Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: rollsman44 on March 15, 2015, 08:55:43 am
-
If you had to choose a MF camera to shoot weddings which one would you use with a Budget around 6500 for Body, Digital Back and 1 lens( 80mm) Thank you. Will be using flash and ISO range max 1600( with no noise) Thank you
-
I've shot many weddings with a variety of Phase and Leaf gear and would be glad to send you raws.
The high speed flash sync, and quality of the modern leaf shutter lenses both stopped down, and more importantly, wide open is very helpful.
But even a older generation back would be tough to fit to that budget. A ton of options (from all brands) start to pop up if your budget is flexible to $10-$15k, but at $6k you'll be quite limited in choices.
A lot of our commercial clients do a lease to own to reduce their initial cash outlay. Given that our customers typically hold onto their MFD kit much longer than they did when they were in the 35mm dSLR world, a 2-3 year lease is quite sensible.
On a personal note, for my wedding shooting I rarely want "no noise" - I just want any noise present to be well structured, uniform, natural looking noise that looks more like film grain that crappy digital clumping noise. I often add additional grain (using C1v8s new film grain tool that, IMO, outperforms any plugin I've seen for realistic beautiful adjustable film grain).
-
Hi Doug, I was thinking more on a Pentax 645Z Used if there is one available and the 75 FA lens to start with. I dont do many weddings anymore so I have to keep my budget in that area( I could go to about 8k but thats max) If I shot more weddings it would justify the extra money I would spend. I dont need any big files just ISO up to 1200 would work for me. Thank you
-
If you had to choose a MF camera to shoot weddings which one would you use with a Budget around 6500 for Body, Digital Back and 1 lens( 80mm) Thank you. Will be using flash and ISO range max 1600( with no noise) Thank you
At that price?
None. Minimum would be a Hasselblad H4x with a IQ140 back. The sensor plus mode (10mp on the IQ140, 15mp on the IQ160/260 and 20mp on the IQ180/280) is superb. Fast and great quality file even at iso 800. The IQ backs have a SUPERB lcd screen good enough to really judge image quality and sharpness. The AF of the H4x (or H5x) is really good. The setup wont be as fast as a DSLR obviously but it is fast enough.
-
Well, first, if you haven't shot weddings, you should shoot a few with gear you are *very* familiar with to find out (a) if you have the stomach for it and (b) like it before you buy MF gear for it.
Weddings are a relatively benign form of spot-news event, from which you are expected to derive studio still-life levels of art. They are *not* easy and not that many people enjoy the pressure, and fewer still do it well.
That said, the only system in the range you describe is the 645z. It is an ideal wedding rig. Perfect high ISO when you cannot/don't want to strobe, with enough speed and good AF.
Paired with a AF45-85, you're good to go. If you need LS for outdoor formals, get the two LS lenses. For the weddings applications where LS might be needed, they are perfectly suitable.
- N.
-
Hi Nick, I have shot weddings for over 40 years and I now want to use MF. I did have an interest on the 645Z with that 45-85 lens.
You must have read my mind. I have the 645D but it will not work out for me. The processing time is too long in between shots and ISO not high enough. What is your opinion on the Hassy H3d2-22 ? I dont need Big files but an ISO of about 1200 would be enough.
Thank you
-
I've shot 175 weddings, and will do another 25 this year. My primary body is a Nikon D4, but last year I owned a Hasselblad H1 and Credo 40, which I found the AF was too crappy to use even for wedding portraits. This year I've upgraded to an h5X, and plan on using it for all of the portraits. In a perfect world I'd have my D4, 24-70 and 70-200 and a Credo 50 or IQ250 on the Hassy, but that's not within my current budget. I have played with the Pentax, and found the files to be lacking - they just looked like big D800 files to me. I only had it for a few hours, but that, coupled with the lack of current leaf shutter lenses and the fact that you can't run the files through Capture One were huge negatives for me. FWIW, the Credo 40 (there's no sensor plus option on the Leaf backs) isn't really usable above 400 ISO.
-Doug
-
Hi Doug, I am now semi retired from shooting. I guess I just want to be able to still shoot afew weddings and using MF as My main camera. I was thinking of a Hassy H3D2-31 or 22. I can live without ISO over 1000. I dont need Hi ISO or Big Files. I have been shooting so many years and with MF Hassy filnm days. I appreciate your comments. Thank you
-
My opinion is to get yourself a S/H Nikon D4 and forget all about MF gear.
