Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Frank Doorhof on October 11, 2008, 11:14:50 am
-
Maybe someone here can help.
I use the RZ67ProII with a leaf aptus 22 digital back.
When I measure the RZ is always a bit lower than the same aptus back on the 645AFD/III although this is not a problem in most cases it's maybe the start of this problem.
Think about 2/3 stop less than the 645AFD/III and yes that's without the bellows
Lately I notice that when I take a serie of shots the exposure varies, most of the time very slightly but sometimes it varies 2-3 stops.
So I decided to do a test.
When I shoot with the 110mm f2.8 it appears in a serie of 10-20 exposures that most are equal but sometimes there is a slight variation of 2/10-3/10, in other words the histogram slightly moves.
But sometimes there are one or two frames that go REALLY dark, think full stops.
to make 100% sure I mounted the leaf on the 645AFD/III and did a similair test.
Everything worked out fine and I only needed to go from f11 to f16 on the 645AFD/III (this was with bellows so a stop could very well be normal).
Secondly I did the same test with the 180mm and now the histogram did not move an inch over 10-20 shots.
Back to the 110mm f2.8 and the whole series stays correct.
It's driving me nuts because I can't pin point if it's the lens 100% sure or something else.
I checked the emergency setting and that is correct (otherwise it could be that sometimes the sync speed is too high, but even on 1/60 the problem is there, I checked on 2 seconds and the shutter stays open for 2 seconds so that rules out a problem there).
My gut feeling tells me it's the 110mm f2.8 but on the other hand what could it be in the lens, any other insights ?
-
Hi Frank
What you are experiencing with your 110mm sounds like exactly the same problem I had with my 90mm and 127mm lenses. The problem I was told is dirty magnets inside the shutter which is why it is not working properly and the reason for the extremely under exposed images is that the shutter is firing at 400th of a second and probably not at the 60th or 125th you were probably shooting with.
I would recommend you get your 110mm serviced.
Hope that helps,
Simon
-
thanks, now to find out were we can do that in the Netherlands
I already mailed KEH, I bought the lens app 3 months ago so maybe they can do something for me.
-
Frank,
It does sound like your 110mm lens needs to be serviced. It sounds like the shutter isn't consistently giving you the correct shutter speed.
The odd thing is that with digital you will notice it, but in the film days you probably would not have.
Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
[email protected]
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer of the Year (http://www.captureintegration.com)
877-217-9870 | National Atlanta / Miami
404-234-5195 | Cell
Sign up for our Newsletter (http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1101868815210&p=oi) | Read Our Latest Newsletter (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
I will contact mamiya NL, KEH told me that the 60day warranty was over.
So I will to be sure send them all in to be serviced.
-
Frank,
You shooting with studio strobes, right?
So, what difference does a shutter speed make?
I do not believe in the theory of faulty shooter.
Maine reason is that I observe the same behavior with my Rz and A75s regardless of lens being use. I wrote about that few months ago on LL.
My A75s will occasionally even get stuck about 2 stops below and the only way to correct it is to change ISO twice back and forth.
In general my Rz67/A75s combo (without extended bellows) is 1.3 stops below the same back with H1. Go figure.
On the bright site think about that you are shooting with one of the greatest lenses ever made for people photography that cost you just $300.
If you still not happy than borrow HC lens to compare the quality and some misbehavior of your 110mm will be easier to swallow.
Andre
-
Problem I have is that if it can be fixed I will let it be fixed.
I can't afford shots in a serie to be underexposed by 2 stops, what if the client wants that shot ?
I use alot of deep shadows and pulling up 2 stops is not a nice sight even on ISO50
It happens on all shutter speeds by the way, als on 1/20 or 1/60.
It annoys the heck out of me, I want a system that works 100% perfect, I know about the bellows that's not a problem you can calculate that and know it's there.
It's much more annoying when you shoot in burst a serie of 30-40 shots and 10 are 2 stops down, 5 are 1 stop down and the rest is ok.
That's not acceptable for me.
Especially when with the other lenses it's working great.
-
Again my question is: what does a faulty shutter has to do with images being underexposed by two stops when you are using strobes?
I can set the shooter at 1/30 or 1/400 and the exposure difference is marginal. Am I missing something?
