Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: JeffVo on September 17, 2007, 03:21:41 pm
-
Just thought I'd shoot a quick comparison between Phase vs Canon as there has been so much talk about it as of late. I wont say which Canon or Phase these shots are taken with (can you guess). Phase was H2 100mm 2.2 Canon 85 1.2. Both about the same exposure. One was at F12 the other F13 at 1/160. Processed in Phase One. I wouldn't use either image as is, but wanted to leave them at mostly the same settings for comparison sake. Resized down. Not exacting in anyway, but you get the idea. Is it clear what was shot with what?
[attachment=3289:attachment]
-
Is it clear what was shot with what?
[attachment=3289:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd probably guess that the Phase file was on the right, since you see the Hasselblad mirror slap in the ambient area on his nose, and his face was, I assume, strobed.
But who knows. Very hard to tell, at all, or worse, when rezzed down, (or worse, when the metadata has been stripped out!)
What input profiles did you use on each camera, inside of CaptureOne? That alone will make a massive difference in color rendition. The Input Profile is as important, if not moreso, than the brand and type of camera. The first thing you look for is the red around the eyes and the red in the lips.
The left file feels like Canon color too, and feels like the slight wompiness of the 85, when you stick it right in somebody's face, tight. The right frame feels like the flatter-feeling 100.
I'll be the first to stick my neck out, and risk being wrong. Hell, he probably shot them both with a Canon Rebel, and processed them differently...
-
The file on the left has lower contrast, but a simple levels adjustment to set the black point of both to 0,0,0 would make them match pretty close. The image on the left is also just a hair softer, but well within the range of what can be sharpened well. A few minor tweaks to the RAW conversion settings, and distinguishing them would be really tough. The only concrete difference is the horizontal-motion-blurred look of the highlights on the nose in the right image that is completely absent on the left. It looks really out of place.
-
From what I am seeing here I would say the right file is the PhaseOne.
-
Not sure which is which, but the one on the left looks less sharp, and it's highlights seen to be closer to burning out on the lips. Also, the left one shows some of that trademark purple fringing in the highlight in the eye, so I'm with Mark, Canon on the left.
Wow, if that nose blur in the image on the right is due to the H1/2/3 mirror slap that everyone has been talking about, then that's pretty serious. Ouch!
By the way, how many megapixels on the H2?
If what we are seeing here is 100% zoom view, then we are looking at a small portion of what is effectively a 6 or 8 foot high print (as rendered on our 72dpi monitors, right?) In which case, good luck telling them apart on a print.
Still, you'd probably have an easier time telling cameras apart with a landscape or such, where there is really small and distant detail to render.
Thanks for the test shots.
-ron
-
Here we go again... There's nothing wrong with the mirror in the H2. Most of what you see is in the hands of the photographer (no offense). 1/60 won't give you the sharpest pictures anyway.
I put a simple example here:
- H2 with P21 (18Mpx).
- Handeld, f5.6 1/125 ISO 100.
- Hasselblad HC 210mm (a big one...). Please, note that this lens are sharpest at f8-f11, not f5.6.
- No flash.
- Processed in Capture One with very little sharpening.
- No adjustements, almost out of the box.
- Compressed web jpegs...
-
Samuel, I think you need one of my profiles, and a camera different from an H series
The color there looks really strange.
Edmund
-
Nobody seems to have commented on the differences in the texture of the dark fabric in the lower right. I see much more color noise on the image in the left, and assume that it is the Canon, but . . . ?
-
Samuel, I think you need one of my profiles, and a camera different from an H series
The color there looks really strange.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140016\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I wrote, the picture is not retouched. I took it today in the afternoon... I don't see it so bad anyway...
About the profiles, I'll be glad to send you a few files.
What makes you say I need another camera?
-
Nobody seems to have commented on the differences in the texture of the dark fabric in the lower right. I see much more color noise on the image in the left, and assume that it is the Canon, but . . . ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140018\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
and i would not be surprised if the phase was the left one. i see some magenta discoloration in the black fabrics, which could be caused by color moiré for nor having AA filter. could be also my monitor. i just see it on may laptop monitor.
but i agree. it does not make too much sense this 1:1 comparisions here in the web. in my field of work ( architecture ) the quality difference is clear under normal circumstances.... so i can be happy that i dont have to go so deep in this comparisions, because the things are clear.
-edit-seeing it now on better monitor i think also the right one has to be the phase file for not having noise , the left one has ...
-
Phase on the right. The image on the left looks like it was shot through a lens right at the limit of its resolving power. The image on the right seems to have resolution to spare. The colour on the left looks more "honest" which suggests Canon also (ahem). Point being, I'd be happier printing the image on the right at 30x40 than the image on the left.
... and now is where you tell me I have it wrong.
-
The image on the right is significantly better in terms of detail, so I assume that's the Phase.
-
The image on the right is significantly better in terms of detail,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Significantly?
I would say a bit better but saying "significantly" is pushing it.
Just my .02
Ken Gehle
-
Significantly?
I would say a bit better but saying "significantly" is pushing it.
Just my .02
Ken Gehle
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140041\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Spoken like a true small-format owner....
;-)
-
Just thought I'd shoot a quick comparison between Phase vs Canon as there has been so much talk about it as of late. I wont say which Canon or Phase these shots are taken with (can you guess). Phase was H2 100mm 2.2 Canon 85 1.2. Both about the same exposure. One was at F12 the other F13 at 1/160. Processed in Phase One. I wouldn't use either image as is, but wanted to leave them at mostly the same settings for comparison sake. Resized down. Not exacting in anyway, but you get the idea. Is it clear what was shot with what?
[attachment=3289:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why resize down? You are eliminating one of the important advantages of the MFDB? Why not process both to the 20"x30" at 300dpi and see which one holds up? My D2x looks like crap when compared to the P45, a soft mushy mess. If I size both images down to 5x7 inches at 300dpi, it is hard to see the difference though. It is luminous landscape after all. Sharp eyelashes are sort of a parlor trick for clients. Get outside and shoot a field of grass and watch the Canon turn it to mush.
-
I see a black line running along, between the cheek/jaw line and sweater in the left picture.
This tells me, that perhaps this pic has more sharpening or some, while the other one has les sharpening or none at all. I have no guess whicj is which, since I don't own a dmf.
The right pic is definetely sharper and with better color.
Eduardo
-
It would be nice if the eyes were visible in both shots or if you were shooting a static subject. I agree with the other poster that you should uprez the smaller of the two and give us a 100 percent crop so that we can see the difference if any.
-
Spoken like a true small-format owner....
;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My comment is about the statement, not the format.
Ken Gehle
-
My comment is about the statement, not the format.
I use the format that gets the job done. Why don't you google my name to find out who & what I shoot. And all of the awards that come with my work.
Ken Gehle
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140061\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Easy Ken... I'm on your side here.... that smiley, winking face is there to show that I'm just teasing....
Cheers!
-
Just thought I'd shoot a quick comparison between Phase vs Canon as there has been so much talk about it as of late. I wont say which Canon or Phase these shots are taken with (can you guess). Phase was H2 100mm 2.2 Canon 85 1.2. Both about the same exposure. One was at F12 the other F13 at 1/160. Processed in Phase One. I wouldn't use either image as is, but wanted to leave them at mostly the same settings for comparison sake. Resized down. Not exacting in anyway, but you get the idea. Is it clear what was shot with what?
[attachment=3289:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I assume you intentionally processed the image on the right to look like Canon 1Ds MkII straight from the box "More RED looking" So all I can say is, nice try!!!
Anyhow, if I am wrong and the image on the right happens to be Canon, than good for all of us but I doubt it.
When the game is over, don't forget to mention Phase model P20, P21, P30, P45 etc.
Your title of the thread should have been:
[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\'] 35mm Dollar vs MF Dollar & Let the Games Begin[/span]
So we can keep throwing more examples..............
-
Nobody seems to have commented on the differences in the texture of the dark fabric in the lower right. I see much more color noise on the image in the left, and assume that it is the Canon, but . . . ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140018\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you bring down the exposure on the left image so it matches the right one, the noise disappears...
-
Well more disclosure: As many Guessed Left Canon 1ds ( which I still think produces the finest 100 iso shots of any canon. The right P30+. The Canon was sharpened 25/3 in PO and the Phase 0/0. Just goes to show what a big jump you get in baseline sharpness out of a phase and at 25/3 it was oversharp. knowbody wishes more than I that the Canon was as good, but it aint so. _j
-
HUGE difference...
-
I am happy that I am done with Phase/h1 - oversize canon.
If this was the difference I would be shooting with Ds and donating the money to homeless children.
Do you guys even remember the drawing from 110mm Rz67????????????
Andre
-
Jeff,
Could you please send me the Raw files via www.yousendit.com ? I would like to apply my own profiles to show members of this forum. You just need to upload the files once, after that you can send a hundred people the link, which expires after a week.
My email is edmundronald at gmail dot com
Edmund
Well more disclosure: As many Guessed Left Canon 1ds ( which I still think produces the finest 100 iso shots of any canon. The right P30+. The Canon was sharpened 25/3 in PO and the Phase 0/0. Just goes to show what a big jump you get in baseline sharpness out of a phase and at 25/3 it was oversharp. knowbody wishes more than I that the Canon was as good, but it aint so. _j
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140101\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Without having read any of the replies, just downloading the images and comparing, I'd say the one on the left is from the Phase, simply because it's a more open image, better composed (you can see both eyes that are well lit) and a more pleasing skin tone. The image on the right seems to have that slightly reddish Canon hue. I'm viewing this on an uncalibrated laptop, but the hue differences should still be apparent.
-
Hmm! Looks like I was wrong .
-
* It would be interesting to know the shutter speed of the right hand frame, regarding mirror slap blur in the nose area. That area is hotter, and is obviously lit by ambient (sun), whereas the shadow area appears to be lit by strobe.
* It would be interesting to see that same scene shot, not using strobes, comparing the Canon to the H2 mirror slap, and then compare the sharpness. Using this particular comparison test, this implies that you must shoot every frame with strobe, with the H2, to get sharp files. Again, view the motion-blur nose area in the Phase file.
* It would be interesting to know the Input Profiles used on both files. If this guy is going to show a test, it's important that he knows how to process files. I assume the output profile, for the web, is sRGB.
* It would be interesting to do a test like this, and view the files at 100%, instead of how this is done.
* It would be interesting to see this test, P30+ versus the 1ds3, in December. This particular test, above, pits a first-generation Canon, (current street price, probably $2500), against the latest/greatest P30+, ($22-25k for the back alone, with no camera). I'd say the Canon 1ds held it own quite well, thank you.
* It would be interesting to see both of those files printed in CMYK in a magazine, at 175 line screen, to see if people could pick them apart. Or, on an Epson printer. I wonder how many people here make their living off of how their files appear on their monitors at home. I know I don't.
* It would be interesting to see this test, with the Canon run in DPP, and the Phase file run in CaptureOne. Also interesting to see both files run in Lightroom 1.2, apples and apples. You need DPP to squeeze every ounce out of the Canon file. (Or Lightroom, maybe). I never process Canon files in CaptureOne.
* It is a given that the CMOS in Canon will need additional USM or SmartSharpen, to compare to CCD in MF. No one argues that. But if the files are processed in 16bit, it's incredibly easy to apply the SmartSharpen to the Canon CMOS. Having done that, then view both files.
* It would be interesting to shoot a test similar to this, in the studio, with strobe, to eliminate mirror slap, and see what the file is really doing.
* Having said this, I own Phase P30+ and P21+ (and Canon 1ds2). I use the Phase/Contax 99% of the time, but it's due more to the camera than the Phase back. Yet, just because I'm a dick, I will try to show a test soon, where the Canon can clearly hold its own. It truly is not necessary for a young photographer, in today's economic climate, to be forced to buy medium format, in order to produce quality images for reproduction. Don't believe the hype.
* You guys sit here and ponder every morsel of shadow detail, as if real people would. I advise anyone to go to a Barnes and Noble, or a Borders, and watch people read a magazine. You think every person is sitting there, pondering the shadow detail of your images, and counting the pores and the resolution? No, they've already turned the page.
Just one opinion.
-
The image on the left has a bit higher exposure (the blacks are not as dark, and the highlights are brighter), slightly lower contrast, and just a hair less sharpness. The only difference I see between the images that cannot be equalized during RAW conversion or in Photoshop is the motion blurring (mirror slap?) of the highlights around the dose in the right image. The exposure and global contrast mismatch can be fixed with small tweaks to the RAW conversion settings, and the left image's slightly lower local contrast and sharpness can be easily made to match that of the right without causing artifacting or halos.
Lower contrast out-of-the-box is actually a good thing; it means the camera is capturing a wider range of subject tones without clipping. You can always increase global and local contrast in post, but reducing it when you've already clipped something is a real PITA.
-
Lower contrast out-of-the-box is actually a good thing; it means the camera is capturing a wider range of subject tones without clipping. You can always increase global and local contrast in post, but reducing it when you've already clipped something is a real PITA.
So, you mean to tell us that the Canon captures a wider range of tones and effectively has a larger DR than the P30 as well?
I can go along with people stating that with effort you can get the Canon files to a state very close to MFDB, certainly with the equalizers Internet en CMYK print. It takes a lot more work though which is not always economical for everyone. There is a limit on how far I can go along.
For me the differences between the 2 are very visible and people claiming otherwise either have no MFDB experience or have other ways of looking at IQ.
Sorry but a Canon is still a Canon. A different animal than a MFDB.
-
Having read through this, I would have to say that this is not a bad effort by the 1ds, sure its not a real contender, but...like Mr Tucker said,(paraphrased) its a $2500 worth of old camera technology against an almost 10x more expensive state of the art digital back.
So yes, it will be interesting to see how the 1Ds3 will stack up against this MFDB.
I am sure MFDB has a lot more going for them, then whats at stake here, but still...
Mark - make sure you put up a big headline when you do post your test!!
thanks
Henrik
wishing I had a MFDB
-
* It would be interesting to see that same scene shot, not using strobes, comparing the Canon to the H2 mirror slap, and then compare the sharpness.
A sample size of one for each camera would be useless. Take 20+ shots with each setup and you might start to get a useful indication.
You seem to feel that the Canon's PP put it at a disadvantage, but at the same time the differences between RAW processing programs is very small. That's really pixel peeping stuff. The difference between these images is far beyond PP workflow, imo.
* You guys sit here and ponder every morsel of shadow detail, as if real people would. I advise anyone to go to a Barnes and Noble, or a Borders, and watch people read a magazine. You think every person is sitting there, pondering the shadow detail of your images, and counting the pores and the resolution? No, they've already turned the page.
I shoot for my clients (mostly art directors), not the magazine readers. Some of the art directors are not critical of technical quality, others are. The ones who like to view the files on their own Macs DO notice the difference.
Finally, can you put a price on personal satisfaction?
Each to their own, of course.
-
So yes, it will be interesting to see how the 1Ds3 will stack up against this MFDB.
Yes it will! The lenses will be the same, of course, and I believe Canon lenses will show their limitations with the 1Ds3 but we'll see soon enough...
One thing which these tests don't reveal is how well you can push the shadows in these files, which is an important feature in favour of the MFDB. I may do my own test soon pitting the e22 against a Canon 5D, and include some shadow pushing.
Finally, there are some tricks up MFDB's sleeve which Canon can't compete with, and vice versa, so the type of work will often dictate which platform is best.
I just made an adapter to be able to use my e22 on an old Arca Swiss 6x9 camera, and am really looking forward to having all those technical movements. This is a great plus for MFDB!
-
that right image is a mess. the left eyebrow, the skin behind the eyelashes, under the nose and in the upper lip . . . all kinds of wierd blue and purple. and the "mirror slap from hell" on the nose is amazing. that's about the worst lookng file i've ever seen out of a p30 + back.
-
The only reason that this "35 vs MF" topic interests me, is because, on some level, I'd love to find ONE format that I could shoot most any people job. In the old days of film, you just carried 35 and MF and maybe even 4x5 to a job; it was much easier to do. But now, in this new age of battery chargers, firewire cables, knowledge of software, airline issues, etc, it sure would be nice to find ONE system to do your work. The old adage "Horses for courses" thing worked fine in the old days, but in the new realities of Travel and Digital, for me, it just does not apply any more. The closest I've found, in medium format, for the work I do, is the Contax and P21+, due to the fast recycle of the back. It can do Lifestyle just fine. So the big upcoming question for me is: how does the 1ds3 Overall Experience compare to the Contax/P21+?
The hassle factor of the Contax/Phase is much higher than the Canon experience. Multiple batteries; heavier cases; temperamental syncing sometimes; it just requires more babysitting and patience, whereas the Canon is pretty much "slide the battery in, it lasts all day, and you just shoot the job".
Most of the time anyway, I end up rezzing DOWN even the P21+ files, for jobs, so the file size is plenty big, in P21 and in Canon.
The big question is how well will the new Canon tether. With the Phase, you just cram that FW400 cable into the back, and it's rock solid, and you forget about it. With Canon, it's constant fear, and lots of duct tape, and horrible tethering software.
