Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Guy Mancuso on July 31, 2008, 11:41:27 pm
-
Hi folks,
I received the new Mamiya 150mm 2.8 D lens they other day and as you know really hard to get right now and needless to say very expensive lens to boot. Well I went out and just shot everything in my way nothing special image wise but a good run on the lens. Frankly this maybe there best lens yet from Mamiya. The bloody thing is extremely sharp wide open. i posted a thread on my forum and i will post a link but there is just to much to post here but I thought folks should see this stuff, so Michael pardon the link but I am being lazy. If you want to delete this that is fine by me but I have no issues with linking back and forth nor does Jack. Great info is great info period.
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2790 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2790)
-
Hi folks,
I received the new Mamiya 150mm 2.8 D lens they other day and as you know really hard to get right now and needless to say very expensive lens to boot. Well I went out and just shot everything in my way nothing special image wise but a good run on the lens. Frankly this maybe there best lens yet from Mamiya. The bloody thing is extremely sharp wide open. i posted a thread on my forum and i will post a link but there is just to much to post here but I thought folks should see this stuff, so Michael pardon the link but I am being lazy. If you want to delete this that is fine by me but I have no issues with linking back and forth nor does Jack. Great info is great info period.
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2790 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2790)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212226\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I love it
I am selling my 150mm f3.5 AF
-
I did too. This is a screamer folks the new 2.8 D
-
Hi folks,
I received the new Mamiya 150mm 2.8 D lens they other day and as you know really hard to get right now and needless to say very expensive lens to boot. Well I went out and just shot everything in my way nothing special image wise but a good run on the lens. Frankly this maybe there best lens yet from Mamiya. The bloody thing is extremely sharp wide open. i posted a thread on my forum and i will post a link but there is just to much to post here but I thought folks should see this stuff, so Michael pardon the link but I am being lazy. If you want to delete this that is fine by me but I have no issues with linking back and forth nor does Jack. Great info is great info period.
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2790 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2790)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212226\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It looks great, it just needs to be 40 or 50 mm shorter! The 150 3.5 is a sharp lens, nice OOF etc, but the CA wide open ruins it for me. It appears that the 2.8 has no such problems.
What are they asking for it?
T
-
It looks great, it just needs to be 40 or 50 mm shorter! The 150 3.5 is a sharp lens, nice OOF etc, but the CA wide open ruins it for me. It appears that the 2.8 has no such problems.
What are they asking for it?
T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212236\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
110 f2 is a must. Let me repeat this . . . A MUST.
150mm is too long for nearly all fashion/glamor and portrait, especially with any form of 1.16 to 1.26 crop.
2.8 is too slow. F2 or 2.4 at the slowest.
JR
-
110 f2 is a must. Let me repeat this . . . A MUST.
150mm is too long for nearly all fashion/glamor and portrait, especially with any form of 1.16 to 1.26 crop.
2.8 is too slow. F2 or 2.4 at the slowest.
JR
Just checking, what is the crop factor with the back that you are using?
Jerry Reed
-
I'm using the P25 plus but which is about a 90mm in 35mm FF . James is shooting the P30 plus and P 21plus which has a 1.3 crop factor so it is I believe around 120mm for those backs. Myself i love the 75mm to 90 mm focal lengths in 35mm FF, so for me the 150mm is not too long. The lens cost is about 3300.00 US
-
i think:
i would calculate 150mm (MF) on a P25 as being 108mm (35mm) and 150mm (MF) on a P30 as being 118mm (35mm)
mr russel's love affair with 110mm(MF) on a P30 would be a similar love affair to 87mm (35mm)
i am not happy to be corrected on these values, but if i learn something new, i will take it on the chin
-
I'm using the P25 plus but which is about a 90mm in 35mm FF . James is shooting the P30 plus and P 21plus which has a 1.3 crop factor so it is I believe around 120mm for those backs. Myself i love the 75mm to 90 mm focal lengths in 35mm FF, so for me the 150mm is not too long. The lens cost is about 3300.00 US
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212286\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Guy,
Thanks for your response. Knowing the effective focal lengths is helpful in getting the most from the opinions of professionals,like James, whose opinions are quite helpful in making equipment decisions.
Thanks again,
Jerry Reed
-
here is a calculator. Trying to figure it out myself. LOL
http://www.captureintegration.com/tools/our-tools/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/tools/our-tools/)
-
here is a calculator. Trying to figure it out myself. LOL
http://www.captureintegration.com/tools/our-tools/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/tools/our-tools/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212295\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Okay my bad it is 106mm on the P25 and on a P30 it is 118mm in respect to FF 35mm
-
relating MF to 35mm values is based on the diagonal though, so dependent on what you shoot, you need to recalcuate those figures if you wanted to compare object to camera distance
-
I'm using the P25 plus but which is about a 90mm in 35mm FF . James is shooting the P30 plus and P 21plus which has a 1.3 crop factor so it is I believe around 120mm for those backs. Myself i love the 75mm to 90 mm focal lengths in 35mm FF, so for me the 150mm is not too long. The lens cost is about 3300.00 US
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212286\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not the crop, it's the compression. For 75% of what I do, 150mm is too long, even for full frame (whatever that is anymore). 150mm looks to detached for me. Like I'm peering through some window and if I want that look then I need even a longer lens.
Medium format needs an 85mm Canon 1.2 equivilent. That lens is magic and is so good I thought about having it welded to my Canons.
My F series Blad 110 F2 is close to the same, but it's manual focus and requires stop down.
JR
P.S. We can all thank Mark Tucker for saving the 85mm 1.2 from the scrap heap of KEH. His early RG days caused huge interest and kept that lens alive. Canon should send him a Lexus.
-
BMW
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I probably shouldn't speak about MT, since he's not active here anymore, but he is the perfect tester (God he'd hate that term) for a camera system, cause he'd beat the living hell out of it then stick it back together with liquid nails, shoot 4 photos of every part that broke and tell us all about it .
That's what every maker needs and usually the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, last thing any camera maker wants to hear in public.
It's a shame because MT knows that we buy these things to make a living and move our art upstream so we can do better work and make a better living and buy more of this stuff to make even a better living.
He knows that these aren't Rolexes we put on our wrist to wow the golfers at the Country Club and unlike 98% of all the photographers in the world, MT ain't looking for anything free.
The perfect tester.
JR
-
110 f2 is a must. Let me repeat this . . . A MUST.
150mm is too long for nearly all fashion/glamor and portrait, especially with any form of 1.16 to 1.26 crop.
