Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Osprey on February 17, 2016, 09:10:58 am
-
Here on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/46732a/i_switched_from_phase_one_to_nikon_heres_why/?ref=share&ref_source=link)
-
Interesting read.
His comments on the DF or DF+ bodies, are common. Hopefully with the XF Phase has addressed some of these issues.
The comments on being too expensive, many would agree with that also. It's my personal belief that Phase One missed the market entirely with the IQ150 due to their pricing structure and I think if you look at total sales of the 150 in the US alone they have been very small. The fact that it took Adobe almost a year to add support for the IQ150 points to the small overall demand. It was just added with LR 6.4. But the IQ250 was added almost immediately on it's announcement. But due to the fact that Phase One has always allowed a upgrade program, I guess deems the fact that they can't price the IQ150 in the same market as the Hasselblad 50c. And it's a toss up to say the two backs are direct competitors. But I think that the general impression of the buying public is that the 50MP Phase IQ150 is grossly overpriced. Again overall sales numbers will support this in my opinion.
AF issues, same complaints as those from years ago, only 1 center AF point and not accurate AF. The later seems to have been addressed with the XF (however as he points out at a cost as the upgrade from the DF or DF+ to XF was not inexpensive), the former, looks like just can't be done. Phase had years to work on this with Mamiya (now they are all one happy family) and after 4 years, they came out with 1 AF point again. They make a big deal about the Honeybee AF system, and I hope that there will be enhancements to it via firmware, but I don't see how they can add more focus points. Looks like it's going to be 1 center point forever, at least as long as you use Phase systems.
Paul C
-
It's the same story as always. MFD has better image quality, but 135 is good enough and more reliable and flexible and definitely cheaper.
However where the balance point is, is personal for every photographer.
-
interesting he wanted to switch to 'have less stuff'. That's one of the main reasons I was glad to switch to MF; the amount of 'crap' and accessories I had built up with my canon kit was crazy - I dont see the same options to have extra kit even if I were inclined to get some.
also, I wondered why he purchased his backup stuff, rather than just renting them as and when he needed? the cost outlay of a redundant setup must be hard to justify whatever system you are using?
-
Interesting read.
His comments on the DF or DF+ bodies, are common. Hopefully with the XF Phase has addressed some of these issues.
The comments on being too expensive, many would agree with that also. It's my personal belief that Phase One missed the market entirely with the IQ150 due to their pricing structure and I think if you look at total sales of the 150 in the US alone they have been very small. The fact that it took Adobe almost a year to add support for the IQ150 points to the small overall demand. It was just added with LR 6.4. But the IQ250 was added almost immediately on it's announcement. But due to the fact that Phase One has always allowed a upgrade program, I guess deems the fact that they can't price the IQ150 in the same market as the Hasselblad 50c. And it's a toss up to say the two backs are direct competitors. But I think that the general impression of the buying public is that the 50MP Phase IQ150 is grossly overpriced. Again overall sales numbers will support this in my opinion.
AF issues, same complaints as those from years ago, only 1 center AF point and not accurate AF. The later seems to have been addressed with the XF (however as he points out at a cost as the upgrade from the DF or DF+ to XF was not inexpensive), the former, looks like just can't be done. Phase had years to work on this with Mamiya (now they are all one happy family) and after 4 years, they came out with 1 AF point again. They make a big deal about the Honeybee AF system, and I hope that there will be enhancements to it via firmware, but I don't see how they can add more focus points. Looks like it's going to be 1 center point forever, at least as long as you use Phase systems.
Paul C
The IQ150 should be priced at $10k ($9995) similar to the Hasselblad CFV-50c even though the IQ150 is a nicer back. At that price Phase can get a lot more people into their system.
Regarding the DF issues I never owned one but nightmare stories abound. The XF is a whole different beast.
My H1 is a beat up old body but keeps working fine with my IQ160. Rock solid system so far.
The Guy switched to Nikon because his priorities changed. Cameras are tools, pick one that suits you best. Would be sad if there was only one to choose from. Some of the differences between systems are subtle and for some they are not worth the cost.
-
It's the same story as always. MFD has better image quality, but 135 is good enough and more reliable and flexible and definitely cheaper.
However where the balance point is, is personal for every photographer.
OK - but...
Pricing you refer is only about P1, the rest (Pentax, Hasselblad, Leica) are doing quite well at the moment as they've realised that price difference from MF with respect to FF, can't be of more than what reasons it...
After all, he only gave up his P1 system...
-
The IQ150 should be priced at $10k ($9995) similar to the Hasselblad CFV-50c even though the IQ150 is a nicer back. At that price Phase can get a lot more people into their system.
P1 is really trapped into their own pricing policy, in reality (almost) nobody has payed what the price list says that their back worths, if they now change the policy and sell the IQ-150 for 10K (which they can easily do) it would have two effects with respect to their current customers...
1. People asking "why did you steal on me?"
2. They would have to significantly decrease their "ex-demo", "refurbished" and "S/H" MFDB prices that are the vast percentage of their sales....
Tough, but they'll have to it if they are to survive as competition seems to be as aggressive to them, as they where with respect to competition when they could... It will create many dissatisfied customers and will disappoint many of them as to abandon MF altogether... but they can't survive if they keep pricing products with other prices in their pricing catalog and then sell them as POA... (which means the higher we can get of you...)
-
OK - but...
Pricing you refer is only about P1, the rest (Pentax, Hasselblad, Leica) are doing quite well at the moment as they've realised that price difference from MF with respect to FF, can't be of more than what reasons it...
After all, he only gave up his P1 system...
Pentax, Hasselblad and Leica always have had decent bodies with decent AF - these companies have made the mistake of concentrating on making cameras while Phase concentrated on making sales.
Edmund
-
Hi,
What I learn from this is that priorities can change and good enough can be good enough.
The poster felt that MFD was preferable to his Nikon 800D, but adding a vertical grip and a Sigma 50/1.4 Art made the smaller system good enough and reliability was far better on the Nikon side.
Also, the Nikon works better for him with air travel, while his experience with reliability on Phase One is bad.
From my view a camera is an imaging system. Lenses and sensor are important. Camera usability can be important but it is distant sixth in my priorities.
First priority is affordability, things I cannot afford take no pictures.
Second is a good tripod and head combined with good quick release and L-plates.
Third is lens and sensor.
Fourth is transportability - can I get the stuff with me when I travel?
Fifth is flexibility can I use tilt and shift once I got my stuff into location?
Sixth is usability, user interface and stuff like that
Best regards
Erik
-
P1 is really trapped into their own pricing policy, in reality (almost) nobody has payed what the price list says that their back worths, if they now change the policy and sell the IQ-150 for 10K (which they can easily do) it would have two effects with respect to their current customers...
1. People asking "why did you steal on me?"
2. They would have to significantly decrease their "ex-demo", "refurbished" and "S/H" MFDB prices that are the vast percentage of their sales....
Tough, but they'll have to it if they are to survive as competition seems to be as aggressive to them, as they where with respect to competition when they could... It will create many dissatisfied customers and will disappoint many of them as to abandon MF altogether... but they can't survive if they keep pricing products with other prices in their pricing catalog and then sell them as POA... (which means the higher we can get of you...)
They can start selling the IQ150 for 10k no without much trouble from current owners because the IQ150 has been available for a while and now they have the 100mp available so the product line is pretty complete and progressive for a wide price range on their product line. Hasselblad kinda did the same with their CFV-50c starting at 15k now at 10k but they are missing the 80mp and 100mp models.
PhaseOne concentrated on making the best digital backs, and they did, they do and also they developed and produced the XF body which has been available for some time now. The XF is a superb camera platform. The DF is long forgotten, its all about the XF now. The Phase lenses are still mostly modified Mamiya designs but the new 35mm and 40-80mm are not and im sure there are more to come.
-
Hi,
Hasselblad's position with the CFV-50c is a bit different, they are targeting the 550000 V-system cameras sold. H-system prices are higher.
I would guess that 100MP models are coming, Mr Oosten was pretty clear on the issue in the LR interview but he talked about redesigning the electronics. I don't think that Hasselblad will present an 80 MP solution, just 50 MP 1.3X crop and 100 MP full frame.
What I hope is that they offer 100 MP CMOS at IQ-260 CCD prices.
Best regards
Erik
They can start selling the IQ150 for 10k no without much trouble from current owners because the IQ150 has been available for a while and now they have the 100mp available so the product line is pretty complete and progressive for a wide price range on their product line. Hasselblad kinda did the same with their CFV-50c starting at 15k now at 10k but they are missing the 80mp and 100mp models.
PhaseOne concentrated on making the best digital backs, and they did, they do and also they developed and produced the XF body which has been available for some time now. The XF is a superb camera platform. The DF is long forgotten, its all about the XF now. The Phase lenses are still mostly modified Mamiya designs but the new 35mm and 40-80mm are not and im sure there are more to come.
-
I think he's being a bit disingenuous saying things like "... everything simply works, 100% of the time. No misfires, no startup time, no batteries running out, no worries. I'm not fighting the camera anymore, which is a joy."
A nikon will run out of batteries just as a Canon or Hasselblad will.
Any camera could have a technical fault occur. What about Canon's error 99's? or a mirror / shutter failure?
problems are not limited to a specific format. there is a lot of 'grass is greener' sentimentality in his post.
-
In the end pros are conscious of money. No surprise that the outrageous markups of MF put them off the products.
Edmund
-
The DF is long forgotten, its all about the XF now.
The trouble with the XF is it was so long coming. Hints and development announcements without any real promise of a release date and many (me included) started looking and using different cameras. Once you get used to some of the newer tech the MF system just didn't seem worth the expense despite its slight IQ advantage.
-
I think he's being a bit disingenuous saying things like "... everything simply works, 100% of the time. No misfires, no startup time, no batteries running out, no worries. I'm not fighting the camera anymore, which is a joy."
A nikon will run out of batteries just as a Canon or Hasselblad will.