-
I've shot many weddings with a variety of Phase and Leaf gear and would be glad to send you raws.
The high speed flash sync, and quality of the modern leaf shutter lenses both stopped down, and more importantly, wide open is very helpful.
But even a older generation back would be tough to fit to that budget. A ton of options (from all brands) start to pop up if your budget is flexible to $10-$15k, but at $6k you'll be quite limited in choices.
A lot of our commercial clients do a lease to own to reduce their initial cash outlay. Given that our customers typically hold onto their MFD kit much longer than they did when they were in the 35mm dSLR world, a 2-3 year lease is quite sensible.
On a personal note, for my wedding shooting I rarely want "no noise" - I just want any noise present to be well structured, uniform, natural looking noise that looks more like film grain that crappy digital clumping noise. I often add additional grain (using C1v8s new film grain tool that, IMO, outperforms any plugin I've seen for realistic beautiful adjustable film grain).
I would recommend picking up a h3d-39 or h3d-31, I've seen them go for 3-5k these day.
-
Thank you all for your suggestions. I appreciate it
-
At that price?
None. Minimum would be a Hasselblad H4x with a IQ140 back. The sensor plus mode (10mp on the IQ140, 15mp on the IQ160/260 and 20mp on the IQ180/280) is superb. Fast and great quality file even at iso 800. The IQ backs have a SUPERB lcd screen good enough to really judge image quality and sharpness. The AF of the H4x (or H5x) is really good. The setup wont be as fast as a DSLR obviously but it is fast enough.
None of these CCD backs can perform as good as the current APSC CMOS cameras when you bump ISO over 800 (regardless of sensor+). Try a side by side comparison against a Nikon D5300 / Sony A6000 and you'll see.
Another problem with these CCD backs is that if you shoot at high ISO you would eventually get different color temperatures in different lithography partitions on the sensor ruining the picture (usually discrepancy between the upper half and the lower half of the frame). I've witnessed 3 x IQ260s, 1 x IQ280 to have the same issue. A re-calibration at the factory would be required.
-
Sorry, for wedding only CMOS will do the game. A Pentax 645Z will fall within the range of your budget, but you are limited to 1/125 flash sync. However it is not that bad since you can rely on the state-of-the-art dynamic range of the sensor instead of flash.
If you had more budget then perhaps get H5D-50C/Credo50/IQ150/IQ250. (Credo 50 is most cost efficient but you might want to check compatibility.)
Other than these, stay with Nikon D4/D4S.
-
Rollsman, the "z" is in a whole other league that the "D". WAY faster in all respects, and I think you'd be happy using ISO 4000 for most shots. Seriously.
The Hassy and Phase 50CMOS backs are good too, just stupidly, and insanely, overpriced, respectively.
I can see no reason to go with a Generation 2 back, like an H-31. The cameras are painful to use, like the 645D. And High ISO isn't that good.
- N.
-
You say you can live without ISO over 1000, but with a CCD back and your budget, you're looking at not really being able to use over 400. @voidshatter, disagree completely in regard to dynamic range reducing the need for flash. Better DR doesn't give you control over crappy lighting conditions you're often faced with at weddings the way flash does.
-Doug
-
You say you can live without ISO over 1000, but with a CCD back and your budget, you're looking at not really being able to use over 400. @voidshatter, disagree completely in regard to dynamic range reducing the need for flash. Better DR doesn't give you control over crappy lighting conditions you're often faced with at weddings the way flash does.
-Doug
For crappy lighting conditions I use the following setup without flash at ISO 3200 - 102400:
Nikon D4S + Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art and Nikon 85mm 1.4G
Canon 1DX + Canon 50mm f1.2 L + Canon 85mm f1.2 L II (but the AF of Canon in low-light struggles)
Sony A7S + Leica 50mm f0.95 Noctilux + VM-E Close Focus Ring
These produce more natural look without the need of assistants carrying flash and umbrella around, as well as flash doing damage to the original atmosphere. Virtually unlimited amount of continuous shooting is also possible.