2.8 is too slow. F2 or 2.4 at the slowest.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212251\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I bough the Hassy 110/2 and with an ebay adapter infinity focus looks good. Th lens is now welded on to my Mamiya, results are wonderful. I just wish there were an MF system with this lens available in AF.
Edmund
-
Okay my bad it is 106mm on the P25 and on a P30 it is 118mm in respect to FF 35mm
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=212296\")
The following are the same* as using the new 150mm f/2.8 lens on a P30/P21 (1.3x factor):
A 150mm f/2.8 lens used with a P30/P21
A 189mm f3.5 lens used with 120 film
A 118mm f2.2 lens used with 35mm film (or FF dSLR)
A 417mm f7.8 lens used with 4x5 film
The following are the same* as using the new 150mm f/2.8 lens on a P45/P25 (1.1 crop):
A 150mm f/2.8 lens used with a P45/P25
A 170mm f/3.2 lens used with 120 film
A 106mm f/2.0 lens used with 35mm film (or FF dSLR)
A 374mm f/7.0 lens used with 4x5 film
The following are the same* as using the new 150mm f/2.8 lens on a P65 (1.0 crop):
A 150mm f/2.8 lens used with a P65
A 155mm f/2.9 lens used with 120 film
A 96mm f/1.8 lens used with 35mm film (or FF dSLR)
A 341mm f/6.4 lens used with 4x5 film
Hope that clears things up; I know the numbers can start to get dizzying. I used our [a href=\"http://www.captureintegration.com/tools/our-tools/]Focal Length Equivalence Calculator[/url] (though I used a pre-release version that includes aperture equivalence).
[span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']
*obviously sharpness, bokeh etc of any lens made to these specs will vary widely; there is a huge difference between a lens which is relatively sharp wide open and one which is nearly unusable wide open[/span]
-
The following are the same* as using the new 150mm f/2.8 lens on a P30/P21 (1.3x factor):
A 150mm f/2.8 lens used with a P30/P21
A 189mm f3.5 lens used with 120 film
A 118mm f2.2 lens used with 35mm film (or FF dSLR)
A 417mm f7.8 lens used with 4x5 film
The following are the same* as using the new 150mm f/2.8 lens on a P45/P25 (1.1 crop):
A 150mm f/2.8 lens used with a P45/P25
A 170mm f/3.2 lens used with 120 film
A 106mm f/2.0 lens used with 35mm film (or FF dSLR)
A 374mm f/7.0 lens used with 4x5 film
The following are the same* as using the new 150mm f/2.8 lens on a P65 (1.0 crop):
A 150mm f/2.8 lens used with a P65
A 155mm f/2.9 lens used with 120 film
A 96mm f/1.8 lens used with 35mm film (or FF dSLR)
A 341mm f/6.4 lens used with 4x5 film
Hope that clears things up; I know the numbers can start to get dizzying. I used our Focal Length Equivalence Calculator (http://www.captureintegration.com/tools/our-tools/) (though I used a pre-release version that includes aperture equivalence).
[span style=\'font-size:8pt;line-height:100%\']
*obviously sharpness, bokeh etc of any lens made to these specs will vary widely; there is a huge difference between a lens which is relatively sharp wide open and one which is nearly unusable wide open[/span]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Charts are charts, pretty is pretty and you can convert these things all day long, but an 80mm on a p30 does not look like a 100 mm lens, it bends and looks like an 80mm that has been cropped.
Consequently a 150mm on a p30 does not "look" like a 190mm lens it looks like a 150mm that's been cropped (because it has).
Regardless 110 to around 120 in the current medium format backs is almost perfect for what a lot of us do, especailly if it is fast and fast is very important in the world of medium format because of the limited iso.
When I shoot with the 140 on location, I'm always out a door or in hallway or somewhere that doesn't allow much movement and 140 to 150mm is sometimes too much compression for what I'm shooting. I lose some of the humanity.
When I use the 110 blad lens that humanity comes back and I'm not down hallway, or perched across some bathroom sink.
I don't get why there is not a lot of 110 fast lenses for the new medium format cameras, because I'll bet you dollars to donuts Canon sells more 85 1.2's a month than Mamiya will sell that 150mm in two years.
Once again we can chart and convert this stuff until we run out of spread sheets but it doesn't change the fact that medium format needs more lenses.
JR
-
That 80/1.2 costs as much as a 5D these days - I don't think any 5D-only shooter who han't used one will buy it. We old guys have it, because we paid for the 1Ds and then the 85/1.2 was the price of an accessory.
Edmund
I don't get why there is not a lot of 110 fast lenses for the new medium format cameras, because I'll bet you dollars to donuts Canon sells more 85 1.2's a month than Mamiya will sell that 150mm in two years.re lenses.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212379\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Well I was not a big fan of the Canon 85mm 1.2 compared to the Leica R 80mm 1.4 and the Leica M 75 lux which given the 1.3 crop factor on them made them around 100mm lenses. I happen to like that focal length a lot myself but we all have different needs. Now 2.8 being slow is somewhat relative also. I can shoot at ISO 400 also without to much damage . Yes faster would be nice no question but than size would be a factor too. I gave up on stop down crap. I did it way to long and it sucks in the long run. But let's also face some reality you need high ISO you may just turn to Nikon or Canon for it but I just did a runway show in NY at ISO 800 that just sings with my P25 Plus. So I guess much depends on what soup you are in on any given moment.
-
Well I was not a big fan of the Canon 85mm 1.2 compared to the Leica R 80mm 1.4 and the Leica M 75 lux which given the 1.3 crop factor on them made them around 100mm lenses. I happen to like that focal length a lot myself but we all have different needs. Now 2.8 being slow is somewhat relative also. I can shoot at ISO 400 also without to much damage . Yes faster would be nice no question but than size would be a factor too. I gave up on stop down crap. I did it way to long and it sucks in the long run. But let's also face some reality you need high ISO you may just turn to Nikon or Canon for it but I just did a runway show in NY at ISO 800 that just sings with my P25 Plus. So I guess much depends on what soup you are in on any given moment.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Guy, I like the garage shot, nice lighting. As for the lens, I'm sorry but apart from your personal very high skill as a photographer, and nice choice of topic, framing and lighting, I'm not impressed by the actual technical qualities you are showing from this product. I have the old 150, can be had at $300 from any used dealer in the US. The Hassy 110 has the blur and the speed if that is what one wants ... funny part is as soon as I put the 110 on the Mamiya, I could see the difference on the back display, it must be something to do with the way the light exits the rear pupil.
