Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: mstevensphoto on November 03, 2018, 08:54:25 pm
-
Hi all, been forever since I've posted here. I'm showing and selling more and more portraiture at 34x40" to 60x80" and repeatedly finding my 5dmkIII wanting. I photograph mostly kids and the photos are mostly 1/4 or 1/2 length. given that I want to show things large I try to get it right in camera but often end up cropping a bit. anyway, looking for a 50mp solution because of the close up viewing of my work AND two not so technical reasons - 1) my clients have $ and I hate when they have my camera (or better) because it feels less special. 2) for the last decade and a half I've missed that feel that I used to get from my old film Mamiya.
I've been eyeballing the 645z, now wondering about the GFX 50R, and frankly hoping for some suggestions because I can't find most of these in store to even play with. A couple years ago Digital Transitions let me Demo the mamiya kit and the images were just lovely and the experience was impractical. I rely on auto focus and it was clunky and often missed in addition to being a beast and a half of a camera.
I've got $8-10k for a camera and 110mm (or so) lens, it's gotta auto focus easily and accurately. I'm gonna blow up the photos large for close view, printed myself in BW usually but not always. help me with my brain damage, what do you pick for the task at hand?
-
You could look at the GFX-50R or 50s and 110mm - thatd be well under your $8-10k budget and would meet your needs. Plus, with the GFX, you know the GFX100 is around the corner and you could upgrade later if you need more resolution.
For portraiture, I’d look at the GFX or X1D over the 645z. The 645z is great, but for portraiture, on-sensor AF with the GFX/X1D means focus points across the whole sensor (which the 645z lacks) and no focus and recompose and a better hit ratio (at least in my hands)
-
Hi all, been forever since I've posted here. I'm showing and selling more and more portraiture at 34x40" to 60x80" and repeatedly finding my 5dmkIII wanting. I photograph mostly kids and the photos are mostly 1/4 or 1/2 length. given that I want to show things large I try to get it right in camera but often end up cropping a bit. anyway, looking for a 50mp solution because of the close up viewing of my work AND two not so technical reasons - 1) my clients have $ and I hate when they have my camera (or better) because it feels less special. 2) for the last decade and a half I've missed that feel that I used to get from my old film Mamiya.
I've been eyeballing the 645z, now wondering about the GFX 50R, and frankly hoping for some suggestions because I can't find most of these in store to even play with. A couple years ago Digital Transitions let me Demo the mamiya kit and the images were just lovely and the experience was impractical. I rely on auto focus and it was clunky and often missed in addition to being a beast and a half of a camera.
I've got $8-10k for a camera and 110mm (or so) lens, it's gotta auto focus easily and accurately. I'm gonna blow up the photos large for close view, printed myself in BW usually but not always. help me with my brain damage, what do you pick for the task at hand?
The XF of today and the Mamiya body from several years ago are a night and day experience regarding autofocus. Might be worth checking back in. We have back, XF, lens kits for around your budget.
-
Doug, I'm in Denver, do you still have a satellite office here? I always shot Mamiya 645 film so the brand has happy nostalgia for me. the one I demoed really made beautiful pictures, I'd love to try the current iteration now that I own a toddler to try it on too. I have corneal scarring and am 100% reliant on autofocus.
-
Doug, I'm in Denver, do you still have a satellite office here? I always shot Mamiya 645 film so the brand has happy nostalgia for me. the one I demoed really made beautiful pictures, I'd love to try the current iteration now that I own a toddler to try it on too. I have corneal scarring and am 100% reliant on autofocus.
I'll be in Denver in a couple weeks: http://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/events/. You can see how the XF handles and get a pretty good idea if it's a good fit for you or not.
-
Or you can go back to shoot film ;-) They have that "special quality" now you know.
-
Hasselblad X1d and XCD 90 (or better still 80)
-
I'm showing and selling more and more portraiture at 34x40" to 60x80" ... I photograph mostly kids and the photos are mostly 1/4 or 1/2 length.
