Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: gwhitf on July 16, 2008, 09:02:44 am
-
Well, it appears that the architectural guys, the still life guys, the landscape guys, the car guys, and the food guys now have their back, either in the Phase 60 or the Hasselblad 50. They're happy as clams, I'm sure. If you're only shooting fifty frames a day, who cares if every frame you shoot is 300megs of storage. And obviously, the sports guys and the wedding guys have their 1dsIII or their D3, so they seem happy too.
But what about the people shooters who do location advertising, or editorial, or fashion, but who also prefer to shoot medium format? I still insist that the perfect system has not been devised. There is a Sweet Spot in the development of this camera. We're not there yet. There's money to be made. Please, somebody design this camera/back/software:
* About 28-30 megapixels. That's all we need. Seriously. We're throwing away most of the data already, even from the Canon or the P21, when it comes time to size for repro size. Make a big sensor well, or whatever it's called, to reduce noise or diffraction, but only give us 28-30mp. Anything else will get thrown away.
* Multi point autofocus. Personally, I manually focus everything, everyone seems to want multi point autofocus, so that should be added to the list.
* One frame per second, minimum. We don't need a Canon/Red motor drive at 24fps, but we do need to capture spontaneity, so no slower than one frame per second.
* Process in any software. No more of this Hasselblad craziness, with whatever they're doing that forces you to convert all those files before you can open them. Make the file where you can easily open it in ACR, Lightroom, CaptureOne, Raw Developer, or whatever. More more Hocus Phocus.
* Easy operation. Make it fast and intuitive, like a Canon or a Nikon. Personally, I'd love to see this body be a unibody, with no removeable back, but many would not agree with me. I just want to be "turn it on, pop in a card, format it, and start shooting". One power switch; one set of batteries.
* Full frame 645. Yes, full frame, like the P65, but only 28-30 megapixles. No cardboard masks, no hyped-up reduced finders. Just full-frame 645.
* ASA ranges from 25-1600. You need 25 in order to do flash fill outside with Profotos, but you also need 1600 in case you find a great window in the back of a dark warehouse. No idea if this is technically possible, but the truth is the truth: we need 25-1600, in one back. Please figure it out. (Edit, see post #49 later in this thread. Appears that 25-1600 is reaching for the moon, so let's reduce the dream to maybe ASA 50-800. I listed the ASA ranges to show the two radically different types of photographers -- fill-flash-bring-down-the-sky guys, and Available Darkness guys).
* A great LCD, like the Nikon. I think Hasselblad is starting to understand about the importance of the LCD. Obviously Phase does not. If that P65 was five hundred dollars, I'd never buy it, due to the LCD quality. What they don't understand is: If you've got a usable, really good, DAMN good LCD, you could actually shoot a real job, with a real art director, without a $1500-a-day Digital Tech. You could actually bring the AD over to the back of the camera, point to it, maybe even zoom in, and say to him/her, "Hey, this is what I'm shooting, check it out". I wonder if Phase even understands this issue; that we have to get a shot approved. That it's just not us, standing behind the back, looking at a histogram, knowing that we're not clipping endpoints and knowing that we can deal with it in post. We've generally got a lot of money on the line, and it's us, standing in some tick-infested field somewhere, sweating, in bright sunlight, with a motor home, four C-Stands, three Profoto packs, and we're balancing strobe to ambient, and you NEED a trustable LCD to be able to SEE the relationship of the Strobe to the Ambient. And in this challenged economy that we're all in, sometimes it's hard to justify adding in a Digital Tech, for multiple days, not to mention all the ball-and-chain he adds, with his cart, and his G5, and his multiple Eizo monitors, and his Honda generators. Sometimes, honestly, you'd love to just be able to shoot a real job without a Tech. I know I would. I have nothing against Techs, but once they drag their DogPonyShow onto the set, something just changes. And for me, not in a good way. I would pay thousands of dollars extra for a camera that had an LCD that was about 4 inches or so, with great great color, and tight resolution. I have not seen the Nikon D3 screen, but everyone raves about it. It seems to be the only game in town, seriously. It needs to be roughly the same size as an old 669 Polaroid; big enough for a nervous art director to look at, and say, "Ok, I get it, it looks great, let's shoot". Anything short of that, and it's simply a failure. What Phase needs to hear, and what Sinar needs to hear, and what Leaf needs to hear is: Add an extra battery, if battery life is shorter with a good LCD. Yes, megapixels are important, (but only up to a certain point), but MORE THAN ANYTHING, a really usable LCD is just absolutely essential. Until they make an LCD that's four inches across, all of these backs are, for the most part, unusable by a location photographer. My opinion is that people will, more and more, migrate to Nikon and Canon MERELY for the LCD alone. (I know I did).
Edit: * A leaf shutter body, with flash sync at 1/500th or so. I'm adding this, from another suggestion. It could be that the days of focal plane shutter bodies are just in the past. Everyone seems jazzed about how the H bodies sync at 800th. Maybe that is what is needed from now on. No more focal plane.
Edit: * More Canned Presets/Profiles/Styles. Of course you'd have the standard white balances, ie Strobe, Daylight, Tungsten, etc, but I'd also love a submenu for Skin Tone presets as well. I'd love about ten Skin presets alone. Maybe you'd call them Presets, or Styles, or whatever, but I'd love these companies to ship a back that nails skin tone right out of the box. I know with Canon, they tend to skew red, and with Phase as well; always fighting red in skin tone. I just wonder if these companies tweak their color with a bunch of brightly colored packages thrown down on a table, lit by strobe, and they're going for that punchy color. But I find that, with skin, it's a very skilled science, to fight that color crossover from yellow to magenta.
Edit: * A back that shoots embedded previews large enough for a web gallery. (I don't know how many times I can edit this post, but as people respond here with good points, I'm adding them). Yes, there is nothing more frustrating than shooting a three day lifestyle job on location, (without a tech in tow), and then as you're packing the van at the end of the job, the AD comes up to you with that congratulatory beer in his hand, and says, "OK, we're outta here, we're headed to the bar. And oh by the way, this job is pretty hot; we'd just love to see web galleries by tomorrow afternoon, to begin the edit". It's at that point that you realize that you've now got to batch three days of eight setups per day, from the RAW into a 1200x900 sRGB JPG. So let's just mention: You won't be joining him in the bar.
----------
I know that this is a medium format forum, and everyone seems to get upset at the mention of anything 35, but, if the truth were known, I think that there is a race toward this Sweet Spot Camera; something that balances speed and ease of use and portability, with high resolution. In my honest opinion, Canon and Nikon are winning that race. When this 24MP Nikon comes out, I think a lot of MF companies are going to be nervous. I think Phase and Hasselblad are clearly choosing their market segment, and recent announcements seem to show that they're not choosing Location/Portable photographers; they're going for the studio guys, and the dog/pony show guys. Or, they're going for the Clueless Photographer Who Always Rents From A Tech, who generally thinks, "More Megapixels are Always Better".
All I'm attempting to do here is to hold up a flag to these MF companies, and say, "Hey, don't forget the Location Photographers".
-
But what about the people shooters who do location advertising, or editorial, or fashion, but who also prefer to shoot medium format? I still insist that the perfect system has not been devised.
The 'perfect' system never will, but I think we are quite close (see below).
* About 28-30 megapixels.
Agreed. Already exists.
* One frame per second, minimum.
Actually I'd like to see 2 or 3 fps. My 22MP sensor can handle 3fps according to the spec sheet so it is the back slowing it down. 1 fps already exists (my own Sinar back for example).
* Process in any software.
Sinar already uses the DNG format, so this is another point which already exists.
* Easy operation. Make it fast and intuitive, like a Canon or a Nikon. Personally, I'd love to see this body be a unibody, with no removeable back, but many would not agree with me.
I definitely don't agree. I like to be able to use the back on other platforms. If a camera body fails, would be nice to move the back to a backup body. Removeable back makes it easier to clean the sensor. Also means that you can upgrade just the back or the body without having to pay for both every time.
* Full frame 645. Yes, full frame, like the P65, but only 28-30 megapixles.
I agree and also have my fingers crossed for a 30MP 645 sensor.
* ASA ranges from 25-1600.
Agreed. We need better high ISO performance rather than more pixels. 50-1600 would do me. I have never found 50 to be too sensitive, and I am usually mixing Profotos with outdoor light.
* A great LCD, like the Nikon.
Agreed. Would be nice to have a screen which you could easily use to know that you really nailed a shot.
You forget to mention high flash sync speed, but we have that already in 2 platforms.
I think the Hy6 camera is nearly everything we need for location people photography. The current backs are about a generation away from being in the "sweet spot". If/when a new 30MP full 645 size back with at least 2fps, ISO 1600, and better LCD comes out, we'll be there too. Just my $0.02
-
Hmmm, not a perfect camera, but something that should be possible.
Top Priority:
A full frame 645 30mp sensor.
Multi software usability would be fantastic. But I'll settle for lightning fast software that allows me to make precise tonal and color adjustments, capture and view thousands of pictures at fast speeds, have a 10 flag system for seperating, rating, ordering, etc. however I like, export small jpegs in lightning speed
Also, multi preset color and tone corrections in the software (or as action uploads, which I would gladly pay for if they were really, really good), that would allow you to shoot tri-x pushed two stops, Porta 160nc, etc. with the possibility to tweak the presets in the software with real curves.
and could be applied to the preview jpegs.
No single body unit, I want to be able to change backs if Ineed to.
But the back should provide fast and easy controll of all the important parameters ala Nikon.
ASA 50 to 3200 (grain is okay at 3200)
A high definition 4 inch LCD or an extra wireless LCD viewer.
A scroll thumbwheel for accessing the menus and scrolling through pics. (may sound stupid, but I don't have one on my back...)
A wide array of fast glass at well thought out focal lenghts, with fast autofocus motors and leaf shutters.
Lower Priority:
Multi-Point Autofocus with a wide array of cross hair sensors would be great.
3 FPS.
A focal plane shutter in the camera for use with non leaf shutter lenses. 1/4000th max. shutter speed.
Either a rotating back/chip or an extra rightangle grip ala contax.
A lighter weight, low key, simple matt black finished metal allow body with rubberized grip and fully body/back sealed.
-
* A great LCD, like the Nikon. I think Hasselblad is starting to understand about the importance of the LCD. Obviously Phase does not. If that P65 was five hundred dollars, I'd never buy it, due to the LCD quality. What they don't understand is: If you've got a usable, really good, DAMN good LCD, you could actually shoot a real job, with a real art director, without a Digital Tech. You could actually bring the AD over to the back of the camera, point to it, maybe even zoom in, and say to him/her, "Hey, this is what I'm shooting, check it out". I wonder if Phase even understands this issue; that we have to get a shot approved. That it's just not us, standing behind the back, looking at a histogram, knowing that we're not clipping endpoints and knowing that we can deal with it in post. We've generally got a lot of money on the line, and it's us, standing in some tick-infested field somewhere, sweating, in bright sunlight, with a motor home, four C-Stands, three Profoto packs, and we're balancing strobe to ambient, and you NEED a trustable LCD to be able to SEE the relationship of the Strobe to the Ambient. And in this challenged economy that we're all in, sometimes it's hard to justify adding in a Digital Tech, for multiple days, not to mention all the ball-and-chain he adds, with his cart, and his G5, and his multiple Eizo monitors, and his Honda generators. Sometimes, honestly, you'd love to just be able to shoot a real job without a Tech. I know I would. I have nothing against Techs, but once they drag their DogPonyShow onto the set, something just changes. And for me, not in a good way. I would pay thousands of dollars extra for a camera that had an LCD that was about 4 inches or so, with great great color, and tight resolution. I have not seen the Nikon D3 screen, but everyone raves about it. It seems to be the only game in town, seriously. It needs to be roughly the same size as an old 669 Polaroid; big enough for a nervous art director to look at, and say, "Ok, I get it, it looks great, let's shoot". Anything short of that, and it's simply a failure. What Phase needs to hear, and what Sinar needs to hear, and what Leaf needs to hear is: Add an extra battery, if battery life is shorter with a good LCD. Yes, megapixels are important, (but only up to a certain point), but MORE THAN ANYTHING, a really usable LCD is just absolutely essential. Until they make an LCD that's four inches across, all of these backs are, for the most part, unusable by a location photographer. My opinion is that people will, more and more, migrate to Nikon and Canon MERELY for the LCD alone. (I know I did).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What a great collection of words that I think sums it up for the location advertising shooter. If only the decision makers would read this one paragraph, understand it, ask more questions, then I think the "gap" that MF shooting creates would close to a hair line crack.
Came at a great time because Chris Lawery is about to walk through my door to talk stuff with me.
Ken
-
I use to think the tail wagged the dog.
I use to think the process was Kodak or Dalsa made a sensor with all of these different limitations in iso, shooting speed, color response and expsoure time and told the medium format makers take it or leave it.
I use to think that medium format digital was stuck with whatever camera they could stick there backs on, whether that was a Contax or a Hasselblad V.
Obviously that has changed and now the back makers are designing the sensors and are very much alingned with the camera makers.
All this makes me believe that medium format really isn't targeting my type of photogrpahy to their product.
I know everyone screams 60mpx, both ways. Some think it's peachy, some think it's the end of the world, I personaly just think (actually I know) that no client I have is asking for a 300mb file.
In fact if I shipped 300mb files they would return them.
This variable frame size iso thing sounds good on paper and if it gives me a 30mpx file that will shoot fast and go to high iso that's great, but what happens when I need a low iso studio setting?
Am I stuck to 60mpx, because 40mb raw files x 800 frames a day is 320 gigs of storage a day x 3 backups, which puts us near a terabyte a day of storage.
Start pricing out storage because whether your running a server, Raid 5's or just stacking drives inn the corner, it's very easy to spend $3,000 a month on storage.
Then the thought of waiting for previews to build on 800 60mpx files and batch correcting and batch processing those images, may make the digital techs that charge per file happy, but for me crunching through 10 hours of post processing a day is not something me or anyone in my studio is going to look forward to.
I don't know who medium format talks to when they make their decisions, but I wish they wouild listen in on the 2 hour conference callas I have with clients prior to a shoot.
They would hear the terms, speed, volume, costs, timing, costs, long hours (limited light), costs, delivery dates and oh did I mention costs.
I have a p21+ and a P30+ and if someone asked me what camera/back I would want it would be two p21+ backs. Both that went to something like 30 mpx real full frame, one back that would go easily to a REAL 1000 iso clean and one back that would go to 50 to 400 ISO clean.
I wish they were on set when we shoot 20 setups a day and try to look at one of their lcd's and make a judgement. Or better yet see what happens when the computer and cart won't fit into the room.
The very next thing I would ask for is an lcd that was useable, because I have yet to see a medium format lcd, including Hasselblad's new one, that was as good as the original 1ds and 1/100th as good as my leica.
Quite honestly I am amazed and even shocked that any maker would still try to sell a camera/back that costs $20,000 to $40,000 and has an lcd that was unuseable.
The next thing I would ask for is a full lens and accessory range. Fast lenses at F2, along with a full range of leaf shutter lenses (and by full I mean from wide angle to medium telephoto).
I am also blown backwards by the fact that any camera maker that attempts to sell a $30,000 to $40,000 system would have an asterick that said, lenses, accessories, software to be released later.
Though I will reserve final judgement until I see this back work in the real world, I really believe medium format has decided to ignore the people that shoot what I shoot.
In fact other than just raising the costs and rasing the mpx count, I don't see anything that was annouced recently that would move me to do anything, other than look at the new Nikon.
The only camera company that now hits on all cylinders is the RED. They're covering the low end to high end. 3k to 5k, all the lenses and accessories with compatibility of lenses that are industry standards. They have all kinds of lcd previews, good high iso, autofocus lenses, standard cinema lenses, zooms, storage medium and most of it from the ground up in two years.
RED listened to their customers.
JR
P.S. I've asked this twice to the dealers so I will ask it again (obivously nobody wants to answer this) but what is the quote that ISO is an upgrade to come in 2009? How do you upgrade the ISO?
Well, it appears that the architectural guys, the still life guys, the landscape guys, the car guys, and the food guys now have their back, either in the Phase 60 or the Hasselblad 50. They're happy as clams, I'm sure. If you're only shooting fifty frames a day, who cares if every frame you shoot is 300megs of storage. And obviously, the sports guys and the wedding guys have their 1dsIII or their D3, so they seem happy too.
But what about the people shooters who do location advertising, or editorial, or fashion, but who also prefer to shoot medium format? I still insist that the perfect system has not been devised. There is a Sweet Spot in the development of this camera. We're not there yet. There's money to be made. Please, somebody design this camera/back/software:
* About 28-30 megapixels. That's all we need. Seriously. We're throwing away most of the data already, even from the Canon or the P21, when it comes time to size for repro size. Make a big sensor well, or whatever it's called, to reduce noise or diffraction, but only give us 28-30mp. Anything else will get thrown away.
* Multi point autofocus. Personally, I manually focus everything, everyone seems to want multi point autofocus, so that should be added to the list.
* One frame per second, minimum. We don't need a Canon/Red motor drive at 24fps, but we do need to capture spontaneity, so no slower than one frame per second.
* Process in any software. No more of this Hasselblad craziness, with whatever they're doing that forces you to convert all those files before you can open them. Make the file where you can easily open it in ACR, Lightroom, CaptureOne, Raw Developer, or whatever. More more Hocus Phocus.
* Easy operation. Make it fast and intuitive, like a Canon or a Nikon. Personally, I'd love to see this body be a unibody, with no removeable back, but many would not agree with me. I just want to be "turn it on, pop in a card, format it, and start shooting". One power switch; one set of batteries.
* Full frame 645. Yes, full frame, like the P65, but only 28-30 megapixles. No cardboard masks, no hyped-up reduced finders. Just full-frame 645.
* ASA ranges from 25-1600. You need 25 in order to do flash fill outside with Profotos, but you also need 1600 in case you find a great window in the back of a dark warehouse. No idea if this is technically possible, but the truth is the truth: we need 25-1600, in one back. Please figure it out.
* A great LCD, like the Nikon. I think Hasselblad is starting to understand about the importance of the LCD. Obviously Phase does not. If that P65 was five hundred dollars, I'd never buy it, due to the LCD quality. What they don't understand is: If you've got a usable, really good, DAMN good LCD, you could actually shoot a real job, with a real art director, without a Digital Tech. You could actually bring the AD over to the back of the camera, point to it, maybe even zoom in, and say to him/her, "Hey, this is what I'm shooting, check it out". I wonder if Phase even understands this issue; that we have to get a shot approved. That it's just not us, standing behind the back, looking at a histogram, knowing that we're not clipping endpoints and knowing that we can deal with it in post. We've generally got a lot of money on the line, and it's us, standing in some tick-infested field somewhere, sweating, in bright sunlight, with a motor home, four C-Stands, three Profoto packs, and we're balancing strobe to ambient, and you NEED a trustable LCD to be able to SEE the relationship of the Strobe to the Ambient. And in this challenged economy that we're all in, sometimes it's hard to justify adding in a Digital Tech, for multiple days, not to mention all the ball-and-chain he adds, with his cart, and his G5, and his multiple Eizo monitors, and his Honda generators. Sometimes, honestly, you'd love to just be able to shoot a real job without a Tech. I know I would. I have nothing against Techs, but once they drag their DogPonyShow onto the set, something just changes. And for me, not in a good way. I would pay thousands of dollars extra for a camera that had an LCD that was about 4 inches or so, with great great color, and tight resolution. I have not seen the Nikon D3 screen, but everyone raves about it. It seems to be the only game in town, seriously. It needs to be roughly the same size as an old 669 Polaroid; big enough for a nervous art director to look at, and say, "Ok, I get it, it looks great, let's shoot". Anything short of that, and it's simply a failure.
