my Mamiya lenses (55, 80, 150 AF) are sharp.
P.S.
(I realize this question may belong to 35mm threads, but as it is still in the context of MF it is here)
-
For sharpness you should try 14-24/2.8, I've never saw a 135format wide angle lens better than this.
You can also try TLR sharpening tools, which you can find via google.
I wonder if there is any lens in Nikon family that could compare in sharpness to Mamiya lenses? So far I cannot get really sharp images with D700 - wonder if 35mm lenses are much inferior. Looking at MTF charts, it seems that Nikon lenses are starting to deliver sharpness from 200mm and up. Under 200mm you get mixed results while all my Mamiya lenses (55, 80, 150 AF) are sharp.
P.S.
(I realize this question may belong to 35mm threads, but as it is still in the context of MF it is here)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I wonder if there is any lens in Nikon family that could compare in sharpness to Mamiya lenses? So far I cannot get really sharp images with D700 - wonder if 35mm lenses are much inferior. Looking at MTF charts, it seems that Nikon lenses are starting to deliver sharpness from 200mm and up. Under 200mm you get mixed results while all my Mamiya lenses (55, 80, 150 AF) are sharp.
P.S.
(I realize this question may belong to 35mm threads, but as it is still in the context of MF it is here)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It think what you are also seeing is the difference between a camera fitted with an AA filter and one without. The ZD and 55 /80 / Macro combinations can be amazingly sharp below F/11 where diffraction can start to kick in. Even the slightly lesser 35mm on the ZD is decent.
The D700 has a fairly strong AA filter. I think that most 35mm format lenses resolve more than their MF counterparts but this is being obscured by the effect of the AA filter. If Nikon produced a digital SLR with a user removable AA filter, just like the old Kodak DCS 760 had, then you'd see the same level of sharpness as with the ZD or other no-AA filter cameras. Indeed I know that to be the case from using my 760 and also a Kodak 14nx which has no AA filter.
Quentin
-
I wonder if there is any lens in Nikon family that could compare in sharpness to Mamiya lenses? So far I cannot get really sharp images with D700 - wonder if 35mm lenses are much inferior. Looking at MTF charts, it seems that Nikon lenses are starting to deliver sharpness from 200mm and up. Under 200mm you get mixed results while all my Mamiya lenses (55, 80, 150 AF) are sharp.
P.S.
(I realize this question may belong to 35mm threads, but as it is still in the context of MF it is here)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not sure which lenses you are using?If you want the some really sharp lenses and don't mind using MF (manual focus in this context). Have a look at some of the Zeiss ZF lenses.
I really like the 35/2.0, 50/2.0macro. The 28/2.0 should also be a really sharp lens. Personally I am less satisfied with the 25/2.8. The ZF's are as sharp (if not sharper) as my HC lenses (compared on the same sensor).
The 14-24 should be in a league of its own. I don't have that one yet but I will certainly get it. Same should apply for the 24-70. I am more a prime user but for convenience will get the zooms as well. These unfortunately are G design lenses so I cannot use them om the DigiFlex to compare the lenses with my medium format lenses with the same sensor.
-
It think what you are also seeing is the difference between a camera fitted with an AA filter and one without. The ZD and 55 /80 / Macro combinations can be amazingly sharp below F/11 where diffraction can start to kick in. Even the slightly lesser 35mm on the ZD is decent.
The D700 has a fairly strong AA filter. I think that most 35mm format lenses resolve more than their MF counterparts but this is being obscured by the effect of the AA filter. If Nikon produced a digital SLR with a user removable AA filter, just like the old Kodak DCS 760 had, then you'd see the same level of sharpness as with the ZD or other no-AA filter cameras. Indeed I know that to be the case from using my 760 and also a Kodak 14nx which has no AA filter.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216958\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To me the biggest failing of the dslrs is the aggressive aa filter. I also used a dcs 760 and except for the color casts in skin tones, it was really a great camera with a lot of options. Had Kodak continued with it's development I think there would be a lot less Canon 1ds' in this world.
Regardless, the Nikon D3 and the Canon 1ds3 have very aggressive softening. It shows less or more depending on the lenses and lighting, though sharpening is always a work of art, usually requiring separate layers in photoshop to get the effect with halos or splitting.
It's interesting that sharpening or an over sharpened look can also take a lot away from the idea of does digital look like film.
This week shooting on location, we started with the p30+ in 3.78 and the Canon in eos utitility.
The art director looked at the c1 previews then the canon previews and preferred the Canon, mostly because 3.78 previews are small renderings and can look harsh.
Now in the end, I can do more with a medium format file than I can a file from a dslr, but this project was a series of real women in natural settings (I guess all women are real, but in this case not models is a better term), so everyone was very sensitive to an oversharp look as it wasn't as flattering.
There really is three stages of digital capture. The very first the preview and that sets the tone for the day. If the preview is beautiful everyone takes a deep breath and the mood of the room is very positive.
Sometimes we will hot folder to Light-room (which really slows up the process) with presets so the AD can see very close to what the final will be like. Even by slowing it up, it still makes for a more positive shoot, in that everyone has a very good idea of what direction the final look will be.
I never want to use the words, don't worry it will look good in post. You want to be there almost
immediately.
Still, if it's ultra sharpness you want your pretty much limited to the medium format backs or the Leica.
In regards to the Nikon lenses, I have both of the new wide zooms, the prime 200 f2 and the 400 2.8 and they are are brillinatly sharp.
