Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on February 26, 2014, 11:27:38 am
-
Hi,
I bought a MFD equipment last summer. Here is a summary of my experience:
1) What did I buy?
P45+, Hasselblad 555ELD and five lenses plus a Hasselblad Flexbody
2) Why did I buy?
Wanted to find out about MFD. Also, I bought two Hasselblad/Zeiss lenses and wanted to explore their full potential.
3) Do I like the stuff?
Yes!
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
I don't know. I have no Nikon and no Sony A7r
5) Is it better than my Sony Alpha equipment (Alpha 900, 77, and 99, and half a dozen lenses)?
There is a gain in resolution.
6) Is DR better on P45+ compared to the Sony's I have?
No.
7) Is colour rendition better?
I don't know. There are some issues when I use LR5.3 which is my favourite raw converter, but I have solved them by "calibration". I have also tested C1.
8) Is aliasing an issue?
Yes, indeed. I see aliasing on many pictures. But, it may not matter for many users.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes!
10) If I do something important, will I use the P45+ or resort to DSLR?
I would resort to the DSLR, but the Hasselblad 555ELD/P45+ combo is nothing for fast shooting. Would I have new Phase One/Rollei/Hasselblad/Contax stuff it may be different.
11) What is the main advantage I see?
Sharpness.
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
- Cost
- Flexibility, two zooms on my DSLR cover more ground than my five primes on the Hasselblad
- Lack of live view
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
May be, may be not. I don't know.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
Interesting question. When I start working on the image I often feel the MFDB has a better starting point, but in the end I often find that the DSLR image is the one needing less work.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
Interesting question. Using primes and 49x37 format leads sometimes to better images.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
No.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
Yes!
18) Do I enjoy it?
Yes!
19) Much of my photography involves travel by air. How do I handle it?
- If in doubt, he DSLR comes with me. MFD is second tier.
- I can pack DSLR with two zooms, the 555 ELD with the P45+ into cabin luggage and keep weight limits. Other lenses go into a B&W hard case that goes as checked luggage. The case is built like a tank.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
- Both equipments go into the trunk of the car.
- But I think the DSLR will see most use. Using the DSLR is much more efficient.
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
- 17" width I don't think so.
- 30" width, probably.
22) Is MFD fun to use?
It depends on you definition of fun…
Best regards
Erik
-
Erik, beautifully put. I know some will object many of your items but in general that's how I feel about the dlsr/MFD experience from my seat located in my living room and out and far of the stadium. I refrain to make any statement regarding MFD with the exception of price and limitations. I don't own and never owned a digital MF back or camera.
Right now, I'm retired (2 years) of commercial photography cause I got involved with another more profitable activity. Photography is nowadays purely a hobby but everyday I enjoy and learn from everybody's posts. As photography is not finished to me just yet, it is a joy and illumination to "experience" the medium format saga via personal experiences in fora.
Because of my new activity, I may end up in a very few years a little more wealthier (less poor). This alone could provide the ticket to more expensive rigs. I just turned 61 and as such I'm getting close to engaging the final sprint. We'll see how this issues will untangle in due time. Very interesting times for passionated photographers. Thanks.
Eduardo
-
Since I also bought a MFD camera last summer I can also give a summary of my experience:
1) What did I buy?
I first tried an H3D-31 and liked it so much that I got an H3DII-50, plus a few lenses and the HTS.
2) Why did I buy it?
After having tried an RB 67, I wanted the convenience of digital. I still have the RB 67.
3) Do I like the stuff?
Yes, immensely.
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
I certainly find it better than the D800, which I also own. The reason is mainly the lenses and colour rendition on the D800.
5) Is it better than my Sony Alpha equipment (Alpha 900 and about 20 lenses)?
There is a gain in resolution, but I still prefer the A900 for some stuff. And there are some lenses in A-mount that have no equivalent.
6) Is DR better on H3DII compared to the Sony's I have?
I don't care. It is plenty on both.
7) Is colour rendition better?
Not really. Either camera gives pleasant skin tones (better than the Nikon). I don't normally run a color checker calibration (unless I try to reproduce paintings), so I did not check colour accuracy.
8) Is aliasing an issue?
Yes, I sometimes notice aliasing. Phocus can somewhat remove it.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes.
10) If I do something important, will I use the P45+ or resort to DSLR?
Depends. The DSLRs are faster, smaller with a wider choice of lenses. The MFD is there if I have the time and need the resolution.
11) What is the main advantage I see?
Lens rendition. Resolution.
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
Flexibility, weight and size.
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
Usually, yes.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
There are no pictures "out of camera" on the H3DII, which cannot produce jpegs. I find that Phocus does a pretty good job at processing the pictures quasi automatically, which is the closest to "out of camera".
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
To my surprise, I find I prefer it. I expected the opposite, since I often wish the camera were using a wider aspect ratio on the DSLR.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Yes.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
I don't regard cameras as investment. This being said, I could probably make a profit selling the stuff back, since I bought it for a very decent price.
18) Do I enjoy it?
Yes.
19) Some of my photography involved travel by air. How do I handle it?
I didn't take the MFD on air travel. Maybe I should have.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
I don't like to show off, so I would probably take the A900 or D800 to avoid questions from other participants.
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
Yes, on lens rendition.
22) Is MFD fun to use?
I find it lots of fun.
-
Eric,
Interesting report and thanks for posting.
I was not surprised on the DR, as the A99 was first shipped in 2103? I believe, whereas the P45+ in March 2008 (it did receive 2 major firmware updates about 1 year later that helped). The A99 has the same sensor as the D610/D600, so no doubt the DR will be better. I was curious though if you had the latest firmware on the P45+?
You made the comment you would not buy MF again. Based on what you are seeing from the IQ250 and it's DR, if the price was near to the same as what you paid for the P45+ (about 5 years after announcement of the P45+) would you reconsider? The reason I ask, is you have excellent Hassi lenses and just can't see a 35mm solution working as well with 45 to 50MP due to the current resolving power of the 35mm lenses available. Where as the Hassi glass you have should be just as good on a larger MF back, say 4 years from now.
Paul C.
-
To Erik, did you shoot anything long exposure? How did AF/MF focus play into your enjoyment of the 555ELD?
-
"17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
Yes!"
I think this summarizes it.....
-
Since I'm 7 months in, I'll sum up my reflections as well :)
1) What did I buy?
H4D-50
2) Why did I buy it?
Phase One did their IQ World Tour, and shooting with one, I was hooked. I decided on the H due to cost and availability.
3) Do I like the stuff?
I can't go back to 35mm.
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
It's different. As a Canon shooter, I have lots of experience with the 1Ds II, 7D and 5D mk3, and I get things from the Hass I can't from from my Canon gear.
5) Is it better than my Canon equipment?
Yes, but at a huge time, weight, cost, restrictions trade off.
6) Is DR better on H4D compared to the Canons I have?
Yes
7) Is colour rendition better?
Yes
8) Is aliasing an issue?
I don't see much based on what I shoot.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Daily
10) If I do something important, will I use the H4D or resort to DSLR?
I'll drag along a DSL body/lens combo that I can cover 80% of what I'm shooting, but I rely on the Hass for finished product.
11) What is the main advantage I see?
Resolution.
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
Flexibility, weight, size, cost, interest from other photographers or random guy on the street.
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
Yes
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
Everything gets processed.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
It doesn't hinder me
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Yes.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
Once I pay it off I'll let you know.
18) Do I enjoy it?
Yes.
19) Some of my photography involved travel by air. How do I handle it?
Packed everything as carry on - any one asks questions I'll ask if they want to be on the hook for $75k.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
Hass - the whole point is to use it, so why not use the primary toy.
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
Yes - without a doubt - the reason for this resolution is big printed images.
22) Is MFD fun to use?
Without question.
23) What bad habits have you picked up since shooting MFD?
I look at large prints in clothing retailers and critique their execution, lighting, and lack of resolution for wall size prints.
-
1) What did I buy?
P45, P21+, Contax 645 (2 bodies, 7 lenses, lens hood bellow, WLF, vertical grip, 3 different split image matte screens), Cambo WRS, Digitar 43XL, Digaron 70HR
2) Why did I buy?
back then DSLRs were mainly 10MP with APS-C sized sensors ...
3) Do I like the stuff?
very much.
4) Is it better than the Sony A7r?
different
5) Is it better than my Sony A7R equipment (FE 2.8/35 ZA, PC-Distagon 2.8/35, ZM 2.0/50, Tele Tessar 4.0/85)?
Much better built quality (with Sony lenses there is large sample variation and possible shutter shock with longer lenses. The ZM lenses are super ... but most lens adapters are simply crap). MF/LF handles much better. Composing with MF/LF is easier for me. Much better wide angle choices (large format lenses but also for instance the Distagon 3.5/35mm is a great lens). I do like the look better (I assume due to the lenses in conjunction with the larger sensor).
6) Is DR better on the DBs compared to the Sony I have?
No. But I don’t feel limited with the DR of my DBs ...
7) Is colour rendition better?
I like it better.
8 ) Is aliasing an issue?
I do see aliasing on some pictures. It only matters when pixel peeping at 100% ... it doesn’t matter at all in prints (particularly not in large prints)
9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes.
10) If I do something important, will I use one of the DBs or resort to DSLR?
MFD / Tech Cam
11) What is the main advantage I see?
Exchangeability of the DBs (can be used on MF and on LF). Handling. Look. Evenness of the captures. Sharpness. Usually excellent service (Sony service is a joke).
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
Low sensor sensitivity. MFD requires quite some light.
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
Yes ... but this is possibly because I am still not really familiar with the A7R.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
There are no OOC pictures.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
I do prefer the 4:3 format.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Yes.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
No.
18) Do I enjoy it?
Yes.
19) Much of my photography involves travel by air. How do I handle it?
I only take the tech cam and a light tripod. With my newly aquired A7R things may change. Possibly I will simply add the A7R and 2 lenses to my case... but it’s highly unlikely I will replace the tech cam & DB with the A7R when I have to carry a small case.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
I won’t go to a workshop
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
don’t know yet (still have to print some serious work shot with the A7R).
22) Is MFD fun to use?
I enjoy the exchangeability of the DBs and the finders (and screens) on the Contax. I also enjoy the workflow with the tech cam. And, again, I much prefer the handling of both the systems over shooting the A7R. Too, meanwhile I know my kit very well, so I can trust it. In this sense it’s „fun“ to use.
-
Hi,
I actually like the "Blad", my initial plan was to start with the "Blad" and go on to a Hartblei HCam, but right now I don't feel like investing more in MFD.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, after 9 months of use do you think a 500 series camera was the best choice as a platform for MFD? Did you consider other platforms? Given your time again would you make the same choice of digital platform?
-
Hi,
The main reason I would not buy into MFD again is that resolution is the only advantage I see, except the fact I like shooting with the equipment. The other factor is a bit that the optical quality of the old lenses is not so good. The Distagon 40 pretty much falls apart on the P45+, the Distagon 50 doesn't impress, the Planar 80 is excellent in the center but I have some concerns about the corners. The Sonnar 150/4 is really good, except some bokeh fringing. The macro Planar is an en excellent lens for close ups but not really at infinity.
Now, I know that there are some excellent lenses around, like the 40/4 CFE IF and the 100/3.5.
I would expect that we will see 50-54 MP mirrorless in a year or two. Such a camera, paired with excellent lenses like Sigma Art or Zeiss is where I guess that my future is.
Best regards
Erik
Eric,
Interesting report and thanks for posting.
I was not surprised on the DR, as the A99 was first shipped in 2103? I believe, whereas the P45+ in March 2008 (it did receive 2 major firmware updates about 1 year later that helped). The A99 has the same sensor as the D610/D600, so no doubt the DR will be better. I was curious though if you had the latest firmware on the P45+?
You made the comment you would not buy MF again. Based on what you are seeing from the IQ250 and it's DR, if the price was near to the same as what you paid for the P45+ (about 5 years after announcement of the P45+) would you reconsider? The reason I ask, is you have excellent Hassi lenses and just can't see a 35mm solution working as well with 45 to 50MP due to the current resolving power of the 35mm lenses available. Where as the Hassi glass you have should be just as good on a larger MF back, say 4 years from now.
Paul C.
-
Hi,
Just to elaborate on my position. In general I use focal lengths between 10 and 800 mm. I have seldom seen a lens that was to long or to short. Carrying a 24-70 and a 70-400 with a couple of extenders and an ultra wide covers pretty much of my shooting needs.
I seldom travel alone. If I am alone I can spend three hours at a spot but if I have company it may be just one hour and I may need the most of it. This year I plan to go to the Dolomites, I will go by car so weight is not an issue, but a part of that trip will be a workshop. I think that it is a great way to find new views and meet nice people but you need to move along. Also, if I'm going for a walk I don't want to carry 15 kg of kit, perhaps 8 kg will do the job.
An important factor is live view, whenever I put the camera on tripod I use LV and focus at maximum magnification. I simply know I have dead on focus, it is important to me.
Also, as I said earlier, I often fly. Whenever I fly weight is a consideration.
Best regards
Erik
19) Much of my photography involves travel by air. How do I handle it?
I only take the tech cam and a light tripod. With my newly aquired A7R things may change. Possibly I will simply add the A7R and 2 lenses to my case... but it’s highly unlikely I will replace the tech cam & DB with the A7R when I have to carry a small case.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
I won’t go to a workshop
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
don’t know yet (still have to print some serious work shot with the A7R).
22) Is MFD fun to use?
I enjoy the exchangeability of the DBs and the finders (and screens) on the Contax. I also enjoy the workflow with the tech cam. And, again, I much prefer the handling of both the systems over shooting the A7R. Too, meanwhile I know my kit very well, so I can trust it. In this sense it’s „fun“ to use.
-
1) What did I buy?
I bought a PhaseOne IQ160 in May 2013 from Digital Transitions in NYC and a ArcaSwiss RM3Di + Rodenstock 40mm HR lens. Shortly thereafter got a 70mm HR lens and a Hasselblad H1 w/ 80mm Lens.
2) Why did I buy?
I wanted more resolution to make large prints of landscape images, deeper color and more lens movements for composing images, focal plane control and stitching.
3) Do I like the stuff?
Yes. a LOT.
4) Is it better than the Nikon D800E etc?
Resolution and color is better than any camera I have ever used including the D800E. Color differentiation is a huge improvement specially in landscape scenes.
5) Is it better than my Canon 1Ds3 and 5D3?
Of course, It is not a close call.
6) Is DR better compared to the DR leaders Sony/Nikon D800E sensor?
I did not notice much difference in that regard on the typical scenes I work with. DR is a HUGE improvement compared to my Canons and also a significant improvement compared to the Pentax 645D I had.
7) Is colour rendition better?
Color differentiation is MUCH better so great care must be taken when adjusting color and white balance since a wide range of adjustments are possible while still maintaining awesome image quality.
8)Is aliasing an issue?
Not at all and I have even shot intricate clothing for fashion designers.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes.
10) If I do something important, will I use the IQ160?
I use it whenever I can.
11) What is the main advantage I see?
Resolution, lens quality, movements (Arca), color differentiation, file depth, medium format dof look when using the hasselblad wide open.
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
Too slow and heavy for family vacations :)
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
YES.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
no such thing but overall C1pro gets it very close to where I want them to be.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
Yes, 3:4 is better for portraits than 2:3. Period.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Yes.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
Depends on what you do. For some professionals and enthusiasts it can take your work to another level of quality.