Anyways please,
Let me know after you fix it if it worked as it bothers me as well.
Andre
-
Hello Andre,
The problem Frank seems to be having is on occasion his 110mm lens is firing at 400th sec because of the contacts in the shutter been dirty.
I had the same problem some months ago.
As I use Bowen flash if I firer at 60th or 125th I get the same exposure but if I firer any of my lens at 400th of a sec with the same light output the exposure is down by a stop or more due to the slow flash speed of my flash at full power.
As I don't use Elinchrom like Frank I can speak for his system.
Cheers
Simon
-
Problem I have is that if it can be fixed I will let it be fixed.
I can't afford shots in a serie to be underexposed by 2 stops, what if the client wants that shot ?
I use alot of deep shadows and pulling up 2 stops is not a nice sight even on ISO50
It happens on all shutter speeds by the way, als on 1/20 or 1/60.
It annoys the heck out of me, I want a system that works 100% perfect, I know about the bellows that's not a problem you can calculate that and know it's there.
It's much more annoying when you shoot in burst a serie of 30-40 shots and 10 are 2 stops down, 5 are 1 stop down and the rest is ok.
That's not acceptable for me.
Especially when with the other lenses it's working great.
I had the same exact problem with my Mamiya RZ Pro IID and the Aptus 22. I had sent the camera and back to Mamiya and Leaf several times and they could not fix the problem.
I had also posted the problem on Leafs board but never got an answer. The back worked fine on my AFD II.
I ended up selling everything and went back to the 1DS III. No problems with that camera.
-
The problem with the 1dsIII is that it's not a MF system, let alone the quality of the RZ 67ProII.
You could also sell everything for the G9, added advantage no more swapping those lenses
-
The problem with the 1dsIII is that it's not a MF system, let alone the quality of the RZ 67ProII.
You could also sell everything for the G9, added advantage no more swapping those lenses
Don't get me wrong, I miss the look of the RZ lenses and loved the quality of the Aptus. But after after a $ 40.000 expense
I spent more time trying to figure out how to fix the problems and the whole system was more in the way than productive.
I'll get back to MF when I find a system that really works with me not against me.
RS
-
I'm now in Miami shooting ALOT with the 645AFD/III and the Leaf Aptus, didn't miss a shot, but did have ALOT of benifit of the higher dynamic range.
I have to shoot during the whole day (holiday ) so the dynamics within a scene can be cruel, as always I also shot some scenes with both cameras and the Leaf captures alot more highlight information.
But you are right the DSLR is more easy.
However to say that a MF is working against the photographer goes too far, the problem I'm having is in ONE lens and ONE lens only.
If I would have a faulty Canon lens I could also not blame the whole system
-
If I would have a faulty Canon lens I could also not blame the whole system
and lord knows (as a canon shooter myself)... Canon has it's share of faulty lenses!
-
I'm now in Miami shooting ALOT with the 645AFD/III and the Leaf Aptus, didn't miss a shot, but did have ALOT of benifit of the higher dynamic range.
I have to shoot during the whole day (holiday ) so the dynamics within a scene can be cruel, as always I also shot some scenes with both cameras and the Leaf captures alot more highlight information.
But you are right the DSLR is more easy.
However to say that a MF is working against the photographer goes too far, the problem I'm having is in ONE lens and ONE lens only.
If I would have a faulty Canon lens I could also not blame the whole system
I think there is something that should be made clear about shooting medium format vs. a Canon or any other system.
One lens, or even one series of lenses that don't perform perfectly does not make any system less than worthwhile but something that keeps being discussed on all the forums really should be answered. Can medium format become less complicated?
As I write this, early tomorrow we begin an important project that has more production money than I should mention in public but the crew on the first segment is over 20 people, so that gives you some idea of the costs and importance.
It is one of those campaigns that might not make a career but could break one if anything goes wrong.
As much as I want to use medium format and I am carrying two full sets of medium format equipment, I am almost positive by the end of the day I will shoot most of the project with a Canon 1ds Mark III.
