Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: photoetude on December 04, 2007, 12:20:15 pm
-
Hello all ,
This is my first post here and I am looking for advise for my next camera purchase.
My business is currently 50% studio portraits 30% jewelry photography and 20% weddings/Events. I am using Kodak slr/c (canon mount) for jewelry and portraits and Bronica/Kodak combination for weddings/events.
I want to stop using film and I’m also looking to improve resolution and tonal range for my jewelry work.
I have only $8,000 to spend, and I am not sure which way to go.
I can buy 5D for weddings + used digital back for studio works or should I just go with canon 1ds mark3?
The multi shot or scanning back will also work for me because I have 4x5 camera that I'm using with Kodak slr for jewelry .
Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Evgeny
-
For that amount of Money go with the 1DsMIII hands Down.
Will work for all field you are shooting. That coming from someone who just Bought a P30 and mamiya 645 and RZ67II pro.
But I shoot mainly studio and portraits for advertising...
For all other stuff including Catalogue I use and will continue to use the 1DsMII.
Snook
-
Thank you Snook for response,
Do you think I will be okay with the canon for Jewelry?
My main jewelry client now starts to demand Vogue quality shots…
I know it’s may sound stupid to ask these questions on forum, but I cannot rent DB and Canon to compare these my self.
So your opinion is very valuable to me since you are using both systems.
-
Why did you buy the RZ?
-
Thank you Snook for response,
Do you think I will be okay with the canon for Jewelry?
My main jewelry client now starts to demand Vogue quality shots…
I know it’s may sound stupid to ask these questions on forum, but I cannot rent DB and Canon to compare these my self.
So your opinion is very valuable to me since you are using both systems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158183\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
your clients demand vogue quality shots...are they sophisticated enough to tell the difference?
if I remember correctly Vogue couldn't tell that david bailey shot on 35mm and transferred to 4x5 back in the days...
Anyway why don't you just shoot with 4x5 film for your jewelery shots. it's probably more suitable than a Canon. Alternatively a used RZ plus scanning shouldn't cost TOO much, then you can use the rest of the money for a dslr for your other work..
-
your clients demand vogue quality shots...are they sophisticated enough to tell the difference?
if I remember correctly Vogue couldn't tell that david bailey shot on 35mm and transferred to 4x5 back in the days...
Anyway why don't you just shoot with 4x5 film for your jewelery shots. it's probably more suitable than a Canon. Alternatively a used RZ plus scanning shouldn't cost TOO much, then you can use the rest of the money for a dslr for your other work..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I got an AFDII with a P30 BAck and when I bought the P30 got a deal on an RZIIpro D with a couple of lens.
Also got the Phase One adaptor to be able and use the P30 on both Mamiya formats when I need to on the fly...:+]
Actually picked up a good friends RZII when I was in New York 2 weeks ago and was sold instantly on the RZ format,viewfinder, and over all brightness and easiness to FOCUS even in dim light.
Plus the RZ rocks in Studio and by flipping the back you can go from Vertical to Horizontal with out moving the camera.
Plus it sync through the lens at 400/th which makes flash mixed with ambient easier outdoors..
Should I continue?
So I have the P30 for Studio and Slow pace Fashion stuff advertising etc..
And the 1DsMII and will probably get a MIII or 5DII for Catalogue and Kids stuff etc...:+}
I now will have the best of both worlds.
And an extra 13 Megapixels to Crop into if necessary...
Snook
-
your clients demand vogue quality shots...are they sophisticated enough to tell the difference?
if I remember correctly Vogue couldn't tell that david bailey shot on 35mm and transferred to 4x5 back in the days...
Anyway why don't you just shoot with 4x5 film for your jewelery shots. it's probably more suitable than a Canon. Alternatively a used RZ plus scanning shouldn't cost TOO much, then you can use the rest of the money for a dslr for your other work..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I am trying to stop developing and scanning film because all pro labs in my area is out of business and 4x5 scanner as expensive as DB.
-
Why did you buy the RZ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Adding to Snook's reply,
Bigger viewfinder, better lenses than 645AFD, waistlevel finder, rotating back, 1/400th flash sync, bellows focusing/close focusing, works with Hassy V backs with adapter and cables, and works with Mamiya AFD backs with electronic adapter and no cables (RZIID).
-
Well, I am trying to stop developing and scanning film because all pro labs in my area is out of business and 4x5 scanner as expensive as DB.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dude, Once you go digital you won't want to back.. You take on a lot more computer work and be in forums learning stuff endlessly , But You love the difference for sure. Instant Pictures is the way to go.