JR
-
No need to apologize, perfectly clear now. Thanks.
I'm sorry for this. When I say PL I mean polarization lens, and CPL should be for Circular polarization lens. A CPL should be used for nikon D700, but PL is ok if AF is not that crucial for you.
A PL usually lower the light by 1.5-2 stops, so the effective base iso for D700 with a PL should be iso50-64. Did I make it clear? sorry if not coz my english really sucks...
regards,
dustblue
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216648\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
the only camera out that will give you a DMF "look" and crispness is the leica m8.....i looked at the D3 (same sensor as D700) and it is really optimized for clean high iso shooting....it does a lot of other things very well as well but that is what it is best at....
the problem with the leica is the pixel count...yes the files can be blown up quite a bit and pixel per pixel it might come close to DMF quality but 10mpix are 10mpix and after cropping there is not much room to play.....
the D3 files are really soft....yes they can be sharpened but.....
the dsMKIII has the advantage of the pixel count and is still sharper (weaker AA filter?) then the D3 without any sharpening....
so it depends on which size you need to go up to....
-
i've been shooting with a leaf back mated to a mamiya body, a 1ds3 and a 5d for a while. i recently replaced the 5d with a d700. i never really thought of the canons or now the canon and the nikon as being a back-ups, as all the cameras have different strenghts. which system or camera i use is largely a function of what i am shooting, and for whom. there have been times when i have shot a session with both the leaf and a canon, and the canon produced "the shot"; and other times the dslr never makes it out of the bag. when i look at the money i have spent on canon and nikon gear, i could have easily bought a second back, but i actually like the idea of having the different systems which cover the spectrum from high resolution to high iso performance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Amen to that. I recently bought a 85mm 1.2 Canon lens to give that medium format focus look if I need more flexibility than I can get with a MF back - it works very well but much of the time there is a look I just can't get with 35mm and its time to get out the MF. Quality wise there isn't much argument, MF wins , flexibility and high iso wise there is no argument either.
I guess 35mm is useful as a backup, but it isn't really the same as MF , no matter what the advertising says.
-
It think what you are also seeing is the difference between a camera fitted with an AA filter and one without. The ZD and 55 /80 / Macro combinations can be amazingly sharp below F/11 where diffraction can start to kick in. Even the slightly lesser 35mm on the ZD is decent.
The D700 has a fairly strong AA filter. I think that most 35mm format lenses resolve more than their MF counterparts but this is being obscured by the effect of the AA filter. If Nikon produced a digital SLR with a user removable AA filter, just like the old Kodak DCS 760 had, then you'd see the same level of sharpness as with the ZD or other no-AA filter cameras. Indeed I know that to be the case from using my 760 and also a Kodak 14nx which has no AA filter.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216958\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was looking at some 16x12's from my dcs 760 the other day and thinking they were pretty good for a 6mp camera, but I am still in therapy from late night desperate moire removal. I still have it and pull it out for the odd small internet product shoot. Some of the older files which I could never get quite right in photodesk come up very nice in later versions of ACR, with a lot more options for controlling the camera's deficiencies. I think Kodak had digital colour sorted very well - while the resolution is low by recent standards, the colour seems very natural compared to the Canon's I now use.
The 14nx , which I also had, had no AA filter, was brilliantly sharp too( with great colour!) but paid the penalty for its clunky operation and noise from no AA filter, still needed some sharpening but had detail that has only been surpassed by the 1ds3 in my opinion. I had it as a poor man's digital back and for that it worked very well. I sold it to a friend - who is still a friend and uses it in a number of product/ portrait areas, none that strain its abilities. I now have a wealthier man's MF back - with only slightly more advanced ccd technology than the DCS760, and probably roughly equivalent battery consumption.
I think after the 14n /nx experience it would be a brave manufacturer that would release an AA filter less SLR on to the market. Leica had to really scramble when a few issues cropped up with their cameras - funnily enough many of those issues us 14n/nx owners ahd been quite familiar with.
-
The art director looked at the c1 previews then the canon previews and preferred the Canon, mostly because 3.78 previews are small renderings and can look harsh.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216964\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
C1 V4.1.2 is out. Though I prefer 3.7.8 in general V4 has some advantages:
1. preview quality; fast 100% zoom in
2. previews without sharpening (hence without artifacts as in V3)
(impossible in V3 as V3 still applies some sharpening even with the sharpening sliders set to zero; output without sharpening is possible when "disable sharpening" is set in the preferences - but for the previews there is always some sharpening and in V3 it really looks "harsh".)
3. lens correction for the Contax lenses (and it works extremely well)
Third item let me switch to V4 now while still waiting for V4 pro.
Maybe you will give it a try...
-
I think after the 14n /nx experience it would be a brave manufacturer that would release an AA filter less SLR on to the market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that so long as the AA filter could be made removable, as with the DCS 760, and interchangeable with an IR filter, again like the 760, then it should be OK. Of course the reason the Kodak 14n/nx/SLR/n/c series had no AA filter was to save cost. In a sense it worked, because the Kodaks were relatively affordable and remain the highest resolution dslrs in Nikon mount to this day. I still have my 14nx but it is used but rarely.
Nikon are rumoured to be working on a modular dslr. If that ever gets produced, then it really must have a removable AA filter.
Quentin
-
from what I've seen in post situations, the D3 chipset has heavy AA and can appear soft and doesn't sharpen up as well as say a canon 5D, but neither compare to MFDB...what about renting a AFD/ZD combo or just a ZD back and buy a used AFD?