Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: MarkoMijailovic on February 13, 2012, 09:51:06 pm
-
While I've now got a years worth of experience with medium format (by way of my trusty Mamiya RZ 67 Pro II), I can't image what the workflow is like compared to that of a DSLR. It seems, at least if you were working with a camera like the RZ 67, that it'd be substantially slower due to focus time, the ergonomics of it as well as the overall speed of the camera. Don't get me wrong... While I am looking forward to the Nikon D800 due to its high resolution, a big part of me is still thinking of some point (sooner rather than later) going the medium format digital route and purchasing a back for my Mamiya, though it's prohibitively expensive for me at present. Price aside, I've always been drawn to the images made by the systems I dream of (Hasselblad's, Contax's, etc.).
So what I'm hoping to gain is some knowledge regarding the workflow and overall speed of using MFD over DSLR. Obviously DSLR's are much more convenient and meant to do it all with their fast lenses, high ISO ranges, weather proofing, super fast AF, a million frames a second, etc., etc., but I don't think I'd be too far off when saying that when it comes down to the quality the medium format digital (just as with 35mm vs 120 film) has got it down right beat... but is the workflow speed substantially slower?
Looking forward to the replies!
P.S. Can anyone recommend me a nice digital back for my RZ 67 around the $5k mark? Something with 22+ megapixels hopefully.
-
It seems like you're talking about the actual shooting experience more so than the workflow. The workflow ie once the files are shot and on a computer would essentially be the same. Shooting is going to be different, depending on what kind of MF setup you have. With an RZ it will be different because you'll have to focus and wind the camera (assuming no winder). Depending on the digital back you have, you may have to wait a bit for the back to be ready to shoot again, especially if shooting tethered. I find that with MF I will shoot less frames, with a higher rate of better shots. I actually prefer not having AF because I can set up the camera on a tripod, pose my subject, and if they hold still I won't have to refocus/recompose. You can do this with AF cameras obviously, but I find that with WLF and 45 deg. finders, I can stand over the camera and look at my subject without having my face behind the camera and really engage the subject, if that makes any sense. Bigger VF is always fun(even with the cropping mask) All in all, shooting MF is a different experience and everyone has their own preferences. Whatever works for YOU!
-
So what I'm hoping to gain is some knowledge regarding the workflow and overall speed of using MFD over DSLR.
It all boils down to shooting style...with DSLRs you tend to shoot more hand-held, often at higher ISOs to freeze motion (vs a tripod).
You tend to shoot a lot more frames and get more culls. You tend to have to spend more time in post–to fix stuff you "might" have been able to fix if you took longer to set up the shot more carefully.
But the bottom line is the odds are more in your favor when you shoot quicker even if there are technical issues to deal with later.
Ever shot a medium format at ISO 12K and gotten a usable shot? Happens a lot more when shooting certain DSLRs.
Also, it depends on the light...will it wait for you or are you chasing it? Chasing the light with a MFDB is a lot harder than with a DSLR.
Either way you shoot, the bottom line is, did you get the shot and what condition is it in? Ideally, you can get both an optimal light and high rez MFDB. But not getting the shot (either way) sucks...
-
It seems like you're talking about the actual shooting experience more so than the workflow. The workflow ie once the files are shot and on a computer would essentially be the same.
Post-processing an MF file will be much slower if you do not have a fast computer.
Compared to MF, you cannot do anything with a DSLR file (apart from bin it and re-shoot it), but it can take a while to optimise an MF file.
-
Chasing the light with a MFDB is a lot harder than with a DSLR.
A DSLR will take an adequate picture (for A4 or A3) in good conditions... A good MF camera allows you to post process a file taken in bad conditions and get a usable or good result.
-
Post-processing an MF file will be much slower if you do not have a fast computer.
In Capture One editing and adjusting larger files is not much slower than smaller files. It's not linear.
But in any case if the OP is asking about a 36mp D800 and a 22mp digital back the MF file will process faster than the dSLR file.
Of course if you compared an 80mp digital back file and a 16mp dSLR file then the answer is different.
Format, quality, and resolution are three independent variables. Even if they are often used interchangeably.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ([email protected])
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration (http://www.captureintegration.com)
Phase One Partner of the Year
Mamiya Leaf, Leica, Arca Swiss, Cambo, Profoto, LaCie, Canon, TTI, Broncolor & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/) | RSS Feed (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
-
A DSLR will take an adequate picture (for A4 or A3) in good conditions... A good MF camera allows you to post process a file taken in bad conditions and get a usable or good result.
The only DSLRs I know matching you description were developed in Eastern Europe in the late 70s by students in experimental psychology.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
MY Pentax 645D is a DSLR and works like one.
My Linhof C769 with a Phase One P25+ back is a view camera and works like one.
The ergonomics and camera type is the key rather than the format. (Although there are certainly DSLRs with frame rates faster than the 645D.) I do not think the way you work with your RZ67 will change because of a digital back.
Storage and processing power are a format issue. My 645D raw files open to 226MB at 16bit. A D800 are not going to be far behind--yes, it is great to have all those pixels, but you will need to deal with them.
