Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: maddogmurph on July 31, 2014, 03:59:35 pm
-
I’m considering investing under $12,000. What I hope to accomplish with this investment is to begin a career in photography, which is currently a hobby.
My current system is the Fuji X-T1 which I don’t plan to get rid of and love for reasons I won’t go into here.
I also currently have a rail camera I have not used yet – Calumet with a few lenses I’ll be pulling out of my grandfather’s basement in a couple weeks and an Epson 4990 for scanning film to Digital.
The systems I’m considering:
Tachihara – Large Format Film (For portability in field)
Cambo Wide DS – DB
Contax – DB
Phase One/Mamiya – DB
Hasselblad H4D 30
Alpa 12 TC - DB
Pentax 645z or 645d
What I like to shoot: Landscape, Portrait, Model, Minimal, Night/City Scape, Still Life, Macro & Action
Why MF? The look/feel of medium format seems exceptional beyond what I’ve been able to produce within the limitations of my gear. I particularly like to be able to capture the detail and crop photographs that aren’t framed perfectly. I’m hoping to capture greater depth of contrast, and fine detail sharpness.
Some Questions:
1. What is the difference between technical setup (Cambo) vs Medium Format, why do niche photographers go technical?
2. Should Lenses be my focus, and I should be looking at older Digital Backs (within my price range) like the P20’s?
3. Given that sometimes I like to go into the field for a few days, is technical even an option?
4. Given my broad range of what I like to shoot, should I be looking for the most flexible system?
5. Why do the H Digital Backs seem less expensive second hand?
7. I feel like having an exceptional set up sets a photographer apart from the competition, but part of me thinks I have a lot to learn and should wait for a year or so before making a huge depreciating investment.
-
You should see if you can test/try them out. And try and narrow your "specialties" - you did say, "what I like to shoot" though. My question is, what do you get paid to shoot? Where's your ROI? I get paid to shoot portraits and weddings, and bought an H1 and new Credo40 with the 80 and 120mm lenses, which go well with where I make my living. If you're just starting out - and when you're buying any kind of gear, I'd encourage you to think, "What's the ROI on this?" and "I really want to be able to make x photo that I can't without y." Let those two factors guide your decisions vs. other factors.
-Doug
-
You should see if you can test/try them out. And try and narrow your "specialties" - you did say, "what I like to shoot" though. My question is, what do you get paid to shoot? Where's your ROI? I get paid to shoot portraits and weddings, and bought an H1 and new Credo40 with the 80 and 120mm lenses, which go well with where I make my living. If you're just starting out - and when you're buying any kind of gear, I'd encourage you to think, "What's the ROI on this?" and "I really want to be able to make x photo that I can't without y." Let those two factors guide your decisions vs. other factors.
-Doug
Thank you Doug, currently there is no ROI. I have no clients, I'm simply setting up, and investing in, what will hopefully become a paying job that I also enjoy.
-
In that case, I'd probably recommend sticking with the Fuji system (great system). Starting a new business is probably not the best time to invest in MFD. It took my business 5 years to get to the point where it was worth it/clients demanded that level of quality. I obviously don't know your finances, but unless you have 6 months of emergency funds on top of a healthy business, I think you're better off spending the $ on marketing, classes, personal work, a faster computer (to save you time) etc. etc.
-
I’m considering investing under $12,000. What I hope to accomplish with this investment is to begin a career in photography, which is currently a hobby.
My current system is the Fuji X-T1 which I don’t plan to get rid of and love for reasons I won’t go into here.
I also currently have a rail camera I have not used yet – Calumet with a few lenses I’ll be pulling out of my grandfather’s basement in a couple weeks and an Epson 4990 for scanning film to Digital.
The systems I’m considering:
Tachihara – Large Format Film (For portability in field)
Cambo Wide DS – DB
Contax – DB
Phase One/Mamiya – DB
Hasselblad H4D 30
Alpa 12 TC - DB
Pentax 645z or 645d
What I like to shoot: Landscape, Portrait, Model, Minimal, Night/City Scape, Still Life, Macro & Action In your price range I strongly suggest a DSLR. DSLRs are extremely versatile, with medium format unless you go for the most recent 50MP CMOS systems there is always a compromise be it poor high iso performance, long exposure performance etc. And no MF SLR camera has the AF performance of a DSLR (35mm) Most of us that own Medium Format Digital have multiple systems for that reason
Why MF? The look/feel of medium format seems exceptional beyond what I’ve been able to produce within the limitations of my gear. I particularly like to be able to capture the detail and crop photographs that aren’t framed perfectly. I’m hoping to capture greater depth of contrast, and fine detail sharpness. Again, In your price range I strongly suggest a DSLR (35mm). To handily beat a camera like a D810 in regards to detail under a wide range of conditions you really need one of the better and more $ Medium Format Digital systems
Some Questions:
1. What is the difference between technical setup (Cambo) vs Medium Format, why do niche photographers go technical?
2. Should Lenses be my focus, and I should be looking at older Digital Backs (within my price range) like the P20’s?
3. Given that sometimes I like to go into the field for a few days, is technical even an option?
4. Given my broad range of what I like to shoot, should I be looking for the most flexible system?
5. Why do the H Digital Backs seem less expensive second hand?
7. I feel like having an exceptional set up sets a photographer apart from the competition, but part of me thinks I have a lot to learn and should wait for a year or so before making a huge depreciating investment. Quality of work (including post-production), work ethic, client relations, self-promotion and service will set you apart, not your gear
All that said a Medium Format Digital back is a great piece of gear to have. It is versatile in the sense that you can mount it in a wide range of platforms, from tech cameras to SLRs like the PhaseOne/Mamiya bodies, Hasselblad H bodies, Contax and Hasselblad V among others. But not all backs are the same there is a HUGE range in price, quality, performance and user experience. Hence, it's best to work with a dealer (I use DigitalTransitions in NY) unless you REALLY know your stuff already, in which case you would not be asking in this forum in the first place!
-
In that case, I'd probably recommend sticking with the Fuji system (great system). Starting a new business is probably not the best time to invest in MFD. It took my business 5 years to get to the point where it was worth it/clients demanded that level of quality. I obviously don't know your finances, but unless you have 6 months of emergency funds on top of a healthy business, I think you're better off spending the $ on marketing, classes, personal work, a faster computer (to save you time) etc. etc.