I'm fascinated by this. You take photos of half or a quarter of a child and people buy prints which are five feet by nearly seven feet? That must be twice life-size! Who buys such a thing? What do they do with it?
Sorry to deviate from the topic, but I can't begin to imagine such a business model even being tried in the UK, still less succeeding.
Jeremy
-
I'm fascinated by this. You take photos of half or a quarter of a child and people buy prints which are five feet by nearly seven feet? That must be twice life-size! Who buys such a thing? What do they do with it?
Sorry to deviate from the topic, but I can't begin to imagine such a business model even being tried in the UK, still less succeeding.
Paintings like this show up in large estates in the U.K., no?
-
Or you can go back to shoot film ;-) They have that "special quality" now you know.
I shot my first box of 4x5 film in forever this weekend. it was enjoyable. with little slightly less cooperative things it's handy to be able to capture some extras AND to peep and know I got what I need before I let them go. I can't send them out of there without solid knowledge that I got to the goal.
-
I'm fascinated by this. You take photos of half or a quarter of a child and people buy prints which are five feet by nearly seven feet? That must be twice life-size! Who buys such a thing? What do they do with it?
Sorry to deviate from the topic, but I can't begin to imagine such a business model even being tried in the UK, still less succeeding.
Jeremy
1) you are not your customer - just because you can't conceive it on your own walls doesn't mean that people won't/dont want it.
2) houses in the US are big, by many UK accounts they are gaudy monstrosities, but I have clients with 24' ceiling heights
3) there seems to be a notion that I come across regularly that a thing should never be shown bigger than life - this is absolute hogwash and based on nothing useful. a beautiful potrtrait where one can see all the pattern of a loved one's eyes has meaning to some people
4) as mentioned in another reply, paintings of this nature exist all over the place and anyone of status used to commission such a painting. these are loved, and also status
5) art to one person may not be art to another, that's ok. some people pay millions of dollars for a rather lousy reproduction of a campbel's soup can label....or a little girl and a balloon that becomes confetti, or (god forbid) any of the garbage that richard price pedals.
-
What is your lighting like? If you're shooting in a controlled space with strobes, doing an IQ 80mp back would be a great 'now' option.
I wouldn't look to the 645z with any hope of a future. The GFX would be more than able, but the 100mp is next year, and if you have things this holiday you really will want the quality of a digital MF setup.
-Joe
-
645z with 75mm f2.8 or 150mm f2.8 would work just fine.
Fuji seems to be a more flexible system, looking to the future, but 645z will get the job done.
You could also look at stabilized 90mm.
-
... looking for a 50mp solution because of the close up viewing of my work AND two not so technical reasons - 1) my clients have $ and I hate when they have my camera (or better) because it feels less special. 2) for the last decade and a half I've missed that feel that I used to get from my old film Mamiya.
On point (1) — looking different, special and serious — the Pentax 645Z wins! (And on point (2), it probably also offers a more MF film camera feel, for better or for worse.)
-
1) you are not your customer - just because you can't conceive it on your own walls doesn't mean that people won't/dont want it.
2) houses in the US are big, by many UK accounts they are gaudy monstrosities, but I have clients with 24' ceiling heights
3) there seems to be a notion that I come across regularly that a thing should never be shown bigger than life - this is absolute hogwash and based on nothing useful. a beautiful potrtrait where one can see all the pattern of a loved one's eyes has meaning to some people
4) as mentioned in another reply, paintings of this nature exist all over the place and anyone of status used to commission such a painting. these are loved, and also status
5) art to one person may not be art to another, that's ok. some people pay millions of dollars for a rather lousy reproduction of a campbel's soup can label....or a little girl and a balloon that becomes confetti, or (god forbid) any of the garbage that richard price pedals.
There's no need to get quite so defensive, old chap: I was expressing incredulity, not disdain.
1. Obviously. My lack of conception extended further than my own walls, but that doesn't really matter.
2. Oh; again, I made no comment on aesthetics.
3. The notion may exist; but I made no such comment. It would rule out photomicrography as art, for a start, and I don't.