Trust me, in the real world, (where i live), with proper care, the Canon file can hold its own with MF any day. But I'm not an architectural guy or a still life guy or a product guy; for them, I'd reach for the P45 or the A75 most any day, without question.
-
With Canon, it's constant fear, and lots of duct tape, and horrible tethering software.
I never had a problem shooting tethered with a Canon and C1, fwiw, and I shoot tethered >95% of the time.
-
So, you mean to tell us that the Canon captures a wider range of tones and effectively has a larger DR than the P30 as well?
Given the camera and RAW conversion settings used in this comparison, yes. Given the optimal camera and RAW conversion settings for the subject, not necessarily. It wouldn't surprise me if the MFDB captured more DR at ISO 100, but I think the situation would reverse at ISO 1600, and the Canon (Mark II or III) outperform the MFDB.
Shooting a pair of Color Checkers separated by a piece of foamcore, one lit about 3-4 stops brighter than the other, and the lightest patch of the most brightly lit one at level 250 or so with exposure set to 0 in the RAW converter would be a reasonably instructive way to test this.
-
I never had a problem shooting tethered with a Canon and C1, fwiw, and I shoot tethered >95% of the time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140162\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I believe that Mark might have been referring to the very frequent FW cable disconnections with the Canons.
I can also testify that the Canon tethering software is very problematic, hangs very often and requires reboots. I've had this experience with several Canons and several laptops, so I'm pretty sure it's the software that sucks.
I use an old 1Ds now, mainly because it has a better FW socket than the 1Ds2 so it doesn't disconnect as easily and no duct tape is needed.
Regarding the two pictures, it is immediately clear to any Canon shooter that the left is a Canon, and of course it is much worse than the right - especially in skin tones that I couldn't bring the Canon image to the same tones as the Phase image, but also the lower resolution and noise problem on the Canon side.
However this is an extremely bad Canon example - it looks like someone tried to get the worse possible picture. If I got results like this, I would have no choice but to find another system a long time ago. A 1Ds+85/1.2 can give beautiful results with some care.
-
At least add a curve to the left frame to have a similar appearance.
I added a curve in Ps in two seconds and came up with this.
I see a big difference between the two files though. I actually shoot most often with a macro 100 2.8 Canon on a 5D and it is quite a bit sharper than the other pic here. Still there is a difference that is outside of sharpness itself.
-
* It would be interesting to know the shutter speed of the right hand frame, regarding mirror slap blur in the nose area. That area is hotter, and is obviously lit by ambient (sun), whereas the shadow area appears to be lit by strobe.
* It would be interesting to see that same scene shot, not using strobes, comparing the Canon to the H2 mirror slap, and then compare the sharpness. Using this particular comparison test, this implies that you must shoot every frame with strobe, with the H2, to get sharp files. Again, view the motion-blur nose area in the Phase file.
* It would be interesting to know the Input Profiles used on both files. If this guy is going to show a test, it's important that he knows how to process files. I assume the output profile, for the web, is sRGB.
* It would be interesting to do a test like this, and view the files at 100%, instead of how this is done.
* It would be interesting to see this test, P30+ versus the 1ds3, in December. This particular test, above, pits a first-generation Canon, (current street price, probably $2500), against the latest/greatest P30+, ($22-25k for the back alone, with no camera). I'd say the Canon 1ds held it own quite well, thank you.
* It would be interesting to see both of those files printed in CMYK in a magazine, at 175 line screen, to see if people could pick them apart. Or, on an Epson printer. I wonder how many people here make their living off of how their files appear on their monitors at home. I know I don't.
* It would be interesting to see this test, with the Canon run in DPP, and the Phase file run in CaptureOne. Also interesting to see both files run in Lightroom 1.2, apples and apples. You need DPP to squeeze every ounce out of the Canon file. (Or Lightroom, maybe). I never process Canon files in CaptureOne.
* It is a given that the CMOS in Canon will need additional USM or SmartSharpen, to compare to CCD in MF. No one argues that. But if the files are processed in 16bit, it's incredibly easy to apply the SmartSharpen to the Canon CMOS. Having done that, then view both files.
* It would be interesting to shoot a test similar to this, in the studio, with strobe, to eliminate mirror slap, and see what the file is really doing.
* Having said this, I own Phase P30+ and P21+ (and Canon 1ds2). I use the Phase/Contax 99% of the time, but it's due more to the camera than the Phase back. Yet, just because I'm a dick, I will try to show a test soon, where the Canon can clearly hold its own. It truly is not necessary for a young photographer, in today's economic climate, to be forced to buy medium format, in order to produce quality images for reproduction. Don't believe the hype.
* You guys sit here and ponder every morsel of shadow detail, as if real people would. I advise anyone to go to a Barnes and Noble, or a Borders, and watch people read a magazine. You think every person is sitting there, pondering the shadow detail of your images, and counting the pores and the resolution? No, they've already turned the page.
Just one opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140140\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark, why does this mirror slap blur just one small portion of the picture? Don't you think it should blur the entire (in focus) frame? Again, I think it's not a mirror slap problem.
-
Mark, why does this mirror slap blur just one small portion of the picture? Don't you think it should blur the entire (in focus) frame? Again, I think it's not a mirror slap problem.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140183\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I did not shoot the picture, and the guy who shot it won't give many details, but looking at the image, the sun was coming from the rear, and the flash was coming from the front (left). The sun was about two stops hotter than the flash, and the nose "flagged off" the sun from the foreground skin.
The mirror slap occurred only in the ambient areas, (the sun) because it was hotter. The flash duration froze the skin in the shadow areas.
It's just basic lighting theory. But this is my issue too, that the H series requires high shutter speed to avoid the slap.
You suffer from Home Field Advantage Loyalty Syndrome, because you're in Sweden. But the truth is hard to take. But that mirror is like a jackhammer, compared to Contax, Canon, or Mamiya.
-
we need a new forum 35 vs MF...haha
-
I did not shoot the picture, and the guy who shot it won't give many details, but looking at the image, the sun was coming from the rear, and the flash was coming from the front (left). The sun was about two stops hotter than the flash, and the nose "flagged off" the sun from the foreground skin.
The mirror slap occurred only in the ambient areas, (the sun) because it was hotter. The flash duration froze the skin in the shadow areas.
It's just basic lighting theory. But this is my issue too, that the H series requires high shutter speed to avoid the slap.
You suffer from Home Field Advantage Loyalty Syndrome, because you're in Sweden. But the truth is hard to take. But that mirror is like a jackhammer, compared to Contax, Canon, or Mamiya.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140193\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So Samuels picture example ( H2/210 at 1/60 ) is a fake?
No mirror slap there. How do you explain that?
Slap only from time to time?
In the original example I think the strikes on his nose is the
model turning/moving his face.
Mark, I think you suffer from flashsync envy ( joke).
-
I think in Mark's theory, the bridge of the nose was exposed to bright daylight (NOT the strobe) and thus had blur form the daylight exposure & SLAP combo. Most of the rest of the image did not get the daylight, and thus no blur.
Meanwhile, the guessing game is fun and all, but I think it's time for JeffVo to do some splanin' as to how this thing was lit. And a small jpeg of the whole files wouldn't hurt either. [was the Canon file cropped more due to the longer frame??]
-ron
-
I think in Mark's theory, the bridge of the nose was exposed to bright daylight (NOT the strobe) and thus had blur form the daylight exposure & SLAP combo. Most of the rest of the image did not get the daylight, and thus no blur.
Meanwhile, the guessing game is fun and all, but I think it's time for JeffVo to do some splanin' as to how this thing was lit. And a small jpeg of the whole files wouldn't hurt either. [was the Canon file cropped more due to the longer frame??]
-ron
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140211\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think we all agree on the strobe/sun/sharp/unsharp thing.
What we discuss is why the unsharp.
I am pretty sure it is movement of the model, not mirror slap.
If it is mirror slap, shouldnt the strikes be more vertical ( not so much horisontal )?
-
It's just basic lighting theory. But this is my issue too, that the H series requires high shutter speed to avoid the slap.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140193\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You can adjust the mirror-up capture delay to 200ms on the H series and dramatically improve the sharpness of your images.... you need the latest firmware upgrade.....
-
I think we all agree on the strobe/sun/sharp/unsharp thing.
What we discuss is why the unsharp.
I am pretty sure it is movement of the model, not mirror slap.
If it is mirror slap, shouldnt the strikes be more vertical ( not so much horisontal )?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140216\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
perhaps the camera was in vertical positioning
-
You can adjust the mirror-up capture delay to 200ms on the H series and dramatically improve the sharpness of your images.... you need the latest firmware upgrade.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140229\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This does indeed make a huge difference.
Jo S.x
-
It's a portrait; having the camera in portrait orientation would make the mirror move horizontally...kind of makes sense, don't you think?
200ms shutter-release-to-capture delay as a "fix" for the mirror slap??? That's digicam (un)responsiveness territory; a rather flawed solution for what would seem to be a design problem. Ouch.
-
It's a portrait; having the camera in portrait orientation would make the mirror move horizontally...kind of makes sense, don't you think?
200ms shutter-release-to-capture delay as a "fix" for the mirror slap??? That's digicam (un)responsiveness territory; a rather flawed solution for what would seem to be a design problem. Ouch.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140241\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My problem today is that I find myself agreeing 100% with Jonathan.
Edmund
-
Edmund and Jonathan
Do either of you guys own an H Camera?
I own three of them and shoot almost every day with them.
Mark owned one for a bit and hated the mirror slap. I think he over states the issue as I would never have hand held MF in the film days at below the reciprocal of focal length times two. So for a 50mm lens, handhelds at 1/100th and up.
The new extended mirror delay setting can be set at UP to 200ms. Set it at 50ms and you will see a dramatic increase in sharpness handheld.
I can get pin sharp at 1/60th with the 100mm and acceptably sharp at 1/30th.
Nick-T
-
Edmund and Jonathan
Do either of you guys own an H Camera?
I own three of them and shoot almost every day with them.
Mark owned one for a bit and hated the mirror slap. I think he over states the issue as I would never have hand held MF in the film days at below the reciprocal of focal length times two. So for a 50mm lens, handhelds at 1/100th and up.
The new extended mirror delay setting can be set at UP to 200ms. Set it at 50ms and you will see a dramatic increase in sharpness handheld.
I can get pin sharp at 1/60th with the 100mm and acceptably sharp at 1/30th.
Nick-T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140248\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is the firmware available for H1? - sorry to drift OT
p.s. I think the bloke is moving not the camera
It is interesting how people always get uppy about the standards of peoples tests
Most here are photographers, not testers, and only, when testing, 'knock off' a couple of frames to give a quick demo of a basic concept
in terms of the two systems I still think many miss the basic points - a canon wont go on a view camera, doesnt have 800th synch, has a bit less DR and has more DOF (at given apertureFOV etc) which can be seen as an advantage or not, anyone not pushed into MF by one of these factors should go canon
S
-
Edmund and Jonathan
Do either of you guys own an H Camera?
I own three of them and shoot almost every day with them.
Mark owned one for a bit and hated the mirror slap. I think he over states the issue as I would never have hand held MF in the film days at below the reciprocal of focal length times two. So for a 50mm lens, handhelds at 1/100th and up.
The new extended mirror delay setting can be set at UP to 200ms. Set it at 50ms and you will see a dramatic increase in sharpness handheld.
I can get pin sharp at 1/60th with the 100mm and acceptably sharp at 1/30th.
Nick-T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140248\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for clarification. I've tried brand H, didn't like it, so ended up going with M which seemed usable. Am waiting for delivery at which point I doubtless will be inclined to rant.
Edmund.
-
You boys better keep testing.
Here's the new Hasselblad:
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/16874/hasselblad-h3d-ii/ (http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/16874/hasselblad-h3d-ii/)
-
Edmund and Jonathan
Do either of you guys own an H Camera?
I own three of them and shoot almost every day with them.
Mark owned one for a bit and hated the mirror slap. I think he over states the issue as I would never have hand held MF in the film days at below the reciprocal of focal length times two. So for a 50mm lens, handhelds at 1/100th and up.
The new extended mirror delay setting can be set at UP to 200ms. Set it at 50ms and you will see a dramatic increase in sharpness handheld.
I can get pin sharp at 1/60th with the 100mm and acceptably sharp at 1/30th.
Nick-T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140248\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe they should try before they comment. No offence boys!
Certainly helped me with hand-held work anyway. Proof is in the puddin'!
@ Morgan...
Yes, I *think* the H1 can be updated to reflect this addition. Worth asking HBlad anyway.
Jo S.x
-
Is the firmware available for H1?
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
H firmware v. 9.2.2 (released in June '07) was primarily written for the mirror-delay. I shoot handheld at 1/125 for most of my work. I have v. 9.2.2 in my H1. 'Extra Mirror Delay' is Custom Function 31.
-
If Mark doesn't get around to it, I'll do a similar test this week with the Hassy H3D vs. the 5D.
-ron
-
Still waiting for Tuckers answer to Samuels pinsharp H2/210 1/60 picture
-
First I've heard about this firmware upgrade, regarding the mirror. Funny how they denied there was ever a problem, and then one day, there's a firmware fix for that problem that never existed.
This can only be great news for anyone shooting Hasselblad H.
And who says that complaining doesn't sometimes produce results?
Congratulations, fellas. Welcome to 1/60th of a second. Come on in, the water's fine, (now).
-
I have to say, as I wrote in my original message, my shot was 1/125, not 1/60. Still, the lens was a 210mm at 5,6 (not the sharpest aperture).
About the firmware, mine is still 9.2 so, no mirror fix in my camera...
-
First I've heard about this firmware upgrade, regarding the mirror. Funny how they denied there was ever a problem, and then one day, there's a firmware fix for that problem that never existed.
This can only be great news for anyone shooting Hasselblad H.
And who says that complaining doesn't sometimes produce results?
Congratulations, fellas. Welcome to 1/60th of a second. Come on in, the water's fine, (now).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140292\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey Mark I posted about it on on this other forum where there were some guys complaining about mirror slap. I contacted Sweden and asked them to enable the mirror delay and they did... I think that's pretty cool that they reacted.
Nick-T
-
1/15th of a second with 110mm on RZ/A75s produces very sharp results with HMI's. Is it my steel arm? or twenty year old technology still rules. Rotating back anybody? Lenses for under $300???
Andre
-
I contacted Sweden and asked them to enable the mirror delay and they did... I think that's pretty cool that they reacted.
Nick-T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140300\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nick,
Good to talk to you. I will say, honestly, yes, that is pretty cool that they implemented that fix. I'm being dead serious. Given that, and the new 3" LCD, and those software correction tools, you H guys ought to be pretty excited about now.
Compared to the Phase shooters, who when try to communicate with Phase, either get totally ignored, or lectured to. Quite a difference.
And Andre, yes, I've seen your abs, and if they're anything like your arms, you should be able to handhold that RZ at a full second. If I only had your discipline about going to the gym...
-
Nick,
Good to talk to you. I will say, honestly, yes, that is pretty cool that they implemented that fix. I'm being dead serious. Given that, and the new 3" LCD, and those software correction tools, you H guys ought to be pretty excited about now.
Compared to the Phase shooters, who when try to communicate with Phase, either get totally ignored, or lectured to. Quite a difference.
And Andre, yes, I've seen your abs, and if they're anything like your arms, you should be able to handhold that RZ at a full second. If I only had your discipline about going to the gym...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i don't have andre's arms or the desire or time to go to the gym but handholding the RZ (or 6008) is a joy compared to the H...and the RZ mirror is a lot bigger...no firmware necessary....the H is the only system i simply can't shoot handheld...it is probably me...i get shaky when i hold such advanced technology....
does the new H3DIIXXX.7 have anti-shake built in? it does have a flash like any p&s should have....
there is no way to tell which one is which...webjpegs....it would be hard from a print...is one cropped? it could be very easy to make one look better then the other....the object is well lit, makes the canons sing.....
regardless if someone does not see the difference between a MF back and a canon....wonderful for them they just saved themselves a lot of cash......go drink to it...(and get some glasses while you have some money left....)
-
The Phase is outstanding. There's a huge difference in these crops, and the Phase wins, hands down. And yes, I want one. Really bad.
But I have to say to the OP, this is a really terrible example of what a Canon can do (and perhaps what a Phase can do, as well?).
The crispness/detail/sharpness of your PHASE crop looks like what I used to get from my 20D with a 135L at 1/250th, f/4, handheld and processed in C1 with standard sharpening, 0, 0, while your Canon crop looks like... well, it looks like crap.
But I suppose these were pretty much snapshots, and this is interesting either way, but I'm sure I'm not the only one that's thinking that your crops DO NOT define what a Canon or Phase can do.
-
As much as I like the Phase (and I have a P45+) canon traditioanally has better noise control.
Putting aside the color, tone etc the main differences are going to be
1. resolution
2. bit depth (or dynamic range)
This seems clear in this example.