Edmund
-
funny part is as soon as I put the 110 on the Mamiya, I could see the difference on the back display, it must be something to do with the way the light exits the rear pupil.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Show it
-
Show it
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212400\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My pleasure. Snapshot. Look at the way it blurs smoothly from sharp hair to blurry hair to wipeout background. No photoshopping, taken in direct sunlight.
Edmund
-
But let's also face some reality you need high ISO you may just turn to Nikon or Canon for it but I just did a runway show in NY at ISO 800 that just sings with my P25 Plus. So I guess much depends on what soup you are in on any given moment.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't know what Runway Fashion show you were shooting, but if your working the Risers in Bryant Park, your gonna starve shooting anything that doesn't make a jpeg in 1 second, because by the time you correct and batch process a medium format file, those guys and girls are going to already have sold 65,000 images to Vogue, In-Style and every designer with a website and lookbook.
Tthose guys are uploading when they run between the shows.
As far as 800 iso, if your getting clean and detailed 800 iso from a p25 I'd like to know the secret, because I just wasted 4 hours of my life testing a 1ds, 1ds2, D3, p21+ and p30+ using available light and card fill for two upcoming gigs and no matter how many processors I try, the medium format backs just don't do 800 really clean.
Now one thing I noticed big time with the P backs is at high iso how sensitive they are to exposure. 1/2 stop makes a world of difference in the shadow noise and detail and it's a big difference, not a I kind of see it difference.
If medium format wants to make about $3,000 per present owner (or at least 1/2 of them) give us a clean 800 iso and at really good lcd that you can see 1/2 stop difference.
JR
I own and use two digital backs and for what they do they are great.
End of disclaimer.
-
James there pretty darn clean. Not maybe Nikon ISO 800 clean but nothing to sneeze at
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2694 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2694)
-
James,
Having done my share of fashion shows, i would prefer any day to take my original 1Ds and 85/1.2 or 200/1.8 rather than any MF kit. I had hopes, but I've changed my mind. Not with the present kit.
My stuff got published in monthlies, so no issues with timing, but I needed sharp, and the focus on the 1Ds was *fast*. As the images below show, one can get very sharp well-defined shots off the catwalk if the lens is right and the focus clicks in.
The english photographers who come over to Paris are notorious for their aggressive defense of their space, over here catwalk is a very physical job which needs sharp elbows.
Edmund
(http://edmundronald.googlepages.com/1compvisit.jpg)
Now one thing I noticed big time with the P backs is at high iso how sensitive they are to exposure. 1/2 stop makes a world of difference in the shadow noise and detail and it's a big difference, not a I kind of see it difference.
If medium format wants to make about $5,000 per present owner (or at least 1/2 of them) give us a clean 800 iso and at really good lcd that you can see 1/2 stop difference.
I'll sign up for that upgrade today.
JR
Beginning of disclaimer.
I own and use two digital backs and for what they do and as long as there is a lot of light they are great.
End of disclaimer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
deleted. double post
-
My pleasure. Snapshot. Look at the way it blurs smoothly from sharp hair to blurry hair to wipeout background. No photoshopping, taken in direct sunlight.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212430\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can't complain, but the background is almost white.... I'd rather see it with the busy background!
Thanks anyway
-
James there pretty darn clean. Not maybe Nikon ISO 800 clean but nothing to sneeze at
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2694 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2694)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212446\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not saying it doesn't work for you, your images are a different style and genre to which I work, but direct light has a different effect than cross light, especially soft where the key is 3/4 back.
I've tested these things today until my eyes bleed and don't get me wrong, I want these back to work clean at 800.
I have no desire to go buy a Canon, or anything else for that matter, then again testing them next to the 1ds3 in this specific lighting, leaves no doubt which one goes to higher iso with less problem.
I also have to note that for identical exposures, at identical iso, the Canons were about 2/3 of a stop more sensitive or allowed about 2/3's of a stop higher shutter speed.
That's a big difference, especially shooting the projects I have coming up.
Now in all fairness, the 1ds2 and 1ds1 did not fare much better than the P30+ and p21+. The noise was more evenly spaced and less centered on the dark areas, which probably means in print it's less noticable, but they were not out of the park winners.
The 1ds3 was.
At least in todays test.
JR
-
That 80/1.2 costs as much as a 5D these days - I don't think any 5D-only shooter who han't used one will buy it. We old guys have it, because we paid for the 1Ds and then the 85/1.2 was the price of an accessory.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Although I don't particular shoot lens wide open, the bright lens does have a lot of advantage for sharper focus, give the photographer more time in later of the day to shoot good focused image, and of course their quality is good. I like the 85/1.2L and it has outlived my 1Ds, and 1Ds MK2 and now serving my 1Ds MK3, the good lens is in fact to me of more value to keep than digital cameras.
Me too agreed with James that today's trend of shooting, lens longer than 110-120mm range is somewhat a little too long, at least it is also like that for me. I rarely need to use 140mm or 150mm, especially when we account the smaller than true 645 format, although crop factor does not really make up the true focal length of the lens. The lens design for the format has its particular relationship for the scale between the foreground to background, the prime object to the surrounding. I would not go a far as saying the 110/2.2 is a must, but I admit it is the most used lens for me when shooting portrait with my H3D39. The Zeiss 110/2 for Hasselblaf FE is a good lens and I use often withe adapter on my Contax and the Rollei mount 110/2 for Hy6 is also still available new, both are not difficult to find. But, a modern AF version would certainly be welcome.
-
I have no desire to go buy a Canon, or anything else for that matter, then again testing them next to the 1ds3 in this specific lighting, leaves no doubt which one goes to higher iso with less problem.
JR
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=212502\")
James, without wishing to offend you, I think you should test the 1Ds3's focus carefully before you use one in a pay job; Rob Galbraith documents that the focus of the 1Ds3 is like that of the 1DIII still somewhat unreliable. The "fix" didn't really work.
[a href=\"http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9357]http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_pag...-8740-9068-9357[/url]
Rob has taken hundreds and hundreds of images in each of a number of sports and also lifestyle assignments, and statistically documents the number of in-focus images. What is rather surprising is that the single point one-shot focus which we all love and use is according to him less reliable than a pulse of servo AI AF.