4. Yes, large paintings exist in English country houses and castles. I'd be very surprised if the number painted in the last hundred years reached triple figures. The operative words are "used to".
5. Again, you seem to imagine that I was denigrating your work. Far from it: if the niche exists and you can fill it (and, given that you're contemplating spending a lot of money, I accept that it does), the very best of luck to you. Clearly the fact that I find it hard to imagine represents a deficiency on my part. I remain, however, convinced that in the UK, you'd be on the dole pretty quickly.
Jeremy
-
How much of a difference will there be between 50 MP 33x44mm medium format and the near 50 MP DSLR/mirrorless systems with some carefully selected lenses? Of course, higher resolution medium format (the upcoming Fuji GFX 100, a good used Phase 80 MP system if you have the light for it (as far as I know, all the 80 MP systems are CCD-based and happiest below ISO 100) or the very expensive Phase or Hasselblad 100 MP systems would reopen the gap.
The only real comparison I've seen between the 50 MP MF sensor and the very best smaller formats have to offer is Imaging Resource's comparometer, which is a highly contrived situation... At least on that, they are very, very close. Imaging Resource also has a Phase One XF 100 (unclear which version) on their comparometer, and that is much more noticeably different from anything else than the Nikon Z7 (I chose the Z7 from among the several 40+ MP 24x36mm cameras simply because I have one) is from the Fuji GFX 50S. I wish someone had a comparison on something other than test shots...
-
It's more about sensor size than resolution, although a MF sensor will have more resolution. A 60"x80" print from a FF sensor is approximately 63x , but only approximately 46x from a 33x44 sensor, and approximately 37x from a 41x54 sensor.
-
I find the dpreview image comparison tool is useful, to a point:
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_gfx50s&attr13_1=nikon_z7&attr13_2=phaseone_xf100mp&attr13_3=pentax_645z&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_2=2&attr171_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.6632706827022568&y=-0.7712996172356223
The areas where there are three-dimensional objects, such as the tubes of paint, offer some useful insights.
Even at web resolution. I find the images on Flickr can also be useful, to a point.
What I notice is that the GFX does a better job in giving the person in the image a sense of presence.
It isn't just the sensor, it isn't just the lens, it isn't just the tonal range or the smooth transitions in the hues of color across skin tones or clothing. And you will notice that some cameras with smaller sensors outperform some cameras with larger sensors.
My sense from looking at images (digital and print, my own and that of others), doing post processing, working with lighting, etc is that there are a number of factors which go into creating a final image with more presence. It seems that mostly it is the accumulation of many small advantages which leads to the big differences.
I do find that the GFX makes it easier to get there consistently, and if the light is right, it is likely to be there out of the camera. Post processing always offers the opportunity to improve, naturally.
Rental and use in your own context is the best way to determine this for yourself.
-
How much of a difference will there be between 50 MP 33x44mm medium format and the near 50 MP DSLR/mirrorless systems with some carefully selected lenses?
this is something I also struggle with. I will say that the Dynamic range bits seem to be more than just measurable....that is to say, you can see the difference in real life, not just on a chart. a retoucher I respect always says "If you can't see it, it isn't there" with regard to measurers vs users.
I find my current setup makes really really nice 24x36" prints and gets worse at 30x40 and falls apart rather quickly after that. I've rented the nikon 850 and it was ok. the resolution was lovely, the range/color not what I'm used to or hoped for in a quick test. I've not had my hands on the ar7iii that so many are gaga for but there seem to be real color and range issues when you're not doing editorial weddings where artistic touches are added to coloration anyway.
The mamiya 645d pics with the credo back were simply lovely. all the range I wanted, perfect color, right out of camera. the thing would certainly set one apart but it is a tank and a half. a well managed Hassy setup seems to be the same in terms of color and range, but there's an extra zero added on just for the name.
Shutter life (I know shutters can be replaced) is one real attractant for a 35mm-ish variant. I've put 80k actuations on my 5dmkIII so far this year alone.
-
My sense from looking at images (digital and print, my own and that of others), doing post processing, working with lighting, etc is that there are a number of factors which go into creating a final image with more presence. It seems that mostly it is the accumulation of many small advantages which leads to the big differences.