----------
I know that this is a medium format forum, and everyone seems to get upset at the mention of anything 35, but, if the truth were known, I think that there is a race toward this Sweet Spot Camera; something that balances speed and ease of use and portability, with high resolution. In my honest opinion, Canon and Nikon are winning that race. When this 24MP Nikon comes out, I think a lot of MF companies are going to be nervous. I think Phase and Hasselblad are clearly choosing their market segment, and recent announcements seem to show that they're not choosing Location/Portable photographers; they're going for the studio guys, and the dog/pony show guys. Or, they're going for the Clueless Photographer Who Always Rents From A Tech, who generally thinks, "More Megapixels are Always Better".
All I'm attempting to do here is to hold up a flag to these MF companies, and say, "Hey, don't forget the Location Photographers".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
if i see the things right the p1 / 65 is also a 645 30mp sensor so far.
and... photokina is not far away. we havent seen all what will to be seen there.
i am sure about that.
... but in general.: i agree.
esp. about the immense costs if you want to stay in the first row with your gear.
-
Well, it appears that the architectural guys, the still life guys, the landscape guys, the car guys, and the food guys now have their back, either in the Phase 60 or the Hasselblad 50. They're happy as clams, I'm sure. If you're only shooting fifty frames a day, who cares if every frame you shoot is 300megs of storage. And obviously, the sports guys and the wedding guys have their 1dsIII or their D3, so they seem happy too.
But what about the people shooters who do location advertising, or editorial, or fashion, but who also prefer to shoot medium format? I still insist that the perfect system has not been devised. There is a Sweet Spot in the development of this camera. We're not there yet. There's money to be made. Please, somebody design this camera/back/software:
* About 28-30 megapixels. That's all we need. Seriously. We're throwing away most of the data already, even from the Canon or the P21, when it comes time to size for repro size. Make a big sensor well, or whatever it's called, to reduce noise or diffraction, but only give us 28-30mp. Anything else will get thrown away.
* Multi point autofocus. Personally, I manually focus everything, everyone seems to want multi point autofocus, so that should be added to the list.
* One frame per second, minimum. We don't need a Canon/Red motor drive at 24fps, but we do need to capture spontaneity, so no slower than one frame per second.
* Process in any software. No more of this Hasselblad craziness, with whatever they're doing that forces you to convert all those files before you can open them. Make the file where you can easily open it in ACR, Lightroom, CaptureOne, Raw Developer, or whatever. More more Hocus Phocus.
* Easy operation. Make it fast and intuitive, like a Canon or a Nikon. Personally, I'd love to see this body be a unibody, with no removeable back, but many would not agree with me. I just want to be "turn it on, pop in a card, format it, and start shooting". One power switch; one set of batteries.
* Full frame 645. Yes, full frame, like the P65, but only 28-30 megapixles. No cardboard masks, no hyped-up reduced finders. Just full-frame 645.
* ASA ranges from 25-1600. You need 25 in order to do flash fill outside with Profotos, but you also need 1600 in case you find a great window in the back of a dark warehouse. No idea if this is technically possible, but the truth is the truth: we need 25-1600, in one back. Please figure it out.
* A great LCD, like the Nikon. I think Hasselblad is starting to understand about the importance of the LCD. Obviously Phase does not. If that P65 was five hundred dollars, I'd never buy it, due to the LCD quality. What they don't understand is: If you've got a usable, really good, DAMN good LCD, you could actually shoot a real job, with a real art director, without a Digital Tech. You could actually bring the AD over to the back of the camera, point to it, maybe even zoom in, and say to him/her, "Hey, this is what I'm shooting, check it out". I wonder if Phase even understands this issue; that we have to get a shot approved. That it's just not us, standing behind the back, looking at a histogram, knowing that we're not clipping endpoints and knowing that we can deal with it in post. We've generally got a lot of money on the line, and it's us, standing in some tick-infested field somewhere, sweating, in bright sunlight, with a motor home, four C-Stands, three Profoto packs, and we're balancing strobe to ambient, and you NEED a trustable LCD to be able to SEE the relationship of the Strobe to the Ambient. And in this challenged economy that we're all in, sometimes it's hard to justify adding in a Digital Tech, for multiple days, not to mention all the ball-and-chain he adds, with his cart, and his G5, and his multiple Eizo monitors, and his Honda generators. Sometimes, honestly, you'd love to just be able to shoot a real job without a Tech. I know I would. I have nothing against Techs, but once they drag their DogPonyShow onto the set, something just changes. And for me, not in a good way. I would pay thousands of dollars extra for a camera that had an LCD that was about 4 inches or so, with great great color, and tight resolution. I have not seen the Nikon D3 screen, but everyone raves about it. It seems to be the only game in town, seriously. It needs to be roughly the same size as an old 669 Polaroid; big enough for a nervous art director to look at, and say, "Ok, I get it, it looks great, let's shoot". Anything short of that, and it's simply a failure. What Phase needs to hear, and what Sinar needs to hear, and what Leaf needs to hear is: Add an extra battery, if battery life is shorter with a good LCD. Yes, megapixels are important, (but only up to a certain point), but MORE THAN ANYTHING, a really usable LCD is just absolutely essential. Until they make an LCD that's four inches across, all of these backs are, for the most part, unusable by a location photographer. My opinion is that people will, more and more, migrate to Nikon and Canon MERELY for the LCD alone. (I know I did).
Edit: * A leaf shutter body, with flash sync at 1/500th or so. I'm adding this, from another suggestion. It could be that the days of focal plane shutter bodies are just in the past. Everyone seems jazzed about how the H bodies sync at 800th. Maybe that is what is needed from now on. No more focal plane.
Edit: * More Canned Presets/Profiles/Styles. Of course you'd have the standard white balances, ie Strobe, Daylight, Tungsten, etc, but I'd also love a submenu for Skin Tone presets as well. I'd love about ten Skin presets alone. Maybe you'd call them Presets, or Styles, or whatever, but I'd love these companies to ship a back that nails skin tone right out of the box. I know with Canon, they tend to skew red, and with Phase as well; always fighting red in skin tone. I just wonder if these companies tweak their color with a bunch of brightly colored packages thrown down on a table, lit by strobe, and they're going for that punchy color. But I find that, with skin, it's a very skilled science, to fight that color crossover from yellow to magenta.
----------
I know that this is a medium format forum, and everyone seems to get upset at the mention of anything 35, but, if the truth were known, I think that there is a race toward this Sweet Spot Camera; something that balances speed and ease of use and portability, with high resolution. In my honest opinion, Canon and Nikon are winning that race. When this 24MP Nikon comes out, I think a lot of MF companies are going to be nervous. I think Phase and Hasselblad are clearly choosing their market segment, and recent announcements seem to show that they're not choosing Location/Portable photographers; they're going for the studio guys, and the dog/pony show guys. Or, they're going for the Clueless Photographer Who Always Rents From A Tech, who generally thinks, "More Megapixels are Always Better".
All I'm attempting to do here is to hold up a flag to these MF companies, and say, "Hey, don't forget the Location Photographers".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree. I think alot of what we need is here, but not in one box, and apparently it cannot be jammed into one camera/back/lens package at this time. The new Phase will, apparently, bin the pixels and give a 30 mega pixel 645 frame. That's cool but its retarded expensive and thus not suited for most of the people shooter market.
The LCD issue is really, really annoying. The 5D LCD is better than my P30+ LCD outside. I shot part of a catalogue in the damn woods in CT a week or so ago. I was tethered to a MBP on a Multicart powered by a homemade inverter of the tech's design. Mostly natural light with bounce. I had to walk to the end of the 16 foot cable to see what was going on and to talk to the AD about the shots. This sucked. Broke the mood, made the light difficult to replicate because of clouds and the position of bead board changed because it was handheld. A big LCD or a wireless transfer to an iPhone would be nice. AD's all have iPhones, they could get the preview sent to their iPhone, but then you would need to have a real jpeg preview and that will never happen.I shot a bunch of "atmospheric" stuff for this catalogue on film, wandering around with two models and the stylist. Great stuff. No AD, no tether, just shooting and reloading.
I like the focal plane shutter. Any lens can be used with adapters and 1/4000 is a nice option when outside without strobes. mamiya says they will have some really expensive leaf shutter lenses available for their FP shutter camera, which would give you both high flash sync and high shutter speed abilities. I find I need 1/4000 more than I need 1/500 flash sync.
I don't think we'll get multi AF points for years. The mamiya selectable AF points are a cruel, cruel joke. Much too close to gether and they don't light up. It was an after thought in the design process.
I bet Leaf will make their 6x7 LCD better and will enable wifi/bluetooth to portable device on their new backs, much like they had with the old Valeos.
Shutter lag needs to be eliminated. I haven't tried them all, but the H with a Phase back has some lag, not much but some. The AFD and AFD2 have bad shutter lag that never happened with film, which results from the back to body communications protocol. The AFD3 is better, but still has lag. The Hy6/AFi has no lag. It just shoots like a film camera or a Nikon D2X or Canon 1 series.
Frame rate: the P21+ has a nice fast frame rate, something like .8 frames a second. The Leaf 54S also shoots really fast. Plenty fast for me. I have a P30+ and find the frame rate on a Mamiya AFd to be a hair too slow, sometimes.
ISO of the P30+ is really good. Slightly cleaner 1600 would be nice.
What needs to be understood by the product managers is that the people shooters can more easily do our jobs, especially outside of a studio, with a 5D than with any of the MFDB/cameras out there. The 1ds3 and I'm sure the new and rumored Nikon megapixel machine have/will have IQ that is good enough for much of what we do. Hell, the 5D, 1ds, and 1ds2, D3, D2x have good enough IQ. And with these cheap cams you spend more time taking pictures than dicking around with all that unwiedly gear, work arounds, etc. We use MFDB because its OUR choice. Not a client requirement. Make these cameras more usable, with lower pixel count, and make the price for entry reflect the market in which we find ourselves. Hint: Look at the Phase Refurbs. This should be the price point for new backs with a body.
-
I read Michael Reichmann's thoughtful reply the other day, in that P65+ thread. As usual, it was well-reasoned, and not reactionary, like most commercial photographers would write. I thought he made good points.
But, in the end, if this is all about business, and sales, and dollars and cents, I would just wonder, how many potential photographers are there out there, that truly need a 60 megapixel back? Versus, say, the number of potential photographers that need a 28 megapixel back, (but one that truly works great, instead of still shipping with lots of asterisks and apologies and "we're working on its".)
I would think a hugely larger number of 28MP customers. But maybe Phase/Leaf/Sinar/Hassie have just resigned themselves to competing head-on with Canon/Nikon. Maybe they simply know they can't win, if they go head to head, so they're choosing the "more megapixels is better" avenue of marketing, (even if most people are throwing half the file away, by repro time).
The other thing I wonder is: Why do these MF companies sell to Digital Techs? For every time that I rent a camera/back from a Tech, that's one more back that'll never get sold. I wonder why Phase/Leaf/Sinar/Hassie don't write something into their Licensing Agreements that's similar to what those color profiling services write into theirs? In other words, you can buy our Profiling Package, but you can't write profiles for other people. It's only for your own use. Almost similar to iTunes, when you buy a song.
Phase sells three backs to a Digital Tech, and over the life of that back, maybe a hundred different photographers use it, and thus, never buy their own back.
It just makes you wonder.
-
I read Michael Reichmann's thoughtful reply the other day, in that P65+ thread. As usual, it was well-reasoned, and not reactionary, like most commercial photographers would write. I thought he made good points.
But, in the end, if this is all about business, and sales, and dollars and cents, I would just wonder, how many potential photographers are there out there, that truly need a 60 megapixel back? Versus, say, the number of potential photographers that need a 28 megapixel back, (but one that truly works great, instead of still shipping with lots of asterisks and apologies and "we're working on its".)
I would think a hugely larger number of 28MP customers. But maybe Phase/Leaf/Sinar/Hassie have just resigned themselves to competing head-on with Canon/Nikon. Maybe they simply know they can't win, if they go head to head, so they're choosing the "more megapixels is better" avenue of marketing, (even if most people are throwing half the file away, by repro time).
The other thing I wonder is: Why do these MF companies sell to Digital Techs? For every time that I rent a camera/back from a Tech, that's one more back that'll never get sold. I wonder why Phase/Leaf/Sinar/Hassie don't write something into their Licensing Agreements that's similar to what those color profiling services write into theirs? In other words, you can buy our Profiling Package, but you can't write profiles for other people. It's only for your own use. Almost similar to iTunes, when you buy a song.
Phase sells three backs to a Digital Tech, and over the life of that back, maybe a hundred different photographers use it, and thus, never buy their own back.
It just makes you wonder.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Profile packeges are intellectual property, so what they are selling us is a license to use the software, and that license has restrictions, like the license we sell to a client to use our images. The backs are physical goods and cannot, I believe, be sold with strings attached.
-
The Profile packeges are intellectual property, so what they are selling us is a license to use the software, and that license has restrictions, like the license we sell to a client to use our images. The backs are physical goods and cannot, I believe, be sold with strings attached.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But the software could. What good is a P65+ back tethered to a G5 tower if you can't run CaptureOne on the G5, for another photographer?
-
I bet Leaf will make their 6x7 LCD better and will enable wifi/bluetooth to portable device on their new backs, much like they had with the old Valeos.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208685\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm betting on Leaf also. They came close with theirs, except of course, it doesn't work outdoors. James' point he brings up all time is a good one. Make the screen operate when tethered, it would cut down on running back to the computer.
I know it ain't goin' happen but I would love the MF reps that speak here to start to speak from the cuff about why some features are doable and others aren't...and why.
-
The other thing I wonder is: Why do these MF companies sell to Digital Techs? For every time that I rent a camera/back from a Tech, that's one more back that'll never get sold.
By extension,why does any photo product allow its products to be purchased by
rental companies.
If you determine that DB's can't be sold to Digital Techs then,by law,to avoid discrimination
you'll have to restrict sales of cameras,lenses,power packs,...... to rental outfits.
For every Profoto pack rented,for example, that's one less powerpack sold.
I wouldn't spend much time worrying about this :>))
Mark
-
From the rumors we all hear I think the only one that interests me is Leica. If they rumors are even half true, the idea of a new format, 35mm type body with a 4:3 ratio, fast lenses, autofocus, useable manual focus and the sweet spot of 30mpx is just perfect and could be the ONLY camera that I could use for everything I do.
Now whether Leica has the resources or funding to do this I don't know, though since I've had to return 3 leica lenses because they front of back focused about 5 feet I do know that if they do make that R-10, they had better hire some quality control people from Porsche to check each one.
JR
I read Michael Reichmann's thoughtful reply the other day, in that P65+ thread. As usual, it was well-reasoned, and not reactionary, like most commercial photographers would write. I thought he made good points.
But, in the end, if this is all about business, and sales, and dollars and cents, I would just wonder, how many potential photographers are there out there, that truly need a 60 megapixel back? Versus, say, the number of potential photographers that need a 28 megapixel back, (but one that truly works great, instead of still shipping with lots of asterisks and apologies and "we're working on its".)
I would think a hugely larger number of 28MP customers. But maybe Phase/Leaf/Sinar/Hassie have just resigned themselves to competing head-on with Canon/Nikon. Maybe they simply know they can't win, if they go head to head, so they're choosing the "more megapixels is better" avenue of marketing, (even if most people are throwing half the file away, by repro time).
The other thing I wonder is: Why do these MF companies sell to Digital Techs? For every time that I rent a camera/back from a Tech, that's one more back that'll never get sold. I wonder why Phase/Leaf/Sinar/Hassie don't write something into their Licensing Agreements that's similar to what those color profiling services write into theirs? In other words, you can buy our Profiling Package, but you can't write profiles for other people. It's only for your own use. Almost similar to iTunes, when you buy a song.
Phase sells three backs to a Digital Tech, and over the life of that back, maybe a hundred different photographers use it, and thus, never buy their own back.
It just makes you wonder.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
deleted
-
Some of us remember the good old days... All we had to complain about back then was the manufacturers not being to able to make an ISO 400 film that didn't show grain like sandpaper, or not being able to give us close, let alone accurate, color. We also complained that different batches of film had different ISO's and oh yes, let's not forget the printed ISO was rarely the actual ISO! Then there was the issue of actually being to find your favorite emulsion in stock when you needed it for an "emergency" shoot, or when the manufacturers just discontinued it for some unknown reason.
Yeah the good old days were far better than what we are faced with now...
,
-
Some of us remember the good old days... All we had to complain about back then was the manufacturers not being to able to make an ISO 400 film that didn't show grain like sandpaper, or not being able to give us close, let alone accurate, color. We also complained that different batches of film had different ISO's and oh yes, let's not forget the printed ISO was rarely the actual ISO! Then there was the issue of actually being to find your favorite emulsion in stock when you needed it for an "emergency" shoot, or when the manufacturers just discontinued it for some unknown reason.
Yeah the good old days were far better than what we are faced with now...
,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208707\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Photographers use to paint their own emulsion on glass.
What does that have to do with an lcd?
Then again when they were processing those plates in a tent, I bet they didn't have a hundred grand of expenses sitting outside waiting withh the clock ticking.
You shoot what you shoot which is different that what I shoot.
Not that one is better than the other, though one does come with a great deal more monitary pressure.
JR
-
Some of us remember the good old days... All we had to complain about back then was the manufacturers not being to able to make an ISO 400 film that didn't show grain like sandpaper, or not being able to give us close, let alone accurate, color. We also complained that different batches of film had different ISO's and oh yes, let's not forget the printed ISO was rarely the actual ISO! Then there was the issue of actually being to find your favorite emulsion in stock when you needed it for an "emergency" shoot, or when the manufacturers just discontinued it for some unknown reason.
Yeah the good old days were far better than what we are faced with now...
,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208707\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I remember not feeling like a Zork geek sitting at a computer for hours and hours and hours. And Hours. When I was a kid in LA I would play Zork on my Apple II for 20 hours straight. I feel that way with digital. If I charged full freight for the time in post I'd lose that client.
I still shoot lots of film, especially for editorials, and you know, with a small shoot, film takes about the same time to get a client proofs as it takes with MFDB, and you don't have to spend your time at a computer to do it. Canons are different because of the onboard JPGs, so lets get some on board jpegs Phase Leaf Sinar Blad!
-
How in the world did HCB, AA, EW, SS, RA make images without a screen let alone a histogram?
Come on why is a big pretty on camera display so important?
DR, frame rate, sensor size, ISO sensitivity and noise are all key factors to a MFDB that can't be gotten any other way.
You can see the images you took with big screen tethered, by zooming in on your back, check exposure with a tiny histogram, measure with a lightmeter... all kinds of ways. Its not a make or break feature to a camera. The screen has zero affect on image quality. Again why is it so important?
-
How in the world did HCB, AA, EW, SS, RA make images without a screen let alone a histogram?
Come on why is a big pretty on camera display so important? The screen has zero affect on image quality. Again why is it so important?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mr Hiss,
What do you shoot? What do you do for a living?