What I wonder is this; does the MF geometry have an influence on the image, in particular, the ability to create well defined edges right out of raw. THAT is what I see as the biggest difference. No sharpening artifacts. The ability to zoom in is also great.
What I mean by geometry is the fact that the incidence angle for MF is generally less (esp as Canon has one of the shortest flange to film distances, as well as FF) and the MF is not quite a full frame as 135. Thus less edge smear issues.
The lenses of course are also a big deal. I would like to see a comparison with the same lens (easy to adapt Hassey lenses to canon)
Regards
Victor
-
Just thought I'd shoot a quick comparison between Phase vs Canon as there has been so much talk about it as of late. I wont say which Canon or Phase these shots are taken with (can you guess). Phase was H2 100mm 2.2 Canon 85 1.2. Both about the same exposure. One was at F12 the other F13 at 1/160. Processed in Phase One. I wouldn't use either image as is, but wanted to leave them at mostly the same settings for comparison sake. Resized down. Not exacting in anyway, but you get the idea. Is it clear what was shot with what?
[attachment=3289:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If I had to pick my technical favourite it would be the one on the right, looks much sharper to me.
Kevin.
-
The image on the left has a bit higher exposure (the blacks are not as dark, and the highlights are brighter), slightly lower contrast, and just a hair less sharpness. The only difference I see between the images that cannot be equalized during RAW conversion or in Photoshop is the motion blurring (mirror slap?) of the highlights around the dose in the right image. The exposure and global contrast mismatch can be fixed with small tweaks to the RAW conversion settings, and the left image's slightly lower local contrast and sharpness can be easily made to match that of the right without causing artifacting or halos.
Lower contrast out-of-the-box is actually a good thing; it means the camera is capturing a wider range of subject tones without clipping. You can always increase global and local contrast in post, but reducing it when you've already clipped something is a real PITA.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140145\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As a Canon owner I wish I had your faith in the "Silk purse from pigs ear " theory, as it stands the to me the righthand image is miles better to my eye.
Kevin.
-
Is it my steel arm?
Andre
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140316\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey Andre,
I think we are being strong armed here. I have it on good aurhority from Hasselblad, NJ, that all the Mamiya's in NYC are sitting on shelves being used as dust magnets.
-
I searched high and low on the Hasselblad site for information on installing the new firmware with the mirror/capture delay feature with no luck.
How do you load it?
I have a P45 back. Is it as simple as loading the firmware on a CF card and plugging it into the phase back like you would on a Canon or Leica? This seems a little counter-intuitive to me considering the back and the camera are from two different manufacturers.
Hey Mark I posted about it on on this other forum where there were some guys complaining about mirror slap. I contacted Sweden and asked them to enable the mirror delay and they did... I think that's pretty cool that they reacted.
Nick-T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140300\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I searched high and low on the Hasselblad site for information on installing the new firmware with the mirror/capture delay feature with no luck.
How do you load it?
I have a P45 back. Is it as simple as loading the firmware on a CF card and plugging it into the phase back like you would on a Canon or Leica? This seems a little counter-intuitive to me considering the back and the camera are from two different manufacturers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140552\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You must log in, go to Flexcolor, download the update for your computer platform, install the update on your computer, firewire your camera to computer to download firmware upgrade to camera, go to menu on handgrip and wheel to Custom Settings until you find mirror delay and adjust accordingly.
-
I was wondering if anyone has recieved information concerning an upgrade path for current H3D-39 owners to H3D II-39? Is one available and, if so, how much does it cost?
-
Hey Mark I posted about it on on this other forum where there were some guys complaining about mirror slap. I contacted Sweden and asked them to enable the mirror delay and they did... I think that's pretty cool that they reacted.
Nick-T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140300\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I may be missing something here, but does mirror delay makes sense shooting portraits handheld? I mean the blackout of the viewfinder will be longer then? And isn't mirror delay in fact shutter delay? If it only makes senses using mirror delay shooting from a tripod, I guess one could have used a longer exposure to eliminate mirror slap blur?
-
40 milliseconds is not much time. 40/1000 of a second - 1/25 in fractional terms. I guess this is just enough time to make sure the mirror strike's vibration is over before turning on the sensor. It might make a difference for a fast moving subject, of course.
I may be missing something here, but does mirror delay makes sense shooting portraits handheld? I mean the blackout of the viewfinder will be longer then? And isn't mirror delay in fact shutter delay? If it only makes senses using mirror delay shooting from a tripod, I guess one could have used a longer exposure to eliminate mirror slap blur?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140655\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
You must log in, go to Flexcolor, download the update for your computer platform, install the update on your computer, firewire your camera to computer to download firmware upgrade to camera, go to menu on handgrip and wheel to Custom Settings until you find mirror delay and adjust accordingly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140628\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You need a Hasselblad or Imacon back to install the update. The camera isn't recognized throught a PhaseOne back.
-
40 milliseconds is not much time. 40/1000 of a second - 1/25 in fractional terms. I guess this is just enough time to make sure the mirror strike's vibration is over before turning on the sensor. It might make a difference for a fast moving subject, of course.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140657\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks, then I guess Hasselblad knows what it's doing. Don't know what 1/25s pre time means in real life. I have always found the pre mirror tricks of Nikon DSLR's too long for portrait work.
-
Why resize down? You are eliminating one of the important advantages of the MFDB? Why not process both to the 20"x30" at 300dpi and see which one holds up? My D2x looks like crap when compared to the P45, a soft mushy mess. If I size both images down to 5x7 inches at 300dpi, it is hard to see the difference though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well said!
This is a key point in the argument. If you don't need the enlargement size, you don't need the MFDB. Period.
I shoot a combination of 4x5 film and Canon 5D, mostly for art catalogue. More often than not, the artwork is reproduced around A5 in size. At that size, you cannot tell the difference between the Canon and 4x5 if the original artwork is larger than A3.
As I see it, resolution is required in two circumstances:
1. When your going very big - obviously!
2. When the subject is being reproduced near to, or larger than, life-size. Thus, a pair of shoes shot near life-size for an A4 spread in a magazine on MFDB or 4x5 will blow my Canon 5D out of the water.
Obviously, in both of the above examples, it is assumed that razor sharp detail is required.
People really should compare like (usage) with like. With the greatest respect to the original poster, the comparison is fatuous.
D.
-
Don't forget that there is less of an impressive difference in sharpness comparing MF with SLR digital if you are using normal to long lenses.
The difference was obvious to me, but would be even more so if you compared a shot made with a Schneider 35 digitar against an equivalent Canon wide angle.
-
Don't forget that there is less of an impressive difference in sharpness comparing MF with SLR digital if you are using normal to long lenses.
The difference was obvious to me, but would be even more so if you compared a shot made with a Schneider 35 digitar against an equivalent Canon wide angle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Don't forget that there is less of an impressive difference in sharpness comparing MF with SLR digital if you are using normal to long lenses.
The difference was obvious to me, but would be even more so if you compared a shot made with a Schneider 35 digitar against an equivalent Canon wide angle.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=140934\")
I have been working with an Alpa system with several digitars the last 1.5 years. The difference is huge with these wide lenses compared to Nikon or Canon.
Here is a test of the detail both cameras provide on a 16"x24" file at 300 dpi. I used C1 pro for both, default sharpening, and locked the output size to 24" wide at 300dpi. I used the P45+ with the 35mm Schneider Digitar, and the D200 with the 12-24 zoom. The Nikon is at F10, the Schneider at F16. One pair is at the lowest ASA setting (50 for the Phase and 100 for the Nikon). For the other pair both cameras are set to 400 ASA.
It is not every image that gets printed this size (especially not one so ugly as this), but I go to every architecture shoot knowing that any image can be printed very large.
[a href=\"http://www.ericstaudenmaier.com/Pixels/]http://www.ericstaudenmaier.com/Pixels/[/url]
-
Eric, that's lovely image quality from the Schneider!
-
Now that is a very very big difference. This is the difference I see with my MFDB and Nikon as well and is the main reason I have only used the Nikon twice this year(covering motor races).
-
If they still don't see it now, point them to the CA and alliasing artifacts of the DSLR.
You can talk about it for ever but 100% files are much better than words.
-
http://www.ericstaudenmaier.com/Pixels/ (http://www.ericstaudenmaier.com/Pixels/)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=141102\")
Eric,
If you're shooting landscapes, why mess around with that sissy little, low-rez, P45+?
If you're any man at all, and all you care about is resolution, get out the Deardorff and get to work. You want tonal gradations? Shoot 8x10.
Follow the "continue" links on the page below. Three pages of 8x10. Your girly little P45+ can't hold a candle to this.
[a href=\"http://www.afterimagegallery.com/falke1.htm]http://www.afterimagegallery.com/falke1.htm[/url]
-
Eric,
If you're shooting landscapes, why mess around with that sissy little, low-rez, P45+?
If you're any man at all, and all you care about is resolution, get out the Deardorff and get to work. You want tonal gradations? Shoot 8x10.
Follow the "continue" links on the page below. Three pages of 8x10. Your girly little P45+ can't hold a candle to this.
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/falke1.htm (http://www.afterimagegallery.com/falke1.htm)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To paraprhase Mick
"but he can't be a man cause he doesn't use the same camera as me ..... I can't get no,
no, no, no"
-
It is not every image that gets printed this size (especially not one so ugly as this), but I go to every architecture shoot knowing that any image can be printed very large.
I have 29 years of architecture files, 95% 4x5, most of which has never been used for prints larger than 8x10's or a double truck magazine spread. The plain fact is that we have been using howitzers to shoot prairie dogs for a century. Now I get a commitment from the client about prospective uses and find I can shoot 90%, even for large national architecture firms, with a FF DSLR. I move quicker, shoot allot more, try things just to see if it will work, am much more profitable and have a ton more fun with the DSLR.
If I need larger files, I shoot 4x5 film and scan it in house on a Creo. It is the best of both worlds. This coming week we have a shoot in Arizona for a national firm. We will do a swing through Canyon de Chelly to shoot some personal 4x5 b&w work and then on to the paying job with the DSLRs. I may print the 4x5 traditionally, digitally or platinum/palladium with digitally enlarged negatives.
We live in the best of times photographically speaking. We have never had more choices. We have never had better films (though we have had more variety). This is the golden age of photography.
-
You can talk about it for ever but 100% files are much better than words.
No one is questioning whether a MFDB will look better at 100%, full resolution, at low ISO. What's being debated is how relevant the differences are in common real-world image applications such as a typical magazine page or web images.
To go back to the audio analogy, it's to be expected that a $40,000 sound system will sound better than a $8000 system in a soundproofed listening room with anechoic foam on the wall and all of the other high-end acoustic enhancements. But put those systems in a typical living room with traffic noise in the background, a refrigerator running in the adjoining kitchen, and the air conditioning or furnace running, and telling them apart becomes much more difficult. Put them both in the cab of an elderly pickup truck with a leaky exhaust pipe and a diverse collection of squeaks and rattles driving down a washboardy dirt road, and it becomes pretty much impossible. If you're buying a sound system for the living room, it's valid to question what that extra $32,000 is really getting you in practical terms of value for the money, beyond the snob appeal of a catchier brand name on the faceplates of the components.
For many photographers, a MFDB offers little in terms of concrete benefits over a DSLR. MFDB has little to offer a concert shooter that cannot use flash and needs fast, accurate AF in lighting conditions where ISO 1600 is the rule rather than the exception. The same is true of an event shooter covering a horse show who must get salable shots of 25 horses and riders during a 4-5 minute event. Let's see a comparison between a 1Ds-II and a MFDB where both are shot at ISO 1600 and see which one delivers more "dimensionality" or even a usable image, like where the subject is moving and the AF has to track it.
-
You keep narrowing the options down towards a point where a DSLR is always favorable. The discussion was not about just high ISO and bad lighting but this seems where you keep it going for obvious reasons.
Pfff..... yep in your example I would take the DSLR as well. As would every sane person.
Not everybody is taking images under crummy circumstances and at high ISO.
For me real-world photography is working with ISO25/50 with a lot of light (if I don't have it there I take it with me). In this example the MFDB wins hands-down.
Real life is also during daylight with regular light, even here my MFDB is the way to go. I don't know about others but 80% of my photography is below ISO400 and this is where my MFDB definitely can hold its own.
And, yes. It is visible in print as well, though I am sure we can find really bad printers/press that can screw up anything and make everything appear to be taking with a cell phone.
-
You keep narrowing the options down towards a point where a DSLR is always favorable.
Just like you do with MFDB.
-
Eric,
If you're shooting landscapes, why mess around with that sissy little, low-rez, P45+?
If you're any man at all, and all you care about is resolution, get out the Deardorff and get to work. You want tonal gradations? Shoot 8x10.
Follow the "continue" links on the page below. Three pages of 8x10. Your girly little P45+ can't hold a candle to this.
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/falke1.htm (http://www.afterimagegallery.com/falke1.htm)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes Mark, my little man is lacking in size, and I'm trying to make up for it through my P45+. I just hope I never have to stand at a urinal next to Terry Falke.
-
To go back to the audio analogy, it's to be expected that a $40,000 sound system will sound better than a $8000 system in a soundproofed listening room with anechoic foam on the wall and all of the other high-end acoustic enhancements. But put those systems in a typical living room with traffic noise in the background, a refrigerator running in the adjoining kitchen, and the air conditioning or furnace running, and telling them apart becomes much more difficult. Put them both in the cab of an elderly pickup truck with a leaky exhaust pipe and a diverse collection of squeaks and rattles driving down a washboardy dirt road, and it becomes pretty much impossible. If you're buying a sound system for the living room, it's valid to question what that extra $32,000 is really getting you in practical terms of value for the money, beyond the snob appeal of a catchier brand name on the faceplates of the components.
Spoken like someone who obviously hasn't a clue about Audio equipment....
-
These forums should be divided by types of photography. Not just types of camera. If you shoot point and shoot quality looking stuff that won't ever be printed bigger than 12x18 like Wienker than DSLR's are great and MFDB's are not worth the money. If you do fine art reproduction and fine art landscape work as I do, then DSLR's suck and MFDB's are worth every single penny. I just made $7,000 on my last days work doing fine art reproduction with a MFDB when DSLR wouldn't have even allowed me to take on the job. Thats 20% of my camera paid off in one day.
-
FILL IN THE BLANKS, THIS IS GREAT.
For many photographers, a MFDB offers little in terms of concrete benefits over a DSLR. MFDB has little to offer a concert shooter that cannot use flash and needs fast, accurate AF in lighting conditions where ISO 1600 is the rule rather than the exception. The same is true of an event shooter covering a horse show who must get salable shots of 25 horses and riders during a 4-5 minute event. Let's see a comparison between a 1Ds-II and a MFDB where both are shot at ISO 1600 and see which one delivers more "dimensionality" or even a usable image, like where the subject is moving and the AF has to track it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141252\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
FILL IN THE BLANKS, THIS IS GREAT.
For many photographers, a DSLR offers little in terms of concrete benefits over a MFDB. DSLR has little to offer a fine art landscape shooter that does not need flash and does not need fast, accurate AF in lighting conditions where ISO 100 is the rule rather than the exception. The same is true of a fine art reproduction shooter covering gallery show who must get printable shots of 25 works of art during a 4-5 hour event. Let's see a comparison between a 1Ds-II and a MFDB where both are shot at ISO 100 and see which one delivers more "dimensionality" or even a usable image, like where the subject is not moving and the AF does not have to track it.
THANKS FOR THE TEMPLATE WIENKE
-
Sorry Guys,
but by now it starts to remind me of never ending quest to prove that small penis is as good as big penis. Easier to walk with, easier to take in and out and definitely works great in low light situation.
...and of course the main point being that is the technique that makes the master and not the equipment , which holds it's water only as long as you do not meet a guy with big penis who also knows well how to use it.
-
@Garry,
You beat me to it.
Every high-end user knows that a room has to have a ITDG and RT60.
And chamber with foam will NOT show you what your system can do.
Same goes for MF vs DSLR.
When you downsize everything and print on a bad printer from 8 bits sRGB files you are indeed doing no justice to the files.
Same as your audio example.
I can say that if you use a high-end audio set in a GOOD room with a proper ITDG and RT60 you will get a jawdropping experience.
Same goes for the cheap audio setup, simple the room is one of the most important things in audio (which a lot of people don't know or forget).
But than again let's keep ontopic
When shooting a MF system in a bad situation and a DSLR in a good situation the DSLR will win.
(I will take a good room with a premium audio setup every time over a BAD room with a high-end audio setup).
When shooting however in equal situation the difference is obvious.
Well at least for me.
Looking at the samples again, for me the Phase shot has a more 3D (yeah there I go again) look than the DSLR shot.
And the defenition is just stunningly better *just look at the water drops*
-
Yes Mark, my little man is lacking in size, and I'm trying to make up for it through my P45+. I just hope I never have to stand at a urinal next to Terry Falke.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141265\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Does the P45 chafe?
-
LOL at Andre
Wait till you meet a girl who knows what to do with it
-
who also knows well how to use it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=141276\")
Speaking of someone who knows how to use it, here is a link to "Manufactured Landscapes", the new film about Edward Burtynsky. I have not seen it, and have no idea if it's worth a look, but it's playing at my local multiplex, instead of the art-house theatre, so it must have some mass appeal.
