Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: sailronin on March 04, 2015, 09:05:37 pm
-
Not to be too much of a curmudgeon but this section was turning into a Nikon d8xx, Canon "whatever" group instead of Medium Format. Thanks for adding the exclusion in the title.
Let the flames begin!
-
That's because people don't know that the term "medium format" means. They seem to think it refers to the number of pixels.
Then of course there are those who think their thoughts on any subject belong here. Maybe it's a community thing.
And of course those who love flaming MF in general or a particular brand and need to point out the release of every camera that signals the demise of the format or brand.
-
imo banning the 35mm discussion here can of course reduce some flame and avoid some religious conversion (that some leaves MF for 35mm), but I would think it better to let everyone and MF manufacturer know how 35mm is pushing and why MF needs to raise the bar.
-
Hi,
Just to say, that "excluding 35mm" has been around for quit a few years. If you check number of messages it is one of the most active forums on the site.
Best regards
Erik
Not to be too much of a curmudgeon but this section was turning into a Nikon d8xx, Canon "whatever" group instead of Medium Format. Thanks for adding the exclusion in the title.
Let the flames begin!
-
Hi,
That "excluding 35mm" has been part of the forum description for quite a few years, nothing new. Wisely enough, the forum owners are not for censoring discussion, as long as tone is civilised.
I don't think any of these sub forums are intended for mutual admiration, if you discuss benefits you also need to be able to discuss disadvantages and competitive landscape. Quite a few posters have been into medium format and went to 135, frequent Nikon advocate BernardLanguillier is an example of that. Well he is also shooting 4x5" and recently got a Hasselblad kit.
Chris Barret has been a long time MFD advocate, but now shifted efforts to shooting Sony A7r on a technical body, it seems.
Some people don't shoot MFD, but have collected deep insights in imaging like Bart van der Wolf or Jim Kasson, who also happens to have MFD in retirement.
Some folks have a lot of experience and knowledge and I don't think those folks should be forced into exile just because they are not subscribing to the mutual MFD admiration, their knowledge and experience is valuable.
Personally I do something of 50% of my shooting with MFD (Hasselblad 555/P45+ and six lenses) and actually enjoying it. The other 50% is on smaller formats (Sony A99 and A77 with five lenses) and I am enjoying that, too. Sometimes the smaller format is more appropriate. So I have decent level of experience with both I would say.
Development in smaller formats is faster. In DSLRs we had live view for a long time, for instance, but really well working LV arrived with the new Sony sensors. Many MFD owners love live view as it makes accurate focusing easy, and they may also appreciate the clean and pushable deep shadows that come with Sony's technology. Pentax and Hasselblad have made that technology available at "affordable" cost. Back side is that those Sony sensors are small (1.3X crop factor) and don't play well with symmetrical wide angles. All those things need to be discussed.
Just to say, photography is about making images and images care little about the means that were used to take them.
Best regards
Erik
imo banning the 35mm discussion here can of course reduce some flame and avoid some religious conversion (that some leaves MF for 35mm), but I would think it better to let everyone and MF manufacturer know how 35mm is pushing and why MF needs to raise the bar.
-
I shoot 35mm and 4x5 as well as MF, so I fully understand the "horses for courses" concept. Perhaps another category such as "FX"or "35 full frame" or "astronomical pixel count on tiny sensors" would be a hit with members?
It just is slightly annoying to go to MF work and see Nikon or Canon or Sony A7 rather examples of stunning work exploring what's possible with MF given patience and skill. There are scads of websites displaying output from the above mentioned mfgs.
-
From my perspective, I'm afraid it is only going to get worse. ::)
Eduardo
P.D. Before it gets better.
I shoot 35mm and 4x5 as well as MF, so I fully understand the "horses for courses" concept. Perhaps another category such as "FX"or "35 full frame" or "astronomical pixel count on tiny sensors" would be a hit with members?
It just is slightly annoying to go to MF work and see Nikon or Canon or Sony A7 rather examples of stunning work exploring what's possible with MF given patience and skill. There are scads of websites displaying output from the above mentioned mfgs.
-
so this is the place if I shoot with a view camera with a 16mp digital back but not the place to be if I shoot with a the same view camera with a 36mp sony attached..got it.
-
Hi,
Some folks see it that way, some don't.
Best regards
Erik
so this is the place if I shoot with a view camera with a 16mp digital back but not the place to be if I shoot with a the same view camera with a 36mp sony attached..got it.
-
Just to say, photography is about making images and images care little about the means that were used to take them.