The subject line of this thread was about the appropriate camera/features for advertising photography. In that line of work, there's generally always at least one, if not more, ADs or CDs in tow, that need to see and sign off on what you're shooting. In the old days, you'd shoot a polaroid, stand around and fold it, and they'd give the thumbs up or down. Now, with no polaroid, you either hire a Tech, with all his mess and cables and drudgery, or you have a USABLE LCD on the medium format back. So you're either showing the AD the back of the camera (LCD) or you're walking him/her up to the Tech's monitor for approval.
Image quality is, of course, very important, but of equal importance is the communication with the client, during the shoot, and making sure that they are feeling good about the setups. Again, there is no more Polaroid.
Personally, I resist using Techs because of the Ball and Chain effect that it has on the project. On location, any and every time you move or explore a new shot, or a better angle, it's a whole affair of moving the cart, and the firewire cable access, and that dreaded effect of the whole damn crew slowing to begin to hover around the monitor, like they're being paid to watch TV or something, instead of looking/watching the live talent.
What is hard to understand about that?
And as you know, HCB or AA didn't really shoot for clients, and if AA did, from time to time, I'm sure he shot a polaroid and handed it to the AD that was in the factory with him.
-
How in the world did HCB, AA, EW, SS, RA make images without a screen let alone a histogram?
Come on why is a big pretty on camera display so important?
DR, frame rate, sensor size, ISO sensitivity and noise are all key factors to a MFDB that can't be gotten any other way.
You can see the images you took with big screen tethered, by zooming in on your back, check exposure with a tiny histogram, measure with a lightmeter... all kinds of ways. Its not a make or break feature to a camera. The screen has zero affect on image quality. Again why is it so important?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Deleted...Redundant reply
-
Uh guys, I shoot digital essentially 100% now... My point was that we have always complained about the products of our trade and will NEVER see, have, or even get close to, a "perfect" camera, perfect digital back or even a perfect film emulsion...
Sheesh,
-
How in the world did HCB, AA, EW, SS, RA make images without a screen let alone a histogram?
Come on why is a big pretty on camera display so important?
DR, frame rate, sensor size, ISO sensitivity and noise are all key factors to a MFDB that can't be gotten any other way.
You can see the images you took with big screen tethered, by zooming in on your back, check exposure with a tiny histogram, measure with a lightmeter... all kinds of ways. Its not a make or break feature to a camera. The screen has zero affect on image quality. Again why is it so important?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To tell you the truth its for the client, because you can't always shoot tethered, and if you are outside you are blind. If an AD can't approve a shot or approves a shot under pressure that s/he can't really see, you will not be working with that client again, and for $43k this should not be a issue.
-
Overall I think there is a lot of good ideas in this thread... but at the same time all the talk about the P65+ and H3DII-50 has gotten quite ridiculous. I don't post a whole lot, mostly because I don't always have time to constantly be posting back responses. Anyway, boring introduction aside... i'll probably anger the LL forum faithful, but here is what it boils down to....
I pretty much agree with everything said above in terms of specs... do people shooters need more than 28-30 mp? No... but will a large number of them buy a bigger back?? yes. Despite what everyone complains about on here, the P45+ and H3DII-39 were easily the best selling backs for each company and I have worked on so many magazine fashion shoots with the P45 it's ridiculous.
So we all complain that they aren't listening to us... but it seems to me that in general they are. Lets consider the P65+. Based on what Phase has mentioned this answers most complaints.
Its full frame, and if this variable resolution thing pans out well it will be an extremely versatile back. It could do lower resolution at faster speeds and with higher iso if needed. If this can really stand up to what is indicated, instead of having different backs for different applications you could have one back for all applications from landscape to people.
What about the LCD screen? This has been raised to such a big issue (and rightly so) that it seems if any manufacturer made a good screen, they could run away with the market. It would down right negligent not implement it. Michael indicated rather directly that phase at least is very aware of customers need for a better LCD. It seems to me that if companies like Phase and Leaf and hasselblad can produce rather amazing products like they do, there must be a darn good reason why no one has managed to implement a good screen. To put screens in perspective, Leaf's is the largest in size, but the lowest in resolution. Phase and Hasselblad have the exact same resolution despite differences in physical size. Dont get me wrong, the screens suck and need to be replaced 2 years ago, but we are also complaining about limitations of a camera that has not been released yet and that we have very little actual spec on.
Filesize? Here's some perspective: H25 raw file: 42mb, P65+ IIQ-S raw file: about 40mb. The difference here is that when the H25 came out a 100gb hardrive was a big deal and alot of money... now we get 1T drives at reasonable prices. Yes files are bigger, but the growth of cheap storage continues to expand at much much faster rates.
How do we upgrade ISO? I don't know, but apparently Phase does and we will find out at some point. I think the biggest fallacy we make is assuming that all CCD's regardless of whether they were designed 6 years ago or 6 months ago operate with the same limitations. We assume that bigger pixel automatically equals better quality, DR, ISO, etc. but perhaps in practicality this is not the case? I don't know, I don't design CCDs. I can however look at what has been done before. P30 has 6.8 micron pixels, P21 has 9 micron pixels... given that they were developed about the same time and both use micro lenses do we assume that the P21 will lend a better image? Higher ISO? Because in reality the image quality and DR is pretty much the same for both Cameras. Also the P30+ has ISO 1600 and the P21+ only 800. Why should we not expect a brand new CCD that was designed at least 3 years later not to offer significant advancements... and if we would not get better real world performance from 9 micron pixel in a newer sensor then what would be the point in making a 28mp FF back if we can use some advanced binning on a 60mp to produce the same thing?
Price wise, i'm not sure that there is much we can hope for. Canon can sell a 21mp camera for 8K because they dont need to make any money on it. They make there money from the millions of rebels and point and shoots they sell.
Ultimately it comes down to this, were are forming opinions and arguing the positives and negatives on backs that no one has used, no one has seen, and indeed have not been manufactured yet. Its time for a deep breath and to look forward to Photokina.
-
How in the world did HCB, AA, EW, SS, RA make images without a screen let alone a histogram?
Come on why is a big pretty on camera display so important?
DR, frame rate, sensor size, ISO sensitivity and noise are all key factors to a MFDB that can't be gotten any other way.
You can see the images you took with big screen tethered, by zooming in on your back, check exposure with a tiny histogram, measure with a lightmeter... all kinds of ways. Its not a make or break feature to a camera. The screen has zero affect on image quality. Again why is it so important?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Deleted...Redundant reply
-
Mr JDG:
No one would buy a P65+ and shoot it on Raw Small, and risk the jaggies that occur at ASA 200 and higher, from the compression. That's like buying a 5-series, but never getting it out of second gear. So let's clear that up quickly. So what is the file size of a P65 file in Raw Large, and how large is it once processed in 8bit RGB?
Why does Phase release this incomplete information then, knowing that the internet will be full of speculation, based on no facts, (since Phase does not disclose all of them)? I remember when my Apple 17 inch laptop was announced -- I read about it in the morning of the announcement, and picked up the phone and called my Apple dealer to order one. I asked him when they'd actually be in stock and ready to ship. He said, "Well, actually today". Announce a product, complete with details, and have it on the shelf, ready to sell and ship, THAT DAY. That is a business practice worth supporting. You guys wonder why there's so much misinformation? It's because Phase sets it up that way. (As do other MF companies). It does not have to be that way. You want informed customers -- present clear information.
And for the record, if Phase surprises us all and ships the P65 with a large killer LCD that can be trusted, I'll eat my words and be the first in line to buy one, at full retail. But what good is 60 megapixels if you're trying to light a portrait, on location, in the sunshine, and you're trying to achieve a good workable balance between the fill strobe and the Ambient, and trying to judge it off the LCD? This is why only people working with Techs will use these expensive, incomplete backs.
-
What about the LCD screen? This has been raised to such a big issue (and rightly so) that it seems if any manufacturer made a good screen, they could run away with the market. It would down right negligent not implement it. Michael indicated rather directly that phase at least is very aware of customers need for a better LCD. It seems to me that if companies like Phase and Leaf and hasselblad can produce rather amazing products like they do, there must be a darn good reason why no one has managed to implement a good screen. To put screens in perspective, Leaf's is the largest in size, but the lowest in resolution. Phase and Hasselblad have the exact same resolution despite differences in physical size. Dont get me wrong, the screens suck and need to be replaced 2 years ago, but we are also complaining about limitations of a camera that has not been released yet and that we have very little actual spec on.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=208721\")
There is a spec on the LCD for the P65+: [a href=\"http://www.phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalbacks/P65plus/TechSpecs.aspx]http://www.phaseone.com/Content/p1digitalb.../TechSpecs.aspx[/url]
Same old, same old. Perhaps they need to use that screen so you can run over the back with your car and put the back in the freezer.
-
Ultimately it comes down to this, were are forming opinions and arguing the positives and negatives on backs that no one has used, no one has seen, and indeed have not been manufactured yet. Its time for a deep breath and to look forward to Photokina.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208721\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with the wait part , but don't think for a moment, they don't want you to buy today.
And the manufacturer's should be ready for this type of discourse.
After all they produce the pdfs and press releases to one up each other, so if you want the buzz, expect the blowback.
If they can live up to the buzz, then fine . . . they're golden.
If not, well we all know the answer to this.
JR
-
How in the world did HCB, AA, EW, SS, RA make images without a screen let alone a histogram?
Come on why is a big pretty on camera display so important?
DR, frame rate, sensor size, ISO sensitivity and noise are all key factors to a MFDB that can't be gotten any other way.
You can see the images you took with big screen tethered, by zooming in on your back, check exposure with a tiny histogram, measure with a lightmeter... all kinds of ways. Its not a make or break feature to a camera. The screen has zero affect on image quality. Again why is it so important?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I kind of agree. I use histo 99% of the time for exposure - the screen is just to compose. However, my H3D22 screen really is not so hot compared to the one on my 5D. I can really tell whether things are sharp or not till I get to the computer. the 5D, no problem - can call it right there...
that said, I haven't seen the H3DII screen yet...but I'm already locked into my cam for now, so no upgrades coming thru. I dont need anymore than 22MPs - I'd rather have more glass and T/S adapter...
-
a great compromise would be a 4:3 ratio iPhone/Touch type device (with a bigger screen) that you could plug in, zoom in , then bust out some lo-rez JPGs to send off to respective parties, etc... no laptop necc.
-
a great compromise would be a 4:3 ratio iPhone/Touch type device (with a bigger screen) that you could plug in, zoom in , then bust out some lo-rez JPGs to send off to respective parties, etc... no laptop necc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208734\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jim,
One of the famous "promises" from Phase One was the fabled WIFI device that would do just that. That was on their Road Map, so that their loyal customers could plan their purchasing decisions based on solid trustable information. Uh, have you seen one of these WIFI devices anywhere? Let's ask Mr JDG about that.
Also, "just about to ship" was the CaptureOne version 4 Pro. When was that? Maybe almost two years ago now?
Mr Russell is correct -- if you're going to publish a Road Map, then don't complain about the blowback when it doesn't come to fruition.
Interesting too that Phase is lingering, for some reason, to allow the Canon 1ds3 to successfully tether to CaptureOne. Wonder why that is? Maybe a (planned) bump in the road, to keep the mutiny from continuing, away from Phase and toward Canon? Ever try to tether with EOS Utility, a 1ds3, and try to use CaptureOne from a Hot Folder? It's not a pretty sight, and I'm sure Phase One is in no hurry to remedy that.
Anyone that is curious about the effect that employing a Digital Tech on Location, and the (negative) effect that it has on your shooting, try this:
1. Go to Home Depot.
2. Buy a wheelbarrow.
3. Fill it with rocks. Heavy rocks. About as heavy as a G5.
4. Tie a 16 foot string from your camera to the wheelbarrow.
5. Hire a guy (at about $1500 a day) to push the wheelbarrow around with you all day, on location.
6. (Optional, for effect): While at Home Depot, rent a really loud Honda generator and put it in the wheelbarrow, on top of the rock pile.
7. Take your camera, and your new "assistant", and go out on location, and do about ten shots, in ten different locations. Wherever you go, he goes with you. NEVER UNTIE THE STRING, except at lunch.
8. Come home. See how you feel.
9. Imagine that is now your professional digital life. You and your new buddy, and his cute little wheelbarrow.
10. Or, just buy a Nikon D3, and trust your LCD.
-
"trying to light a portrait, on location, in the sunshine, and you're trying to achieve a good workable balance between the fill strobe and the Ambient, and trying to judge it off the LCD?"
You use a meter like you should be doing anyway instead of eyeballing it. Remember the good ole days?
Not saying that we shouldn't have the best lcd screen period, not just as good as the current dslr offering. Everyone's biggest frustration, paying loads of money only to be topped by 25k less.
Maybe Canon or Nikon should just start making MF digital backs, they've certainly the $..
-
Instead of rehashing the same old complaints about the incompetence of manufacturers that cause you endless frustration, you could be learning how to work through your anger and frustration by using Photoshop. Really. Here's a link to illustrate... You Suck at Photoshop_lesson_1 (http://www.mydamnchannel.com/Big_Fat_Brain/You_Suck_at_Photoshop__Season_1/YouSuckatPhotoshop1_398.aspx)
-
"trying to light a portrait, on location, in the sunshine, and you're trying to achieve a good workable balance between the fill strobe and the Ambient, and trying to judge it off the LCD?"
You use a meter like you should be doing anyway instead of eyeballing it. Remember the good ole days?
Not saying that we shouldn't have the best lcd screen period, not just as good as the current dslr offering. Everyone's biggest frustration, paying loads of money only to be topped by 25k less.
Maybe Canon or Nikon should just start making MF digital backs, they've certainly the $..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Absolutely use a meter, but then all you have to show the AD is the flash analyze function on the Sekonic showing "75%", indicating that 75% of the light is from an ambient source.
I meter, get ratios etc, then fine tune tethered. I know many people don't do this but for me its ritualistic.
-
a great compromise would be a 4:3 ratio iPhone/Touch type device (with a bigger screen) that you could plug in, zoom in , then bust out some lo-rez JPGs to send off to respective parties, etc... no laptop necc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208734\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So, why are any of us talking about this? Because we just saw the largest maker of medium format backs introduce something new and a lot of us we're probably hoping for something different and the details more forthcoming.
In a way I should wipe my brow and go whew, I was just saved by having to spend another 20 grand, because with my upgraded sticker system I'm good for at least the next generations.
JR
-
Anyone that is curious about the effect that employing a Digital Tech on Location, and the (negative) effect that it has on your shooting, try this:
1. Go to Home Depot.
2. Buy a wheelbarrow.
3. Fill it with rocks. Heavy rocks.
4. Tie a 16 foot string from your camera to the wheelbarrow.
5. Hire a guy to push the wheelbarrow around with you all day, on location.
6. Optional for effect: While at Home Depot, rent a really loud Honda generator and put it in the wheelbarrow, on top of the rock pile.
7. Take your camera, and your new "assistant", and go out on location, and do about ten shots, in ten different locations. Wherever you go, he goes with you. NEVER UNTIE THE STRING, except at lunch.
8. Come home. See how you feel.
9. Imagine that is now your professional life. You and your new buddy, and his cute little wheelbarrow.
10. Or, just buy a Nikon D3, and trust your LCD.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am not sure I get this. Do you happen to have a picture of this contraption? I am eager to get one myself.
As they say, Funny but True.
Ken
-
Jim,
One of the famous "promises" from Phase One was the fabled WIFI device that would do just that. That was on their Road Map, so that their loyal customers could plan their purchasing decisions based on solid trustable information. Uh, have you seen one of these WIFI devices anywhere? Let's ask Mr JDG about that.
Interesting too that Phase is lingering, for some reason, to allow the Canon 1ds3 to successfully tether to CaptureOne. Wonder why that is? Maybe a (planned) bump in the road, to keep the mutiny from continuing, away from Phase and toward Canon? Ever try to tether with EOS Utility, a 1ds3, and try to use CaptureOne from a Hot Folder? It's not a pretty sight, and I'm sure Phase One is in no hurry to remedy that.
Anyone that is curious about the effect that employing a Digital Tech on Location, and the (negative) effect that it has on your shooting, try this:
1. Go to Home Depot.
2. Buy a wheelbarrow.
3. Fill it with rocks. Heavy rocks.
4. Tie a 16 foot string from your camera to the wheelbarrow.
5. Hire a guy to push the wheelbarrow around with you all day, on location.
6. Optional for effect: While at Home Depot, rent a really loud Honda generator and put it in the wheelbarrow, on top of the rock pile.
7. Take your camera, and your new "assistant", and go out on location, and do about ten shots, in ten different locations. Wherever you go, he goes with you. NEVER UNTIE THE STRING, except at lunch.
8. Come home. See how you feel.
9. Imagine that is now your professional life. You and your new buddy, and his cute little wheelbarrow.
10. Or, just buy a Nikon D3, and trust your LCD.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It warms my heart to know that I succeeded in pissing off at least one person. I'm not sure why you expect me to have an answer to WIFI? You're right they shouldn't have announced a product roadmap that they couldn't stick to. I don't know why it was delayed, or what is happening with it.
I'm not here to support any company, and I have no problem complaining about things, but honestly lets be reasonable people and wait till we have something solid to complain about.
Obviously Mark III tethered support is not going to be the biggest priority for Phase One.. I can imagine anyone would be surprised by that. Of course everyone will probably be just as mad when they do get C14 Pro and the Mark III is slow as hell thanks to that USB interface.
-
Edit: * A back that shoots embedded previews large enough for a web gallery. (I don't know how many times I can edit this post, but as people respond here with good points, I'm adding them). Yes, there is nothing more frustrating than shooting a three day lifestyle job on location, (without a tech in tow), and then as you're packing the van at the end of the job, the AD comes up to you with that congratulatory beer in his hand, and says, "OK, we're outta here, we're headed to the bar. And oh by the way, this job is pretty hot; we'd just love to see web galleries by tomorrow afternoon, to begin the edit". It's at that point that you realize that you've now got to batch three days of eight setups per day, from the RAW into a 1200x900 sRGB JPG. So let's just mention: You won't be joining him in the bar.
-
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Shooting with a Hasselblad H3DII39 and importing into Phocus with large preview selected produces an imbedded jpeg that is 1200x900, you can then export this file almost instantaneously, it takes about 10 seconds to export 100 fast Jpegs at this size.
-
Absolutely use a meter, but then all you have to show the AD is the flash analyze function on the Sekonic showing "75%", indicating that 75% of the light is from an ambient source.
I meter, get ratios etc, then fine tune tethered. I know many people don't do this but for me its ritualistic.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not saying a light meter replaces something an AD can see , I'm just forever mystified by the 'no meter just look at the back and the histogram set' - I suppose it's fine for those that aren't critical and are not that particular about light, but for me it's tantamount. 1/8 of a stop makes all the beauty or ass in the world. Photography is getting dumbed down.
Techtalk, GFY with your nothing useful to say-ness. Your comment isn't even relevant.
-
You Suck at Photoshop_lesson_1 (http://www.mydamnchannel.com/Big_Fat_Brain/You_Suck_at_Photoshop__Season_1/YouSuckatPhotoshop1_398.aspx)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208740\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I'm not saying a light meter replaces something an AD can see , I'm just forever mystified by the 'no meter just look at the back and the histogram set' - I suppose it's fine for those that aren't critical and are not that particular about light, but for me it's tantamount. 1/8 of a stop makes all the beauty or ass in the world. Photography is getting dumbed down.