Any camera could have a technical fault occur. What about Canon's error 99's? or a mirror / shutter failure?
problems are not limited to a specific format. there is a lot of 'grass is greener' sentimentality in his post.
When my Phase system failed, I showed the files with a magenta stripe to Phase, and they told me I had a Mamiya synch failure. My dealer who had sold me back, body and warranty agreed that I had a VA warranty on the back, but the Mamiya was a normal warranty, and I would need it sent back to Japan and wait a few months. Of course he was being an obdurate **** on purpose, but this didn't make me happy with him. For information, Mamiya, I found out later has a workshop in Germany. Dealing with cheaper more widely available bodies is helpful because it means you can more easily find a workaround. In my was I bought a replacement body for about $1K on the used market btw, but I wasn't feeling happy with the quality of Phase dealers.
Edmund
-
........Any camera could have a technical fault occur......
Any camera... but what if it does and costs 20 times more than another that would cost 20 times less and would provide 95% as much before the technical fault occurs?
-
The trouble with the XF is it was so long coming. Hints and development announcements without any real promise of a release date and many (me included) started looking and using different cameras. Once you get used to some of the newer tech the MF system just didn't seem worth the expense despite its slight IQ advantage.
The problem with XF is not its design... It is that it excludes from using it anybody but one that buys an IQ back with it... It is a "closed" system aimed to trap people in a forced path... Nothing else wrong with it, but what is wrong with it, is fatal... No real photographer will turn into a P1 funboy because P1 wishes to trap him as being their ever customer... same mistake as Hasselblad did back then... same exact fatal mistake...
-
Hi,
Yes, of course. But, I have been shooting for 50 years and I had only one camera failing of the 20-30 I had in that time and that was a Minolta XD-7. Some stuff I have survived pretty wet conditions.
I would also add that any equipment can fail, that is the reason I alway carry two bodies. Lenses can also fail, so I like to have an APS-C standard zoom as a backup. The APS-C system also works as a great street camera.
The "fashion pro" had multiple failures on his system. If you depend on a system it needs to be rock solid, but you still need a backup.
Personally, I was shooting mostly Hasselbald 555/ELD and a P45+ mostly for two years, but now I find that my Sony A7rII delivers a better image quality in a more practical package, so I see that the MFD system will see little use. Still, I like shooting with the Hasselblad.
Best regards
Erik
Any camera... but what if it does and costs 20 times more than another that would cost 20 times less and would provide 95% as much before the technical fault occurs?
-
The problem with XF is not its design... It is that it excludes from using it anybody but one that buys an IQ back with it... It is a "closed" system aimed to trap people in a forced path... Nothing else wrong with it, but what is wrong with it, is fatal... No real photographer will turn into a P1 funboy because P1 wishes to trap him as being their ever customer... same mistake as Hasselblad did back then... same exact fatal mistake...
The XF is a decent camera, basically the same thing as the LEAF Afi, except it was made by Mamiya, and can take only *IQ* backs. It competes decently with Hassy and Pentax, on features, not price. It's chief purpose is to kill the P+ backs which are out there, like the P45+ and the P65+, and create upgrade revenue for Phase.
Edmund
-
But, I have been shooting for 50 years and I had only one camera failing of the 20-30 I had in that time and that was a Minolta XD-7.
If it can happen to somebody... it's not the general rule...
-
The XF is a decent camera, basically the same thing as the LEAF Afi, except it was made by Mamiya, and can take only *IQ* backs.
Nope, the AFi is the same thing as the Rolleiflex Hy6 or Sinar Hy6. The XF+ is not the same thing at all. The Hy6/AFi was designed to take both film and digital backs and has 4 different finders. The Hy6 lens system supports 6x6 and is not limited to 645. The Hy6 has fantastic ergonomics with physical slider switches for the modes and scroll wheels for aperture and shutter speeds, dedicated DOF preview and micro lock up buttons. You never need to take your eye from the finder or hand from the grip since the buttons and sliders are within reach and have physical positions - that is good ergonomics. It can sync at any speed since all of the lenses new and legacy are leaf shutter. I tested the Hy6 Mod2 side by side the XF+ and was surprised by how heavy the XF+ is with the 90 finder (their only finder with full metering capability) and also noted that with 80's on both cameras the Hy6 was faster to autofocus. I think the XF+ has a supercharged computer inside with some interesting features such as the vibration sensor, but what good is all that when it still suffers from a usability standpoint? Obviously I'm biased, but I do think the Hy6 Mod2 is a better camera. I just wonder what phase might have done if they took the Hy6 as a starting point instead of the Mamiya 645.
btw - in my last communication with the factory I hear that the Hy6 is back in production (in small quantities).
And with regards to the OT and the fellow ditching his Phase One for a Nikon - I do hear that but mostly for the A7r2 and then only for digital - a lot of shooters have been also shooting film which conversely brings them into MF. Kind of a circle actually.
-
Concerning reliability there are all sorts of personal anecdotal stories (I have them too, zero failures with my Canon gear, quite some with my MF gear) but regardless I think it's quite obvious that one should expect the MF cameras to be less reliable in a statistical sense. It's the same with practically all niche gear (or software), it's higher cost, less tested and less reliable. Mass market products are heavily tested as problems in them leads to massive losses and due to the large volume you have more resources to spend on testing too. With high cost niche gear you instead have a tight support channel (dealers) that help out.
That it's potentially less reliable does not necessarily mean that it's a problem, most shooting scenarios with MF gear allows you to take one other shot if there's a hickup, and the jobs are such that you have backup gear. It's different if you're doing photojournalism or wildlife then you probably don't have backup gear as you can't carry it, and any hickup (or slowness) can cause you to miss that shot. And naturally, MFD is generally not used for those genres.
-
FWIW, I've had a few err99's from my 1dx - not very common but it does happen. Zero from my 645z.
I feel for the guy though, if I was getting regular lockups with my gear I'd chuck it regardless of brand.
-
Good for that guy. Shoot with whatever that you're happy with.
I have had zero issues with my DF+ though. I switch it on, it works and that's that.
-
I am an actual owner of a Phase One IQ260 digital back and a XF camera body. Zero issues. My Digital back has never failed and in six months of steady use the XF camera has proved itself in real world usage. And with each firmware update more features are unlocked. It's a fun camera to use. It looks old school but has some cool features like the vibration shutter release mode.
-
Good for that guy. Shoot with whatever that you're happy with.
I have had zero issues with my DF+ though. I switch it on, it works and that's that.
To be fair, you received your DF+ after the issues with it were resolved.
For a while there the lockup rate and repair rate on DF and DF+ bodies were not up to Phase One standards. That was resolved by firmware updates, a switch to usingLiOn batteries, and improvements to the manufacturing process.
The ghost of that period will haunt Phase One for years. But it is a ghost; a DF+ with up to date firmware is a reliable tool, and the XF is a beast. You'll be hard pressed to find any end user review of the XF that is less than glowing. A huge amount of investment went into making the XF as robust as possible (the amount of metal in the design is pretty staggering - hence, it's got some heft); they are confident enough to give a 5 year warranty on all components (back, body, and lenses) on any IQ3 package.
-
It's sad that Team Phase One is not confident enough in the XF to give it a five year warranty when it's purchased with a IQ3 upgrade only when the Iq3 3 is purchased new. And new vs upgrade is about 3:1 or so last time I checked. And Team Phase One's entire purchase strategy is based around back upgrades which is good. I don't know of any other MF company that has such a process.
It's also sad the way Team Phase One treats existing customers in the new back orders are given preference over upgrades. This effected XF shipments during the entire 2nd half of 2015 and is now effecting upgrades to the 100MP back. Many of the upgrade customers myself included have been owners of Team Phase One products since 2007 or earlier. And to be placed behind someone how has never ordered or owned a Team Phase One product is quite a bit disappointing.
Paul C
-
This trick of products being preannounced and then always being "constrained" is what makes them money and scr*ws the competition. When the product is announced the price can be as high as one wants as it is unique. Then a few samples get delivered, while production costs go down by 40% per year on the electronics, customers are stockpiled in the pipeline, as indicated here, and the profit comes rolling in. They would be losing money or at least not making it by serving everyone right now.
Edmund
It's sad that Team Phase One is not confident enough in the XF to give it a five year warranty when it's purchased with a IQ3 upgrade only when the Iq3 3 is purchased new. And new vs upgrade is about 3:1 or so last time I checked. And Team Phase One's entire purchase strategy is based around back upgrades which is good. I don't know of any other MF company that has such a process.
It's also sad the way Team Phase One treats existing customers in the new back orders are given preference over upgrades. This effected XF shipments during the entire 2nd half of 2015 and is now effecting upgrades to the 100MP back. Many of the upgrade customers myself included have been owners of Team Phase One products since 2007 or earlier. And to be placed behind someone how has never ordered or owned a Team Phase One product is quite a bit disappointing.
Paul C
-
Hi Doug,
Nice to hear that the problems are resolved.
How dependable a system is, you still need a fallback on an important mission. I would never go on a important trip with a single body.
You can perhaps visit a place once a year and it may be that you get great light once in five years. So, you shoot with the best stuff you can carry, but you still need a decent level of fallback, if the best stuff happens to fail that day.
So far, I have been lucky. No critical stuff failed for me in 30 years. Well, except with film. Some great images have been spoiled by labs.
Best regards
Erik
To be fair, you received your DF+ after the issues with it were resolved.
For a while there the lockup rate and repair rate on DF and DF+ bodies were not up to Phase One standards. That was resolved by firmware updates, a switch to usingLiOn batteries, and improvements to the manufacturing process.
The ghost of that period will haunt Phase One for years. But it is a ghost; a DF+ with up to date firmware is a reliable tool, and the XF is a beast. You'll be hard pressed to find any end user review of the XF that is less than glowing. A huge amount of investment went into making the XF as robust as possible (the amount of metal in the design is pretty staggering - hence, it's got some heft); they are confident enough to give a 5 year warranty on all components (back, body, and lenses) on any IQ3 package.