Best regards
Erik
I have to disagree Erik, sometimes it is just about the enjoyment of using the equipment, or with film the physical processing and printing, the image can become secondary.
A colleague is a fine woodworker, he will happily plane wood for no point other than the pleasure of handling, and using with great skill, his tools and the materials. His finished product is pointless.
I do agree the images don't care either way ;D
-
imo banning the 35mm discussion here can of course reduce some flame and avoid some religious conversion (that some leaves MF for 35mm), but I would think it better to let everyone and MF manufacturer know how 35mm is pushing and why MF needs to raise the bar.
I think there's already plenty of evidence around for them.
I have no problem at all if other size formats - in the proper context - are a part of this thread.
But time is a valuable commodity, and one we have less and less of these days it seems. And since this is a forum where many come to for information - hence the organizational naming of various discussion categories - it makes sense to keep things in some sort of order to keep threads and topics that people are drawn to from totally dissolving into non related content.
So again, in a proper and useful context, no problem on my end with other formats as they relate to medium format (not that I matter, but some might think I have a vested interest).
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
Some people want to be better than others by using MF.
They think the format makes the difference, it's the royal league....
This section is not for the simple man on the street.
;)
-
Some people want to be better than others by using MF.
They think the format makes the difference, it's the royal league....
This section is not for the simple man on the street.
;)
That's a pretty cynical view and given the price of a D4 system in relation to a used Hassy, totally off base
-
Most of the 35mm discussions in the MF section are within threads where the OP is requesting explicit advise as to whether he/she should invest into MF or stay in the 35mm world.
Those are reasonable questions, and it will be hard to answer them if speaking about 35mm is forbidden.
Now, we may decide that hesitation is outlaw and focus on the guys who have committed to larger than 35mm by putting money on the table already? ;)
I am also wondering whether stitching - with virtual sensors typically much larger than MF ones - is eligible?
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7388/16549121705_ae92bb4d1c_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That's a pretty cynical view and given the price of a D4 system in relation to a used Hassy, totally off base
Well, MF these days pretty much means MFDB, right?
I don't think that my Hassy 503cw and Distagon CFE 40mm f4 IF fools anyone into thinking that I really am a MF user. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Some people want to be better than others by using MF.
They think the format makes the difference, it's the royal league....
This section is not for the simple man on the street.
;)
That's a pretty cynical view and given the price of a D4 system in relation to a used Hassy, totally off base
Yes, it's cynical, but it's not about the price. It's about the meaning behind a post.
I learned to read some members posts diagonal or not at all.
-
I've just seen this series on 4 buildings approx 4 stories high (and yes I know about the size of the dot screen of outdoor).
Still the one's I've seen are pretty and their NOT 35mm.
http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/apple-putting-users-beautiful-iphone-6-photos-billboards-and-print-ads-163235
IMO
BC
-
I've just seen this series on 4 buildings approx 4 stories high (and yes I know about the size of the dot screen of outdoor).
Still the one's I've seen are pretty and their NOT 35mm.
http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/apple-putting-users-beautiful-iphone-6-photos-billboards-and-print-ads-163235
IMO
BC
I have seen some of those ads in large size, and it's really as good ad for iPhone as for larger formats. They don't look that good if you get a little close. They just prove the old rule that with enough viewing distance anything will do.
-
I still have trouble understanding why people can't grasp the simple concept of keeping discussions about specific formats in their own areas. Do you see Hasselblad users barging into M43 forums and trying to argue with the Olympus crowd on how their newfangled sensor shift tech isn't as good as multishot or whatever? No, because they have better things to do.
As a person who shoots both full frame 35mm and MFD, I see very little reason in real life to constantly compare the two formats I use. When I have a concept in mind, I more or less know which of the two systems I will be using. When I search for old threads in this forum, there were many interesting and informative threads about MFD specifically and I learned a lot from those threads. But for a new user joining here to read and learn more about MFD, may he/ she have the patience of a sage to waddle through mud because the first 20 pages are full of the same old MFD vs Canikony crap that we have heard a billion and a half times by now.
Maybe we should just create one singular forum for everything because the concept of format based discussion is long dead. Better yet, just have one thread for everything because after page 2, every thread reads the exact same.
-
I've just seen this series on 4 buildings approx 4 stories high (and yes I know about the size of the dot screen of outdoor).
Still the one's I've seen are pretty and their NOT 35mm.
http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/apple-putting-users-beautiful-iphone-6-photos-billboards-and-print-ads-163235
IMO
BC
I really like the first forest image!