Dear OP,
I'd read this succint reply from Doug VERY CAREFULLY. Read it aloud, until you know it by heart. Having nice/expensive tools is great, and many here might say "ya mate, go MF!". Pay special attention to the reference to a 6mo emergency fund, preferably 1yr's worth.
-Dan
-
i second the opinion of having a dslr like a d800 or sony a7r. you have a whole lot of different areas of photography you want to do- so no one camera is going to be perfect.
as for locking down a "medium format look", i doubt you would be able to tell what was shot on medium format of not on my website (www.paulrossjones.com). i have been shooting medium format for years with leaf, and phase backs on both hasselblads and contax and i struggle to see the difference between what i shoot on canon/nikon and medium format.
my retoucher prefers medium format (my last camera back was a p65+) as the files are large and reasonably clean with a bit better dynamic range, but a well planned/exposed, well graded dslr file file i think is indistinguishable. and file size is large enough now that a dslr is file is big enough for billboards and fussy magazine dps's- i have shots many international campaigns now with my canon and haven't even got my contax/p65 out of its case.
and given the cost and hassle of medium format, i don't think its worth it unless you have a specialty that justifies it. i am not going to bother with medium format anymore for my work- mainly lifestyle, as i believe that missing a shot is worse than a little less quality- and at the one frame a second and very slow focus with my contax/p65+ i lost many good opportunities.
just my opinion.
paul
p.s i did have a play with a pentax 645z the other day, and that shoots as fast a dslr. if they work out a fast tether solution with this then i think maybe this is something worth considering.
but if i was starting out again- i would spend 11k on my portfolio and promotion- if you have the right work you will get hired- and can hire gear if you want to on the jobs. a camera won't get you jobs, but a great book will.
-
Wow. Paul. Killer work.
-
In that case, I'd probably recommend sticking with the Fuji system (great system). Starting a new business is probably not the best time to invest in MFD. It took my business 5 years to get to the point where it was worth it/clients demanded that level of quality. I obviously don't know your finances, but unless you have 6 months of emergency funds on top of a healthy business, I think you're better off spending the $ on marketing, classes, personal work, a faster computer (to save you time) etc. etc.
I wholeheartedly agree. The Fuji system is good enough for a lot of commercial photography. I have shot fashion, portraits and lifestyle with it, without any problems. Once you have figured out which area of photography people are willing to pay you for, you can decide what camera is best suited for it (like Paul said, no camera can do it all). The A7r, for example, would give you high resolution and access to a lot of lenses, but its AF may be too slow, and tethering options not good enough.
-
I’m considering ............
Nobody can really tell you what to do, but early in your career, content, concept, is much more important than megapixel counting, dr measuring technique.
Lighting, composition and post production are also important, but from a 5d2 to a d800 the difference in portfolio prints or websites is not that important.
As everyone mentions, once you get running, if a project requires a specialty camera you can easily rent it and later buy if you use the system more than you previously did.
Personally, I'd go with a one grade back dslr, nikon or canon, either 5d2 or used d800 a few used primes.
The reason nikon/canon is the market is flooded with used bodies, lenses and you can rent anywhere. Also the ability to have a full frame for stills gives you more options on focus and composition.
In other words, invest in developing your style, your art first, save your money for cameras later.
Even with your fuji, I doubt seriously if the camera is holding you back.
Your only as good as what you put in front on the lens and of course what you do with it.
IMO
BC
-
Let me tag on with everyone else and say that investing in digital MF gear isn't a way to build a business. Clients hire based on what you can show them you can do, and showing them lots of stuff from Fuji/FF gear is going to be more than enough to get you hired. By spending the money wisely on personal projects, you'll have a larger body of work to show, rather than putting the money into a digital solution that you don't need off hand. Yes, rental is an option, and depending on what you shoot and how you shoot it, $3-4k should get you a body, 2-3 lenses, and a few speed lights. Shoot what you have, shoot something new, but shoot and market yourself locally and regionally.
You're in the Bay Area, there are lots of other photographers there you can chat with. Find out what you like to shoot that pays. Understand there is competition around you, find out what sets you apart from them. Some folks swear they can do it all with Fuji gear - and you can (lots of MF film options from Fuji).
-
Yep!
Erik
Wow. Paul. Killer work.
-
Personally, I'd go with a one grade back dslr, nikon or canon, either 5d2 or used d800 a few used primes. Given that I have the X-T1, you'd still say grab a full frame?
The reason nikon/canon is the market is flooded with used bodies, lenses and you can rent anywhere. Also the ability to have a full frame for stills gives you more options on focus and composition. Honestly, I feel like the Nikon/Cannon systems are overpriced for the value - why spend $1,500 on a camera, and $3-4,000 on a Lens system when I have the X-T1 setup, and a Mamiya with a P25+ and an 80mm is going for $3,000 - or a Pentax 645D and lens is running $4,000 on ebay
Even with your fuji, I doubt seriously if the camera is holding you back. You're correct that currently my Fuji is not holding me back, yet.
Also I feel like my #1 question is sort of being ignored, but I'm also grateful for the wonderful feedback and advice. I really am curious about the difference between MF DSLR and Technical, what niche' does this fulfill, or what do they know that I don't?
Advice considered I think I'm going to just work on this system for a while, build up my portfolio and website, and go from there.
I'm still curious what you would spend your $12,000 on and why if medium format was your primary interest.
-
Also I feel like my #1 question is sort of being ignored, but I'm also grateful for the wonderful feedback and advice. I really am curious about the difference between MF DSLR and Technical, what niche' does this fulfill, or what do they know that I don't?
Advice considered I think I'm going to just work on this system for a while, build up my portfolio and website, and go from there.
I'm still curious what you would spend your $12,000 on and why if medium format was your primary interest.
Maddog -
You listed such a wide range of photographic pursuits that surpass what a niche camera would excel at. A tech camera is used - typically - for landscape or architectural use. The reason being that what it excels at and facilitates is what those applications require. Perspective correction, capability to expand into the image circle either for large movements or stitched captures for panoramics. And all with an ease of use and level of quality that is pretty unique. You could use a tech cam for *still life*macro*portrait*model*, as you listed, but it is not necessarily the best tool for these pursuits. While for landscape/architecture, it is a uniquely exceptional tool.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Hi,
A technical camera has no mirror box, so more lenses can be used. Some lenses may be exceptionally good.
Technical cameras do differ. Some are focused using a loupe on focusing screen and some with precision helicoids in combination with a laser distance meter (You measure distance with the "disto" and dial in on the helicoid.). Most technical cameras allow for tilting/shifting the lens. A technical camera can be very compact.