[a href=\"http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809761975/info]http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809761975/info[/url]
Also, I found this post about "finding your niche" fascinating; to be able to sum up your work in "one word":
http://alecsoth.com/blog/2007/09/11/richard-barnes/ (http://alecsoth.com/blog/2007/09/11/richard-barnes/)
Almost more interesting than the post itself were the Comments that follow it, too.
-
FILL IN THE BLANKS, THIS IS GREAT.
FILL IN THE BLANKS, THIS IS GREAT.
For many photographers, a DSLR offers little in terms of concrete benefits over a MFDB. DSLR has little to offer a fine art landscape shooter that does not need flash and does not need fast, accurate AF in lighting conditions where ISO 100 is the rule rather than the exception. The same is true of a fine art reproduction shooter covering gallery show who must get printable shots of 25 works of art during a 4-5 hour event. Let's see a comparison between a 1Ds-II and a MFDB where both are shot at ISO 100 and see which one delivers more "dimensionality" or even a usable image, like where the subject is not moving and the AF does not have to track it.
THANKS FOR THE TEMPLATE WIENKE
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Got wienke in one! ROFL!
@ Jonathan
Seriously though, anybody who's thinking of buying into MFDB's is doing a lot of homework, and looking at a lot of work of people who use them. They're not very likely to take much account of repetitive diatribe which has little or nothing to add to the body of knowledge. If you don't want to buy an MFDB, because you can see no concrete reason for doing that, well don't buy one, but I for one am tired seeing the same comments from you again and again.
Do you have an MFDB? Which one? What are it's strengths and weaknesses? These are the sort of things I enjoy hearing about on this forum, 'cos I'm here to learn, and in my turn, much later, when I have more experience, hopefully pass on some of what others have taught me on this forum.
I liken you to Flanders, from the Simpsons; You never mean to be annoying.....
-
I have 29 years of architecture files, 95% 4x5, most of which has never been used for prints larger than 4x5 or a double truck magazine spread. The plain fact is that we have been using howitzers to shoot prairie dogs for a century. Now I get a commitment from the client about prospective uses and find I can shoot 90%, even for large national architecture firms, with a FF DSLR. I move quicker, shoot allot more, try things just to see if it will work, am much more profitable and have a ton more fun with the DSLR.
If I need larger files, I shoot 4x5 film and scan it in house on a Creo. It is the best of both worlds. This coming week we have a shoot in Arizona for a national firm. We will do a swing through Canyon de Chelly to shoot some personal 4x5 b&w work and then on to the paying job with the DSLRs. I may print the 4x5 traditionally, digitally or platinum/palladium with digitally enlarged negatives.
We live in the best of times photographically speaking. We have never had more choices. We have never had better films (though we have had more variety). This is the golden age of photography.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141248\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Kirk,
I bought the Alpa and P45+ because I wanted a system for the long haul. I used the 1DsII and the D2x on a bunch of jobs. Every client I asked about file size said the Nikon or Canon would be fine. After a while I realized they only said yes because I asked the question. By asking the question about using the Nikon or Canon I was telling them it was O.K., they trusted me. Asking them was useless. Any serious questions about the quality of my photos have to be asked and answered by me. I have sold around 15- 24"x30" prints and 15- 20"x24" prints this year. Very few of the images were destined for that size.
I'd rather have my teeth pulled than shoot, process, and scan 4x5 film. On the other end, adding up the shooting time and the post time, the Canon or Nikon takes longer to produce a finished image than the Alpa & P45+. I just got tired of fixing up images.
The Alpa costs much less than 4x5 film. Of course the Canon is much cheaper, but I think you get what you pay for. I can't remember the last architects office I was in that did not have 20x24 prints on the wall. I'm a little surprised by a few architectural shooters who were making killer large sized prints from their 4x5 images a few years ago are walking around with their Canons saying things like "the files up-rez pretty good" with a little crack in their voice.
-
I have no doubt that your system works well for you. In case my point was lost, I was "led" into using Canons by a regular photographer for Architectural Digest (my main competitor regionally of 25 years). His argument was that we had been shooting overkill for much of that time for most needs. I resisted this for years, but like you got tired of scanning. He was right about FF DSLR being more than adequate for most applications and the acceptance of this change by my clients like HOK affirm this. I always try and exceed the expecations of my clients, and shooting a well crafted DSLR image still allows me to do that.
-
In case my point was lost, I was "led" into using Canons by a regular photographer for Architectural Digest (my main competitor regionally of 25 years). His argument was that we had been shooting overkill for much of that time for most needs. I resisted this for years, but like you got tired of scanning. He was right about FF DSLR being more than adequate for most applications and the acceptance of this change by my clients like HOK affirm this. I always try and exceed the expecations of my clients, and shooting a well crafted DSLR image still allows me to do that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141292\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I understand Kirk, and of course your images are very nice. It is sad to me that magazines would drive the quality of our work though. Every month I pick up Architectural Digest I see the image quality decline. And of course just like my clients the editors at the Digest trust your friends opinion about the quality of the Canon camera. They shouldn't, he is wrong. The Digest should not be in a race to the bottom like so many photographers seem to be.
-
Is it a reflection of a more general trend in society, not to be any more 'professional' than you need to... the idea of just doing enough to satisfy the clients expectations?
If so, I suspect that this will not pervade in the longer term. Magazine editors (et al) change, and what might satisfy one (who by implication has lower standards for acceptable photography) may not be at all acceptable to another.
Like they say; 'there's always room at the top' ....moral is perhaps, don't lose your fine photographic skills, or ability to use larger format equipment. Some day you might need it again.
I've always felt as photographers, we should always strive for excellence, irrespective of what the client would be 'happy' with. I don't feel I could deliver that with dSLR equipment, and as Kirk said in another post; he could shoot with a dSLR, but there was little or no headroom.
As an inexperienced photographer of architecture, I definitely need that headroom!
-
I liken you to Flanders, from the Simpsons; You never mean to be annoying.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL!
-
Anybody seen Pekka Saarinen's review of the 1Ds III (http://photography-on-the.net/1DmarkIII/)
One point he makes is that to get the higher quality image that this camera can produce, you need to increase shutter speed by 25-50%. (Read the article for yourself. I don't want to be accused of taking it out of context. It's in the 'image quality' section) No wonder Canon had to include a safety ISO switcher!
-
Anybody seen Pekka Saarinen's review of the 1Ds III (http://photography-on-the.net/1DmarkIII/)
You mean the 1D MkIII... ?
-
Jon,
Who are you referring to with this?
Is it a reflection of a more general trend in society, not to be any more 'professional' than you need to... the idea of just doing enough to satisfy the clients expectations?"
I said I always try and exceed the expectations of my clients, and shooting a well crafted DSLR image still allows me to do that.
Please, if this is in reference to my statement above, try reading my posts before you paraphrase me, and also I think as someone who has done this for 29 years with a national clientel, been a staffer for Architecture Magazine and taught and lectured on AP all over the country, I have a pretty good notion of what is "professional" architectural photography. Oh, and I also wrote the photography manual for the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Eric,
It is sad to me that magazines would drive the quality of our work though.
Markets change and we should to. The standard in the 30's was 8x10 B&W. My biggest clients are magazines and have been for years, but they nor anyone else determine the quality of my work, it is a business decision that I make. And really my work, that is my fine art photography, has always been 4x5 film and will likely remain so. I only do commercial work to pay the bills.
Just to be clear, the point I am arguing is the notion that to do professional level architectural photography right you need a state of the art MF digital camera (there is no doubt that the Alpha system is superb), that it cannot be done "right" with a DSLR. Nonsense. I do it (as do others) with a 5D, a 50year old view camera and a scanner. AP is not one big uniform market and if you know what you are doing there are many ways to do it professionally. For instance I only do commercial AP, but I do it for magazines, architects, interior designers, HABS/HAER projects, annual reports and I teach it to would be commercial photographers, artists and historic preservationists. It is a very diverse field with a huge variety of needs and requirements. I used to shoot only 4x5 for all of these, but that was unnecessary and limiting in later years for all those uses.
Actually when you get right down to it, if someone thinks that making it as an AP is about equipment they are mistaken. It is about "seeing" architecture and some of the best never used 4x5 view cameras even when they were the industry standard.
-
Actually when you get right down to it, if someone thinks that making it as an AP is about equipment they are mistaken. It is about "seeing" architecture and some of the best never used 4x5 view cameras even when they were the industry standard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
so true... same as for any photographer...."seeing" their subject
Therefor these comparison talks are becoming more and more futile to me
marc
-
Jon,
Who are you referring to with this?
No Kirk, I wasn't referring to anybody, and certainly not you... just asking a question. I've seen and respect you and your work (Well, actually I haven't seen you, but you know what I mean ). You have no need to cite your reputation to me...you're just preaching to the converted!
You, and a few others have been most illustrative and helpful in the forum in the time I have been here, and I'm surprised that you read into what I said as a personal attack...it simply wasn't.
Sorry for the inadvertent offence.
As regards equipment, I completely agree it is first and foremost about the photographer and technique. As you implied in another post, to shoot architecture with a 5D (which I have) requires great skills and leaves little room for manoeuvre. I don't have that skill set yet, and need the headroom. I also don't have the big reputation to be able to tell clients that, no, they don't really need MF for the use that they are going to make of the photos. Some clients (a minority; the rest don't care) want MF (despite that) and can't be convinced otherwise. I often wonder where they got that idea from?
Nevertheless, I'd rather not turn my back on them, since I have bills to pay as well.
The point about AP not being a uniform market is well taken though; I would a bit inflexible in my thinking on that sort of issue.
BTW, how do you do camera movements on your 5D?
-
You mean the 1D MkIII... ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141308\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh thats so funny.... Late at night here, long day etc. Sorry (Embarrassed looks)
-
In the eye of the Canon pic is a reflection showing purple fringing (unfortunately the Phase pic doesn´t have this reflex, I´d like to compare that). I have this often with my 5D but unfortunately also sometimes with my valeo 17 in backlight situations.
Is there a succussful approach to get rid of that in photoshop?
-
Eric, that's lovely image quality from the Schneider!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My impression is the Schneider is slightly backfocused. It is sharp on the trees on the background but not so sharp on the houses. Which leads to the interesting question on how one is supposed to focus such a thing. Maybe focus-bracketing is a necessity, even at F16 ? Does the lens have a focus shift, maybe ?
Edmund
-
Kirk,
After the last post, I went off and thought about what you said, and came to a conclusion that I was confusing two different questions.
1. What is the most appropriate camera equipment for a particular job, and,
2. What range of equipment should one have in their arsenal to cover all (95%+) of eventualities.
I think your response clearly indicates that the most appropriate equipment for AP is not always MF or bigger, but that you would always have larger format available for when you do need it. I, however was considering the both must have the SAME right answer, so perhaps you can understand my last post better.
Just to be clear, the equipment is ONLY a means of suitably capturing the artistic and creative vision of the photographer, nevertheless, I think it's important to have the best / most appropriate equipment, so I'm now happier that I didn't waste my time and money investing in some MF digital equipment! I went to bed very unhappy last night thinking I had made a big mistake, after agonising over it for 6+ months!
-
While that Alpa thing sounds interesting, and I'm sure the lense are fine, I cannot imagine shooting a job where I left the job hoping that I'd focused the camera properly. I also can't imagine shooting a job where I'd have to "bracket focus" either. It's just too nerveracking, the thought of it. But I guess you could have a MacBook Pro there, beside you, with CaptureOne tethered, to check focus.
The other reminder about this conversation is: NO ONE has yet compared the 1ds3 to the Phase/Leaf/Hasselblad. So, to me, all this talk about comparisons is silly until the 1ds3 hits the street. The 1ds3 is the first camera, in my mind, that will give MF a run for its money. So let's just be reminded what we're talking about here.
The other reminder is the tilt shift lenses for Canon. If the Canon is tripod mounted, and you use one of the 24, 45, or 90 lenses, and you shift between frames, the 1ds3 in effect becomes almost a 44MP camera, for landscape or architecture, (or people, even). When you shift, it lines up almost pixel to pixel. Shoot a top, middle, and bottom, and stitch them, and bam, a very high rez image. And if you took LiquidNails and glued a tripod mount to the lenses, instead of to the body, and fix the lens and let the body move instead of the lens, the resulting files WOULD line up pixel to pixel, making the stitch almost effortless. I did that all the time when I shot Canon; it's a breeze. Double your money, double your fun.
Speaking of fun, I agree with Kirk -- I tend to explore more options with the Canon than with MF. The Canon is so effortless you just yank it off the tripod and go roam around. The Contax/Phase is much more "serious", and ends up feeling like "work" much of the time. Don't discount that factor.
-
The other reminder is the tilt shift lenses for Canon. If the Canon is tripod mounted, and you use one of the 24, 45, or 90 lenses, and you shift between frames, the 1ds3 in effect becomes almost a 44MP camera...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interested, and largely agree with the rest of what you said, but I think that you raise another issue about the quality of the L lenses, when put on a 1Ds III. I haven't read great reports about the 24TS lens for instance.
I'm waiting on some stuff coming, including a Mamiya-Canon shift adapter, and can't wait to try the Hartblei Super-rotator (45) and the Mam 45 shift and 50 shift on the 5D.
-
While that Alpa thing sounds interesting, and I'm sure the lense are fine, I cannot imagine shooting a job where I left the job hoping that I'd focused the camera properly. I also can't imagine shooting a job where I'd have to "bracket focus" either. It's just too nerveracking, the thought of it. But I guess you could have a MacBook Pro there, beside you, with CaptureOne tethered, to check focus.
The other reminder about this conversation is: NO ONE has yet compared the 1ds3 to the Phase/Leaf/Hasselblad. So, to me, all this talk about comparisons is silly until the 1ds3 hits the street. The 1ds3 is the first camera, in my mind, that will give MF a run for its money. So let's just be reminded what we're talking about here.
The other reminder is the tilt shift lenses for Canon. If the Canon is tripod mounted, and you use one of the 24, 45, or 90 lenses, and you shift between frames, the 1ds3 in effect becomes almost a 44MP camera, for landscape or architecture, (or people, even). When you shift, it lines up almost pixel to pixel. Shoot a top, middle, and bottom, and stitch them, and bam, a very high rez image. And if you took LiquidNails and glued a tripod mount to the lenses, instead of to the body, and fix the lens and let the body move instead of the lens, the resulting files WOULD line up pixel to pixel, making the stitch almost effortless. I did that all the time when I shot Canon; it's a breeze. Double your money, double your fun.
Speaking of fun, I agree with Kirk -- I tend to explore more options with the Canon than with MF. The Canon is so effortless you just yank it off the tripod and go roam around. The Contax/Phase is much more "serious", and ends up feeling like "work" much of the time. Don't discount that factor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark,
It's easy to check the focus on that P45+ screen you love so much. I've never missed it, and never bracketed.
That stitching idea is for the birds. Moving clouds, blowing trees, people in the scene. It's fine every now and then, but you should shoot your next job stitching 4 frames together from every setup and get back to me on that one.
The thing about exploring with the Canon is sometimes true, but I have a personal problem here. Every time I edit my work, I have a much higher hit rate from my Alpa or my 4x5. It's not about pixels or 3d qualities or anything else technical. When I look at thumbnails or screen res images to edit my portfolio on the computer far fewer 35mm images make the cut than with the Alpa or 4x5 shots. It's probably the way I approach the camera. I don't use the camera to frame the images, I use my eyes to look at the scene directly, move around until the subject looks good to my eyes, and then place the camera in that spot and choose a lens to crop that image in space. Having a viewfinder to look through gets in the way of all that.
-
While that Alpa thing sounds interesting, and I'm sure the lense are fine, I cannot imagine shooting a job where I left the job hoping that I'd focused the camera properly. I also can't imagine shooting a job where I'd have to "bracket focus" either.
The higher resolution the sensor, the shallower the DOF and the more critical focus becomes (especially when viewing at 100%). Shooting tethered is a must in these situations, if you want to leave the location knowing you have the shot in the bag. Carry a laptop is really a small price for such an assurance.
-
The body of Mark Tucker's work (stunning btw) is for the most part well suited to shooting with a DSLR. While I'm sure Mark would make good use of a larger viewfinder, shorter/selective planes of focus and correction provided by medium format/technical cameras, I just don't see it as being an advantage for 90% of his work.
From my perspective this long thread equates to a discussion amongst carpenters as to what the better tool is, a hammer or a saw. The right answer of course is what ever gets the job done. I certainly wouldn't want to be doing automotive or food work without a technical/medium format camera and in Mark Tucker's case I wouldn't want to try to get done what he does without the Canon 1Ds.
-
If you're shooting landscapes, why mess around with that sissy little, low-rez, P45+?
If you're any man at all, and all you care about is resolution, get out the Deardorff and get to work.
Indeed. Speaking of all this digital 35 vs. digital MF and how the art directors see your equipment...