-
I think we should have forums split on system cost instead. Anything cheaper than say $30k shouldn't be welcome here ;-)
44x33 is too small to be true MFD too, and CMOS is just too versatile. Tech cams are really large format pretenders and does not fit anywhere.
-
Many of the posters in the MF section are professionals that once used MF exclusively but now just happen to shoot on multiple formants hence why there is probably such a mixture of formats used here.
Be careful what you wish for as a lot of the excellent imagery posted is by those people using 35mm cameras and putting a ban on all this and you'll be left with camera porn and stale conversations about how everyone loves their faultless MFD cameras. ZZZZZzzzzzzz :-\
-
Many of the posters in the MF section are professionals that once used MF exclusively but now just happen to shoot on multiple formants
While that is true, the majority of the posts here are not from those people.
Be careful what you wish for as a lot of the excellent imagery posted is by those people using 35mm cameras and putting a ban on all this and you'll be left with camera porn and stale conversations about how everyone loves their faultless MFD cameras. ZZZZZzzzzzzz :-\
Images constitute maybe 3% of all the posts in this forum and no, no one is askign for any ban. Just to keep the 35mm talk in a separate section.
No one is demanding for only "Loving posts about faultless MFD cameras" either. But it is possible to discuss pluses and minuses of medium format within the context of that particular format. A skill that is completely lost in this forum. Just because there are megapixel overlaps between two formats doesn't mean they need to be compared endlessly in every single thread.
-
Cut the price to 1/5th or so and the endless comparisons will disappear. The reason it's always compared to economical alternatives is that MFD is offensively expensive. The 645z fairs quite well because people think it's reasonably priced.
There's also been plenty of MFD mythology concerning image quality, and I think we see the payback. When claims like 16 bit color and several stops of better dynamic range is in circulation an interest to actually compare arises.
Many are also interested in "keeping a distance to the DSLR crowd " and thus constantly needs update on where 135 stands so they can upgrade their MFD system accordingly.
-
An Olympus 16MP M43 camera costs a fraction of what a Nikon D4s costs. Yet, I don't see an Olympus avalanche in the Nikon forums anywhere.
Also, how exactly is the 645z "faring better"? Marketshare? Mindshare? Goodwill of the angry mob on Internetville? Who's mind are you trying to change here? A person who decides to go for MFD is never looking at price as the primary deciding factor. A person who is supporting 35mm will never agree that something that costs more might be better at a few things than their equipment. All that is left is this never ending back and forth. And of course, lots of charts and numbers.
How many comparison tests have this forum seen? Can you name a single person from either camp saying "Yep, I was wrong. I am going to the other side now and never looking back".
What exactly have these format comparisons accomplished?
-
While that is true, the majority of the posts here are not from those people.
Images constitute maybe 3% of all the posts in this forum and no, no one is askign for any ban. Just to keep the 35mm talk in a separate section.
No one is demanding for only "Loving posts about faultless MFD cameras" either. But it is possible to discuss pluses and minuses of medium format within the context of that particular format. A skill that is completely lost in this forum. Just because there are megapixel overlaps between two formats doesn't mean they need to be compared endlessly in every single thread.
I personally don't care for which format is discussed in this forum as it is usually by very informed people, with experience and for the greater good of photography. Segregating people into categories is just unnecessary especially as there is so much overlap between formats now that stopping discussion would be a mistake IMO. Who would know about the Cambo Actus for example if 35mm discussion was limited to its own forum where I imaging most people would shoot sport, wildlife, BIF etc. I can own a digi back and a A7r and use it on the same view camera and with the same lenses.
I personally can't believe people can think this is a good idea???????
If you don't agree with what is being discussed don't contribute and look or start topics that do interest you but don't ban it........ what a strange place this is becoming?
-
I personally don't care for which format is discussed in this forum as it is usually by very informed people, with experience and for the greater good of photography. Segregating people into categories is just unnecessary especially as there is so much overlap between formats now that stopping discussion would be a mistake IMO. Who would know about the Cambo Actus for example if 35mm discussion was limited to its own forum where I imaging most people would shoot sport, wildlife, BIF etc. I can own a digi back and a A7r and use it on the same view camera and with the same lenses.
Which is why I said, just one thread in one forum will do fine.
Seriously, take page 3 onwards of almost any thread here. It is near impossible to figure out what the original thread subject was, because they all read exactly the same.
-
Actually many look for second hand MFD, and many there need a reality check after being marinated by various sales speak. They are generally not well-informed buyers I would say but rather have some dreamy view of what MFD provides. People think that something so expensive must be better at everything.