The main advantage of technical cameras over DSLRs are (in my view):
- They offer large amount of tilt and shift
- Some lenses may be better. Schneider and Rodenstock make some very nice lenses.
It is quite possible to use SLR lenses on technical cameras. Systems like Hartblei HCam and Alpa FPS allow this.
With the arrival of CMOS to MFD many of these systems may be much more usable. Unfortunately, only the Phase One IQ and the Pentax 645Z offer live view on MFD right now (OK, Hasselblad has it too, if shooting tethered). This may change soon.
On the other hand, a few technical cameras making use of the Sony A7r has been announced. Another interesting concept.
It is really simple. If you happen:
- To have something like 40kUSD to spend
- Want to have the best image quality
- Shoot on tripod and work very carefully
- You know what you are doing
Than, a technical camera is the tool for you.
If you don't have those 40kUSD to spend, a technical camera may still be the best for you.
Now, this view comes from a SLR user with no experience of technical cameras. The closest I come is using a Hasselblad Flexbody with a P45+. It works fine in the lab, but it doesn't work with the subject/lens combo I wanted to use. Things are seldom simple in real life…
Best regards
Erik
Also I feel like my #1 question is sort of being ignored, but I'm also grateful for the wonderful feedback and advice. I really am curious about the difference between MF DSLR and Technical, what niche' does this fulfill, or what do they know that I don't?
Advice considered I think I'm going to just work on this system for a while, build up my portfolio and website, and go from there.
I'm still curious what you would spend your $12,000 on and why if medium format was your primary interest.
-
+1 to all those who suggest a good dSLR instead. MF is a completely different way of shooting and you have to slow right down, but if you do really want to try it then Mamiyas are around at sensible prices if you are buying, terrible if you are selling.
-
I think your Fuji is good enough to start out with - you might hire a D800 on jobs. Frankly, there is nothing which *cannot* be done with Canon or Nikon system cameras and absolutely requires MF.
MF is expensive to equip, exigent in lighting because of low ISO, less forgiving of exposure problems, more difficult to use handheld, lacking in autofocus aids, and even harder to process because of large files; stay away from this until you really know what you are doing.
Edmund
I’m considering investing under $12,000. What I hope to accomplish with this investment is to begin a career in photography, which is currently a hobby.
My current system is the Fuji X-T1 which I don’t plan to get rid of and love for reasons I won’t go into here.
I also currently have a rail camera I have not used yet – Calumet with a few lenses I’ll be pulling out of my grandfather’s basement in a couple weeks and an Epson 4990 for scanning film to Digital.
The systems I’m considering:
Tachihara – Large Format Film (For portability in field)
Cambo Wide DS – DB
Contax – DB
Phase One/Mamiya – DB
Hasselblad H4D 30
Alpa 12 TC - DB
Pentax 645z or 645d
What I like to shoot: Landscape, Portrait, Model, Minimal, Night/City Scape, Still Life, Macro & Action
Why MF? The look/feel of medium format seems exceptional beyond what I’ve been able to produce within the limitations of my gear. I particularly like to be able to capture the detail and crop photographs that aren’t framed perfectly. I’m hoping to capture greater depth of contrast, and fine detail sharpness.
Some Questions:
1. What is the difference between technical setup (Cambo) vs Medium Format, why do niche photographers go technical?
2. Should Lenses be my focus, and I should be looking at older Digital Backs (within my price range) like the P20’s?
3. Given that sometimes I like to go into the field for a few days, is technical even an option?
4. Given my broad range of what I like to shoot, should I be looking for the most flexible system?
5. Why do the H Digital Backs seem less expensive second hand?
7. I feel like having an exceptional set up sets a photographer apart from the competition, but part of me thinks I have a lot to learn and should wait for a year or so before making a huge depreciating investment.
-
Even if you had a tech cam/mfd set-up you really would be better off having a 35mm based system too.
You must have a back-up system in place if you are a working professional unless a rental house is 15min away.
Also as you wish to be doing different kinds of photography a lot of which are easier to shoot on systems other than technical/mfd.
I'll also echo what others have said. If your work lacks quality nobody is going to get to see what system you shoot on.
-
I like my Hasselblad system a lot but never use it as I'm doing a lot of high volume commercial work now. Feels amazing when I shoot it though.
-
I'm hesitant to reply here because I don't shoot professionally any more. I ran the numbers on photography versus other options while I was getting my MBA and didn't call myself a professional photographer a week later...
Anyway, I think you're coming at this backward. It seems to me that equipment should be purchased for a particular purpose (after determining that buying makes more sense than renting), and you don't have a particular purpose yet. Even worse, this isn't twenty years ago when you could buy high-quality used gear and resell it for around the same price a few years later -- this stuff depreciates fast.
I don't see any advantage to buying expensive gear now. Pick it up after you can justify it (and by "justify" I mean "I need XXXXX in order to land a job I've lined up that pays $YYYY, and I can't rent the required equipment for some small fraction of $Y." Find the work first. If there are things you need to do to land the work (put together a great portfolio, develop business skills, whatever) then do that before you commit to serious five figure expenses.
-
I'm hesitant to reply here because I don't shoot professionally any more. I ran the numbers on photography versus other options while I was getting my MBA and didn't call myself a professional photographer a week later...
Anyway, I think you're coming at this backward. It seems to me that equipment should be purchased for a particular purpose (after determining that buying makes more sense than renting), and you don't have a particular purpose yet. Even worse, this isn't twenty years ago when you could buy high-quality used gear and resell it for around the same price a few years later -- this stuff depreciates fast.
I don't see any advantage to buying expensive gear now. Pick it up after you can justify it (and by "justify" I mean "I need XXXXX in order to land a job I've lined up that pays $YYYY, and I can't rent the required equipment for some small fraction of $Y." Find the work first. If there are things you need to do to land the work (put together a great portfolio, develop business skills, whatever) then do that before you commit to serious five figure expenses.
I wonder how many others would as well if they really sat down and did the sums as you have done. Trouble is that there are few alternatives open to many.
-
I ran the numbers on photography versus other options while I was getting my MBA and didn't call myself a professional photographer a week later...
Yeah, that's why I work a day job I don't like today, more $$$$, at some point you'll have to ask yourself is it worth it? We only get one go around.