Anthony,
Yes, I agree, using a meter is great and all, but let's be honest -- when you're doing front fill on a face, and your main light is from the rear, whether it's the sun or a Profoto head, there's nothing like seeing it on a Polaroid or on a good LCD. And this is only to talk about how you'd light the shot yourself; this is not even getting into the issue of showing the shot to the AD.
All I'm saying is, if you're going to take Polaroid away from us, then at least give us something comparable to work with, if you're doing complex lighting. If film is dead, then please let there be a suitable large LCD to show the client, without the hassle of being forced to hire a Tech for each and every job.
And for the record, I agree with you about the snide comment from Mr Hasselblad.
And to JDG, this is a workaround for tethering with the 1ds3:
1. Put a CF card in Slot 1.
2. Put an SD card in Slot 2.
3. Set the camera to "record separately".
4. Set the camera to "Playback only Slot 2".
5. Set the Slot 1, the CF slot, to record RAW.
6. Set the Slot 2, the SC card, to record JPG SMALL.
7. Open EOS Utility, and link it to DPP.
8. Hook up the USB cable to the Mac.
When you shoot now, only the tiny JPG will be sent to EOS Utility. The RAW file is not sent over the puny USB cable. Instead of waiting eight seconds for the RAW to transmit, the JPG will be sent in one second. Almost instantly. If you set up the software correctly, you can have a full screen window, and each new shot fills the Mac screen.
The only (and big) downside is: The CF cards still need to manually downloaded to the Mac, since they're not being transmitted. But you can, at least with this method, shoot very fast, and the client can stand right next to the MacBook Pro, or whatever, and see what's being shot, almost instantly. The other downside is that whenever a card gets full, and you open the CF door, and then reinsert a new card and format, the software takes about thirty seconds to "refind" the 1ds3 camera. You gotta do a little dance while this is happening, because the camera locks up and shows "Busy" on the top LCD.
-
I have nothing to add to the camera commentary, however, I was in WalMart today, buying film, and noticed that they're selling an 8 megapixel no-brand digital camera with a zoom lens for $47, and it includes a 2.5-inch TFT LCD. So I asked myself, how much can a big LCD cost the manufacturer? $2? $3? This was $47 for an entire camera...
JC
-
I um... like 20th the full frame 645 option.
Using a bare minimum 2400dpi optical scan for film equivalent I get about 22MP minimum. 3200DPI equivalent would be better, though, but that raises it to 39MP.(ouch)
But this would of course be equal to film - as in throw it away and forget about it resolution. I suspect most photographers would be thrilled with a full frame 22MP 645 model, even.
-
A 30mp fullframe 645 will still be extremely expensive. Its not the pixels that drives the cost, its the size of the silicon in there. It wouldn't be substantially cheaper than the P65+ (which apparently can decrease its resolution?)
Cost of a chip increases with the square of the area increased (along with some other multipliers due to extra masking complications in production).
Cost will go down.. slightly .. eventually. Unfortunately cost of production with regards to physical size of a chip are nowhere near as fast decreasing as other areas of digital computing.
So you might as well just buy a P65+.
-
Shooting with a Hasselblad H3DII39 and importing into Phocus with large preview selected produces an imbedded jpeg that is 1200x900, you can then export this file almost instantaneously, it takes about 10 seconds to export 100 fast Jpegs at this size.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
thats great and all, but Phocus, while stunning, has the lame requirements of say Aperture 2 years ago - latest hardware, maxed out rams, etc, etc. wont run on a macbook, barely on a Pro - sh!t, I have to upgrade 2 towers w/ $400 of video cards and pop in some more ram just for it to run smooth in the studio...
the whole point is to not be tethered to a 17" computer all day...that can barely run the software
-
Not a rumor, but a fact that might interest you: Leica and Jenoptik (Sinar/Sinar backs) have signed a contract to work together more intensively on the development of new digital solutions. German link: http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Leica-und...tik-kooperieren (http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/Leica-und-Jenoptik-kooperieren)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208795\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yeah, I guess we will have to just wait and see with this one, they are being very tight lipped in solms..I too would like to see this new r10 be a new format and feel they would satisfy a lot of folks who just don't need the extra megapixels. They are a company which knows what photographers care about..optics and dr..I think they could make an ideal location/advertising camera. With their limited funds, developing a new system would seem beyond their means.. but we can hope.
-
Instead of rehashing the same old complaints about the incompetence of manufacturers that cause you endless frustration, you could be learning how to work through your anger and frustration by using Photoshop. Really. Here's a link to illustrate... You Suck at Photoshop_lesson_1 (http://www.mydamnchannel.com/Big_Fat_Brain/You_Suck_at_Photoshop__Season_1/YouSuckatPhotoshop1_398.aspx)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208740\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Everytime new product is introduced and the resulting response is not overwhelming positive, somebody always posts something like this, with a semi veiled comment mentioning frustration, ange, or complaint.
Actually what I read here is nothing even close to that. In fact if you read between the lines you will see a tight focus group giving opinions that most companies pay many thousands for.
I know some of the people here personally and they are busy photographers that own or have owned all forms of medium format backs. In the world of sales they would be classified as the target market.
Now once everythng is said and done, the new cameras are on the street, the results (if positive) I will bet that some of us mightl actually purchase one or more of these products, if it works as advertised and our needs are met.
In fact, that's the goal of all of this discusssion to work out what we need vs. what is possible.
Regardless I really don't see negative thought hear, I just see an honest opinion of what a lot of us would like to have in a camera.
Maybe in the world of camera making or brand loyalty that's not considered acceptable, but whether it is or isn't don't dismiss the op's analogy of medium format tethered and the cart of rocks, because on location the rocks would be eaiser to move around than a tech station and I doubt if the "rock assistant" would be two or three times the price of a photo assistant.
JR
P.S. Let's don't turn off the lights of this subject, just because at this point we agree to disagree.
I know some of the Phase people are they are enormously hard working and dedicated.
I am positive they want this to succeed and though some decisions I don't quite understand, I am sure they have every intention of giving us more today than we had yesterday.
I think it's important to understand that there is an different anticipation between the makers of a product than the end users. As makers they are trying to offer what they think will motivate us to buy, weighing every decision based on available technology, costs and time to market.
As users we have somewhat the same goals but must know the complete costs and useability vs. the actual real world benifits. Those costs don't stop at the back or the camera, but continue to storage, computer updates and most importantly time to preview, adjust, process and deliver.
We also must be 100% aware of what 'our" clients expect from us and not to beat a dead horse, few clients expect 300mb files though ALL clients do expect for us to capture some type of unique image and be sure that at the end of the day that goal is accomplished.
I think what this thread illustrates, especially in photograpy for commerce is the real world use vs. the lab world design are sometimes at odds.
The lcd really is at the heart of this. Meters, histograms and dynamic range can make for a more iintelligent process of getting the shot right (right comes in a lot of variations).
Regardless, nothing stirs, informs and pleasures a visual artist more than to see an exact represtantion of what will eventually get through post to print.
Nothing frustrates a visual artist more than using a preview system that is unwieldy and inhibits us from producing that unique image.
-
...
* Full frame 645. Yes, full frame, like the P65, but only 28-30 megapixles. No cardboard masks, no hyped-up reduced finders. Just full-frame 645.
* ASA ranges from 25-1600. You need 25 in order to do flash fill outside with Profotos, but you also need 1600 in case you find a great window in the back of a dark warehouse. No idea if this is technically possible, but the truth is the truth: we need 25-1600, in one back. Please figure it out.
...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You do realize that such a wide ISO range with a similar true DR for each ISO stop is not possible with today's CCD's or publicly available CMOS sensors. You do loose DR in some way if you have to compromise this big.
Hugely oversimplified the main factor for a CCDs ISO rating is its full well capacity, which until now is mostly given by 'sensor area' * 'fill factor'. The DR is then given by the full well capacity divided by the noise floor. The noise floor is a rather constant parameter when the sensor design have settled on a principle mostly dependent on temperature/read out speed. Changing sensel active area or using a ND keeps the noise floor at the same level effectively reducing the DR. Binning is the only way to increase DR or sensitivity I know of which doesn't negatively affect performance. And some kind of binning will be available in the new monster chips if rumours are true. But binning 4 sensels make your fancy 60MP back a 15MP back. New fancy binning patterns could give us 20MP or 30MP but with relatively less performance gain.
To make one chip perform equal with a 1600 ISO rating chip and a 25 ISO rating, the CCD would have to have a analogue gain before the AD and a sensor with enough headroom to allow >6 stops (!) of analogue amplification before readout. To allow this for today's 70-71dB sensors, one would need to find 36dB of increased S/N ratio which is in practice totally impossible, and extremely hard in theory.
One way to do this is having 6 times larger sensor area than today's sensors, but that is kinda hard unless you deploy a Fuji sensor design with a dual readout mechanism with equally different noise floors, which is extremely hard to achieve in practice. Using one readout circuitry would kill DR for the small sensels. One could utilize a depth factor and increase well capacity that way, but as far as I know of this is not commercially available technology yet. Lowering the noise floor further is nearly impossible and the achievements in that field have been remarkable the latests years, so it will be easier to look somewhere else for refinements of performance.
Forget the ISO range and ask for two backs or two modules for one MFDB housing, one optimized for ISO 25-50 and one for ISO 1600-3200. Photons and the generated electron volts are physical entities which isn't subject to Moore's law. You need area to collect enough photons.
Be realistic in what you ask for and you might get it. Be totally ignorant of what's practicably achievable with current commercially available technology and you will be ignored by the MFDB manufacturers and sensor producers.
But of course quantum leaps in technology happen, but rarely on command, so we could get a new breed of sensor technology one day, but photons will be photons and f-stops a logarithmic scale - that will not change. As I see it going up in sensor format without increasing resolution is the fruitful way to proceed, as that is playing by the physical laws and not trying to break them all the time. Tolerances are already silly with 6micron sensels and less for smaller formats. So please give me a 6x6 sensor (56x56mm) with 30MP +/- for a Sinar or Leaf AFi slr and my P2 LF.
If I write something strange please keep in mind that I am on holiday leave, religously following the tour
Forza Arvesen and Hushovd!
-
A 30mp fullframe 645 will still be extremely expensive. Its not the pixels that drives the cost, its the size of the silicon in there. It wouldn't be substantially cheaper than the P65+...
Cost will go down.. slightly .. eventually. Unfortunately cost of production with regards to physical size of a chip are nowhere near as fast decreasing as other areas of digital computing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208789\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Cost will go down with selling quantities as well....instead of 6000 per year worldwide ...60000 sold units per year would make a huge difference...in the final pricing of the sensor bought at the manufactures outlet store
-
Forza Arvesen and Hushovd!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208859\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Forza Schleck, Schumacher and GST
Sorry, couldn't resist
-
To make one chip perform equal with a 1600 ISO rating chip and a 25 ISO rating, the CCD would have to have a analogue gain before the AD and a sensor with enough headroom to allow >6 stops (!) of analogue amplification before readout. To allow this for today's 70-71dB sensors, one would need to find 36dB of increased S/N ratio which is in practice totally impossible, and extremely hard in theory.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208859\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think anyone expects equal performance at iso 1600!
-
I don't think anyone expects equal performance at iso 1600!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What would be a reasonable DR decrease for ISO1600, then? (shooting in available light in the back of a warehouse was mentioned)
I am not near that with my Aptus back so I have no experience of higher than ISO 400 as I find even ISO 400 a bit noisy, but I shoot mostly with plenty of light on 50 ISO and always wishing for less DOF on a table. Going 2-3 stops above my ISO400 performance should be doable in a full 645 back with same DR and noiselevels if microlenses is applied. But that would kill ISO 25 performance as the well capacity isn't big enough to handle microlenses and ISO 25. And microlenses is crap for LF use.
-
What would be a reasonable DR decrease for ISO1600, then? (shooting in available light in the back of a warehouse was mentioned)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208866\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
An SNR of 48dB should still look good, right? That implies an SNR of around 78dB at iso50, unless I'm missing something.
Going 2-3 stops above my ISO400 performance should be doable in a full 645 back with same DR and noiselevels if microlenses is applied.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208866\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dalsa mentions on their site that their fill factor is 80-90% already, so I don't think microlenses are worth it at this point.
-
I'll second this one. everytime I finished a editorial job, I'm asked to give all the thumbnail pics to the editor. And I have to wait another half hour when the macbookpro converting raws...for gods sick thats 600-1000 raws! really really boring, especially with my already tired to death legs.
Edit: * A back that shoots embedded previews large enough for a web gallery.
-
You do realize that such a wide ISO range with a similar true DR for each ISO stop is not possible with today's CCD's or publicly available CMOS sensors. You do loose DR in some way if you have to compromise this big.
I will go back and try to edit my original post then. I somehow knew that 25-1600 wasn't possible, but a man can dream, right? I will reduce my desired ASA range to 50-800. How does that work for you?
How does Nikon D3 achieve asa 100-25,000, or whatever that high number is?
-
I don't think anyone expects equal performance at iso 1600!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
NIKON does it.
2000 iso on the nikon looks much, much better than 800 iso on any medium format.
Actually the D3 hit just about everything that customers asked for. High iso, huge viewfinder, amazing lcd, rock solid build quality, in camera color/tone settings, hdv output, two cf card slots for backup, 2:3 and 4:3 in camera masks, new lenses and a price of $5,000.
You can buy 8 nikons for the price off the new medium format . . . 8.
JR
P.S. Nikon took a while to deliver what their customers asked for . . . but they did do it.
The things that are being asked of medium format we asked for 5 years ago and the only thing delivered by MF 5 years later is more mpx and a frame size .16 to .26 larger.
-
NIKON does it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
James, the original poster was talking about ISO 1600 performance EQUAL to base ISO performance. I doubt very much Nikon does that.
-
James, the original poster was talking about ISO 1600 performance EQUAL to base ISO performance. I doubt very much Nikon does that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208888\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's incredibly close. So close that you have to look at the exif data to know the setting.
Maybe a 15% difference, but for most of us that have used the Nikon 1000 iso looks better than the 200 iso.
This file has been messed with and obviously this is just a small jpeg with a lot of compression, but the original was smooth at 2000 iso. So smooth we added grain/texture to it.
1600 iso on any medium format would have looked like a snow storm.
(http://russellrutherford.com/sports/pictures/054rr_sports_june_08.jpg)
JR
-
NIKON does it.
2000 iso on the nikon looks much, much better than 800 iso on any medium format.
Actually the D3 hit just about everything that customers asked for. High iso, huge viewfinder, amazing lcd, rock solid build quality, in camera color/tone settings, hdv output, two cf card slots for backup, 2:3 and 4:3 in camera masks, new lenses and a price of $5,000.
You can buy 8 nikons for the price off the new medium format . . . 8.
JR
P.S. Nikon took a while to deliver what their customers asked for . . . but they did do it.
The things that are being asked of medium format we asked for 5 years ago and the only thing delivered by MF 5 years later is more mpx and a frame size .16 to .26 larger.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Kieretsu to which Cosmos belongs is the one with Mitsubishi at its head, which includes, among other companies, Nikon. Cosmos Scientific, the company that purchased Mamiya, does not appear to be a publicly traded company. To cut to the chase, I think Nikon is behind Mamiya, but in a very Japanese conglomerate kind of way.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208549\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If, as TMark pointed out, Nikon and Mamiya are cousins, and Mitsubishi decides they should play together, we might see a NikoPhamiya soon...
Cheers,
Kumar
-
I'll second this one. everytime I finished a editorial job, I'm asked to give all the thumbnail pics to the editor. And I have to wait another half hour when the macbookpro converting raws...for gods sick thats 600-1000 raws! really really boring, especially with my already tired to death legs.
Edit: * A back that shoots embedded previews large enough for a web gallery.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
(http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=208876\")
Capture One 4.0 has a web-gallery feature that takes about 1 minute per 300 images to create on a fast mac pro (my only experience is with phase backs in this regard). It's a really great tool and incorporates a great open-source javascript for navigation. The produced images are color-accurate sRGB conversions of the files WITH any adjustments you've made in Capture One (white balance, input profile, exposure, contrast etc etc).
Doug
Doug Peterson
[a href=\"http://www.captureintegration.com]Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer[/url]
Personal Portfolio (http://www.doug-peterson.com)
-
"If, as TMark pointed out, Nikon and Mamiya are cousins, and Mitsubishi decides they should play together, we might see a NikoPhamiya soon..."
Some disclaimers: I research clients' corporate structures, so when some "small" store opens and wants me to shoot signage and some catalogue work, and they claim poverty when it comes to the budget, I can say they should ask their sister companies for some marketing budget, especially when the sister corps are Urban and Anthroplogie. I have only done this for European and US companies because I understand how their regulated disclosures work, I read English and German, and have passable French. The Japanese system is beyond me. So I'm about 60% on the Nikon connection.
Keep in mind that the Kieretsu don't function like they did in the past. Much less centralization, and there is more cross polination in terms of suppliers, from what I can tell.
If anyone is in Tokyo and has passable Japanese, I'm sure there is a registry that lists the ownership interests and corporate forms of Japanese companies.
-
... 2:3 and 4:3 in camera masks ...
actually, the d3's alternate mask is a 5:4, and not a 4:3.
though, i suspect, a 4:3 mask could also be implemented,
at Nikon's choosing.
-
It's incredibly close. So close that you have to look at the exif data to know the setting.
Maybe a 15% difference, but for most of us that have used the Nikon 1000 iso looks better than the 200 iso.
This file has been messed with and obviously this is just a small jpeg with a lot of compression, but the original was smooth at 2000 iso. So smooth we added grain/texture to it.
1600 iso on any medium format would have looked like a snow storm.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
D3 has a base iso 200. Thus if comparing the overall noisines and the scale of usable isos of for example P30+ @ iso 1600 to D3, then we should use iso 3200 on Nikon. Or in the case of backs with base iso 50 then we should compare iso 400 to iso 1600 on D3 (or P1 800 to D3 3200). Actually some of Thierry's posted examples of latest Sinars shot at 800 look remarkably clean.
Cheers,
J
-
D3 has a base iso 200. Thus if comparing the overall noisines and the scale of usable isos of for example P30+ @ iso 1600 to D3, then we should use iso 3200 on Nikon. Or in the case of backs with base iso 50 then we should compare iso 400 to iso 1600 on D3 (or P1 800 to D3 3200). Actually some of Thierry's posted examples of latest Sinars shot at 800 look remarkably clean.
Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209013\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Uh, ok . . . I guess.
If it's not possible to go 100 base to 800 (actually I find 800 with the P30+ to be on the very edge of the limit) then I'd be good with a 200 iso base medium format back.
Then again there are other things in play. first medium format lenses and cameras have more of a bellows factor than 35mm cameras (depending on lenses) and the lenses are usually 1 to 2 stops slower across the range, requiring, at least 1 more stop down to produce the same depth of filed.
Also when you compare high iso, it's usually not under well lit conditions. An overexposed strobe image shot at 800 iso on a medium format back can look clean, though the real world use is usually a slightly down lit room, with continuous lighting, then the noise starts to show.
I don't expect a medium format back to be equal to dslr in speed or iso, but I would like to see more than we have now.