I do find that the GFX makes it easier to get there consistently, and if the light is right, it is likely to be there out of the camera. Post processing always offers the opportunity to improve, naturally.
Rental and use in your own context is the best way to determine this for yourself.
I agree with your thoughts. my problem is that I have three real contenders, they are all $350/week to rent with no lens. that is one heck of a trial budget (1/5-1/8th the cost of any of the cameras)....I could literally fly to BH for less. obviously can't try for a week at BH but ouch, they're pricey to rent.
-
I also enjoy the 645D images. I'm thinking you might like Leaf color. A used Leaf Credo 80MP Digital back might be good for you. I saw a couple on Ebay today. The new medium format mirrorless cameras might be small and easy to use but there is something nice about the old CCD backs. And the Credo 80 is also a larger 53.7 x 40.3 mm sensor.
Bill
-
I agree with your thoughts. my problem is that I have three real contenders, they are all $350/week to rent with no lens. that is one heck of a trial budget (1/5-1/8th the cost of any of the cameras)....I could literally fly to BH for less. obviously can't try for a week at BH but ouch, they're pricey to rent.
So, about renting....
I would probably narrow the field a bit more. I would probably choose my best contender and rent that.
Handling at a store is worth a lot. Downloading some sample RAW files can teach you a lot when you put them through your process. For me, looking at digital images helps me eliminate lenses which don't render in a pleasing way. Adding up the total dollar cost of ownership can be useful (camera, lenses desired, at least one extra battery). Adding up the total volume and weight can be useful. Did I mention handling in the store (hard to say that too often). This set of exercises taken seriously will eliminate contenders or, at least, help prioritize.
I had no trouble getting opportunities to handle all these cameras and take home images I had exposed on my own card at the local store and a couple events.
Do you need a week to test? I lined up dozens of subjects over a weekend rental (I set up a backdrop at a historical reenactment event one day and brought in a bunch of models into the studio for test shoots the next day--while I was photographing one, the makeup artist was getting the next one ready). I also went to a nighttime graduation of a firefighting school (water and fire at night!).
It took some doing to set this up, but simply renting for a week without such pre-rental legwork is likely to end up with less testing, imo.
And talk with your local store. My store will take the rental price off of the purchase price.
To my eye, it looks like Pentax has not been serious enough about MF and has failed to deliver on promised developments. Fuji has been very active with firmware updates, an aggressive lens development path including a roadmap, a clear plan for camera development. Pentax might pick up the ball. Or might not. But Fuji keeps moving the ball forward, as they have done with the X series.
From usability as a camera, Fuji has a well developed interface which is an effective transplant of the system they developed through many generations of the Fuji X line (all the major firmware updates are like a new generation of cameras for most players.)
Hasselblad has an unclear future in MF and is doing a lot of stumbling.
Phase has a strong track record and, like Fuji, keeps at it in an active way. Big. Heavy. Expensive. IQ advantage.
To my view, I would get it down to Phase and Fuji. I would check my budget, which would eliminate Phase for some. I would check how much I want a handy, portable camera (Fuji) against my desire for that last 3% of IQ.
For me, Fuji is an easy winner. You have to clarify your priorities against the available options to find your winner, naturally.
In short, if you do your homework, you can probably get by with a single camera with a weekend rental and your dealer is likely to take it off your purchase :)
-
Hasselblad has an unclear future in MF and is doing a lot of stumbling.
Phase has a strong track record and, like Fuji, keeps at it in an active way. Big. Heavy. Expensive. IQ advantage.
Serious? Hasselblad dealers are popping up everywhere in Sydney. They compete price wise with top end Canon and Nikon. Even the Phase One dealer starting selling them before they went broke. The cameras and new lenses are pre-ordered.
Phase has a strong track record but it is now downhill. Unless they come out with a sub $10K camera I think they are doomed. They are big heavy expensive boxes that will have little demand.
Fuji makes great cameras traditionally but at this moment lacks the professional features that Hasselblad has.