I guess my real question was essentially, "Don't you think the quality of my portfolio will be better with a MF or Large Frame setup? And therefor isn't it a good career move to produce files with greater depth, and with the MF look rather than a DSLR." But what I'm hearing is the d800 produces files that I really won't notice the difference on if I shot them side by side, or the Mach II even. Which frankly is good news. Although I am thinking my plan now is to wait. I'd like to see that 645z price come down a little bit.
-
I guess my real question was essentially, "Don't you think the quality of my portfolio will be better with a MF or Large Frame setup? And therefor isn't it a good career move to produce files with greater depth, and with the MF look rather than a DSLR." But what I'm hearing is the d800 produces files that I really won't notice the difference on if I shot them side by side, or the Mach II even. Which frankly is good news. Although I am thinking my plan now is to wait. I'd like to see that 645z price come down a little bit.
I would suggest the D800 heavily against the 5DmkII. The D800 is a much better camera, and it will give you everything you are after in a high-end portfolio. Of course the fundamentals of lighting, subject, composition, and post-processing will make or break your portfolio, and you can use any camera that is suitable for the situation at hand.
The medium format camera solution comes at a time when you've shown that you need something that you cannot otherwise get. It is a very expensive investment that needs a very high expectation of return in order to justify as a business expense. Otherwise, you can find yourself eating $20,000 or more.
-
I would suggest the D800 heavily against the 5DmkII. The D800 is a much better camera, and it will give you everything you are after in a high-end portfolio. Of course the fundamentals of lighting, subject, composition, and post-processing will make or break your portfolio...
I would definitely go for the D810.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yeah, that's why I work a day job I don't like today, more $$$$, at some point you'll have to ask yourself is it worth it? We only get one go around.
I guess my real question was essentially, "Don't you think the quality of my portfolio will be better with a MF or Large Frame setup? And therefor isn't it a good career move to produce files with greater depth, and with the MF look rather than a DSLR." But what I'm hearing is the d800 produces files that I really won't notice the difference on if I shot them side by side, or the Mach II even. Which frankly is good news. Although I am thinking my plan now is to wait. I'd like to see that 645z price come down a little bit.
I can only talk about the business on this side of the pond but I rather fear that the number of image purchasers who appreciate the difference is dwindling rapidly and those that are prepared to pay a premium are fewer still. Recent experience here in Ireland would certainly support that view but it may be healthier in the UK.
-
$12K is very little in the MF world. You can stop there.
I got my own MF starter system for similar money, but it's a tech cam and I use it exclusively for slow paced landscape and architecture. No long exposures as the back lacks such capabilities. If you have a narrow use case which focus on strengths of the system you can find a successful concept, but your stylistic need seems to be much to broad for a $12K second hand system to work out.
-
$12,000 = a D810 (or used D800) plus 3 HQ zooms (WA + mid + tele) - and even that would be tough to do once taxes are added.
If you are already a good photographer and have a unique style that would stand out on a editor's desk, then put the money into learning the finer points of business and marketing as that's what will consume much of your time and will lead to more opportunities.
Very few pro photographers have the luxury of accepting assignments without doing years of leg work. We see them because they are the success stories in that niche. We never see the hundreds (thousands) who started working in pro photography and have ended up with a day job they don't like as much, but are able to comfortably put bread on the table, have a schedule that works with a family and now enjoy shooting and showing what they love rather than what clients demand. Yes, I'm speaking from experience and have no regrets.
-
Amen. Literally my process before buying MFD.
Wait a year. Look for used systems. THink, "Will my clients appreciate this difference?" (probably, but not definitely). "Will this affect my ability to pay any bills for the next year? Even if the phone stops ringing?" "No." "Is this really a good idea?" Wait. 3 more months. Bought used system, then new DB.
-
i find there is always a tipping point with equipment where you just have to have a certain piece of equipment because:
your clients demand it.
it makes your work easier/saves time.
you keep hiring it so its about time you bought your own.
it makes financial sense to own it.
you need to be ticking at least 3 of those including the bottom one as buying a camera doesn’t make you a successful photographer, people paying you to shoot does.
-
i find there is always a tipping point with equipment where you just have to have a certain piece of equipment because:
your clients demand it.
it makes your work easier/saves time.
you keep hiring it so its about time you bought your own.
it makes financial sense to own it.
you need to be ticking at least 3 of those including the bottom one as buying a camera doesn’t make you a successful photographer, people paying you to shoot does.
There is also the need to keep up with the quality being produced by others. Every time I have moved up (bar one) there has been an increase in image quality and less time required in front of the PC post capture. The old saw about a good photographer producing a high quality shot irrespective of equipment was more relevant when we all shared the same sensor (film) but it I'm not sure that it applies quite so much now.
-
There is also the need to keep up with the quality being produced by others. Every time I have moved up (bar one) there has been an increase in image quality and less time required in front of the PC post capture. The old saw about a good photographer producing a high quality shot irrespective of equipment was more relevant when we all shared the same sensor (film) but it I'm not sure that it applies quite so much now.
Moments of perfect illusion, shots that you watch line up before your eyes and brings a slight tear to your eye because you know that you're a witness to timeless beauty, come very infrequently. I think every photographer after spending enough time in the field knows of the deep emotion felt at that moment. I'm really loving the Luminous Landscape, the people here are amazing, and I feel like I've found a new group of people that share a couple of my passions, helping others, and the pursuit of timeless beauty. I'm definitely leaning strongly towards that 645z, but I'm going to take at least 3-6 months before making any type of moves.
-
Have you considered lighting?
I think I've spent more money on lights (strobes/monolights), modifiers, scrims, fabrics, and grip equipment (c-stands, arms, gripheads, super clamps (you don't want to know how many super clamps I have), booms, etc) than camera equipment.
Yes, there are working photographers who take their cameras and go do a shoot with no lighting. Are you planning on doing studio work? Lighting can also be rented. Heck, I think everything can be rented.
Here's a thought: Have you considered a Sigma DP3 Merrill for portraits? For $649 it will out-shoot all MF digital systems on the market, except maybe the 80MP backs, with no moire EVER, or digital artifacts, and you can sync with flash at 1/2000 of a second.
The trade off is that the camera is slow to write, the battery life is terrible, you shouldn't go higher than ISO 100 (people say 400, but I disagree), and you'll need one of those overpriced Hoodman LCD loupes to make the camera look like it's NOT a point-and-shoot. Also the RAW software is slow for 99 percent of people, but not so slow on my beast of a PC machine I built myself.