I can give a lot of editorial and commercial examples where a very clean 800 iso with continuous lights like hmi, or Kino's for fill is needed.
It seems every project we make the decisions on which camera system to bring along and for studio, lots of light, I'm good with my medium format backs, but for a project like retail or fashion editorial where the day will be long, the light is changing and you work to the last ounce of the day, you know you can get it done a lot easier with a camera that has higher iso.
Still, Nikon has found something in high iso.
(http://russellrutherford.com/d3_1ds2.jpg)
JR
-
Uh, ok . . . I guess.
If it's not possible to go 100 base to 800 (actually I find 800 with the P30+ to be on the very edge of the limit) then I'd be good with a 200 iso base medium format back.
Then again there are other things in play. first medium format lenses and cameras have more of a bellows factor than 35mm cameras (depending on lenses) and the lenses are usually 1 to 2 stops slower across the range, requiring, at least 1 more stop down to produce the same depth of filed.
Also when you compare high iso, it's usually not under well lit conditions. An overexposed strobe image shot at 800 iso on a medium format back can look clean, though the real world use is usually a slightly down lit room, with continuous lighting, then the noise starts to show.
I don't expect a medium format back to be equal to dslr in speed or iso, but I would like to see more than we have now.
Still, Nikon has found something in high iso.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209021\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually I was referring more to the original question of having a huge range of isos vs what's realistically available today -> maximum usable iso compared to the base iso.
Photographing in low light is probably similar to climbing or some other serious sports, you run out of all the luck at once and not by degrees and of course it would be nice to freeze action with a long lense in a dark corner or under street lights. It may take a while before a "real" hi-iso back is introduced if ever since most of the backs do not have a variable iso, it's all done in raw conwersion software. Btw that's why it is possible to do an "iso upgrade" without changing hardware. But who knows, maybe even a real hi-iso back for people shooters happens some day.
There is some anticipation over the D3xyz-whatever. Interesting to see whether Nikon succeeds in incorporating any of the impressive hi-iso capabilities that you so nicely demonstrated of the D3 (compared to Ds2).
Cheers,
J
-
Actually I was referring more to the original question of having a huge range of isos vs what's realistically available today -> maximum usable iso compared to the base iso. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209028\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I tested the Nikon D3 against the Canon 1ds3 today.
I guess it was not a fair test, because every new camera feels very foreign in your hands, the first time. The Nikon felt very heavy and very clunky to me, and the LCD felt very equal (not better) than the 1ds3. I should say that I'm not a zoomer-inner on the LCD, I never do that. So maybe I didn't take the Nikon LCD thru its full paces.
I forgot to shoot the D3 at ASA 1600, so my test was a dud. But I did shoot it at 6400. Tonight, I opened two files -- the 1ds3 at 1600, and the D3 at 6400, and the D3 was noisy at 6400 but not bad, and the Canon was shockingly good at 1600; far better than Mr Russell's example of the 1ds2.
I came home, felt sort of disappointed in the Nikon, and really, more than anything, still wished for a kickass MediumFormat mobile camera. I wish I could put a digital back on a Mamiya 7 body; that kind of feeling in your hands, but not a rangefinder. Really, I want a giant 1ds3, with a 4 inch LCD, and an even larger viewfinder to look through. It will never happen.
-
deleted
-
Having owned the 1Ds3 for 3 years and now using a 1Ds3 for about 4-5 months, yes, high ISO is notably improved on the 1Ds3. Canon's DPP software and its noise control parameters do very good work. I suspect a 1Ds3 file downsized to the same size as a Nikon D3 file would put up a very good fight.
-
I find it interesting that we're comparing iso and noise on MF & 35mm and ignoring the actual output size.
a 90-95MB 800iso MF file scaled down to A4 (roughly the size of a D3 file) is going to look quite good as some/ most of the noise disappears with the lost pixels.
On the other hand, a native D3 file (35MB?) at 800iso, when scaled up to 90-95MB, is not going to look as good at that MF file at its native size...
Viewing files on screen at 100% only tells half the story...actually less than a half as we did not mention CMYK conversion, dot gain etc....
My 2¢
Yair
-
Viewing files on screen at 100% only tells half the story...actually less than a half as we did not mention CMYK conversion, dot gain etc....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209062\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mr. Shahar,
You are correct. I will rez-down the 1ds3 1600 file today and compare it, same size, to the D3 6400 file, and somehow try to post it.
But I don't want to get off-topic here. My main purpose in starting this thread was to send up a flare, to any manufacturers reading here, that's it's not just about the megapixels. It's about Business. And in my case, Business means showing the shot to the Art Director, (hopefully) without the cost and burden of being forced to employ a $1500 a day Digital Tech for each and every job. The quality, resolution, and overall feel of the in-camera LCD is vitally important, and the importance of this interaction between photographer and client will hopefully not be overlooked. The LCD plays a vital role in the comfort of the client. And when you've got a happy client, that means return business. And when you have return business, you have the confidence to drop $60k or so on a MF system.
A G5 and Eizo monitor should not be required in order to shoot a small job. I simply feel, as others have stated here, that several years have now gone by since the introduction of the MF digital back, and with the intro of the Hassie50 and the Phase60, all we've really added is more megapixels. Features are still lagging; workarounds and excuses are still prevalent. The great ship of MF is slowing down. So many of my friends (and myself included) want to shoot medium format, but the costs, and hassle factors, are simply sending them to Canon and Nikon. What a shame. Medium format just has a look and feel, and in the end, 35 is just 35, and so many people are still rooting for Medium Format to survive.
-
Mr. Shahar,
You are correct. I will rez-down the 1ds3 1600 file today and compare it, same size, to the D3 6400 file, and somehow try to post it.
But I don't want to get off-topic here. My main purpose in starting this thread was to send up a flare, to any manufacturers reading here, that's it's not just about the megapixels. It's about Business. And in my case, Business means showing the shot to the Art Director, (hopefully) without the cost and burden of being forced to employ a $1500 a day Digital Tech for each and every job. The quality, resolution, and overall feel of the in-camera LCD is vitally important, and the importance of this interaction between photographer and client will hopefully not be overlooked. The LCD plays a vital role in the comfort of the client. And when you've got a happy client, that means return business. And when you have return business, you have the confidence to drop $60k or so on a MF system.
A G5 and Eizo monitor should not be required in order to shoot a small job. I simply feel, as others have stated here, that several years have now gone by since the introduction of the MF digital back, and with the intro of the Hassie50 and the Phase60, all we've really added is more megapixels. Features are still lagging; workarounds and excuses are still prevalent. The great ship of MF is slowing down. So many of my friends (and myself included) want to shoot medium format, but the costs, and hassle factors, are simply sending them to Canon and Nikon. What a shame. Medium format just has a look and feel, and in the end, 35 is just 35, and so many people are still rooting for Medium Format to survive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Beautifully spoken.
-
, and so many people are still rooting for Medium Format to survive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209123\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This would be like funny, if this conversation was going on the old RG forums 3 or 4 years ago, but the non funny thing is this same exact conversation has been going on for 3 or 4 years.
JR
-
Again, I have nothing against Techs, but let's stay on the topic of Money.
Take your investment in the MF camera, the back, the lenses, the computers, (the servers/RAIDs), and all the related $99 items that we all know that are necessary. Then don't forget to factor in the cost of being forced to use a Tech for however many shooting days you shoot per year. Multiple that number of days times $1500-1800 per day. And don't forget that some of those days will be on the road, so add to that the Tech's airfare, and then their hotel room, and then their per diem, (and their excess baggage charges).
Compare that to having a MF camera with a killer LCD that you could actually use, and show a client, (unlike the Leaf, Phase, Sinar, or pretty much anything out there right now). If you had that DB, you could train a number of freelance assistants in how you want your cards downloaded. If one of them was booked, you just call the next one. So now you're paying $300 or $400 per day for an assistant to simply take a CF card, stick it in a Reader, and download it to your 17" laptop, into a folder, and then hit "Sync" to the external drive that's velcroed to the lid of your 17". If they try to charge you extra for "being a Tech, since they're downloading", you simply cross them off the list and move on.
Run that math, and compare the annual numbers. And then add those Tech costs to the same Excel area as the MF DB investment, because in the current sorry state of LCDs, you can't have a DB without employing a Tech, if the job is of any size at all. And let's be honest, everyone no matter the budget is now spoiled to seeing every frame pop up. Even editorial.
Maybe if we speak Dollars And Cents, the manufacturers might understand for a change.
And if you can't give us an LCD, then give us an Output Port, to run a cable out of the DB and into some kind of Iphone, with a decent screen. Even that would be a massive improvement.
In the end, when there is $60k or so of investment, it does come down to Dollars and Cents, especially in this new economy.
-
I do really wonder who will buy a 50/60 mpx backs. I think maybe it's the person that equates those numbers to format size, like 35mm to 8x10, not knowing that at some point you just aren't going to see a difference in print, (any print) and unlike moving from 35mm to 8x10 the look of the image doesn't change that much because for the most part were still just shooting to the two smallest frame sizes available in professional photography.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209141\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
James, if you seriously think that between 35 digital and MF digital "the look of the image doesn't change that much" then you need to shoot something besides your P30+...
Don't get me wrong, the P30+ is an excellent back, especially for what it excels at -- speed and ISO -- but the P30+ does render more softly and a bit less DR than backs without micro-lenses... Compare ISO 100 or 200 files from a 1Ds3 to any past generation 22MP digital file -- P25, Leaf 22 or Mamiya ZD -- and the difference is night and day; at least as much as the difference between 35mm film and 4x5 film... (And yes I know this last comment will piss off a few 1Ds3 owners, but it's a fact...)
I think the issue is most photographers have forgotten how bad 35mm film was compared to full-frame digital. Personally I think 35mm digital pushes MF film and MF digital pushes 4x5 film -- and yes, some of the latest P&S digicams push the best 35mm film cameras of 5 years ago... (And yes, I know this last comment will piss off a few 35mm film shooters, but it's also a fact...)
Cheers,
-
deleted
-
James, if you seriously think that between 35 digital and MF digital "the look of the image doesn't change that much" then you need to shoot something besides your P30+...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209148\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you Jack, your right and I just sold my wife's Infiniti, rented out my NY space to a Rock Band and put a new P65 plus on order. In fact I'm so concerned I thought I just buy two, because I don't want the quality of my work to drop off.
Man am I glad I dodged that bullet.
Much appreciated.
JR
-
And you know me well enough -- or at should by now -- to know that's not what I meant James... I would rather own a P30+ than a pair of 1Ds3's 8 days a week. In fact, I would love to find a good deal on a used P30+ just for it's advantages. My only point was your comment -- so let's come back to it:
"...not knowing that at some point you just aren't going to see a difference in print, (any print) and unlike moving from 35mm to 8x10 the look of the image doesn't change that much because for the most part were still just shooting to the two smallest frame sizes available in professional photography."
So answer me this: IF you seriously believe what you stated in that quote, then why aren't you shooting a 1Ds3 instead of your P30+?
Cheers,
-
* About 28-30 megapixels. That's all we need. Seriously. We're throwing away most of the data already, even from the Canon or the P21, when it comes time to size for repro size. Make a big sensor well, or whatever it's called, to reduce noise or diffraction, but only give us 28-30mp. Anything else will get thrown away.
* Full frame 645. Yes, full frame, like the P65, but only 28-30 megapixels. No cardboard masks, no hyped-up reduced finders. Just full-frame 645.
* ASA ranges from 25-1600.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
On-sensor binning/downsampling might give 645 format, 30MP, decent ISO 1600 from the new Dalsa-Phase One sensor, but how about this as a variant:
Update the lens systems (focal length choices) and viewfinders to match the 44x33mm format of the smallest current MF sensors. (I would dare to call this "Full Frame" as opposed to being a "crop format" once the lens choices and viewfinders fit the sensor size, if I am right that good control of FOV, perspective, DOF and such and a good VF are the main virtues associated with "Full Frame".)
Current sensors in that 44x33mm format already give the desired pixel count and will give about 40MP with the new generation of 6 micron pixels, and with micro-lenses, could be able to get to at least fairly good ISO 1600; especially with downsampling from the 40MP option of the new lower noise photosite designs.
For ISO 25, add ND filters.
-
So now you're paying $300 or $400 per day for an assistant to simply take a CF card, stick it in a Reader, and download it to your 17" laptop, into a folder, and then hit "Sync" to the external drive that's velcroed to the lid of your 17". If they try to charge you extra for "being a Tech, since they're downloading", you simply cross them off the list and move on.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209146\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with that. The process you describe is no different than keeping the 120 rolls labeled correctly & insync with the film notes sheets of yesteryear. Probably the most important aspect of an assistant's job on my shoots. The basic handling of the laptop & CF cards to me is an expected part of the skills of a photo assistant and definitely doesn't elevate them to a "tech". Hell my 14 year could handle the job without blinking.
Great topic GWHITF. Thanks for starting it.
Ken
-
I would rather own a P30+ than a pair of 1Ds3's 8 days a week. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209173\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well I wouldn't. Not for a location advertising shoot. And that is the point of this topic. Right now if the 1Ds III is suitable for shooting the job (in in most of my cases it is more than) then I am not going to add the pain as the current MF systems do. Though the Canon does have a few short comings, some of which can be overcome in one way or another, the system allows me to concentrate on the important part: the images that need to be made.
Ken
-
Current sensors in that 44x33mm format already give the desired pixel count and will give about 40MP with the new generation of 6 micron pixels, and with micro-lenses, could be able to get to at least fairly good ISO 1600; especially with downsampling from the 40MP option of the new lower noise photosite designs.
For ISO 25, add ND filters.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209175\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This smells like a perfect application for Mr. Russell's side business of manufacturing stickers. If you call it "full frame" then it is full frame, right? I'm sure Mr. Tech Talk will rally behind Hasselblad's logic of doing that.
All Mr. Russell needs to do is measure the size of the P30 cropped sensor, and then make a sticker and call it "Full Frame 540", instead of "cropped 645", and the marketing guys at Hasselblad will follow suit.
And then make another sticker that says "1600" even though to get to 1600 you've got to move that Exposure slider bar up a couple of notches.
It's all about how you set it up inside your mind. Just add the word "hybrid" to your car, even though it's a Chevy Suburban, and all of a sudden, you can hold your head high in the supermarket parking lot.
-
I forgot to shoot the D3 at ASA 1600, so my test was a dud. But I did shoot it at 6400. Tonight, I opened two files -- the 1ds3 at 1600, and the D3 at 6400, and the D3 was noisy at 6400 but not bad, and the Canon was shockingly good at 1600; far better than Mr Russell's example of the 1ds2.
Really!! I find it's no contest. I shot side by side with a friend - him with his 1DsIII and me with my D3. We compared my shots at ISO 3200 with his at ISO 1600 and we both agreed the D3 files were a lot less noisy, and just as sharp (maybe even a little sharper).
As for the LCD, he was drooling over the D3.
-
Well I wouldn't. Not for a location advertising shoot. And that is the point of this topic. Right now if the 1Ds III is suitable for shooting the job (in in most of my cases it is more than) then I am not going to add the pain as the current MF systems do. Though the Canon does have a few short comings, some of which can be overcome in one way or another, the system allows me to concentrate on the important part: the images that need to be made.
Ken
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209178\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And I respect that too -- use the best tool for YOU to do YOUR job... But at the same time, you should respect it isn't necessarily going to be the best tool for others to do theirs.
Cheers,
-
And I respect that too -- use the best tool for YOU to do YOUR job... But at the same time, you should respect it isn't necessarily going to be the best tool for others to do theirs.
Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209182\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I concur. It's about what you do, your clients needs in your location.
I'll add that a 1DS3 would NEVER fly in NYC for advertising and I've never seen one used for any serious ad work. No art buyer at any agency that I work with would accept less than a MFDB*
Perhaps the term 'advertising' needs to be clarified here. If you are calling catalogue work, stock, look books and the like advertising then ok. You want to talk campaign, in-store display, billboard, magazine spread well then...
*this is my experience and I'm sure there may be instances that differ, but my experience tells me 90% of the time at least this to be true.
It's about full potential, multi-purposing and the ability to tweak and capture as much detail as possible.
The DS3 is a great camera, don't get me wrong.
-
Read this regarding the current market: http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2014 (http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2014)
And this is the market that is greeted by $40k plus digital backs?
-
It's about full potential, multi-purposing and the ability to tweak and capture as much detail as possible.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209191\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Anthony,
I agree about this, in theory. But let's not forget something that I discovered when testing the two cameras. It's about the difference in optics between 35 and 645:
Say that your goal was to shoot a car interior. Or a room interior. And say that the goal of the shot was to capture "as much detail as possible". While there will be more inherent information in the P45+ file, than say a 1ds3 file, you have optics that are working against you in 645, due to less inherent depth of field. And sometimes, just stopping down the lens is not going to get you razor sharpness; it'll get you sorta-sharpness, but not tack-sharpness.
When I considered buying the 1ds3, I set up a silly still life shot at my place. It was a bunch of items of varying color and texture. I shot the P30+, and then framed up the same shot, on the same tripod, with the 1ds3. Same vantage point. Strobe, at something like f11 or 16. There were a couple of items in the foreground of this still life shot -- with the 1ds3 those items were tack sharp, but with the P30+, those items were soft. And there is "good soft" and "bad soft", as you know. One looks like a mistake, and the other looks cool. When it's just barely out of focus, it looks like a mistake. That's how the P30+ file looked, due to it being medium format, and carrying less focus deep into the frame.
I took both files, and I rezzed up the 1ds3 file to the same width as the P30+ file, and then I made two 16x20s, one from each file. Since the 1ds3 file was focused through and through, it appeared "better" than the P30+ file, due to carrying focus deeper into the frame. And even holding the prints up very close, the 1ds3 definitely held its own next to the P30+.
So I'd think for that car interior photographer, or that room photographer, where he wants as much sharp as possible, the "lack of 3D effect" of 35 might just work for you.
But I understand too, in NYC, you've got to show up with the Big Guns, or else you're not a Big Gun. Perception alone means a lot. Maybe even more than reality. But again, it all comes back to your own style; whether you're a ShallowFocus Guy, or a EverythingSharp Guy. (Or, whether you're willing to show up with a P45+ and maybe twelve Profoto packs, in order to carry focus front to back).
-
This smells like a perfect application for Mr. Russell's side business of manufacturing stickers. If you call it "full frame" then it is full frame, right?
... call it "Full Frame 540", instead of "cropped 645"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I expected that someone would object, so here is my question:
No one disuptes that 36x24mm sensor combined with lenses, viewfinders and such designed for 36x24mm format is "Full Frame", and my imagined system is in a larger format than that, so
Please give me your definition of "Full Frame" which includes 36x24mm format sensors with matching lenses, viewfinders and such, but excludes a system using a larger format like 44x33mm or 48x36mm, also with a full matching system of lenses, viewfinders and such.
[Edit] More specifically, since you raised the idea of calling it "cropped 645", what is cropped if the lens system, viewfinder and such are all matched to the sensor format, anymore than a 35mm format system is "heavily cropped 645"?
Note: Hasselblad's "Full Frame 48mm" does not meet my criteria; it lacks important things like an appropriate normal lens, of 60 to 70 mm.