The only bias against digital cameras I have come across (working with art directors who have worked with Bergdorf Goodman, Vogue, etc., etc.) is that IT'S EITHER DIGITAL OR IT'S NOT. And for the one's who show bias for equipment, ANY digital is cutting corners. They do not give brownie points for the p45 or whatever. If you are shooting digital and you get good results, they are somewhat surprised -- because they have all seen some poor results in the past from digital. (Of course they have also seen poor results from film, but that's another story...)
This is just my experience -- but I would not expect to impress the Digital Doubters with your digital anything. To them, FILM RULES -- even if it's low resolution and fuzzy like these polaroids (http://www.ronpurdy.com/polaroids1/polaroids1.html) I shot recently at the end of a digital shoot with a $40 Spectra camera - and which caused the art directors to drool with delight.
Thankfully, many in the fashion industry seem to have caught on to the fact that digital works at least as well as film much of the time.
All I.M.O.
-ron
-
This is just my experience -- but I would not expect to impress the Digital Doubters with your digital anything.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141412\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I shot a three-day job last week on the road, in a restaurant. Shot it with the Contax/P21+ tethered to Imac 24. We all stood there in front of that giant monitor -- the client, the stylist, me, the main lighting assistant, and the Tech -- and as we were "shooting Polaroids" and doing the initial lighting on each setup, it was so nice to have that monitor. I'd shoot a frame, and each of us would be looking at different respective things in the monitor. The frame would pop up in CaptureOne, and each of us would silently scatter back into the scene, and fix whatever we were working on, whether it was lighting, or the propping, or the clothing. It was this great little Silent Dance.
Yes, it does get irritating when we're shooting "the real film" and people are looking at the monitor instead of the actual scene, but when you're doing you're initial lighting, the monitor is invaluable.
For anyone shooting fashion, I cannot imagine that they'd go through one fashion shoot, shooting tethered to a giant monitor, and then EVER be willing to go back to shooting film. To be able to see the model, and the way the clothing is hanging, and the hair/makeup, and the propping, on a monitor instead of on a nasty, folded 669 Polaroid, well, it's not even worth talking about.
I do wonder sometimes, with the established guys, who've gotten their look down, with their film, if they are now getting pressured to shoot tethered, by clients. Just because you can see it as you're shooting it.
-
I do wonder sometimes, with the established guys, who've gotten their look down, with their film, if they are now getting pressured to shoot tethered, by clients.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It seems that for the most part, ADs are not comfortable asking someone, especially those they consider to be masters (say, Steven Klein or Craig McDean-- both of whom I hear still use film...) to change his/her tools just so they can see what's happening on a monitor.
As for me, now and then I consider pulling out an RZ, because I like the look of 6x7 FILM, but then I can't wrap my mind around going through an entire shoot without my beloved tethered monitor, and without knowing if I have the shot until "the film comes back." And then there's the scanning, and dusting, and....zzzzzz....
-ron
-
Saw Ron Purdy's polaroids... very amusing.
Interested in your other comments as well! Thanks
-
The body of Mark Tucker's work (stunning btw) is for the most part well suited to shooting with a DSLR. While I'm sure Mark would make good use of a larger viewfinder, shorter/selective planes of focus and correction provided by medium format/technical cameras, I just don't see it as being an advantage for 90% of his work.
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141411\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interesting.
I would think 'soft lifestyle' is exactly where the bigger chip /smoother focus drop of MF shines !
---------
Incedentally on the filesize thing I was filling up at shell station today.
They had an image of a deisel le mans racer
By the pumps they had it cropped to a really thin upright
Also it was a a big landscape billboard (with less sky than the upright version)
So the upright used 1/5 of the frame and the L/S 2/3 thirds of it
I think that head to head at most resses the two formats can be faily equal but in a multiuse situation such as this a DSLR would be pushed
Whether it is bit depth filesize lack of filter or what the MF files seem to be able to take a virtually infinite battering in a way that current DSLR files cant - I dont think the III will change that
S
The image was of course probably shot on a canon rebel (!)
-
The only bias against digital cameras I have come across (working with art directors who have worked with Bergdorf Goodman, Vogue, etc., etc.) is that IT'S EITHER DIGITAL OR IT'S NOT. And for the one's who show bias for equipment, ANY digital is cutting corners. They do not give brownie points for the p45 or whatever. If you are shooting digital and you get good results, they are somewhat surprised -- because they have all seen some poor results in the past from digital. (Of course they have also seen poor results from film, but that's another story...)
Then they just don't know what they are talking about, but I agree it makes business sense to follow your client's prejudices. Fortunately I have not had a single client ask for film - there is only one drum scanning facility left in the whole country, and its days are numbered.
To them, FILM RULES -- even if it's low resolution and fuzzy like these polaroids (http://www.ronpurdy.com/polaroids1/polaroids1.html) I shot recently at the end of a digital shoot with a $40 Spectra camera - and which caused the art directors to drool with delight.
They are nice images, but you can always replicate this look from a digital original, and a million other looks you can't achieve with film. I guess they just don't get it, but my comment above stands. Some people never will get it, but they still have money to spend so you have to do what you have to do...
-
I do wonder sometimes, with the established guys, who've gotten their look down, with their film, if they are now getting pressured to shoot tethered, by clients. Just because you can see it as you're shooting it.
Absolutely, but mainly from art directors at ad agencies. I actually encourage it. As shooting tethered in some ways is superior to Polaroids. Shooting interiors with a strobe/ daylight mix oftentimes ends up with a long ambient light exposure in conjunction with the flash. The long exposure reciprocity issues of color Polaroid throw the color way off to a bluish cyan. You can correct the color of the Polaroid, but why bother, as the film responds completely differently. That color shift in Polaroids confuses clients as they think the film will look the same way. We don't have this issue shooting tethered digital. So with film I quite shooing color Polaroid in favor of B&W. Deleting the color gives clients confidence in their eyes and what I tell them it will look like on film or .......shoot digital.
-
Absolutely, but mainly from art directors at ad agencies. I actually encourage it. As shooting tethered in some ways is superior to Polaroids. Shooting interiors with a strobe/ daylight mix oftentimes ends up with a long ambient light exposure in conjunction with the flash. The long exposure reciprocity issues of color Polaroid throw the color way off to a bluish cyan. You can correct the color of the Polaroid, but why bother, as the film responds completely differently. That color shift in Polaroids confuses clients as they think the film will look the same way. We don't have this issue shooting tethered digital. So with film I quite shooing color Polaroid in favor of B&W. Deleting the color gives clients confidence in their eyes and what I tell them it will look like on film or .......shoot digital.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141425\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Forget art directors, I would not give up a monitor and go back to polariods for anything. Remember how hard it was to check focus on a piece of 4x5 b/w polariod film? No thanks.
I'm pretty lucky. Thess days the art directors pretty much just let me do my thing. They give me a layout to show size and shape and I fill it. What I find so great about working with a tethered camera is the ability to make small prop or lighting changes quickly...and to see the actual results...not some fuzzy polariod. Downside...I make far more changes and as my wife/stylist says, after a certain point I'm not really making the image better, just different. I quit much sooner when I was shooting film.
-
I make far more changes and as my wife/stylist says..............
Dude, I love my wife, but.......I value my sanity.
-
Eric,
If you're shooting landscapes, why mess around with that sissy little, low-rez, P45+?
If you're any man at all, and all you care about is resolution, get out the Deardorff and get to work. You want tonal gradations? Shoot 8x10.
Follow the "continue" links on the page below. Three pages of 8x10. Your girly little P45+ can't hold a candle to this.
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/falke1.htm (http://www.afterimagegallery.com/falke1.htm)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
...wow..those are some of the better landscapes i have seen lately...impressive....
and of course nothing beats 8x10.....i just want to shoot 8x10 for the polaroids.....
-
Dude, I love my wife, but.......I value my sanity.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141444\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
LOL! We have been 24/7 for years. I would not have it any other way.
-
I hate my wife...but my photography would suck without her. Try to find a hair/makeup artist that can also styles your shoots. I don't have to pay her!! (big +) she works for food, shelter and a couple of babies!!! Okay and a nice car and jewelry etc.....snif I wish I could find someone as good as her....then I would maybe love her more and get my sanity back!! YES it sucks working with your wife!!! Unless she would be deaf and mute and would not have an opinion! BUT Always tell you you are great! you are the best....kind of like the 20 people assisting team of Karl Lagerfeld...he doesn't touch anything but the "trigger" in the end and everybody is applauding!!
-
As an expert in loudspeaker design and room acoustics,
http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/194mach/ (http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/194mach/)
Johnathan is more right than wrong, his analogy is correct! When noise and distortion from the environment exceed the noise floor and distortion of your system what's the point? I've seen $80K systems in a $24K pickup = P45+ for a birthday party?
Marc McCalmont
MACH 1 Acoustics
PS I've learned more from Johnathans posts than most others, thanks.
-
Interested, and largely agree with the rest of what you said, but I think that you raise another issue about the quality of the L lenses, when put on a 1Ds III. I haven't read great reports about the 24TS lens for instance.
I'm waiting on some stuff coming, including a Mamiya-Canon shift adapter, and can't wait to try the Hartblei Super-rotator (45) and the Mam 45 shift and 50 shift on the 5D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141399\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes with the 45+90tse you can do this stitching stuff, not so, or not very usefull with the 24tse, cause so heavy distortion and also unsharp if shifted. that to an extent that you get bigger files but so bad resolution at the edges that its no fun.
i was doing long time what kirk is doing and you get very skilled if you work in this way. i shot for longer times also, mostly on the light source depending, digital 35mm or 4x5". i learned a lot and i cannot say that these works would not hold up any standard. shift and wa enses have been a big hassle with 35mm and i ended up with some specials, as a complete line of pentax 645 lenses from 35mm up with a zoerkendorf adapter,- these can be shifted with sharp results about 20mm in every direction. also i found the olympus 24mm pc lens the only one which is sharp if shifted and does not distort so much that it frightened me. found a more or less sharp sigma 12-24 .... and so on ( but i bought and sold nearly all WA and shift stuff which exists, including adapters for canon mount ). a good 35mm setup is ok to work for architecture also, if you learn to do it,- but it has its limits and one of these is that i would advice urgently to accompany this nice 35mm setup with 4x5" in case you need it, and you will need it probably or at least i did.
since 1,5 year i work now with mf with a ( in parts ) custom made camera and 22+33mp sensors. this setup works great now,- and i have forgotten film and one of its advantages is that i can work digital only now,- still not with one set because the canon still is sometimes very usefull.
but if someone asks me if he should change to digital i am very carefull to advice him to go immediatelly to mf. i think the step of learning to use 35mm digitals at their limit will teach so much, that its not bad to do it before. there is no "must", and i cant repeat it often enough- i.m.o. the price of your equipment does not reflect the quality of the work and even less the quality of the photographic skills. much hype in this,- crazy times, crazy habbits.
-
The higher resolution the sensor, the shallower the DOF and the more critical focus becomes (especially when viewing at 100%). Shooting tethered is a must in these situations, if you want to leave the location knowing you have the shot in the bag. Carry a laptop is really a small price for such an assurance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141402\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
no problem with AP and focus check on the LCD, at least not with the sinar backs. no laptop required for this... really not. as eric i dont f*** up my jobs with un-focussed images. 100% check on the LCD ,thats all.
-
in terms of the two systems I still think many miss the basic points - a canon wont go on a view camera, doesnt have 800th synch, has a bit less DR and has more DOF (at given apertureFOV etc) which can be seen as an advantage or not, anyone not pushed into MF by one of these factors should go canon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I used a canon today with flash at 1/1600th of a sec. Seemed to work fine. So one less advantage to MF.
But someone beat me to the post with the hammer/saw analogy. Simply use the most appropriate tool for the job in hand. No one camera is best at everything. A Canon will be better in some situations and a H3 will be better in others. Different cameras have different qualities, some people will see one camera's better feature as a design problem - less D.of F. in larger formats for instance.
-
I used a canon today with flash at 1/1600th of a sec. Seemed to work fine. So one less advantage to MF.
But someone beat me to the post with the hammer/saw analogy. Simply use the most appropriate tool for the job in hand. No one camera is best at everything. A Canon will be better in some situations and a H3 will be better in others. Different cameras have different qualities, some people will see one camera's better feature as a design problem - less D.of F. in larger formats for instance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141480\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The rollei Hy6 will have 1/500th flash sync ive been told. So I guess it is a 1/3stop disadvantage to canon. I agree with everything else you said.
-
The rollei Hy6 will have 1/500th flash sync ive been told. So I guess it is a 1/3stop disadvantage to canon. I agree with everything else you said.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That was 1/1600th I shot at, not 1/600th of a second. So a bit more than a 1/3rd stop difference!
-
That was 1/1600th I shot at, not 1/600th of a second. So a bit more than a 1/3rd stop difference!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141495\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh! My mistake
-
NO, the Sinar Hy6 will sync at a 1/1000th
Best regards,
Thierry
The rollei Hy6 will have 1/500th flash sync ive been told. So I guess it is a 1/3stop disadvantage to canon. I agree with everything else you said.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I used a canon today with flash at 1/1600th of a sec. Seemed to work fine. [{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=141480\")
How? what flashes
I thought it was.. 1/250
( [a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos1dsmarkiii/page2.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos1...rkiii/page2.asp[/url] )
------
Another thought(s) . Cost.
My canon buddy when he gets the III will have spent how much? he has bought a 5d 1DS2 and 1DS3 in the time I have owned my sinar/H1 - about the same money as me - he does have redundancy/trade in power to be fair
(Touch wood) all his stuff has broken in this time too - mine has not
Redundancy. (having a spare)
Assuming 90% of failure is mechanical not electronic I can back up my H1 for £2000 - cost of a back up 1ds3=£6000
So a system with 90% redundncy
MF £14000
Canon £12000
(+/-)
S
-
Thas is FP sync speed (at least that is what Nikon calls it). It is a bit different than sync speed. This only works with the system flashes (not even all of them). It does not work with other (bigger) strobes of other brands. So its use it very limited.
Well, you can get something to work like that with a bit of tweaking but essentially it only works with the dedicated flash.
I agree with some here that learning to get the most from 35mm is very helpful and 35mm will get you very far. Further than most people probably realise and take it.
-
I used a canon today with flash at 1/1600th of a sec. Seemed to work fine. So one less advantage to MF.
I assume he's joking Perhaps that's the flash duration, but not the shutter speed?
Flash sync has always been a disadvantage of Canon/Nikon.
-
He is not joking, at least I assume Canon has FP (focal plane) flash speed as well. Flash up to 1/8000th is possible with FP. Again only with some system flashes.
http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/...function/fp.htm (http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/speedlight/function/fp.htm)
-
Yes with the 45+90tse you can do this stitching stuff, not so, or not very usefull with the 24tse, cause so heavy distortion and also unsharp if shifted. that to an extent that you get bigger files but so bad resolution at the edges that its no fun.
i was doing long time what kirk is doing and you get very skilled if you work in this way. i shot for longer times also, mostly on the light source depending, digital 35mm or 4x5". i learned a lot and i cannot say that these works would not hold up any standard. shift and wa enses have been a big hassle with 35mm and i ended up with some specials, as a complete line of pentax 645 lenses from 35mm up with a zoerkendorf adapter,- these can be shifted with sharp results about 20mm in every direction. also i found the olympus 24mm pc lens the only one which is sharp if shifted and does not distort so much that it frightened me. found a more or less sharp sigma 12-24 .... and so on ( but i bought and sold nearly all WA and shift stuff which exists, including adapters for canon mount ). a good 35mm setup is ok to work for architecture also, if you learn to do it,- but it has its limits and one of these is that i would advice urgently to accompany this nice 35mm setup with 4x5" in case you need it, and you will need it probably or at least i did.
since 1,5 year i work now with mf with a ( in parts ) custom made camera and 22+33mp sensors. this setup works great now,- and i have forgotten film and one of its advantages is that i can work digital only now,- still not with one set because the canon still is sometimes very usefull.
but if someone asks me if he should change to digital i am very carefull to advice him to go immediatelly to mf. i think the step of learning to use 35mm digitals at their limit will teach so much, that its not bad to do it before. there is no "must", and i cant repeat it often enough- i.m.o. the price of your equipment does not reflect the quality of the work and even less the quality of the photographic skills. much hype in this,- crazy times, crazy habbits.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141473\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rainer,
Thanks for the reply. You and Kirk are causing me to review and change my planned learning and portfolio development. Could either of you (or anybody else) explain to me how shooting architecture with 35mm dSLR and suitable PC lens teaches you more or differently from shooting with 645 digital and PC lens?
As a (almost ex-) science teacher I'm always interested in how to learn better (for myself, in this case), and had thought that I had identified a good way to learn (with the 645 digital) I'm delighted that your advice is consistent with this. I've spent a long time agonising over what would be a good 'all round' system, and I'd hate to think I got it wrong...Yes, I might need other equipment down the line, but when I do, I hope that I will be buying it from income made from selling high quality photography!