BTW, my Pentax has a very usable ISO 1600, weatherproofing, very good AF, and excellent battery life. There is no reason to suppose MFD cannot have those things.
-
It depends probably on the camera and back.
With the S2 I now use the workflow is nearly identical. The review on the S2 display is very good so I allready have a good control of my images in the first step. Shooting is not much different besides one has to use short exposure times and therefore is somewhat more limited regarding low light.
Then the files from S2 in Lightroom come out allready quite to my taste without having to do much postprocessing.
So I would say not much different workflow compared to my Nikon DSLR, maybe even an easier workflow with the S2 because the files dont need much postprocessing.
-
Hi MarkoMijailovic,
I have four systems: Contax 645, Mamiya 645, Sinar P3, and Canon. At the time of shooting I use MDF and LF for big projects where normally allow me more time to do the shot but for fashion, especially location I prefer my Canon system. In real life shooting 35mm DSLR is much faster than MDF and LF.
Post processing time would be the same for all systems as long as you have quick computer.
Hope this help,
-
I can create minimum twice as many views per day with my canon compared to my Alpa+iQ160
In postproduction my Canon workflow is 2-3 times faster
I use my Alpa 3-4 times more than my canon..... ;)
/adam
-
Workflow procedure is similar I guess. Retouching and editing bogs down if you don't have a computer up to the task of the bigger files and it's something you need to factor into the costs. It's more in the shooting style that changes. Both have their merits/place and I use both for their individual strengths. I normally work the shot with the Leica M9, it gives me a file that is beautiful and very usable. I'll often shoot on MF if I know I've got a shot worth the change in shooting pace and style. I shoot MF for sure if I know it's going to be bigger than what a 22mp file will allow. but the two systems have very different looks so it depends on what look I'm after. It's about different tools for different jobs.
-
Thanks much for the replies, guys. I guess I should of asked "how much different is the shooting experience with MFD vs. DSLR's" as I was indeed meaning to refer more to the actual experience vs. the workflow. A file is a file, regardless of size, and yes, speed of the computer comes into play and what not, but the editing process is still more or less the same. I was more curious about actual shooting. It seems like exponentially more time is spent composing and shoot with MF than digital, but again, it's true what most of you are saying that the compositions tend to be of a higher quality as more time and effort went into them. I'd like to soon venture into the world of medium format digital backs and perhaps you could recommend me a budget-conscious one? I'd ideally like to spend no more than $5k for a 22+mp back of decent quality. Definitely don't mind buying second hand (it's probably my only option anyways)...
-
I regularly shoot both small and medium format digital during the same shoot. During shooting, the process isn't much different. I tend to shoot MF tethered and small format untethered since my point in using small format is to be more loose and give me the freedom to move around. I use MF when for my more structured and produced shoots. It's not so much the format makes the difference in workflow; it's more the way I tend to work when using any given format.
When it comes to post-processing, I generally mix the two formats together in Lightroom so my workflow is essentially the same. MF gives me a harder time with the white balance (I don't always shoot a gray card), but that's the only real difference. I don't really notice much of a difference in processing time either. On my old laptop, MF is slower but I don't notice the difference on my desktop machine.
John
-
I'd like to soon venture into the world of medium format digital backs and perhaps you could recommend me a budget-conscious one? I'd ideally like to spend no more than $5k for a 22+mp back of decent quality. Definitely don't mind buying second hand (it's probably my only option anyways)...
On our front page (http://www.captureintegration.com/) we advertise a 22mp Aptus 22 with warranty and dealer support and all new accessories for $4,990 or $5,990 with body and lens. It's compatible with Capture One Pro and LightRoom, is a solid performer, and could also fit on an RZ Pro IID with the appropriate adapter plate. That seems to fit your requirements quite well. Its a lower-ISO back (all the backs in this price range will be) but for tripod, strobe, or daylite shooting it will produce fantastic image quality.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ([email protected])
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration (http://www.captureintegration.com)
Phase One Partner of the Year
Mamiya Leaf, Leica, Arca Swiss, Cambo, Profoto, LaCie, Canon, TTI, Broncolor & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/) | RSS Feed (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
-
On our front page (http://www.captureintegration.com/) we advertise a 22mp Aptus 22 with warranty and dealer support and all new accessories for $4,990 or $5,990 with body and lens. It's compatible with Capture One Pro and LightRoom, is a solid performer, and could also fit on an RZ Pro IID with the appropriate adapter plate. That seems to fit your requirements quite well. Its a lower-ISO back (all the backs in this price range will be) but for tripod, strobe, or daylite shooting it will produce fantastic image quality.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) ([email protected])
Doug, you've got some good deals there. But I wish you wouldn't slap that "CALL!" instruction on most of the used backs - just come out and tell us their prices! It's so annoying when retailers do that...