Not because it has higher DR, or more pixels, or even more detail, not because I stick a camera or lighting logo on the photos, but because tethered or portable, low or high iso the Canons will allow me to do virtually anything I want in almost any circumstance and let me get the shot without having to give the camera a second thought. In fact the Canon will almost be transparent once I start working.
Right now on these forums in regards to medium format we have participation from all 4 makes which I applaud. We also have new pricing structures coming out hourly, which I also think is good for the photographer.
We also just got through annoucakina which I found enormously disappointing. Only one manufacturer, (Sinar) announced a camera with a detailed lcd, in camera processing and maybe a clean 800 iso.
Everyone else added pixels, some moved the sensor size slightly larger, but none of them addressed software stability, mentioned large batch processing, higher iso, drastically easier workflow with preset film looks and did so in a system that works as easily as the Canon dslr, regardless of price.
So I say to all 4 of the camera company representatives that have joined this forum think of your product in this way.
Write a $200,000 check and tape it to the wall, put twenty workers in the room, 3 art driectors, 2 clients and set an 18 hour a day schedule knowing you will be shooting with window light, mixed hmi and daylight, flash at night, low china lantern tungsten in the late evening, available daylight of people racing by on mopeds, portraits on black of each subject and you have to do it with your camera, knowing the web galleries and contact sheets have to be delivered in two days after the project.
Will you bet that $200,000 (actually much more than that in production) that your medium format camera system will work as quickly, easily, reliably and consistently as the Canon.
Will your file go into almost any 3rd party software without additional steps. If you ship a processed tiff and a raw file to the retouching company, can they process the raw to add detail, or change exposure and use it for blending and can they process it in Photoshop? Are your skintones in all these lighting circumstances beautiful out of the can or will it take dozens of software tweeks to hit the desired look and most importantly will your software do thousand of files from capture to process without crashing the computer and be compatible with the 4 computers and operating system most photographers use?
Is your lens offerings wide and diverse and available today for rent or purchase . If something goes down in Los Angels, Paris, or Hong Kong can I rent or buy a new one in hours, or at least in a day?
But think about this for a moment. Would you bet your own $200,000 that your current system will perform easily as a camera that costs 1/2 the price.
Would you show a client your lcd and say can you see the image, the detail the lighting? Will you have confidence that at 2am in the morning when you set down to edit ad batch a thousand files will your software work easily and with stability?
At the end of the day no client will compare a Leaf, Phase, Hasselbad or Sinar file next to the 1ds3, the client(s) will only see the final capture and judge it by a lot of criteria, though none of this will have anything to do with camera brand loyalty.
I very much appreciate the db maker's participation and the answering of direct questions, but do us a favor (or at least me) and answer the main questions of does your system do all of the things I just mentioned?
At thse costs, I and many others have to perform flawlessly. We have to have backups, stable software, easy to use cameras that don't hang up, glitch or burn through batteries. We must have tethering that works with our current computers, iso sensitivity that works under a multitude of lighting conditions, a file that is compatible and a most importantly a file that we can move to any film look that was available in the past, plus a whole new range of looks that we haven't even invented yet.
I can keep adding to the list but it's time to get some sleep.
Big Cooter
-
I think there is something that should be made clear about shooting medium format vs. a Canon or any other system.
One lens, or even one series of lenses that don't perform perfectly does not make any system less than worthwhile but something that keeps being discussed on all the forums really should be answered. Can medium format become less complicated?
As I write this, early tomorrow we begin an important project that has more production money than I should mention in public but the crew on the first segment is over 20 people, so that gives you some idea of the costs and importance.
It is one of those campaigns that might not make a career but could break one if anything goes wrong.
As much as I want to use medium format and I am carrying two full sets of medium format equipment, I am almost positive by the end of the day I will shoot most of the project with a Canon 1ds Mark III.
Not because it has higher DR, or more pixels, or even more detail, not because I stick a camera or lighting logo on the photos, but because tethered or portable, low or high iso the Canons will allow me to do virtually anything I want in almost any circumstance and let me get the shot without having to give the camera a second thought. In fact the Canon will almost be transparent once I start working.
Right now on these forums in regards to medium format we have participation from all 4 makes which I applaud. We also have new pricing structures coming out hourly, which I also think is good for the photographer.