-
Hi Doug, I am now semi retired from shooting. I guess I just want to be able to still shoot afew weddings and using MF as My main camera. I was thinking of a Hassy H3D2-31 or 22. I can live without ISO over 1000. I dont need Hi ISO or Big Files. I have been shooting so many years and with MF Hassy filnm days. I appreciate your comments. Thank you
Forgot to mention the Leica S2 (or S). Check it out if you can. I loved how it felt in hand and the files are nice. The AF was good and it can work with many lenses thanks to the factory adapters. That includes the Hasselblad H and the Contax 645 lenses (with fully functional AF!).
The 645z is a superb body but I find that that the lenses did not work great wide open and there are no AF lenses with Leaf Shutters for the Pentax.
-
It's always interesting in this type of discussion to see how well the industry has beat into a photographers head, that a CCD can really shoot anything but base iso. Excepting being a sensor plus enabled Phase One back, I don't believe by increasing ISO on a CCD, you gain (no pun intended) anything. The readout on a Phase is the same, it's just a metadata writing that shows you set the iso higher.
This has been shown to be true with many tests, I have read both on this site and others, where a 50 iso sample is compared to a 200 iso sample and basically the image will look the same, either with the 50 sample way underexposed, or vise versa.
So I ask again for the experts, does a real "higher than base" iso really exist on a CCD MF back, besides moving to sensor plus, where you do see a definite improvement, still not sure it's really a higher iso, but it's sure 4:1 pixel binning. So with a good lens, you can get a good iso 800 image from a IQ180 albeit it's a 20MP file, thus it's not really a result of a higher iso, due to the loss in 3/4's of the resolution.
I fully understand with CMOS, you can actually increase the "gain" of the chip via the higher iso settings. But with CCD, you best case is maybe 1 step from base, thus on a 50 iso chip, you might increase to 100 iso, but that's not going to do much for a wedding in low light or natural light.
If anyone has information to prove that CCD's in a MF back really can write a high iso file, say true 400 or 800, I would love to see it, as I have never found anything to show this.
Paul
-
Excepting being a sensor plus enabled Phase One back, I don't believe by increasing ISO on a CCD, you gain (no pun intended) anything. The readout on a Phase is the same, it's just a metadata writing that shows you set the iso higher.
So you mean they work the same way as the A7r?
Quote
You can see that you don’t gain anything by turning up the ISO past the base value of 100. If the position of the ISO control has no effect on the SNR after Exposure corrections have been made in your favorite raw converter, some people say that that camera is ISO-less. That looks to be the case with the a7R.
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=3821
-
Hi Chris.
Can't soeak to Jim's blog comments but having used a A7r on several occasions in the ISO range of 800 to 1600 I would have to say I feel the A7r reacts a bit differently and does show the effect of increasing the gain on the chip via setting the ISO. Same with the Nikon D800e and D810.
Not having a engineering back ground but a good reader. So maybe both chips CCD and CMOS work the same way but that's not to my experience.
Paul
-
It's always interesting in this type of discussion to see how well the industry has beat into a photographers head, that a CCD can really shoot anything but base iso. Excepting being a sensor plus enabled Phase One back, I don't believe by increasing ISO on a CCD, you gain (no pun intended) anything. The readout on a Phase is the same, it's just a metadata writing that shows you set the iso higher.
This has been shown to be true with many tests, I have read both on this site and others, where a 50 iso sample is compared to a 200 iso sample and basically the image will look the same, either with the 50 sample way underexposed, or vise versa.
So I ask again for the experts, does a real "higher than base" iso really exist on a CCD MF back, besides moving to sensor plus, where you do see a definite improvement, still not sure it's really a higher iso, but it's sure 4:1 pixel binning. So with a good lens, you can get a good iso 800 image from a IQ180 albeit it's a 20MP file, thus it's not really a result of a higher iso, due to the loss in 3/4's of the resolution.
I fully understand with CMOS, you can actually increase the "gain" of the chip via the higher iso settings. But with CCD, you best case is maybe 1 step from base, thus on a 50 iso chip, you might increase to 100 iso, but that's not going to do much for a wedding in low light or natural light.
If anyone has information to prove that CCD's in a MF back really can write a high iso file, say true 400 or 800, I would love to see it, as I have never found anything to show this.
Paul
In real world shooting:
- I've used ISO1600 Sensor+ files from the CCD based P65+ for large (30" x 40") prints for wedding clients and been very happy for them. I've used a handful of ISO3200 Sensor+ files for album images (10"x10" or 12"x12" or 10"x20" cropped from the frame) with the addition of a bit of film grain.