Shooting Film and hoping nothing happens to it from when you shot , to getting it to the lab, to hoping they do not screw it up, depending on THEIR concept of Color developing..
Forget it.. You going to Love digital.
I do not shoot Products re: Jewel etc... But I think that in either case you probably could shoot almost like HDR and bracket the Image and then Mask out where you want the jewelry to be "shiny" or not.. With either system, dslr or MFDB's.
Goog luck, But if you have not shot digital I would suggest getting into Dslr 35mm format first to get use to it.
Good Luck and let us know what you decided on..:+}
Snook
-
For your budget and variable needs the 1DsMklll is your answer.
Without question,almost all of the DB choices available will outperform,as far as sheer
'quality' goes, the Canon but it remains to be known if your clients will be able to
differentiate. You're using a Kodak DSLR,presently,so my feeling is that the 1Ds Mklll
will be a considerable step up the quality ladder, will be within yourt budget,and will impress
your client more than the Kodak option using 5-6 year old technology.
Your ability to shoot at high ISO will rise considerably and will be of benefit to your
wedding clients.
For jewellery,the Canon platform allows you to use Canons excellent tilt shift 90mm
as well as a host of other tilt solutions from third parties using adapters.
If I had the money,I'd go for both the Canon and a DB but given your needs and budget
the Canon seems to be best compromise
Mark
-
For your budget and variable needs the 1DsMklll is your answer.
Without question,almost all of the DB choices available will outperform,as far as sheer
'quality' goes, the Canon but it remains to be known if your clients will be able to
differentiate. You're using a Kodak DSLR,presently,so my feeling is that the 1Ds Mklll
will be a considerable step up the quality ladder, will be within yourt budget,and will impress
your client more than the Kodak option using 5-6 year old technology.
Your ability to shoot at high ISO will rise considerably and will be of benefit to your
wedding clients.
For jewellery,the Canon platform allows you to use Canons excellent tilt shift 90mm
as well as a host of other tilt solutions from third parties using adapters.
If I had the money,I'd go for both the Canon and a DB but given your needs and budget
the Canon seems to be best compromise
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158204\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you Mark,
It seems like canon is the way to go.
-
Assuming you ideally use movements in the studio I would get
a 5d for weddings and out and about
a 16mp used tethered back and a stitching back adapter for your 54 camera
Stitching 2 16mp images together on a static subject is amazing quality
You may even pick up a tethered multishot back like an eyelike precision M11 (small chip size) pretty cheap - exellent images too
Phase H20 or eyelike m16 both would be ones to look for
This combo MAY come in your budget
bing DSLR re limit you options of movement to the canon TS lenses which are not cheap or that well considered as far as I know
considereing the vast quantities of amzing 54 kit knocking about there are bargains galore
S
-
If you are going be imaging jewelry with a Phase digital back, I would recommend extensive testing before the purchase in order to check for blooming when specular lightsources intrude into the image or near the field of view of the camera.
Edmund
-
50% studio portraits 30% jewelry photography and 20% weddings/Events.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A good digital back will undoubtedly be better for studio portraits and jewelry photography (which is 80% of your work) than a Canon. However, your budget is not quite there. You could probably manage a Mamiya ZD, which is 22 megapixel but this is the most compromised back on the market (hence the cheapest). Some of the junior digital backs can be had refurbished for pretty good prices these days, with warranty. Try calling around some Sinar, Leaf, Phase and Hasselblad dealers. If you go for a Leaf or Phase back you will need to know which mount to get it in and be stuck with it (the others use adapters so the same back can be used on various platforms).
Your budget doesn't even get you into the Canon, unless you happen to have all the lenses you need already.
If you like to mix flash and ambient light at the weddings/events then the Canon's slow flash sync may be a problem.
Canons come into their own as ambient light shooters, convenient, with rapid frame rate capability and great low light capability. This doesn't seem to fit your work though.
-
A good digital back will undoubtedly be better for studio portraits and jewelry photography (which is 80% of your work) than a Canon. However, your budget is not quite there. You could probably manage a Mamiya ZD, which is 22 megapixel but this is the most compromised back on the market (hence the cheapest). Some of the junior digital backs can be had refurbished for pretty good prices these days, with warranty. Try calling around some Sinar, Leaf, Phase and Hasselblad dealers. If you go for a Leaf or Phase back you will need to know which mount to get it in and be stuck with it (the others use adapters so the same back can be used on various platforms).