18) Do I enjoy it?
Yes. A lot.
19) Much of my photography involves travel by air. How do I handle it?
I pack the kit (arca) on a LowPro Flipside Sport 20L. Fits under even small commuter plane's seats.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
If its a landscape workshop then the Arca/40mm & 70mm lenses/IQ160/Filters kit.
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
Yes :), a LOT.
22) Is MFD fun to use?
Lots of fun.
23) What bad habits have you picked up since shooting MFD?
I want more lenses :)
-
Hi,
I don't shoot long exposures normally. With camera on tripod I don't use AF, ever, but I often use the AF button as a focusing tool. With the present generation of DSLRs I essentially use LV and max magnification whenever the camera is on tripod.
I spent a serious effort on focusing on the 555 ELD, and it works pretty well for me. Here is what I did:
1) Got me a Zeiss Victory monucular. That gives me 9X magnification
2) Had my optician making a ocular for my vision.
I cannot use the both at the same time, so I have two oculars which I can change between :-(
Also, I shoot the MFD often in the range f/11 - f/16 to get a bit more DoF.
Best regards
Erik
To Erik, did you shoot anything long exposure? How did AF/MF focus play into your enjoyment of the 555ELD?
-
An important factor is live view, whenever I put the camera on tripod I use LV and focus at maximum magnification. I simply know I have dead on focus, it is important to me.
dead on focus is also important to me. But I don't need live view to achieve accurate focus. I do like the live view on the A7R... but I don't need it.
Whenever I fly weight is a consideration.
a small tech cam with 2 lenses is certainly easier to carry then your DSLR with 2 zooms. 2 lenses on a tech cam will not cover the respective range from 10mm to 800mm, though ...
-
Hi,
My take is that a high res MFD kit on a technical camera makes a lot of sense. Happiness for me would be a CMOS sensor with small pixels (around 4 microns) and live view on a technical camera. Unfortunately, it is nothing we can buy today and I would not be able to afford it. But I would love it!
Ah, I almost forgot it! It should use DNG or an another non proprietary raw format.
Best regards
Erik
1) What did I buy?
I bought a PhaseOne IQ160 in May 2013 from Digital Transitions in NYC and a ArcaSwiss RM3Di + Rodenstock 40mm HR lens. Shortly thereafter got a 70mm HR lens and a Hasselblad H1 w/ 80mm Lens.
2) Why did I buy?
I wanted more resolution to make large prints of landscape images, deeper color and more lens movements for composing images, focal plane control and stitching.
3) Do I like the stuff?
Yes. a LOT.
4) Is it better than the Nikon D800E etc?
Resolution and color is better than any camera I have ever used including the D800E. Color differentiation is a huge improvement specially in landscape scenes.
5) Is it better than my Canon 1Ds3 and 5D3?
Of course, It is not a close call.
6) Is DR better compared to the DR leaders Sony/Nikon D800E sensor?
I did not notice much difference in that regard on the typical scenes I work with. DR is a HUGE improvement compared to my Canons and also a significant improvement compared to the Pentax 645D I had.
7) Is colour rendition better?
Color differentiation is MUCH better so great care must be taken when adjusting color and white balance since a wide range of adjustments are possible while still maintaining awesome image quality.
8)Is aliasing an issue?
Not at all and I have even shot intricate clothing for fashion designers.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes.
10) If I do something important, will I use the IQ160?
I use it whenever I can.
11) What is the main advantage I see?
Resolution, lens quality, movements (Arca), color differentiation, file depth, medium format dof look when using the hasselblad wide open.
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
Too slow and heavy for family vacations :)
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
YES.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
no such thing but overall C1pro gets it very close to where I want them to be.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
Yes, 3:4 is better for portraits than 2:3. Period.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Yes.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
Depends on what you do. For some professionals and enthusiasts it can take your work to another level of quality.
18) Do I enjoy it?
Yes. A lot.
19) Much of my photography involves travel by air. How do I handle it?
I pack the kit (arca) on a LowPro Flipside Sport 20L. Fits under even small commuter plane's seats.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
If its a landscape workshop then the Arca/40mm & 70mm lenses/IQ160/Filters kit.
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
Yes :), a LOT.
22) Is MFD fun to use?
Lots of fun.
23) What bad habits have you picked up since shooting MFD?
I want more lenses :)
-
Hi,
My main interest is in the Hartblei HCam, that can take most lenses. An Alpa FPS would be an alternative. The Hartblei was on my long term plan, but I am not sure any longer.
I am pretty sure there is a 54 MP A9 on the horizon. That camera with an adapter for Canon TS lenses may be what the doctor has ordered. Meanwhile I have my P45+ and my Flexbody.
Best regards
Erik
dead on focus is also important to me. But I don't need live view to achieve accurate focus. I do like the live view on the A7R... but I don't need it.
a small tech cam with 2 lenses is certainly easier to carry then your DSLR with 2 zooms. 2 lenses on a tech cam will not cover the respective range from 10mm to 800mm, though ...
-
Yes and no. As I said I enjoy the stuff and I have no plan to sell it off. But I see little benefit over the DSLRs I have and I would probably have similar benefits with a 36 MP full frame and a few excellent lenses.
Best regards
Erik
"17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
Yes!"
I think this summarizes it.....
-
I have very much enjoyed large format and medium format with film. One of the issues that keeps me on the fence regarding moving to MFDB is that I don't have a need to
print large which is a frequently reported virtue of digital medium format. Most of my prints are A3 and rarely A2. Like some others I have experienced challenges with D800
color and skin tones.
For those who have seen significant differences in printed images from MFDB files, at what print sizes do those differences emerge? (I am in the process of arranging to rent an
H4D-40, but I am trying to gather as much information as I can.) Also, for portrait work are there benefits in color rendition and skin tones from FF sensors like P65+ or Credo 60
compared to entry level cropped sensors like Credo 40 or H4D-40? I have no need for wide angle lenses and do understand the differences in DOF.
Appreciate any thought or suggestions.
Richard
-
Hi,
I feel that I can not see any difference between my P45+ and my Sony SLT 99 in A2-size prints. A2 is my normal print size, but I still have few prints from my P45+. Larger sizes, like 70x100 cm there is probably an advantage.
Regarding colour rendition I have done some tests recently and I find my Sony SLT99 is more accurate (in technical terms) compared to my P45+, but that doesn't say a lot about visual impression of skin tones.
Some users have recently reported that Capture One has better skin tones on the D800 with the profiles for IQ-250 than with the C1 D800 profiles. I guess colour rendition may be more dependent on camera profiles than sensor, at least in some cases.
Best regards
Erik
I have very much enjoyed large format and medium format with film. One of the issues that keeps me on the fence regarding moving to MFDB is that I don't have a need to
print large which is a frequently reported virtue of digital medium format. Most of my prints are A3 and rarely A2. Like some others I have experienced challenges with D800
color and skin tones.
For those who have seen significant differences in printed images from MFDB files, at what print sizes do those differences emerge? (I am in the process of arranging to rent an
H4D-40, but I am trying to gather as much information as I can.) Also, for portrait work are there benefits in color rendition and skin tones from FF sensors like P65+ or Credo 60
compared to entry level cropped sensors like Credo 40 or H4D-40? I have no need for wide angle lenses and do understand the differences in DOF.
Appreciate any thought or suggestions.
Richard
-
Erik,
I think the primary thing you've found for yourself is how individual the results can be and how much the operator can affect the outcome - regardless of which camera is used.
In the end you are testing a system of components not just a digital back - if you go from capture to print - any place in the chain …. lens + camera +back + processing + printer + paper type …. can become the weak link. And of course I'm sorry to tell you that sometimes the operator can also be the weak link. If you don't see a big difference in prints between your different cameras, then perhaps you should take a long step back think about why that is. What is your weak link? You may need to improve that before you see any different results.
I happen to prefer using my Hy6 for its ergonomics and big viewfinder more than my other cameras that the image quality isn't the the only factor anyhow. Of course I do see a big difference between my MFDB images and my other cameras and that makes it even better for me. I also see a difference between digital capture and film too, so I do shoot film sometimes as well.
-
Yes,
Of course. The observer can also bee a weak link.
Some things can be measured, like resolution and MTF. Pretty much the same with colour rendition.
There are some indicators, for instance, colour moiré can only arise when the lens 'outresolves' the sensor. What I see in my experiments that it takes to stop down to f/16 to eliminate moiré, where diffraction acts as low pass filter. I see a lot of moiré and/or colour aliasing in my images.
I see a clear difference between the P45+ and the SLT 99 near the optical axis where I measure. Would be interesting to find out if it carries over to print. Regarding colour accuracy the SLT 99 I have is pretty accurate on colour charts, so it would be hard for the P45+ to be superior.
I don't have a lot of comparable images from outdoor shooting, as I normally shoot with either camera and not both simultaniously.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I think the primary thing you've found for yourself is how individual the results can be and how much the operator can affect the outcome - regardless of which camera is used.
In the end you are testing a system of components not just a digital back - if you go from capture to print - any place in the chain …. lens + camera +back + processing + printer + paper type …. can become the weak link. And of course I'm sorry to tell you that sometimes the operator can also be the weak link. If you don't see a big difference in prints between your different cameras, then perhaps you should take a long step back think about why that is. What is your weak link? You may need to improve that before you see any different results.
I happen to prefer using my Hy6 for its ergonomics and big viewfinder more than my other cameras that the image quality isn't the the only factor anyhow. Of course I do see a big difference between my MFDB images and my other cameras and that makes it even better for me. I also see a difference between digital capture and film too, so I do shoot film sometimes as well.
-
1) What did I buy?
Leaf Credo 40, Mamiya 645 DF+, Schneider 80mm LS lens, Mamiya 35mm, 150mm and 210mm FP lenses.
2) Why did I buy?
Because 35mm cameras do not render color in a satisfactory way for me. It took too much work for me to get skintones to look the way I wanted them to look; even then not completely perfect.
Also, I am not a fan of 3:2 for portraits and I wanted high speed flash sync for on location work.
3) Do I like the stuff?
Yes!
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
Better than the D800 for color rendition (Portraiture). I also like the tactile feel of my MF gear (Film and digital) better than 35mm cameras.
5) Is it better than my Sony Alpha equipment (Alpha 900, 77, and 99, and half a dozen lenses)?
I do not own any Sony gear, but the skintones from A99 files generally look better than Canon and Nikon.
6) Is DR better?
Maybe. I never shoot test charts and in real life, when using strobes, any camera made today has enough DR. The Credo does have smoother transitions between tones though.
7) Is colour rendition better?
For what I shoot, yes. 35mm files require a lot more work and localized edits to deliver somewhat satisfactory results.
8 ) Is aliasing an issue?
Does it exist? Yes.
Does it matter to me? No, not really. If it becomes that bothersome, I find the moire tool in C1P quite effective.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes! Real life shooting all the way. I don't do test shooting beyond the bare minimum.
10) If I do something important, will I use the Credo or resort to DSLR?
Everything I shoot is important to me. The Credo is my primary kit and the D800 the backup.
The D800 rarely comes out of the bag these days; unless I want a super wide perspective (with the 16-35) which is rather infrequent for portraiture.
11) What is the main advantage I see?
Color rendition, tonality, sharpness, overall "Fullness" of the image. Also, a very important and underrated factor: The actual user experience while shooting. The DSLRs feel like clackety toys to me now. The MF gear feels like a real camera. YMMV.
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
- Cost. I wouldn't mind if the LS lenses were 20-30% cheaper.
- AF performance - Adequate for my style, but could of course be better.
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
I got my MF gear when I was fairly confident that my skills have evolved to a point where I can justify it. In general, I have been shooting higher quality work since I moved to MF.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
Every shot gets processed, but the MFG images provide a better starting point. Of course, an understanding of Lighting and Composition s fundamental; no matter what one is shooting with.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
Yes. 3:2 can jump off a cliff and never be seen again, for all I care.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Yes. More LS lenses when I have saved up enough.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
I don't "Invest" in camera gear. I buy them to use them and enjoy the experience and of course, create art with it.
If I wanted to invest, I'd give my banker a call.
18) Do I enjoy it?
Yes! Every second that I work with it.
19) Much of my photography involves travel by air. How do I handle it?
When I travel, I take either my Bronica ETRSi or my Nikon V1 with me.
It's a welcome change from the usual work I do.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
I don't go for workshops as I hardly find them worth my time. I prefer to experiment and learn.
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
For my use, I see differences at 12"x15".
22) Is MFD fun to use?
Yes.
I wouldn't have gone down that road if it wasn't fun.
Enough talk. Here's an image:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/1620806_10152044503949209_386132352_n.jpg)
-
Hi,
I feel that I can not see any difference between my P45+ and my Sony SLT 99 in A2-size prints. A2 is my normal print size, but I still have few prints from my P45+. Larger sizes, like 70x100 cm there is probably an advantage.
Regarding colour rendition I have done some tests recently and I find my Sony SLT99 is more accurate (in technical terms) compared to my P45+, but that doesn't say a lot about visual impression of skin tones.
Some users have recently reported that Capture One has better skin tones on the D800 with the profiles for IQ-250 than with the C1 D800 profiles. I guess colour rendition may be more dependent on camera profiles than sensor, at least in some cases.
Best regards
Erik
Erik from what you have posted so far in many threads my take is that you got the wrong MF Digital system for your needs, wants and your demanding technical requirements in an image. You expected extremely high quality on par with the expense. The Hasselblad V system is just not great for precise focus and a lot of the lenses, while great for portraiture, are not great for demanding high res digital capture. Some are really good but some are not. I think you have mentioned this. The P45+ is a very nice back, albeit getting long in the tooth, and it is at its best during very long exposures (which you mentioned are not your thing) and in the studio with controlled light (which you also mentioned you do not do). The large sensor of the P45+ is also great for getting that MF "look" of shallow dof with lenses wide open, something you also do not do. But getting deep dof and precise focus in landscape shots with such a large sensor on a SLR camera is problematic but real easy on an Arca (or similar) tech camera so it is a really good back for landscape on a technical camera.
A more current sensor like the one in the P40+ would have suited you better along with a tech camera like a small Cambo or Arca with a schneider 24mm lens (discontinued) or 35mm and longer lenses as required. That was the most affordable setup I looked at when I started looking into MFDigital. The Dalsa sensor in the P40+ (credo 40), if it is indeed the same (just smaller) as the one in the P65+ and the IQ160 I have, has enough dynamic range to really NOT leave you longing for any DSLR. Color (depth and differentiation) is also superb. The files are just awesome to work with.
-
Erik from what you have posted so far in many threads my take is that you got the wrong MF Digital system for your needs, wants and your demanding technical requirements in an image. You expected extremely high quality on par with the expense. The Hasselblad V system is just not great for precise focus and a lot of the lenses, while great for portraiture, are not great for demanding high res digital capture. Some are really good but some are not. I think you have mentioned this. The P45+ is a very nice back, albeit getting long in the tooth, and it is at its best during very long exposures (which you mentioned are not your thing) and in the studio with controlled light (which you also mentioned you do not do). The large sensor of the P45+ is also great for getting that MF "look" of shallow dof with lenses wide open, something you also do not do. But getting deep dof and precise focus in landscape shots with such a large sensor on a SLR camera is problematic but real easy on an Arca (or similar) tech camera so it is a really good back for landscape on a technical camera.