I have reservations about stitched solutions, mainly due to the extra skills and workload required, but also due to the limited range of application. I also do not want (at this time anyway) to use film, but this may have to change, in light of your advice about large format. I have never used film... apart from 15 years ago in an Olympus P&S! Digital has obvious advantages when learning. (Perhaps it has disadvantages as well)
Finally, I was interested that you got such good shift out of the Zoerkendorfer, and had heard good stuff about the Olympus 24 pc lens. Maybe a purchase later.
Thanks again for all the most helpful advice, Rainer.
-
He is not joking, at least I assume Canon has FP (focal plane) flash speed as well. Flash up to 1/8000th is possible with FP. Again only with some system flashes.
http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/...function/fp.htm (http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/speedlight/function/fp.htm)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141522\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ok, I see what's going on. In effect, it is continuous lighting, not flash, and that has drawbacks. The flash needs to last for the entire duration of the exposure, then the partial shutter is no longer a problem.
Nice feature, and it might be ok with some Nikon compact flashes, but it's not going to be useful for more advanced lighting setups, and it won't work with 99% of the flash units out there.
For example, it means that if you use flash for a speed such as ~1/250-1/1000, you will not be freezing the action the way you normally would with a flash. Part of the reason I chose Profoto Pro lighting was the short flash duration, and the way it freezes moving models down to 1/7000th. (I use Pro6, the Pro7 is even faster).
As always these cameras prove themselves very useful in fields such as event/sports with little or no setup, but not in more advanced situations. Each to their own!
-
As always the Canons/Nikons provide 70% of the functionality in 100% of the situations ...
I would agree that Hassleblad is making progress now, though. It looks like they are using some of their cash-flow to good effect.
Edmund
As always these cameras prove themselves very useful in fields such as event/sports with little or no setup, but not in more advanced situations. Each to their own!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141526\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
but i do not want to create here illusions. if you do not work already with 4x5" maybe its not such a fast way to go there...... i scanned my images myself with a scanmate 5000 drumscanner ( it was very important for me ) and the sum of my 35mm equipment is also everything else than cheap.
i dont know how kirk is working, but just sticking a TSE lense on my canon ( or long time it was a kodak ) never did the job for me. but i learned ( and i did ) that its possible to make hi-end productions with 35mm digital, but together with 4x5 !!. Now i prefer by far my mf setup which i, for the quality, speed and possibilities it delivers me.
the zoerkendorf shift adapter can be seen here: http://www.zoerk.de/ (http://www.zoerk.de/)
i advise the pentax 645 lenses not mamiya or hasselblad, i should ( and i will - i simply havent had the idea which shows how often i still use it ...) ask mr. Z. if he still has the contax adapter also,- no idea how the contax lenses would work. probably very good also ....
Rainer,
Thanks for the reply. You and Kirk are causing me to review and change my planned learning and portfolio development. Could either of you (or anybody else) explain to me how shooting architecture with 35mm dSLR and suitable PC lens teaches you more or differently from shooting with 645 digital and PC lens?
As a (almost ex-) science teacher I'm always interested in how to learn better (for myself, in this case), and had thought that I had identified a good way to learn (with the 645 digital) I'm delighted that your advice is consistent with this. I've spent a long time agonising over what would be a good 'all round' system, and I'd hate to think I got it wrong...Yes, I might need other equipment down the line, but when I do, I hope that I will be buying it from income made from selling high quality photography!
I have reservations about stitched solutions, mainly due to the extra skills and workload required, but also due to the limited range of application. I also do not want (at this time anyway) to use film, but this may have to change, in light of your advice about large format. I have never used film... apart from 15 years ago in an Olympus P&S! Digital has obvious advantages when learning. (Perhaps it has disadvantages as well)
Finally, I was interested that you got such good shift out of the Zoerkendorfer, and had heard good stuff about the Olympus 24 pc lens. Maybe a purchase later.
Thanks again for all the most helpful advice, Rainer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
As an expert in loudspeaker design and room acoustics,
http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/194mach/ (http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/194mach/)
Johnathan is more right than wrong, his analogy is correct! When noise and distortion from the environment exceed the noise floor and distortion of your system what's the point? I've seen $80K systems in a $24K pickup = P45+ for a birthday party?
Marc McCalmont
MACH 1 Acoustics
PS I've learned more from Johnathans posts than most others, thanks.
Thank you, Marc. My only intent with my participation in this discussion has been to apply a bit of common sense to some of the more absurd claims being made by the MF enthusiasts. For daytime landscapes where the weight of the gear being hauled to the location isn't an issue, studio work that doesn't require a fast shooting pace, very-narrow-DOF shots, or where really large prints are needed, MFDB has unquestioned advantages.
But that does not mean that MFDB is always the most practical or cost-effective tool for the job. For example, you could use a MFDB or DSLR to shoot yearbook photos for a school. A MFDB would be cool to have for such a task and could certainly deliver excellent images, but given that 95% or more of the prints being sold from such a job are 8x10 or smaller, using a DSLR makes a lot more sense for several reasons. If you print at 300PPI, you're already downsampling even with the original 1Ds; a MFDB is just increasing the level of overkill. Then you have the shooting rate factor; children don't always hold photogenic expressions very long, and shooting more than one frame per child is generally wise to ensure you get a shot everyone is happy with. And given the price parents are typically willing to pay for prints, a DSLR is much easier to justify economically than a MFDB. In the real world of photography-as-a-business
If you want to use a MFDB to shoot such a job, that's great; I have no problem with that. I've used a .300 Winchester Magnum to shoot rats. It's lots of fun, and certainly kills the rat, but a Ruger 10/22 will kill the rat just as dead, the ammunition costs about 1/20th as much, and it's a lot easier on the shoulder to shoot. If you all want to engage in the photographic equivalent of rat-hunting with a moose rifle, have fun. It's not illegal or anything, and nobody is getting hurt. But condescending comments implying that those of us who use the 10/22 to "shoot the rat" are short-changing our clients or are less-sophisticated photographers (like the claims of "dimensionality" supposedly easily distinguished in MFDB web JPEGS) are ridiculous and somewhat offensive. We're still killing the rat, and in most cases, meeting or exceeding our clients' needs, we're just not spending as much money on gear to do so.
-
Thank you, Marc. My only intent with my participation in this discussion has been to apply a bit of common sense to some of the more absurd claims being made by the MF enthusiasts. For daytime landscapes where the weight of the gear being hauled to the location isn't an issue, studio work that doesn't require a fast shooting pace, very-narrow-DOF shots, or where really large prints are needed, MFDB has unquestioned advantages.
But that does not mean that MFDB is always the most practical or cost-effective tool for the job. For example, you could use a MFDB or DSLR to shoot yearbook photos for a school. A MFDB would be cool to have for such a task and could certainly deliver excellent images, but given that 95% or more of the prints being sold from such a job are 8x10 or smaller, using a DSLR makes a lot more sense for several reasons. If you print at 300PPI, you're already downsampling even with the original 1Ds; a MFDB is just increasing the level of overkill. Then you have the shooting rate factor; children don't always hold photogenic expressions very long, and shooting more than one frame per child is generally wise to ensure you get a shot everyone is happy with. And given the price parents are typically willing to pay for prints, a DSLR is much easier to justify economically than a MFDB. In the real world of photography-as-a-business
If you want to use a MFDB to shoot such a job, that's great; I have no problem with that. I've used a .300 Winchester Magnum to shoot rats. It's lots of fun, and certainly kills the rat, but a Ruger 10/22 will kill the rat just as dead, the ammunition costs about 1/20th as much, and it's a lot easier on the shoulder to shoot. If you all want to engage in the photographic equivalent of rat-hunting with a moose rifle, have fun. It's not illegal or anything, and nobody is getting hurt. But condescending comments implying that those of us who use the 10/22 to "shoot the rat" are short-changing our clients or are less-sophisticated photographers (like the claims of "dimensionality" supposedly easily distinguished in MFDB web JPEGS) are ridiculous and somewhat offensive. We're still killing the rat, and in most cases, meeting or exceeding our clients' needs, we're just not spending as much money on gear to do so.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141551\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All I can say is thank god most of us don't shoot jobs like Wienke- Yearbook photos and horse races. And then in our free time kill rats.
-
All I can say is thank god most of us don't shoot jobs like Wienke- Yearbook photos and horse races. And then in our free time kill rats.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141560\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think that judging from the work of most people here we're not looking at yearbook portraits...
-
but i do not want to create here illusions. if you do not work already with 4x5" maybe its not such a fast way to go there...... i scanned my images myself with a scanmate 5000 drumscanner ( it was very important for me ) and the sum of my 35mm equipment is also everything else than cheap.
i dont know how kirk is working, but just sticking a TSE lense on my canon ( or long time it was a kodak ) never did the job for me. but i learned ( and i did ) that its possible to make hi-end productions with 35mm digital, but together with 4x5 !!. Now i prefer by far my mf setup which i, for the quality, speed and possibilities it delivers me.
the zoerkendorf shift adapter can be seen here: http://www.zoerk.de/ (http://www.zoerk.de/)
i advise the pentax 645 lenses not mamiya or hasselblad, i should ( and i will - i simply havent had the idea which shows how often i still use it ...) ask mr. Z. if he still has the contax adapter also,- no idea how the contax lenses would work. probably very good also ....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141549\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Rainer...I think I understand what you are saying fairly clearly: It's possible to make great images with a 35mm camera, but only if you have great skills in doing that. Large format is much better, when you know how to handle film, and have good skills, but that the most enjoyable to use is now the mf setup.
Experience will help educate me too! I now have a six month period of hard work to learn and practice the skills. Now, how much are Contax lenses...? mmm!
Thanks Again
-
I may have missed this question so here it goes. Why are we comparing two totally separate imaging systems, 35mm & MF? Aren’t these two by their most basic design as different as MF to LF? All formats have the potential to capture stunning images in different degrees (image size and amount of speed to capture). To me it is much as comparing a Ford Model T to a current vehicle – all will get you down the road, just one faster than the other and in different degrees of comfort.
I shoot with both 35mm and MF. To me each has its uses and disadvantages. As much as I’d love to take images of bears in Katmai AK with my P30+ (for the added detail) I know full well that it isn’t as suited for this as my 1Ds II. Likewise since moving over to MF I now can see the usefulness of MF in my landscape images over the Canon.
Just my thoughts on the subject, I’ll go back to work on my Sequoia images. BTW if anyone is interested this was the first time I was able to really give the Hartblei a good workout and so far am very pleased.
don
-
I must confess, I am much more interested in your sequoia images than the Hartblei
-
Thanks Rainer...I think I understand what you are saying fairly clearly: It's possible to make great images with a 35mm camera, but only if you have great skills in doing that. Large format is much better, when you know how to handle film, and have good skills, but that the most enjoyable to use is now the mf setup.
Experience will help educate me too! I now have a six month period of hard work to learn and practice the skills. Now, how much are Contax lenses...? mmm!
Thanks Again
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=141578\")
yes in general, but there exist also moods where digital simply is much better than film, for its completely diferent way to handle colors, esp. mixed lights. when i mixed 4x5" film with digital, usually i used for "hard" daylight ( esp. with metallic surfaces ) chromes, with overcast mushy weahthers digital. too simple said, but my choice very often was not resolution dependent.
a.e. here you see one shot, which i wanted to repeat with film cause resolution was at the limit for A3 print,because i corrected the image in photoshop and the top of the building is at the limit for doubleside printing. i went 5 times to location with similar weather,tried negatives as well as chromes of all kinds. i didnt brought out of my scanmate that atmosphere. different moods, also nice, but i was not able to copy that one and it encouraged me so i tried it hard- i had shot it with a kodak slr camera with 0.9 grey filter, 15 seconds exposure time @ iso6. something like that.
[a href=\"http://tangential.de/tangential-de/_html-seiten/pages-09_highlight-towers/page/02.htm]http://tangential.de/tangential-de/_html-s...ers/page/02.htm[/url]
next shot was around 4h in the morning on a crane after waiting 1,5 hours. as wienke shoot rats i did that to treat bad me and my assistant, because it was cold and we had made interiors till 2:30.
climed our crane and waited in the hope sunrise might bring some nice light. it did,- sun apeared behind the horizont and reflected in the building. havent tried it but i hardly doubt to get this shot with film.
later come some winter shots of the facades in sunlight. done with velvia 4x5". with the kodak never would have came out in that way. i think with the emotion back now not a great problem,- probably.
-
I may have missed this question so here it goes. Why are we comparing two totally separate imaging systems, 35mm & MF?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141591\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Because Canons new marketing material has a two line poke at hassy buried in a PDF somewhere !
S
-
yes in general, but there exist also moods where digital simply is much better than film, for its completely diferent way to handle colors, esp. mixed lights. when i mixed 4x5" film with digital, usually i used for "hard" daylight ( esp. with metallic surfaces ) chromes, with overcast mushy weahthers digital. too simple said, but my choice very often was not resolution dependent.
a.e. here you see one shot, which i wanted to repeat with film cause resolution was at the limit for A3 print,because i corrected the image in photoshop and the top of the building is at the limit for doubleside printing. i went 5 times to location with similar weather,tried negatives as well as chromes of all kinds. i didnt brought out of my scanmate that atmosphere. different moods, also nice, but i was not able to copy that one and it encouraged me so i tried it hard- i had shot it with a kodak slr camera with 0.9 grey filter, 15 seconds exposure time @ iso6. something like that.
http://tangential.de/tangential-de/_html-s...ers/page/02.htm (http://tangential.de/tangential-de/_html-seiten/pages-09_highlight-towers/page/02.htm)
next shot was around 4h in the morning on a crane after waiting 1,5 hours. as wienke shoot rats i did that to treat bad me and my assistant, because it was cold and we had made interiors till 2:30.
climed our crane and waited in the hope sunrise might bring some nice light. it did,- sun apeared behind the horizont and reflected in the building. havent tried it but i hardly doubt to get this shot with film.
later come some winter shots of the facades in sunlight. done with velvia 4x5". with the kodak never would have came out in that way. i think with the emotion back now not a great problem,- probably.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I keep thinking in terms of resolution and colour depth, as the major factors in the 'style' but maybe there is some 'Je ne sais quoi' Great photos: well worth the trouble. (Easy for me to say... I wasn't there at 4 in the morning!)
Appreciate your comments Rainer, thanks for taking the time to reply.
-
Just my thoughts on the subject, I’ll go back to work on my Sequoia images. BTW if anyone is interested this was the first time I was able to really give the Hartblei a good workout and so far am very pleased.
don
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141591\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Love those Sequoia series images. Quick question: were you shifting and stitching on your 5D, or are they just single shots ? (I've had the Hartblei for exactly 1 hour, but there's no light here to try it out!)
Thanks
-
The only stitching done was with the 5D. Sandy (wife & partner) just happened to take two images almost side by side and when I opened that day’s shots in PS3 I saw the potential to do a mini pano. That shot is titled “Sandy’s Trees”.
While Sandy is currently shooting with a 5D she is upgrading to the new 1Ds III prior to our trip to Alaska next year. All the other images (not shot w/the 5D) were shot using the Mamiya 645 AFD II and P30+ with either a 35mm or Hartblei lens. So far the only Hartblei images up as yet are “0413”; “583” and “481”. The one that surprises and pleases me the most is “Path” which was shot using a 35mm lens.
Very pleased to hear that someone likes the images.
Don
-
Sorry Guys,
but by now it starts to remind me of never ending quest to prove that small penis is as good as big penis. Easier to walk with, easier to take in and out and definitely works great in low light situation.
...and of course the main point being that is the technique that makes the master and not the equipment , which holds it's water only as long as you do not meet a guy with big penis who also knows well how to use it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141276\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Finally, someone said it. Thank you. Everytime I teach a group class the women are shooting when the light is right and the men are playing with there stuff and comparing. Happens everytime. Give me someone with vision and a P&S instead of some knucklehead Measurebater with a Expensive necklace anyday.
-
Sorry Guys,
but by now it starts to remind me of never ending quest to prove that small penis is as good as big penis. Easier to walk with, easier to take in and out and definitely works great in low light situation.
...and of course the main point being that is the technique that makes the master and not the equipment , which holds it's water only as long as you do not meet a guy with big penis who also knows well how to use it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141276\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']OUTSTANDING!!!! You are the Master! [/span]
-
The only stitching done was with the 5D. Sandy (wife & partner) just happened to take two images almost side by side and when I opened that day’s shots in PS3 I saw the potential to do a mini pano. That shot is titled “Sandy’s Trees”.
While Sandy is currently shooting with a 5D she is upgrading to the new 1Ds III prior to our trip to Alaska next year. All the other images (not shot w/the 5D) were shot using the Mamiya 645 AFD II and P30+ with either a 35mm or Hartblei lens. So far the only Hartblei images up as yet are “0413”; “583” and “481”. The one that surprises and pleases me the most is “Path” which was shot using a 35mm lens.
Very pleased to hear that someone likes the images.
Don
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141627\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the info, Don. My wife isn't upgrading to the 1Ds III: She's stuck with the 5D! She promises to stop using the 'green box setting' soon!