Hint: you cannot use a criterion like "image sensor diagonal fills the image circle of all lenses", because probably no SLR system satisfies that: telephoto lenses often have image circles substantially larger than the format for which they are designed. Some "excess" image circle is common and irrelevant. (Telephoto optical designs typically have angular coverage of about 50º, about as for a "normal" lens, though lens barrels may vignette this considerably.)
Perhaps the concept is that Full Frame means reproducing a well established format for film-based camera systems.
That goal does have its place, in particular for owners of substantial lens collections for some such film format, so any new format has a disadvantage there. But when the extra cost of the larger sensor exceeds the cost of the new lenses needed to go with the new format, it might be an inadequate reason to stay with the old format.
P. S. I do not particularly expect that any MF system will in fact offer my imagined 44x33mm or 48x36mm format lens additions, though Pentax did plan on adding a 55mm normal lens for its planned 44x33mm format DMF body.
But if the extra cost of full 645 sensors puts off a sufficient number of potential customers and to many of them are changing to 35mm, maybe action will be taken on a "compromise" format.
-
I'll add that a 1DS3 would NEVER fly in NYC for advertising and I've never seen one used for any serious ad work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209191\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, that is NYC - the place where they made dye transfers & retouched them in the good old days and the images were soft like a fresh poo.
I am shooting national work for AT&T, Uniroyal, two different states Blue Cross/Blue Shield just to name a few examples. All of this with either a 1DsII or III. I am sorry that your marketplace demands more than what may be needed. To me it is a preception that someone has let get out of control. The old "your not a real photographer unless you have..." BS.
I think the point of this thread is that there is still the pain with MF (the tech for example) that the OP is expressing shooting advertising - on location. From my experince (and I have it) the location shooter is a less common in the NYC area. Yes, there are some but the majority of shooters are in the studio - where shooting with MF is going to be a bit easier.
Ken
-
most of the requirements of this list will be met by the P65...this is the first ime in years that i have the feeling somebody actually listened....the concept of cramming 60mipx in there and then letting the photographer decide how to use them is great imo....i don't think i would ever shoot that thing at anything more then 30 mpix....which is the perfect size, really still a little big, but tons of room for cropping....this could be like those fuji DSLR which use double the pixels to get higher DR...and if this P65 gets 12.5!!!! at 60mpix, maybe it will get 13.5 at 30mpix? insanity! and that should really work wonders for clean high iso as well.....as for the price....why on earth should it be any cheaper? does anyone here really think that phase is rubbing their hands thinking they will make a killing?
the whole screen debate is a little funny...yes the D3 screen is amazing....still is nowhere near a polaroid...sizewise and still can't sit on the table next to the others for the rest of the day....(to play around with, see the progress, play with the layout...just like in the old days...).....
tethered shooting is a blessing and a curse....great to know when you got the shot, but we all know there could be that better one with the unexpected something, the one you used to shoot just one more roll for....
the curse....is the huddling and the microdetail before post that nobody really should see and that can scare the hell out of less informed clients....
leaf had a bluetooth solution years ago....people just loved it....a jpeg popping up with every shot on a HP pda...i think(as far as i remember) you could also browse the whole shoot (no cards, just the imagebank, which i would not have a problem with either....)
i would love to have a wifi solution like that with previews popping into an iphone or ipod touch....that would be the polaroid of the digital age...
i also feel that 2 card chambers or at least shooting to card AND HD (when shooting tethered) should be standard....instant back-up...
the only things i want out of a MF system are: BRIGHT and LARGE viewfinder..even focusing the P30 is tough wide open....bigger sensor and more pixels does not make it easier....don't care about AF much, would not use it anyway but would like AF assist...
rotating back....rotating back...rotating back...
great glass....
-
the only things i want out of a MF system are: BRIGHT and LARGE viewfinder..even focusing the P30 is tough wide open....bigger sensor and more pixels does not make it easier....don't care about AF much, would not use it anyway but would like AF assist...
rotating back....rotating back...rotating back...
great glass....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209237\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I shot a job last week in New York with my 1ds3, (but don't tell Anthony). I had actually planned on shooting color neg in my Hasselblad, but it got too complicated. (That's another conversation). But at the end, I shot one roll of 220 for me. When I picked up that Hasselblad 203 and looked through that huge gorgeous viewfinder, it was like that scene in Wizard of Oz, where it turns from B/W to color. My jaw actually dropped to the ground, it was that good.
-
I concur. It's about what you do, your clients needs in your location.
I'll add that a 1DS3 would NEVER fly in NYC for advertising and I've never seen one used for any serious ad work. No art buyer at any agency that I work with would accept less than a MFDB*
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209191\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I love the word NEVER.
I've heard that a lot. I will never stop shooting film, I will never use anything but an RZ, I will never show an inkjet print. Yea, I love the word Never.
This is a public forum so a lot of this is difficult to address (and risky).
Anthony, I assume your in New York and yes NY is the center of the world when it comes to photography, but it's not the only place high media value, high cost, high quality photography is produced, though few people in our industry would believe that.
But your right, NY production is usually big, with white walls, 4 huge Breezies, two digital techs and a digital back hooked to the multiple cart 'o rocks.
You also have to remember that NY is the epicenter of photographers that very reluctantly moved from film and don't really want to know about digital, so the obvious request when hiring a digital company for a big project is "give me the "BIG" camera, becuase truth be told, they don't know the difference between a 20, 30, 40 or 60mpx file and think digital manipulation is the second installment payment on the Imac they bought at the Apple Store in Soho.
We all play this game and I personally own a lot of cameras and on a large job all of them come out on a table. Sometimes I use them all, sometimes just one, but the site of two large folding tables covered with over a hundred grand worth of equipment does make a client feel they're getting their money's worth . . . same with the two tech stations, the multiple monitors and all the busy little bees running out of the studio to get those special lattes and cupcakes.
That's just part of the biz, so I accept it.
Then again I can't count the number of times I've started a project tethered to one of the tech stations, (sorry, cart o' rocks), hooked by my 16' string and ended up shooting 50% of the job with a smaller camera.
Usually when that happens I know there is about a 85% chance the client will pick an image from the smaller camera.
Don't misunderstand this, as some of my best (and lately most noticed) work has come from the medium format cameras, nobody should fool themselves into thinking big work can't be done with a smaller camera.
After all Annie shoots the Queen with a Canon and a zoom. That's pretty big.
Anyway today I went by a camera dealer and for the first time held a 1ds3.
What an amazing viewfinder.
So could I shoot all of my work with a Canon?
I think I'll answer this one off line, but I do have a few questions for Anthony and everyone here.
How many digital backs do you own?
How many have you owned.
How often do you rent them?
Ah yes, the target market.
JR
-
Anyone that is curious about the effect that employing a Digital Tech on Location, and the (negative) effect that it has on your shooting, try this:
1. Go to Home Depot.
2. Buy a wheelbarrow.
3. Fill it with rocks. Heavy rocks. About as heavy as a G5.
4. Tie a 16 foot string from your camera to the wheelbarrow.
5. Hire a guy (at about $1500 a day) to push the wheelbarrow around with you all day, on location.
6. (Optional, for effect): While at Home Depot, rent a really loud Honda generator and put it in the wheelbarrow, on top of the rock pile.
7. Take your camera, and your new "assistant", and go out on location, and do about ten shots, in ten different locations. Wherever you go, he goes with you. NEVER UNTIE THE STRING, except at lunch.
8. Come home. See how you feel.
9. Imagine that is now your professional digital life. You and your new buddy, and his cute little wheelbarrow.
10. Or, just buy a Nikon D3, and trust your LCD.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. And really really true...
Gwitf, you really should meet my friend Tark from Nashville. You can almost always find him in the Liquid Nails section of the Home Depot...
Mr Russell is correct -- if you're going to publish a Road Map, then don't complain about the blowback when it doesn't come to fruition.
Mister Russel always right. Though he hates when you calls him Mister...
-
That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. And really really true...
Gwitf, you really should meet my friend Tark from Nashville. You can almost always find him in the Liquid Nails section of the Home Depot...
Mister Russel always right. Though he hates when you calls him Mister...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209260\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would prefer if you call me Mister President, (though wait a few months).
JR
-
If, as TMark pointed out, Nikon and Mamiya are cousins, and Mitsubishi decides they should play together, we might see a NikoPhamiya soon...
Cheers,
Kumar
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Kumar,
Rent "Deliverance."
Cousins hooking up isn't always a good thing.
(http://butlersheetmetal.com/tinbasherblog/images/deliverance_dueling_banjos.jpg)
-
Read this regarding the current market: http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2014 (http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2014)
And this is the market that is greeted by $40k plus digital backs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209204\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
True, true.
My jaw tightened on his thoughts about Web usage pricing being less than usage in say the print arena. That practice of charging less for Web usage started way back in the day when the Web was at it's V.5 stage. And it continues today.
I remember being in negotiations with an agency about an estimate I had sent over and me questioning why the same photo destined for the web was worth pennies on the dollar compared to print. She shrugged and said "It's a banner Ad, it means nothing". Now when brick and mortar and print are shrinking and the Web is the place for commerce, not much has changed. Why should it when they can just pull off cheap ass stock and have it "suffice".
-
True, true.
My jaw tightened on his thoughts about Web usage pricing being less than usage in say the print arena. That practice of charging less for Web usage started way back in the day when the Web was at it's V.5 stage. And it continues today.
I remember being in negotiations with an agency about an estimate I had sent over and me questioning why the same photo destined for the web was worth pennies on the dollar compared to print. She shrugged and said "It's a banner Ad, it means nothing". Now when brick and mortar and print are shrinking and the Web is the place for commerce, not much has changed. Why should it when they can just pull off cheap ass stock and have is "suffice".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209269\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All this will change. I am always suprised when I see a beautiful campaign and then flick on the web site and it's just e-commerce, cropped at the chin, shot on medium grey seamless.
In fact if you want to be blown away, go to your favorite mass brand U.S. website and take a look.
After about 22 seconds you will fall asleeep.
then go on thier european and Asian websites.
Wow, the difference is 9 billion percent.
JR
-
I concur. It's about what you do, your clients needs in your location.
I'll add that a 1DS3 would NEVER fly in NYC for advertising and I've never seen one used for any serious ad work. No art buyer at any agency that I work with would accept less than a MFDB*
Perhaps the term 'advertising' needs to be clarified here. If you are calling catalogue work, stock, look books and the like advertising then ok. You want to talk campaign, in-store display, billboard, magazine spread well then...
*this is my experience and I'm sure there may be instances that differ, but my experience tells me 90% of the time at least this to be true.
It's about full potential, multi-purposing and the ability to tweak and capture as much detail as possible.
The DS3 is a great camera, don't get me wrong.,
Anthony
I have to respectfully disagree with you about magazine usage with the 1Ds III. I have an eight page spread in the current Vanity Fair (August 2008, Pages 131 - 145) that were shot with the 1Ds III.
The files were processed with Brian Griffith's Raw Developer program. One image was croped to about 2/3rd of the frame and I can see it - I don't know if the average VF reader would.
Yes, I could have shot with Medium Format, but the per shot rate on the P30 is too slow for my aerial work. Two years ago, I shot another aerial piece for them using a 1Ds II and the images ran as opener spreads and 3/4 trucks.
VF has very high printing standards and from my experience, the 1Ds III meets the reproduction standards for the magazine.
Thank you.
Cameron
-
And you know me well enough -- or at should by now -- to know that's not what I meant James... I would rather own a P30+ than a pair of 1Ds3's 8 days a week. In fact, I would love to find a good deal on a used P30+ just for it's advantages. My only point was your comment -- so let's come back to it:
"...not knowing that at some point you just aren't going to see a difference in print, (any print) and unlike moving from 35mm to 8x10 the look of the image doesn't change that much because for the most part were still just shooting to the two smallest frame sizes available in professional photography."
So answer me this: IF you seriously believe what you stated in that quote, then why aren't you shooting a 1Ds3 instead of your P30+?
Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209173\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jack, I've come late to this thread but I suspect James was mostly referring to actual offset print output which is rarely bigger than A3. In those circumstances does a P45 really look so much better than a DS3, or a D3 or a 5D?
I was required to shoot 4x5 film for a magazine here in Oz until last year. I proved to them that a 5D will give identical results at A3 DPS and now we shoot on the Canon saving them buckets on film and allowing me to shoot far more freely. If I shot on a P45 the results would be very hard to distinguish.
-
Anyway today I went by a camera dealer and for the first time held a 1ds3.
What an amazing viewfinder.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah, you noticed the finder.
Edmund
-
What's needed as a new polaroid is electronic paper with blutooth or similar wireless.
-
If I wanted a better/bigger screen for my phase back I'd just buy an OQO Model 1 (http://www.expansys.com/p.aspx?i=126124). Plug it via firewire with the phase one portable solution that can be purchased from your dealer and there you go. Much better and much cheaper than new back.
And if you buy a 30m firewire cable you won't have your clients around your back.
Have a nice weekend!
(http://jkontherun.blogs.com/jkontherun/images/oqo_model_01.jpg)
-
If I wanted a better/bigger screen for my phase back I'd just buy an OQO Model 1 (http://www.expansys.com/p.aspx?i=126124). Plug it via firewire with the phase one portable solution that can be purchased from your dealer and there you go. Much better and much cheaper than new back.
And if you buy a 30m firewire cable you won't have your clients around your back.
Have a nice weekend!
(http://jkontherun.blogs.com/jkontherun/images/oqo_model_01.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Will this really run C-1 in windows? And if so with 300 mb I wonder how much is used by the operating system?
It looks like a pretty good idea.
JR
-
If I wanted a better/bigger screen for my phase back I'd just buy an OQO Model 1 (http://www.expansys.com/p.aspx?i=126124). Plug it via firewire with the phase one portable solution that can be purchased from your dealer and there you go. Much better and much cheaper than new back.
And if you buy a 30m firewire cable you won't have your clients around your back.
Have a nice weekend!
(http://jkontherun.blogs.com/jkontherun/images/oqo_model_01.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
have you or anyone tried using an oqo model 1 on a phase back? it only has a 1GHz processor, a 30GB hard drive, 512MB of RAM. you would have to load the c1 software on it and it doesn't look like there's enough ram or clock speed.
rh
-
Mr Hiss,
What do you shoot? What do you do for a living?
Now, with no polaroid, you either hire a Tech, with all his mess and cables and drudgery, or you have a USABLE LCD on the medium format back. So you're either showing the AD the back of the camera (LCD) or you're walking him/her up to the Tech's monitor for approval.
Image quality is, of course, very important, but of equal importance is the communication with the client, during the shoot, and making sure that they are feeling good about the setups. Again, there is no more Polaroid.
Personally, I resist using Techs because of the Ball and Chain effect that it has on the project. On location, any and every time you move or explore a new shot, or a better angle, it's a whole affair of moving the cart, and the firewire cable access, and that dreaded effect of the whole damn crew slowing to begin to hover around the monitor, like they're being paid to watch TV or something, instead of looking/watching the live talent.
What is hard to understand about that?
And as you know, HCB or AA didn't really shoot for clients, and if AA did, from time to time, I'm sure he shot a polaroid and handed it to the AD that was in the factory with him.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208713\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
gwhitf,
Why is there a cart and cables and a big mess? You shouldn't really be burdened by digital, it should work for you, not against. While I've watched digital shoots get bigger and more elaborate, i've had much harder task of keeping it simple, compact and light while still keeping the AD and photographer happy with the images.
I use a laptop/tripod setup with long life batteries underneath the computer and a battery powered portable printer if onset printing is a necessity. I usually carry everything I need by myself. If you need to move, the laptop can move with you as you move rather than waiting for someone to wheel a cart. If you need to move faster than that, perhaps you should consider being untethered if that workflow could work for you, but I think most people in your situation cannot be.
Simply covering the screen with a hood prevents anyone from hovering near the computer since there is nothing to see. It's actually an issue that I get asked a lot about. If someone wants to see and they are curious, I simply say something like "its processing right now" and just leave it at that.
Another alternative is reintroducing the idea of the polaroid with onset printing. The portable printer I use, the Canon Selphy ES2 is compact and doesn't require power. It takes about 30 seconds to process an image and 30 seconds to make a print. So you'd have a print in about a minute which is around the same time it would take for a polaroid to cook.
hope this helps.
-
If I wanted a better/bigger screen for my phase back I'd just buy an OQO Model 1 (http://www.expansys.com/p.aspx?i=126124). Plug it via firewire with the phase one portable solution that can be purchased from your dealer and there you go. Much better and much cheaper than new back.
And if you buy a 30m firewire cable you won't have your clients around your back.
Have a nice weekend!
(http://jkontherun.blogs.com/jkontherun/images/oqo_model_01.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
windows, ick!
-
Sinar used to make the CyberKit - basically an LCD screen with a dedicated computer. They discontinued it when they came up with LCDs on the back. Perhaps they should revive it.
Cheers,
Kumar
-
windows, ick!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Eric,
Please tell me that that Windows thing won't work. I don't want to be tempted. And tell me that this screen representation is stripped in, and in the real world, (just like those fake Leaf ads in PDN), that the screen wouldn't be nearly this vibrant and clean. Have you ever seen one of these things working?
As far as your other question, I saw your post in that other thread, and I went to your blog, and wow you seem level headed, unlike me. I also saw the snapshot of the Italian marble digi cart at Milk; wow, that is some fancy wheelbarrow, literally with (glossy) rocks strapped to it.
I don't know how else to explain what I've written -- I think you're either a cart/firewire guy, or you're not. I just think it does something to the energy in the room when you're tethered -- everything just gets kinda heavier and more serious.
I've done the screen-flag thing, but the bellows ones I've bought are too effective -- hell, I have to lunge my head almost inside them to see the whole screen, and then it feels kinda porn. I know that the makeup artists want to "see what it looks like on film", and that's just human nature, but after a while, they kinda zone out, and they're just watching TV, and going, "Oh, wow, that's a good one. She looks pretty in that one".
And more than anything, it's about a hesitation to get into bed too much with a Tech. What if that Tech is booked, when a client moves a shoot two days, say, a week before the job? What if you send me some Trainee Guy, instead of the Head Guy, because the Head Guy is booked? What if my small job won't afford you, once I've gotten used to working with a Tech? What if my five day out of town job won't allow for a Tech, with his flight and hotels? There's just this thing that I don't even want to go near a Tech. I admit, it's just me. I'm Old School, and I just want to shoot a frame, look down at my Killer LCD, and go "Damn that looks good, let's shoot it", just like I used to do with a 665 Polaroid in my hand. And then I want to hand the card off to an assistant and have him download it. Clean and simple and easy.
The techs that I've hired always want to "process in the background" while I'm shooting. That scares the hell out of me. I let them run JPGs, just so they feel like they're doing something, but in the end, I always want to live with a job for a day or so, and then, even with the Canon, I always rebatch the RAWs into JPGs later. I never use the embedded JPG. There's just so much going on inside your head, when you're shooting, you have no effing idea how you really want the color to be dialed in, right there on the spot, in the heat of the moment. I find that I always want to cool it off, or warm it up, or push it out another third stop, but only after living with it a day.
You sound like a great guy, and I wish you the best. Good luck with your business.
-
But if the extra cost of full 645 sensors puts off a sufficient number of potential customers and to many of them are changing to 35mm, maybe action will be taken on a "compromise" format.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209218\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have no inside information, but I get this feeling that the days of 18, 20, 30 megapixel sensors are behind us, at least in medium format.