Your budget doesn't even get you into the Canon, unless you happen to have all the lenses you need already.
If you like to mix flash and ambient light at the weddings/events then the Canon's slow flash sync may be a problem.
Canons come into their own as ambient light shooters, convenient, with rapid frame rate capability and great low light capability. This doesn't seem to fit your work though.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158314\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry I might add here that your budget would be just fine if you go with a 1DsMII Not the MIII which does not seem to be all that great from the first reviews.
I think in a month you will be able to pick up a 1DsMII for pretty cheap and lot's of money left over for some basic lens!!.
You'll have plenty of Megapixels with the 1DsMII. I have been using it for many years now with out ONE complaint!!
Snook
-
The 5D might do just as well in most cases. Maybe you are better of using the 5D and make money of it until you have the budget to really spend some more. The DSII would make an interesting option as well (same reason).
It is not just the back which will already cost you almost your complete budget.
You already need to have:
1) Lenses & bodies
2) Adequate computer power (preferably laptop+desktop) with enough storage
3) Photoshop (you cannot do without IMO) and maybe something like Lightroom
4) Some courses PS if you have no experience at all
We have not even begun thinking about redundancies here.
You can only spend your money once, better do it wisely
-
The 5D might do just as well in most cases. Maybe you are better of using the 5D and make money of it until you have the budget to really spend some more. The DSII would make an interesting option as well (same reason).
It is not just the back which will already cost you almost your complete budget.
You already need to have:
1) Lenses & bodies
2) Adequate computer power (preferably laptop+desktop) with enough storage
3) Photoshop (you cannot do without IMO) and maybe something like Lightroom
4) Some courses PS if you have no experience at all
We have not even begun thinking about redundancies here.
You can only spend your money once, better do it wisely
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
DUstBak I agree totally...:+}
A 5D would also be more than enough and even cheaper.
You Forgot an import thing on your list.
EXTRA HARD DRIVES!!!
I might even sell my 1DsMII and get the 5DII when it comes out for back up and catalogue jobs.
I had a 5D for back up to my 1DsMII and sold it to my assistant who was desperate for a camera to start his career.. But I loved that camera and the resolution was equal to the 1DsMII IMHO.
Snook
-
Enough storage
-
I can not agree more about what has been said about storage!
I have been using 39 mpix backs for about 1,5 years now, and my storageneeds are blowing all budgets. I have Lacie S2S 2,5 tb solutions (two, one backup) and they are near full. CD/DVD storage when approaching 400-500mb in a single finished .psd/.tif file with layers is useless, they take way to much time, and you don't get enough files on them pr. burn.
Online storage is useless unless you are on a very expensive fibre network with near unlimited upload speeds. The third backup is on varoius noname cheap firewire drives, almost never mounted. No out of house backup (I need to get this fixed, and I have no time to wait...)
Storage is expensive and needs to be factored in (but not that much for us europeans shopping american sites, now that the dollar is so weak )
-axel
PS: Sorry Dustbak, just have to hammer this one in
-
I can not agree more about what has been said about storage!
I have been using 39 mpix backs for about 1,5 years now, and my storageneeds are blowing all budgets. I have Lacie S2S 2,5 tb solutions (two, one backup) and they are near full. CD/DVD storage when approaching 400-500mb in a single finished .psd/.tif file with layers is useless, they take way to much time, and you don't get enough files on them pr. burn.
Online storage is useless unless you are on a very expensive fibre network with near unlimited upload speeds. The third backup is on varoius noname cheap firewire drives, almost never mounted. No out of house backup (I need to get this fixed, and I have no time to wait...)
Storage is expensive and needs to be factored in (but not that much for us europeans shopping american sites, now that the dollar is so weak )
-axel
PS: Sorry Dustbak, just have to hammer this one in
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158378\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I go through HD drives like crazy..
I buy the 500 gig seagates for my MacPro at B&H and they are actually pretty darn cheap at 130.00 a Pop.
Where I live in SA they are around 3 times that price here.
And like others have mention I have 2 BACK-UPS of everything...:+}
No RAID for me just straight out 2X Back-ups. Raids can get corrupt and corrupt both drives. I never use raids.
That adds up fast!
I have not even got my P30 yet and can only imagine the HD I will be filling.
I will also try and shoot less if I can..:+}
You get spoiled with Canons shooting so fast.
Snook
I have many clients that want me to Kepp a back-up for them also!!! uuuuuuffff I hate when they say that...