-
(the amount of metal in the design is pretty staggering - hence, it's got some heft)
Yeah definitely true. I think the designers were expecting marketing to have elephants stand on it again. :)
-
Hi,
"Reddit" was not happy with the reliability of his P1 system, but there were other factors.
- He improved his Nikon with minor upgrades, D800 -> D810, adding a power grip and a viewfinder magnifier
- He added a Sigma 50/1.4 Art lens
- He can carry the Nikon stuff with a backup in a carry on
- Costs
I have noticed some well know faces here on LuLa switching from MFD to Sony A7r. Note, not the much improved Sony A7rII but to the original A7r.
There were probably a few main reasons for those users switching:
- Live view for framing and focusing
- Used with Hasselblad or Pentax lenses and don't need LCC correction or central ND filters
- Good enough image quality
- Easy to use with a reasonable size drone
- Integrates well with Canon T&S lenses
- Offers TS&S with many existing lenses
The two photographers I have in mind are Chris Barret and Rainer Viertlböck.
Best regards
Erik
-
Afternoon.
The most important thing when photographing for a living is to use the kit that gives you what you need, it doesn't matter what that kit is. I'm happy the chap has changed to equipment that suits him but it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to anyone else unless they too are using kit that isn't optimal for what they shoot.
The photographers you mention who changed to Sony, with all due respect those guys could shoot anything they lay their hands on and produce beautiful work because they understand composition, light and the process, their images are not great because they use Sony, it's just a small part of the image production as a whole, which is why just buying the same kit doesn't give the same results for others less talented or practiced. There's a lot more to the final image than what you shoot with, finding what works for you is brilliant but it is too personal to be relevant to anyone else.
Mat
-
Hi,
What you write makes little sense, sorry to say.
Very clearly, some of the reasons I mentioned were given by the photographers in question.
I certainly don't think that switching gear makes you a better photographer.
But, there is enabling technology. Both person mentioned are well known architecture photographers and they need a set of lenses allowing for shifts. Chris Barret can use Canon T&S lenses with the A7r and he can also use Hasselblad MFD lenses with a miniature view camera with the Sony A7r on the back. I am pretty sure that live view, and no need for LCC exposures are the main benefits he sees. Chris has sold of almost all of his MFD gear.
Rainer Viertlböck was involved in the design of ArTec, but he writes he does 95% of his work with the Sony now.
Clearly, these two photographers did not switch to Sony because they needed Sony technology to make great pictures.
In a sense, your writing can be interpreted as saying: Great photographers are masters of light and they don't need expensive equipment made in Denmark, Germany or Switzerland to impress their customers. They can do with an amateur camera made in Japan with a bunch of affordable lenses from EBay.
Admittedly, I am a Sony shooter, but that does not make me a Sony fanboy. But, there is a good reason that the two photographers mentioned have chosen Sony. It has a short flange distance enabling T&S technology and Sony is the only vendor of 24x36 mirrorless above 24 MP. The Leica M (type 240) may be an option but at a much higher price and far less support.
So, I guess that Chris and Rainer are not only great photographers but also pretty smart businessmen, choosing the gear that is most appropriate for their work. You have any issue with that?
Finally, reading trough this thread, I don't think any one stated or implied that shooting Sony or any other make makes you a better photographer. So what's the deal?
Best regards
Erik
Afternoon.
...
The photographers you mention who changed to Sony, with all due respect those guys could shoot anything they lay their hands on and produce beautiful work because they understand composition, light and the process, their images are not great because they use Sony, it's just a small part of the image production as a whole, which is why just buying the same kit doesn't give the same results for others less talented or practiced. There's a lot more to the final image than what you shoot with, finding what works for you is brilliant but it is too personal to be relevant to anyone else.
Mat
-
Ha, why are you sorry to say? Just because you don't understand my point doesn't mean there isn't one.
In my opinion, what any individual choses to photograph with is of no relevance to anyone besides themselves, good photographers and indeed business men will chose what is right for them based on their own requirements, medium format, ff, m43's, APS-c, it makes no difference to anyone else, it only matters to them and their clients with the final output. You happened to mention 2 photographers who moved to Sony, my point is that they are so good it wouldn't matter what they shoot with. Their output is a combination of many factors, borne out by the fact that they use the same cameras as many other people who don't produce anywhere near the same quality of output. Same can be said for talented people using any camera they chose.
As for the original post, which I was responding to, it is not interesting to me particularly that a guy shooting one type of equipment decided that alternative equipment would suit him better, it doesn't matter to anyone but him, surely?
"In a sense, your writing can be interpreted as saying: Great photographers are masters of light and they don't need expensive equipment made in Denmark, Germany or Switzerland to impress their customers. They can do with an amateur camera made in Japan with a bunch of affordable lenses from EBay."
I'm saying that it doesn't matter what they use as long as it works for them, IQ3100 or ebay special, if the work is inspirational then who cares?
-
If one is interested in camera gear and its future development it's I think it's quite interesting to hear why photographers choose one camera on another. At some point you start seeing a paradigm shift, where a mass of users start making the same decisions.
For example, 4x5" photographers stayed on film because of the better quality until P45+ came around which many considered to be equal or even better than their film result and that drastically shifted the balance, and 4x5" started to become a narrow niche format.
I'm watching now closely what's happening in the tech camera segment. We start to see tendencies that optical movements may be replaced by center frames with software keystoning and cropping as a result of higher resolution sensors (and at the same time less movement-capable, but high resolution would probably pull it in that direction anyway at some point). In parallel there's a movement to smaller format cameras and retrofocus lenses, like the mentioned architecture photographers.
Likewise I'm sure many are interested to see if the increasingly high resolution smaller format cameras and better availability of high resolution lenses will make a shift in the 135-MF balance too.
I see a slow consolidation process going on where cameras become more and more similar in feature set and performance. MFD can both gain and lose from this process. To gain I think they need to come down a bit in price and become even more 135-like in behavior so they can come up in volume (if the price and feature set is right, there will be interest for the extra resolution, the 645z is already in this space, still with a bit weak lens range though), with the current high price model in some brands the increased similarity seems more like a long-term threat than an opportunity.
-
Oh, on the subject about not really caring about gear and only about the image. Today people start out their serious photography not with MF film or large format like in the past, now you start with 135 digital. And really if you only care about the image there is no need to switch to anything else, you have all creative opportunities right there (with some extremely narrow exceptions).
In the past starting out with MFD could be a natural transition from going from MF film or large format film. It was also then a big image quality gap between MFD and 135 which was actually visible in a magazine spread. I think there's still quite a few MFD users that come from this segment, they may not really care much about gear but ended up there as it was the natural pro choice to make. If they would start over today they would have stayed on 135.
As choosing MFD has become less natural and automatic, I think that today most new MFD users are "gear junkies" in one way or another. Paying that large amount of money for so little difference in end result can't be explained in any other way. Ironically I see it's common that many that talk about "gear is not important" themselves have the most exotic gear. Obviously it's important to them.
The question I think many MFD users have asked is "for this type of images what type of camera gives me the highest possible image quality with the smoothest workflow" and indeed then you may end up with MFD in some cases. If you instead start thinking along the lines "does these differences in end result add meaningful value to my images" you're probably happy with your Canon or Nikon.
I chose to shoot a Linhof to get the zen-like large format shooting experience, composing at the scene with optical movements on the ground glass. Image quality was just one aspect of this choice and I've chosen to stay on the format despite that arguably better image quality can be had with cheaper systems these days, as I've chosen not to "upgrade" to the latest MFD which means downgrade in shooting experience from my perspective. The shooting process is important to me. And while Alpa had their slogan "it's simple at the top" I got the sense that there were others thinking the same way, that you could prefer a less electronic system just because it's less electronic and more traditional photography. Asking around on the forums like this I've however noted that it's a very narrow view (most of those that share it shoot film it seems), for most digital users (in the forums at least), it's 95% about image quality end result and few would dream of keeping a less capable system image-quality-wise just because they like the handling.
I'm personally feeling I'm almost reacting against the development, I'm not even sure I want live view any longer :) but instead continue my love-hate relationship with the ground glass. I guess it's time to start buying CCD digital backs and put them in the freezer ;)
-
Oh, on the subject about not really caring about gear and only about the image. Today people start out their serious photography not with MF film or large format like in the past, now you start with 135 digital. And really if you only care about the image there is no need to switch to anything else, you have all creative opportunities right there (with some extremely narrow exceptions).
Hi Anders
Maybe this is in response to my post, you may have missed my point a little, I care greatly, deeply about my own equipment, I just don't care about what others use! I don't think it's much of a story to say someone changed their equipment for cheaper equipment because it suits them better, great for them but hardly news is it? I don't read many, photographer upgrades equipment to more expensive and more suitable and produces nicer files stories, probably because it's not as interesting as saying I spent less money and don't need this expensive stuff.
Live and let live as far as I'm concerned, use whatever you like. I have seen some absolutely stunning photography from people like Murray Fredericks who sometimes posts on here, http://www.murrayfredericks.com.au/ I find his work absolutely jaw droppingly inspirational, some of which was shot on a P45+, some shot on other stuff, what is inspirational is the dedication, the effort to get to the places and the final images, I don't need to see them at 200% with shadows raised to see if there is any noise, I don't need to know whether he needed live view to focus etc. etc. the images are simply beautiful and I couldn't care less what he shot them with. I find Julian Calverley's iphone images to be beautiful, http://www.juliancalverley.com/books/iphoneonly-ibook/ I don't feel they have less value because of how they were shot, I could go on with many photographers. Almost exclusively my thoughts are always wow, how do I get there and see that for myself.
As with everything creative, we all see different things we like, use different equipment that suits us and long may it continue.
Have a nice weekend!
Mat
-
... you may have missed my point a little ... I just don't care about what others use!
Perhaps not - it's not the 'what', it's the 'why'.