Personally, I don't understand it.
Is Phase now only a Dalsa sensored company with their own proprietary design? Will Hasselblad now be the only back using Kodak sensors and if so will that be limited to 50mpx?
And where does this leave Leaf and Sinar?
JR
-
Please tell me that that Windows thing won't work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209303\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You prolly don't want to hear this, but I know the QQQ has the stuff to run the Betterlight scanning back normally.
,
-
windows, ick!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Grow up Eric.
-
they have brought out the model 02 a while back and thats much better in all respects, bigger HDD, powerful enough processor, great screen, BUT sadly they did away with the Firewire port, so....
-
BUT sadly they did away with the Firewire port, so....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wonder if it tethers to usb on something like the Canons.
Has anybody here ever used one of these?
JR
-
I have no inside information, but I get this feeling that the days of 18, 20, 30 megapixel sensors are behind us, at least in medium format.
Personally, I don't understand it.
Is Phase now only a Dalsa sensored company with their own proprietary design? Will Hasselblad now be the only back using Kodak sensors and if so will that be limited to 50mpx?
And where does this leave Leaf and Sinar?
Too much pessimism. Time for you to get out of the office and see the sun :-)
Seriously, why would you draw those conclusions from what we've heard in the last few weeks. A Phase One product line based only on the Dalsa 645 sensor would put them out of business, since so few pros need, or can afford, backs based on it. Phase needs a whole "product line", not just a single product. As long as there's a market for smaller sensors, I imagine Phase is going to deliver products with those sensors. It would be stupid not to, given that these backs exist and are well proven.
-
Too much pessimism. Time for you to get out of the office and see the sun :-)
Seriously, why would you draw those conclusions from what we've heard in the last few weeks. A Phase One product line based only on the Dalsa 645 sensor would put them out of business, since so few pros need, or can afford, backs based on it. Phase needs a whole "product line", not just a single product. As long as there's a market for smaller sensors, I imagine Phase is going to deliver products with those sensors. It would be stupid not to, given that these backs exist and are well proven.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209372\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not negative, I just think historically medium format has differentiated it'self from the dslrs by pixel count.
When the 1ds had 11mpx, mfdb had 22, when the 1ds had 17 mfdb has 31 to 39, now that the 1ds is 22 and nikon will be 24, the mfdb's annouce 50 and 60.
In other words the business model of mfdb's is consistent.
I'm not going to go over all the things like lcds again because it really is just beating a dead horse, but we all know what has been asked for and the response is always more pixels.
Look I assume the makers know what they are doing and giving the customer what they want and like most of the dealers say here, even though the first response to the high end product can seem negative, in the end the big one sells the most.
Maybe it's just market saturation, but what I have seen now more than ever before is more used digital backs in the market.
Look at the 4 sale section of this site. Usually it had one or two old digital backs for sale and a lot of old film cameras, but today there is 7 or 8 fairly new backs 4 sale.
Maybe the low end is now covered by the used market.
JR
Edit: I don't get the negative part. Maybe it's just the way forum writing comes across, but it's a free world and Phase, Leaf, Sinar, Hasselblad can make any equipment they want.
Once again, they're the experts so I assume they know what they are doing.
This thread is just a wish list of what we want on location and I think it's funny that it's now moved into taliing about portable tablet style computers just so we can see a readable image from a medium format back.
That should tell you something and where there is a hole in the medium format market.
-
why not just a Modbook by Axiotron from OWC - at least it has FW and 10.5
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Modbook (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Modbook)
(http://www.shappsphotography.com/MODBOOK_Pen_B_W.jpg)
-
why not just a Modbook by Axiotron from OWC - at least it has FW and 10.5
(http://www.shappsphotography.com/MODBOOK_Pen_B_W.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209379\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You go first. Go ahead and pay full retail, work out the kinks, get it tweaked out, and then report back here.
-
I don't know how else to explain what I've written -- I think you're either a cart/firewire guy, or you're not. I just think it does something to the energy in the room when you're tethered -- everything just gets kinda heavier and more serious.
And there you have a basic truth about photographers being individuals.
Never mind the digital baggage, I know how it used to be with film, and that was just the same damn thing: with the hand-held Nikon I felt free and without anything between myself and the model and the pictures we were both trying to make. With the ´blad it was a tripod for everything and, as you say, it does something to the energy of the room or even the field, old house or anywhere else you find yourself. That also applied to the 35mm format with a lens longer than 50mm; I didn´t like my 85mm after I bought it so it was hardly ever used, thus in effect, anything longer, 105mm included, was, for me, a no-no off a tripod.
With a tripod making such an emotional difference, God alone knows how it must be with today´s crews - perhaps it WAS time that I got out after all!
Rob C
-
You go first. Go ahead and pay full retail, work out the kinks, get it tweaked out, and then report back here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209380\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is always this
(http://ishotit.com/polaroid_preview.jpg)
(http://ishotit.com/polaroid_system.jpg)
-
I'm not negative, I just think historically medium format has differentiated it'self from the dslrs by pixel count.
All good points, as usual. Personally, I'd love for my P45+ to be obsoleted by a new Nikon or Canon DSLR, since DSLRs are so much more pleasant to use. The 24 MP D3X won't do it (tho I'll get one anyway :-), but maybe the D4 or D5. Until then, I'll just continue to enjoy the P45+.
If MFDBs do continue to move to higher MP while dropping the lower MP, then I have to believe that existing backs will come down in price (great news) and that the higher MP backs will drop down to the price point currently occupied by the 39 MP backs. If so, then nothing much has changed. If not, then I don't see how MFDBs can survive, because the market at the current 60 MP price point will be too small. Either way, I think I'm set for the foreseeable future with the P45+, since it lets me print at 24 x 32, and I don't need anything bigger than that.
-
windows, ick!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209296\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm an avid mac user but this thing just works. I actually ordered one for my H20 after talking to PhaseOne about it but I got a good deal on the P20 so I went for it because I don't have problems with the screen.
The OQO is gorgeous and I know photographers using it. Actually I know a well known photographer that keeps using the H20/OQO instead of the P20 just because of the screen.
-
Read this regarding the current market: http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2014 (http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2014)
And this is the market that is greeted by $40k plus digital backs?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=209204\")
Not to belabor the point but is this a reflection of the new professional "photo" studio? A UK shop that specializes in photorenders. Prices are cheap.
[a href=\"http://www.protograph.co.uk/]http://www.protograph.co.uk/[/url]
-
Not to belabor the point but is this a reflection of the new professional "photo" studio? A UK shop that specializes in photorenders. Prices are cheap.
http://www.protograph.co.uk/ (http://www.protograph.co.uk/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Th worm has turned.
-
I'm an avid mac user but this thing just works. I actually ordered one for my H20 after talking to PhaseOne about it but I got a good deal on the P20 so I went for it because I don't have problems with the screen.
The OQO is gorgeous and I know photographers using it. Actually I know a well known photographer that keeps using the H20/OQO instead of the P20 just because of the screen.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209392\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
wow, if it works, I will give it a try and see. It would be absolutely awesome if digital could be just that simple, but I think, from my perspective and what I have dealt with on set, it never is.
One thing is for sure, art directors are never happy and you can give one art director a cool little toy like that and she'll love it and another will hate it. It has actually happened to me. I was on a long job in California and we used the Epson P-3000 because we saw a photographer use it on location in miami (granted you couldn't shoot to it, but you could download cards to it). From there he put it into what appeared to be a small fedex box to cutout the light. So for the rest of the trip the photographer would not shut up about this device. So a few weeks later on another job I picked one up.
For two weeks the art director really, really loved it. We switched jobs in between and got it out for the next art director. She had an issue with claustrophobia and could not peak her eyes into the box without freaking out. Swear to god! The P-3000 was canned and I lost about 400 bucks, less the rental on it for the first 2 weeks.
-
wow, if it works, I will give it a try and see. It would be absolutely awesome if digital could be just that simple, but I think, from my perspective and what I have dealt with on set, it never is.
One thing is for sure, art directors are never happy and you can give one art director a cool little toy like that and she'll love it and another will hate it. It has actually happened to me. I was on a long job in California and we used the Epson P-3000 because we saw a photographer use it on location in miami (granted you couldn't shoot to it, but you could download cards to it). From there he put it into what appeared to be a small fedex box to cutout the light. So for the rest of the trip the photographer would not shut up about this device. So a few weeks later on another job I picked one up.
For two weeks the art director really, really loved it. We switched jobs in between and got it out for the next art director. She had an issue with claustrophobia and could not peak her eyes into the box without freaking out. Swear to god! The P-3000 was canned and I lost about 400 bucks, less the rental on it for the first 2 weeks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
People look at what you give them.
Not saying we don't want to make the client happy but claustrophia over a fedex box?
That's pretty funny., but I've had clients not like a 30" screen, so to each his own.
It's really not worth worrying about.
Then again you could have sprang for another $400 bucks bought a lee bellows and gaff taped it to the epson gizmo.
I do and it works well, even for the space challanged.
I shot editorial in Tokyo with it for two days and nobody complained, actually they loved it.
Of course the Epson thing eats batteries like a Toyota Prius and doesn't know what a medium format file looks like.
JR
Edit: Your a tech and from your blog you seem like a good one. Still your going to see this different than the photographer.
You know, this is a strange business and more than any business I know spends a great deal of time thinking about what a client wants.
I've had projects where the catering seemed to be more important than the shoot, so I take all of these "requests" with a grain of salt.
I do know that at the end of the day, everyone forgets about the catering, the camera, the preview device and the AD just wants to make sure they have their shot and their client approves it.
What I want to be positive of is that I have the shot and regardless of where this thread goes, a good lcd would sure help.
-
Time for you to get out of the office and see the sun :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209372\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Your right and I do.
Actually the last few weeks have been the first time in a few years where I've had a break and though none of us really get down time, I've put off a lot of personal stuff like promotions, even billing (ouch) and enjoyed myself.
90% of what I've written lately has been by the pool.
That's almost unheard of for me because my partner and I have a motto about this business.
"if your comfortable then your not moving forward."
JR
-
Eric,
Please tell me that that Windows thing won't work. I don't want to be tempted. And tell me that this screen representation is stripped in, and in the real world, (just like those fake Leaf ads in PDN), that the screen wouldn't be nearly this vibrant and clean. Have you ever seen one of these things working?
gwhitf,
Well that screen wouldn't be vibrant and clear outside. It probably looks like that when the room is dark. So for your next indoor shoot in very dim lighting, it will probably be perfect, if you can get it to tether with whatever mf system you are using that actually tethers usb. It will probably be slow though with its limited amount of RAM. Also it has only 3 hours of battery life, so I hope your close to an outlet. 60GB's of Hard drive, but how much to all the programs and os take up? Is that enough to shoot with in your situation? And backup while your shooting? How do you do that if you are tethered while you are shooting? Do you trust this device not to fail with your job stuck on it. Seems a little risky to me.
And I apologize to the person who told me to "grow up" in response to my comment about windows. I am sorry but windows is a bit icky and it's not like I didn't grow up using it either.
As far as your other question, I saw your post in that other thread, and I went to your blog, and wow you seem level headed, unlike me. I also saw the snapshot of the Italian marble digi cart at Milk; wow, that is some fancy wheelbarrow, literally with (glossy) rocks strapped to it.
Ah yes, I love Milk very much. Its a great place to shoot, the people are always very nice, but I think they miss the boat on some things. An Italian Marble digi cart may sound cool, but I think the point should be to make money, not spend it. That said, I think they have a pretty awesome setup.
I don't know how else to explain what I've written -- I think you're either a cart/firewire guy, or you're not. I just think it does something to the energy in the room when you're tethered -- everything just gets kinda heavier and more serious.
I've done the screen-flag thing, but the bellows ones I've bought are too effective -- hell, I have to lunge my head almost inside them to see the whole screen, and then it feels kinda porn. I know that the makeup artists want to "see what it looks like on film", and that's just human nature, but after a while, they kinda zone out, and they're just watching TV, and going, "Oh, wow, that's a good one. She looks pretty in that one".
You are right. It is very difficult to shoot that way and most of the people I know who shoot, including myself, do not like being tethered, but we have a client here and there that insist upon it. So we make due with it and yes, the energy is drawn from the shoot, everyone is huddled around the monitor and even the talent are stretching their necks for a peak. You step away to talk to the client or take a phone call and the next thing you know the talent is off set, under the hood, flipping through images. It isn't good.
In terms of a good screen flags, check out this: http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/RM1900/ (http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/RM1900/) prop the tripod up at eye level and you can see everything. Too much light, drop the vinyl dark cloth over your head.
And more than anything, it's about a hesitation to get into bed too much with a Tech. What if that Tech is booked, when a client moves a shoot two days, say, a week before the job? What if you send me some Trainee Guy, instead of the Head Guy, because the Head Guy is booked? What if my small job won't afford you, once I've gotten used to working with a Tech? What if my five day out of town job won't allow for a Tech, with his flight and hotels? There's just this thing that I don't even want to go near a Tech. I admit, it's just me. I'm Old School, and I just want to shoot a frame, look down at my Killer LCD, and go "Damn that looks good, let's shoot it", just like I used to do with a 665 Polaroid in my hand. And then I want to hand the card off to an assistant and have him download it. Clean and simple and easy.
The issue of being married to a tech is an issue that I deal with constantly and its an issue that has reared its ugly head once again this week when I was told that I would have to make a decision about my loyalty to a photographer. A photographer that will hold you for 22 days but only confirm you for 4. On one hand its a bit flattering that someone is dependent on me. On the other hand, its a bit scary. I'm not much for commitment these days. Being freelance was a pretty big deal to me once I finally got around to going that way. It was hard but now that I am there, I cannot go back. So I like the idea of working with many different people with a few regular guys, those being the ones that I am most attracted to working with - I like their personality and the work that they do. And I am also starting to shoot a little here and there, which is the most important thing to me. I think it is important to mix it up a bit as long as you keep it consistent.
Case in Point: It seems like next week is a busy week. I had 3 different photographers call for me and I can only do one of the jobs so the first one that confirmed I took the other two I turned down but I found them both great techs that I know will do the job well. The most recent post on my site addresses the issue of creating a bigger network of people to help me to facilitate this more efficiently.
So I think for you, if you find yourself in the need of a tech (which seems like you are competent enough to not need one all the time) you should find yourself one that can devote enough time to help you develop a workflow that you can then keep consistent and then ask him for suggestions on replacements in his/her absence. You should stick mainly with guys that know your kind of workflow really well. The hardest part of this is probably trusting that your guy is going to provide you with a good referral.
The techs that I've hired always want to "process in the background" while I'm shooting. That scares the hell out of me. I let them run JPGs, just so they feel like they're doing something, but in the end, I always want to live with a job for a day or so, and then, even with the Canon, I always rebatch the RAWs into JPGs later. I never use the embedded JPG. There's just so much going on inside your head, when you're shooting, you have no effing idea how you really want the color to be dialed in, right there on the spot, in the heat of the moment. I find that I always want to cool it off, or warm it up, or push it out another third stop, but only after living with it a day.
You sound like a great guy, and I wish you the best. Good luck with your business.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209303\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
First, I have a big rule about teching - NEVER DO ANYTHING WHILE THE PHOTOGRAPHER IS SHOOTING. DON'T EVEN MOVE THE MOUSE. No backup drive is connected, no programs that are not pertinent to the operation of capture are open, etc. I process in the background in between shots. JPG's only. Most likely tiff's aren't ready to be processed until the photographer has signed off on color and exposure. Processing while shooting is mostly a waste. I process jpgs because the quality is lower and if we need to give the AD something after the shoot, jpg's are usually what he needs most for layouts. Besides, in most situations, TIFF's won't be ready by the end of the day. And I am also opposed to the JPG's generated by the canon. Usually they are just confusing and create a mess of the capture folder. I usually throw them out and create new ones anyway.
Second, allow me to back peddle a bit because I realize now that my post to you was sounding a bit like a sales pitch and I want you to know that it absolutely wasn't. That being said, I pride myself on doing a good job so I find it irritating to hear when others out there are creating a bad image for people like me - a tech, although I hate to be considered only that. It seems that in this business our roles are a bit too black and white. "She is a photographer", "He is an assistant". Mainly I wanted to offer advice because it seems like digital has become just another thing you have to think about and coming from my perspective, as a tech and as a photographer, I want to focus on what I am shooting and having the right people for digital can help you get back to that.
Cheers
-
You go first. Go ahead and pay full retail, work out the kinks, get it tweaked out, and then report back here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209380\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
no kinks at all...just a macbook with a cintique on top....no keyboard but has bluetooth and GPS....but seriously...works perfectly.....
-
Edit: Your a tech and from your blog you seem like a good one. Still your going to see this different than the photographer.
You know, this is a strange business and more than any business I know spends a great deal of time thinking about what a client wants.
I've had projects where the catering seemed to be more important than the shoot, so I take all of these "requests" with a grain of salt.
I do know that at the end of the day, everyone forgets about the catering, the camera, the preview device and the AD just wants to make sure they have their shot and their client approves it.
What I want to be positive of is that I have the shot and regardless of where this thread goes, a good lcd would sure help.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One of the projects I work on about 4 times a year, a big catalog job, is all about keeping our art director happy. We have a separate producer who just handles the insane requests from the AD. And then there are all the insane requests on the digital end - "fix my ipod", find me a battery for this camera (in a third world country), etc. So I know all too well about client needs to the most extreme.
Just out of curiosity though, why does it have to be an LCD? If the polaroid was good enough back in the film day's why can't a quick (but good) print work as well?
-
Just out of curiosity though, why does it have to be an LCD? If the polaroid was good enough back in the film day's why can't a quick (but good) print work as well?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209425\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To begin with we're not in the film days anymore. Expectations are different, usually higher.
Early on with digital I did the portable printer thing I think it was called the Selphy. Had spare batteeries, it all fit in a cool kit and at first clients liked it, kind of like a polaroid, but then it became somewhat of a gimmick and nobody could really do anything with a small print anyway, so people stopped asking, we stopped printing and I carried it around for a few more years until last year I just threw it away.
Then again, if somebody wants/needs an image now, it's very easy to send it to their Iphone and they can carry it around as long as they want. Everyone I work with has an Iphone anyway.
I also have my own way for deliveriables and this really isn't the place to discuss it, but I've gone from about 90 grand a year in consumables down to less than 1/10th of that and increased my volume, so clients are use to electronic as long as it's done in a cohesive, effecient manner.
Delivering everything online is easy for the client.
I'm not saying my way is the best, it's just best for me and my clients, though I change and modify for the job. We've run multiple monitors, multiple tech stations as requested, but really that's always overkill and the dog and pony show gets to be more important than the photograph.
Actually, if a client really does want a polaroid it's easier to just shoot a few frames and process it rather than go through all the forms of electronic printing, though I don't think I've mounted a polaroid back in 3 years.
Now in regards to retail, I've shot it with about everything in every system and for the AD that wants to edit on set, the very most effecient way is to shoot to cards on the Canon and let them work with the tech using photomechanic.
I have one AD that absolutely demands to leave the studio 10 minutes after the shoot with all his final selects and this is the only way we have found to make that happen.
The previews are instant, comparing is easy, flagging and renaming a no brainer and they can do it almost as fast as I shoot.
Once again, every project is different and has diffeerent expectations. A large ad job is going to be a different workflow than an editorial or a retail gig.