Edmund
-
James, without wishing to offend you, I think you should test the 1Ds3's focus carefully before you use one in a pay job; Rob Galbraith documents that the focus of the 1Ds3 is like that of the 1DIII still somewhat unreliable. The "fix" didn't really work.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_pag...-8740-9068-9357 (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9357)
Rob has taken hundreds and hundreds of images in each of a number of sports and also lifestyle assignments, and statistically documents the number of in-focus images. What is rather surprising is that the single point one-shot focus which we all love and use is according to him less reliable than a pulse of servo AI AF.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212525\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've owned every Canon digital except the 1d Mark III and except for the mark2N, have found auto focus to be almost a mirror to these findings, even on stationary subjects with slight movement.
I'm actually surprised that it took so long for it to get reported, but like most things with digital it usually is scene and lighting dependent.
Consequently the Nikon D3 is like a sniper rifle in comparison, always sharp with amazing tracking ability. Really amazing in any light.
Still, as of now, (at least until the next round of Nikons are introduced) the Canon makes the best high pixel count/high iso file of anything.
For a lot of work that we do, especially on location, I can't stress enough how much higher iso and a good lcd is important for medium format.
A month back we shot a fashion gig with back window light and HMI fill into 12x rags and cards.
With the P30+ set right on the edge of usability at 400 iso and around 4.5 it was a constant situation of adding light, first for the fill, so we could actually go to 4.5 then for the background outside so we could get back to a natural balance.
Then you find yourself saying for the most part of the day, hold it, hold it, because your always running at 1/60th, locked down on a tripod.
Consequently had I shot them with a higher iso dslr camera it would have easily been a one or two hmi day and I probably could have hand held 90% of the shoot.
Just from a pure business standpoint you increase your production load and time involvement 30%.
Add to the fact we normally shoot some motion video of each session using flash vs. hmi's means another set of lights and this compounds the costs and the time once again.
I know this is a medium format forum and everybody's hot to push the image quality of a medium format camera, but image quality in medium format takes a big dive at higher isos and don't compare medium format to film, because pushing neg film to 800 iso may have been grainy but it was pretty. Pushing a medium format back to 800 iso and all of the converters start smearing the blacks, sometimes so much that on default settings the blacks look like oil stains.
You can change converters, play with settings sharpen in photoshop etc. etc. etc. and make it useable, but once again it's on the edge and now your post production workload has doubled.
And to top it off the lcd's just aren't reliable, so you have to be either hooked to the cart o' rocks or a tripod with a laptop.
I've got the tripod laptop thing down to a science and since our c-1 sessions are done prior to shooting, the setup time is probably only 5 or 10 minutes at best but do that 10 times a day and you lose an hour of shooting. A great or even semi good lcd, would be worth it's weight in gold.
(Now I've done it and road mapped another $7,000 upgrade for medium format to lay on us).
For what my Plus backs do well, they do it brilliantly. With a lot of light and tethered, they are rock stable, the file quality is really amazing and regardless of who likes what proportion, I find the 4:3 crop to be much nicer and though nicer is a broad term it just looks more lavish and not as squeezed as 35mm. I just think 35mm in vertical looks cheap and I don't know how to explain it but that's the way it looks to me and I loathe turning those Canons on their side and shooting a vertical.
Still, yesterday, testing all of those cameras I look at those beautiful contax's and those expensive backs and it's just a heartbreak to think those cameras will sit in a bag.
Packing up the Mark II's to sell, doesn't bother me in the least as I have no emotional attachment to those two cameras, but if I sold my contax bodies, I would be sad.
I can only speak for myself, but my attachment to cameras starts with the lenses, then the body, then the back. Obviously the back is now the film and it must work seamlessly and without it we're shooting nothing, but my heart is with the lenses and the camera.
Maybe that's why I could never warm up to the H series blads. They just look like they were designed by a committee, and the Mamiya also throws me because they don't feel as substantial. Actually the only camera that I would even think about replacing the Contax with would be the Rolliflex and even if I owned Leaf or Sinar backs, I would never write that check for that camera until I was positive that any back would fit on it, because in the digital world things can change.
As much as I hate buying anything else, I just don't understand why there is not a 10 grand p21 that goes to high iso. and has a useable lcd. Heck I'd even live with the 1.26 crop as at this point I'm use to it.
Those two features would keep the Canons off my set 90% of the time or probably make me never need to buy one in the first place.
Maybe the p65+ will give us higher iso, but since that would be all I would ever use it for, $40,000 is just way too much for a high iso camera. In fact . . . well . . . whatever.
Maybe I'm naive, but medium format digital is the only business I know that guarantees that their customers must purchase a competitors product.
JR
-
In the 1ds3, there is now a Custom Function that allows the User to calibrate the autofocus of the lenses. You can test and enter up to twenty "profiles" of combinations of bodies and lenses. The only limitation is, if you have two 85 1.2's, it can't tell the difference, it does it by focal length and not serial number.
So anyway, instead of being forced to send off your body and lens to Irvine, like in the 1ds2 days, you simply do a ruler test on a tripod, and adjust the Custom Function of the lens until it's hitting right on the money.
This is, of course assumes someone is shooting autofocus, which I never do, and I can't imagine James does either.
I own two 1ds3's. My two bodies are dead on the money with all of my lenses, right out of the factory, if shot on manual focus.
Whatever. If your autofocus is off, Canon now provides you a way to tweak it, without sending it to the factory. Again, a checkmark in the column for Canon, over medium format.
-
In the 1ds3, there is now a Custom Function that allows the User to calibrate the autofocus of the lenses. You can test and enter up to twenty "profiles" of combinations of bodies and lenses. The only limitation is, if you have two 85 1.2's, it can't tell the difference, it does it by focal length and not serial number.
So anyway, instead of being forced to send off your body and lens to Irvine, like in the 1ds2 days, you simply do a ruler test on a tripod, and adjust the Custom Function of the lens until it's hitting right on the money.
This is, of course assumes someone is shooting autofocus, which I never do, and I can't imagine James does either.
I own two 1ds3's, and I don't give a damn about Rob Galbraith and his night football business. My two bodies are dead on the money with all of my lenses, right out of the factory, if shot on manual focus. James does not shoot what Galbraith shoots.
Whatever. If your autofocus is off, Canon now provides you a way to tweak it, without sending it to the factory. Again, a checkmark in the column for Canon, over medium format.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212549\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
100% agree.
For most things I really don't like auto focus. In fact I don't like much of auto anything.
Nothing tells you more about a photo than to move the focus to the eye or hand or whatever you want and see it snap into focus.
It's magic and all autofocus does is give you some general look. Even on the most commercial of jobs I hate that general look.
Now given that I don't know why we don't have huge prisms or magnifiers or big ass waist level finders.
The Rolliflex has it, but the camera is not the issue in medium format, it's the iso and the backs.