-
If I'm not bothered what someone uses, why would I be interested in why they use it? I can hope that they get enjoyment from whatever they use on a basic level but it doesn't matter to me if they use something because it is all they can afford, they were given it or it's the absolute perfect piece of equipment for what they shoot, I don't see how that would matter? Obviously I am more than happy to accept that I am the only one who thinks this way, I am just far more interested in the vision and the final result, I can look at things that inspire me and feel that I would like to be there and see what I can produce with what I have and my vision, I certainly don't think if I used the same equipment or had the same reasons for using it I would be able to produce the same.
Each to their own!
Mat
-
I guess you could say that bigger formats are always a bigger hassle.
Before the digitale era people also used to switch back and forth between bigger and smaller formats. 35mm film is easy to use, you can pack a lot of photos on one film and it's light weight, doesn't need as much power, less vibration etc - and in many cases it's more reliable. I remember that my Hasselblad sometimes used to jam during shoots as well but my AE/A1 never had any problems what so ever.
I guess the question is how much trouble you 'want' to go through to achieve the quality you desire. If you don't want or need the MF 'look'/'feel' then it'd be a bad idea to use one. If you want the LF 'look'/'feel' then even a medium format camera won't do.
Having said that I'm personally very satisfied with my PhaseOne experience on the 645DF+. The only times it 'gltiched' were caused by me and my inexperience with the camera or bad handling of the tethering and 1-2 software issues. Yes, CaptureOne crashed on two occasions during shoots for magazines - but one click and it worked again for the rest of the day. I can live with that and nobody complained or was annoyed - they were just happy to see big, detailed files appear instantly on the screen instead of having to wait for the photographer to switch memory cards.
I will definitely get a second body soon - just in case.
But the last months have been very enjoyable, much better than my experiences with Canon and all the other brands I got a chance to work with and use over the years (except maybe for the Hasselblad 503CW). However - if the problems are mainly due to leafshutter jams I can't really comment, I only have the 80mm LS lens and always rent the other LS lenses (35€ for a day is reaaally reasonable!) and they never gave me any problems.
I guess it could be another story if I used them daily.
However there are a few things about his story I just didn't understand:
- Why didn't he just get a used 645DF(+) body as a backup? Does it have to be a new one if it's "just" a backup? Even a refurbished camera will be much cheaper
- Why double up on the lenses? If you need a backup a 75-150 will do fine for most applications and it covers a huge range. Combine that with a wide angle and that's it - most likely you won't even need the LS version, he's obviously not relying on the fast sync speed if he's content with a Nikon/Sony gear. Again: get used versions and they're just as good for much less money.
- Second back? Get a used P65+. It's a backup after all and has the same sensor as the 160, is just as fast....
To me a "backup" means something I can use in case my primary equipment fails. It has to be good enough to finish the job, not equal to or better than my primary equipment. If you want to buy everything brand new you can't really complain about the price, especially when there are a lot of options that are just as good and useful on the second hand market.
But: If his style does not need MF and he himself is content without it, then the whole price and reliability debate is a moot point. A magazine doesn't care if the photos are shot on a small, medium or large format camera, whats important is that it's good enough to print and that the content is good.
-
That the long-term availability of the camera type I like depends of what others think about it (as I can't finance a whole camera sector on my own) makes trends in pro photography camera choice interesting to me. Tech cameras move much quicker in terms of fundamental changes than other type of cameras though.
When I see a photographer whose work I like I am curious about what system they have used, I'm curious about how they do their post-processing, well I'm simply curious about the process end-to-end. For the sake of curiosity and perhaps one can learn a thing or two. Not only as a photographer, but as a software developer too. I find it more strange to not be curious about how the images were made.
When it comes to large format cameras and their digital counterparts they're so unpractical to use, they're slow and you can't shoot hand-held, so when I do come across a photographer that uses it I am curious why they made that choice. Was it only for the image quality, or do they feel that the limitations contributes to their art in some way? I get happy every-time when someone mentions some other motivation than purely image quality.
The often extreme amounts of post-processing used in the digital world adds another interesting dimension when it comes to photography as art, was the art created in the shooting moment, or was it gathering raw material to a digital artwork created in the computer, or something in-between? I find those questions interesting too.
-
I have seen some absolutely stunning photography from people like Murray Fredericks who sometimes posts on here, http://www.murrayfredericks.com.au/ I find his work absolutely jaw droppingly inspirational, some of which was shot on a P45+, some shot on other stuff, what is inspirational is the dedication, the effort to get to the places and the final images
I like the Salt images very much, thanks for posting, and indeed I think the process of how he made them is part of the art. I like to have that background story. Going in there, camping for weeks experiencing the solitude while making those photographs is different from flying in there. That he used 8x10" large format is surely of less importance, but fits the nature of the images and prints well.
-
I find his Salt and Greenland images are amongst the absolute best of what inspires me as a photographer. I wouldn't want or have the skill to make shots the same, I guess that's why I don't care what he shot with, I would love to have the experience and shoot on what I love using and in turn makes images unique to me. I feel the same about a lot of really great photographers, it's mainly down to location and light that I find wonderful, the challenge would always be to produce my own work in my own way, in that regard how or why he used what he did is of no importance to me personally, the fact that he did is what is inspirational.
-
Hi,
He used Nikon as backup gear.
My understanding was that with the upgrades he did he felt the Nikon was good enough for the work he was doing and he found it is easier to travel with one set of equipment than with two.
Photographic systems are evolving all the time. Small format cameras can do the job that larger format cameras were needed for a while ago.
MFD doesn't stand still either. There is 100 MP CMOS in MFD now. In my view, MFD was handicapped due to lack of CMOS as CCDs don't have great live view and suffer at high ISOs. Both those issues were fixed by the new CMOS backs.
On the other hand, it is possible to pretty large prints from smaller formats. Saving money and weight makes a lot of sense to me. So if the smaller format meets my criteria there is little reason to buy a larger format.
That of course applies to any format.
Best regards
Erik
To me a "backup" means something I can use in case my primary equipment fails. It has to be good enough to finish the job, not equal to or better than my primary equipment. If you want to buy everything brand new you can't really complain about the price, especially when there are a lot of options that are just as good and useful on the second hand market.
But: If his style does not need MF and he himself is content without it, then the whole price and reliability debate is a moot point. A magazine doesn't care if the photos are shot on a small, medium or large format camera, whats important is that it's good enough to print and that the content is good.
-
I find his Salt and Greenland images are amongst the absolute best of what inspires me as a photographer. I wouldn't want or have the skill to make shots the same, I guess that's why I don't care what he shot with, I would love to have the experience and shoot on what I love using and in turn makes images unique to me. I feel the same about a lot of really great photographers, it's mainly down to location and light that I find wonderful, the challenge would always be to produce my own work in my own way, in that regard how or why he used what he did is of no importance to me personally, the fact that he did is what is inspirational.
I think most of us find most inspiration in images that are similar to our own style or intentions, or use similar concepts. Certainly one likes a broader range of images and can be inspired in a spiritual sense, but some have that extra relevance in relation to our own work. That's very personal. In my own work I'm not so much into special locations and special lighting conditions, in fact I like it when both light and location are played down and other elements in the image takes precedence. So Fredericks's work doesn't talk that much to me as a photographer as our styles are so different, but looking at it as a gallery visitor I'm both impressed and inspired by his work.
-
Hi,
He used Nikon as backup gear.
My understanding was that with the upgrades he did he felt the Nikon was good enough for the work he was doing and he found it is easier to travel with one set of equipment than with two.
Photographic systems are evolving all the time. Small format cameras can do the job that larger format cameras were needed for a while ago.
MFD doesn't stand still either. There is 100 MP CMOS in MFD now. In my view, MFD was handicapped due to lack of CMOS as CCDs don't have great live view and suffer at high ISOs. Both those issues were fixed by the new CMOS backs.
On the other hand, it is possible to pretty large prints from smaller formats. Saving money and weight makes a lot of sense to me. So if the smaller format meets my criteria there is little reason to buy a larger format.
That of course applies to any format.
Best regards
Erik
If you don't need liveview or high ISO performance...well there's nothing to complain about :) Besides the new CMOS isn't a good idea if you want to use a lot of camera movements - and small format is a bad idea if you want to use tech cams.
Sure you can get big prints but the size of the print does not give you the same perspective and overall look.
Of course a smaller camera gear is much more portable. But does that 'revelation' really require much notice? I think everyone knows that. We also know that MF is very expensive and that the early 645DF/+ models were a bit unstable needed required new firmware updates. I think it's much like it was in the analog era with small format being the cheaper solution, medium format more expensive and large format extremely expensive (think of the Maxback comissioned by Mitchell Feinberg). Even back then you could produce great and stunning prints from small format negs and it was easier to travel with a 35mm than 120, 4x5 or 8x10 or bigger.
Personally I can live with the weight. I can live with the stability of the PhaseOne system, the bad AF etc. I don't care about that, the MF cameras I was using were all completely manual film cameras without the luxury of liveview or instant replay, screens or whatever - and I was happy with that. I'm glad I don't have to scan my photos and I get files with great quality, high resolution, lots of detail and very pleasing colour - it's better than what I got with 4x5 colour slides or negatives and right now I'm going to sell my 8x10" gear as well because the digital MF files _are_ that good.
I'm wondering: has anyones back ever failed? I mean like really really failed? I only heard from cameras failing but never digital backs themselves...
-
Hi,
As a matter of fact, ISO matters. There is something in real life world called wind causing motion in leaves. Sometimes you need to increase ISO to get a decent picture.
Live view is very helpful if you are working with tilts or want to focus of the optical center where MF cameras have their AF.
Perspective doesn't change with camera or lens, it just depends on viewpoint and subject. A simple fact that every photographers should now, but quite a few choose to forget.
Now, the ISO stuff has been taken care of by the new CMOS backs and they also deliver working live view. Great.