Also there is a path for Hasselblad users using H or even V series to the X (and as soon as you hold one you want one.) If you need big then you can still get the H6. Most don't but if you do then the X1D is a great backup camera. Plus they have the A6 aerial photography line.
Go and try each.
-
I keep hearing that Phase is doomed - not just from you Bob so I don't mean to single you out. It usually comes from people that haven’t shot the IQ3 100 and/or lack insight into their financials. Since none of us have insight into their financials, I don’t understand why people want to make these dire predictions. I wouldn’t make statements about Hasselblad since I also lack insight into their financials. I can only speculate that Fuji is well positioned to gain significant market share given their stated product development roadmap. I would further speculate that Hasselblad will respond and Phase will continue to build a strong position in a segment where people demand the absolute best image quality and product support. I would also speculate that the MFD market will expand greatly over the coming years and this rising tide may lift all boats. Sometimes it seems people believe the market is not big enough for three competitors – or more. Today it certainly seems that Fuji is in a position to be the market share leader but that doesn’t mean others can’t exist and even thrive in profitable segments.
-
I have both 645z and Z7.. may be I should make a through test:) From my initial quick look, either camera can deliver a stunning large scale portrait.
645z would impress clients more... it feels and looks more substantial. Z7 has substantially less camera shake with IBIS and EFCS, one can serve as a backup to another.
Get both, it will fit your budget:)
Fuji MF seems like a winner, considering more promising looking future. Basically, investing into more expensive Fuji lenses may pay off better when upgrading camera later on.
I walked into the Pentax booth on Photo Plus - they were selling 645z at 5K. There is no insight on any development of any future Pentax MF.
However, realistically... 645z image quality is more than sufficient, and in 10 years it will still be sufficient for studio portraits. Lenses are a bargain and superb. Could get two 645z-s:)
Looking at developments in Topaz AI Gigapixel, 51 MP sharp capture of 3/4 height portrait can be outputted in *any* desired size.
With that, investing into a much faster computer system and better retouching would have more impact on the workflow and the output than a more expensive camera.
-
I keep hearing that Phase is doomed - not just from you Bob so I don't mean to single you out. It usually comes from people that haven’t shot the IQ3 100 and/or lack insight into their financials. Since none of us have insight into their financials, I don’t understand why people want to make these dire predictions. I wouldn’t make statements about Hasselblad since I also lack insight into their financials. I can only speculate that Fuji is well positioned to gain significant market share given their stated product development roadmap. I would further speculate that Hasselblad will respond and Phase will continue to build a strong position in a segment where people demand the absolute best image quality and product support. I would also speculate that the MFD market will expand greatly over the coming years and this rising tide may lift all boats. Sometimes it seems people believe the market is not big enough for three competitors – or more. Today it certainly seems that Fuji is in a position to be the market share leader but that doesn’t mean others can’t exist and even thrive in profitable segments.
Both Hasselblad and Phase One disclose their annual financials publicly. You can look them up on websites like prof.dk and allabolag.se; use a chrome browser for automatic language translation.
Phase One has been profitable and in a strong financial position every year since 2008. Their numbers are among the best in the industry (much of which really suffered through a decade where consumers switched from point and shoots to phones). Yet, every year there is at least one doom-and-gloom thread about how they are in “trouble”. It’s honesty quite surreal.
As we don’t sell Hasselblad I won’t comment on their financials over the last decade.
Most of the other camera companies are far more opaque since, for most, their camera sales are a small minortiy of the corporate entity, and their high-end cameras are often a minority’s if their total camera sales.
-
Your point is well taken Doug.
-
... Hasselblad ... They compete price wise with top end Canon and Nikon.
The new 44x33 pricing is a big step forward, but such price comparisons between "least expensive in a larger format vs most expensive in a smaller format" are usually irrelevant, due to important features differences, most often related to suitability for high speed action shooting. The only 35mm format cameras (excluding Leica!) that cost close to as much as any 44x33mm format camera have big advantages in features like frame rate, AF/AE sophistication, and ruggedness. If those do not matter (likely for most potential MF buyers) because the lower frame rates (3fps) and such of the 44x33 cameras are fine, then there are far less expensive 35mm format options that are also fine as far as those "non-sensor size" features; starting at about $2000 (USA pricing). If instead those "fast action" abilities do matter, then no current 44x33 camera is a substitute; they serve different markets.