We also just got through annoucakina which I found enormously disappointing. Only one manufacturer, (Sinar) announced a camera with a detailed lcd, in camera processing and maybe a clean 800 iso.
Everyone else added pixels, some moved the sensor size slightly larger, but none of them addressed software stability, mentioned large batch processing, higher iso, drastically easier workflow with preset film looks and did so in a system that works as easily as the Canon dslr, regardless of price.
So I say to all 4 of the camera company representatives that have joined this forum think of your product in this way.
Write a $200,000 check and tape it to the wall, put twenty workers in the room, 3 art driectors, 2 clients and set an 18 hour a day schedule knowing you will be shooting with window light, mixed hmi and daylight, flash at night, low china lantern tungsten in the late evening, available daylight of people racing by on mopeds, portraits on black of each subject and you have to do it with your camera, knowing the web galleries and contact sheets have to be delivered in two days after the project.
Will you bet that $200,000 (actually much more than that in production) that your medium format camera system will work as quickly, easily, reliably and consistently as the Canon.
Will your file go into almost any 3rd party software without additional steps. If you ship a processed tiff and a raw file to the retouching company, can they process the raw to add detail, or change exposure and use it for blending and can they process it in Photoshop? Are your skintones in all these lighting circumstances beautiful out of the can or will it take dozens of software tweeks to hit the desired look and most importantly will your software do thousand of files from capture to process without crashing the computer and be compatible with the 4 computers and operating system most photographers use?
Is your lens offerings wide and diverse and available today for rent or purchase . If something goes down in Los Angels, Paris, or Hong Kong can I rent or buy a new one in hours, or at least in a day?
But think about this for a moment. Would you bet your own $200,000 that your current system will perform easily as a camera that costs 1/2 the price.
Would you show a client your lcd and say can you see the image, the detail the lighting? Will you have confidence that at 2am in the morning when you set down to edit ad batch a thousand files will your software work easily and with stability?
At the end of the day no client will compare a Leaf, Phase, Hasselbad or Sinar file next to the 1ds3, the client(s) will only see the final capture and judge it by a lot of criteria, though none of this will have anything to do with camera brand loyalty.
I very much appreciate the db maker's participation and the answering of direct questions, but do us a favor (or at least me) and answer the main questions of does your system do all of the things I just mentioned?
At thse costs, I and many others have to perform flawlessly. We have to have backups, stable software, easy to use cameras that don't hang up, glitch or burn through batteries. We must have tethering that works with our current computers, iso sensitivity that works under a multitude of lighting conditions, a file that is compatible and a most importantly a file that we can move to any film look that was available in the past, plus a whole new range of looks that we haven't even invented yet.
I can keep adding to the list but it's time to get some sleep.
Big Cooter
Big, I think we have gone through most of your points above over the last few years. Many of them are valid, some were already answered and addressed and some are still being worked on by all the players in our industry, including some large and respectable software and hardware companies.
Some of your points, I believe, will stay as a low priority due to the different "nature" of MF cameras and the lower demand from the market compared to other typical requirements.
Specifically, I would like to ask what is your ONE "benchmark" system, if there is any (35mm or larger), that you would choose for tethering, shooting and processing large volumes of images on a big production project?. Which of the current software packages is the closest to what you need and which camera is giving you the best file along with all the points you have listed?
If the answer is "system X" then it makes it easier for us to set some benchmark tests and to see what can be done on our end to match it's performance.
If the answer is "camera A" with "software B" and "cable C" and "lens D" then it'll make life a bit more difficult for us and maybe it'll prove that there is no one package that suits your needs.
Thanks
Yair
-
Well said, Yair. Not because I put myself on the manufacturer side, but because it is really years that we are hearing the same and because thinking that MFDB manufacturers do not listen or sit with crossed legs is just wrong. And as said, for some of the mentioned issues solutions have been given, for some others it is a question of priorities.
Thierry
Big, I think we have gone through most of your points above over the last few years. Many of them are valid, some were already answered and addressed and some are still being worked on by all the players in our industry, including some large and respectable software and hardware companies.
Some of your points, I believe, will stay as a low priority due to the different "nature" of MF cameras and the lower demand from the market compared to other typical requirements.