It is no sensation that a small camera is smaller than a big camera. But it matters a lot if you go on an airline trip with one bag and 10 kg carry on limit. It is of course different if you are flying a big set up with 50-100 checked in equipment.
I would think that Phase One backs are quite reliable, although I have read about half a dozen or so that have failed. I had my P45+ for two and a half years and never had any issue with it. I must say that I have enjoyed using it and still enjoy using it. But, that doesn't say I would feel it was a very smart move to buy it.
I could have made half a dozen workshops with Hans Kruse in the Dolomites for that money or travel trough the US a couple of times. Spending on travel would give me a lot more great pictures than buying a digital back.
Below is a link to another posting on LuLA, a user who bought an A7rII who bought it as a replacement for a Canon 7D that was whacky but found it replaced all his equipment, mostly:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106854.msg892420#msg892420
The A7rII is interesting for a lot of people as it can be used with almost any lens on the planet. Chris Barret finds that his Hasselblad V-series lenses give him around 20mm of shift on the A7rII, that is a lot for 24x36. Personally, I cannot get more than 12 mm (or so) with my T&S adapter, but I can have my T&S adapter in my pocket.
Chris is also happy that there is no need to shoot LCC with his Hasselblad lenses. I was never in the need of LCC shots, so I cannot comment on how much nuisance that may be.
So, my take is that if a photographer is happy with 40 MP or so the A7rII is worth a look. If T&S is not needed the Canon D5s and the Nikon D810 are fine options and both still have some T&S capability.
If more than 50 MP is needed, high end MFD is the only choice, if you cannot stitch. So, printing really large, MFD is the way to go. But, you need to make best use of it and that can be hard as you are limited by both depth of field and diffraction. Again that applies to every camera on the planet and quite a few in orbit, not MFD specific at all.
Best regards
Erik
If you don't need liveview or high ISO performance...well there's nothing to complain about :) Besides the new CMOS isn't a good idea if you want to use a lot of camera movements - and small format is a bad idea if you want to use tech cams.
Sure you can get big prints but the size of the print does not give you the same perspective and overall look.
Of course a smaller camera gear is much more portable. But does that 'revelation' really require much notice? I think everyone knows that. We also know that MF is very expensive and that the early 645DF/+ models were a bit unstable needed required new firmware updates. I think it's much like it was in the analog era with small format being the cheaper solution, medium format more expensive and large format extremely expensive (think of the Maxback comissioned by Mitchell Feinberg). Even back then you could produce great and stunning prints from small format negs and it was easier to travel with a 35mm than 120, 4x5 or 8x10 or bigger.
Personally I can live with the weight. I can live with the stability of the PhaseOne system, the bad AF etc. I don't care about that, the MF cameras I was using were all completely manual film cameras without the luxury of liveview or instant replay, screens or whatever - and I was happy with that. I'm glad I don't have to scan my photos and I get files with great quality, high resolution, lots of detail and very pleasing colour - it's better than what I got with 4x5 colour slides or negatives and right now I'm going to sell my 8x10" gear as well because the digital MF files _are_ that good.
I'm wondering: has anyones back ever failed? I mean like really really failed? I only heard from cameras failing but never digital backs themselves...
-
Here on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/46732a/i_switched_from_phase_one_to_nikon_heres_why/?ref=share&ref_source=link)
Interesting read! Thanks for posting!
Now, the ISO stuff has been taken care of by the new CMOS backs and they also deliver working live view. Great.
Neither of them seem to have been much of a consideration for the author in question though.
It seems he was mostly concerned with the reliability of the body and the price tag of Phase One system.
Besides that, nobody needs 100MP (or 60MP for that matter) for shooting people... as he says himself (in the comments) he often shot the back in Sensor+ 15MP mode...
-
Hi,
As a matter of fact, ISO matters. There is something in real life world called wind causing motion in leaves. Sometimes you need to increase ISO to get a decent picture.
Not really. I like movement, if there's motion blur that doesn't make it an 'indecent' picture. All depends on what you need and what you do. I prefer longer exposures to higher ISO..I rarely shoot with an ISO higher than 400 - ever.
Live view is very helpful if you are working with tilts or want to focus of the optical center where MF cameras have their AF.
If you need it and if you use it - maybe. But only maybe. I'm used to optical viewfinders and ground glasses. The liveview on my 35mm DSLRs was nice but only because I wasn't able to focus with the small finder. Now that I have the microprism GG I don't need it. :)
Perspective doesn't change with camera or lens, it just depends on viewpoint and subject. A simple fact that every photographers should now, but quite a few choose to forget.
The illusion of depth and distance is a major factor when it comes to the format size. Perspective doesn't always mean "the place where I stand" or "what's in my viewfinder".
I don't think you own the meaning of the word and can dictate to others what specific meaning they should interpret - especially if there are a lot of sensible definitions the term encompasses.
Now, the ISO stuff has been taken care of by the new CMOS backs and they also deliver working live view. Great.
Hoooray!
Still don't need it.
It is no sensation that a small camera is smaller than a big camera. But it matters a lot if you go on an airline trip with one bag and 10 kg carry on limit. It is of course different if you are flying a big set up with 50-100 checked in equipment.
Jup. As I said.
Chris is also happy that there is no need to shoot LCC with his Hasselblad lenses. I was never in the need of LCC shots, so I cannot comment on how much nuisance that may be.
LCCs aren't always necessary, mainly if you use movements you'll need it. But then you'll also need it on Hasselblad lenses. A few weeks ago I shot a beauty editorial for a magazine - took one LCC for the 120mm macro and that's it. No big deal, no effort and a nice result. I also take LCCs when I'm doing serious landscape stuff but other than that...not so much.
I know a lot of photographers who are happy with 12-14mpx but that doesn't mean it's automatically a good thing and/or worth a look. Granted, 40mpx are plenty. Probably more than enough and I didn't got for 60 because I wanted "more " than 40. I wanted a big sensor size and make the transition from medium format film to medium format digital.
It all depends on what you're doing and how you're doing it, I would also be content with a P45+ (especially for long exposures) but in the studio for portraits I prefer a bigger canvas.
By the way - good to hear that the backs are reliable, especially when you think about how old they are today! :)
-
So is the author of this original post on reddit a top shelf fashion shooter? Can't really seem to figure out who it is and what their skill and reputation is like as well as their client list.
-
Hi,
Nobody claimed a top shelf fashion shooter, but he is obviously someone who makes his earning doing photography, which is the definition of a pro.
But I really think the story is that the guy reconsidered his needs and found that the Nikon filled his requirements.
I was shooting with Hans Kruse in the Dolomites and he told me that he was leading one of those Phase One workshops in the Dolomites so he had a Phase One camera as loaner.
Hans was very much impressed by the sharpness of that system, but he told me that he had several glitches on the body. Foremost, he could not make a business case for it. For instance he seldom prints very large.
I think it is quite natural to reconsider one's needs and means from time to time.
It is also pretty obvious that 36-50 MP 24x36 mm can mostly fill the same requirements as low end digital backs. On the other hand it is also pretty obvious that if you put a larger Sony sensor in a camera it will be able to deliver better image quality than the smaller sensor under optimal conditions.
There was a posting from a guy on another thread who happened to buy a Sony A7rII and feels right now that he no longer takes his Fuji for mountain walks and he more and more shoots the A7rII in the studio.
So it is his workhorse camera for the few coming years.
Interesting read: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106854.msg892420#new .
I know that that you also own an A7rII and use it less than you have expected. I don't think any of the 24x36 mm cameras are all solutions to all needs, but it seems that they may be good alternatives to MFD in some cases and that is good info to consider.
Personally, I have a P45+ bought used, with a Hasselblad 555/ELD and some lenses. That solution is quite old fashion but I like shooting with it. But I also found the Sony delivers a tiny bit better image quality the few comparisons I made.
When I bought the P45+ I planned to buy a HCam B1 for the back that would allow some T&S functionality with my Hasselblad lenses and would also work with Canon's T&S lenses. The B1 has a sliding back for focusing. Finally I decided that the Sony A7rII would fulfil my needs in combination with a Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII and a HCam Master TSII offering T&S for my Hasselblad, Pentax 67 and Canon lenses
I also found out that the Canon 16-35/4 works quite well on the A7rII contrary to some rumours and it allows a decent amount of shifts above 20 mm. It is said that the 11-24/4 allows for a lot of movements, so buying that one instead of the 24/3.5 TSE and 16-35/4 combo may have been making more sense. It is hard to know until you actually have used the stuff.
I am hanging on to the P45+, too. I still keep the Hasselblad lenses and it is nice to shoot them on the camera they have been made for.
Best regards
Erik
So is the author of this original post on reddit a top shelf fashion shooter? Can't really seem to figure out who it is and what their skill and reputation is like as well as their client list.
-
One can get a refurb 40MP Hassy H4D for hardly more than the Sony or Canon now, and a warrantied H3D31 or 39 for the same price, so people who really want the MF/CCD look do have the choice. I think that if I were doing fashion with studio flash the cheap Hassy would be a no-brainer: Big viewfinder, fast sync, clean skin tones, tethering that works. But matched against a full-price MF system, in all-purpose use, 35mm will win on flexibility and price.
Edmund
Hi,
Nobody claimed a top shelf fashion shooter, but he is obviously someone who makes his earning doing photography, which is the definition of a pro.
But I really think the story is that the guy reconsidered his needs and found that the Nikon filled his requirements.
I was shooting with Hans Kruse in the Dolomites and he told me that he was leading one of those Phase One workshops in the Dolomites so he had a Phase One camera as loaner.
Hans was very much impressed by the sharpness of that system, but he told me that he had several glitches on the body. Foremost, he could not make a business case for it. For instance he seldom prints very large.
I think it is quite natural to reconsider one's needs and means from time to time.
It is also pretty obvious that 36-50 MP 24x36 mm can mostly fill the same requirements as low end digital backs. On the other hand it is also pretty obvious that if you put a larger Sony sensor in a camera it will be able to deliver better image quality than the smaller sensor under optimal conditions.