So the sensor upsizing in reality about triples the price.
(Much the same is true when people compare the high-end options in APS-C and MFT (with advantages such as high frame rates, excellent video features, telephoto and macro advantages from higher resolution in lp/mm) to the least expensive 35mm format models, and declare nonsensically that no camera in those smaller mainstream formats should cost as much as the cheapest 35mm format model.)
-
price comparisons between "least expensive in a larger format vs most expensive in a smaller format" are usually irrelevant, due to important features differences,
Absolutely agree, that is why the comparison is limited to price only.
You would buy the two for completely different reasons.
You would buys a Canon !Dx if you were a sports photographer whereas a medium format is useless for sport, except maybe chess. You buy a medium format for portrait, fashion, landscape and pretty much anything except sport or feathered birds.
You would probably buy a Canon 5D series for those things in the 35mm world. However the 5D is a lesser build quality and colour accuracy than the 1D and medium format is far better than 35mm. Once you try medium format (even an old one) you won't use the 35mm again. I have had two 5Ds and the eight year old H3D was far better. X1D is another step whereas the H5D or H6D was out of reach.
The point was that a few years ago medium format digital was cost prohibitive unless you were at the extreme high end, being around $50,000. Regardless of what business you are in, price is an issue.
Now they are in the reach of any serious photographer for not a lot more than 35mm.
-
BobShaw,
agreed, except that in comparison to a 44x33 format EVF camera (without even PDAF so far) my 35mm format options would also start with the Sony A7R Mk 2 or Nikon Z6 or Canon EOS-R, not just the 5D Mk 4, so as I said starting at about US$2000.
P. S. 44x33 format has been available at under US$10,000 for some years with the Pentax 645Z and 645D before it back in 2010; that $50,000 is the high end for 54x40 format, which is not what we are looking at here. So the downward price trend is not nearly that steep.
-
MichaelEzra, would you be willing to post some comparison shots between the Z7 and 645z? I think that's a real question that many people are asking, whether the venerable 50 MP 33x44mm sensor has any real advantage over a (3-4 years newer) 24x36mm sensor with almost the same resolution.
mstevensphoto, how much did you play with the Nikon color? Those raw files have a lot of latitude (and you can probably come up with a preset or filter you like so you don't have to mess with every image individually). That said, Fuji really does do lovely color! A major advantage for them...
The GFX 100 will presumably offer all the resolution in the world, with great Fuji color, for not so much more than your budget (they're saying $10K for the body, but Fuji is in love with rebates, and will probably more or less throw in a lens relatively quickly)... Is it worth waiting for?
-
Fuji makes great cameras traditionally but at this moment lacks the professional features that Hasselblad has.
I'm going to single in on this and ask for more. according to many reviews the fuji autofocus is majorly lacking (this is a massive deal breaker for me as I'm dependent on AF) - what other features are lacking in your mind?
I believe Hasselblad has always made a nice camera and I believe it has always been priced way way way more than it needed to pay for the name on it. Even in the days of film there was nothing that a Hassy had over my Mamiya except name and price.
-
MichaelEzra, would you be willing to post some comparison shots between the Z7 and 645z? I think that's a real question that many people are asking, whether the venerable 50 MP 33x44mm sensor has any real advantage over a (3-4 years newer) 24x36mm sensor with almost the same resolution.
I'd really be interested in this too, especially as portraits and especially for that hard-to-capture "feel" of the bigger system.
re: Nikon color - I rented the 850 for an extensive classic car shoot where the final output was no smaller than 24x24 and as big as 40x60 - ultimately I really had a hard time telling the difference vs my 5d mk iii except that I'm used to the canon color. I'm a canon shooter by virtue of being fully invested in canon glass, not brand loyalty. at this point a change in the full multi lens kit would be painful.