I wrote a guide about second hand MFD a while back, and it gets many hits and I get appreciating mails now and then. Many have been in contact with (eu) dealers but still don't get the information they need.
Some choose to stay with 135 and some still find a value in the MFD use case (even with a 22 megapixel back), but all find comparison to 135 as relevant.
-
I agree that a few subjects get repeated in the forum more than they need, but that probably just means I visit too often :-)
I think repeating is a different issue from how relevant a subject is. Comparison to 135 is very relevant, but maybe repeated a bit too often.
-
If there is a balanced discussion about comparison to help prospective byers, sure. I will go with your train of thought. but what ACTUALLY happens here is that a lot of old axes get grinded, MFD gets discredited at every possible opportunity and those who actually use this gear to do real work give up, put up their hands and say "why bother".
To go along with my earlier example, some M43 user doing this in the full frame section or vice versa in any other forum on the internet would earn you a one way ticket to banville. Here though, it's accepted as part of the scenery because hey, everybody loves to hate on MFD, the red headed stepchild of photography!
-
Ok, maybe I interpret it a bit differently. I use MFD myself and recently upgraded. I don't really see "MFD hate" here, but plenty criticism on pricing, dealer network, tech cam compatibility, SLR body features, dynamic range limitations. Quite relevant criticism if you ask me.
I also see praise, I myself often lift up the Schneiders and Kodak and view cameras unique properties, I've seen lots of IQ250 praise, 645z, Hassy multishot etc. I also see users get concrete answers to concrete questions about MFD gear use.
-
What exactly have these format comparisons accomplished?
Enlightened 3rd party people?
I don't know, where my feets are, so sucking up as much possible of the impressive knowledge shared here...
-
Well, some people complain about the lack of images.
Now, I see small small web size JPEGs as bad evidence of anything. I have published quite a few images in raw, like here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/
Those images helped at least two persons to buy into the Hasselblad V system, so I don't think I am to negative to MFD.
What I don't like with MFD is that there is a lot of bad information:
- The 6 EV DR advantage - all fake
- The 16 bit advantage - simply not true
- The better colour accuracy advantage - no evidence. That said, in my experiments my P45+ does OK, pretty close to my Sony Alpha 99.
- The Phase mount change advantage - not true, Phase One has a modular architecture so you should be able to replace the camera mount, but they exchange the whole back.
Some dealers provide very good information, Steve Hendrix of Capture Integration comes to mind.
Best regards
Erik
Ok, maybe I interpret it a bit differently. I use MFD myself and recently upgraded. I don't really see "MFD hate" here, but plenty criticism on pricing, dealer network, tech cam compatibility, SLR body features, dynamic range limitations. Quite relevant criticism if you ask me.
I also see praise, I myself often lift up the Schneiders and Kodak and view cameras unique properties, I've seen lots of IQ250 praise, 645z, Hassy multishot etc. I also see users get concrete answers to concrete questions about MFD gear use.
-
Hi Synn,
Olympus OM-D E-M5: 1099 $US (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1116759-REG/olympus_v207040bu000_om_d_e_m5_mark_ii.html)
Nikon D810: 2996:95 $US (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Camera+Model_Nikon+D810&ci=14876&N=4232860786+3907353607)
Hasselblad H5D-40: 10995:00 $US (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/893188-REG/Hasselblad_H5D_40_DSLR_Camera.html)
In the table below Nikon D810 was chosen as reference and normalised to one.
| Make | Price | Resolution | Sensor area |
| Olympus OM-D E-M5 | 0.37 | 0.44 | 0.25 |
| Nikon D810 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Pentax 645Z | 2.8 | 1.39 | 1.68 |
| Hasselblad H5D-40 | 3.7 | 1.1 | 1.67 |
|
|
Best regards
Erik
An Olympus 16MP M43 camera costs a fraction of what a Nikon D4s costs. Yet, I don't see an Olympus avalanche in the Nikon forums anywhere.
Also, how exactly is the 645z "faring better"? Marketshare? Mindshare? Goodwill of the angry mob on Internetville? Who's mind are you trying to change here? A person who decides to go for MFD is never looking at price as the primary deciding factor. A person who is supporting 35mm will never agree that something that costs more might be better at a few things than their equipment. All that is left is this never ending back and forth. And of course, lots of charts and numbers.
How many comparison tests have this forum seen? Can you name a single person from either camp saying "Yep, I was wrong. I am going to the other side now and never looking back".
What exactly have these format comparisons accomplished?