There was a posting from a guy on another thread who happened to buy a Sony A7rII and feels right now that he no longer takes his Fuji for mountain walks and he more and more shoots the A7rII in the studio.
So it is his workhorse camera for the few coming years.
Interesting read: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106854.msg892420#new .
I know that that you also own an A7rII and use it less than you have expected. I don't think any of the 24x36 mm cameras are all solutions to all needs, but it seems that they may be good alternatives to MFD in some cases and that is good info to consider.
Personally, I have a P45+ bought used, with a Hasselblad 555/ELD and some lenses. That solution is quite old fashion but I like shooting with it. But I also found the Sony delivers a tiny bit better image quality the few comparisons I made.
When I bought the P45+ I planned to buy a HCam B1 for the back that would allow some T&S functionality with my Hasselblad lenses and would also work with Canon's T&S lenses. The B1 has a sliding back for focusing. Finally I decided that the Sony A7rII would fulfil my needs in combination with a Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII and a HCam Master TSII offering T&S for my Hasselblad, Pentax 67 and Canon lenses
I also found out that the Canon 16-35/4 works quite well on the A7rII contrary to some rumours and it allows a decent amount of shifts above 20 mm. It is said that the 11-24/4 allows for a lot of movements, so buying that one instead of the 24/3.5 TSE and 16-35/4 combo may have been making more sense. It is hard to know until you actually have used the stuff.
I am hanging on to the P45+, too. I still keep the Hasselblad lenses and it is nice to shoot them on the camera they have been made for.
Best regards
Erik
-
One can get a refurb 40MP Hassy H4D for hardly more than the Sony or Canon now, and a warrantied H3D31 or 39 for the same price, so people who really want the MF/CCD look do have the choice. I think that if I were doing fashion with studio flash the cheap Hassy would be a no-brainer: Big viewfinder, fast sync, clean skin tones.
Edmund
Well the camera might be cheap/affordable, but the prices of the lenses are still pretty high and rather rare on the 2nd hand market.
At last with Mamiya/P1 you can also chose between LS and non-LS and AF, non-AF lenses etc.
-
Yes,
I agree that it is a good time to go into second hand MFD.
A fashion shooter can possibly make do with just one lens, but a landscaper like me needs quite a few of those and I wouldn't think that neither architecture shooters or landscapers would be happy with the 1.3X crop. Well, there are some ultra wides for the Hassy, of course but fairly expensive.
Best regards
Erik
One can get a refurb 40MP Hassy H4D for hardly more than the Sony or Canon now, and a warrantied H3D31 or 39 for the same price, so people who really want the MF/CCD look do have the choice. I think that if I were doing fashion with studio flash the cheap Hassy would be a no-brainer: Big viewfinder, fast sync, clean skin tones.
Edmund
-
Well the camera might be cheap/affordable, but the prices of the lenses are still pretty high and rather rare on the 2nd hand market.
At last with Mamiya/P1 you can also chose between LS and non-LS and AF, non-AF lenses etc.
The Hassy 80 and 100/2.2 are often sold with the Hassy body, used.
There really is a used market now, maybe more for Hassy than for Phase.
Things changed since Pentax came on the market, and the Nikon D800.
Edmund
-
The Hassy 80 and 100/2.2 are often sold with the Hassy body, used.
There really is a used market now, maybe more for Hassy than for Phase.
Things changed since Pentax came on the market, and the Nikon D800.
Edmund
Well perhaps it's better than it used to be - but on ebay lenses other than the 80mm and the 100mm sell for 1.500 - 5.000€ and that might scare away potential second hand Hasselblad users.
-
Hi,
Having a suitable set of lenses is a problem whatever system we buy. It was much part of the reason I have chosen the Hasselblad V-system. Most lenses are very affordable. CFE-lenses, those with data bus are more expensive.
But, I wouldn't use a Hasselblad V-system professionally, at least not with a P45+ back. The sync cables are the most unreliable part of any system I ever used.
As far as I know, VFC backs and Leaf backs can do without the sync cable. The P45+ actually sucks out batteries quite fast, too.
Best regards
Erik
Well perhaps it's better than it used to be - but on ebay lenses other than the 80mm and the 100mm sell for 1.500 - 5.000€ and that might scare away potential second hand Hasselblad users.
-
Yes,
I agree that it is a good time to go into second hand MFD.
A fashion shooter can possibly make do with just one lens, but a landscaper like me needs quite a few of those and I wouldn't think that neither architecture shooters or landscapers would be happy with the 1.3X crop. Well, there are some ultra wides for the Hassy, of course but fairly expensive.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, what in the name of glory makes you think that? It was my job, and I had to cart around many different focal lengths, even if most shots were made with perhaps three of them: you still had to be able to cover all the bases or die... I had 24mm to 500mm. And many 'stars' made a lot of good use of 21mm.
Rob C
-
Rob,
I think on this forum one is allowed several lenses and even several entirely different cameras - we are very non-judgemental here :)
Edmund
Erik, what in the name of glory makes you think that? It was my job, and I had to cart around many different focal lengths, even if most shots were made with perhaps three of them: you still had to be able to cover all the bases or die... I had 24mm to 500mm. And many 'stars' made a lot of good use of 21mm.
Rob C
-
Hi Rob,
Please note the word 'possibly'. One of the reasons have written that is the "fashion pro guy" mentioned that he got a 50/1.4 Sigma Art.
Thanks for making things clear!
Best regards
Erik
Erik, what in the name of glory makes you think that? It was my job, and I had to cart around many different focal lengths, even if most shots were made with perhaps three of them: you still had to be able to cover all the bases or die... I had 24mm to 500mm. And many 'stars' made a lot of good use of 21mm.
Rob C
-
isnt this just a "Man bites dog!" story?
-
No,
I don't think so, because I see a lot of that. Also, it makes a lot of sense. It depends a lot on the lenses.
I posted a comparison between two of my Hasselblad (Zeiss) lenses on the P45+ compared with my Sony macro, here:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107680.0
Not a lot of difference and mostly coming from different white balance. So, I will not shoot with my Hasselblad for image quality reasons.
The A7rII is faster to use, can take almost any lens on the planet and has a very flexible AF. It also weights less and has better shadow detail and real high ISO capability. Very efficient gear.
So, why I keep the Hasselblad? I like shooting with it, just that I will not do it very often. Also, I keep all my Hasselblad lenses as they are perfectly usable on A7rII and I want to be able use them the way Victor intended to.
In a sense, I am doing a switch as I have been shooting MFD and 24x36 about fifty-fifty. But since I mostly travel by air the Blad stays at home. The A7rII that I use gives me some stuff I value very high, like tilt and shift.
There is also some latest stuff is greatest plaything effect involved.
Best regards
Erik
isnt this just a "Man bites dog!" story?
-
In my view that key differentiator that will settle it all is AF, in particular eye detection.
Medium format is mostly a manual focus world as soon as the subjects moves a little bit/is away from the centre of the frame. However good the best MF lenses are, however good the Otus range is, the reality is that they aren't reliable tools when you need to get a single shot perfectly focused on the eye of the subject. I shoot the Otus a lot and I know it can be done, but not 100% of the time. MF viewfinders help increase the success rate, but it won't still be anything near 100%.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1521/24885127520_45fda72a25_o.jpg)
In my view the current DSLRs aren't reliable either when the need is to get an eye perfectly in focus every single time as soon as subject doesn't take a major portion of the frame. We'll see what the D5/1dxII can do on this front, but this is were on sensor AF has a unbeatable advantage that is IMHO by far the most valuable asset the mirrorless cameras have in terms of solving real world photographic challenges. The Sony a7rII and the new 85mm f1.4 may end up being the best option out there for all things fashion/wedding/on location portrait/...
As a amateur who can afford to miss some images as long as I get some great ones, using the best lenses money can buy is the easy pick, but I think working pros will favour reliability over a few % of look most of the time.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, I agree focus is important. Hassy is the only MF camera with usable off-centre focus, that is the killer feature of the H4 and H5 which makes me want to own one after selling my Phamiya. It seems to really solve the offset issue in focus and recompose, people here have commented that it nails the shots. But main-sensor focus is the silver bullet. Videographers love the Canon dual pixel AF. I think we will see main-sensor AF on the next gen of Sony MF sensors; it might even already be in some current sensors, not enabled. When main sensor AF hits, every MF camera will have fast and rock solid focus.
Btw, I hate my D4 but it does focus the 85/1.4 well, and my old pro Canons allow use of the 85/1.2 wide open, but the big issue is that one needs to figure out *exactly* where the focus sensor really is in the viewfinder. Obviously, at portrait range the DOF is about the depth between the front of the eyelashes and the side of the eye. The lateral offset between the indicator and the AF point translates into trouble. I think beauty photographers are very very good at getting focus on the part of the eye they want to show.
Edmund
In my view that key differentiator that will settle it all is AF, in particular eye detection.
Medium format is mostly a manual focus world as soon as the subjects moves a little bit/is away from the centre of the frame. However good the best MF lenses are, however good the Otus range is, the reality is that they aren't reliable tools when you need to get a single shot perfectly focused on the eye of the subject. I shoot the Otus a lot and I know it can be done, but not 100% of the time. MF viewfinders help increase the success rate, but it won't still be anything near 100%.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1521/24885127520_4a75d18894_o.jpg)
In my view the current DSLRs aren't reliable either when the need is to get an eye perfectly in focus every single time as soon as subject doesn't take a major portion of the frame. We'll see what the D5/1dxII can do on this front, but this is were on sensor AF has a unbeatable advantage that is IMHO by far the most valuable asset the mirrorless cameras have in terms of solving real world photographic challenges. The Sony a7rII and the new 85mm f1.4 may end up being the best option out there for all things fashion/wedding/on location portrait/...