I usually burn One copy to DVD's with the favorite Picks Only.. Other wise I would be buring DVD's 24 hours a day..
Snook
-
I keep files no longer than 6 months for my clients. If they want it for longer I charge them for it.
I don't keep the raw files of most things I shoot for clients. I only keep the JPG's of stuff I find interesting mostly.
If I would not do so, I would need to move to a bigger place for all the hard-drives I need
-
As I sad before I am currently using Kodak SLR/c with canon lenses and already have all canon lenses that I need. I am also using Photoshop for almost 5 years and I have 2 top of the line desktop computers and powerful laptop and expandable NAS (network attached storage) and full basement of DL DVD backups….
So I think I am not going to be shocked by the Digital Back file size especially after dealing with the 4x5 scans.
The only problem I have is my budget
So I am still puzzled which way to go:
1ds mark3 will do almost everything but I have concern about Jewelry photography. I’m not satisfied with Kodak(14mp 35 mm sensor) because the small Kodak sensor size the diffraction will start to affect the image as soon as at f22 and with all 4x5 movements I still have not enough DOF with 1:1 magnification.
So currently I’m making 2 or 3 exposures with the different plain of focus and then merge them in Photoshop – this is pain in rear.
So I’m wondering if with the Digital Back I can use f32 without loosing to mach quality due to diffraction because the bigger sensor size? And maybe have better response to the tilt on 4x5?
Could any body with the macro experience using Digital Back help?
Sorry am confused…
Evgeny.
-
John,
The client is demanding 12X9 300 dpi images with the minimum borders around the image.
They use them for pretty big prints for jewelry shows to decorate they bus. In the last show in Las Vegas they printed 60X60 poster that was viewed only from several yards.
They also use them for print ads catalogs etc...
I ‘m barely can produce that size with the Kodak at 1:1 magnification.
I will post a sample image where you can see why I need at least 30mm (more than one inch) of DOF.
The designer’s logo is stamped on the bottom of the ring chunk and should be in acceptable focus.
I actually got this account because the client was frustrated with the previous photographer as he was not able to get bottom of the ring in focus.
I will post an sample in a few hours when I get home.
Thanks,
Evgeny
-
if i am not mistaken DOF is actually less for a bigger sensor at a given aperture.
(this is why I like for portriats)
So you want the highest pixel density ie an APS chip camera may give more DOF before diffraction
Of course judicous use of movements will help acheive focus through the plane interest at wider apps
Using that argument an 11mp mulltishot back like the Eyelike Precision M11 is the best price/quality - remember that top ad guys in the workld used these about three years ago
I am confused about whether you are using the SLRc attached to a view camera or just stopped way down
I am not sure why you cant do a triple stitch with the SLRc on a viewcam (with a sliding back adapeer or movenemt on the rear standard)
This woud provide a 36mp image which equals all but the most expensive DBs
I am an SLRn man too (nikon version) having had D200 and platyed with many canons and now owning a D3 I dont think the files from any of those cameras is really better (AT BASE ISO WELL LIT) (I wouldnt go near a wedding with one!)
While we are on the subject of the D3 the live view is amazing and would create a wonderful experience for composing table top images (and a rock steady wedding camera but the res is the same as the SRLc)
5d M11 IMO
SMM
-
if i am not mistaken DOF is actually less for a bigger sensor at a given aperture.
(this is why I like for portriats)
So you want the highest pixel density ie an APS chip camera may give more DOF before diffraction
Of course judicous use of movements will help acheive focus through the plane interest at wider apps
Using that argument an 11mp mulltishot back like the Eyelike Precision M11 is the best price/quality - remember that top ad guys in the workld used these about three years ago
I am confused about whether you are using the SLRc attached to a view camera or just stopped way down
I am not sure why you cant do a triple stitch with the SLRc on a viewcam (with a sliding back adapeer or movenemt on the rear standard)
This woud provide a 36mp image which equals all but the most expensive DBs
I am an SLRn man too (nikon version) having had D200 and platyed with many canons and now owning a D3 I dont think the files from any of those cameras is really better (AT BASE ISO WELL LIT) (I wouldnt go near a wedding with one!)
While we are on the subject of the D3 the live view is amazing and would create a wonderful experience for composing table top images (and a rock steady wedding camera but the res is the same as the SRLc)
5d M11 IMO
SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes I am attaching SLR/c to the view camera. but I need to fill the frame with the subject (1:1 or more magnification) in order to produce 12x9 at 300dpi
(I am using reversed 80mm Rodenstock lens. ) at this magnification the DOF is very shallow and even at maximum front standard tilt I am not gaining any DOF…
For the last order I shot 75 items and after that I spend almost 6 days stitching merging photoshoping the hell out of it… I need to be more efficient and not to stitch or merge several exposures. But it seems like it’s not possible with my budget.