-
What about this idea: Only respond to the threads you think apply to the sub-forum. If there is a topic with anything to do with m4/3 and you aren not into that, don't click on it. If there is a topic that didn't mention a camera system in the title that is mentioned in the body, and it is one that you would rather not discuss, don't add a reply to the topic.
If you find yourself replying to the thread and catch yourself, perform the following. Close the browser window. Back away from your computer and make yourself a cup of tea. :)
Yes, I am aware of the irony within this response. :)
-
:-) Is that what they call "grown up attitude complex"? :-)
:-) Erik :-)
What about this idea: Only respond to the threads you think apply to the sub-forum. If there is a topic with anything to do with m4/3 and you aren not into that, don't click on it. If there is a topic that didn't mention a camera system in the title that is mentioned in the body, and it is one that you would rather not discuss, don't add a reply to the topic.
If you find yourself replying to the thread and catch yourself, perform the following. Close the browser window. Back away from your computer and make yourself a cup of tea. :)
Yes, I am aware of the irony within this response. :)
-
This is a bad week to harp on 35mm users considering the loss of one of our most prolific members who swore by his D800/D810. I'm a little against the idea of chasing anyone out right now.
-
Hi Luke,
I share your sentiment. Simon was a great guy!
Best regards
Erik
This is a bad week to harp on 35mm users considering the loss of one of our most prolific members who swore by his D800/D810. I'm a little against the idea of chasing anyone out right now.
-
I really like the first forest image!
Yair,
I like the images also. Apple does clean, simple graphic design where almost anything looks good that big.
I just posted it thinking the PEO, (Pixel Examiners Office) would tear it apart.
I guess they don't use I phones.
Actually in the pre PEO days, this type of post would have brought up discussion of how Apple selected imagery for an ad campaign. In this campaign, rather than commission photographers that can produce imagery with regularity, they searched 10,000 iphone images to find a handful of photos good enough to show.
That would have been an interesting discussion, but that discussion doesn't happen anymore.
Synn,
This part of the forum use to be different. It was mostly populated by photographers who worked as professionals or excellent amateurs that had a desire to produce unique work that rivaled the best.
They shared lighting ideas, strong imagery, work arounds with issues and were proud of their efforts and equipment they used in their imagery.
Then it seemed like overnight with the overwhelming d800 "discussions" something changed, where every post was covered with Nikon stuff or Sony sensor stuff and now it's MOSTLY about pixel size, dr, moire by a few people that are coming close to 10,000 posts of writing the same thing regardless of the topic.
It's old habit that I turn the site on, kind of like reading the arts section of the NY times every morning, except this NY times has now fired the journalists and populated the pages by wanna be writers for Pixel World Daily. (I don't know if there is a Pixel World Daily).
I guess in social media, everyone has a "right" to bury every thread.
I have the right to or not to read it, but since every topic turns out the same, I just pass over 90% of everything on this subsection.
and it's not just this section, the PEO has dominated almost every camera format thread so at this stage what's the point?
They now own these forums and seem to go to a great deal of effort to prove it.
IMO
BC
-
Totally agree with BC.
I as well.
It is kind of sad that this forum has devolved into this. I use to really enjoy the conversations about image making and lighting and the critiques, but it kind of seems that the Recent Professional Works sub-forum is the only place where we occasionally see this.
And when it comes down to it, clients kind of don't care about the formats. We may. I am very comfortable using a tech camera, so MFD is kind of it for me. However, the versatility of the modern CMOS sensors are really intriguing me.
But the fact is, no client cares. I am right now proof reading a 9 page proposal for a huge project and only one 2 sentence paragraph goes into the camera system I plan on using.
-
I like the images also. Apple does clean, simple graphic design where almost anything looks good that big.
I just posted it thinking the PEO, (Pixel Examiners Office) would tear it apart.
I guess they don't use I phones.
Actually in the pre PEO days, this type of post would have brought up discussion of how Apple selected imagery for an ad campaign. In this campaign, rather than commission photographers that can produce imagery with regularity, they searched 10,000 iphone images to find a handful of photos good enough to show.
That would have been an interesting discussion, but that discussion doesn't happen anymore.
Perhaps you aren't getting these feedbacks here because the thread is about a different topic?
I am sure you'd get very good response if you started another thread on this point.
I personally like some of these images and agree that they may or may not have been captured by photographers able to deliver the goods on a regular basis. But to me it isn't very different from what stock photography has always been. Apple has just applied an iPhone6 filter to Flickr.
That's a pretty isolated case of smart marketing in that it's about camera marketing, it does't tell us much about the evolution of photography that we didn't know already IMHO.