A more current sensor like the one in the P40+ would have suited you better along with a tech camera like a small Cambo or Arca with a schneider 24mm lens (discontinued) or 35mm and longer lenses as required. That was the most affordable setup I looked at when I started looking into MFDigital. The Dalsa sensor in the P40+ (credo 40), if it is indeed the same (just smaller) as the one in the P65+ and the IQ160 I have, has enough dynamic range to really NOT leave you longing for any DSLR. Color (depth and differentiation) is also superb. The files are just awesome to work with.
+1
It also puzzles me how someone who is more into technical perfection than most of us would continue to use hardware and software that clearly won't deliver the best technical quality.
-
Hi,
Thanks for your comments.
Yes and no. I am a technical kind of guy and for me it was a way to find out. Also it has been said that that even P25s are better than modern DSLRs. Many guys and gals buy these kind of stuff so I think it is adequate to share the experience.
Regarding the Zeiss lenses for the blad, it is quite obvious from the MTF data that they have limitations. What I see in my images corresponds pretty well to the MTF data, except that there are things not easily detectible in MTF charts like residual colour. There are some Hasselblad lenses like the 40/4 CFE IF and the Planar 100/3.5 that are a different class.
Yes, I am pretty sure that a more recent back on a technical camera would perform better, but that would be several times the expense. The other question is how large one needs to print for the difference to show up? I seldom print larger than A2 and at that size I can see much less difference in print than pixel peeping on screen.
When I pixel peep, I normally 'upres' the smaller image and I do see a lot of difference but it mostly disappears in print up to A2 size.
I have little doubts that more modern backs perform better than the P45+, but I had a hard look at a comparison between the A7r and the IQ 260 published here on LuLa recently and all what I could see was that the IQ 260 had some advantage in resolution, but it was actually lacking in DR/noise area.
The latest was Doug Peterson's test of the IQ-250 (the library shoots). The sensor on that camera is probably pretty similar to what I have in my SLT 99, a late generation Sony Exmor. The impression I got from the discussion was that most readers found the shadows cleaner on the IQ-250 than on the IQ-260 and the IQ-280, although the latter two have a much larger sensor. I analyzed the raws myself, of course, and that was what I saw. Doug did an excellent job on that test.
One nice thing with this thread is that other MFD users have responded and shared their experience. It is also interesting that several posters indicated that they don't fly with MF equipment. That is an important factor for me, for travel often means flying for me. And I don't leave home without a DSLR because I need 24-400 kit. I often add in super wide and I always carry an 1.4X extender. The stuff is heavy, but I normally don't walk more than a mile or so.
Regarding weight, it's a bit funny. I buy carbon fibre to save a few grams and than I add on some nice things like a levelling bowl and an Arca D4 head, so the tripod weights around 3 kg again. ;-)
I actually like the stuff, and it works as expected, really. But I did expect no miracles.
Best regards
Erik
Erik from what you have posted so far in many threads my take is that you got the wrong MF Digital system for your needs, wants and your demanding technical requirements in an image. You expected extremely high quality on par with the expense. The Hasselblad V system is just not great for precise focus and a lot of the lenses, while great for portraiture, are not great for demanding high res digital capture. Some are really good but some are not. I think you have mentioned this. The P45+ is a very nice back, albeit getting long in the tooth, and it is at its best during very long exposures (which you mentioned are not your thing) and in the studio with controlled light (which you also mentioned you do not do). The large sensor of the P45+ is also great for getting that MF "look" of shallow dof with lenses wide open, something you also do not do. But getting deep dof and precise focus in landscape shots with such a large sensor on a SLR camera is problematic but real easy on an Arca (or similar) tech camera so it is a really good back for landscape on a technical camera.
A more current sensor like the one in the P40+ would have suited you better along with a tech camera like a small Cambo or Arca with a schneider 24mm lens (discontinued) or 35mm and longer lenses as required. That was the most affordable setup I looked at when I started looking into MFDigital. The Dalsa sensor in the P40+ (credo 40), if it is indeed the same (just smaller) as the one in the P65+ and the IQ160 I have, has enough dynamic range to really NOT leave you longing for any DSLR. Color (depth and differentiation) is also superb. The files are just awesome to work with.
-
Erik: I searched and the P40+ backs are actually sold (used) for much less than the P45+ backs (used). ???
Also, "even P25's are better than modern dslr's" no way! They do offer something different, different look due to the larger sensor and different cameras they can be used in, color and tethering but no way they are better for general photography than some of the latest DSLRs but better for someone who wants needs the different things the P25 offers.
Again, in the A7R/IQ260 test the A7R had better shadow detail in a low light situation with extreme contrast range I am sure in other situations the IQ260 is much better than the A7R. (at least my IQ160 was when I compared it to the D800E).
I like that you started this thread. It shows a wide range of experiences from MF Digital adopters. Hope more keep posting!
-
Hi,
Thanks for feedback. Just to make my standpoint I am no MF hater, it is just that I am skeptical about MF having properties that cannot be explained by good science. This thread also induced quite a few responses, showing different aspects of MF.
Regarding the Images posted by Chris Barrett the thread is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84842.0
Doug Peterson's test of the IQ-250 is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87187.0
Doug's test images are a world apart from mine but I think it depends quite a bit on the Rodenstock HR lens he used.
Best regards
Erik
Erik: I searched and the P40+ backs are actually sold (used) for much less than the P45+ backs (used). ???
Also, "even P25's are better than modern dslr's" no way! They do offer something different, different look due to the larger sensor and different cameras they can be used in, color and tethering but no way they are better for general photography than some of the latest DSLRs but better for someone who wants needs the different things the P25 offers.
Again, in the A7R/IQ260 test the A7R had better shadow detail in a low light situation with extreme contrast range I am sure in other situations the IQ260 is much better than the A7R. (at least my IQ160 was when I compared it to the D800E).
I like that you started this thread. It shows a wide range of experiences from MF Digital adopters. Hope more keep posting!
-
Hi Eric,
The factor I see colour aliasing in many of my pictures indicates pretty good focus. Colour aliasing is only possible if a single point is focused on a single pixel. I can see some color aliasing in a large part of my pictures. You are most welcome to post raw images of your own that are superior to mine, but it could also be that the Schneider lenses you use are superior to the film generation Zeiss lenses I have. Doug Peterson says that Phase One lenses are better than the Zeiss lenses.
This posting may be an interesting insight: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84494.msg684173#msg684173 , it was suggested (by you) that the colour fringing discussed in the thread was caused by longitudional chromatic aberration, another reader suggested "spherochromatism". Both Ray "ondebanks" and Doug Peterson clearly said it was aliasing artifacts.
It would be interesting hear if other MFDB users can see difference in sharpness between DSLRs and MFDBs in A2 size prints. I am pretty sure there is difference if I go to 70x100 cm but I don't do a lot of that size of printing. I of course have tested crops and seen some difference.
Could you post some raw images of your own that demonstrate proper technique?
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I think the primary thing you've found for yourself is how individual the results can be and how much the operator can affect the outcome - regardless of which camera is used.
In the end you are testing a system of components not just a digital back - if you go from capture to print - any place in the chain …. lens + camera +back + processing + printer + paper type …. can become the weak link. And of course I'm sorry to tell you that sometimes the operator can also be the weak link. If you don't see a big difference in prints between your different cameras, then perhaps you should take a long step back think about why that is. What is your weak link? You may need to improve that before you see any different results.
I happen to prefer using my Hy6 for its ergonomics and big viewfinder more than my other cameras that the image quality isn't the the only factor anyhow. Of course I do see a big difference between my MFDB images and my other cameras and that makes it even better for me. I also see a difference between digital capture and film too, so I do shoot film sometimes as well.
-
Hi,
I don't really think I would buy into MFD again. The gear I bought was around 15000 kUSD, and I cannot do that kind of expense often. I wouldn't buy the IQ-250, mainly because of the crop factor (and of course the price). The widest lens I have is 40 mm, and with 1.3 crop it would be more like a 35 mm on a FF DSLR.
If I had Hasselblad gear I would consider buying the P45+, or the P65+. The later generation Phase One sensor have DALSA sensors and have somewhat better DR and also are said to have better colour. But P45+ colour can be pretty OK. Tim Parkin has issues with yellowish greens, but I found that I can get greens I can live with using a few home made profiles. I routinely point out that my Sonys have better DR than the P45+, but I am seldom challenged by DR.
Would I buy new equipment, I would wait for the next generation Sony sensor (likely 54 MP) and possibly a more advanced A-series camera, let's say 'A9', an EVF camera not a DSLR. I always use LV magnified for focusing, with EVF there is no shake from mirror. Shutter vibrations can be a problem, as shown on the A7r, but I would expect full electronic shutter in 2015, or at least electronic first curtain. EVF also gives more options.
Right now I am quite happy with the Hasselblad & P45+. I also bought a used Flexbody, which gives me some T&S with all five lenses. I might trade up to a 40/4 CFE IF, but they come expensive.
If you can live with the crop factor I would say the IQ-250 would be a nice back. You can put it on a technical camera (Alpa FPS or Hartblei HCam), focus using live view and have a good life. Both the mentioned cameras can use Canon 17 and 24 T&S lenses which are to be said fully usable on MFD, so that would take care of the crop factor. You can use all V-series lenses on both Alpa FPS or Hartblei using a Mirex adapter that also gives tilt and shift.
My initial plan was to buy a Hartblei HCam, perhaps next year, but now I am a bit skeptical. Have to wait and see.
Right now, I don't know if MFD is good or bad for my picture taking. Is the slower way of working with MFD a benefit or just makes me miss more pictures? Do I miss compelling images because the smaller lens palette? So I am in a learning phase.
I really enjoy shooting with the Hasselblad, that is a good thing. The P45+ is also nice to work with.
Best regards
Erik
Eric,
Interesting report and thanks for posting.
I was not surprised on the DR, as the A99 was first shipped in 2103? I believe, whereas the P45+ in March 2008 (it did receive 2 major firmware updates about 1 year later that helped). The A99 has the same sensor as the D610/D600, so no doubt the DR will be better. I was curious though if you had the latest firmware on the P45+?
You made the comment you would not buy MF again. Based on what you are seeing from the IQ250 and it's DR, if the price was near to the same as what you paid for the P45+ (about 5 years after announcement of the P45+) would you reconsider? The reason I ask, is you have excellent Hassi lenses and just can't see a 35mm solution working as well with 45 to 50MP due to the current resolving power of the 35mm lenses available. Where as the Hassi glass you have should be just as good on a larger MF back, say 4 years from now.
Paul C.
-
Erik,
Unless you had a soft spot for the V-series, I am not sure why you spent that sort of money which; as I understand was an experimental purchase.
H3D 39 kits, with 80mm lens go for a little over USD 6k. You don't seem to be using the long exposure capabilities of the P45+, so I doubt if you would miss that in the Hassy.
-
1) What did I buy?
Leaf AFI II 7, Hy6 body
2) Why did I buy?
Because I really liked MF work with the Rollei 6003 I had since 1993, and loved its lenses. Had tried the P20 back on a 6008AF, and found the interface not so great.
The Leaf back seemed ideal, and the Hy6 offered better integration. Basically looking for 4x5 quality in handheld and portable gear.
3) Do I like the stuff?
Very much. The combination of lens quality, good ergonomics in the body, flexible configurations (for different uses) and a really good back is just about as good as it gets in a modular approach.
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
Haven't compared against D800 but have done other current comparisons, and have found this system superior.
6) Is DR better?
In general, yes. There is a lot of flexibility in the Leaf profiles, and I can get large prints (the test) that are delightful. I've rented other gear (DSLR) and it just isn't the same.
8 ) Is aliasing an issue?
nope. Sometimes a little CA, but C1 does a good job of taking that out.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes, frequently. Main camera in the system, with a view camera to use the back for more deliberate and when movements are necessary. Yes! Real life shooting all the way. I don't do test shooting beyond the bare minimum.
10) If I do something important, will I use the Credo or resort to DSLR?
I don't own a current DSLR. Don't care for them. The whole "hold the camera up to the eye and shoot the subject" is both unattractive and not effective. Prefer the WLF, or the 45º prism. There is more portable gear in the stable, and it is used when lightness and compactness is critical. But the Hy6 /Leaf back travel most everywhere with me - to the Amazon, hiking in mountains, deserts, wherever.
11) What is the main advantage I see?
Just sheer quality. The combination of the killer lenses and the flexible back make images that were imagined possible. DSLRs left me with a cold feeling, here the clarity of the system is apparent. Full images, deep images, and generally lots of detail in all areas. Distortion readily controllable, if it exists. Wide exposure latitude.
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
Size and weight. I wish the damn handle could come off the Hy6 (like the 6003) for travel and compactness. The weight is sometimes an issue, although for travel its usually lmited to the 60mm Curtagon and the 150 Tele-xenar. Sometimes the 80AF, with a 1.4TX (makes a nice 110) comes along. But to take more lenses just gets too heavy. Wouldn't mind more life out of the batteries, although he aftermarket double capacity ones do pretty well.
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
They just keep improving. So yes.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
Yes. They just are. Its probably something to do with operator taking more time to think about the shots, but however it happens, better work is the result.
The Hy6 is usable both as a handheld camera, or as a more studious tool, deliberate and controlled. The nice thing is that the transition from one extreme (flexible, fast) to the other (total control) is very transparent, so you can change your parameters and approach on the fly. You can also pick which things to control as you want…. so for example, shooting with a monopod on street walks, its easy to use MLU, and the leaf shutters have very little vibration, so you can take the 1/20th sec. shot into the dark shadows on the street with a CCD back. Not as easy as one might think.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
Square is best, the Leaf's 4:3 is nice (5:4 maybe nicer), 2:3 not so much. Enjoy the sensor, especially with rotating, a real treat. Allows for optimizing, no hassle. When used on a sliding back tech camera), can get some really interesting proportions.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Yes. I managed to get the back as a demo for a really good price so the idea of spending today's costs is a bit overwhelming. The 33mp back is plenty and a sweet spot, but not if one is doing a lot of cropping. I tend to shoot full frame and compose the shot and so cropping is minimal.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
I suppose having a whole lot of lenses in a system of limited appeal isn't the smartest move of all times, but then again, having such wide range is such a treat… and most were bought over a 20 year period. The back and body simply make the use of those lenses (which some consider the finest MF lens lineup for both quality and its breadth…ever) possible. Hard to argue with quality.
18) Do I enjoy it?
silly question. Of course. Of course, there is this "cheating" aspect of the system that I like a lot: the focus confirmation on the Hy6 allows for use of the older MF lenses, which are plentiful and about 1/3-1/2 price of the newer AF lenses. So if you are comfortable with MF, you can build up a quality stable for not so much money. For what people have in their (other) system, you can have 5-10 lenses, all lovely, and still be ahead of the game. Not so bad.
19) Travel by air. How do I handle it?
in a F-stop backpack. Yes, its a hassle, with tripod, sometimes monopod, heads, a couple of lenses. The idea of something smaller, lighter, is appealing, but its really hard to get the operational flexibility, system breadth, and results another way. It can be done, but it is a lot of work. I'd rather travel a bit inconveniently and come home, process the images simply enough, and spend the energy on the creative side.
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
Yes. Without doubt. For my use, I see differences at 17"x22". The MFD holds up crystal sharp. Has a presence.
22) Is MFD fun to use?