Actually SLR/c + fast primes + Metz 70 is not that bad for events.
-
Yes I am attaching SLR/c to the view camera. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158503\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I dont know the prices but an eyelike M11 or phase H10 (I think it was called)
This is 11mp generation multishot digiback, has the resolution of 33mp single shot digiback (multishot)
Becuase the chip is small compared to a 22/33mp the DOF is better
Even single shot, 16bit with no AA filter this still might beat all DSLR but the latest canon for quality (and even maybe that)
That said the canon will be a dodle to use but it is over budget any way??
An M11 should cost about $5000 whilch leaves you $3000 for the 5d
You will have to hunt hard for an M11 try the dealer who post here
Basically a MS Dback is THE TOOL for studio and a DSLR is THE TOOL on the move it is up to you to decide which is most impoirtant to you and your clients
I dont think a canon will diffract less than an SLRc but if you move out and then crop you will get SLRc resolution and more DOF
S
-
[attachment=4146:attachment]
I don't think that the Eyelike (certainly excellent quality) will really do the trick. It will require a medium format system to attach to. He is only shooting Bronica, so that seems out of the question. Finding an adapter for the Eyelike to Bronica is going to be near impossible. Also fitting it to a 4x5 will require a sliding/stitching back adapter, and those run $2K easily. And I don't see how replacing a 35mm sized sensor with a 35mm sized sensor is going to help. He can already stitch. The SLR/c has the same depth of field. You are also replacing older gear with older gear. In mechanical gear, not an issue, but in digital gear, not really desirable if/when repairs need to be made.
As far as tilting the front standard, remember, it's not about racking the thing out. it's about finding the perfect angle that gets the ring closest to in full focus even when the lens is wide open. A 4x5 tilted should be able to hit virtually any tilted plane. At least 4x5's that can do up to 30 degrees which will give almost twice that in the real angle of the object.
A tough situation for the best solution. To be completely honest, have you tried long bellows, tilts/swings as needed and 4x5 film/F64. I used to shoot a few polaroids and only two frames of film for any shot and move on. Film does still work. F64 would not be the sharpest but all in focus is desired and 4x5 scales up very well. A very large display print is not needed to be 300dpi crisp as say a magazine page is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158513\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Here is the typical image where I need to combine 2 or more frames with different focal plane:
-
I don't think that the Eyelike (certainly excellent quality) will really do the trick. It will require a medium format system to attach to. He is only shooting Bronica, so that seems out of the question. Finding an adapter for the Eyelike to Bronica is going to be near impossible. Also fitting it to a 4x5 will require a sliding/stitching back adapter, and those run $2K easily. And I don't see how replacing a 35mm sized sensor with a 35mm sized sensor is going to help. He can already stitch. The SLR/c has the same depth of field. You are also replacing older gear with older gear. In mechanical gear, not an issue, but in digital gear, not really desirable if/when repairs need to be made.
As far as tilting the front standard, remember, it's not about racking the thing out. it's about finding the perfect angle that gets the ring closest to in full focus even when the lens is wide open. A 4x5 tilted should be able to hit virtually any tilted plane. At least 4x5's that can do up to 30 degrees which will give almost twice that in the real angle of the object.
A tough situation for the best solution. To be completely honest, have you tried long bellows, tilts/swings as needed and 4x5 film/F64. I used to shoot a few polaroids and only two frames of film for any shot and move on. Film does still work. F64 would not be the sharpest but all in focus is desired and 4x5 scales up very well. A very large display print is not needed to be 300dpi crisp as say a magazine page is.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158513\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I need to anwer this in two parts..