This being said, can we talk about iPhone photography in this section? I do own an iPhone 6... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Perhaps you aren't getting these feedbacks here because the thread is about a different topic?
I'm not trying to get feedback, or be the most popular person on the block.
Don't care about tweets, likes, or feeds. That's just not in my dna.
I care about photography and image creation.
Also don't care what cameras people use, or the format of the wafer. That's old think and means nothing to me, though I'll admit I like larger cameras than smaller, like professional vs. prosumer, though I own both.
Not that it matters, but I use what I use because I want to. Love working with my Leica, because to me it's a well designed pleasure and it makes me work in a way I find unique.
It's not as easy as other cameras, but if I wanted easy I would have chosen a different profession.
_____________________________________________________
When I was in my early 20's working as an AD, a photographer came in with some amazing photography and I was hooked.
I went to my boss, gave two weeks notice and never looked back.
From that point on photographer wan't a job description, it is as much my being as my surname.
To me I learned the technical aspects to produce my brand of art. Technique wasn't about noise control or how much lattitude a sensor had, it was how to craft an image around the the liabilities of a film or a system.
Actually, it was more than that, it was how to USE the liabilities of a system to produce something unique.
Today it seems different. There seems to be a group dead set on having a camera that will shoot at any iso and have more lattitude than the human eye. I don't understand that because I want to produce something the brain can dream, not just what the human eye can replicate.
In fact there seems to be a group that is dead set to prove their choice of camera is the "correct" choice. I don't think that's possible.
The early RG forums were a gas. People learned, fought, argued, actually argued enough that the forums ultimatly blew up, though there was rarely a day when I didn't learn something or at the very least enjoy myself.
After RG many moved over here then the image makers, especially professionals that cared about the art, vs. only the technical drifted away to the point they now are mostly gone.
Michael does a great job with these forums, doesn't moderate heavily but today these forums won't blow up because many of the image makers with that overwhelming passion aren't here anymore
They are replaced by the PEO.
We don't have threads that say, "look at what I can do with my digital back" or why I selected this location, or how cool is it that the oversharpening of 21mpx can assist in producing a unique look.
We now have negative threads that say a camera maker is doomed, or how bad shadow noise is in a certain brand and those are just the titles, not the the body of the thread.
I guess the answer is it's the way of the world though I don't accept that. I know there are great photographers willing to share, but I can promise you most of them don't give a whit about dr or noise or twenty billion iso.
They care about the final image and go to great lengths to produce it, regardless of the equipment they use.
But in regards to the Apple I phone billboards they're ok photos, not great but ok. The only thing that bothers me is I can make a list of 20 photographers I know personally that if you put their photos in the same exact medium, people wouldn't say "that's nice" they'd say Holy Shit that's great and not because of the camera, but the talent that operates the camera.
IMO
BC
-
I miss posts from Tucker, T-Mark, and few other working photogs who talked about real world experiences and rarely brought up specs and charts. This site like all others, has gone to the keyboard photographers.
-
BC, you hit on a very interesting point. The old RG forum was great, and it was the place to be for talking about image making, both professional or not. This place is close, but it's not the same, and that's a real shame. Recent professional works is the closest thing I've seen, format be damned.
I'm an old coot (sorry, coot) and this is the only profession I've ever really known. I feel privileged that I was able to make this my life's work. That said I don't have a viable business need for mf at this point. Heck my clients have never said a word about what camera I use since I got that first 1ds. I know MF and LF very well, they were the mainstays of my work for decades. To be honest I really do miss shooting the 4x5 and seeing those E-6 films on the light box. It was amazing. But times change and so have the deadlines and the budgets. Those days of sweating all the fine details and shooting a box of roids to get one great image are gone, at least for me.
I don't care what format people shoot. The exchange of images and information on how it was done and why is far more important.
If someone is so wrapped up in a format or a brand, and not the process, they are missing the point entirely.
-
James,
I agree with you, but technical posts about MF gear don't help anymore than technical posts about DR or iPhones.
Enforcing a strict no 35mm talk will not help getting arty talk back, those are unrelated to format. There is just as much talented work created with MF as there is with 35mm.