-
I get to send the 5D to MAXMAX for an IR conversion. There's no real sense in selling the body since it looks like its gone thru a war!
Do what I did and tape over the box
-
Ok, I see what's going on. In effect, it is continuous lighting, not flash, and that has drawbacks. The flash needs to last for the entire duration of the exposure, then the partial shutter is no longer a problem.
Nice feature, and it might be ok with some Nikon compact flashes, but it's not going to be useful for more advanced lighting setups, and it won't work with 99% of the flash units out there.
For example, it means that if you use flash for a speed such as ~1/250-1/1000, you will not be freezing the action the way you normally would with a flash. Part of the reason I chose Profoto Pro lighting was the short flash duration, and the way it freezes moving models down to 1/7000th. (I use Pro6, the Pro7 is even faster).
As always these cameras prove themselves very useful in fields such as event/sports with little or no setup, but not in more advanced situations. Each to their own!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141526\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Missing the point completely. If using flash as the light source, the sync speed is not particularly relevent. However, if using as fill in flash, which is when the camera shutter speed is possibly more important than flash duration for freezing action, the fact I'm shooting at 1/1600th or 1/8000th with flash is very, very impressive. And was what was being talked about, fill in flash that is.
Besides Profotos are completly useless if you are doing location shooting out in the wilds. Way too heavy to carry and rarely any plug sockets to be found either!
Having to use a Canon flash on a Canon camera is not exactly a hardship as there is very little choice of Flashs [compered to lenses] especially high end ones. And as for fancy flash lighting, strobes are pretty good and more controllable than sayProPhoto heads, interactive wireless being built in to start with and the Nikon flash stuff is even better than Canon by all accounts. You certainly don't always need studio flashes for 'advanced' photography.
Check out www.Stobist.com
You get modules to fit your make of camera with some 3rd party makes which copy the native functions. Not sure if all features are implemented though.
I did notice the H3 wouldn't let me use my Canon Speedlights at all and was dumbfounded to discover they had a [completely useless with a W/A lens] built in pop up flash.
-
Having to use a Canon flash on a Canon camera is not exactly a hardship [{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=141688\")
You must know you are pushing the bounds of reality
Try lighting a large room (like a hotel foyer with a sea view) or using a large softbox with a 4AA battery powered flash...
or even a dancer jumping..
[a href=\"http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com/dance/dance_futt_futt_futt_photography_12.html]http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com/dan...ography_12.html[/url]
-
Missing the point completely. If using flash as the light source, the sync speed is not particularly relevent. However, if using as fill in flash, which is when the camera shutter speed is possibly more important than flash duration for freezing action, the fact I'm shooting at 1/1600th or 1/8000th with flash is very, very impressive. And was what was being talked about, fill in flash that is.
I guess we have very different views on lighting. I have never taken a photo with an on-camera flash. Brrrrr....
I didn't miss the point at all - this new flash technology has severe limitations. Great for event photography, but hardly competitive for fashion or advertising work, and I don't know what event photographers would even be doing in this forum. MF digital is clearly not for them.
Oh, and I take the Profoto gear everywhere...
(http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/river_setup.jpg)
-
Graham,
With the Nikon you can use multiple flashes as well. It is even possible to use the Nikon FP system and throw in some 'regular strobes' in slave mode. They will go off simultaneously with the system flashes. With this tweak you can use shutter speeds up to the flash duration of the strobe (around 1/2500th with my Elinchroms).
I have not yet tried this myself but know from a friend it is possible (at least he is claiming it works). I have to see it for myself one of these days because it does have some nice applications. When you use a SU800 on the Nikon, you do not use an on camera flash either.
Sure. It is different than using a profoto setup but I believe there are very few people that realize how far you can go with a bit of thinking and tweaking.
Brave setup BTW, I reckon there was no wind that evening
Anyway, you are right in many aspects. It still is comparing apples&oranges. They are both fruit and come of a tree.
-
Under normal circumstances yes, I agree.
Apparently with FP and on manual mode steered by either a SB/SU800 I have been told it works.
Anyway, no way of telling (unless you have tested it and tell me otherwise) before I have tried it that way myself (as I said in my previous post).
-
Under normal circumstances yes, I agree.
Apparently with FP and on manual mode steered by either a SB/SU800 I have been told it works.
Anyway, no way of telling (unless you have tested it and tell me otherwise) before I have tried it that way myself (as I said in my previous post).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141740\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just did a regular test - elly at higher speeds fired by PW
Black stripes galore
BUT
my thinking goes like this.
An elly is probably lit for about 1000th of a second - in a curve
so
at 500 you will get a stripe (elly only lit half the time)
but why was I getting a stripe at 2000th - the elly is lit for twice that duration ??
this has to be becuase it has fired off too early or late (probably early)
SO
There is a possiblility that these nikon dedicated flashes fire at a time more centred on the exposure
Therefore it is just possible that speed shorter than an ellie (or other brand) duration the sripe effect MAY dissapear.
Owning no nikon dedicated flashes and certainly not knowing how to use them I would be most appreciative if someone could run a test
(the test being using a nikon to fire some studio lights via thier 'slave' cell at speed above or equal to 1000th)
I would expect uneven lighting at much reduced power but there is an interesting possibility for action freezers....
S
-
Have a SB800/SU800 attached to the Nikon with FP as well. I know he used the D2x, SB800 and (I thought) Hensel strobes. Fun thing to find out whether this really works (or not).
I can test this weekend on D200/SB800/RX600. I will let you know.
-
I get usable flash at 1/8000 on a D200 with off-camera flash (SB600) and auto-FP mode set. Usable enough to more than fill and stop the blades of a fan backlit by daylight at 6ft. You can't use on-camera flash above 1/250 though.
Nikon's flash system is very good -- the camera is indeed smart enough to expose right in the middle of the flash pulse.
-
I get usable flash at 1/8000 on a D200 with off-camera flash (SB600) and auto-FP mode set. Usable enough to more than fill and stop the blades of a fan backlit by daylight at 6ft. You can't use on-camera flash above 1/250 though.
Nikon's flash system is very good -- the camera is indeed smart enough to expose right in the middle of the flash pulse.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141750\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I meant using the Nikon flash to fire off studio flashes like ellie bowens via thier build int slave etc
S
-
Graham,
With the Nikon you can use multiple flashes as well. It is even possible to use the Nikon FP system and throw in some 'regular strobes' in slave mode. They will go off simultaneously with the system flashes. With this tweak you can use shutter speeds up to the flash duration of the strobe (around 1/2500th with my Elinchroms).
I have not yet tried this myself but know from a friend it is possible (at least he is claiming it works). I have to see it for myself one of these days because it does have some nice applications. When you use a SU800 on the Nikon, you do not use an on camera flash either.
Sure. It is different than using a profoto setup but I believe there are very few people that realize how far you can go with a bit of thinking and tweaking.
Brave setup BTW, I reckon there was no wind that evening
Anyway, you are right in many aspects. It still is comparing apples&oranges. They are both fruit and come of a tree.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141715\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've tried this before with the FP mode on a Canon flash. The FP mode is basically made up of multiple high speed flashes. The studio strobes don't recycle fast enough to go off again even if it's triggered by the multiple flash of the Canon. I tried this with a Pro B2 before (similar recycle times to a Pro 7A 1200)
If only technical equipment was like a computer game you could hack.
sigh.
-
I didn't miss the point at all - this new flash technology has severe limitations. Great for event photography, but hardly competitive for fashion or advertising work, and I don't know what event photographers would even be doing in this forum. MF digital is clearly not for them.
Oh, and I take the Profoto gear everywhere...
Graham, that's an impressive setup. Running off battery I hope.
I feel your statement about MF digital not being for event photogs is quite correct. Being one of those who shoots "yearbook photos" as somebody recently disparaged us in another post , the nature of the business does not lend itself to the necessity of MF.
I have not looked through the viewfinder of a MF camera in over 15 years. MF was an absolute necessity back in the day when doing product shots. The ability to pull a Polaroid to check the shot was vital. Now, we have the built-in Polaroid on the camera or back or we get to do it tethered. I do miss the waist-level view finder.
Consumers are becoming more and more conscience of the different qualities available with digital photography. Nobody ever used to ask what kind of film I used, they didn't care. Now, what camera I shoot with is often a topic of discussion.
It may come to the point that to stay ahead of the "perceived quality curve" of the masses, photogs in some markets will have to go back to MF like back when film was dominant.
Why would I, someone who doesn't use MF digital, lurk here? To keep an eye on the industry and the trends of those who are pushing the envelope.
It's also fun watching the debates between folks.
Difference in image quality? Easy. Anyone who says there isn't is crazy. At least IMO.
-
Jing is correct; in order to use a shutter faster than 1/250 with Canon or Nikon speedlights, the flash goes into a high speed sync mode where it pulses rapidly for 1/250, thereby providing a quasi-continuous light during the entire shutter cycle. You can't use this in conjunction with slaved studio strobes, because the strobes will fire the first time the speedlight pulses (just after first curtain opens), and then the rest of the frame will be dark, or at least not lit by the strobes. The only method that works is to use multiple Canon/Nikon slaved speedlights so that all of the flashes are putting out quasi-continuous light for 1/250 second.
The reason is simple, DSLR shutters have 2 curtains that travel actoss the sensor/film in approximately 1/250 of a second. Shutter speeds faster than 1/250 are achieved by the delay between the first curtain opening and the second curtain closing even though the total travel time for each curtain is still always ~1/250. So if you're shooting at 1/1000, there is a 1/1000 delay between first and second curtain, and only 1/4 of the frame is being exposed ant any given instant during the shutter cycle. But each shutter curtain is in motion for 1/250 of a second. If you have a strobe with a 1/1000 flash pulse, only 1/4 of the frame will be exposed and the rest will be black. If some genius designed a strobe that fired continuously and evenly for 1/250, you could first-curtain sync it with any DSLR at any shutter speed and get no black bars.
If you shoot 1/250 or slower shutter, you can mix speedlights and strobes easily. Use a pocket wizard to trigger the strobes from the PC socket, and the speedlights from the master in the camera hot shoe. I've done this shooting events; use the strobes to light up the room in general, and than a 550EX with a small softbox on a bracket for shadow fill. Much less stressful than trying to get useful people shots at 1/8 f/2.8 ISO 1600.
-
One big downside to FP-mode flash sync is that because of the way the flash fires multiple times the flash output is greatly reduced, making it really only useful for fill-flash (which is exactly what FP is meant for).
-
I guess we have very different views on lighting. I have never taken a photo with an on-camera flash. Brrrrr....
I'm not even keen on using flash at all. So I'm even more snobby than you, so there.
I didn't miss the point at all - this new flash technology has severe limitations. Great for event photography, but hardly competitive for fashion or advertising work, and I don't know what event photographers would even be doing in this forum. MF digital is clearly not for them.
Oh, and I take the Profoto gear everywhere...
I'm not an event photographer and didn't say speedlights were a replacement for studio lights, but I do see that speedlights also have uses in other areas. Especially editorial work where there is no budget to even hire the kit you use, let along a bunch of people to carry it. Check out www.strobist.com for ways of using small flashes creatively.
Of course it has limitations, just like using the impressive kit you illustrated has limitations in other ways.
For instance I shot a different girl or or group of girls every 20 mins for 24 hrs last year [a long story] and with constantly changing backgounds and settings. A camera with speedlight and a secondary unit was ideal for the job. Especially as it was done with no preparation or planning and just a few minutes shooting with each person or group.
-
You must know you are pushing the bounds of reality
Try lighting a large room (like a hotel foyer with a sea view) or using a large softbox with a 4AA battery powered flash...
Why would I suggest you use speedlights for architectural photography, especially in the situation you suggest? Though of course lots of small flashes that can be hidden when there's no room to have larger stobes could be very handy, plus you don't have then remove all the power cables that may be in shot. Sometimes the 'wrong' kit can be better than the right kit!
or even a dancer jumping..[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you mean this pic?
Personally I like to shoot just available light, but in this case I ended up shooting with the single flash I had with me [and was still learning how to use] to try and balance Joseph's very black skin against a very bright background. I had only just started using digital at that point, so it was all a bit experimental. Canon Flash exposure is a little erratic at times and I got the best composition with one of the worst exposures. Having said that it was printed and used in an exhibition in Sweden recently and it looked fantastic, it looks better printed than on screen. That's a very old version of that shot on website. I actually have a completely new website as well that I did last year, but stilll haven't had time to fill it up and put online. But that's way off topic.
Not sure why some posters are thinking that speedlights are replacements for studio lighting. I simply mentioned that they can do much faster syncing than some people believed that's all. Which allows for shots not possible with MF and studio flash. That particular shot is not even using the high speed mode, it's shot at 1/250th. If I'd known how to set the faster sync then, I would have done so and used the flash on a lead held above my head, which I did not have at the time. But even though it's not technically perfect it's a very popular image.
If I were to shoot it now, I would like to use studio lights with a H3 and have some Sherpas to carry the kit for me - it's a long walk away from any car parking! We cycled off road to get there.
At Herrang in Sweden, this year a photographer from NY Times turned up to do an article and used studio lighting on the dance floor to photograph freestyle dancers and made himself very unpopular by doing so. And then by virtue of being fixed in place, when something unusual and more interesting happened in a different part of the dancefloor, he missed the shots completely.
I'll repeat something I said earlier, a hammer, saw and a screwdriver are all great tools. When used at the correct time. Speedlights, Strobes, DSLR and MF DSLRs are no different. All are brilliant tools when used appropriately.
-
One mor 35mm advantage: not so many f1.2 or f1.4 lenses out there for MF, which has to be considered when talking about low light photography and shallow DOF.
-
Did you ever try to shoot a f2.8 on a MF system
Trust me the DOF is very very thin.
a f2.8 on MF will be roughly the same as f1.2 on 35mm let alone a crop camera.
That's not a disadvantage but a BIG advantage for us modelphotographers.
As mentioned before it's all what you do with the system.
I cannot think about selling my 35mm material simply because I would limit myself too much.
But I also cannot think about selling my MF material because I would also limit myself when working in what I do most
-
Sample shot on f5.6
-
Frank, that is just not true, have you ever used a 85mm 1.2 wide open? if your subject isn't facing you straight on, only one eye will be in focus.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)
check this out, you'll see that a 135mm lens at f2 Fullframe will give you much less DOF than a 210mm 5.6 lens at 6x4.5.
-
Sample shot on f5.6
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=141916\")
Who needs a MF system. We are way too engaged in technical aspects.
Lets make quality images like this gentleman with a Rebel and a G7.
[a href=\"http://photo.net/photos/rarindra]http://photo.net/photos/rarindra[/url]
Not as good as mr. Tucker, but so good you do not think about
what camera he used, but just enjoy the visual.
-
but if you'd look at these pictures at 200% on a 30" Quato screen in a darkened room you would realize that they are totally worthless and have no value at all, neither monetary nor artistic...
-
Who needs a MF system. We are way too engaged in technical aspects.
Lets make quality images like this gentleman with a Rebel and a G7.
http://photo.net/photos/rarindra (http://photo.net/photos/rarindra)
Not as good as mr. Tucker, but so good you do not think about
what camera he used, but just enjoy the visual.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I must say, great ideas and moments, but most of this pictures are way overedited in PS. The landscapes has no deep or details and the colours are typical Rebel XT (I own one). The portraits are inexpresive. I supose all this coud gain with a more natural vision. This surrealistic and overprocessed approach is nothing I see as master photography ... I don't see the point of comparing it to Tucker's photography either. It's a completely different vision.
But who needs a MF camera? Well, if you plan to create your images in PS instead of in your camera you surely do not need one. That's the reason I use MF, because It give me the pictures almost as I see them.
Again, just my opinion...
-
I agree. Wilow try printing those files or looing at them on a big screen.
Too many internet pictures that look good on internet only.
Web images are NO way to see the quality difference.
Plus that guys as PP them to death that they are not even Pictures anymore.
Snook
-
Many hundreds of people have commented favorably on and rated these images very highly in the gallery itself. It's very interesting that there should be such an immediate and strong negative reaction to them in this forum.
-
I think they are gorgeous images and probably will print just fine up to a certain size.
I wonder how much time and effort it took to get the images this far.
-
never could accomplisch that with a 35mm 135mm on f2.0
Completely false,Frank.
Mark
-
This was the 210mm on f5.6 or in 35mm terms roughly a 135mm lens.
When you look at the full ress version only the right (left on the picture) eyeball is in focus, the rest is OOF.
never could accomplisch that with a 35mm 135mm on f2.0
BS. You've obviously never used the 135 f/2L on a full-frame camera. I've done portrait shots where the eye was in focus, but the eyebrow was not, and neither were the lips. At f/2, shooting head-and-shoulders type framing DOF is between 1/4 and 1/2 inch. I'll post some 100% samples later.
-
Many hundreds of people have commented favorably on and rated these images very highly in the gallery itself. It's very interesting that there should be such an immediate and strong negative reaction to them in this forum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141948\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote
I am not surprised at all.