- It's much easier to know how far you're pushing the base ISO when using "ISO1600" and seeing the histogram in that way, than to try to guess at how badly underexposed you are using the system at base ISO.
-
Sorry, for wedding only CMOS will do the game. A Pentax 645Z will fall within the range of your budget, but you are limited to 1/125 flash sync. However it is not that bad since you can rely on the state-of-the-art dynamic range of the sensor instead of flash.
If you had more budget then perhaps get H5D-50C/Credo50/IQ150/IQ250. (Credo 50 is most cost efficient but you might want to check compatibility.)
Other than these, stay with Nikon D4/D4S.
"Only CMOS will do the game" ?
We have clients that shoot weddings with CCD backs and I myself have shot many.
You'll get no argument from me that having useable ISO6400 (or two billion or whatever) is a nicety at weddings, but it's not an absolute necessity. I know photographers who shoot 90%+ of each wedding on Portra 160 and Portra 400.
For what it's worth, I'd personally rather have native high speed sync from a suite of modern autofocus leaf shutter lenses than ISO 6400, but I'm obviously biased. There are more times where my main issue is there is too much light (direct sunlight from a bad angle), than too little and having the option to simply change shutter speeds to knock down ambient without impacting the flash exposure is very nice for me.
This is especially true for me since, like most wedding photographers I know, I carry two cameras at any wedding (with a third, emergency backup in the car or hotel room just in case) and my second camera is an X-Pro 1 which I am happy shooting in very low light for night time or dark indoor receptions, after parties etc.
-
In real world shooting:
- I've used ISO1600 Sensor+ files from the CCD based P65+ for large (30" x 40") prints for wedding clients and been very happy for them. I've used a handful of ISO3200 Sensor+ files for album images (10"x10" or 12"x12" or 10"x20" cropped from the frame) with the addition of a bit of film grain.
- It's much easier to know how far you're pushing the base ISO when using "ISO1600" and seeing the histogram in that way, than to try to guess at how badly underexposed you are using the system at base ISO.
I fully agree that the sensor plus files are excellent. But I don't see them as a true higher ISO setting of the chip as the resolution is now 1/4th of the full resolution of the chip. I am sure a CMOS that pixel binned would deliver a similar if not better result when binned.
But I don't see sensor plus as a true higher ISO of the chip as now 4 pixels are doing the job of one.
Plus with sensor plus you don't have any gain with longer exposures from what I have seen. Unlike how well a CMOS back like the 250/150 can still take a very good 2 to 10 minute exposure at ISO 400. Just like a 35 CMOS camera can shoot. This follows the way CMOS works with a higher ISO setting is totally different than CCD.
Paul
-
Depends on your style of shooting and what you're looking for. Generally speaking, the budget is really low, to the point of MF being a hindrance. How much flash power are you taking onsite? Are you shooting the entire wedding on MF, or only posed formals?
The 645Z is much faster than the D, so if that is the only thing holding you back go try the current Pentax model - good luck finding a used one for under $8k.
The older Hass stuff is a concern in that repairs may not be viable, or if they are, at an extreme cost. Phase/Leaf are an option - the older backs will outlast the older bodies, but there is a price premium for their newer stuff.
What else are you going to shoot, as having the camera just for weddings is a huge push.
-
"Only CMOS will do the game" ?
We have clients that shoot weddings with CCD backs and I myself have shot many.
You'll get no argument from me that having useable ISO6400 (or two billion or whatever) is a nicety at weddings, but it's not an absolute necessity. I know photographers who shoot 90%+ of each wedding on Portra 160 and Portra 400.
For what it's worth, I'd personally rather have native high speed sync from a suite of modern autofocus leaf shutter lenses than ISO 6400, but I'm obviously biased. There are more times where my main issue is there is too much light (direct sunlight from a bad angle), than too little and having the option to simply change shutter speeds to knock down ambient without impacting the flash exposure is very nice for me.
This is especially true for me since, like most wedding photographers I know, I carry two cameras at any wedding (with a third, emergency backup in the car or hotel room just in case) and my second camera is an X-Pro 1 which I am happy shooting in very low light for night time or dark indoor receptions, after parties etc.
Yes of course CCD "can" shoot it, but I can easily challenge the image quality with APSC CMOS in most situations where the light condition is less than ideal.