I'm not sure there's any reason for me to wait for the fuji 100 series, 50mp really will do me quite nicely. 100mp files sound like a management problem my current computing power might not be ready for.
-
I'd be happy to do the test, just need a willing subject:) If anyone would like to stop by my studio in NYC and pose, send a PM.
Without a human subject, I could shoot a landscape scene, which, although far from a portrait, may be of its own interest. Another option, I have a wig on a mannequin head (no eyes, but real hair). This can offer better control on reproducing the composition and framing and let everyone pixel peep on the same piece of hair.
I could compare, let's say:
645z at F11 with 75mm FA F2.8 (eq. 60mm FF) / 150mm FA F2.8 (eq. 120mm FF) to
Z7 at F9 with Nikon 24-70 F4 S (at 60mm) / Nikon 60mm G / Tamron 70-200mm G2 (at 120mm)
-
I just finished a test of that very sort (shooting film) :)
https://www.instagram.com/p/BpFdIOfB7n1/
-
Just found this video comparing 645z with 55mm F2.8 with D850 (with unfortunately) Nikon 24-120:
https://youtu.be/uUEfT0HtWyQ
-
I'm going to single in on this and ask for more. according to many reviews the fuji autofocus is majorly lacking (this is a massive deal breaker for me as I'm dependent on AF) - what other features are lacking in your mind?
I can only form an opinion from owners on what is missing on the Fuji. There are plenty of comments on this forum.
What the Hasselblad X1D has is full Wifi remote for landscape and interior work and good tethering to MBP plus iPad which is useful for clients. It also has very good raw processing software which incorporates camera profiling and scene calibration.
None of my lenses autofocus so I can't comment on that. It has focus peaking though which is great. Hopefully an XCD lens is not too far away.
I will say that my first Hasselblad was 8 years old and was a solid workhorse. I don't think you could get much value from an 8 year old 35mm digital. People still use a Hasselblad V series, but I am not sure why.
As for other things like Mamiya, Pentax etc. Pentax has been around for a long while yes, but I have never regarded it in the same category as Phase or Hasselblad.
I had several Mamiyas. The RZ67 was a great camera for film but useless for digital.
The Mamiya AFD line I always regarded as a clunky box and was glad to swap it for an H1 with Phase back, which was cheaper than trying to make it digital anyway. When I went to the full Hasselblad H3D I realised the advantages of the integrated solution though.
Cheers.
-
Paintings like this show up in large estates in the U.K., no?
Different world and time; and huge halls.
Rob
-
The landscape would be very interesting...
-
I'm going to single in on this and ask for more. according to many reviews the fuji autofocus is majorly lacking (this is a massive deal breaker for me as I'm dependent on AF) - what other features are lacking in your mind?
Most reviews are comparing the GFX's AF system with dSLR performance. "Majorly lacking" as I read it, means roughly that you can't shoot sports and other action subject very well (if at all) with the GFX AF system. My response to those reviews is, "Well Duh!" The reviews generally go on to say that while it isn't very good for shooting birds in flight, it tends to be deadly accurate on relatively static subjects. To that I say, "Well, Duh!"
Rand
-
Thanks for the perspective Rand. Assessments of AF in these new EVF MF systems are probably best done against other MF options, and with an emphasis on the likely use cases. It is no surprise that these CDAF only cameras are fine for stationary and slow moving subjects, not so great for faster action.
That said, the arrival of on-sensor PDAF in next year’s 100MP 44x33 model could shake things up by expanding MF use cases
-
This will explain MF Auto focus.
https://www.zazzle.com.au/auto_focus_is_for_sissies_t_shirt-235714603119345292
If your use case is portraiture then AF will never pick the subjects eyes over the belly in front and Focus and Recompose mathematically does not work.
The glass in a MF camera is much heavier and takes longer to move also so it will never be as fast as a 35mm.
You just don't buy these cameras for AF. You buy them for fantastic image quality, better colour, bigger prints and other contentious issues like the "look" and "feel".