Yes - its deliberate and flexible, like handhold-able portable 4x5. I have used this system for a wide range of uses, from copy work to field work. It isn't always easy, nor is it fast, and sometimes its just inconvenient, but itjust delivers the goods.
Important for field work is the discipline so that you get the best out of the gear… if only to be ready for the optimal shot that just appears at the end of the day, incidentally, or drifts into the realm of possibility. That just keeps emerging, and maybe its only one or two shots from a shoot, but without this gear, and this approach, I wouldn't have those images. And how do you measure that? Can't be done. Somethings are just important.
-
Hi,
I was looking at H4-s, but lens costs are much higher than used Zeiss lenses. The P45+ has a decent crop factor and that played a role. I don't use AF so it mattered little to me.
A camera with 1.3X crop was never in my consideration.
Initially I started discussing a H2 with an Aptus, but I got some suggestions that the V series was more reliable than a well used H-series. Also folks recommended the P45+ over the Aptus. The seller could arrange a P45+ which was in good condition and a 555ELD in fine working order, so I went for it. No easy decision.
I would add, that Anders Torger had some issues with his Aptus that time and had a bad story of repairs, so I wanted reliable stuff.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
Unless you had a soft spot for the V-series, I am not sure why you spent that sort of money which; as I understand was an experimental purchase.
H3D 39 kits, with 80mm lens go for a little over USD 6k. You don't seem to be using the long exposure capabilities of the P45+, so I doubt if you would miss that in the Hassy.
-
- H3D 39 has the same sensor as your P45+, without the long exposure magic.
- You could use V lenses on an H camera, thereby negating the lens expenses. Even adding the V-to-H adapter, the H3D 39 would have cost less than your P45+ alone.
- There are several very satisfied Aptus owners who have used these backs in a variety of conditions (Some posting in this thread too). One bad experience is not a big enough sample group.
Just saying that you could have purchased a much cheaper entry ticket to MF without losing anything you currently have (And gaining a few things).
-
Although I finally got a reliable Aptus back I think the P45+ is a better choice if you value reliability high. I've got two lemons in a row and also heard others having problems, and Leaf support is a bit tricky to get through, especially in Europe/Sweden, so I'd lie if I say an second hand Aptus is just as safe to get as a P45+.
If one doesn't see any advantages of an MF system based on a P45+, I don't think MF is something to go for. I don't agree with "you should have got a P40+ or IQ260 or whatever" instead, if you got to have the most recent back to be satisfied with the image quality you'd much better off following high end 135 developments. For most people that are used to DSLR imaging (and feel they make good results there) the MF advantage is only resolution, almost every other aspect of the system is worse.
I see some MF users chase for the most recent backs just to keep a distance from the high end 135. Still I see people claim advantages of the CCD sensors that simply is not there, as if their sensor must be better to make the system valuable to them.
To me one of the advantages of my MF system is that I don't really feel the need to buy new things all the time. I wanted to shoot large format view camera to slow down the pace and relax into photography, but film is just a too big obstacle to me (I'm new with photography so I have never shot film), and then a Linhof Techno with a digital back was just a perfect match. Still image quality is important to me, but it's about getting adequate quality for the prints I do. The reason I have a digital back is that I wanted to use a Linhof Techno. I have a friend that have a digital back because he likes to play around with nostalgic cameras like Hassy V. Sure Hassy H is a better work horse, but to many of us hobbyists it's just a big sluggish DSLR with no charm that we reserve for the studio professionals, while the Hassy V is nostalgic fun.
Quite many amateurs actually shoot large format film, and while they typically do talk about the look of 4x5" and film, I'm sure that it's the compositional workflow, the way of making images that is the main attraction. I think many tech camera users think the same way. Sure there are some that only look at the actual image quality produced and would actually rather use the convenience of a DSLR if it had the same resolution, but many of us simply like composing images with a technical camera.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you get into MF for the sensor and not for the camera, you're probably not in for the long term.
-
Erik,
You bought a used system - used lenses, used body and used MFDB right? It was your first such set-up right? How do you even know everything was good? Do you know if your 20 year old lens you bought is a good copy? Are you sure you were focusing correctly? How do you know - did you shoot tethered or bracket? Did you calibrate your focusing screen to the lens? What are the best lenses for your system? Are you using them? If not then why not? Did you test several copies of each lens and take the best? Doubt that. Do you know your experience is truly representative of what a typical MFDB shooter would have? Looking at your test images over the years, I say you don't.
There is a fallacy of taking one to be many, and in your case, you have done some apparently flawed testing with your p45 and old camera and lenses and assumed that's the best that any p45 can do, or even going farther to suggest that its the best that any MFDB can do. It's not clear that you are even aware of what other similar MFDB systems are capable of, because if you were then you'd know something was amiss in your test files.
Instead of asking people to read your 'reports' and test analysis you should be asking people how come your images with the Hasselblad and p45 are not as sharp and nice as others who use MFDB systems. You should be asking for feedback on how you can get more from your system not telling the world about the color aliasing you found. There are way more people that care about getting good images here than care about measuring color aliasing.
-
Erik,
You bought a used system - used lenses, used body and used MFDB right? It was your first such set-up right? How do you even know everything was good? Do you know if your 20 year old lens you bought is a good copy? Are you sure you were focusing correctly? How do you know - did you shoot tethered or bracket? Did you calibrate your focusing screen to the lens? What are the best lenses for your system? Are you using them? If not then why not? Did you test several copies of each lens and take the best? Doubt that. Do you know your experience is truly representative of what a typical MFDB shooter would have? Looking at your test images over the years, I say you don't.
There is a fallacy of taking one to be many, and in your case, you have done some apparently flawed testing with your p45 and old camera and lenses and assumed that's the best that any p45 can do, or even going farther to suggest that its the best that any MFDB can do. It's not clear that you are even aware of what other similar MFDB systems are capable of, because if you were then you'd know something was amiss in your test files.
Instead of asking people to read your 'reports' and test analysis you should be asking people how come your images with the Hasselblad and p45 are not as sharp and nice as others who use MFDB systems. You should be asking for feedback on how you can get more from your system not telling the world about the color aliasing you found. There are way more people that care about getting good images here than care about measuring color aliasing.
+1
I have said this before, but here goes again:
http://bulbexposures.com/
Tonnes of stunning images with the P45+. Should we judge that particular back with the best it can produce or some unexceptional test images?
Also, can I please quote this a second time?
There are way more people that care about getting good images here than care about measuring color aliasing.
It is worth the double quote.
-
You should be asking for feedback on how you can get more from your system not telling the world about the color aliasing you found. There are way more people that care about getting good images here than care about measuring color aliasing.
I do understand why Erik reports so fiercely on color aliasing. I've seen many applaud micro contrast and "the high quality of pixels" and how good it is to be without AA filter, nowadays DSLRs can be had without AA filter too, but previously it was one of those "why MF is better" arguments. And well, it's a load of b*ll. It comes at a cost which is color aliasing, and color aliasing can be a substantial issue, which you can see at a distance, unlike the micro contrast advantage which is only something you see up close. Still many have chosen to ignore this.
All technically interested people like I and Erik have our favourite design principles, how we think cameras should be made. Erik likes small pixels as it reduces aliasing artifacts. I like large angular response so I can use tech wides with low color cast and no crosstalk (unfortunately it's currently hard to combine the two). At some point I think I will present some experimental results on crosstalk as tech cam users seems to be largely unaware of this issue. I'm grateful for Erik making his detailed tests of color aliasing so I didn't have to do it. If you don't like to read tests, don't go into those threads. This is a technical forum after all. I might do some more color aliasing tests myself though, as I design raw processing algorithms I'm interested in how to minimize these issues.
I've seen tips of how Erik should get more out of his system, and the answer is -- buy a different system. When MF is too close to 135 in raw imaging performance, the answer seems to be buy a more recent MF system to keep the distance. My answer is, get a camera you enjoy shooting, if it's not MF don't use MF.
I find it interesting that a while ago the P45+ and V mount meant superior image quality, and DSLRs were crap. Nowadays when DSLRs have imaging performance similar and in some aspects exceeding that system, DSLRs are still crap but you need something like an IQ260 to enjoy the real advantages of MF.
-
Ain't nothing wrong with creating art with a V series and a digital back. Plenty of artists create beautiful images with that combo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tia98LTwKrY
http://vimeo.com/49600447
Not the best choice for incessant test chart shooting though, probably.
-
Quite fun questions to go through, so I do the same exercise here:
1) What did I buy?
Linhof Techno, SK47, SK90, Rodenstock Sinoranar-digital 35, Aptus 75. Sold the 35 (too poor image quality for my taste), added SK35, SK72, SK120 and SK180.
2) Why did I buy?
I used tilt-shift all the time on my Canon and inspired by large format photography shooting style I wanted to explore that without having to mess with film. Linhof Techno was the dream camera, and when it appeared as a good second hand deal I went for it.
3) Do I like the stuff?
Yes! I use it for almost all of my landscape photography. Until I got a good copy of the Aptus 75 I still used the Canon in cold weather, but now I shoot with the Linhof even in -30C (if not windy).
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
Compositional possibilities with the camera and lenses are better (use shift all the time, tilt quite frequently), lens quality is generally a bit better. Sensor quality is a bit worse in some aspects useful to landscape photography, but not critically so. Compared to my Canon 5D mark II, or any other Canon for that matter, the base ISO performance is better, and resolution is higher.
7) Is colour rendition better?
I don't know, and I don't really care. I get good results, never had issues, that's all I need. (I shoot landscape, not skin tones).
8) Is aliasing an issue?
Yes it's an issue seen in every picture when peeping and in some pictures in larger surfaces (waves on distant water typical in my landscape photography), but I can live with it, can't get a digital back with AA filter anyway.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes, all the time.
10) If I do something important, will I use the MF system or resort to DSLR?
Important to me is landscape photography then I use the landscape gear, which is my Linhof Techno. When I do sports or family I use my Canon, the Techno would of course be unusable in such situations.
11) What is the main advantage I see?
Compositional freedom through tilt and shift, pleasing workflow.
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
Cost of digital backs, uncertain future of technical wides and shutters, lack of DSLR-like live view. Limited availability of telephoto lenses, hard to shoot in awkward tripod positions (very low, very high, aiming in strange directions).
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
The Techno with it's possibilities and limitations makes me focus on a certain shooting style, and that shooting style fits my personality and ideals well. The same can be copied with a DSLR to some extent (availability of shift/tilt lenses is a bit limited), but I like having a system that suits so well with my idea of picture making. If we would still shoot film I would definitely be a 4x5" shooter.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
I guess the question is if I need to mangle my MF files less to get good results than DSLR files? For my landscape photography I like to have detailed control from raw file to output, I'm technically advanced and don't like it when the commercial raw converters try to make a digital raw file look like it was shot on film, therefore I prefer RawTherapee. The price I pay for that is that I need hand-tuning on all files, regardless of camera. When I do bulk work with my Canon I use Lightroom. Capture One I use quite rarely, as I find the workflow in RawTherapee more rewarding from an artistic point of view. I do check it now and then to see what results I get there though.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
Yes the 4:3 aspect ratio is ideal for my shooting style. If I would have different I'd prefer 5:4 rather than 3:2. But sure, you can always crop. I might get Aptus-II 10 due to its nice price/performance, and then I have to live with 3.1:2....
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Yes, I still think Aptus 75 for the right price is a good starting back, but you need to take the reliability risk into account if you shoot in the cold like I do. The Linhof Techno especially with the new bright ground glass is a good large format drop in replacement.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
The long-term value of technical lenses and cameras is lower now than it was before, as development of backs can steer lenses into becoming near-useless on modern backs, like the SK35. So I do expect a bad resell value in a few years. I don't see that as a big problem though, I limit the cost of the system (mostly by buying second hand) and only buy things I can afford to lose. Buying a new digital back is not an option, too expensive. Buying lenses and camera components new are more realistic, the unit price is lower and the value for money is better there.
-
Hi,
No doubt that excellent stuff can be produced with a Hasselblad.
But this discussion is not about resolution and image quality that can be shown on Vimeo or YouTube. Also note, a lot of photographers have chimed in, offering different opinions that is a good thing.
Personally, I see an advantage in sharpness, which is visible on screen, but which I cannot see in A2 size prints.
What I feel is that this thread is good information. I really feel that anyone buying into MFD should build his/her our opinion based on her/his own testing, but the views presented here may put things in perspective. It is quite natural that views differ.
Best regards
Erik
Exactly my point.
-
If I may: I think that you are failing to understand the significance of these youtube videos, Erik.
You seem to be interested in two different aspects of the photographic process. One aspect is to understand how the camera actually work and what the effects some changes of parameters like sensor size have. I can relate to that, if only as an intellectual exercise.
The other aspect is about trying to get a representation of reality which is as accurate as possible. For this, one would need as much resolution as possible, immense dynamic range and perfect colour fidelity.
It is that last aspect which is addressed by these "youtube videos". They are here to show that successful photographers do not use MF cameras for some capacity they would have to represent reality more accurately than other cameras but, quite on the contrary, for the special "look" they give to their pictures. That "look" is remote from scientific accuracy but is still the reason why these artists chose these cameras.
You have a very nice camera with your MF system, Erik. Maybe you should try to use it to get something that is not an accurate representation of reality, at least once. Consider that an intellectual exercise if you wish.
-
Erik,
You bought a used system - used lenses, used body and used MFDB right? It was your first such set-up right? How do you even know everything was good? Do you know if your 20 year old lens you bought is a good copy? Are you sure you were focusing correctly? How do you know - did you shoot tethered or bracket? Did you calibrate your focusing screen to the lens? What are the best lenses for your system? Are you using them? If not then why not? Did you test several copies of each lens and take the best? Doubt that. Do you know your experience is truly representative of what a typical MFDB shooter would have? Looking at your test images over the years, I say you don't.
While Eric's post is a bit harsh, he is technically very disciplined and gets good results. The Hassy V may not be the best platform for the maximum precision Erik K may be looking for.
-
Ok here goes:
1. What did I purchase?
March 2008, P45+, various Mamiya lenses and 645 body (upgraded to a Phase One DF), late 2011 upgraded P45+ to IQ160 and moved to tech camera for all shooting, Mid 2013 upgraded IQ160 to IQ260
2. Why did I purchase?
I was looking for the best resolution possible for larger prints (without needing interpolation). In 2008 the best Canon was 21MP, the 1ds MK3, the best Nikon 12MP (full frame)
3. Do I like the Stuff?
Yes, but the tech camera solution does create a much more involved workflow. However I never found any Mamiya wide angle lenses that were able to give me a sharp image corner to corner (28mm, 35mm, 45mm). I did not want to switch to Contax to Hassi.
4. Is it better than the D800e or Canon Cameras I owned or have owned?
In resolution yes, by far. And with tech camera lenses what is captured is very sharp. There is no way the DR of the 260 eclipses the D800e. Shadow ranges of both cameras is much different. The Nikon is safe to use up to iso 800 before you really start to see much image loss, where as the IQ260 is a iso 50, maybe iso 100 camera (I had hoped for more).
5. Is it better than all my 35mm equipment?
No, I would never try to shoot wildlife with my IQ260 or really much macro work. Where the 260 works for me is on landscapes. With the tech camera it's the only solution I have found that allows for shifting to generate a larger image. Nikon can't do it with their current line up TSE lenses (based on my use) and Canon doesn't have the resolution I am looking for or the DR. But the Nikon D800 and a 200 -400 is a dream to use on birds or wildlife.