Of course you could achieve great results in day light with leaf shutter sync, but again that is only a small part of the wedding photos. For all those indoor photos I can use APSC CMOS to capture a lot more moments without disrupting the ceremony.
-
I fully agree that the sensor plus files are excellent. But I don't see them as a true higher ISO setting of the chip as the resolution is now 1/4th of the full resolution of the chip. I am sure a CMOS that pixel binned would deliver a similar if not better result when binned.
I am not aware of any CMOS cameras doing true pixel binning.
The sRaw for instance from Canon simply produces a smaller file.
Pixel binning, done at the hardware level, significantly outperforms simply downsampling or producing a smaller file.
-
I am not aware of any CMOS cameras doing true pixel binning.
The sRaw for instance from Canon simply produces a smaller file.
Pixel binning, done at the hardware level, significantly outperforms simply downsampling or producing a smaller file.
I am not either, my point was that if a CMOS chip was developed to pixel bin, then I would expect the same results or better than pixel binning with a CCD, but as none exist it's moot.
Only the photographer can make the determination if the investment in a 25K plus back for 60MP is worth using it at 1/4 of the resolution, in the case of the P65+ 15MP vs 60MP. I sure can't make the case that it's something I want to do very often even with a tech camera. There are plenty of 16MP to 24MP CMOS 35mm chips that will get the job done, for my work. It's a decision everyone has to make based on their needs for the photography, i.e. web based, or printed media.
As I stated, originally, I am not trying to say the quality of the sensor plus files is bad, it's just to me not true high iso, as you have pulled 3/4 of the resolution out of the chip to get there and did not push the chip in gain, instead pulled 4 pixels to do the work of 1. Just my way of looking at it.
Paul
-
I am not either, my point was that if a CMOS chip was developed to pixel bin, then I would expect the same results or better than pixel binning with a CCD, but as none exist it's moot.
Only the photographer can make the determination if the investment in a 25K plus back for 60MP is worth using it at 1/4 of the resolution, in the case of the P65+ 15MP vs 60MP. I sure can't make the case that it's something I want to do very often even with a tech camera. There are plenty of 16MP to 24MP CMOS 35mm chips that will get the job done, for my work. It's a decision everyone has to make based on their needs for the photography, i.e. web based, or printed media.
As I stated, originally, I am not trying to say the quality of the sensor plus files is bad, it's just to me not true high iso, as you have pulled 3/4 of the resolution out of the chip to get there and did not push the chip in gain, instead pulled 4 pixels to do the work of 1. Just my way of looking at it.
Paul
I have the IQ160 and I initially I did not think I would use Sensor Plus as much as I have. The file quality is superb and the smaller file size is enough and at actually a benefit in quite a few instances. The sensor size (image capture area) stays the same during sensor plus capture obviously so you still get the look of a larger format which is what I love. Larger sensors, like larger film, have a different look. I mean yes, it is hard to rationalize and justify in value terms the purchase of an expensive digital back but that is not what the format is about. If you want the best image quality for your dollar look elsewhere but If you are looking for something different then it is great to have alternatives.
-
why would you want to shoot a wedding with MF digital? You will not have much of a gain in image quality compared to latest DSLRs, (even DOF, you can achieve quite easily with the pano stitching method). But you will be losing a lot of functionality that are critical to weddings (fast AF, high speed sync, fast shutters, portability, fast continuous shooting, easy of swapping lenses, etc.).
-
why would you want to shoot a wedding with MF digital? You will not have much of a gain in image quality compared to latest DSLRs, (even DOF, you can achieve quite easily with the pano stitching method). But you will be losing a lot of functionality that are critical to weddings (fast AF, high speed sync, fast shutters, portability, fast continuous shooting, easy of swapping lenses, etc.).
Lots of reasons. Start out with exclusivity - lots of folks own Can/Ni/Sony gear, Uncle Bob and such, and by shooting MF you start out by offering something just about everyone else doesn't have. Then consider the event, a wedding, a huge investment/expense, and what may be the only time a large group of people gets dressed up. Some folks turn to wedding photos for a formal photo of someone who has passed, so the personal value is higher. Next you talk about print size and quality - nothing in the 35mm realm holds a candle to the Sony 50mp CMOS or for that matter any MF based formal photo. In MF, with 50mp shots, you can reframe/crop the images a lot more while maintaining image quality.