Ray
-
+1
-
Thanks much for the replies, guys. I guess I should of asked "how much different is the shooting experience with MFD vs. DSLR's" as I was indeed meaning to refer more to the actual experience vs. the workflow. A file is a file, regardless of size, and yes, speed of the computer comes into play and what not, but the editing process is still more or less the same. I was more curious about actual shooting. It seems like exponentially more time is spent composing and shoot with MF than digital, but again, it's true what most of you are saying that the compositions tend to be of a higher quality as more time and effort went into them.
Yes, that's true. After shooting for many years, some of us just want to take more time to make better images. Of course, one can always shoot quick and take quick, but as that becomes of less interest, there is the search for better control, composition and content. That's not to take anything away from the other styles of shooting, but rather to say that when desired, its nice to have the tools that help you get there. And for me, that's the joy of MF. Its not quite so controlled as the older LF setups, it is portable, and yet can give you a higher level of quality than the DSLR. It has sat in this position for years with the same agenda: some portability compromises in exchange for moving up the quality ladder.
All this to say that if you are looking for more "keepers" and less "shooting", MF does quite well. Sometimes you'll lose shots you could have gotten with the DSLR, and MF is no good for the quick, fast, dark and far. For the rest of the time, it does quite nicely.
-
Thanks much for the replies, guys. I guess I should of asked "how much different is the shooting experience with MFD vs. DSLR's" as I was indeed meaning to refer more to the actual experience vs. the workflow. A file is a file, regardless of size, and yes, speed of the computer comes into play and what not, but the editing process is still more or less the same. I was more curious about actual shooting. It seems like exponentially more time is spent composing and shoot with MF than digital, but again, it's true what most of you are saying that the compositions tend to be of a higher quality as more time and effort went into them. I'd like to soon venture into the world of medium format digital backs and perhaps you could recommend me a budget-conscious one? I'd ideally like to spend no more than $5k for a 22+mp back of decent quality. Definitely don't mind buying second hand (it's probably my only option anyways)...
I do street photography with my Pentax 645D with both AF and MF lenses. It is very good for those situations. To come out with 300+ images in a 4 hour period is not difficult and much more than my film MF days. I also do slower form of photography like landscape with the same camera. I cannot see why you could not do the same type of work with a Phase/Mamiya.
-
In a nutshell, I find the larger the camera, the slower, and more deliberate, I work. Compared to 35mm, I worked much slower in the past with Hasselblad and Mamiya RZ film cameras. Compared to using a 4x5, the medium format cameras seem like speed demons - especially the RZ with Aperture priority!
I think it's just the nature of the beast.
I also think that in terms of digital shooting, one would experience the same. Shooting with a Hasselblad digital, I am again slower, and more deliberate than when shooting with a Nikon.
-
I also think that in terms of digital shooting, one would experience the same. Shooting with a Hasselblad digital, I am again slower, and more deliberate than when shooting with a Nikon.
I certainly also see a strong correlation btwn slowness of shooting and resulting image quality also.
But for me the 2 key events were:
- the day I started to use a tripod that taught me the importance of shooting point/height,
- the day I started to shoot 4x5 that taught me the importance of crop and composition.
As of now I think I am able to apply these learnings whatver the camera I use, from a Nikon J1 to a full stitching set up. So in my view what matters is the mindset more than the camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I use an AS M Line 2 in studio with db on a camera stand (slow, but suppose to be); for portrait work, a RZ-D on tripod; and landscapes sometimes an Alpa Max on tripod--all of these setups demand the use of a tripod for best results and a slower contemplative approach. I compose on the ground-glass with the AS and Alpa.
For more fast-paced, candid, and sometimes casual shoots, it is my D700. The D700 sometimes gets on a tripod for stitching, but it is my go-to camera for anything that can have a higher ISO and not demanding of enlargement. I do love the shooting work-flow of the D700!
-
Thanks much for the replies, guys. I guess I should of asked "how much different is the shooting experience with MFD vs. DSLR's" as I was indeed meaning to refer more to the actual experience vs. the workflow. A file is a file, regardless of size, and yes, speed of the computer comes into play and what not, but the editing process is still more or less the same. I was more curious about actual shooting. It seems like exponentially more time is spent composing and shoot with MF than digital, but again, it's true what most of you are saying that the compositions tend to be of a higher quality as more time and effort went into them. I'd like to soon venture into the world of medium format digital backs and perhaps you could recommend me a budget-conscious one? I'd ideally like to spend no more than $5k for a 22+mp back of decent quality. Definitely don't mind buying second hand (it's probably my only option anyways)...
In contradiction to some here I can honestly say that I dont see how shooting with the S2 should take more time than shooting with a digital slr.
Of course one can spend more time for using a tripod, or for more carefull framing...but you could do the same with a DSLR, cant you? And you can also shoot a MF-camera handhold and with a faster pace if you want to.
The only difference is maybe if you are a zoom shooter and now need to more often change lenses.
I even would say it takes less time to procude a good image and is easier to compose, because there is that big nice viewfinder in medium format, cameras which lets you see the subject very good, and because you have that nice dynamic range, and because you have a lot of room to crop in case your framing was not perfect.