General Theory
----------------------------------------------
If your total recording area is the 35mm chip you are filling the frame with the bellows far less racked out giving a far larger DOF than either a larger chip or a stitched image (which is a larger chip) or 54 film (a very large chip)
So for max DOF on a given aperture the highest pixel density is requred and a multishot solution gives the highest pixel density - 33mp over a 35mm chip area
A small chip also uses the sweet spot of the lens allowing for greater movements
Many digitar were also designed around theses 35 size chips- no image circle problems
So an 11mp MS is the best way of acheiving 33mp res with the highest DOF at given aperture given any technology budget
Service - I beleive that these 'high end' products are still currently serviced
------------------------------------------------
The OP
Would not need an SBA because shooting tethered (saves cash)
would not need a bronny adapter - he is using his existing 45 camera (saves cash)
may need a digitar lenss and shutter unit (uses cash)
may need a MAC (uses cash)
msy need a view camera with finer movements (uses cash)
Could consider charging more and having a bigger avaialble budget - the client wants something that is hard to do and should pay accordingly
S
-
may need a digitar lenss and shutter unit (uses cash)
I was under the impression that digital LF lenses are optimized for apertures
in the f8-f11 range after which quality degrades rapidly.
If this could be confirmed then the depth of field requirements will not be met
without compositing images for high magnification jewelery subjects
Mark
-
There is a Eyelike M11 currently for sale for 2800USD on Ebay (ends today). There is also a Digiflex II for sale for 1900USD. Get a Nikon 85PC and you can make 33MP (non-interpolated!) shots with tilt for max DoF for about 6.000USD
Or use the view camera but I am not sure whether that has a shutter that can handle multishot?
-
I know that everybody is busy but I’m just wondering if somebody with the Digital Back can take several macros at f11, f16, f22, and f32. just any ring that you have at home (preferably with the small diamonds) I am not looking for any artistic lighting just well exposed 12x12 300 dpi technical shoot that will show DOF and diffraction effect.
I will set you access to my ftp server to upload these files.
Thanks to you all for the help!
Evgeny
-
I will try to do that for you tomorrow. I'll shoot with a M645 AFD Aptus 22 and fill the frame as much as possible. I don't know if the two extension tubes I have will get that macro. I don't use a 120mm macro. I'll try my Aptus combo with a tilt adapter and Rodenstock 150mm lens. Not the sharpest lens on digital but can show what depth is possible with tilt and stopped down. Also try on a Canon 5D with 100 macro.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158675\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John I can’t thank you enough...
-
I was under the impression that digital LF lenses are optimized for apertures
in the f8-f11 range after which quality degrades rapidly.
If this could be confirmed then the depth of field requirements will not be met
without compositing images for high magnification jewelery subjects
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158591\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is correct, all my Schneider digitars act this way. They are better towards the 5.6 mark than towards the 16 mark (probably as much due to diffraction, but hey, it's my experience and i'll do what i want with it )
-axel
-
...They are better towards the 5.6 mark...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hmmm quoting myself...
Here is an image of a Rose with a digitar 90 on a P45+, taken at f5.6. Image is daft, I know. As well as oversharpened, pushed, pulled and generally taken apart. But still, you guys are such a hoot, it's the least i could do
(http://www.axelbauer.org/rose/ROSE.jpg)
© Axel Bauer, Oslo, Norway. All rights reserved.
-
Can you post that a bit bigger next time
---
Poeple still dont seem to be getting or acknowledging the massive DOF advantage of a smaller chip for this use
Dustback is on the money an M11 and a 85TS maybe with an extension tube will provide a better file than a p45
If high DOF is part of your definition of better
S
-
I will try to make a sample with my DF/CF39 or 384/85PC over the weekend.
-
I will try to make a sample with my DF/CF39 or 384/85PC over the weekend.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158705\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
is the cropped CF39 equal to the res of the M11 in four shot ?
probably about the same (and 10X the cost)
S
-
Nope, the M11 provides 22MP more and non-interpolated colors (but does need 16shots to get there).
The CF39 delivers about 22MP (to save you making the little calculation here ). In 4 shots the M11 will deliver 11MP naturally. In which case the CF39 delivers 11MP more (I just notices you mentioned 4shot for the M11).
-
Hi Evgeny,
I do very similar work to yourself,
http://www.shoot.co.nz/New_Jewellery/jewellery.html (http://www.shoot.co.nz/New_Jewellery/jewellery.html)
I shoot on a Leaf CantareXY attached to a Fuji GX680III. Great combination, all bought second hand for less than 5kUS$, and that included two Cantare's, so I have a spare. I am also looking for an Eyelike M11 or M16, or a Sinar 43 or 44. If you are serious about jewllery, you need to go multi-shot.
As for diffraction the Fuji lenses are great, my standard aperture is f32 working at around 1:1 ratio and I only need to stitch multiple exposures on occasion, on the web link above only the cross in the centre needed stitching.
PM me if you want to discuss in detail.