I love what is possible with MF - the shot below is amazing at 24x36, and the original has a photographer across the bottom of the frame shooting up.
-
why would you want to shoot a wedding with MF digital? You will not have much of a gain in image quality compared to latest DSLRs, (even DOF, you can achieve quite easily with the pano stitching method). But you will be losing a lot of functionality that are critical to weddings (fast AF, high speed sync, fast shutters, portability, fast continuous shooting, easy of swapping lenses, etc.).
Not sure what you mean by losing high-speed sync. You do lose HSS mode for Canon/Nikon speedlights and the Profoto flash-arc version of high speed sync. But having native high speed sync using leaf shutters is a significant improvement over those hacked version of higher speed sync. You lose a ton of power from the flash when using the hack modes. Using a leaf shutter your 580EX becomes a very powerful flash in comparison.
Anyway. There are many reasons you would want to use MF at a wedding:
- resolution
- improved color in general
- improved skintone right out of camera
- improved lens look
- lenses that are sharp wide open and create excellent contrast between the out of focus bokeh and the subject
- leaf shutters for native high speed sync without power loss
- larger/brighter viewfinder
- better aspect ratio for vertical frames (subjective of course, but it's hard to find someone that loves 3:2 verticals)
- differentiation
You mention that you can provide a shallow DOF look on 35mm "quite easily with the pano stitching method" and I think that highlights the difference quite starkly. The idea of taking 8 shots and then later stitching and hand correcting any errors - for every final shot you want to produce with that look, is fine for some photographers ("quite easy"), and anathema to others ("a freaking pain in the butt"). Some photographers will be okay spending a lot more time in post getting a camera's raws to a place they are happy with, and others will value a system that provides great skintone out of camera, great tonality and dimensionality out of camera, that can take post processing adjustments with grace, and that can produce a large print from a shallow DOF shot from a single frame... this is far preferable to me.
-
I have the IQ160 and I initially I did not think I would use Sensor Plus as much as I have. The file quality is superb and the smaller file size is enough and at actually a benefit in quite a few instances. The sensor size (image capture area) stays the same during sensor plus capture obviously so you still get the look of a larger format which is what I love. Larger sensors, like larger film, have a different look. I mean yes, it is hard to rationalize and justify in value terms the purchase of an expensive digital back but that is not what the format is about. If you want the best image quality for your dollar look elsewhere but If you are looking for something different then it is great to have alternatives.
It's not landscape or stills we are talking about here, It is "just" ...weddings!
-
Hi,
Not really if sync time is 1/250 or longer. There is a range of shutter speeds were LF is clearly at advantage, the 1/500 - 1/800 or even 1/500 - 1/1600 range.
Sync speed is clearly a limitation of the Pentax 645Z.
Let's put it this way. Many systems can do the job. High end MFD can deliver resolution that 135 cannot match. MFD with leaf shutter lenses allows some advantages in flash photography, that can be quite significant. That said, you can see a lot of 135 work using flash at very high sync speeds, but it is mainly used as fill light.
With 135 there are some truly excellent f/1.4 optics and great liberty in expanding shadows, expect on Canons which have high readout noise at base ISO, go to 800 ISO and those Canons are highly competitive.
Finally, it may be more important to know the equipment deployed and make best use of it than any specific parameters. I have seen far more great images shot on Canons than on MFD. Well, I actually never have seen anyone shooting MFD in real life.
On the other hand, folks have noticed I am shooting a Hasselblad and so they feel I must be a professional, which I am not. Using a Hasselblad may awoke some interest. I don't know if Phase One has that capability. Hasselblad has been to the Moon, you know… Also, Hasselblad is a Swedish company and Sweden happens to be my choice of country to live in, so recognition factor here is pretty high.
Regarding short DoF with no colour fringing on the background, I don't think you can beat the two Otuses, the Apo Sonnar 2/135 and some other specialty lenses. Sony has a 135/2.8 with very delicate bokeh and Nikon has some corresponding lens, too. Quite a few MFD lenses don't even have round aperure…
Best regards
Erik
Not sure what you mean by losing high-speed sync. You do lose HSS mode for Canon/Nikon speedlights and the Profoto flash-arc version of high speed sync. But having native high speed sync using leaf shutters is a significant improvement over those hacked version of higher speed sync. You lose a ton of power from the flash when using the hack modes. Using a leaf shutter your 580EX becomes a very powerful flash in comparison.