I drop my jaw when I see all of these new announcements and the two things photographers have asked for for 5 years . . . a good lcd . . . . higher iso, is just not mentioned.
It's not like medium format doesn't have some things down really well. The file quality with a lot o light is pretty damn amazing and if your stuck tethering all day long to that cart o' rocks, no dslr will be as easy, though it is possible.
Regardless of all of this, I have never had a conversation about cameras (in the digital age) with anyone, where at the very end price is not mentioned.
Last night I spoke to a friend who is a very good photographer and we were talking about the new medium format backs.
End of the conversation was (they all go like this), before I spend another 20 or 40 grand it better have high iso and a great lcd.
Every time, every conversation.
JR
-
100% agree.
For most things I really don't like auto focus. In fact I don't like much of auto anything.
Nothing tells you more about a photo than to move the focus to the eye or hand or whatever you want and see it snap into focus.
It's magic and all autofocus does is give you some general look. Even on the most commercial of jobs I hate that general look.
Now given that I don't know why we don't have huge prisms or magnifiers or big ass waist level finders.
The Rolliflex has it, but the camera is not the issue in medium format, it's the iso and the backs.
I drop my jaw when I see all of these new announcements and the two things photographers have asked for for 5 years . . . a good lcd . . . . higher iso, is just not mentioned.
It's not like medium format doesn't have some things down really well. The file quality with a lot o light is pretty damn amazing and if your stuck tethering all day long to that cart o' rocks, no dslr will be as easy, though it is possible.
Regardless of all of this, I have never had a conversation about cameras (in the digital age) with anyone, where at the very end price is not mentioned.
Last night I spoke to a friend who is a very good photographer and we were talking about the new medium format backs.
End of the conversation was (they all go like this), before I spend another 20 or 40 grand it better have high iso and a great lcd.
Every time, every conversation.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree but do not understand how the hell you guys are manually focusing the 1DsMII..
Either you have Eagle eyes or you freakin lucky!.
I can see shit in my Canon Viewfinder and I have a Brightscreen in it...
I guess you guys are talking about in VERY well lit areas and maybe waist up portraits...
Other wise I have a hard time beleiveing either one of you..:+]
SNook
-
I agree but do not understand how the hell you guys are manually focusing the 1DsMII..
Either you have Eagle eyes or you freakin lucky!.
I can see shit in my Canon Viewfinder and I have a Brightscreen in it...
I guess you guys are talking about in VERY well lit areas and maybe waist up portraits...
Other wise I have a hard time beleiveing either one of you..:+]
SNook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212566\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't have eagle eyes, but after 80 billion photographs you get the hang of it.
Also never discount the fear factor.
Fear of failure is a great motivator.
JR
-
I manual focus all the time and this lens no exception so far. It is pretty easy to manual focus. I guess some of us old dogs are pretty good at manual focusing since that is all we had for many years. Certainly a acquired taste. LOL
I simply don't trust AF in a lot of ways. I use it but sparingly
-
My pleasure. Snapshot. Look at the way it blurs smoothly from sharp hair to blurry hair to wipeout background. No photoshopping, taken in direct sunlight.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212430\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Edmond do you sit around in the park next to the eiffel tower all day shooting Tourist...:+}
I bet you the only one out there shooting tourist and people with a P45..
Snook
-
I don't have eagle eyes, but after 80 billion photographs you get the hang of it.
Also never discount the fear factor.
Fear of failure is a great motivator.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212567\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
After Shooting 20 years with medium format I have no problem focusing and was actually known for not having hardly any shots OOF.
But after that then when I moved to the 1Ds it was a joke trying to manual focus.
I have heard the Viewfinder in the DsIII is much better... I have not tried it.
I have always had an issue from day one with the focus on the Canon... I hated it. that and the 250th flash sync. But still better than mamiya.
Hey any news on those Leaf shutter lens???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
That is when I will be a happy camper...
Snook
-
After Shooting 20 years with medium format I have no problem focusing and was actually known for not having hardly any shots OOF.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=212578\")
We'll take your word for it, except when you use a loner back.
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26677&hl=]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=26677&hl=[/url]
-
We'll take your word for it, except when you use a loner back.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....topic=26677&hl= (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26677&hl=)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry but I don't see what that has to do with it... That is the back/Camera not me...:+]
Also had problems with the RZIIPROD until I got another Screen...:+}
Snook
Also I was wondering why you always say cart O' Racks when you shoot with your phase..?
You can always shoot to the CF card. Again back in the old films days you did not have a BIG LCD either. you had a polaroid but was useful for that one shot.. the rest was up in the air until you got the film back..
I think some people really have gotten spoiled with Digital and start whining a lot.
Step back and think about how it used to work and then might not bitch about every little thing.
If you sure of your lighting and many even go by histogram which is really the only thing that matters.
In the old days you did not have so much luck as to see "every" fram on a damn LCD..:+}
Reminds me of the Wall-E movie..
we all going to fat Photographers with LCD in your asse's....
sweeping around on hover carts taking picturs with a future red Video cameras.... hahaha
Then you might call it Hover Cart o' Rocks
Just my Opinion
*Snook
PS. I also would love a huge LCD etc... But that's life.. My Audi Quattro is AWD but I do not take it Off roading in deep mud too often...Some times in the snow... My Wife's Jeep is better for that...
Plus many scream in here how there should e this and there should be that... But truthfully I just do not think the market is that Big to be popping off new designs every 2-3 years like Canon...
Completely different market. Canon can do it b/c of there Volume.
In my market which is really small, there are about 4-8 photographer who "may" be interested in MFDB. ANd than from ther they all have their different options. One has Mamaiya the other hassleblad and the other Contax and the other Pentax etc...
35mm is Nikon or Canon, That narrows everything down and creates Volume...:+}
In other words the 35mm people have really only 2 choices. as in the MFDB world there or many more. I feel that will be changing really soon.
We'll see which ones will be staying in for the long hall.
My Bet is Phase and HassleBlad.. with Leaf Holding in there some where.
I know sinar is a great back but just do not see them in the RACE.
Some of these guys might even start merging like Phamiya.
-
I have always had an issue from day one with the focus on the Canon... I hated it.
Maybe you want to try manual Zeiss lenses on your Canon. Longer adjustment track, better lenses.
(Myself I have not a Canon but know that some people are very happy with this combination with regard to manual focus and IQ... maybe it's worth a try?).
-
I agree but do not understand how the hell you guys are manually focusing the 1DsMII..