Just the statement "but if you'd look at these pictures at 200% on a 30" Quato screen in a darkened room" says it all.
Who the f... look at an image in that way but a pixel peeper.
"That's the reason I use MF, because It give me the pictures almost as I see them."
The pictures on this site is how this man exactly sees it, not almost.
How he does that, with or without PS is irrelevant.
He doesnt take a picture, he makes a picture.
Mark Tucker also takes pictures like HE sees them.
Lots of his pictures are blurry and with odd colors.
And often, those are the most interesting ones.
And Samuel, maybe I am to personal now, I looked at your pictures
and they are, for the most, only a registration of whats in front of your camera.
No personal interpetation. IMO
-
I shoot both with a DSLR and MF, I do shoot them for different reason. My question is why do we need to see someone picture at 200% with a 30" screen? Can't we just enjoy someone images, if we like it or not? Not all photographers is the same, each has his or her own style. Do we need to knock them down, just because their images are diffferent from ours? Just take pictures, that you like and used the camera you like and hell with them.
Many hundreds of people have commented favorably on and rated these images very highly in the gallery itself. It's very interesting that there should be such an immediate and strong negative reaction to them in this forum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141948\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote
I am not surprised at all.
Just the statement "but if you'd look at these pictures at 200% on a 30" Quato screen in a darkened room" says it all.
Who the f... look at an image in that way but a pixel peeper.
"That's the reason I use MF, because It give me the pictures almost as I see them."
The pictures on this site is how this man exactly sees it, not almost.
How he does that, with or without PS is irrelevant.
He doesnt take a picture, he makes a picture.
Mark Tucker also takes pictures like HE sees them.
Lots of his pictures are blurry and with odd colors.
And often, those are the most interesting ones.
And Samuel, maybe I am to personal now, I looked at your pictures
and they are, for the most, only a registration of whats in front of your camera.
No personal interpetation. IMO
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Hummm, have to be carefull here I see (man what a mess).
When taking the same distance to your model 3 feet.
BOTH lenses give me at f2.0 for the 35mm and f5.6 for the MF a DOF of 0.01 ft before and 0.01 ft behind (total 0.02 ft) the model.
MEANING f5.6 is f2.0 on the SAME distance from the model with the 210 and 135.
Now let's look at the quality 1:1 of the 210 on f5.6 and the 135mm of f2.0.
In other words my 210 is stopped down and the 135mm is wide open.
I don't know if it will bother you much but sharpness of the 135mm is very good wide open, but not as sharp as the 210 stopped down to f5.6
My point is that I don't judge internet version, I judge A2 prints (that's my portfolio size), the 135mm f2.0 did not give me the crisp quality the 210 on f5.6 gives me.
It's again all in what you expect.
On internet version you will not see the difference 100% true, so if you want to shoot for the net go for a G7 indeed, it's MORE than you will ever need.
I don't shoot for the web, I shoot for prints and than every piece of sharpness/detail counts.
What I don't understand is why there is a discussion anyway, we won't take away your 35mm machines and good lenses and high-iso.
Heck I even use it myself on some shoots.
What I don't understand how people who claim to understand photography can argue on this point on and on and on (yeah and I'm the stupid one that answers )
For me MF and 35mm both fill the spaces I need.
I don't think about using the 35mm again in the studio, I don't even dream about using my MF on a concert shoot with low light.
HORSES FOR COURSES
-
Many hundreds of people have commented favorably on and rated these images very highly in the gallery itself. It's very interesting that there should be such an immediate and strong negative reaction to them in this forum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141948\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote
I am not surprised at all.
Just the statement "but if you'd look at these pictures at 200% on a 30" Quato screen in a darkened room" says it all.
Who the f... look at an image in that way but a pixel peeper.
"That's the reason I use MF, because It give me the pictures almost as I see them."
The pictures on this site is how this man exactly sees it, not almost.
How he does that, with or without PS is irrelevant.
He doesnt take a picture, he makes a picture.
Mark Tucker also takes pictures like HE sees them.
Lots of his pictures are blurry and with odd colors.
And often, those are the most interesting ones.
And Samuel, maybe I am to personal now, I looked at your pictures
and they are, for the most, only a registration of whats in front of your camera.
No personal interpetation. IMO
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark's photography is in another level. Please don't compare it to this guy...
When I say "almost as I see them" I mean they need not to much processing to actually make the as I want them. I also process my files of course...
You're too personal in the way you should know me better to say If my pictures are only a registration. If you take the time to look at my b&w, color, and nature porfolios you'll understand you're wrong. The pictures and collections on my website are just a small sample of my work. The real "work time" is when the print is made, not that jpegs, and you should see one of those b&w prints...
I don't think a little quick flash look is enought to judge.
You don't allways have to interprete your images to the extreme. Specially if you work comercial
/Samuel
-
I agree. Wilow try printing those files or looing at them on a big screen.
Too many internet pictures that look good on internet only.
Web images are NO way to see the quality difference.
Plus that guys as PP them to death that they are not even Pictures anymore.
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141946\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
gotta disagree
I'm sure his pictures can go up to 13x19 inches at least.
I used to shoot with a Nikon D70 and could take gorgeous photos, only difference is that there's a lack of detail past a certain point.
-
I have made prints from a 10D up to 6.5 mtrs in height.
Quality was VERY good, viewing from 20mtrs distance (normal viewing distance).
but I can tell you it has a MAJOR impact on our customer satisfaction, most of them I did not even tell about it but they saw the files were different.
That's the best confirmation I can get.
For sheer resolution use like billboards you really don't need 22MP's or more, the quality will get better but most commercial clients will be more than satisfied with a 13-16mp file for a billboard.
It's I think about the love for the quality I made the upgrade myself, it was purely a thing I wanted to do, and at the moment it luckely also pays of with customer satisfaction
-
Mark's photography is in another level. Please don't compare it to this guy...
When I say "almost as I see them" I mean they need not to much processing to actually make the as I want them. I also process my files of course...
You're too personal in the way you should know me better to say If my pictures are only a registration. If you take the time to look at my b&w, color, and nature porfolios you'll understand you're wrong. The pictures and collections on my website are just a small sample of my work. The real "work time" is when the print is made, not that jpegs, and you should see one of those b&w prints...
I don't think a little quick flash look is enought to judge.
You don't allways have to interprete your images to the extreme. Specially if you work comercial
/Samuel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141966\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I looked at all your B&W. I did not find one that had any mood or made me stop and look
more closely. They where mere registration of what is in front of you.
And if this is not the best of your work, I am curious to why you
do not put your best on the web.
I have seen many B&W picures on the web that shows of mood
and craftmanship. Doesnt have to be a large print.
I think PS is a good tool to make a picture look like I saw it in my head, not only with my eyes.
Here is an example. It did not look like this, but this is what I saw.
PS I do not think you are a lesser photographer than me or many others.
I only speak of what your pictures do to me.
-
My point is that I don't judge internet version,
Them why do you post images here, in the internet media, to illustrate the various points
you bring forward?
Mark
-
I looked at all your B&W. I did not find one that had any mood or made me stop and look
more closely. They where mere registration of what is in front of you.
And if this is not the best of your work, I am curious to why you
do not put your best on the web.
I have seen many B&W picures on the web that shows of mood
and craftmanship. Doesnt have to be a large print.
I think PS is a good tool to make a picture look like I saw it in my head, not only with my eyes.
Here is an example. It did not look like this, but this is what I saw.
PS I do not think you are a lesser photographer than me or many others.
I only speak of what your pictures do to me.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=141984\")
What you (don't) see in my pictures is your personal opinion and I personally don't care, really. Maily because your statements are totally unfunded. Were you there when I took the pictures? Have you seen the original scene? How do you know that pictures aren't the what I want them? You and me have every different visions. I like simplicity because I find it the best way to say what I want to communicate. And If you like that guy's pictures then I totally understand you don't like mine. Thank's
You just [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19726]said farewell[/url] to the MF forum to worlk with 35 mm and need a reason to throw away your medium format and that's fine for me really. Good luck!
If I don't put my best work on the website is because the prints don't fit. Sorry, you have to see it for yourself.
-
Why do I respond anyway
I post internet versions because I don't have anything else that I can share on this forum.
What is shocking to me is to see the disrespect some people are judging others by, come on guys we are all adults ??
-
Who needs a MF system. We are way too engaged in technical aspects.
Lets make quality images like this gentleman with a Rebel and a G7.
http://photo.net/photos/rarindra (http://photo.net/photos/rarindra)
Not as good as mr. Tucker, but so good you do not think about
what camera he used, but just enjoy the visual.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Come on Guys,
You know I just don't understand the criticism of Rarindra's work here ! This guy is obviously a great photographer and a good PS operator. I agree some are a bit overdone for my liking but are you telling me he creates all the lighting in PS ? Some of the lighting in his shots is just wonderful. His portraits don't seem any more manipulated than some of the samples I've seen posted on this forum.
Just proves it's not size that matters, but rather how you use what you've got.
My 2 cents
Barrie Watts
-
Well No offense was intended what so ever for the photographer.
A lot of my stuff is Photoshopped to heck also. But the idea of camparing a G7 or point and shoot camera with Medium Format is obviuosly ridiculous and that comment was for that.
The guys has a nice eye and the light is great.
He actually posted in a retocuh forum his technique. I do not remember where, But he showed a before shot and beleive me it was like a Point and shoot shot. Pretty flat and no dynamic range..
Also his pictures will go to Cr@p if he Blows them up more than 8X10 and or for a double page for a bigger size magazine. That was the point.
Snook
-
What is shocking to me is to see the disrespect some people are judging others by, come on guys we are all adults ??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sadly some people can't find a better way to defend their arguments than "but your work tells me nothing".
I don't know why I'm replaying either. This and other post went way out of track the last months and we're getting everything but what I whish; A great place to talk about our MF photography and to learn of each other.
-
Sadly some people can't find a better way to defend their arguments than "but your work tells me nothing".
I don't know why I'm replaying either. This and other post went way out of track the last months and we're getting everything but what I whish; A great place to talk about our MF photography and to learn of each other.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142001\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
First of all, I said goodbye to MFDB, not the forum.
Second, I still think MFDB, technicaly, is better than DSLR.
Third, I was trying to turn the conversation towards images in staid of
all this this futile discussion about what is best and who has the shortest DOF etc.
Everybody who has owned a MFDB and DSLR knows that, technicaly, MFDB
is much better. And has another feel than 35.
We are not learning anything from each other by discussing that.
Just wanted to show a mans pictures and tell that i did not think
about what kind of camera he used when I watched them.
I did not defend my arguments by saying "but your work tells me nothing", because
I actually did not say that.
I rest my case.
-
gotta disagree
I'm sure his pictures can go up to 13x19 inches at least.
I used to shoot with a Nikon D70 and could take gorgeous photos, only difference is that there's a lack of detail past a certain point.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm sure you're right, but I'd want to stand far away to make sure they looked their best. Oh, sorry, your second sentence made my point for me.
-
Why do I respond anyway
I post internet versions because I don't have anything else that I can share on this forum.
What is shocking to me is to see the disrespect some people are judging others by, come on guys we are all adults ??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Completely agree, Frank.
-
Sample shot on f5.6
This was the 210mm on f5.6 or in 35mm terms roughly a 135mm lens.
When you look at the full ress version only the right (left on the picture) eyeball is in focus, the rest is OOF.
never could accomplisch that with a 35mm 135mm on f2.0
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141916\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frank,
Did you get hold of a 80mm f/1.9? Attached is from a amateur model shoot I joined up on when in Shanghai last Saturday. Weather was a bit drizzling, so cloudy and light not good, a bit too dark for ZD. The 80 f/1.9 is very nice. Shot hand held and wide open. ISO 160 @ 1/160.
What lens would be used for same on FF135? With 1Ds Mk II/III 16/21MP would I still get the detail and reflections in her eye?
Regards
Anders
-
I'm still looking for the 1.9
135mm would translate for the ZD to I believe 210.
I don't know if you can get the same details on the 1Ds to be honest.
-
@mtomalty,
I was planning on leaving it rest but it keeps bugging me so here I go.
Although the DOF will come out the same in the calculator the IMAGE will not be the same, what the calculator and you don't take into account is the circle of confussion.
The COF is much larger with a sensor twice the size of the 35mm Full frame format, so the experience of the shot is totally different.
I did not want to mention it before to not oil the discussion even more but I think it's vital information for the whole discussion so I posted in anyway
-
Frank, it is not possible to calculate DOF without a circle of confusion value. The DOF calculator has to take the CoC into account somehow, or it cannot calculate an output. Depending on which DOF calculator you use it may not be factored correctly, but to say it is not factored at all is not possible.
-
It only gives the inches before and after the model, the larger realestate of the sensor gives a much greater COF.
COF and DOF are connected indeed but not the size to the edges and that's were the big difference lies.
-
COF and DOF are connected indeed but not the size to the edges and that's were the big difference lies.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry Frank,
If you get a chance and have the time, could you explain that last sentence in a little more detail. I lost the plot somewhere. Alternatively a web reference would be good.
Thanks in advance
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion)
Luminous landscapes also has some nice things about it.
-
What's with all this blurring the background crap? Bleh, shallow depth of field. I'm tired of it. I don't want only one eyelash in focus. People are too obsessed with this type of photography.
If I shoot Canon, I don't want to shoot at f/1.2, and if I shoot with Mamiya, I wouldn't want to shoot with an f/1.9 lens either. Give me an RZ with a "slow" lens and I'll be happy.
-
It's all about what you do.
-
The COF is much larger with a sensor twice the size of the 35mm Full frame format, so the experience of the shot is totally different.
Frank,
I'm sure you're correct and I will leave the charts and graphs for others to enjoy.
I'm just basing my observations on 1000's of lifestyle stock images shot with
the 85 1.2L,135 2.0L,and 200 1,8 L
I was only responding to your statemant that accompanied your image with the
shallow depth of field where you said something to the effect, "this could never be
achieved with the 135"
That the two formats will give a different look is undeniable and on this we agree
Mark
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion)
Luminous landscapes also has some nice things about it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry Frank, I have read that article... It was 'not the size to the edges' that confused me. Sorry if the answers in the wiki entry. I must have missed it. (Typical man!)
Thanks
Jon
-
What I meant is that with a bigger sensor the whole concept of how the DOF works changes.
You can get a similair "depth" of the in focus area (1 inch for and 1 inch behind) but the COF is larger on the bigger sensor.
Maybe we are talking about the same thing but confused (pun intended).
What I know for 100% sure is that although the calculator gives both lenses the same DOF there is a huge difference between the two lenses on both systems.
-
What I meant is that with a bigger sensor the whole concept of how the DOF works changes.
You can get a similair "depth" of the in focus area (1 inch for and 1 inch behind) but the COF is larger on the bigger sensor.
Maybe we are talking about the same thing but confused (pun intended).
What I know for 100% sure is that although the calculator gives both lenses the same DOF there is a huge difference between the two lenses on both systems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Frank,
Just a language thing after all :-) (I can't really complain 'cos I can't speak ANY of your language!)
I'd been using fcalc as a ready reckoner, which does suggest different coc for different film sizes, and I'd assumed (perhaps wrongly) that this would translate directly for sensors at that size as well.
-
The COF is something that is very often reason for debate.
It all depends on the print size, the distance to the print etc. etc.
What I PERSONALLY found with the MF system is that with the 1.1 crop of the Leaf and ZD I get a stunning sense of depth compared to the 35mm frame.
This depth is not what I mean with the 3D effect because I see this constant in the MF shots even on f22.
What I mean with this depth is the out of focus parts of the shots are very different from the smaller sensors.
I did similair tests with my 20D when I bought the 5D, shot with the 20D on f2.8 and with the 5D on f4.0 and still the feel of the 5D was very different from the 20D, when you watch on you screen 1:1 the DOF is almost similair but when zooming out to full screen the bigger sensors just have a completly different feel and look.
I was drawn to the MF for those two reasons in the first place, I could not point it out exactly the first time but after some research and testing this was quite obvious in my own work.
Later came the dynamic range and the razorsharp outputs.
The magic for ME was and still is the 3D look of the shots and when working with wider appertures the feel and look of the OOF areas and most importantly the graduation between the in focus to the outfocus (not the bokeh, which is again a different story).
-
The magic for ME was and still is the 3D look of the shots and when working with wider appertures the feel and look of the OOF areas and most importantly the graduation between the in focus to the outfocus (not the bokeh, which is again a different story).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=142889\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Frank,
Yes, I have a feeling that there is some compromise in the lens design (I'm thinking 5D and L lenses) which means that the oof areas (call it bokeh if you wish) are very different in character from work I've seen like yours from MF. I'm just waiting on a P45 to arrive this week, to investigate a little more for myself (more as an academic exercise; so, for goodness sake, anybody else reading this, DON'T (please) feel the need to start discussing this in earnest)
I don't quite know whether one is better than the other per se (if you're pixel peeping) but I suspect that the effect, in terms of the impact of the photo, that the 'MF effect' is favourable.