Specifically, I would like to ask what is your ONE "benchmark" system, if there is any (35mm or larger), that you would choose for tethering, shooting and processing large volumes of images on a big production project?. Which of the current software packages is the closest to what you need and which camera is giving you the best file along with all the points you have listed?
If the answer is "system X" then it makes it easier for us to set some benchmark tests and to see what can be done on our end to match it's performance.
If the answer is "camera A" with "software B" and "cable C" and "lens D" then it'll make life a bit more difficult for us and maybe it'll prove that there is no one package that suits your needs.
Thanks
Yair
-
Well said, Yair. Not because I put myself on the manufacturer side, but because it is really years that we are hearing the same and because thinking that MFDB manufacturers do not listen or sit with crossed legs is just wrong. And as said, for some of the mentioned issues solutions have been given, for some others it is a question of priorities.
Thierry
Yair and Thierry,
you both mention that many of these answers have been given. For those of us who do not have the benefit of having been present at that time, could you tell us where these answers can be found?
-
as far as Sinar is concerned:
- new high resolution bright 3" lcd display with 640x480 pixels resolution
- on-board processing: either DNGs, or JPGs or both together, or then even RAWs
- files can go directly into any DNG compatible application: LR, ACR, Aperture, Camera Raw, C1, etc ...
- fast shooting rate, 1 fps
- low priced 31 MPx camera system (Euro 12'073.-)
- 3-year warranty as a standard
I refer also to the following threads, for more details:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=27565 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27565)
and:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=27940 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27940)
Best regards,
Thierry
Thierry,
you .... mention that many of these answers have been given. For those of us who do not have the benefit of having been present at that time, could you tell us where these answers can be found?
-
Big, I think we have gone through most of your points above over the last few years. Many of them are valid, some were already answered and addressed and some are still being worked on by all the players in our industry, including some large and respectable software and hardware companies.
Some of your points, I believe, will stay as a low priority due to the different "nature" of MF cameras and the lower demand from the market compared to other typical requirements.
Specifically, I would like to ask what is your ONE "benchmark" system, if there is any (35mm or larger), that you would choose for tethering, shooting and processing large volumes of images on a big production project?. Which of the current software packages is the closest to what you need and which camera is giving you the best file along with all the points you have listed?
If the answer is "system X" then it makes it easier for us to set some benchmark tests and to see what can be done on our end to match it's performance.
If the answer is "camera A" with "software B" and "cable C" and "lens D" then it'll make life a bit more difficult for us and maybe it'll prove that there is no one package that suits your needs.
Thanks
Yair
Yair,
On the time zone I am in today it is 5:49am and I'm leaving for location in a few minutes so I'll make this quick, (though not that thought out, sorry).
Given the "perfect' system, I'd say probably something like the HY6 with more lens choices (especially in wide), fast f 2 to 2.8 lemses, the fast shooting rate of the Leaf (without having the extra step of decompression), an lcd like a Nikon (maybe Sinar has this covered) tethering as stable as LC11 or C1 3.78, software previews like LC11 and ISO sensitivity like the Canon 1ds3 or even better the Nikon D-3.
I'd want to be able to set a color and look in the software, import it into the camera (like Canon) or like the way Leaf use to do with the old Leaf Drive system where it would hold color and tone regardless of whether it was shot tethered or portable. (Maybe the 31mpx Sinar also has this covered, I don't know because I haven't tried one).
For final image processing, the workflow and interface of Lightroom, the final color rendering of Raw Developer.
For rental and purchase availability, Canon or Nikon, (probably Canon because they are everywhere) or Hasselblad's H series because they are almost everywhere.
That would do it and probably get close to a long term use camera system.
For the project we are presently shooting, under so many varied conditions, I would love to do a test and shoot each scenario the job digitally, then shoot a film camera using 3 or 4 films, then go back into the software and develop my own presets as to what digital processing, matches what film. (I've promised myself to do this for years, but never find the time on a production and for some reason, just simple tests really don't give enough information to do this properly).
There are 4 things I must cover when shooting a project like this.
1. The camera must be reliable, stable, built solid and give confidence with no glitches. Even with backups things can happen, stuff can get broken and there should be a presence in every major market. Can I rent or buy any of the main prime lenses in most major markets of the world?