As a amateur who can afford to miss some images as soon as I get some great ones, using the best lenses money can buy is the easy pick, but I think working pros will favour reliability over a few % of look most of the time.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I don't think focusing the MFD manually is that easy. I have a Hasselblad 555/ELD withe a PM 5 finder which I use with a Zeiss 3X monocular for focusing and shot at f/11, mostly.
It is possible that newer cameras have much better viewfinder, but brighter does not always mean more easy to focus.
Some cameras may have more accurate AF than others. How accurate AF works depends on many things. If you look at Canon the 5DIII and the 1DX paired with latest generation lenses have very good focusing accuracy, all that from Lensrentals.
Sony A7rII combines on sensor phase detection (for speed) with contrast sensing AF (for accuracy). DSLRs cannot do that with mirror down.
Best regards
Erik
In my view that key differentiator that will settle it all is AF, in particular eye detection.
Medium format is mostly a manual focus world as soon as the subjects moves a little bit/is away from the centre of the frame. However good the best MF lenses are, however good the Otus range is, the reality is that they aren't reliable tools when you need to get a single shot perfectly focused on the eye of the subject. I shoot the Otus a lot and I know it can be done, but not 100% of the time. MF viewfinders help increase the success rate, but it won't still be anything near 100%.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
However good the best MF lenses are, however good the Otus range is, the reality is that they aren't reliable tools when you need to get a single shot perfectly focused on the eye of the subject ...
And Jim Kasson, I suspect, will agree with you ... Otus & Nikkor focus shift (http://blog.kasson.com/?p=13361)
-
Hi,
I don't think focusing the MFD manually is that easy. I have a Hasselblad 555/ELD withe a PM 5 finder which I use with a Zeiss 3X monocular for focusing and shot at f/11, mostly.
I just shot the majority of a wedding location shoot with a contax zeiss 80/2 mounted on a 645z manual focus all day, in focus percentage easily 9/10. I find it easy, but I suspect it'll vary wildly from person to person especially with the age of your eyes :)
-
I just shot the majority of a wedding location shoot with a contax zeiss 80/2 mounted on a 645z manual focus all day, in focus percentage easily 9/10. I find it easy, but I suspect it'll vary wildly from person to person especially with the age of your eyes :)
On the other hand an MF finder certainly helps when your eyes get old :)
Anybody here want a cheap camera with a wonderful finder, I recommend the old Canon 1Ds3 btw - best finder I've ever used, about $1K on the second hand market, and superb focus.
Edmund
-
Hi,
Yes, very good stuff. A great reason to use live view at shooting aperture for focusing.
Just to say, decent focus and critical focus is not exactly the same thing.
Best regards
Erik
And Jim Kasson, I suspect, will agree with you ... Otus & Nikkor focus shift (http://blog.kasson.com/?p=13361)
-
Becuase every action has an equal and opposite reaction, another pro traded his Nikon system in for an MFD kit.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2016/02/22/the-switch/
Discuss.
-
Hi Synn,
Thanks for the link. It is an interesting posting.
A lot of things going on these days. Personally, I feel that low end MFD is more affordable than before. So many more folks can try. At the same time smaller systems get more capable.
Personally, I would say that CMOS based MFD make a lot of sense, and Hasselblad seems to have taken a new direction with new management. A more 'back to origins' focus.
I don't think anybody should switch to either system, but it is nice to have a lot of different options.
Best regards
Erik
Becuase every action has an equal and opposite reaction, another pro traded his Nikon system in for an MFD kit.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2016/02/22/the-switch/
Discuss.
-
That's an interesting Jim Casson link on focus shift; thanks for it.
But there's a problem: and it ain't the equipment.
We all used whatever was the best we could afford, back then, and nobody, clients included, had any problems accepting or appreciating what we did for them with our cameras. And focus shift ain't nuttin' new.
Today, with the ability to pixel-peep, we have (some of us) become obsessive with stuff that, in practice, makes very little difference to our daily work. Huge posters were comfortably made from 35mm; chemist and beauty shops displayed great ads for makeup and perfume shot on 6x6 or 6x7 and also 135; the world worked just fine. And in the end, the photographs were far more convincing than the stuff doing the same job today.
This madness over ultimate detail loses the point of photography that sells product: it's about mood, not sticking pins into pores that have been blurred, magically, out of existence. Go anywhere near those beauty shop point-of-sales posters and you want to back off: not because of grain - there isn't any - but because of the utter falseness of what hits you in the eye. You don't see an impossibly beautiful human, you see a plastic, smeared-in-colour robot.
Yes, as for those jobs that required 4x5 or even 8x10, some of these ultimate detail/focus things are perhaps important, but don't forget that those LF cameras were also focussed stopped well down, and under the protection of a large cloth over the head. Can't say I noticed many whisky or cognac ads that looked out of focus.
I would argue photography has, due to this obsession with detail, gone from the beautiful into the horrific.
Makes me think of some of the rest of the crazy things science is doing these days... a self-absorbed madness into which so many feel compelled to buy.
Rob C
-
Is it just a coincidence that by the end of his post announcing his switch to Hasselblad he is made a Hasselblad Ambassador??
Methinks not....
Probably, but that's no different from what often happens in the Canikony realm either.
-
Rob, I think you are jealous that the retoucher matters as much as the photographer ;)
Edmund
That's an interesting Jim Casson link on focus shift; thanks for it.
But there's a problem: and it ain't the equipment.
We all used whatever was the best we could afford, back then, and nobody, clients included, had any problems accepting or appreciating what we did for them with our cameras. And focus shift ain't nuttin' new.
Today, with the ability to pixel-peep, we have (some of us) become obsessive with stuff that, in practice, makes very little difference to our daily work. Huge posters were comfortably made from 35mm; chemist and beauty shops displayed great ads for makeup and perfume shot on 6x6 or 6x7 and also 135; the world worked just fine. And in the end, the photographs were far more convincing than the stuff doing the same job today.
This madness over ultimate detail loses the point of photography that sells product: it's about mood, not sticking pins into pores that have been blurred, magically, out of existence. Go anywhere near those beauty shop point-of-sales posters and you want to back off: not because of grain - there isn't any - but because of the utter falseness of what hits you in the eye. You don't see an impossibly beautiful human, you see a plastic, smeared-in-colour robot.
Yes, as for those jobs that required 4x5 or even 8x10, some of these ultimate detail/focus things are perhaps important, but don't forget that those LF cameras were also focussed stopped well down, and under the protection of a large cloth over the head. Can't say I noticed many whisky or cognac ads that looked out of focus.
I would argue photography has, due to this obsession with detail, gone from the beautiful into the horrific.
Makes me think of some of the rest of the crazy things science is doing these days... a self-absorbed madness into which so many feel compelled to buy.
Rob C
-
Rob, I think you are jealous that the retoucher matters as much as the photographer ;)
Edmund
Hardly; I think what matters is that the final result often sucks.
I had no love for the grunge period, but at least it had an ugly honesty about it, even if the some of the actors were anything but poor.
In fact, I have often said that one of the few things one can teach in the photo world is how to manipulate Photoshop. It's a wonderful tool, and I think we all should be good at it; the problem, as ever, is the human one: knowing when enough is enough.
Which seems good advice for me, right now!
;-)
Rob
-
Hi Rob,
Your thoughts are certainly read worthy. With digital it is very easy to study microscopic detail in images, so any imperfection in technique or subject will show.
In film times it was much more difficult to check out tiny detail.
On the other hand, with digital we can also easily print large.
I made a small experiment this weekend. For my Sony A7rII I bought a kit lens, knowing that there is no great standard zoom for it yet. Sony released a new 24-70/2.8 that may be OK, the proof of that is in the future. That kit lens is truly not great. I decided to take a street shot taken with it, do some "upright correction", sharpen adequately and print in A2 size.
The print that came out didn't blow my socks off, but it was quite acceptable. So, even that I would say clearly substandard lens could produce an acceptable quality A2-size print.
That may or may not our quest for optimal sharpness in some perspective.
On the other hand. Printing 70x100 cm, or so, I would rather have the best image I can to start from.
Best regards
Erik
Best regards
Erik
That's an interesting Jim Casson link on focus shift; thanks for it.
But there's a problem: and it ain't the equipment.
We all used whatever was the best we could afford, back then, and nobody, clients included, had any problems accepting or appreciating what we did for them with our cameras. And focus shift ain't nuttin' new.
Today, with the ability to pixel-peep, we have (some of us) become obsessive with stuff that, in practice, makes very little difference to our daily work. Huge posters were comfortably made from 35mm; chemist and beauty shops displayed great ads for makeup and perfume shot on 6x6 or 6x7 and also 135; the world worked just fine. And in the end, the photographs were far more convincing than the stuff doing the same job today.
This madness over ultimate detail loses the point of photography that sells product: it's about mood, not sticking pins into pores that have been blurred, magically, out of existence. Go anywhere near those beauty shop point-of-sales posters and you want to back off: not because of grain - there isn't any - but because of the utter falseness of what hits you in the eye. You don't see an impossibly beautiful human, you see a plastic, smeared-in-colour robot.
Yes, as for those jobs that required 4x5 or even 8x10, some of these ultimate detail/focus things are perhaps important, but don't forget that those LF cameras were also focussed stopped well down, and under the protection of a large cloth over the head. Can't say I noticed many whisky or cognac ads that looked out of focus.
I would argue photography has, due to this obsession with detail, gone from the beautiful into the horrific.
Makes me think of some of the rest of the crazy things science is doing these days... a self-absorbed madness into which so many feel compelled to buy.
Rob C
-
You know, I'm just a guy, with little appreciation for beauty and very few editorial shoots under my belt. As Synn has often pointed out, I truly have little photo experience, even less natural ability, and certainly no idea of esthetics.
Recently I saw a lady friend peruse a multipage editorial in a glossy fashion magazine. My friend complained about the dreadful skin of the girl, the imperfect retouch; I pointed out that the bikini bottom peeking out from under the skirt looked quite full of bananas, and that the model had a very obvious Adam apple.