6. Is the DR on my IQ260 better than my Nikon D800e
No, I base this on the fact that at base iso of 100 on the Nikon I can easily get 2.5 stops to 2.75 stops of range before I loose image quality. I have pretty much quit shooting in bracket when I use the Nikon as one frame 98% of the time will get there, as long as your at iso 100. I had hoped to see more DR from the 260 than I have seen. It also seems that it's pretty much where it's going to be and Phase will continue with a CMOS solution forward. The 260 is much more forgiving with highlights than my P45+ was and has more reach into the shadows than the P45+. However it's just not much more than I saw with the IQ160.
7. Is color retention better with the MFD?
In certain areas I find the end result from the MFD better. I have noticed that blue skies can look much more inviting from the IQ260 (not needing a polarizer) and still having very nice blue hues. The Nikon can produce good color, but it's hard to work with at times. Greens also seem to reproduce a bit better with good light. However all bets are off if I am working is poor light as here the Nikon will make the job easier.
8. Is aliasing an issue?
No, I see it on many of my images from the various backs I have used, but it doesn't seem to show up in prints, at least enough to matter. I was surprised to see in the DT tests of the IQ250 and IQ260, how much more aliasing the 260 had over the 250.
9. Do I use the Stuff?
Yes, whenever I can. I will always lead with MFD. Even on days I am standing in a stream up to my knees. I just think the end resutls are worth it.
10. If I am off to shoot something important what do I lead with?
Whatever I feel is going to get the job done. There are times I will lead with my Fuji X series cameras. If it's a landscape trip I will always try to utilize the MFD.
11. Main Advanatage?
Resolution, and in the final print this makes a big difference. I have yet to find any interpolation process that comes close to using raw resolutoin of MFD, combined with the detail that the tech camera glass can achieve.
12. Main Disadvantages?
Cost and the overall tech camera process. I am not a big fan of LCC's and using them, but you have to and it does slow down a days shooting. Since I am using a tech camera I only use Capture One for processing MFD, I have not found the LR tool for this very easy to use or intuitive.
13. Are pictures better out of the camera?
No. MFD takes more work to get the finished product.
14. Do I prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio?
No, I hate it. Sorry I grew up with 35mm and I guess I will forever see things that way. One reason I love the tech camera is I can get to 3:2 aspect ratio with just a slight stitch.
15. Would I buy MFD digital again
Yes, I would. But baed on what I am seeing from the IQ250, I am wondering what the next round of full frame Phase backs will be and if the upgrade process will be financially worth. Once Phase releases a full frame MFD, (assuming it will allow for shifts better than the IQ250), the days of CCD backs are over. I don't think Phase One or the dealers will want many of them back.
16. Was MFD a bad investment?
No, until I upgraded to the IQ260. That was probabaly a "bridge to far" for me.
17. Do I enjoy it?
Simply yes.
18. Travel considerations?
If I am traveling by air the MFD and tech are with me. I will never check it. I would also never check a D800 and set of lenses. Sure it's insured, but good luck getting your insurance to come through. Airlines, could care less. By car I carry the whole kit, and have a safe in my truck to keep gear secure.
19. Would I bring MFD to a workshop?
If the workshop was about landscape photography, yes I would. I am over 50 and don't know how much longer I will be able hike around. If I am able to get to somewhere worth a workshop, I want to bring the best gear. If it was about wildlife shooting, I would not bring it.
20. Do I see a difference in printed images?
Yes, I do, that's my reason for making the investment. I print large 6' x 11' and larger. Even MFD has to be worked up to get there, but it's easier to get there when you are starting with more.
21. Is MFD fun?
Of course!
Paul C
-
Hi,
I have some issues with Eric's postings actually. Some examples:
I have pointed to a clear case of colour aliasing, and he promptly suggested that it was longitudional chromatic aberration caused by defocusing. I even started a thread on it and it was clearly shown that the issue in that case was caused by colour aliasing.
We had a recent discussion on another thread where someone was shooting macro with MFD at small apertures, I don't recall if that was f/16 or f/22, Doug Peterson, Bart van der Wolf and I suggested that opening up and use focus stacking was the best option, but Eric suggested that using small apertures would be OK and also that the OP should back off and crop. Regarding that it was a macro shot extension can easily add another aperture of stopping down. The OP shot the subject at medium aperture at 0.8 mm intervals and was quite happy with the results. Yes, I do think he should have achieved better results, but I have not seen his exact setup nor raw files.
I also feel it is odd that he complains about my observations on colour aliasing, which only can arise with proper focusing in one moment and claim that I cannot focus in the next. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I feel it is OK to like some stuff and have a strong opinion, but the best way to make an argument is to show examples, and post them as raw images, which I mostly (but not always) do. If Eric wants to do this community a service he can post a series of raw images taken with different alternatives. He is a representant for Rollei, he probably has the resources?
Regarding the Hassy I am aware of it being quite old, my was made 2001 and the lenses are even older. Doug says modern lenses are much better and I don't doubt that. But there are a lot of Hasselblads around having lenses of similar age. BC, (James Russel) on the other hand claims the Zeiss lenses are magic, but his favourite professional tool now days is the Panasonic GH2. He also bought a Leica S2, which he seems to really like, and one of the attraction is to use the Zeiss lenses for the Contax.
Doug Peterson has posted some "library shots" with the Rodenstock HR's and the IQ-250 and they are clearly in a different league. But those are not the the stuff many MF entrants will buy.
Best regards
Erik
While Eric's post is a bit harsh, he is technically very disciplined and gets good results. The Hassy V may not be the best platform for the maximum precision Erik K may be looking for.
-
Hi,
Regarding the skin tones on your D800 there may be some rescue. If you use Capture One, it seems that the portrait profile for the IQ-250 does an adequate work. If you use Lightroom it seems that some posting on these forums develops a good portrait profile for the D800, check here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87646.0
If you own ColourChecker card you can generate a DCP profile for you camera using either ColorChecker Passport software or Adobe's DNG Profile Editor, the software is free. An option is QPCard, which uses a different set of patches, they have their own software. It may be possible that QPCard gives better skin tones.
I have no personal experience of either skin tones or the Nikon D800, I am just informing about the tools. Here are some samples I made, admittedly not very good but they may illustrate the differences: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/79-p45-colour-rendition?start=6
Best regards
Erik
I have very much enjoyed large format and medium format with film. One of the issues that keeps me on the fence regarding moving to MFDB is that I don't have a need to
print large which is a frequently reported virtue of digital medium format. Most of my prints are A3 and rarely A2. Like some others I have experienced challenges with D800
color and skin tones.
For those who have seen significant differences in printed images from MFDB files, at what print sizes do those differences emerge? (I am in the process of arranging to rent an
H4D-40, but I am trying to gather as much information as I can.) Also, for portrait work are there benefits in color rendition and skin tones from FF sensors like P65+ or Credo 60
compared to entry level cropped sensors like Credo 40 or H4D-40? I have no need for wide angle lenses and do understand the differences in DOF.
Appreciate any thought or suggestions.
Richard
-
Hi,
Sorry for mixing up the backs!
Best regards
Erik
- H3D 39 has the same sensor as your P45+, without the long exposure magic.
- You could use V lenses on an H camera, thereby negating the lens expenses. Even adding the V-to-H adapter, the H3D 39 would have cost less than your P45+ alone.
- There are several very satisfied Aptus owners who have used these backs in a variety of conditions (Some posting in this thread too). One bad experience is not a big enough sample group.
Just saying that you could have purchased a much cheaper entry ticket to MF without losing anything you currently have (And gaining a few things).
-
Ok, I'll play ;D
1) What did I buy?
H4D-60, and 80-mm
2) Why did I buy?
Didn't. Kind of on a long-term loan-to-buy.
3) Do I like the stuff?
Yes!
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
Yes. These are the first files that live up to what I thought a file could be.
5) Is it better than my [other cameras]?
Yes.
6) Is DR better on H4-60 compared to the Nikons I have?
Not totally certain, but the DR from deep down in the histogram on the Hassy is incredible.
7) Is colour rendition better?
Can't really say yet, given the nature of my work. The files need a lot of post to make them sweet.
8) Is aliasing an issue?
Nope.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes!
10) If I do something important, will I use the H4-60 or resort to DSLR?
Depends on the subject.
11) What is the main advantage I see?
The files are incredible. I love the the feel of working with the big camera. I love the viewfinder. I love the aspect ratio.
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
- size and weight
- slow processors
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
Mine are. My ratio of good shots is significantly higher with MF. Trying to figure out if this is because I only shoot things I care about more, bc of the effort involved, shoot more carefully, or what. Clearly, this is a user/machine interface outcome.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
No, the files are terrible out of camera. They needs lot of work in post. But you can do almost anything to them in LR and they hold up. This is the biggest difference.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
yes.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Depends.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
It's not an investment, it's an expense.
18) Do I enjoy it?
Yes.
19) Much of my photography involves travel by air. How do I handle it?
-Everything carried on, in one of my Gura bags.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
- The Hassy
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
- by 11x14 it shows a little, by 20x30 it shows a lot
22) Is MFD fun to use?
Part fun, part pain.
Cheers,
- N.
-
Hi Nick,
Thanks for posting. It seems quite a few readers of thread bought MF gear last year.
Best regards
Erik
-
Ok, I'll play
1) What did I buy?
Leaf Aptus II - 10 in 2009
Leaf Credo 80 in 2014
Cambo Wide RS
Contax 645 and Hassy h4X
2) Why did I buy?
File Size, Color, Tonal Range, Technical Camera Abilities
3) Do I like the stuff?
Yes - I like the visual and gear side of life with MF.
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
Yes - no contest. Sold the D800e's and went back to Canon 1DX's and Fuji X when not shooting with the Leaf so I pick the best tool for the job - big or small hammer...
5) Is it better than my [other cameras]?
Yes - for any images to truly care about, I will head for the Leaf first.
6) Is DR better on Credo compared to the Nikons or Canon's I have?
Similar DR on the Nikon's, but I can never get that color clean and 'right'. The Credo files when processed with P1 has amazing highlight recovery and good detail in shadows. Credo has much better DR than all other comers in 35mm.
7) Is colour rendition better?
Yes. Color is always great from the start using Capture 1. I dont have to park myself in front of the computer working on one image for hours at a time.
Is aliasing an issue?
I do not see this with the 80mp Credo.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes. I shoot 200 days a year for my livelihood commercially.
10) If I do something important, will I use the Leaf Credo 80 or resort to DSLR?
I will only grab the 35mm cameras if a motor drive is needed or high ISO.
11) What is the main advantage I see?
File Sizes, panoramic stitching, the look is very clean. Slows you down just enough to focus on the best image the first time.
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
Cost for many individuals. The cameras the backs attach to are way behind the abilities of modern 35mm rigs.
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
Most are if you bring your A-game.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
I definitely spend less time in post and like the color profiles.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
Depends on your subject. For portraits, yes. Landscapes, no.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Yes.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
The money either goes to your gear or the tax man if you do this for a living. So why not buy the best tools.
18) Do I enjoy it?
Yes.
19) Much of my photography involves travel by air. How do I handle it?
Everything critical carried on in a think-tank roller and domke.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
Cambo and Credo 80
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
Anything over 16x20.
22) Is MFD fun to use?
All good stuff.
Best.
Robb
-
2bits from me:
1) What did I buy?
P65, 2 DF's, Phase/mamiya 28/35/45/80/120/150 plus 75-150
Added a Cambo WRS, and now about to try out an Rm3di
2) Why did I buy?
I quite like shooting landscapes. Thought it was time to move up from 35mm
3) Do I like the stuff?
I still like to hold it...also good for shooting :)
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
Haven't tried those two. Was tossing up between a D800e and this (guess which system would have been cheaper...).
5) Is it better than my [other cameras]?
I don't really like looking at my 5DMk3 files any more...
6) Is DR better on H4-60 compared to the Nikons I have?
DR is OK, not great by modern standards.
7) Is colour rendition better?
8) Is aliasing an issue?
I shoot landscapes.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Buying the P65 has made me inspired to shoot more. Yes, I love using this gear.
10) If I do something important, will I use the H4-60 or resort to DSLR?
I've been taking on more professional work to justify my investment in MF digital. Ironically, I end up shooting it all on the 5DMk3 because of the nature of the work.
11) What is the main advantage I see?
Resolution - and the small-scale detail is superb. Tech cams can produce some sensational images, though I like the Phase lenses more than some here do.
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
I miss my Canon liveview so much!
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
Yes, far better when shooting landscapes.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
Get good at post processing. I still need to upskill in this - I'm not that good (yet) at using C1.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
Before the 1Ds got invented, I was using a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder as my main camera. Now that's a good aspect ratio.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Absolutely. The price hurts but it's something I've put off since the P25 came out. I always knew this is what I really needed to do the landscapes I was seeing justice. Has some good times over the year with MF film and 35mm digital - but there's no way I'd go back there.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
Yes, financially - I could not justify it on financial grounds alone.
18) Do I enjoy it?
Absolutely.
19) Much of my photography involves travel by air. How do I handle it?
Pelican wheeled case - no problems so far. Though I'm nornally doing outback travel in a 4WD - in which case multiple pelicans come along.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
Never been on a workshop.
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
Not printing enough yet to comment.
22) Is MFD fun to use?
The tech camera is sort of fun. I love the optical viewfinder on the DF compared with my Canons. I'm going to say 'yes' to fun - but mainly because, after 14 years of digital shooting I'm in a retro mood (I tried to get the P65 to work with a c1900 Searoco camera the other day - same tech as my Rodenstock lenses).
-
I bought a MFD equipment last summer. Here is a summary of my experience:
1) What did I buy?
P40+, Phase One DF+ and 80mm LS
2) Why did I buy?
Wanted to shoot MF, Figured it be cheaper than shooting MF film in the long run
3) Do I like the stuff?
Love it
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
Not sure, the Colors and DOF are better. DSLRs are more versatile
5) Is it better than my Sony Alpha equipment (Alpha 900, 77, and 99, and half a dozen lenses)?
From D300/D700 I had yes not sure about newer cameras with more pixels
6) Is DR better on P45+ compared to the Sony's I have?
Yes
7) Is colour rendition better?
Yes
8) Is aliasing an issue?
Somewhat but not a big deal for most of what i shoot
9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes but not as much as i would like due to ISO restrictions.
10) If I do something important, will I use the P40+ or resort to DSLR?
P40+ if the light and situation allow. DSLR otherwise
11) What is the main advantage I see?
DOF Color and look of the Pictures
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
- Cost
- terrible LCD screen
- Harder to focus
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
Yes
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
Yes
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
I'm not as used to it
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Yes
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
No but i don't know it was a good investment either. I'm happy about what I got for the price. Would like an IQ160 for the screen and the wide angle
18) Do I enjoy it?
Yes
19) Much of my photography involves travel by air. How do I handle it?
Carry on luggage in an ONA Camps bay
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
Both DSLR and MFDB
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
Yes, Especially really large prints
22) Is MFD fun to use?
Yes. Esp Tethered
[/quote]
-
Eric K,
-You think sony has better color, better DR than your mfdb...
-You don't like artefact and prefer AA filter...
-you don't need resolution...
The real questions are:
why is your mfdb not already sold?
why are you still using it?