2. The first previews we show (whether tethered or portable) must be very close to the finished look we want to show the client. We want a wow response on the first 4 frames.
3. The post processing should match what we showed on set and be stable and fast, especially for the initial web galleries and contact sheets.
Yes I know a lot of this has been covered before and I know that the makers are listening, (because if the weren't none of us would be writing any of this).
Big Cooter
-
I don't know if I read it correctly but what you write down is the exact opposite as you write it down.
I shot ALOT with Canon DSLRs tethered.
The problems I had with the connection was regulair, the camera would stop responding when it filled up the buffer, meaning I lost shots and had to reconnect and boot up again.
Sometimes I even had to reboot the PC completly.
With the Leaf Aptus (I'm still using the Aptus 22) I shoot tethered.
With the first shot I set white balance and color/tone I want for the set and sync this with the back (one press of a button).
After that ALL shots coming in will have that look, so I don't see your point there.
Also when shooting tethered with the Aptus 22 I have no buffer issues or hanging camera/PC/Mac.
You can keep on shooting untill you drop dead or the drive is full.
On location I shoot compressed raw and again have no buffer, where with the Canon I had to wait for a few seconds up to several seconds for the buffer to clear after for my feeling way too little RAWs.
On the act of the big money and the trusting a system.
I would trust my MF setup more than my Canon.
Understand me correctly the Canon is great, but I just get better results with the alternative and my tethering is rocksolid and when I stand on a cable just plug it in again and keep on shooting without the need to reboot.
Than on workflow software, that's also what you make of it yourself.
I use Aperture but also know lightroom, both work with the Leaf files (even the compressed ones (except the compressed on the card ones)).
The time that MF cameras were the black sheeps in software compatibility, handling etc. is behind us.
They will not (yet) shoot noise free on high ISOs, they are still not as fast with AF as a DSLR (although the AFi is quick, and my 645AFD/III also) but than the disadvantages stop for me, what we get then are just advantages.
Or at least for my workflow.
I still own a DSLR, and will buy the 5DII as it's released, I sometimes still shoot an assigment with the the DSLR but overal especially when I know it counts on quality I grab the MF system, that system never crashed on connections during a shoot, and I never lost a shot due to a filled up buffer (VERY annoying).
Try shooting with wifi on the 5D and you know what a frustation the buffer becomes.
I think it's also the person/photographer himself what will happen.
I dove into MF with eyes wide open en wanted the system to become part of me, and it did.
Now I love the spray and pray DSLR options but somehow my best work always comes from the MF.
Go figure
-
I don't know if I read it correctly but what you write down is the exact opposite as you write it down.
I shot ALOT with Canon DSLRs tethered.
The problems I had with the connection was regulair, the camera would stop responding when it filled up the buffer, meaning I lost shots and had to reconnect and boot up again.
Sometimes I even had to reboot the PC completly.......................................................................
................
I think it's also the person/photographer himself what will happen.
I dove into MF with eyes wide open en wanted the system to become part of me, and it did.
Now I love the spray and pray DSLR options but somehow my best work always comes from the MF.
Go figure
I find a lot of discussion on this forum to be brand or format bias. Some is logical some is just to prove a point, or some because the poster either has or is looking for a relationship with the manufacturer.
I even appreciate the manufacturer's participation, though the other night I looked at the most recent topics and noticed out of 20 in the medium format section at least half of the last responses were written by someone who had a vested interest in a specific brand.
It was like the battle of the car dealers.
I wrote what I wrote to start thought and to get some simple answers on the same things we've been asking for years.
OK your Leaf tethers well, but would you bet $200,000 that what you see on the lcd screen is correct, can you judge lighting subtitles, color?
Can you shoot at high iso without major issues in noise in shadows and would you set any medium format down and compare the iso's to a dslr. I've done it with most and that don't match, never in favor of the larger cameras.
This week was a prime example of the new economy. We're shooting a very expensive project (as I mentioned the crew not including clients and talent is 20 people) though because of last minute budget restrictions, time has been compressed to 1/2. Thursday start time was 6:30am finishing at 10pm, (which puts us back into the hotel at midnight) yesterday we started at 6am and finished shooting at 9pm. First day we worked three separate locations moving from cafe, to downtown streets that are blocked off, to a residential location.