Either you have Eagle eyes or you freakin lucky!.
I can see shit in my Canon Viewfinder and I have a Brightscreen in it...
I guess you guys are talking about in VERY well lit areas and maybe waist up portraits...
Other wise I have a hard time beleiveing either one of you..:+]
SNook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212566\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No problems manual focusing the 1DSMKII. In fact, I used to use it on autofocus mode and the percentage of bad ones was pretty large. Since I went back to manual focussing, practically every single shot is in focus and I have normal eyesight. But then, like many people here, I was 'brought up" on manual everything.
-
Maybe you want to try manual Zeiss lenses on your Canon. Longer adjustment track, better lenses.
(Myself I have not a Canon but know that some people are very happy with this combination with regard to manual focus and IQ... maybe it's worth a try?).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I use the CAnon Mainly for Catalogues now and actually prefer using the AF as it is MUCH easier.
I am not shooting Rocket science or something that is going to be in the photography books...:+]
Now I use the RZ and AFDII for my personal stuff.. Actually have got some great stuff with the 80 1.9 manual focus on the AFDII... Sweet lens.
The bummer is they are all stop down lens and that is not easy when working with people like I do.
I am fine with what the Canon is for.. It serves it's purpose.
Why would I want to put a Zeiss lens on a Canon sensor. especially if I have an RZ and AFDII.
I would understand that if I was Canon Only.
Anything that is need with Zeiss manual focus should be shot with my MFDB anyways.
Everything else goes MFDB.
I could see zeiss on the Phase One.. But Canon?
My Bag will be for the next couple of years. P30 P30+ and My 1DsMII and Maybe a DsMIII here son just to round of the Weapons.
I also agree with james on the format of 35mm is just strange? The only pictures I like from it are Horizontal but you cannot crop that much if need on the 1DsMII if you ask me.
If I know they will be using the image Vertical. I will shoot vertical.
Snook
PS.. Although the Focus on the mamiya is restricted to a smal area and slower than Canon. I find it WAY more accurate.
I shot it yesterday for Triumph (lingerie not car) campaign and had a hard time finding a picture Out of Focus
:+}
-
Sorry but I don't see what that has to do with it... That is the back/Camera not me...:+]
Also had problems with the RZIIPROD until I got another Screen...:+}
Snook
Also I was wondering why you always say cart O' Racks when you shoot with your phase..?
Just my Opinion
*Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212582\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey man, don't shoot the messanger, I'm just listing the facts.
We all can have equipment issues, it's just the name o' the game.
As far as the cart o' rocks vs. and lcd, don't think you and about 3,000 others wouldn't jump at the fact of having and Iphone type lcd.
Same with iso. You may be studio bound, but working continuous light has a lot of advantages.
Anyway, I'm just having fun and don't take any of this as seriously as it comes off in print.
JR
-
The only autofocus thing that ever got my attention was that one weird Canon body, where there was some tiny little man inside the camera, and he would watch wherever you were watching, inside the viewfinder, and wherever your eye went, the little man would move the autofocus sensor to that exact spot.
When I saw that ad, I thought, "No way in hell. This can't be true. That is just too amazing". I never talked to anyone that ever bought that camera, so I don't know if it worked or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye-controlle...rolled_focusing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye-controlled_focussing#Eye-controlled_focusing)
The thing with autofocus to me is: It sets up this really weird internal dialogue inside my brain. I see what the shot is going to be, basically, and then I try to move that little red thing around until it sorta comes close to where I think I'm going to want to focus. (Already, by this time, I've used so much brain power that I'm already tired, just thinking about how to move the little red thing).
So then, the shot starts, and my brain starts freaking out, hoping (praying) that where the subject is, the little red thing is in that exact spot, just at the exact moment that the talent is looking great and perfect. At least for me, the whole thing is very stressful, liking I'm shooting a gun or something, and the laser beam has to be right over John Gotti's head.
Or, even worse, you get into that thing where you compose, but the red thing is not over the subject's face, so you move the camera, to get the red thing right, and then you pat your head and rub your stomach, and hold down a certain button to lock the focus, and then you recompose, and then hopefully shoot one frame! By that time, I'm exhausted again, and the talent is pissed, because two hours have gone by since they walked out onto the set, and I've only shot two frames, and I'm sweating like a pig, from the stress of using autofocus.
I just say, set your Diopter right, get a damn good screen, and manual/follow focus, and reduce the stress.
Maybe I'm missing something. I can't imagine that anyone uses autofocus, except maybe Rob Galbraith or LaForet. Autofocus is only for Beijing.
-
Hey man, don't shoot the messanger, I'm just listing the facts.
We all can have equipment issues, it's just the name o' the game.
As far as the cart o' rocks vs. and lcd, don't think you and about 3,000 others wouldn't jump at the fact of having and Iphone type lcd.
Same with iso. You may be studio bound, but working continuous light has a lot of advantages.
Anyway, I'm just having fun and don't take any of this as seriously as it comes off in print.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212589\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course I would I am a tech Junkie like most in here.
I just don't see how they could do it (The companies) and Please everyone and try to keep up with Canons... It is impossible. UNLESS, like you mentioned, also that they lower their prices and build a bigger market.
A good example is how many medium format sites are there? and of those which are any good?
Even PhaseOnes Forum is the WORST forum I have ever seen.
This is the only one I am in and even have time for.
Now look how many 35mm sites there are any how much advertising is posted all over them.
Just trying to put myself in their shoes. the shoes of the Back makers that is.
Let me tell you.. I HATE my P30 screen and think it is an absolute joke for this type of Back.
But I bought it anyways knowing that and you did to.
And I like the quality.
Either way the major Back dealers must being planning something b/c it might just be that next Canon that will destroy what they have left.
They need to get their shit together and produce lens worth all those megapixels and reach a price point.
My clients do not a 50,000$ difference in the images.
Only retocuhers and I (And other photographers) see the difference in my images... But unfortunately they do not pay the bill...
Snook
By the way 150 Does look very sharp indeed... Which was the point of this post...
-
Snook - after factoring in the crop lines for a P30 in the 645AFD II viewfinder vs the 1Ds3, the 1Ds3 viewfinder feels larger to me. I spent many hours comparing the 645AFD II with a P25 to the 1Ds2 and 1Ds3 viewfinder. After accounting for the crop factors/lines I "felt" the 1Ds2 was about the same as the 645AFD II view. The 1Ds3 felt bigger. This is difficult to compare, so I stress the word "felt". I did the comparison with Mamiya 80mm AF 2.8 and a Canon 50L F1.0 (on the Canons of course). In terms of brightness, the Mamiya 645AFD II viewfinder with a F2.8 viewfinder felt about as bright as a 1Ds2 viewfinder with a F4 lens. Overall I think the 1Ds3's two strongest features are its viewfinder and its higher ISO performance.