-
I don't care at all how MF stacks up against other options, but what I do care deeply about is whether it can keep up with life in my studio - a moving three year old for example. I'm not talking about one running, ducking and weaving, but I am talking about one that can stand where I put him but not stand still. I need the moment I push the button to be in focus. every time. similarly if I have a more still person and focus on an eye I want that eye in focus. I'm not shooting at f1.2 or something unreasonable, but outside with a cooperative subject at f4 or 5.6 I want that eye sharp.
sissy or not, the workforce, the actual pros with money to buy these things, is aging. my corneas have scaring on them that means I cannot manually focus. not won't. cant.
-
Fuji is a good pick, but with flash sync of 1/125, you might find that wanting
Pentax system gets good reviews, but again 1/125 sync.
Hassy X1D - lens look great, 1/2000 sync (or 1/800+) with older lenses
Not sure on ease of tethering on Pentax.
H5D- ____. Very clean used or HPO prices are very, very nice now, options on sensor size w/resolution (40,50,60MB), 1/800 sync and True Focus.
We moved to the H5D-40 system as our primary kit and LOVE it. True Focus works brilliantly and 1/800 sync is awesome outside. Tethering is so simple and painless its not even funny.
Good luck.
-
... I need the moment I push the button to be in focus. every time. similarly if I have a more still person and focus on an eye I want that eye in focus. I'm not shooting at f1.2 or something unreasonable, but outside with a cooperative subject at f4 or 5.6 I want that eye sharp.
sissy or not, the workforce, the actual pros with money to buy these things, is aging. my corneas have scaring on them that means I cannot manually focus. not won't. cant.
My eyes are not great either and I am not opposed to auto focus for some religious reason. In fact I love it. But, you need an auto focus with manual focus over-ride because auto focus will simply not pick the eyes. It works by picking the largest and highest contrast thing it sees. The eye will only be in focus if the focus point picked is on the eye. Unless you have Hasselblad True Focus or the eyes are in the centre of the subject that seldom occurs. At least with modern cameras you can use Focus Peaking and the part in focus is illuminated in the viewfinder which is a fabulous thing.
Actual Pros that can afford an expensive camera are not all old. They just have the need for an expensive camera. If you don't have the money then you borrow it the same way you finance any other business.
-
For everyone interested, I just made the illustration of Pentax 645z vs Nikon Z7 comparison of the landscape scene:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=127463.0
-
A couple years ago Digital Transitions let me Demo the mamiya kit and the images were just lovely and the experience was impractical. I rely on auto focus and it was clunky and often missed in addition to being a beast and a half of a camera.
Been there, done that. If you plan on using auto focus, dont get medium format for kids. Unless you can tie them down and glue them in place, you will be very disappointed in the number of out of focus shots.
Kids don't stay still long enough for a searching MF auto focus to lock on, and when it does, the spontaneous moment you were trying to capture has long gone. True focus? Irrelevant with moving subjects, both you and the subject. Forget tripods with kids unless they are stylised little model types.
Firstly, if you are selling 5 ft portraits, well done, I'd love to see your work.
Secondly, are you absolutely sure you are not looking at your big prints too closely. Five footers are typically viewed from at least 10 feet away. Even a 6 mp camera is fine for portrait at that size/distance viewing.
[moderator edit: removed a load of blank lines at the end]
-
Good points Garry.
In particular, about the importance of considering intended viewing distance. If these 60"x80” "painted portrait sized" prints for McMansions are being hung and viewed like paintings—behind large pieces of furniture, over fireplaces etc—the ratio of viewing distance to image size might be quite "normal", not closer than the long dimension, and then around 3000x4000 does it. Even the closest I have seen with large prints— viewing distance comparable to short dimension—is fine with about 4000x6000, so 24MP.
To put it another way, those painted portraits that people are comparing to have resolution limited to small brush width; optimistically about 1mm "paint pixels", so 60"x80" is only about 1500x2000!
Of course I am open to having to impress customers who give far closer scrutiny, at least when buying or assessing samples, even if they never look so closely after taking delivery.