This is a very stylized project with every location being either reworked or rebuilt, there are nine production vehicles and in the first two days, 32 models, so this doesn't fall into your "spray and pray" method of working. I don't need 5fps, but I do need a very moveable system that offers all kind of options.
I started the first day as normal and started with medium, format, using window light, HMI and some strobe for light fill. It worked though the medium format is just on the very edge of usability due to iso. but we continued with medium format. As the day wore on we went more to the 1ds3 to the point that by afternoon it was all Canon. Yesterday I never touched the medium format backs and we just didn't shoot portable, or just tethered. We're tired, under tremendous pressure, some shots you just can't tether, others must be, I have two AD's one CD and two clients.
I have to have a system with fast lenses, high iso, low iso, good detail, great skin tones, (without a lot of fussing) and more than anything I MUST get the shot.
Yes I would prefer a medium format file, but late last night, reviewing the imagery with all the creatives, they never looked at an image and noticed it was shot with medium format or a dslr.
They just wanted to see the shot, wanted to make sure it was beautifully lit, the models reaction natural and was in focus.
So my point, is all medium format needs to get to the ease of the Canons is just higher iso, faster lenses and a better lcd. That's it, and for some reason those two requests seem to be a huge hurdle.
And BTW: If you tether the new canons they are very reliable, the software starts quick and unlike your current Aptus you can see the image on the back of the camera and in the computer.
Yes, Apple's usb drivers are slow but using a PC changes that. EOS utility may not be as elegant as some of the medium format solutions but probably takes about 10 minutes to learn and has no problems.
But, I didn't write this to say the Canons were better or the Aptus was bad, but to ask the question as to why the Canons have so much more versatility.
There is a lot of talk on this forum about pricing, started mostly by Hasselblad's announcement and the new economic news.
Well, this year I've been very busy and the only change I've seen is no client has really cut budget, they just want twice the volume they got before without a drop in quality or style. I can and do afford cameras and will buy any camera I want as long as it does what I need. I just wonder why the medium format cameras are limited.
And for the record, I don't have any relationship with Canon.
Big Cooter
-
I shot tethered with the PC with my DSLRs, I switched to the Mac when I bought the Leaf simply because I always shoot tethered and needed a powered firewire connector.
When doing a 200.000 job YES I shoot tethered, I have and will never trust the display on my camera, be it the Canon or the Leaf, they are all limited.
And when doing such an important job I have an assistant looking at the shots when they come in and checking the focus, when he/she says I nailed the focus I know it's there.
On the other hand, I never do 200.000 jobs to be honest.
that kind of budget is something I think most people can only dream off.
For my own situation.
when I shoot a commercial job, being it 1000.00 or 20.000 I will shoot tethered just to be 100% sure that I nailed the shot.
For me it's very simple, my pacing on the DSLR was already what some consider slow, I always think about my shot before I press the shutter, so if I will get 1-2 frames in 10 seconds that's normal.
I also wouldn't defend MF or DSLR, it's for me horses for courses.
The reason I responded was that you seem to have mostly negative experiences with your gear, and I have the opposite.
I LOVED my DSLR setup, and never had problems with it, I bought a MF system to complement the DSLR setup and find myself only shooting MF.
I think it's very depend on what you're used to.
Give a photographer that only ever shot on film a digital back or DSLR and he/she would never do a paid job with it.
I'm totally used to my MF gear so when I have to switch back to my DSLR setup for me it's more work and more change of blowing the job than when I just use what I'm used to.
But again that's personal.
Give an American a stick shift car and he will probarbly be killed in heavy traffic, I always need a day to get used to an automatic.
If I would need to race NOW I would choose a stick shift, and the american would choose the automatic, it's what they are both used to what they use in stress situations.
The good thing is that nowadays you can do the paid gigs with whatever camera you feel comfortable with.
However the feel of your post was that a MF system is nice if you want to freak arround or play arround but when the moment counts it's unreliable and that's not true for me.
Tethering is rock solid, even my customers can work with leaf capture within 2 minutes to play arround them selfs, and I never missed a shot.