-
Snook - after factoring in the crop lines for a P30 in the 645AFD II viewfinder vs the 1Ds3, the 1Ds3 viewfinder feels larger to me. I spent many hours comparing the 645AFD II with a P25 to the 1Ds2 and 1Ds3 viewfinder. After accounting for the crop factors/lines I "felt" the 1Ds2 was about the same as the 645AFD II view. The 1Ds3 felt bigger. This is difficult to compare, so I stress the word "felt". I did the comparison with Mamiya 80mm AF 2.8 and a Canon 50L F1.0 (on the Canons of course). In terms of brightness, the Mamiya 645AFD II viewfinder with a F2.8 viewfinder felt about as bright as a 1Ds2 viewfinder with a F4 lens. Overall I think the 1Ds3's two strongest features are its viewfinder and its higher ISO performance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212606\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the information
Hoping to check out a 1DsMIII on my trip to the state right now.
Anybody know any good stores in Houston Texas..
Will be there for a week or so.
Thanks
Snook
-
I agree but do not understand how the hell you guys are manually focusing the 1DsMII..
Either you have Eagle eyes or you freakin lucky!.
I can see shit in my Canon Viewfinder and I have a Brightscreen in it...
I guess you guys are talking about in VERY well lit areas and maybe waist up portraits...
Other wise I have a hard time beleiveing either one of you..:+]
SNook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212566\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Snook, the 1DsIII, whatever its faults has a usable finder.
Edmund
-
The only autofocus thing that ever got my attention was that one weird Canon body, where there was some tiny little man inside the camera, and he would watch wherever you were watching, inside the viewfinder, and wherever your eye went, the little man would move the autofocus sensor to that exact spot.
When I saw that ad, I thought, "No way in hell. This can't be true. That is just too amazing". I never talked to anyone that ever bought that camera, so I don't know if it worked or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye-controlle...rolled_focusing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye-controlled_focussing#Eye-controlled_focusing)
The thing with autofocus to me is: It sets up this really weird internal dialogue inside my brain. I see what the shot is going to be, basically, and then I try to move that little red thing around until it sorta comes close to where I think I'm going to want to focus. (Already, by this time, I've used so much brain power that I'm already tired, just thinking about how to move the little red thing).
So then, the shot starts, and my brain starts freaking out, hoping (praying) that where the subject is, the little red thing is in that exact spot, just at the exact moment that the talent is looking great and perfect. At least for me, the whole thing is very stressful, liking I'm shooting a gun or something, and the laser beam has to be right over John Gotti's head.
Or, even worse, you get into that thing where you compose, but the red thing is not over the subject's face, so you move the camera, to get the red thing right, and then you pat your head and rub your stomach, and hold down a certain button to lock the focus, and then you recompose, and then hopefully shoot one frame! By that time, I'm exhausted again, and the talent is pissed, because two hours have gone by since they walked out onto the set, and I've only shot two frames, and I'm sweating like a pig, from the stress of using autofocus.
I just say, set your Diopter right, get a damn good screen, and manual/follow focus, and reduce the stress.
Maybe I'm missing something. I can't imagine that anyone uses autofocus, except maybe Rob Galbraith or LaForet. Autofocus is only for Beijing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212596\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I love that camera.it's in my cupboard right now. I used to shoot people with a wide lens and the other hand adjusting their faces so my eye would do the focusing.
too bad they never worked further on that autofocus concept...
-
Why would I want to put a Zeiss lens on a Canon sensor. especially if I have an RZ and AFDII.
agreed ... only you can determine what lenses you personally prefer to
use/mount, for a given application, and with/on which system.
though, other photogs choose to mount Zeiss glass on their digital Canon
(or Nikon) as they may be seeking a particular look and/or other lens-
specific characteristics (and or logistics) that a Canon (or a Nikon) sensor
and Zeiss lens (or other lens brand, for that matter) combo offers that's
not available otherwise.
Anything that is need with Zeiss manual focus should be shot with my MFDB anyways.
it seems that Zeiss has a different opinion on this topic.
(Zeiss ZM (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/09E9E4037570DBB2C125711100459881) Zeiss ZF,ZK,ZS (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/8E8AE439A3FD6101C125711B005A77C4))
as well as, of course, other photogs who've adopted various older and/or
discontinued Zeiss glass to their 35mm dSLRs (and aSLRs).
hey ... but what do they know.
-
Just trying to put myself in their shoes. the shoes of the Back makers that is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212598\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't know what medium format shoes are like because they just don't get their message out, or even worse they just don't want to tell their message, the good and the bad.
Hopefully more good than bad, but at least give us some wink or nod that your listening.
They all need a video where the CEO of each company answers straight talk.
__________________________________________________________________________
MR: So CEO, why is 800 iso smeared or yucky?
CEO: Because Dalsa and Kodak are cheap and won't make new sensors that's not already sitting on the shelf. They will cut some different sizes, I think the last one they suggested was a oval, because there is more yield to cutting ovals.
MR: So CEO, what is the answer?
CEO: After my kids soccer practice I took the Jersey Turnpike over to Sony and they are making a new sensor now, for 1/2 price and it will be out in 12 days. Goes iso 2 to 2,000.
MR: How bout that lcd?
CEO: Yea, no problem man, I went down last night and bought 600 ipod touches on my mastercard and my guys are ripping those screens out now. We should have them glued on the back of the camera in a week, just about the time the UPS guy shows up with the sensors.
MR: Good job.
CEO: Thank You.
_________________________________________________________________________
I know the people at Leaf and Phase and through this Forum Sinar Theirry and they're all nice people busting tail to give us specialty equipment. I appreciate that more than I can write, but then again, I got work to do, so instead of me tossing another 8 grand over to Cophenhagan, Tokyo got it this time.
Today I bought the 1ds3. It took 6 minutes. Honestly, 6 minutes from when I drove up to the store and drove off. Let me repeat that . . . 6 minutes.
I came back, unwrapped it all like new, in case I freaked out and wanted to take it back and all I can say is it's great and makes me somewhat unhappy.
The great part is Canon has addressed about every complaint from the 1ds2. I mean everything is well thought out and everything just works.
The learning curve is about 15 minutes and about another 4 miutes to set all your custom stuff.