Oh to hell with it, just get a Nikon.
-
Oh to hell with it, just get a Nikon.
I would recommend a Canon, I prefer them. But in any case, a good general purpose camera.
Edmund
-
I would recommend a Canon, I prefer them. But in any case, a good general purpose camera.
Edmund
The Canon 5D mark 3 is the most well rounded Camera ever made.
Great AF that works in almost any condition.
Really nice optical viewfinder.
Really nice Live View even w/ 10x magnification.
Sensor clean that actually works. Dust removal in post production almost a thing of the past, this one is a HUGE time saver.
Not too large or heavy.
Decent battery performance.
Dual card slots (CF and SD).
Fast enough for most things.
Weathersealed and very reliable.
Great high iso image quality.
Awesome lens selection.
The only thing that is missing is great base iso dynamic range performance and very high resolution files...
That is where the Nikon D810 steps in ;) ...and of course most any Medium Format Digital Back made recently ;D
-
It all comes down to this.
Usually, you will use the camera you "want" to use.
I believe most photographers talk themselves into buying a camera because the excuse is they need it, but in reality they just want it.
Let's face it, new stuff is fun, old stuff is less fun.
This is a good example of apples to oranges, but still I think a good example even in small jpgs.
(http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/dslr_mfdb_next_to.jpg)
The image on the left is shot available light and mixed continuous light for fill and accents from a 1ds . . . a 11mpx camera.
The image on the right is with a p30+ and Contax . . . a 30mpx camera and studio flash.
Both by today's standards are old tech, both are viable today . . . actually very viable today.
In fact my Leica S2 and Canon 1dx won't change these images in the least.
So why did I buy new, well the 1dx I use for video backup, (at least that's what I told myself), the Leica, because I wanted a form
factor that was faster than the tradition medium format shape (contax), but really if I was honest, the Leica just because I wanted
it, the 1dx because it tethers very well.
When I bought my first two 1ds', I told our studio manager if I was smart (go figure), I would buy two more 1ds', put them in storage
and make a pledge not to buy another camera for 10 years.
I can promise this would have worked fine.
Comparing my S2 to my older p30 contax, there really is no difference in image quality. Use yes, quality no. That speaks well for Phase
on the quality and reliability level, less so on the money side as the p30
with a Contax body and finder was 3x what I paid for the S2.
So buy what you want, but nothing beats a name brand dslr, either Canon or Nikon and the cost of a dslr is nothing compared to the lenses
which are always viable in the resale market, if you "want" to change systems.
I personally love medium format cameras, love the contax, lecia etc. but at the end of the day I bought it because I wanted to.
At the end of the day nobody will hire our group for the camersa, they will hire me us if they believe our work will fit the creative brief, or better yet
offer more than their expectations in look, style and of course budget.
They really don't count pixels anymore.
IMO
BC
-
I recommend the OP should read bcooter's screed and take the advice as well given. BC and his partner built up a thriving business from scratch, and deliver paid assignments for major market clients all day long.
-
They really don't count pixels anymore.
IMO
BC
Yeah, they've stopped counting pixels but now they want video.
Edmund
-
The Canon 5D mark 3 is the most well rounded Camera ever made.
Great AF that works in almost any condition.
Really nice optical viewfinder.
Really nice Live View even w/ 10x magnification.
Sensor clean that actually works. Dust removal in post production almost a thing of the past, this one is a HUGE time saver.
Not too large or heavy.
Decent battery performance.
Dual card slots (CF and SD).
Fast enough for most things.
Weathersealed and very reliable.
Great high iso image quality.
Awesome lens selection.
The only thing that is missing is great base iso dynamic range performance and very high resolution files...
That is where the Nikon D810 steps in ;) ...and of course most any Medium Format Digital Back made recently ;D
I've got a foot in both courts at the moment- i have a nikon d800 and a couple of lenses and a 5dmk3 and a pile of lenses. The nikon file is way nicer than the canon file with all my tests- although i prefer the usability of the canon (maybe its because i have used canon for a long time).
I hope canon releases something to compete with the d800/810 at photokina!
Paul
-
I've got a foot in both courts at the moment- i have a nikon d800 and a couple of lenses and a 5dmk3 and a pile of lenses. The nikon file is way nicer than the canon file with all my tests- although i prefer the usability of the canon (maybe its because i have used canon for a long time).
I hope canon releases something to compete with the d800/810 at photokina!
Paul
Yeah, bottom line is that choosing gear is ultimately a matter of preference, specially nowadays since there are a LOT of good options out there. Generally a lot of professional photographers have multiple systems or at least have tried more than one. The preference is also not a static thing it might change over time just like one's work evolves and/or priorities change.
I also have been using Canon for many years but in the film days I was a Nikon user (loved the FM2) and in my MF days a Pentax 6x7 user. (My first DSLR was actually a Fuji S2 pro, I still have a lot of files from that camera and surprisingly (or not) they still look VERY nice nowadays!)
-
One thing to add that I heard from a pro photographer using Hasselblad when asked why Hasselblad and not Nikon or Canon at half the cost. He said that while image quality from either Canon or Nikon would be perfectly fine for his work, he found that his clients took him more seriously and, more importantly, never quibbled about the bill when he shot with a camera they didn't have and couldn't afford. He said that clients see the name Canon and Nikon and figure the work can't be that special as they have the camera at home, but with the Hassie, clients "knew" (thought) they were getting something special. You and I and every decent photographer know the reality of this situation, but as they say: "Perception is reality."
-
Is that just the fickle general public though? If you are dealing with agencies or direct with bigger businesses they tend not to care as long as the tiff is big enough for their their needs, they are more interested in what images you produce for them. Sure they might be a bit miffed if you turn up with just one DSLR and a zoom but I don't know anyone who works like that (advertising/design photography)
-
One thing to add that I heard from a pro photographer using Hasselblad when asked why Hasselblad and not Nikon or Canon at half the cost. He said that while image quality from either Canon or Nikon would be perfectly fine for his work, he found that his clients took him more seriously and, more importantly, never quibbled about the bill when he shot with a camera they didn't have and couldn't afford. He said that clients see the name Canon and Nikon and figure the work can't be that special as they have the camera at home, but with the Hassie, clients "knew" (thought) they were getting something special. You and I and every decent photographer know the reality of this situation, but as they say: "Perception is reality."