Yes, cameras are just tools, some tools are better than others for some jobs. Discussing this is IMHO relevant and so is the creation of art with cameras. I don't see why adults can't discuss both topics in parallel?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
some random thoughts…I am here because I, like others, have photography deeply imbedded in my soul. I had a grip on a Nikon F way before I touched a girl, I have spent more time composing on large format ground glass under dark cloth than looking at a monitor..although that is being eclispsed. Yes, I studied minor's zone system, I watched Ansel make a print in his darkroom, I know a densitometer from a diachronic head. Yet what is important is the image, both those mid century techies preached exactly that. On many of my commercial shoots I would fall for the type 59 or 665 polaroid.. knowing that the film was never going to have that same imperfect quality that happened to make the image sing, but more in keeping with what the client needed. Some of my favorite personal digital shots are from the iPhone 1 and now my 4, this once busy photographer can't afford a 6, but really I still get some nice ones from the 4. As BC mentioned, it is what you do with the thing to create.
Photography has always been a lure for a range of image makers, techie geeks who are better off focusing on a lens chart to off the chart artists who rely on tech support. Most of us are in the mix somewhere. Maybe I belong in another subset of LL and will check out others to see. I appreciate the knowledge and diligence of the pixel masters, but for my brain it gets a bit tedious. I wish more working pros participated because when you make images day in and day out with your ass on the line you hone your craft and the knowledge you gain is of interest to those that aspire to that level. I think the draw here is that when photographers who use similar equipment on a variety of situations and subject matter it is interesting, but when just the mechanics or specs are shared then it is too dry. I don't shoot with canon, or nikon or whatever but I can still appreciate how the piece of equipment translated a photographers vision and either worked or didn't. sorry to go on, but another thing that drives me crazy about this notion of sensor size, get real, large format is 8x10 to dennis Manarchy's monster view camera..small format is iPhone to 2x2 inches, unless you are Manarchy and a few others, you live in a small format world with a ton of possible pixels…with all those pixels thrown out when converted to 72 dpi on your screen for viewing. Lets just try to slush along with whatever we are shooting and do good work..here is an iPhone 4 shot wednesday that could work for Danner boots.
-
People should worry about their quality label and not the camera they use.
I'm very hard on myself to get the best I can, first of all aesthetically and second technically.
I'd rather use a DSLR and make good statement than having a MF and don't be able to make a powerful image!
I even see very good technical images here with very little soul.
-
I wonder too, why some people defend medium format so much, is it because it makes them feel better photographer just for that or is it because they can tell a client the sensor they use "would make better photographs".
-
BC, I tip my proverbial hat and raise my literal glass of Hakushu single malt in your general direction.
-
I propose that the basic topic of this forum be changed to something like technical cameras and equipment, in which case you could include the use of perspective correction lenses and using small format cameras as digital back, since the technical quality of small format keeps improving all the time, and at a greater rate than medium format digital backs.
I would also like to request that people avoid getting too strict in their opinions about the content in this forum, since, from time to time there are important topics covered here are that are seldom if ever addressed in other forums. Lighting is one example.
In any case, where photographers are considering small format versus medium format for their work, then I think small format should be part of the discussion, though I think getting too far into the technical details can sometimes be counterproductive, except for engineers and manufacturers.
-
There is a valid point to all of this.
To be frank, you would have had to have you head under a rock for about 5 years to not know about the Nikon d8xx and the Sony ax etc etc. We all know what they are capable of, shadow recover this, dynamic range that, we love Sony this, we love Nikon that, Otus is the best yada yada yada.
All of us who bought a MF camera did so because for whatever the reason, we didn't want a D or A.
So for those who have the D8xx or the Ax, why all the fuss in reminding everybody about how good it is and why we should compare.
I for one fell in love with the usability and feel in your hand of the original 645D, bought one and now upgraded to the 645Z and am happier than I have been in years. I would love a tech camera too with a wide angle lens for stitching and tilting, and when I visit a post about this topic in the next few years, the last thing I want to hear about is how good the Canon 17tse is on an A7r.
-
deleted
It's really not worth an argument.
BC
-
Without being a mind reader, I wonder what Michael thought when he built these forums.
Just guessing, but I bet he wanted a place where people could discuss art, technique, style, all relating to image creation.
BC
I think part of the problem is how the forum is divided up into different categories, which forces the discussion into, well, format categories. This may have made sense in the film days, but I am not sure it still does. Maybe if there was a forum for discussing technical aspects of cameras (of all sensor sizes) and lenses, and one for talking about how to make great photos (with all sensor sizes), the format wars could be contained at least somewhat.
On second thought, probably not.
-
... I just posted an example of flash photography of 2 little girls, which is a very minor subject in these fora, and just joked that the models didn't have any photoshop breasts. I don't understand your over-reaction...
I suspect James was talking about a different photo in that thread (a girl in water), not your two little girls?
-
Hi,
I guess it could be that James had a bad day.