Anyway. There are many reasons you would want to use MF at a wedding:
- resolution
- improved color in general
- improved skintone right out of camera
- improved lens look
- lenses that are sharp wide open and create excellent contrast between the out of focus bokeh and the subject
- leaf shutters for native high speed sync without power loss
- larger/brighter viewfinder
- better aspect ratio for vertical frames (subjective of course, but it's hard to find someone that loves 3:2 verticals)
- differentiation
You mention that you can provide a shallow DOF look on 35mm "quite easily with the pano stitching method" and I think that highlights the difference quite starkly. The idea of taking 8 shots and then later stitching and hand correcting any errors - for every final shot you want to produce with that look, is fine for some photographers ("quite easy"), and anathema to others ("a freaking pain in the butt"). Some photographers will be okay spending a lot more time in post getting a camera's raws to a place they are happy with, and others will value a system that provides great skintone out of camera, great tonality and dimensionality out of camera, that can take post processing adjustments with grace, and that can produce a large print from a shallow DOF shot from a single frame... this is far preferable to me.
-
Not sure what you mean by losing high-speed sync. You do lose HSS mode for Canon/Nikon speedlights and the Profoto flash-arc version of high speed sync. But having native high speed sync using leaf shutters is a significant improvement over those hacked version of higher speed sync. You lose a ton of power from the flash when using the hack modes. Using a leaf shutter your 580EX becomes a very powerful flash in comparison.
Anyway. There are many reasons you would want to use MF at a wedding:
- resolution
- improved color in general
- improved skintone right out of camera
- improved lens look
- lenses that are sharp wide open and create excellent contrast between the out of focus bokeh and the subject
- leaf shutters for native high speed sync without power loss
- larger/brighter viewfinder
- better aspect ratio for vertical frames (subjective of course, but it's hard to find someone that loves 3:2 verticals)
- differentiation
You mention that you can provide a shallow DOF look on 35mm "quite easily with the pano stitching method" and I think that highlights the difference quite starkly. The idea of taking 8 shots and then later stitching and hand correcting any errors - for every final shot you want to produce with that look, is fine for some photographers ("quite easy"), and anathema to others ("a freaking pain in the butt"). Some photographers will be okay spending a lot more time in post getting a camera's raws to a place they are happy with, and others will value a system that provides great skintone out of camera, great tonality and dimensionality out of camera, that can take post processing adjustments with grace, and that can produce a large print from a shallow DOF shot from a single frame... this is far preferable to me.
DOF with the speed of lenses provided, is certainly less with 35mm than MF for most same AOVs.... Not that one would care for less than 20 deg AOV ones...
-
Finally, it may be more important to know the equipment deployed and make best use of it than any specific parameters. I have seen far more great images shot on Canons than on MFD. Well, I actually never have seen anyone shooting MFD in real life.
On the other hand, folks have noticed I am shooting a Hasselblad and so they feel I must be a professional, which I am not. Using a Hasselblad may awoke some interest. I don't know if Phase One has that capability. Hasselblad has been to the Moon, you know… Also, Hasselblad is a Swedish company and Sweden happens to be my choice of country to live in, so recognition factor here is pretty high.
I blame Phase One and specifically their IQ260 World Tour and Bear Images whom visited Seattle way back in June 2013. My first MF experience, and while I have never printed the photos I took that day at a size worth discussing, it got me onto this horrible path. It has cost me a small fortune and if I were to consider how much I have spent to this point I would slap myself multiple times. I've chatted with one other person shooting an Alpa FPS + IQ260 setup, and walked past someone with a GX680 hanging from a neck strap. You just don't see MF out and about - literally had a guy walking past me ask 'Who walks around with a digital medium format camera' to which I replied 'me'.
On the flip side I will stand and chat with anyone who walks up to me inquiring as to what I am shooting. I've done this with the Hasselblad and the Pentax a lot, and will easily contrast those systems plus the fun things that the Team Phase can do. Want a shot from it - sure, I'll send you a raw.
-
We have plenty of clients that use the Phase One DF+ for their wedding business, with the Credo 40 being the one off the top of my head as the kit that a lot of people gravitate to most naturally due to the price of the combination. However, the Credo 50's CMOS sensor's flexibility is certainly alluring, and balancing pricepoint vs the CMOS flexibility is something with which we have had customers come down on either side.