Kind regards,
Jason Berge
-
Hi John,
thanks for the compliment on the work. I find that it depends on what the client wants, but I actually prefer not to carry focus all the way through, as it somehow to me doesn't look "right", but it can be done with the Fuji by going to f45 and using more extreme lens movements. I will be revising the jewellery page on the site in a few days, as there is new work to add that is probably more along the lines of what Evgeny is trying to do.
Kind regards,
Jason Berge.
-
Evgeny,
I had a little time today to try a few tests. All of no value except to say that shooting digital, I certainly don't have what is needed to get a ring near full frame and hold focus all the way at an oblique angle which is much more difficult that shooting a ring in a flat perspective or even straight down.
I spoiled myself with a 4x5, bellows and large film.
I have completely misplaced an ad I shot that was of only one ring that near filled the ad page to see what kind of focus I carried through from a film shot.
I haven't tried any digital options on a 4x5 or like body to try tilts for better in focus depth. That would require more time than I can do right now. A busy time of year.
The Canon 5D with a 100mm macro can fill the frame but not hold the ring all in focus at F32. My Mamiya 645AFD/Leaf A22 just can't get close enough with either an 80mm or 150mm both with #1 and #3 ext tubes stacked to get the ring any larger than about 1/3 of the frame height. It would require more extension. I don't have access to a 120mm macro. Not needed one yet.
If I can get time next week, I will try my Leaf with a 4x5. Granted I do not have an adapter but a black room and black out cloth can certainly "fake" an adapter to at least see what is possible.
I think the real issue is for a ring at an oblique angle to be in full focus pushes the limits of simple setups and does require a unique solution. I still don't see how any 35mm sized sensor would matter if you can't carry the needed focus in the first place. You'll just have a larger image that is still not all in focus.
I will say that a Betterlight scan back with a 4x5 and tungsten or HMI lighting would do it. Reason being the front standard can help to complete the focus issue using F64 with maybe a 210mm and the resulting file will be so damn large, you probably won't be enlarging it. So the softness from F64 won't be a big deal.
I shot with a Betterlight in 2000 and was just blown away with the files. The workflow is slow and different but the files still squash any DSLR or MFDB.
Jason's shots are quite nice, but I notice he is not carrying focus all the way through on most shots, especially those where the piece is nearing 1:1. So that is not showing a true solution for the exact purpose you need. Really nice work though, Jason.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159084\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi John,
I am wondering if let say you crop 1/3 of the frame from Leaf A22 shot – how many dpi is left at 12X12 crop?
At this low magnification it should be enough DOF to cover all ring, plus
I think the Leaf A22 file can be upscaled a little bit without losing to match quality.
Please let me know what do you think…
Tanks,
Evgeny
-
As we are seeing - from johns honest 'I cant do this post' this is not easy to do with any kit.
-------------------------
Simply.
smaller chip or crop = less racking out of the bellows = more DOF for a given aperture
Therefore you need to be looking for best pixel density per dollar
which is an old multishot back
---------------
(much) more complexly
Aperture is not fixed it will be the smallest available which is a combo of
what the lenses offer
what you can light
the smallest aperture that causes acceptable diffraction.
and here is the real head scratch
There must be a complex formula of diffraction degradation as a percentage or recording area
I assume diffraction causes an equal blur at a given aperture irrelevant of recording area and therefore is less significant as a percentage of resolution loss for a larger recording area
such knowledge is beyond me but may push you in the direction of a huge chip, ie a stitching solution, and trad lenses that are operable at f64
This would require purchase of a good stitching solution and possible no new camera
the SLRc (free to you) has the best recording size per dollar available, using stitching recording quality is less relveant because diffraction is going to limit the quality not pixel density
-------------
once again.
The client wants something 'hard to do' (also unconventional) : charge right and extend that kit budget
or
charge right for Post Production and continue with the focus bracketed approach
-------------
Thinking on further ( back to you initial post) the ring work is only a proportion of your business
As demoed you are proably after high pixel density/dollar for this 'use'
but that is not the only factor because you have other 'uses' too
ease of use for example is a factor too
and therefore the Canon1DS2.3 seems like THE CONTENDER because you are getting good pixel density per dollar and some other great stuff like AF ,non tethered, high ISO ect ect ect thrown in too
Rember a 22mp digiback has half the pixel density (approx) of the C1ds2.3 and 2 stops less ISO (?)
Even the high ISO may be a factor for the ring 'use' because at small Fs and big bellows factor you will probably run out of light on an MS back that could have an ISO of 50 or less
SMM
-
As we are seeing - from johns honest 'I cant do this post' this is not easy to do with any kit.