I mean using a camera a couple of days is enough to know if it fit your need and style...or if it can bring you something new.
9month later, for sure it make something that your sony don't;)
-
1) What did I buy?
Alpa STC, IQ180, Rodi 40hr, 70hr, 100hr, Schneider sk150
2) Why did I buy?
I was shooting a 5DII as if it was a MF/LF system. Tripod, manual lenses (Canon 24/90ts, Zeiss 21/35. In 2011 I made the switch because 1) People were requesting larger prints, 2) I often crop to other ratios which cuts resolution, 4) 2-shot pano stitching would be simple 3) Canon seemed to be going nowhere, 4) I had a unique financial opportunity to jump onto the Phase train.
3) Do I like the stuff?
Very much. The technical camera fits my workflow well. I am not a big fan of setting up for multi-stitch shots. With this set up a 2-shot stitch is simple; no finding the nodal point, no rails, just slide and shoot, slide and shoot.
The only thing I miss is Canon’s fantastic live view.
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
At base iso it is better than the a7r, especially wider than 35mm. The best wide angle I have for the a7r is the Zeiss 25 f/2 ZE. No comparison to the Rodi 40.
7) Is colour rendition better?
I have no idea.
8) Is aliasing an issue?
I can see it in some images at 100% on screen, but I’ve never had to remove something in a print, so no issue.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes, all the time.
10) If I do something important, will I use the MF system or resort to DSLR?
I don’t use a DSLR for anything anymore. I want to get an IR conversion done on my 5DII; that will get me using it again. Here comes my controversial statement. I think the DSLR days are numbered. 20 years from now a DSLR will be viewed as a temporary solution to two technical problems; 1) how to accurately see what is on the sensor in a pleasing way, and 2) fast, accurate autofocus tracking.
The a7r has essentially solved the first problem. I swear I often forget I am looking through an EVF.
11) What is the main advantage I see?
I’ll simply copy Torger: “Compositional freedom through tilt and shift, pleasing workflow.” I’ve said this before and I’m sure it sounds backwards to many: The workflow in the field feels so “unchained.” No viewfinder, no focus, no meter. Nothing telling me what to do. :)
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
Cost and lack of live view.
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
I am convinced my images have improved artistically as well as technically. In an earlier post Eric said, “…except the fact I like shooting with the equipment.” Well gosh, I enjoy shooting with this equipment, and it shows in my images.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
This question implies on screen, not on paper since none of us print an OOC image. In some ways yes, in others no. I need to do an LCC for all the 40hr images, and some of the 70hr images. So from that standpoint the a7r images are better. At higher ISO the a7r images are better. However, at base ISO the IQ180 images obviously have more detail.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
Yes I much prefer 4:3 even though I often crop to a different ratio. It just feels more versatile and useful.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Absolutely! When Phase/Leaf/Hassy/Leica comes out with a 54x40 (or larger!) sensor with good live view I will upgrade in a heartbeat.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
It's no more a financial investment than a car. It is an investment in my photography. There are many ways to accomplish some task. To produce large prints I could multi-stitch for more resolution. I could use my 5DII almost as if it was a technical camera, just don't look through the viewfinder, don't use metering, etc. But we have to decide individually what tool matches the way we like to shoot. It is hard to measure the value of a tool that works the way you want it to.
18) Do I enjoy it?
Hell yes. I don’t think this is a “nice to have” characteristic of camera systems. I think it is by far the most important because it shows in a photographer’s images. Even the best pros are affected by how they relate to their tools whether it is a hammer, camera or F1 race car.
19) Some of my photography involved travel by air. How do I handle it?
F-stop Loka holds everything. Alpa, back and lenses in the ICU. Above the ICU sits the a7r in an old Galen Rowell Photoflex chest pouch along with the Sony 35 f/2.8, Sony 55 f/1.8, Leica 90 f/2.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
Both. I think that is the beauty of the tech camera plus a7r. I’ve got two systems that are very good at what they do, and in a pinch the a7r could be used as a backup with not much quality loss.
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
Yes in prints on paper 17x22 and larger.
22) Is MFD fun to use?
Yes, although so is the a7r for different reasons.
23) What bad habits have you picked up since shooting MFD?
I read forums too much and view prints too close.
-
Hi,
I may not need resolution but I may like resolution. I mostly print at A2, and I have a lot of reason to see that most modern cameras are good enough for A2 size prints, but I do print larger occasionally.
There are a couple of reasons I keep the P45+/Hassy combo:
- I like working with it
- The 39 MP is an advantage over the Sony kit I have at 24MP, when I bought P45+ the A7r was not even a rumor.
- With the Flexbody it gives T&S on all five lenses I have.
- I normally carry both cameras Hasselblad with 5 lenses at Sony Alpha 99 with two lenses. I am using both.
Regarding colour, I have generated DCP-profiles for the P45+ I am happy with.
The aliasing is quite a bit frustrating, but it goes away at f/16, but so does quite a lot of sharpness.
It is quite true that I have not found out how I feel about the Hasselblad/P45+ combo. It is the camera I use mostly right now, but picking up the Sony I also enjoy. The Sony is a pretty efficient picture maker. The Hasselblad is a bit more deliberate.
Best regards
Erik
Eric K,
-You think sony has better color, better DR than your mfdb...
-You don't like artefact and prefer AA filter...
-you don't need resolution...
The real questions are:
why is your mfdb not already sold?
why are you still using it?
I mean using a camera a couple of days is enough to know if it fit your need and style...or if it can bring you something new.
9month later, for sure it make something that your sony don't;)
-
Hi,
Thanks for sharing your experience!
I noted your view on EVF and DSLR, and it is exactly how I feel.
Best regards
Erik
1) What did I buy?
Alpa STC, IQ180, Rodi 40hr, 70hr, 100hr, Schneider sk150
2) Why did I buy?
I was shooting a 5DII as if it was a MF/LF system. Tripod, manual lenses (Canon 24/90ts, Zeiss 21/35. In 2011 I made the switch because 1) People were requesting larger prints, 2) I often crop to other ratios which cuts resolution, 4) 2-shot pano stitching would be simple 3) Canon seemed to be going nowhere, 4) I had a unique financial opportunity to jump onto the Phase train.
3) Do I like the stuff?
Very much. The technical camera fits my workflow well. I am not a big fan of setting up for multi-stitch shots. With this set up a 2-shot stitch is simple; no finding the nodal point, no rails, just slide and shoot, slide and shoot.
The only thing I miss is Canon’s fantastic live view.
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
At base iso it is better than the a7r, especially wider than 35mm. The best wide angle I have for the a7r is the Zeiss 25 f/2 ZE. No comparison to the Rodi 40.
7) Is colour rendition better?
I have no idea.
8) Is aliasing an issue?
I can see it in some images at 100% on screen, but I’ve never had to remove something in a print, so no issue.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes, all the time.
10) If I do something important, will I use the MF system or resort to DSLR?
I don’t use a DSLR for anything anymore. I want to get an IR conversion done on my 5DII; that will get me using it again. Here comes my controversial statement. I think the DSLR days are numbered. 20 years from now a DSLR will be viewed as a temporary solution to two technical problems; 1) how to accurately see what is on the sensor in a pleasing way, and 2) fast, accurate autofocus tracking.
The a7r has essentially solved the first problem. I swear I often forget I am looking through an EVF.
11) What is the main advantage I see?
I’ll simply copy Torger: “Compositional freedom through tilt and shift, pleasing workflow.” I’ve said this before and I’m sure it sounds backwards to many: The workflow in the field feels so “unchained.” No viewfinder, no focus, no meter. Nothing telling me what to do. :)
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
Cost and lack of live view.
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
I am convinced my images have improved artistically as well as technically. In an earlier post Eric said, “…except the fact I like shooting with the equipment.” Well gosh, I enjoy shooting with this equipment, and it shows in my images.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
This question implies on screen, not on paper since none of us print an OOC image. In some ways yes, in others no. I need to do an LCC for all the 40hr images, and some of the 70hr images. So from that standpoint the a7r images are better. At higher ISO the a7r images are better. However, at base ISO the IQ180 images obviously have more detail.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
Yes I much prefer 4:3 even though I often crop to a different ratio. It just feels more versatile and useful.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Absolutely! When Phase/Leaf/Hassy/Leica comes out with a 54x40 (or larger!) sensor with good live view I will upgrade in a heartbeat.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
It's no more a financial investment than a car. It is an investment in my photography. There are many ways to accomplish some task. To produce large prints I could multi-stitch for more resolution. I could use my 5DII almost as if it was a technical camera, just don't look through the viewfinder, don't use metering, etc. But we have to decide individually what tool matches the way we like to shoot. It is hard to measure the value of a tool that works the way you want it to.
18) Do I enjoy it?
Hell yes. I don’t think this is a “nice to have” characteristic of camera systems. I think it is by far the most important because it shows in a photographer’s images. Even the best pros are affected by how they relate to their tools whether it is a hammer, camera or F1 race car.
19) Some of my photography involved travel by air. How do I handle it?
F-stop Loka holds everything. Alpa, back and lenses in the ICU. Above the ICU sits the a7r in an old Galen Rowell Photoflex chest pouch along with the Sony 35 f/2.8, Sony 55 f/1.8, Leica 90 f/2.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
Both. I think that is the beauty of the tech camera plus a7r. I’ve got two systems that are very good at what they do, and in a pinch the a7r could be used as a backup with not much quality loss.
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
Yes in prints on paper 17x22 and larger.
22) Is MFD fun to use?
Yes, although so is the a7r for different reasons.
23) What bad habits have you picked up since shooting MFD?
I read forums too much and view prints too close.
-
I noted your view on EVF and DSLR, and it is exactly how I feel.
re EVF/Live View...
personally I think it's somewhat overrated. I've been using a GH2 since it came out and it was my first camera with live view (well, actually it was a compact Ricoh... but I've been using AF on this all the time). I use the GH2 for video only... so I can't really comment the usefullness of Live View in this cam with regard to stills. I am now using a Sony A7R and while I am finding the live view very useful it is certainly not the holy grail of focusing.
A note about my MF and LF kits (in conjunction with a P45 & P21+)...:
Focusing with my Contax 645: 3 years ago or so I've ordered custom made shims from a precission mechanics company that are much thinner than the original Contax shims (the finest shim I've ordered is 0.05mm or 0.1mm ... i don't remember right now.... whereas the thinnest original Contax shim is 0.3mm AFAIK). With my custom made shims I could adjust my split image screens to match the sensor plane of my Contax DBs exactly (fortunately both the backs have the very same sensor registration).
With static subjects shooting off a tripod I have yet to miss critical focus (fastest lens is f2.0). The Bill Maxwell screens I am using are also really, really good to judge off-center sharpness (so when I can't use the split image). I've once tested an IQ180 (with much smaller pixel pitch) for a few days and focus was dead on also with this back. Shooting hand held, things get a bit more complex... however the point I am trying to make is critical focusing is doable with a SLR, even without live view.
Tech cam: now, the lenses are not that fast but even at f5.6 and f8 you can cleary see the focus plane in the image. I use Alpa HPF rings in conjunction with a laser disto and focusing is really an absolut non-issue. In fact this is the kind of focusing I personally like the best (basically it's only limited by the capabilities of the laser disto... and I do use a very basic model). Naturally it is also only really precise with static subjetcs and when shooting off a tripod. Since I also like composing on a groundglass this is my favorite style of shooting.
EVF/Live View:
- IMO it is also only really precise and useful when shooting off a tripod. Sure, to some extend it's also usable when shooting hand held... but in no way "better" or more precise than shooting with my Contax handheld.
- When you are in magnification mode and want to adjust the shutter speed (maybe because the point you want to focus on is too bright or too dark or for whatever reason) you first have to leave the maginfication mode, adjust exposure and then return into maginification mode. While this is of course doable, it is still somewhat cumbersome.
- Focusing far distant subjects in max. maginfication mode the camera may move a little bit when focusing. Due to the maginification the slightest movement gets extremely exaggerated and this is pretty stressful to the eyes (my eyes at least).
- When focusing in bad light the finder goes noisy... which may also be very stressful to the eyes.
- when the contrast of the motif exceeds the capabilities of the sensor (the finder respectively) you can't see differentiation in lights and/or shadows
- light/color of light/light nuances: the most important thing for me personally. The EVF looks cold, blunt and lifeless. An EVF is a super technical thing. Now, this is very personal, but every image I am seeing through an EVF is actually not worth considering to capture... it's simply too ugly. (most likely this will change in future models ahen the IQ of EVFs improve).
Now, there is a lot more to say... but these are the aspects that came to my mind when writing this ...
I appreciate live view. But it's certainly not the one MUST HAVE feature that would made me change my kit...
-
Hi,
For me it is mostly about accuracy and simplicity. No moving mirrors. An AF camera has two mirrors, the main mirror and the AF mirror, both need to be in near perfect register with sensor. To that comes the AF-sensor.
On the A7R the sensor is bolted to the back of the shutter and lens bayonet is mounted on the shutter with shims. It cannot be much simpler, and as engineer I appreciate simplicity. The A7 without the 'r' has also on sensor phase detection. So the only possible alignment problems are sensor and lens. Peaking seems to be helpful with tilt, even if I had made little use of it yet. I also appreciate things like virtual horizon and live histogram. So I feel it is a simple technology doing the job decently well. I think SLRs have been around for seventy years and "dchew" was talking about 20 years ahead.
Yes, there are absolutely issues with EVF, but I am pretty sure they will be better for each year, and I like them as they are.
Best regards
Erik
-
For me it is mostly about accuracy and simplicity
The same for me.
And since accuracy is absolutely not an issue for me personally with my Kits (shooting off a tripod) live view is not very high on my list of "must haves".
As far as simplicity goes ... nothing beats a groundglass on a tech cam. This is most likely the most simple system ;-)
-
re EVF/Live View...
...
Tech cam: now, the lenses are not that fast but even at f5.6 and f8 you can cleary see the focus plane in the image. I use Alpa HPF rings in conjunction with a laser disto and focusing is really an absolut non-issue. In fact this is the kind of focusing I personally like the best (basically it's only limited by the capabilities of the laser disto... and I do use a very basic model). Naturally it is also only really precise with static subjetcs and when shooting off a tripod. Since I also like composing on a groundglass this is my favorite style of shooting.
That is exactly how I focus. Live view would be valuable with tilt, but not so much when shooting on-plane.
EVF/Live View:
- IMO it is also only really precise and useful when shooting off a tripod. Sure, to some extend it's also usable when shooting hand held... but in no way "better" or more precise than shooting with my Contax handheld.
I wish I could agree with you, but I don't have a Contax to compare with :(
Seriously, a medium format viewfinder is marvelous. I am comparing the a7r EVF vs. most of the current 135 format cameras with OVF's.
- When you are in magnification mode and want to adjust the shutter speed (maybe because the point you want to focus on is too bright or too dark or for whatever reason) you first have to leave the maginfication mode, adjust exposure and then return into maginification mode. While this is of course doable, it is still somewhat cumbersome.
- Focusing far distant subjects in max. maginfication mode the camera may move a little bit when focusing. Due to the maginification the slightest movement gets extremely exaggerated and this is pretty stressful to the eyes (my eyes at least).
- When focusing in bad light the finder goes noisy... which may also be very stressful to the eyes.