I am regularly hired by global Ad agencies like DRAFT-FCB, Y&R et. al. to photograph for ad campaigns and I also do work as a still photographer during motion projects and honestly only a few times have someone working for said clients has mentioned something about my gear and it's usually due to their particular interest. I don't think it factors in the hiring. Its more about the service, quality/speed/reliability, value you provide and what you ad to the project as an artist. Clients have loved the tethering workflow of C1pro w/ the iPads (and also the WiFI w/ eyefi card with the Canon). They have mentioned it quite a few times. The key to working with others is communication and with the iPads I can work freely but the client knows exactly what is going on and can give instant feedback. It makes the process much more interactive and collaborative. I know a lot of people here and in other photo forums work mainly alone so all this might not factor in their photography but for us that work with others it is a very big deal. The camera really needs to be transparent and yes, the quality needs to be there but generally the clients do not go into specifics in regards to the files. Most top end DSLRs can produce files big enough and clean enough for most needs if you do your part.
-
One thing to add that I heard from a pro photographer using Hasselblad when asked why Hasselblad and not Nikon or Canon at half the cost. He said that while image quality from either Canon or Nikon would be perfectly fine for his work, he found that his clients took him more seriously and, more importantly, never quibbled about the bill when he shot with a camera they didn't have and couldn't afford. He said that clients see the name Canon and Nikon and figure the work can't be that special as they have the camera at home, but with the Hassie, clients "knew" (thought) they were getting something special. You and I and every decent photographer know the reality of this situation, but as they say: "Perception is reality."
Hasselblad's marketing material often play on this, that clients (and models) are impressed by the camera gear itself, a real camera and not a common DSLR. As a photographer I feel it's like a desperate market message, but maybe there's some relevance in it. It feels kind of sad though that they bring it up as a key advantage of medium format. Rare and expensive, therefore good.
-
Agree that it's annoying...but it's true. When I break out the Hassy (mostly older clients who remember the V series) react completely differently than to the Nikons.
-
i think it’s more of a thing in the amateur world, it’s a good way for the weak minded to separate themselves from the everyday snapper, instead of photographing well worn scenic hotspots/cats/their kids with a DSLR a MFD camera will elevate their images above those of the flikr/camera club hoi polloi.
-
Hi,
I have actually seen that a few times when I am shooting with the Hasselblad V-series camera. People recognise it and say that "he must be a professional photographer". No one ever asked if I plan to go to moon.
Best regards
Erik
Hasselblad's marketing material often play on this, that clients (and models) are impressed by the camera gear itself, a real camera and not a common DSLR. As a photographer I feel it's like a desperate market message, but maybe there's some relevance in it. It feels kind of sad though that they bring it up as a key advantage of medium format. Rare and expensive, therefore good.
-
Hi,
I have actually seen that a few times when I am shooting with the Hasselblad V-series camera. People recognise it and say that "he must be a professional photographer". No one ever asked if I plan to go to moon.
Best regards
Erik
Well, do you? :)
-
i think it’s more of a thing in the amateur world, it’s a good way for the weak minded to separate themselves from the everyday snapper, instead of photographing well worn scenic hotspots/cats/their kids with a DSLR a MFD camera will elevate their images above those of the flikr/camera club hoi polloi.
The web has always been full of pro/am photographer 'debates' but the weak/strong minded photographer division is, I will admit, a new one to me. How are we to classify ourselves?
-
"How are we to classify ourselves?"
That's up to the individual, I think of it as photographers who think about taking/making images as opposed to thinking about camera gear.
-
In another life as a recording engineer, I noticed that musicians would always feel flattered when I put the biggest microphone in the collection on them. Some would even ask why they couldn't have the big microphone, or feel slighted when they got the smaller microphone.
Of course the cheap knockoff microphones are made big these days just for that reason.
But the fact is, the best microphones in the cabinet were the tiny Schoeps CMC5 small diaphragm condensers. They were exactly as big as they needed to be acoustically. And they weren't cheap either. But the sound is pure bliss. Overall though, even a cheap microphone can be the best for a given application.
-
"How are we to classify ourselves?"
That's up to the individual, I think of it as photographers who think about taking/making images as opposed to thinking about camera gear.
Yeah, but in the same line, we need to admit that some cameras are more fun to use than others, and some require really hard lifting.
In my opinion you need extraordinary strength of will to use a camera all day long if you hate the experience. As an amateur, I hated every moment of using the Phamiya, although the files were extraordinary and the lenses sharp. I loved every moment of professionally using the Canon 1 series, although the files on some models (1Ds2, 1DII) never struck me as great.
MF bodies are NOT all equal. As we have all found out. Frankly, I am probably a total pervert, because I actually liked the old Hassy.
Edmund
-
Yeah, but in the same line, we need to admit that some cameras are more fun to use than others, and some require really hard lifting.
In my opinion you need extraordinary strength of will to use a camera all day long if you hate the experience. As an amateur, I hated every moment of using the Phamiya, although the files were extraordinary and the lenses sharp. I loved every moment of professionally using the Canon 1 series, although the files on some models (1Ds2, 1DII) never struck me as great.
MF bodies are NOT all equal. As we have all found out. Frankly, I am probably a total pervert, because I actually liked the old Hassy.
Edmund
+1 to this and what BCooter wrote. Shoot with what you love to use. Eronald could never produce great work if he used a camera he hated. Plain and simple; use what you love!
I shoot medium format and love it; I mean I love the whole experience.
I find the files to be great and much better than anything I've seen from a Canon or Nikon. Also, I love the experience I have with my camera and the lenses I use. I consider it to be an relationship, what I have between my process and the equipment I use, that would be hard to break. I shoot what I love and have no regrets on dropping the $40K on the system.
Keep in mind though, I am very specialized; I only shoot architecture and interiors, with some commercial landscapes here and there. The camera I use, an Arca Swiss RM3Di, is very specialized for this type of photography and suits me very very well.
My girlfriend, a food and drink photographer, is not so great with a Tech Camera. She chose the DF+ with an IQ 260 to be her system and loves it. Loves the camera, the lenses, and the files (color most importantly); her system is great for what she does and she does not regret dropping the $40K for it either.
But we are both specialized and know exactly what we want to shoot. Finding the system that was best for each of us was easy, since MFD is made for us specialists. We have made no compromises for what we do and choose the system that works best for us.
You, on the other hand, do not have an concrete idea of what you want to do. MFD is great for the specialist, since the systems are made for us, but not so much for the generalist. If you really feel your end goal is MF, I would recommend spending some time, and money, finding out what you want to do, and then determine what system is good for you.