I posted that link to that image, and I feel it was OK in that context as it was taken with an 85/1.4 at stated 1/3200s and obvious fill light. The image was clearly attributed to the photographer. If anyone feels that it is improper I can replace the linked image with a link address.
Getting back to James's comments, there is a button called "New Topic" to start any new thread. If he wants a thread about images, he can start one. It is not very hard. But, he may not get a lot of discussion on images on an "Equipment & Techniques" forum.
Best regards
Erik
Slobodan,
I believe that James was refering to a joke I made about "photoshoped tits" in my little girls post, that was not even refering to the image linked to by Erik.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I suspect James was talking about a different photo in that thread (a girl in water), not your two little girls?
it was about the model in the water and the response.
BC
-
I just feel like I have to chime in right now, random as it may be. I've been lurking around here since 2010, only posting 12 times so far (including this one!), but let me just say to James, I hope you stick around here. I always look forward to your posts, and even as a lurker, I recognize the issues you have with the forum.
That's all I have to say I guess... hopefully, I can bring some new life to the forum if or when I get my hands on a 645D.
-
I have been lurking since 2004. I moved here when the RG forums blew up. I agree 100% with James that the discussions on the RG forums were far more interesting. Who can forget things like Mark Tucker's PlungerCam.
-
... he discussions on the RG forums were far more interesting...
10 years or so ago most discussions on most forums were far more interesting. There is really nothing new to discuss about digital anymore, other than to rehash tired, old debates like 35mm vs. medium format, CMOS vs. CCD, Leica vs. the rest, blah, blah, blah.
-
Hi,
I sort of share your view. I have been shooting a lot with MFD since June 2013 i parallel with full frame 135 and APS-C. I have made many images with the P45+ I really like, but on my recent trips to the Dolomites I found that the MFD images were a bit boring.
By and large, I have been more happy with the P45+ image I have shot around here where I live:
This was my first "real world image" with the P45+ and I like it very much:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Other/Technical/P45/i-j6jXJ5h/1/X3/20130630-CF043307-X3.jpg)
This is another nice image from here around:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Other/Technical/P45/i-vBj25vb/0/X3/20140420-CF044780-2-X3.jpg)
On the other hand this P45+ image has a lot of good ingredients but no life:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-hWXbrn6/0/X3/20140612-CF045214-X3.jpg)
Why this spontanious shot with the DSLR is much more livid:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-35h2X56/1/X3/20140612-_DSC4611-X3.jpg)
This one was DSLR:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Dolomites2014/i-ScF3V3K/0/X3/20140603-_DSC4026-X3.jpg)
While this was P45+:
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Themes/Berg-dal-och-vatten/i-Qfsbfx5/0/X3/20130820-CF043880-10-X3.jpg)
This night shot on P45+ trashed a DSLR image I was taking at the same time.
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Themes/Berg-dal-och-vatten/i-B6KQrRM/0/X3/20140530-CF044981-X3.jpg)
This one was shot with a fisheye lens on APS-C. Actually an APS-C lens on a full frame DSLR.
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Themes/Berg-dal-och-vatten/i-nkGznZT/0/X3/20140607-_DSC4503-X3.jpg)
P45+
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Themes/Berg-dal-och-vatten/i-qbgX2tt/0/X3/20140613-CF045257-X3.jpg)
DSLR
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Themes/Berg-dal-och-vatten/i-L999Mkt/0/X3/20140613-_DSC4663-X3.jpg)
Really, I am happy to use all three system. I take the APS-C (Alpha 77) on street walks, the full frame Sony Alpha 99 is my all around workhorse, and I like shooting with the P45+ as it suits my shooting style.
Best regards
Erik
People should worry about their quality label and not the camera they use.
I'm very hard on myself to get the best I can, first of all aesthetically and second technically.
I'd rather use a DSLR and make good statement than having a MF and don't be able to make a powerful image!
I even see very good technical images here with very little soul.
-
Hi,
For the theoretically inclined technology is always quite interesting and imaging science is quite interesting.
On the other hand, technology arrived at a state where even small formats are perfectly good for normal size prints, like the A2 format the largest desktop printers can print. Michael Reichmann has written an interesting article on the issue: http://luminous-landscape.com/full-frame-myth/ , it is worth reading.
Best regards
Erik
10 years or so ago most discussions on most forums were far more interesting. There is really nothing new to discuss about digital anymore, other than to rehash tired, old debates like 35mm vs. medium format, CMOS vs. CCD, Leica vs. the rest, blah, blah, blah.