Every Canon lens I own fits, the little 4x5 black focuing screen fits, it's all just rock solid and almost frightening how well built.
You can manual focus and it may not pop like a RZ, but you can focus and be very accurate.
The sad part is all I want from my digital backs is 800 clean iso. I keep saying, have said it for years, but obviously medium format can't do it, or doesn't seem to think it's that important.
And remember 800 iso on even a 645 camera with the slight bellows factor (and the fact that the term iso seems to be a moveable item,) is equal to about 600 iso on a Canon, if even that. In other words F3.5 at 1/125 on a Canon is a lot brighter than 3.5 at 1/125 on the backs.
Damn.
I love those Contax cameras, I love shooting them, I know them so well I could shoot them during an acid flashback and not miss a beat.
Forget the lcd, cause at this point I don't see that changing that much either, but I can't in all of my justification for not blowing any more money on digital stuff, look at an 800 iso file from the backs and compare it to the Canon and not see a big difference.
Maybe it's just the two sensor makers. Maybe they just have the back companies by the nads, but for some reason nobody is producing a sensor that is that clean at high iso.
Now maybe the new backs will pixel bin or something like that and give us 800 iso clean. That's great, but for an extra 20 grand more?
Damn.
JR
P.S. Most of us are called to photograhy. It isn't just a job, or something to appease a work release program. Likewise we are drawn to cameras, real cameras, that look, feel, smell and work like professional instruments so if anybody reads the above and thinks I want an all 35mm dslr world, then I somehow miscommunicated.
-
The sad part is all I want from my digital backs is 800 clean iso. I keep saying, have said it for years, but obviously medium format can't do it, or doesn't seem to think it's that important.
I don't know much about chip technology. But I think this is CCD vs. CMOS. The Canons and the new Nikons, yes, are great in higher ISO. But when you compare CCD and CMOS in low and lowest ISO the CCD will have more details. And the look is more crisp. So better high ISO will go hand in hand with a loss of resolution in lowest ISO (today).
But let's see what's behind the scaleable pixel resolution of the upcoming P65+. If they do it with binning... possibly it's a step forward towhat you are asking for.
-
I don't know what medium format shoes are like because they just don't get their message out, or even worse they just don't want to tell their message, the good and the bad.
Hopefully more good than bad, but at least give us some wink or nod that your listening.
They all need a video where the CEO of each company answers straight talk.
__________________________________________________________________________
MR: So CEO, why is 800 iso smeared or yucky?
CEO: Because Dalsa and Kodak are cheap and won't make new sensors that's not already sitting on the shelf. They will cut some different sizes, I think the last one they suggested was a oval, because there is more yield to cutting ovals.
MR: So CEO, what is the answer?
CEO: After my kids soccer practice I took the Jersey Turnpike over to Sony and they are making a new sensor now, for 1/2 price and it will be out in 12 days. Goes iso 2 to 2,000.
MR: How bout that lcd?
CEO: Yea, no problem man, I went down last night and bought 600 ipod touches on my mastercard and my guys are ripping those screens out now. We should have them glued on the back of the camera in a week, just about the time the UPS guy shows up with the sensors.
MR: Good job.
CEO: Thank You.
_________________________________________________________________________
I know the people at Leaf and Phase and through this Forum Sinar Theirry and they're all nice people busting tail to give us specialty equipment. I appreciate that more than I can write, but then again, I got work to do, so instead of me tossing another 8 grand over to Cophenhagan, Tokyo got it this time.
Today I bought the 1ds3. It took 6 minutes. Honestly, 6 minutes from when I drove up to the store and drove off. Let me repeat that . . . 6 minutes.
I came back, unwrapped it all like new, in case I freaked out and wanted to take it back and all I can say is it's great and makes me somewhat unhappy.
The great part is Canon has addressed about every complaint from the 1ds2. I mean everything is well thought out and everything just works.
The learning curve is about 15 minutes and about another 4 miutes to set all your custom stuff.
Every Canon lens I own fits, the little 4x5 black focuing screen fits, it's all just rock solid and almost frightening how well built.
You can manual focus and it may not pop like a RZ, but you can focus and be very accurate.
The sad part is all I want from my digital backs is 800 clean iso. I keep saying, have said it for years, but obviously medium format can't do it, or doesn't seem to think it's that important.
And remember 800 iso on even a 645 camera with the slight bellows factor (and the fact that the term iso seems to be a moveable item,) is equal to about 600 iso on a Canon, if even that. In other words F3.5 at 1/125 on a Canon is a lot brighter than 3.5 at 1/125 on the backs.
Damn.
I love those Contax cameras, I love shooting them, I know them so well I could shoot them during an acid flashback and not miss a beat.
Forget the lcd, cause at this point I don't see that changing that much either, but I can't in all of my justification for not blowing any more money on digital stuff, look at an 800 iso file from the backs and compare it to the Canon and not see a big difference.
Maybe it's just the two sensor makers. Maybe they just have the back companies by the nads, but for some reason nobody is producing a sensor that is that clean at high iso.
Now maybe the new backs will pixel bin or something like that and give us 800 iso clean. That's great, but for an extra 20 grand more?
Damn.
JR
P.S. Most of us are called to photograhy. It isn't just a job, or something to appease a work release program. Likewise we are drawn to cameras, real cameras, that look, feel, smell and work like professional instruments so if anybody reads the above and thinks I want an all 35mm dslr world, then I somehow miscommunicated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Funny James I always thought you were on the Nikon side? Why did you go canon instead of Nikon...?
I remember we e-mailed each other way back and you suggested I not buy the P30 and get 1 Nikon instead.?
Now you bought a Canon...
What happened...;+}
Did you buy the 1DsMIII for any particular reason.. did you buy it try and say something to the MF companies that you are so disappointed with ?
Almost sounds like you bought it just to prove a point?
Is that the case?
After you get to play with it I would love to hear what you think about it and he quality compared to your P30?
Thanks
Snook
-
F
Did you buy the 1DsMIII for any particular reason.. did you buy it try and say something to the MF companies
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course not. I just have two large projects in production that require 640 to 800 clean iso and though they are different genres, on different coasts, the discipline is close to the same.
Nothing more, nothing less and I will continue to use my phase backs when I can.
I doubt seriously if I will ever compare them side by side, except for my recent quick test.
They are just different cameras and for this time and for my work, different purposes.
Same with the Nikon, for fast moving, high iso that gives me the best result, but it won't replace the Canons, or the Phase, at least until they come out with the 24mpx version and then who knows?
JR