As (probably) the greatest portrait photographer of our time, Gregory Heisler, said, "shoot what you can't help but shoot." Find out what you want to shoot and then determine what system is best for you.
http://petapixel.com/2014/07/17/greg-heisler-talks-photography-career-true-style-brilliant-interview/
-
BTW, MFD to me is not MF size vs 35mm any more. It is more CCD vs CMOS.
I find CCD to be just better then CMOS. Better color, better grain, better depth, better color linearity, etc. Even with BCooter's 800 ISO CCD shots, I find the tones to more appealing. I even had a friend my age (around 29) say that the depth he sees with a CCD is still much deeper than what he see with a CMOS system.
-
BTW, MFD to me is not MF size vs 35mm any more. It is more CCD vs CMOS.
Even with BCooter's 800 ISO CCD shots, processed to hell and back, I find the tones to more appealing.
Someone has become too good at post for his own good. ;)
It's an interesting question though whether one should use extraordinary equipment or not; if one does one will always be spoiled ...
This guy has found his own solution, singeing every file, burning every steak to make a unique cuisine, canceling the camera variable in the creative equation. .
Edmund
-
BTW, MFD to me is not MF size vs 35mm any more. It is more CCD vs CMOS.
I find CCD to be just better then CMOS. Better color, better grain, better depth, better color linearity, etc. Even with BCooter's 800 ISO CCD shots, processed to hell and back, I find the tones to more appealing. I even had a friend my age (around 29) say that the depth he sees with a CCD is still much deeper than what he see with a CMOS system.
Still waiting for anyone to substantiate this claim in principle. Are we comparing 35mm sensors against 35mm sensors? Because there's only one CMOS sensor over 24x36mm, and it's only 33x44mm. Surely we aren't comparing 35mm CMOS sensors against MF CCD sensors. While cases from one person's experience might seem to point to this kind of conclusion, it's a long way from underwriting the claim that there is an inherent property in CCD sensors that explains a perceived difference in quality.
-
Still waiting for anyone to substantiate this claim in principle. Are we comparing 35mm sensors against 35mm sensors? Because there's only one CMOS sensor over 24x36mm, and it's only 33x44mm. Surely we aren't comparing 35mm CMOS sensors against MF CCD sensors. While cases from one person's experience might seem to point to this kind of conclusion, it's a long way from underwriting the claim that there is an inherent property in CCD sensors that explains a perceived difference in quality.
Let's give it few months, and then at least we'll have lotsa samples of the Sony sensor to discuss.
In the mean time, I guess we can agree that the Pentax 645Z wins the "Autofocus MF system under $12K that can do 6400 ISO" by default, while the still available Pentax 645D selling at something like $5K probably wins the "cheapest AF MF system" competition, with the D800 and D810 getting thrown out of the ring for being ... welterweights. trying to win the heavyweight belt :)
Edmund
-
never quibbled about the bill when he shot with a camera they didn't have and couldn't afford.
Maybe.
Though if a client is expecting a serious production, they expect a certain amount of serious equipment and crew and catering and locations and studios and . . .
I doubt seriously if many clients know or would care if your using a mamiya df or a 1dx because the Canon looks larger anyway.
Obviously if your shooting for any international brand and use three speed lights bouncing into an umbrella with one lens on a small camera, the clients may notice in a negative way.
Then again today with where business spending is, if your prudent, efficient and deliver what is requested, that is more important than a big show, as long as the production doesn't look cheap.
Funny thing is with all of the post production used in controlled genres like beauty, you could probably get away with less expensive equipment.
It's kind of irrelevant because any image maker that can secure a major brand will probably have a room full of equipment anyway, either owned or rented.
As far as client's not questioning fees if you use a medium format camera, I'd like to meet a client today that wasn't concerned with production costs.
It sounds to me a quote like that is more justification than actual practice, but there is always exceptions to every rule.
CCD vs. cmos, I don't know, who does? Everybody works differently, other than Leica there are no ccd full frame cameras and even then nobody is going to make that test.
Personally I think I see a difference but I don't always shoot three cameras on one setup and I rarely chose a camera thinking ccd of cmos.
I try to select a camera for the look I think it will produce.
This was shot with an M8 and 1 key hmi, slight spun for diffusion and two hmi's slightly bounced for fill.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/m8_L1.jpg)
I didn't want an overly detailed look, or a cmos smooth look, so used the m8. Another photographer probably would approach it differently, who knows?
IMO
BC
-
Though if a client is expecting a serious production, they expect a certain amount of serious equipment and crew and catering and locations and studios [...]
As far as client's not questioning fees if you use a medium format camera, I'd like to meet a client today that wasn't concerned with production costs.
Isn't that a mute point ? Most of the better known photographers I come across bill the magazine for MF rental anyway - at least for fashion editorials. The days of expensive 2 week trips to exotics went over a decade ago - replaced by reduced budgets, fees and 'fill-ins' such as MF rental !
-
Hi,
What Luke writes makes a lot of sense, a lot of variables are involved.
- Different physical sensor sizes.
- All sensors are different. Different pixel count, pixel size, CFA design, AA-filte or not, microlens design.
- Some cameras are more optimised for high ISO, Nikon D4, Canon 1, while others are optimised for low ISO high DR. Examples of low ISO cameras are Nikon D800/D810, all Sony's except A7s
- Many sensors are made by Sony, Canon makes their sensors themselves
- CCD sensors are coming from either Truesense, the company formerly known as Kodak, or DALSA.
- CCD sensors are most often used with proprietary software like Capture One and Phocus. Both may be optimized for the makers own backs
So, I cannot see how CCD or CMOS can be singled out as a most important factor.
Best regards
Erik
Still waiting for anyone to substantiate this claim in principle. Are we comparing 35mm sensors against 35mm sensors? Because there's only one CMOS sensor over 24x36mm, and it's only 33x44mm. Surely we aren't comparing 35mm CMOS sensors against MF CCD sensors. While cases from one person's experience might seem to point to this kind of conclusion, it's a long way from underwriting the claim that there is an inherent property in CCD sensors that explains a perceived difference in quality.
-
Hi,
Actually, DSLRs used to be CCD, too, except Canon. Early Nikons, Konica Minoltas, Pentaxes were all CCDs, mostly from Sony. When Sony developed the early Exmor type sensor, most vendors switched technology.