- when the contrast of the motif exceeds the capabilities of the sensor (the finder respectively) you can't see differentiation in lights and/or shadows
- light/color of light/light nuances: the most important thing for me personally. The EVF looks cold, blunt and lifeless. An EVF is a super technical thing. Now, this is very personal, but every image I am seeing through an EVF is actually not worth considering to capture... it's simply too ugly. (most likely this will change in future models ahen the IQ of EVFs improve).
Yes to all the above, but it doesn't bother me nearly as much. For me, the benefits of zooming and focus peaking on the a7r's EVF have tipped the scales in favor of EVF in this format.
Dave
-
I wish I could agree with you, but I don't have a Contax to compare with :(
Seriously, a medium format viewfinder is marvelous.
Actually, the finder of the Contax 645 is not the best. With Maxwell screens it's not as dim as reported by many Contax users. But the magnification of the prism finder is not that high. I use a Nikon 1.2x eye piece on the prism finder which works quite fine with my DBs (for full frame I'd remove it since the eye piece covers the corners of full frame a bit). On the other hand the WLF is really great and reliable for focusing.
Personally I think the Hy6 followed by the Hasselblad H finders are (by far) the best (above all I'd love to have a 45° finder for my Contax, too).
-
Personally I think the Hy6 followed by the Hasselblad H finders are (by far) the best (above all I'd love to have a 45° finder for my Contax, too).
Yet another reason for me to look at a Hy6. I miss a WLF and 6x6 film.
Eric!!
Dave
-
1) What did I buy?
I am now using Credo 80 on a 645DF+ with D lenses.
On 2010 I bought my first back , Aptus 22.
2) Why did I buy?
I was feeling limited by the glass that can be mounted on Canon bodies, and couldn't get the quality I wanted.
Having exhausted all the options for FF, I tried MFD.
Also I've had some client complaints about insufficient color reproduction.
3) Do I like the stuff?
Yes!
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
As far as optical clarity and resolution - for sure.
For pictures taken in normal conditions, such as f/8-16, 2+ meters, such as portraits, downscaled to internet or printed, I think it is very difficult to tell the difference.
For pictures under extreme parameters testing the limits of the glass - the difference is very significant.
5) Is it better than my 5D3?
For studio work yes, for handheld walk around existing light - no.
6) Is DR better on Credo compared to Canon I have?
I don't think so, nor do I really care.
7) Is colour rendition better?
The color results from Leaf are very beautiful and clients love them.
For sure it's drastically different from Canon.
I don't like Nikon colors, and won't use it.
8) Is aliasing an issue?
With 9 micron backs sometime, with high resolution backs using C1 - never.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Every day.
10) If I do something important, will I use the MFD or resort to DSLR?
I will use MF for anything except walk around existing light.
The only reason I keep the Canon is that there are some walk around jobs that pay too well to ignore, so it doesn't make sense to throw it away - but I would chuck it in a heartbeat as I consider it junk. Officially the Canon is also my backup system for production work, but every time my MFD system broke down, I bent over backwards to get any sort of MF solution to carry me over, and never used the Canon for studio work once after I bought my first back. If I could afford a 1Dx as the camera I almost never use, I would like it a lot more than 5D3.
11) What is the main advantage I see?
Optical clarity on larger sensors - but even 44x33 are better than 36x24.
Better colors is either number one or number two advantage.
The extra resolution is also sometimes useful.
Good tethering.
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
Handholding is very difficult, low light and auto focus performance are unsatisfactory, price is unreasonable.
The system is extremely unstable.
They eventually fix all the problems, but never admit they exist.
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
In studio yes.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
No.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
I don't think this matters very much.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Yes.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
The expenses are huge, and commercial photographers using Canon seem to be doing perfectly fine.
However I would be very very bored with Canon and doing the mundane jobs Canon is suited for.
18) Do I enjoy it?
Yes.
19) Much of my photography involves travel by air. How do I handle it?
I go only where my insurance allows me to go.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
I would like to see you try getting me to a workshop.
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
I am not a printer.
22) Is MFD fun to use?
I think more for the technically inclined than the artistically inclined.
If you are busting with inspiration and just want a camera not to stand in your way, you can use your iPhone today to create a work that can be displayed in any museum.
If you are serving a demanding industrial company or agency, then MFD results will make them very happy.
-
Hi,
Thanks for posting!
On the moiré/aliasing issue I would say that Capture One does a much better job than my favourite program LR5.3. This is one of the areas I feel C1 has a solid advantage over the Adobe product. The other may be handling of CA with complex lens designs, like Distagon.
Best regards
Erik
-
Interesting & entertaining thread...
1) What did I buy?
I bought a Pentax 645D + 5 lenses a few months ago. I had been about to buy an 800E Nikon with a few lenses, but the barely used Pentax was available and much cheaper than the quote I had for the Nikon kit.
2) Why did I buy?
I was after better quality than the half frame Sigma SD1M I have.
3) Do I like the stuff?
Yes!
4) Is it better than ........ whatever?
I don't know. Under most circumstances it is much better than the SD1M.
7) Is colour rendition better?
Colour rendition is very good.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes!
11) What is the main advantage I see?
Image quality.
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
- None
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
No, but as a former medium & large format film user, I feel like I have come home.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
Definitely yes, when compared with the Sigma Merrill cameras I have. They require a lot more work.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Used equipment, yes.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
Yes/no. My wife said that at my age if I cannot have one irresponsible indulgence, life is not worth living!
18) Do I enjoy it?
22) Is MFD fun to use?
It is a joy to use.
The pictures I take are not better than those I take with the Sigma, or my older Ricoh GR digital. But knowing how different the various cameras work and the image I am after, the Pentax MF adds more choice in what I am after in an image.
-
Hi,
Thanks for asking…
No, I would buy an ALPA FPS with an IQ-250, if I could afford it. But, the Hasselblad kit was about what I was willing to pay for. I may prefer a Hartblei HCam as Stefan Steib who is making them seems to be a decent guy, but with LV on the IQ-180 no sliding back is needed.
The Hartblei is still on the shopping list, but I don't know if I need medium format. Questions to ask:
- I don't really make larger prints than A2, isn't 24 MP enough?
- With the DSLR I have pinpoint focus using live view, can I be without? (the IQ-250 solves it but at a significant cost)
- With the DSLR-s I have plenty of lens choices, including zoom-lenses from 12-400. Do the zooms give me liberty of composition or would MF primes serve me better? There are MF zooms, too.
- Will MF handle all my shooting or do I need to carry double gear?
- Am I making better images with MF than I would with a DSLR or am I just wasting opportunities?
Right now, I would say that I am still lacking answers to those questions. If I can, I carry both gears.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, after 9 months of use do you think a 500 series camera was the best choice as a platform for MFD? Did you consider other platforms? Given your time again would you make the same choice of digital platform?
-
Hi,
Thanks for asking…
No, I would buy an ALPA FPS with an IQ-250, if I could afford it. But, the Hasselblad kit was about what I was willing to pay for. I may prefer a Hartblei HCam as Stefan Steib who is making them seems to be a decent guy, but with LV on the IQ-180 no sliding back is needed.
Best regards
Erik
Did you ever use a Hassy 500 Series as it was meant to be used, with film?
Rob C
-
Hi,
No, but I was shooting Pentax 67 for quite a few years. I bought the 555ELD together with the back. Thinking about getting a film back, but I never felt scanning film was really fun.
Best regards
Erik
Did you ever use a Hassy 500 Series as it was meant to be used, with film?
Rob C
-
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
It's different. As a Canon shooter, I have lots of experience with the 1Ds II, 7D and 5D mk3, and I get things from the Hass I can't from from my Canon gear.
Would you be so kind as to expand on this? I'm on the edge of making the same switch and I'd love to know more about the things you feel you get from mf that don't come from the canon gear.
-
Hi,
I cannot talk about Canon as I am a Sony shooter, but Canon images used look good to me.
What I see on my P45+ is that it gives me more pixels. Using an MFDB with proprietary software may have some advantages, like better demosaicing, but also possibly fine tuned colour response.
Synn has posted an interesting comparison here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87158.0
I have done something similar here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=83689.0
As a note, it had been suggested that I should have used use Capture One instead of LR5 as the latter is seen as inferior tool by a significant number of MFD users, but all raw images are available for download, so anyone can try their own processing. There has also been suggestions that I am using improper technique (focusing?), but anyway this is my experience.
The suggestion to arrange a demo or rental is a sound one.
Best regards
Erik
Would you be so kind as to expand on this? I'm on the edge of making the same switch and I'd love to know more about the things you feel you get from mf that don't come from the canon gear.
-
1) What did I buy?
IQ280, 645DF+, Alpa TC
2) Why did I buy?
I subjectively find MFD to be better for my studio portrait work and landscapes than my DSLR or mirrorless gear. I don't know how to quantify that subjective feeling. Color rendition? Tonality? More deliberative photographic process? Not entirely sure, but it feels right.
3) Do I like the stuff?
Yes!
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
I don't have a D800E, but do have an A7r. I've only shot portraiture with the A7r, and have limited experience from which to draw conclusions. I'm not itching to ditch my IQ280 based on early results from the A7r, certainly not in the same way that my Fujifilm X-Pro1 has almost completely subsumed the position that my DSLR held in my camera hierarchy for the work that I do.
I have not tried the A7r for landscape work given that I don't really have the optics for it to give it a fair shake against the IQ280 / Alpa / Rodenstock trifecta.
5) Is it better than my 5D3?
For portraiture yes. For landscapes yes. Mostly. (I still reach for the 5d3 when I want to do crazy HDR shots.) For action photography, good god no. For available light, candid photography, no. For that, I actually prefer my X-Pro1 to either DSLR or MFD.
6) Is DR better on IQ280 compared to Canon I have?
Don't know. Never thought to run an experiment to see. Probably won't bother since it doesn't matter for how I use my gear.
7) Is colour rendition better?
I think so.
8) Is aliasing an issue?
In theory yes. In practice, not so much.
9) Do I use the stuff?
I use my IQ280 daily.
10) If I do something important, will I use the MFD or resort to DSLR?
I use MFD for almost everything I shoot.
11) What is the main advantage I see?
Color rendition, can use the back on either a 645 body or technical camera, forces a more deliberative pace which I enjoy. Overall a bunch of factors come together to yield a subjective quality to images that I personally prefer to captures I get from my DSLR.
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
Autofocus, poor noise performance as ISO increases, 645DF+ plus back and MF lens is heavy, expensive, there are features that I miss from DSLR-land (like flexible exposure bracketing) that I have very little hope of ever making their way into the very slowly developing 645DF+ "platform"
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
For studio portraits and my landscape work, definitely.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
No.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
Yes, but that seems like a very significant matter of taste.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Yes.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
I don't really consider it an investment, so no.
18) Do I enjoy it?
Yes.
19) Much of my photography involves travel by air. How do I handle it?
I never check my MFD gear, and never will.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
I've never attended a workshop.
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
Yes. Even at A2.
22) Is MFD fun to use?
For me, yes. Very much so.
-
Reflections on MFD after 5 years of use...
1) What did I buy?
H3Dii-31 plus 50 mm, 80 mm and 120 mm Macro lenses
2) Why did I buy?
Frustrated with lack of critical sharpness with my then-workhorse dSLR (5D Mark I). In retrospect, this was primarily down to the lenses. I now have better lenses for my Canons, too.
3) Do I like the stuff?
Oh my, yes!
4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
I don't know, but it is better in controlled light conditions than my fallback dSLR (7D) and the 5D Mark 2 I sometimes borrow.
However, for available light shooting the 5D Mark 2 is better. The most critical thing with the Canons is finding the right lenses; the performance of the 50 mm f/1.4 and 85 mm f/1.8 is great, but the 24-70 F/2.8 sucks (even having sent a couple back). The Hasselblad lenses, by contrast, are fecking awesome.
6) Is DR better on P45+ compared to the Sony's I have?
Don't know. Both have adequate DR for my purposes.
7) Is colour rendition better?
I much prefer the Hasselblad/Phocus colour rendition to any other system I've tried. The Canons are OK. My GF1 micro four thirds is acceptable. I've never processed a Nikon shot I liked, colour wise. (I have some stuff shot on Nikons by workshop/tutorial attendees and I don't know how they can bear it; no amount
of fiddling in Aperture/LR/Phocus gives me a result I can stand. I don't have C1.)
8 ) Is aliasing an issue
Yes. Stockings, fine mesh lingerie, even sometimes silk gowns and satin bed sheets cause aliasing problems. Phocus' anti-Moire filter helps a little but nukes fine detail in eyelashes. If I was primarily shooting stocking-clad models, I'd go for a camera with an AA filter.
9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes. At least 90% of the time for my professional work. The only time I don't is when I decide to shoot in low available light, when I use the Canon.
I don't use the 'blad for snapshots (I use my iPhone) but even up in the mountains I'll take the big beast if I think the light will be nice.
The camera I don't use as much as I expected to is the GF1, despite its convenience and massive step up in image quality from the iPhone, it sits uncomfortably in between the "take it anywhere, shoot anything" appeal of the phone and the "quality above all" appeal of MFD.
10) If I do something important, will I use the MFD or resort to DSLR?
If there's any chance of shooting it at ISO 80, I'll use the Hasselblad. If there really isn't, I'll fall back to the 7D. At some stage I'll probably switch that for a full frame 35mm dSLR (I got the 7D for video originally).
11) What is the main advantage I see?
Colour richness, sharpness and resolution. And although I complained about the aliasing on stockings, I actually love the slight rainbow glitter effect it has on skin pore highlights, it makes the shots look magical.
Leaf shutters for balancing direct sunlight with flash on location.
Leaf shutters for freezing camera shake and subject motion (I really struggle with that at 1/125th).
12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
For what I actually use? That it is ISO 80 (claimed 100) and if you turn it up the image falls apart immediately.
I guess also that it can't be rigged out in the flexible way that you can rig a systems 35 mm dSLR into a great sports cam or low light cam or wedding cam or whatever.
It so happens that the Hasselblad falls very naturally into my way of shooting (central autofocus point, lock focus, recompose, press, compose next shot). It is a specialised tool for the shoots I do for a living whereas a 5D family are better all-rounders. The 7D is not as nice, but it suffices for now.
13) Are the pictures using MF better?
For me, absolutely yes.
14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
There is no out of camera, but my default profile in Phocus gets me where I need to go very quickly and fine tuning from there takes much less time than the Canon files do.
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
I prefer it.
16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Yes, although if I'd know how big a dip my market sector was heading for I might have had second thoughts. It was absolutely the right camera for me at the time, and remains my fave tool. I don't think I could afford to start investing in the whole system again today, but I'd definitely replace the camera with a second-hand one if it breaks.
17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
Yes and no. In purely financial terms, I might have been able to make the same sales if I'd bought a 5D2 at the time instead.
In terms of my own artistic satisfaction, it was an absolutely stunning investment.
And in terms of making the most of extremely expensive multi-model location shoots, recorded for posterity in the absolute best quality I could afford, it is awesome. I'll probably NEVER get to shoot the same two brilliant models north of the Arctic circle in Norway again and I'm so glad I have the Hasselblad shots of that trip for posterity.
18) Do I enjoy it?
Oh yes. It feels like an extension of me now. And I've gotten VERY used to features like proper RAW summed channels histogram flashing on top display and greater than 100% viewfinder (because of the slight crop of the H3D31ii sensor- I don't know why but I find the little "look around" area very helpful in composing at a glance).