-------------------------
Simply.
smaller chip or crop = less racking out of the bellows = more DOF for a given aperture
Therefore you need to be looking for best pixel density per dollar
which is an old multishot back
---------------
(much) more complexly
Aperture is not fixed it will be the smallest available which is a combo of
what the lenses offer
what you can light
the smallest aperture that causes acceptable diffraction.
and here is the real head scratch
There must be a complex formula of diffraction degradation as a percentage or recording area
I assume diffraction causes an equal blur at a given aperture irrelevant of recording area and therefore is less significant as a percentage of resolution loss for a larger recording area
such knowledge is beyond me but may push you in the direction of a huge chip, ie a stitching solution, and trad lenses that are operable at f64
This would require purchase of a good stitching solution and possible no new camera
the SLRc (free to you) has the best recording size per dollar available, using stitching recording quality is less relveant because diffraction is going to limit the quality not pixel density
-------------
once again.
The client wants something 'hard to do' (also unconventional) : charge right and extend that kit budget
or
charge right for Post Production and continue with the focus bracketed approach
-------------
Thinking on further ( back to you initial post) the ring work is only a proportion of your business
As demoed you are proably after high pixel density/dollar for this 'use'
but that is not the only factor because you have other 'uses' too
ease of use for example is a factor too
and therefore the Canon1DS2.3 seems like THE CONTENDER because you are getting good pixel density per dollar and some other great stuff like AF ,non tethered, high ISO ect ect ect thrown in too
Rember a 22mp digiback has half the pixel density (approx) of the C1ds2.3 and 2 stops less ISO (?)
Even the high ISO may be a factor for the ring 'use' because at small Fs and big bellows factor you will probably run out of light on an MS back that could have an ISO of 50 or less
SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159189\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All good points, which is why I went for an old multi-shot back, and am looking for more. One point though is at these sizes and working distances light is not an issue, I use a Bron Cumulight as my main light with one pack, a Primo which is only 1600w and use it mostly below half power. This is supplemented by two or three Bron minipulses which are only 300w eack, once again on half or below, at f32. The closer you have the lights, the less fall off you get.
Kind regards'
Jason Berge.
-
All good points, which is why I went for an old multi-shot back, and am looking for more. One point though is at these sizes and working distances light is not an issue, I use a Bron Cumulight as my main light with one pack, a Primo which is only 1600w and use it mostly below half power. This is supplemented by two or three Bron minipulses which are only 300w eack, once again on half or below, at f32. The closer you have the lights, the less fall off you get.
Kind regards'
Jason Berge.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So you dont feel diffraction is an issue at f32 ?
This is a question not an accusation
(I assume you chose MS before the 1ds3)
I would however in terms of the OPs needs being studio and location think that DSLR convienience may outweigh multishot quality gains while still offering high pixel density rather than chipsize to gain MP
I dont know about the live ivew on the 1ds3 or if it even has it but the live view in 'tripod mode' onthe D3 (which I have just got) is fantastic allowing for live focus confirmation at big zooms
I cannot emphasise how well this would work on a view camera and how much shooting time it would same me compared to the poorly aligned GG I currenlty use
And of course 'time is money' is part of any economic equation
S
-
As promised, 4 samples that I took to compare.The ring is the one I have around my finger and the only one I currently have at my disposal. It is over a hundred years old and 23K so it got scratches. I was kind of lazy and have fastened it on styrofoam.
I used the DigiFlexII, with the Nikkor 85PC at f32 (I would normally not go beyond f16 or f22max). To get close to the ring I also used a K2, K3 & K4 (which is around 30mm). I did not go closer because I did not use macro lights but ordinary mono's (no fancy lighting). I had the PC on max tilt to extend the DoF as far as possible. ISO50, 1/125th.
I have put 4 DNG raw files on my server.
1) Imacon384, 16MP square back in single shot (cut out 2:3 and you will get the equivalent of a 11MP regtangular back).
http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/Testring001.zip (http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/Testring001.zip)
2) Imacon384, multishot (96MB's!)
http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/Testring002.zip (http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/Testring002.zip)
3) Imacon384, multishot & microstep (384MB's!!)
http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/Testring003.zip (http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/Testring003.zip)
4) Hasselblad CF39
http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/Testring004.zip (http://www.peperkamp.com/samples/Testring004.zip)
Don't bother with the exif, the Digiflex makes something really weird out of that. The settings were as been stated above.