Best regards
Erik
CCD vs. cmos, I don't know, who does? Everybody works differently, other than Leica there are no ccd full frame cameras and even then nobody is going to make that test.
-
Isn't that a mute point ? Most of the better known photographers I come across bill the magazine for MF rental anyway - at least for fashion editorials. The days of expensive 2 week trips to exotics went over a decade ago - replaced by reduced budgets, fees and 'fill-ins' such as MF rental !
In my experience there is two types of clients . . . today.
One asks for an estimate because they are either exploring a concept or haven't presented budget to whoever makes the final decision.
The other has a number that they have to stick with and it's all bottom line, no matter how you get there . . . it's just one number that matters.
The first client isn't there yet, the second is ready to buy.
IMO
BC
-
In my experience there is two types of clients . . . today.
One asks for an estimate because they are either exploring a concept or haven't presented budget to whoever makes the final decision.
The other has a number that they have to stick with and it's all bottom line, no matter how you get there . . . it's just one number that matters.
The first client isn't there yet, the second is ready to buy.
IMO
BC
The part I don't understand is that you have one single production cost, but different pricing according to the rights they acquire? If so, why, actually?
Edmund
-
Because more rights = greater value to them and more potential for profit, so what you're selling them should cost them more.
-
Because more rights = greater value to them and more potential for profit, so what you're selling them should cost them more.
Yes.
-
The part I don't understand is that you have one single production cost, but different pricing according to the rights they acquire?
Rights ? What rights? In the fashion/editorial jobs I see, it's a one off fee, no sliding scale. You, the photographer, surrender all the rights - more often than not. Budgets are slashed, where once exotic trips could be 1/2 weeks, now it's 3/4 days, Editors are responsible for the costs - not your well being. Within certain limits, photogs enjoy patronage and there's an understanding - up to a point. MF 'rental fees' , a euphemism more often than not, is away of getting to the bottom line while allowing the editor's to justify costs to 'those upstairs'.
Didn't ChrisBarrett post a rationale on LuLa as to why he now bases his fees on a one-off, all-in basis ?
No matter what we say, MF still seems 'de rigeur' in many productions. Don't think that will change, at least not until the Pirelli calendar gets produced with an iPhone!
I suspect cooter is referring more to advertising than fashion editorial.
-
Rights ? What rights? In the fashion/editorial jobs I see, it's a one off fee, no sliding scale. You, the photographer, surrender all the rights - more often than not. Budgets are slashed, where once exotic trips could be 1/2 weeks, now it's 3/4 days, Editors are responsible for the costs - not your well being. Within certain limits, photogs enjoy patronage and there's an understanding - up to a point. MF 'rental fees' , a euphemism more often than not, is away of getting to the bottom line while allowing the editor's to justify costs to 'those upstairs'.
Didn't ChrisBarrett post a rationale on LuLa as to why he now bases his fees on a one-off, all-in basis ?
No matter what we say, MF still seems 'de rigeur' in many productions. Don't think that will change, at least not until the Pirelli calendar gets produced with an iPhone!
I suspect cooter is referring more to advertising than fashion editorial.
Chris Barrett specializes in architectural photography, and I suspect the kind of clients to which he is referring, with regard to that particular kind of license, are architects, who tend to have a relatively narrow range of usage needs. I would be willing to bet that, whenever he is licensing photos to, say, a magazine or a manufacturer, the license terms and fees would be very different.
Anyway, what may apply to some fashion and editorial doesn't necessarily apply to other genres of commercial photography. Also, if you are surrendering "all rights" (by which I assume you mean a complete buy out for all media, worldwide, in perpetuity, or an actual sale of the copyright) to an editorial client who hardly needs to use the images that broadly, then I would say that perhaps you are not trying hard enough to get reasonable terms or need to look for other other ways to market your talents, depending upon the market where you are located.
-
Anyway, what may apply to fashion and editorial hardly applies to other genres of commercial photography. [..]
As always, it is kind of hard to respond to someone who won't provide any information about his or her location or any examples of his or her work.
I hadn't intended that my observation be interpreted so rigorously. It was a general, not verbatim, comment on the reduction of fees in some branches of the fashion industry, that many photographers are no longer able or willing to command terms they used to and that 'MF rental fees' end up being part of, as cooter described it, 'all bottom line, no matter how you get there ...'
I'm not a professional photographer - the post was based purely on personal contacts with both editors and photographers, in the EU, mainly London and Milan and I don't believe on re-reading my post that I implied anywhere that it applied to all genres of commercial photography. I'm sure it doesn't.
-
Because more rights = greater value to them and more potential for profit, so what you're selling them should cost them more.
How does it work in the US - when you go see the doctor, do you pay a flat fee or one that is computed proportionally to your net worth?
Edmund
-
How does it work in the US - when you go see the doctor, do you pay a flat fee or one that is computed proportionally to your net worth?
Edmund
Edmund you have a PHD? You know that a doctor is not the same as a working photographer producing images that help sell things, images that have a value proportional to the amount of the income they help generate?
-
Edmund you have a PHD? You know that a doctor is not the same as a working photographer producing images that help sell things, images that have a value proportional to the amount of the income they help generate?
Generally Clients want to know all costs up front. They do not like to worry about increased costs later. It is trickier in motion projects where you have to adhere to the approved estimate even when there was an increase of post production work involved due to increased client's revisions. A good estimator will factor that in when making an estimate depending on the client and type of project (that comes with experience) but every now and then overages have to be charged and its an uphill battle to get those fees collected a lot of times.
With photography generally clients tell me up front what their intended usage of the images is (type of media and length of publication) and I factor that in the estimate.
-
BTW, MFD to me is not MF size vs 35mm any more. It is more CCD vs CMOS.
I find CCD to be just better then CMOS. Better color, better grain, better depth, better color linearity, etc. Even with BCooter's 800 ISO CCD shots, I find the tones to more appealing. I even had a friend my age (around 29) say that the depth he sees with a CCD is still much deeper than what he see with a CMOS system.
I'd chime in with Luke's and Erik's comments on that. In a multi-variate comparison, sometimes we seize on the wrong variable to explain differences.
I addressed the issue myself at length here (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/50551-pentax-645d-645z-ccd-vs-cmos.html#post580651). My opening line was (and remains): "My take on the difference between CCD and CMOS: There is none."
Ray
-
Hi,
I cannot afford the ticket… ;-)
So, I have no plans to go the moon.
Best regards
Erik
Well, do you? :)