Times have changed. Nowadays fashion designers seem to mostly prefer working with female flat thin models with no breasts and possibly a plug or ex-plug down there rather than a socket, while famous female stars and 40 year old "supermodels" expect to be retouched into fictional ageless plastic-coated angels with endless legs, no stomach, and not a vein in their eye or a hair on their body or minor pimple on their face. Except possibly for the "glamour" crowd, most of the human types in these images are now quite far from 50s "convention". Marilyn was "only" 5ft 5" and a bit curvy, she probably would find it hard to buy a dress off the rack over here these days, and certainly wouldn't be able to fit a standard show size.
I'm not saying that things are better or worse than they used to be, but that a lot of the esthetics someone my age would employ are simply completely out of date. A glance at Miley Cyrus in her metamorphosis from Disney to now will convince most of us that the aspirational ideal young woman has really changed over the past 10 years. I'm sure younger photographers like Synn are better qualified to take the new style pictures, because they get it.
Edmund
Hardly; I think what matters is that the final result often sucks.
I had no love for the grunge period, but at least it had an ugly honesty about it, even if the some of the actors were anything but poor.
In fact, I have often said that one of the few things one can teach in the photo world is how to manipulate Photoshop. It's a wonderful tool, and I think we all should be good at it; the problem, as ever, is the human one: knowing when enough is enough.
Which seems good advice for me, right now!
;-)
Rob
-
Yesterday, at lunch in a bar in Pollensa, I came across Spanish Glamour, a publication I hadn't looked at before. It surprised me in several ways: first of all, the format was ridiculously tiny: something like the Reader's Digest of the 50s used to be (do they still exist?), which utterly destroyed both the feeling of holding something valuable in the hand (or, in this case, on the table mat) as well as the hoped-for impact of the contained imagery.
On the positive side, the worst excesses of retouching didn't actually show that much because the images were all too small. However, what did show was the value of a more moderate makeup technique and lighting: Tom Munro had a spread on Julia Roberts (I think this was a pre-Xmas issue) and in the images, she looked perfectly natural and ever so attractive. This, to me, shows that brilliant people on both sides of a camera don't need the levels of fakery some imagine.
I hadn't time, between meal and end of coffee, for a longer linger, so what the rest of the magazine offered awaits another visit; I'm sure the magazine won't walk. We do things slowly out here when we can...
Rob C
-
Becuase every action has an equal and opposite reaction, another pro traded his Nikon system in for an MFD kit.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2016/02/22/the-switch/
Discuss.
I don't think Ming Thein is an useful example for this discussion. You are naming him a "pro", but he is not really living from the sales of pictures as a fashion or product photographer would. As far as I understand, his main business is his blog which serves to drive amateurs to his workshops. Therefore, when he is writing he got a new camera, the criteria for choosing it is not the photographic quality of the camera itself, but rather whether the possession of that camera will let more amateurs consider him a competent teacher. Last but not least, the last paragraph of that post makes it clear that he is in a business relationship with the manufacturer.
-
Hi,
Thanks for making that point.
Personally, I don't really care. I have some experience of MFD, after shooting MFD for two and a half year. Admittedly, my gear is not up to date, I am shooting with a Hasselblad 555/ELD and a P45+ back.
What I feel is that MFD is quite expensive and a bit over marketed. There is little doubt that even elderly MFD systems, like mine, can achieve very good image quality. But, that image quality comes at a high cost. My latest 24x36mm system also offers great image quality, at a much lower cost than a used MFD system and offers far more flexibility.
Just to make clear, I really think that high end MFD makes a lot of sense if you need the megapixels. But, leaving out the megapixels I don't feel that MFD offers a magic quality.
The one area where MFD really shines in my view is short flash sync times with leaf shutters.
In a sense, I also feel that 24x36mm has grown up. We have sensors with 36-50 MP, great choice of lenses from camera makers, Zeiss, Sigma, Samyang, Tamron et al. Add to that we have great DR, high ISO, live view etc.…
On the other hand, MFD now also uses CMOS-sensors, pretty similar to what we would have on a Nikon or a Sony. Under optimal conditions a larger sensor is always better than a smaller sensor. Under those optimal conditions an MFD equipment will always have a small, but possibly significant, advantage of smaller sensors.
The main advantage? Resolution and MTF. Other than that? Twice the usable ISO with twice the sensor size, else 'naye'.
Some knowledgable folks go from MFD to smaller formats. Some small format users go to MFD. It is nice to have alternatives.
Best regards
Erik
I don't think Ming Thein is an useful example for this discussion. You are naming him a "pro", but he is not really living from the sales of pictures as a fashion or product photographer would. As far as I understand, his main business is his blog which serves to drive amateurs to his workshops. Therefore, when he is writing he got a new camera, the criteria for choosing it is not the photographic quality of the camera itself, but rather whether the possession of that camera will let more amateurs consider him a competent teacher. Last but not least, the last paragraph of that post makes it clear that he is in a business relationship with the manufacturer.
-
The main advantage? Resolution and MTF. Other than that? Twice the usable ISO with twice the sensor size, else 'naye'.
You may have twice the ISO with a sensor twice as big, but 24x36 lenses are also twice as fast.
-
You may have twice the ISO with a sensor twice as big, but 24x36 lenses are also twice as fast.
Really? I remember working with a 24-105mm 4.0, a 300mm 4.0 a 50mm 2.0, 150mm 2.8 etc on small format cameras.
At the same time you can find 80mm 1.9 lenses for medium format or a Hasselblad 100 2.0, Pentax 105 2.4, 165mm 2.8...
Also http://www.ebay.com/itm/Zeiss-Ernemann-Ermanox-4-5-x-6-cm-Serial-1253852-Ernostar-1-8-x-8-5-cm-/121175258757
-
Really? I remember working with a 24-105mm 4.0, a 300mm 4.0 a 50mm 2.0, 150mm 2.8 etc on small format cameras.
At the same time you can find 80mm 1.9 lenses for medium format or a Hasselblad 100 2.0, Pentax 105 2.4, 165mm 2.8...
Also http://www.ebay.com/itm/Zeiss-Ernemann-Ermanox-4-5-x-6-cm-Serial-1253852-Ernostar-1-8-x-8-5-cm-/121175258757
You are playing with words.
Common amongst 24x36 zooms are f/2.8. MZ zooms are typically f/4-f/5.6.
Common amongst 24x36 primes are f/1.4, exceptionally f/1.2. MF primes are typically f/2.8-f/4, exceptionally around f/2.
Sure, you will find some very slow 24x36 zooms and some faster MF primes. But in practice, low light photography is easier with 24x36 cameras. When I want to take pictures of, say, a Jazz concert in a not so well lit Jazz club, I know why I do not take my MF camera.
-
You are playing with words.
Common amongst 24x36 zooms are f/2.8. MZ zooms are typically f/4-f/5.6.
Common amongst 24x36 primes are f/1.4, exceptionally f/1.2. MF primes are typically f/2.8-f/4, exceptionally around f/2.
Sure, you will find some very slow 24x36 zooms and some faster MF primes. But in practice, low light photography is easier with 24x36 cameras. When I want to take pictures of, say, a Jazz concert in a not so well lit Jazz club, I know why I do not take my MF camera.
1.4 vs 1.8 for a 'standard' focal length isn't that much of a difference - and I bet you'll find more zooms in the range of 3.5-5.6 for small format than 2.8.
And there are lots of primes in the 2.0-2.8 range. Look at Pentax 67 lenses, they have 2.8 up to 165mm and 4.0 up to 800mm - even the Canon, Nikon and Sigma 800mm are 'only' 5.6 lenses!
And you can find 300mm 2.8's from a lot of makers.
However I think the whole 'argument' is flawed, the DoF is very small even at 4.0 and a lot of MF lenses are quite sharp at 4.0 - if you had a 2.8 lens with the same coverage it would be too big and heavy to be usable, especially handheld.
Imagine a 2.8 zoom that has to cover 645 or even 67 - that would be huge and uncomfortable to use, DoF would be razor thin - even with a good AF system you'd only get a fraction of your shots in focus.
MF lenses don't need to be superfast. They can be but they don't have to be.
-
Hi,
As a rule, high end zooms for 24x36mm use to be f/2.8. High end primes are usually f/1.4. How useful those apertures are is obviously a good question. Personally, I would prefer excellent medium aperture designs.
We start to a set of great f/1.4 lenses. The Zeiss Milvus 50/1.4 and 80/1.4 are new designs with 10-11 elements and AD glass, while the older lenses have just 6-7 elements. Sigma also makes a new generation of advanced lens designs.
Best regards
Erik
1.4 vs 1.8 for a 'standard' focal length isn't that much of a difference - and I bet you'll find more zooms in the range of 3.5-5.6 for small format than 2.8.
And there are lots of primes in the 2.0-2.8 range. Look at Pentax 67 lenses, they have 2.8 up to 165mm and 4.0 up to 800mm - even the Canon, Nikon and Sigma 800mm are 'only' 5.6 lenses!
And you can find 300mm 2.8's from a lot of makers.
However I think the whole 'argument' is flawed, the DoF is very small even at 4.0 and a lot of MF lenses are quite sharp at 4.0 - if you had a 2.8 lens with the same coverage it would be too big and heavy to be usable, especially handheld.
Imagine a 2.8 zoom that has to cover 645 or even 67 - that would be huge and uncomfortable to use, DoF would be razor thin - even with a good AF system you'd only get a fraction of your shots in focus.
MF lenses don't need to be superfast. They can be but they don't have to be.
-
I finally had the chance to play with a XF today.
Very nice body, good feel, heavy but not as bad as I feared. The only thing negative about it is the mirror noise that feels pretty slappy and frankly un-refined compared to that of a D810. I don't believe it has any impact on image sharpness, but it came as a bit of a surprise. It may be impossible to avoid this considering the side of the mirror though.
Cheers,
Bernard