19) Much of my photography involves travel by air. How do I handle it?
It's great- the whole camera and lens kit, plus MacBookPro, go in my cabin baggage rucksack.
20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
I usually take the Hasselblad and the 7D to every shoot. If the lighting allows, I'll use the Hasselblad. If not, the Canon is always there to fall back on and is capable of some very beautiful results, too. On the few workshops I've been to, I've taken the Canon for flexibility and so as not to seem like a dick showing off my expensive MFD. When I have run tutorials and workshops I can absolutely guarantee that the guy (always a guy) with the most expensive camera also has the very worst eye for a photo and I don't want to be that guy!
21) Can I see differences in printed images?
I don't make large prints, so not relevant to me. I can see the difference 1:1 pixel on the screen which is what counts for me.
22) Is MFD fun to use?
Broadly speaking, yes. But what's really fun is bringing the shots up in Phocus at the end of the shoot with everyone gathered around the laptop making "ooooh! ahhh! Wow! Did we do that?" noises. The most telling point of all is how rarely you get that from sets shot with the Canon. The Canon gets good shots, but the Hasselblad somehow makes the same shots just "zing" that little bit more.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
Erik, please read my post at Gtdpi concerning my V glass. :(
Maybe that's why you don't see much difference to your dslr.
Best
Eduardo
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/588415-post96.html
-
Hi Eduardo,
Thanks for your observation. I share your experience, in a sense, on the other hand it is a bit more complex. Most of my Hasselblad lenses exceed my DSLR (I have only 24 MP at this time) in resolution, except on edges/corners on some lenses. I also feel that a part of the issue is field curvature, which sometimes is in my favour and sometimes not. Field curvatures often puts foreground in focus.
The best lens I have is the Sonnar 180/4 and it is slightly better than my 70-400/4-5.6 lens at 180 mm on absolute terms MTF at XXX lp/mm. But, even that lens has some longitudional chromatic aberration and some haziness. Don't know much about other lens makes, but mine are pretty consistent with factory MTF.
My main observations are:
- I don't see much difference in prints at A2 size.
- But the files have more detail
- I can see the difference with an 5X loupe on A2 size prints, but not with the naked eye
- The MF back has more noisy shadows
But:
I like shooting with the "Blad". I am also shooting APS-C and full frame 135m using lenses from 10 mm fisheye to 560 mm. So I am an all eater.
My best pictures I made with an 12 MP APS-C, shooting location and good light beats format.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, please read my post at Gtdpi concerning my V glass. :(
Maybe that's why you don't see much difference to your dslr.
Best
Eduardo
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/588415-post96.html
-
Since this topic was brought back to life, and since Question #20 was, “[If I] go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?” I will share my recent workshop story. It is also a shameful way to show some photos…
A few weeks ago I was part of the Silo City Workshop, organized by Mark Maio. It was the same workshop Michael and Kevin were on; hence the recent machine photos here on Lula. Fascinating place; if you have any interest in urban landscapes I suggest you look it up. Mark has another workshop scheduled for October at the same location. I brought both the a7r (Leica WATE, 35 f/2.8 FE, 55 f/1.8 FE, Leica 90 f/2) and the Alpa / IQ180 (40hr, 70hr, sk150). First thing Friday morning we shot silo’s across the river. I started with the Alpa but felt rushed because in my mind we were late for the light (plus I couldn’t find my LCC card).
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/01DChew_140606_006698-FrameShop.jpg)
After a few frustrating shots I switched to the a7r and things began to click. Then we went over to the primary buildings for an introductory “get acquainted with your surroundings” tour. I stuck with the a7r handheld for that tour so I could keep up with the group.
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/02DChew_140606_00711-FrameShop.jpg)
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/03DChew_140606_00798-FrameShop.jpg)
Around 9am we split up and went our separate ways. I switched back to MF and headed off with my wife to photograph on our own. By then I was comfortable with the surroundings, and the Alpa felt right.
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/04DChew_140606_006744-FrameShop.jpg)
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/05DChew_140606_006776-FrameShop.jpg)
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/06DChew_140606_006782-FrameShop.jpg)
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/07DChew_140606_006800-FrameShop.jpg)
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/08DChew_140606_006810-FrameShop.jpg)
The following morning I decided to try a Leica Monochrom (many thanks to Leica and Capture Integration for supplying equipment). Although it’s been probably 30 years since I used a rangefinder, I bonded almost immediately with that camera. Focusing was a delight, and I liked the no choice – B&W shooting.
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/13DChew_140607_1011847-FrameShop.jpg)
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/14DChew_140607_1011861-FrameShop.jpg)
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/15DChew_140607_1011895-FrameShop.jpg)
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/16DChew_140607_1011952-FrameShop.jpg)
That afternoon I used the Alpa when we went to the pumping station. I was again out of sorts. No mental focus, too much going on, sensory overload, my wife’s camera ran out of battery power, you get the picture. We were there all afternoon, but I didn’t get anything reasonable until after at least the first 2 hours.
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/09DChew_140607_006958-FrameShop.jpg)
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/10DChew_140607_006964-FrameShop.jpg)
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/11DChew_140607_006970-FrameShop.jpg)
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/12DChew_140607_007001-FrameShop.jpg)
Sunday morning back at Silo City was all Alpa.
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/17DChew_140608_007158-FrameShop.jpg)
(http://www.davechewphotography.com/temp_images/SiloCityPost/18DChew_140608_007173-FrameShop.jpg)
So, after stumbling out of the gate, I’m very glad I had both camera systems. Although I’ve been shooting with the Alpa for three years, it still requires my complete attention and mental focus. Not to set it up or technically do things; that is second nature by now. But seeing takes more effort. I’m not sure if that is because it is so easy to experiment with the a7r vs. a technical camera, or if it because I tend to think of aligned perspectives with the Alpa since it can shift. Regardless, external stress or frustrations render that camera ineffective, at least in my hands. I’m generally pretty good with the a7r, but never great. With MF I feel either in the zone or in the weeds. Could also just be the difference between an amateur and a pro…
When I’m alone in the wilderness, the Alpa is by far my favorite tool. But at a workshop there is a lot going on: Schedules, people, and unfamiliar territory. If I had to do this workshop again with only one system, it would be MF, but it would not have been quite as much fun.
Dave
-
Do you use the A7r (or Leica Monochrom) handheld or on a tripod like the Alpa?
-
I did use the a7r both on and off tripod but not the Monochrom. I used it only handheld.
-
So, maybe the difference in experience is rather "handheld" versus "tripod"? For me, this is indeed how it works: I find that I need more concentration with a tripod and the constraints that it imposes. But I do not use a technical camera and I can use my MF handheld (although I don't do that very often).
-
It's possible that is some of the explanation. But I've been shooting from a tripod for a long time. When I used an SLR and DSLR I would obviously shoot both ways and don't remember that making much of a difference. I think it is more just pure laziness. If I'm bothered by some outside influence I tend to get disinterested. I am a much better photographer when I'm alone vs in a group. On workshops I rarely shoot with others. In fact, now that you've got me thinking about it, the times I struggled with the Alpa coincided exactly with the times we were shooting in a group. I think another influence is that I know it takes me a while to set up a shot, so I am sensitive to being in other people's way for too long and/or don't want to delay the group.
Wow, we are on the verge of a psychiatry visit, eh?
;)
Dave
-
You say "struggle", I say success. Lovely shots. If the goal of a shoot is 1-3 real good ones, you had a great time.
-
You say "struggle", I say success. Lovely shots. If the goal of a shoot is 1-3 real good ones, you had a great time.
Thank you Geoff. Yes, I did have a great time!
Dave
-
Thank you Geoff. Yes, I did have a great time!
Dave
Which is evident.
My spontaneous reaction when I saw the Flow Meter picture, I felt it was tempting to photoshop this and put two Bowers & Wilkins Kevlar speaker membranes in there. ;D
I can relate to your experience. I had this experience only once, and I was not comfortable either. I prefer shooting on my own as well. I need to get in the zone for that to work, and people around me, be it one or 20, are prohibitive for me to achieve that. Problem: It is a little too expensive to rent that icebreaker for myself. ;D
Very nice pictures Dave!
-
My spontaneous reaction when I saw the Flow Meter picture, I felt it was tempting to photoshop this and put two Bowers & Wilkins Kevlar speaker membranes in there. ;D
I don't know. Placing the tweeter in between those two drivers doesn't sound (ha!) like a B&W design to me. Much better on top like their Diamond's.
:)
I can relate to your experience. I had this experience only once, and I was not comfortable either. I prefer shooting on my own as well. I need to get in the zone for that to work, and people around me, be it one or 20, are prohibitive for me to achieve that. Problem: It is a little too expensive to rent that icebreaker for myself. ;D
Very nice pictures Dave!
Thank you. Silo City really is an amazing place. There is a chance Michael will write an article about the experience, so I won't say too much more that might steal his thunder.
I would imagine the "When I shoot alone, I prefer to be by myself" feeling is most prevalent in landscape photographers, since by definition they often shoot alone. A reportage / street shooter is probably thinking, "What's the big deal?"
Dave
-
Hi,
Personally, I shoot both DSLR and MFD on tripod. On the Hasselblad 555 ELD I only have a cable release, so handheld shooting is not very practical.
For me, the major difference between the two is that I almost always use magnified live view for accurate focus on DSLR while on the MFD I struggle with focusing visually. When I shoot both, I normally shooting MFD first and DSLR before switching subject, it always strike me how easy it is shooting with the DSLR. A H-series Hasselblad is probably quite a bit more effective. Also, I mostly use zooms on the DSLR.
The way I work, the images are pretty similar, with the MFD usually having better resolution. What I also found that the less rectangular format of the MFD is often an advantage. On the other hand I don't have zooms on the MF camera and I often stitch to expand field of view, instead of using a wider lens and crop.
Best regards
Erik
So, maybe the difference in experience is rather "handheld" versus "tripod"? For me, this is indeed how it works: I find that I need more concentration with a tripod and the constraints that it imposes. But I do not use a technical camera and I can use my MF handheld (although I don't do that very often).
-
Great Post !!! great way resolve some "trendy" doubts !
Finally a simple question-answer topic that resume all the 35mm Vs DMF questions based on the users experiences.
Pedro
-
Dave,
Nice shots!
Eric
-
After watching this video comparing 35mm to medium format, Im convinced that medium format is such a
WASTE OF MONEY!!!!!
Sounds like the OP learned the hard way.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk)
It's amusing watching people strain to see what they want to see. But hey, if you got the dough, knock yourself out.
-
Hi Tex,
That’s therem fiighting words on this forum partner.
Cheers
Simon :D
-
Texshooter,
You're absolutely right! Some people can take duff photos with almost any camera (and the corollary is that some people can take great photos with any camera).
Since the gear doesn't matter as much as the skill of the photographer, one might as well get a camera they enjoy using, feels right in their hands.
For me, the MF experience was as much about the viewfinder and the crop ratio as it was the higher sync speeds for studio and the leaf shutter lenses. But of course not much of that gets into a comparison video like the one you posted.
-
Hi,
I am the OP…
I bought the Hasselblad/P45+ plus combo out of curiosity. I actually enjoy shooting with it, about 1/3 of my exposures this year was made with it. I tend to make more exposures on MFD than on DSLR so I think the keeper ratio is a bit lower than 1/3.
The other side of the equation is that there is no real advantage in image quality, except in resolution, compared to the Sony DSLRs I have. The major advantage of the Sonys is live view which is very helpful in achieving accurate focus and the accurate light meter. Also the Sonys have a significant advantage in DR. Another strength of the Sonys is white balance. It could be argued that it is impressive that a back introduced 2007 can keep up with 2014 CMOS technology, but that argument is not entirely true.
To begin with it cannot keep up, except under benign conditions. Also, the P45+ is AFAIK updated to latest firmware, so things like white balance calculations may have been subject to upgrade. Also, let's not forget the sensor has twice the area of the Sony sensor. Also the P45+ back sells for about 10k$, you can get two A7r-s and a couple of Zeiss lenses for the price of a used back alone.
What I like with the Hasselblad/P45+ combo is:
- Shooting with a classical camera
- Simplicity. Just focusing, shutter speed and aperture. No settings, no lightmeter. Just to say, Sony's presets give me some simplicity, too.
- The P45+ back is well made and very functional for a 2007 generation sensor
- The 49x37 aspect ratio is fine. I didn't know when I bought it but I appreciate it.
- I also have a Flexbody, an fine example of Hasselblad thinking out of the box.
Getting back to the video you referred to. The photographers still stick to their Hasselblad, but they admit the Nikon was impressive. They see great benefits of the Hasselblad on skin tone, and tethering. So Hasselblad may be worthwhile for that kind of shooting. But, I also guess some of the issues are manageable.
Now, time does not stand still. There is a rapid development in DSLR/mirrorless, but MFD doesn't exactly stand still.
What I may feel that MFD is very expensive for limited benefits and I don't think those benefits are always there.
So I am somewhat skeptical to MFD, especially regarding claims to image quality. Now, with the new Sony sensor in the latest backs from Phase One and Hasselblad MFD has a recent generation CMOS sensor with a much better image quality, but limitations in crop factor and T&S on technical cameras. Pentax even have an affordable DSLR with the new Sony MF sensor in an almost up to date DSLR body. (Why not up to date? Big and slow FP shutter and very small AF area.)
My guess is that DSLR/mirrorless technology is good for "the rest of us", and I would expect a lot of great developments in the near future, like the new 'Art' series lenses from Sigma and the Otus lenses from Zeiss in addition to all more or less excellent lenses from Canon and Nikon.
Best regards
Erik
After watching this video comparing 35mm to medium format, Im convinced that medium format is such a
WASTE OF MONEY!!!!!
Sounds like the OP learned the hard way.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk)
It's amusing watching people strain to see what they want to see. But hey, if you got the dough, knock yourself out.
-
After watching this video comparing 35mm to medium format, Im convinced that medium format is such a WASTE OF MONEY!!!!!
Tex, the H4D-40 isn't what would be considered the top end of the MF range. To put in a 50/60/80MP camera (Hasselblad, Phase or Leaf), which can only be done in medium format, would show a much larger difference.
It's great that 35mm works for you, but speaking from experience, medium format is completely WORTH THE MONEY as it gives me features and images that I can't get from 35mm. Find your local dealer, setup a side by side, and come back and tell us how it goes.
-
Hi,
Yes, clearly there are 50/60/80 MP backs. They have better resolution, but they still have less DR than CMOS backs. It is also a lens question, many lenses are not that sharp. For the high res back there is also a need for high res lenses. Some new lenses are really good.
On the other hand, we start to have excellent lenses for DSLRs, too. Zeiss has the Otus line and Sigma the Art lenses. Even Nikon and Canon may wake up.
So, if resolution is the name of the game, an MFD on a technical camera may be the tool of choice. But for most purposes 24 or 36 MP are good enough.
The Pentax 645Z is a game changer, but the new lenses are still expensive.
Best regards
Erik
Tex, the H4D-40 isn't what would be considered the top end of the MF range. To put in a 50/60/80MP camera (Hasselblad, Phase or Leaf), which can only be done in medium format, would show a much larger difference.
It's great that 35mm works for you, but speaking from experience, medium format is completely WORTH THE MONEY as it gives me features and images that I can't get from 35mm. Find your local dealer, setup a side by side, and come back and tell us how it goes.