JR
-
no kinks at all...just a macbook with a cintique on top....no keyboard but has bluetooth and GPS....but seriously...works perfectly.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think one thing that will influence the quality of something like this is the size of the embedded TIFF that comes out of each camera. Somewhere, years ago, I remember seeing a chart somewhere from Phase, that listed the pixel dimension of each back's model embedded TIFF. I'm talking about the teeny little Preview, not the large file that gets written to the CF card. For some reason, what struck me was that the P21+, (the back I was using at that time), had the largest embedded TIFF of all the models. I do not know why. Another vote for why the P21+ is a great back.
But it would seem that, the quality of the image that came out of the digital back would influence how well it displayed on that tablet thingie. Almost as if the TIF was more important than the device.
I remember spending a lot of (wasted) time at Best Buy once, buying a battery operated DVD player that would hook up to the VideoOut port of the Canon 1ds2. I'm talking about some little $299 cheesey device that some soccer mom would hand her kid, in the back of a Dodge mini van, on a long trip. Once I got it working with the 1ds2, it showed a really halfass quality image, at best. Embarrassing to show an Art Director, actually. We used it on about one hour of one job, then threw it in the trash. It was 640x480 of Total Mush. If you jiggled the connection of that little miniphono plug, the screen would go black; great precision design by Canon on that one.
What I think is, whatever guy (or company) could figure out a way to simply hand an AD something at the start of a shoot, and say, "Hey, here's your Tablet. Everything that I shoot will pop up on this tablet, within one second of me shooting it." Whoever solves that could be a rich man.
Eric, in terms of printing out a "polaroid" on an Epson printer, that's WAY too slow. Personally, I work very fast, and I'm not going to stand around, wait on a print, hand it to the AD, and then have them say, "Oh, wow, that was SO five minutes ago". I want them to see something, (and be able to make changes), within a couple seconds. I appreciate your input; it's interesting to hear things from your perspective.
-
I think one thing that will influence the quality of something like this is the size of the embedded TIFF that comes out of each camera. Somewhere, years ago, I remember seeing a chart somewhere from Phase, that listed the pixel dimension of each back's model embedded TIFF.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209430\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is what we need.
(http://ishotit.com/contexviewer1.jpg)
The problem is medium format previews are too small, so they're going to send raws and that requires processing and on some software requires updated video cards, so for medium format I guess this isn't going to happen, or if it does it will be bog slow.
Still, I wonder how much it would it cost just to call these people up and write a simple software that allowed you to view a preview, save the prevew and give it to your clients on a jump drive.
In fact I'm really surprised the camera makers aren't all over these type of accessories.
Once again look at the Red. They have their lcds, mounts, hardware and it looks good . . . it looks professional.
Their battery charger looks like something that fits in that SR 71 spy plane.
There is a premium price for the Red gizmos, but that also comes with the fact you know it's supported by the maker of the camera, so in theory it should work.
JR
-
Here's what I want. No silly external device, just a huge LCD, at least 4 inches square. If it was a vertical shot, you'd have black on the sides, if it was a horizontal shot, you'd have black at top and bottom. Or, the option to shoot square, and display it full frame on the LCD. Or 4x5, without those stupid focusing screens. (And no Digital Tech needed). And the LCD quality should be as good as Nikon D3. I'd pay twenty grand for that camera, right now, even if it was still only 22MP.
-
This is what we need.
(http://ishotit.com/contexviewer1.jpg)
The problem is medium format previews are too small, so they're going to send raws and that requires processing and on some software requires updated video cards, so for medium format I guess this isn't going to happen, or if it does it will be bog slow.
Still, I wonder how much it would it cost just to call these people up and write a simple software that allowed you to view a preview, save the prevew and give it to your clients on a jump drive.
In fact I'm really surprised the camera makers aren't all over these type of accessories.
Once again look at the Red. They have their lcds, mounts, hardware and it looks good . . . it looks professional.
Their battery charger looks like something that fits in that SR 71 spy plane.
There is a premium price for the Red gizmos, but that also comes with the fact you know it's supported by the maker of the camera, so in theory it should work.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209437\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the epson p5000 would work fine if you could shoot tethered to it and it read Phase Tif files...:+]
I use it a alot with my canon shots... the previews are great..
I really do not think it would that hard at all.. just not sure the market is that big??
Snook
-
Here's what I want. No silly external device, just a huge LCD, at least 4 inches square. If it was a vertical shot, you'd have black on the sides, if it was a horizontal shot, you'd have black at top and bottom. Or, the option to shoot square, and display it full frame on the LCD. Or 4x5, without those stupid focusing screens. (And no Digital Tech needed). And the LCD quality should be as good as Nikon D3. I'd pay twenty grand for that camera, right now, even if it was still only 22MP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209463\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Since we're dreaming, let's make it a touch screen.
(http://www.ishotit.com/touchscreen.jpg)
How about one that goes wireless to other . . . touchscreens.
JR
-
business must be slow...
-
It appears that out of all the criteria that you've suggested in the first post of this thread, the LCD is the one that everyone seems to focus on. I imagine that everyone else who has contributed has the same thought as me in that the rest of the criteria seem easily obtainable since, for the most part, we have seen those things already just not all in one solution. What we haven't seen is the LCD.
I don't think we are going to see it either for these reasons.
Cost: A high quality, glare resistant LCD is not cost effective. Even my $4000 46" HD LCD doesn't look good unless the windows are blacked out.
Heat: My cats love to sleep next to the TV, why because it is the warmest spot in the house. That heat generates noise which in turn produces shitty files that the DB manufacturers want to avoid. Phase and Leaf handle heat in different ways. Phase uses a wake up system so that the back isn't constantly on. Leaf uses a fan. A better LCD probably means an entirely separate cooling system for the screen and its processor.
Demand: Introducing a larger, higher quality LCD means redesigning the architecture of the system which is far too costly because outside of here, very few people are complaining about it. They are just adapting to the way things are, tether, cart, cables and all. Most never look at the LCD. Some put a piece of tape over it because the light bothers them while they are shooting. Some just shoot untethered, swapping cards and looking at a digital polaroid. And some just count on the tech to make sure that everything is consistent when it comes time to edit. If photographers weren't buying the systems, they might consider changing something, but as you'll notice, these systems have been out for years now and not much has changed outside of file size.
-
you've gotta be kidding me...nearly all point and shoot cameras have a better LCD than a $30k back
you're telling me that the amount of heat generated by an LCD is sooo bad that it would screw up the image?
the companies need to hire someone that specialises in lcds then to fit it into a back
and I'll be really surprised that no one else complains because my god the LCDs are disgusting compared to even the cheapest point and shoot.
-
It appears that out of all the criteria that you've suggested in the first post of this thread, the LCD is the one that everyone seems to focus on. I imagine that everyone else who has contributed has the same thought as me in that the rest of the criteria seem easily obtainable since, for the most part, we have seen those things already just not all in one solution. What we haven't seen is the LCD.
I don't think we are going to see it either for these reasons.
Cost: A high quality, glare resistant LCD is not cost effective. Even my $4000 46" HD LCD doesn't look good unless the windows are blacked out.
Heat: My cats love to sleep next to the TV, why because it is the warmest spot in the house. That heat generates noise which in turn produces shitty files that the DB manufacturers want to avoid. Phase and Leaf handle heat in different ways. Phase uses a wake up system so that the back isn't constantly on. Leaf uses a fan. A better LCD probably means an entirely separate cooling system for the screen and its processor.
Demand: Introducing a larger, higher quality LCD means redesigning the architecture of the system which is far too costly because outside of here, very few people are complaining about it. They are just adapting to the way things are, tether, cart, cables and all. Most never look at the LCD. Some put a piece of tape over it because the light bothers them while they are shooting. Some just shoot untethered, swapping cards and looking at a digital polaroid. And some just count on the tech to make sure that everything is consistent when it comes time to edit. If photographers weren't buying the systems, they might consider changing something, but as you'll notice, these systems have been out for years now and not much has changed outside of file size.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=209536\")
What gwhitf is refering to is not those days that the budget or the client requests move the project into a 20 person crew. We all have those days and whether the camera has a 2" lcd or a 10" lcd probably doesn't matter because everyone is going to be looking into the computer anyway.
He's talking about the realities of those editorial and quick ad jobs where the budget gets tighter or the personal work where you don't really want or need 20 people to shoot a photograph.
That's when all we need is a decent reference. Obviously medium format has their issues in hitting this, I assume price, or the ability to source the right materials, but I'm sure like everything else in the world it comes down to price.
Though even when you have a 20 person crew there is something flat footed about being tethered and I think it's somewhat funny that a 9 oz. polaroid back has been replaced by the 250lb "cart o' rocks" just for a preview.
Still, from my viewpoint as a photographer I want the options to do what I want and some days that may mean I can throw the image up on 24 seperate displays for the world's biggest dog and pony show, other days that may mean I just want to quietly and discreetly show the image to the AD and the talent.
I'm not alone in this thought and listen to these interviews.
[a href=\"http://red.cachefly.net/video/crash.m4v]http://red.cachefly.net/video/crash.m4v[/url]
http://www.red.com/interviews (http://www.red.com/interviews)
These all come from people that don't work with 20 person crews they work with 200, 300, person crews and they still want to shoot a camera that is not tied down to a tech station.
I find all of this somewhat interesting because I don't think any of us need to spend so much time reviewing an image on a computer. My partner and stylist has worked side by side with me for years and she will rarely look at the monitor as that only shows you what is done, not what can be done. She looks on set. In fact we've wired different forms of devices for her to view and she refuses to look at them, but it's amazing to me she can spot an issue before it gets captured, not after.
Actually, I've changed my worflow in medium format a great deal to work tech free.
An example is when we shot for Phase One in Paris because once we set the session, nobody manned the computer. I had one lcd on the Imac for the clients, another 23", that faced toward me and we just shot the gig.
I only stopped between sets and changes just to quickly review what was done and didn't spend over 3 minutes on each review.
In other words I tired to shoot it like film.
http://www.russellrutherford.com/paris_production/ (http://www.russellrutherford.com/paris_production/)
JR
-
" I will say that the new Hassey backs have THE best screen of all. Looks like the new Canon screens."
wow is that right?
-
" I will say that the new Hassey backs have THE best screen of all. Looks like the new Canon screens."
wow is that right?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209605\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don't take this as definative, (in other words try it for yourself), but I've done some quick snaps with the Phase, Leaf and Hasselblad and the Blad is the best of the bunch, but it's not over the wall great and just going from memory probably not as detailed as the original 1ds.
The size helps but the detail is pretty much the same as all medium format from what I could tell.
It's OK.
All of them can fool you. The P30 regular was pretty good in bright sunlight, (actually I liked it in bright sunlight) the P30+ disappears in bright sunlight and blows highlights everywhere, but if your viewing it in subdued light and you shooting with soft light it looks good, but only under those conditions.
The Phase 4 button menu thing still confuses me and I use it all the time and have never gotten it down to an intuitive motion like the Canons, or the Leaf.
The Leaf proably has the best menu of all the backs and when you get the hang of that little wheel works well.
The Phase has the fastest and best focus check, but scrolling it to a certain point is painful.
Bottom line is if we had an lcd as good as the Canon, God forbid the Nikon this disucssion wouldn't exist.
If it went to a wirless device like the Ipod, we would be in heaven and the cart o' rocks probably wouldn't exist.
JR
-
Interesting rumors floating around. Who knows if it's true. Imagine the beauty (and business benefits) of being able to hand a client a Mac Tablet during a shoot, and allowing some kind of WIFI device to send an embedded preview to that machine. I bought (and quickly returned) the junky unusable updated Canon WIFI device for the 1ds3, so that one is off the table, as is the never-introduced Phase WIFI unit. But one day, one of these companies will actually make a unit that works.
Interesting, the last couple of sentences in the post below:
http://tinyurl.com/6b98tb (http://tinyurl.com/6b98tb)
(snip) "Rumors have suggested that Apple may introduce a 12" or 13" Mac tablet later this year (September or October). Another possibility: rumors of a smaller PDA-like device that is 1.5x larger than the existing iPhone." (end)
Mark my words, these MF companies are going to continue with their excuses and justifications for their sorry LCDs, while someone like Apple or Sony or somebody totally out of the blue (Red), might even leapfrog them overnight. My question: if my iPhone has a camera in it, and a massive, great LCD, how come the images shot with that dont' show noise? You look at the physical design of that P65+, and wow doesn't it feel so very 1998? Shouldn't something like a P65+ have evolved further by now, (not to mention trying to justify the price tag as well?).
-
I understand all the negativity here but i really think it is unfair and not justifiable to compare to "the old days" as so many are comparing to. Digital has been a new era for some time now and technology is ever evolving. All the questions that are being asked will be answered to in time i am sure, but the manufacturers will never be able to satisfy all photographers.
Shooting a Polaroid and having to wait a little for an image to show the client before continuing with a shoot was also a little painful and only supplied a small preview of the final image. I also realize that time is of the essence on a demanding fashion shoot but why not use the same old process, where you shoot a preliminary shot, onto a laptop, get the approval of the client. Then disconnect and shoot. if the client wants to see how it is going then simply plug in and do another test preview. the laptop is your new polaroid, only 15 or 17 inches in size with a brilliant display. Only we need to see what is happening on our digital backs as it is our tool of the trade.
Im not dissing anybody as i know there are different demands for everyone, but i find it simple enough to shoot untethered we i need to and tethered when the client needs me to.
what we should be complaining about is how demanding the industry has become because of those little pesky pocket cameras that are so widely available and give the perception that digital is quick and easy.
I think Sinar has come very close to answering a lot of the demands with the HY-6 in terms of what was asked at the beginning of the forum, im sure it is a matter of (a short) time before these things are improved upon. Just my opinion!!!
-
Everybody crowded around the monitor, even on a Demarchelier shoot.
I rest my case. Just wrong.
http://blog.photoshelter.com/image/stsl12_coverlook0807.jpg (http://blog.photoshelter.com/image/stsl12_coverlook0807.jpg)
-
Everybody crowded around the monitor, even on a Demarchelier shoot.
I rest my case. Just wrong.
http://blog.photoshelter.com/image/stsl12_coverlook0807.jpg (http://blog.photoshelter.com/image/stsl12_coverlook0807.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210308\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Haha, even that girl is trying to get a higher view. See the corner where that guy with the beard is standing? That is where I would be, my back against the wall, all comfortable with the screen facing me.
-
Haha, even that girl is trying to get a higher view. See the corner where that guy with the beard is standing? That is where I would be, my back against the wall, all comfortable with the screen facing me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210362\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think this proves that everyone, including the photographer wants to see a decent preview.
A powerbook works and I do one on a tripod similar to that when possible and though it is less tied down than the 250 lb. cart o' rocks, there is some limiations.
What I don't understand and this is a real honest question is why if building a back with an extra processor and a decent lcd so difficult or expensive?
I see replacement ipod lcd's for sale at any quanity for $49 and how much does a pentium processor costs, $300, $400 bucks, hell they sell Dell laptops for $600.
JR
-
Everybody crowded around the monitor, even on a Demarchelier shoot.
I rest my case. Just wrong.
http://blog.photoshelter.com/image/stsl12_coverlook0807.jpg (http://blog.photoshelter.com/image/stsl12_coverlook0807.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210308\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When I look at this I wonder if Patrick knows if the image is 20, 30, 40, 50, or 60megapixels?
JR
-
When I look at this I wonder if Patrick knows if the image is 20, 30, 40, 50, or 60megapixels?
JR
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=210422\")
I think he knows:
[a href=\"http://blog.photoshelter.com/image/stsl08_coverlook0807.jpg]Patrick's Canon[/url]
Here's the rest of the story:
http://blog.photoshelter.com/2008/07/behin...e-cover-ga.html (http://blog.photoshelter.com/2008/07/behind-the-scenes-with-teen-vogue-and-the-cover-ga.html)
-
Well, I agree that the LCD's really need to improve, but I believe the real solution is in quickly, wirelessly transferring that preview to an external device like the iPhone, P5000 or similar. Medium format backs are very small given the amount of technology that they have to fit. Granted, the D3 or 1DsMKIII have to incorporate a mirror box, viewfinder and everything else, but I still think there is a lot more room for a big screen and the associated electronics than there is in a digital back which has to fit a sensor more than double the size, along with all the electronics AND the battery to run it. The absolute maximum size for the viewfinder would be like the current 6x7 Leaf option, but that also necessitates a touchscreen. If you are not going to use a touchscreen, you are limited to rather small LCD's.
I would love for those small LCD's to have a quality that the D3 and D300 have, but the true solution is to have a compact, screen only solution for previews. That solves the problem of battery life, heat generation and the size limitations of the backs themselves. Additionally, they can be passed around to people while the photographer is free to keep shooting. In my mind, this is a more realistic and useful solution than having 4x5 inch previews on the backs themselves. Hopefully we can get slightly larger, higher resolution and more color correct previews on the backs themselves, but an option to use a truly purpose-built external device.
-
Hopefully we can get slightly larger, higher resolution and more color correct previews on the backs themselves, but an option to use a truly purpose-built external device.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210513\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One day we will look back and laugh at what we used to drag around on location -- the Honda generator, the kart, the giant G5 box, the double monitors, the strapped-on espresso machine.
Let's make that day come sooner, rather than later.
-
I would love for those small LCD's to have a quality that the D3 and D300 have, but the true solution is to have a compact, screen only solution for previews. That solves the problem of battery life, heat generation and the size limitations of the backs themselves. Additionally, they can be passed around to people while the photographer is free to keep shooting. In my mind, this is a more realistic and useful solution than having 4x5 inch previews on the backs themselves. Hopefully we can get slightly larger, higher resolution and more color correct previews on the backs themselves, but an option to use a truly purpose-built external device.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210513\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think what throws most of us (photographers) is we have to realize we're not the center of the universe. (I know I have a difficult time accepting that thought).
So . . . we look at an I-phone, I-pod and even the Canons, devices that are truly revolutionary that changed whole industries and think, if they can make a beautiful ipod touch screen for $250, or a 22mpx Canon for 7k, why can't they do that for my $40,000 (cough, cough) camera back.
What I think surprisea me more is how the information gets out. Sure there is the 50, 60 mpx press releases and the dealer blogs about tilt shift Boris lenses, but its a lot of headline, not a lot of body copy and quite honestly what we put in our hand to work, doesn't look that much different than it did 4 years ago.
I think we're waiting for that revolutionary change, much like the RED. Something that looks and functions different than anything that came before.
Now I wonder, is the RED here to stay or is it built to take a bite out of Canon, Sony and Panasonic with the thought that one of them will just buy the company?
JR
-
I've thought long and hard about the state of this industry. I've talked to my friends in media/publishing, AD/CD types, picture editors, painters, jewelers, video guys, film guys, internet guys etc. All people who deal with digital technology to produce images to make a living. The result: Everyone feels over saturated. Too many upgrades, too many changes too fast, too many imperfect products, too many software problems, too many hardware problems. In the lasy year or so digital (cameras, computers, printers, backs, applications, etc) seems to have transitioned from a tool that increased productivity and your ability to focus on core functions to a drag on the bottom line and efficiency. Be it the cart 'o' rocks, $43k digital backs without many viable options to hang it on, software bugs, cracking iPhone screens, shitty internet upload speeds, new computers, new OS and non-upgraded drivers, terabyte after terabyte of redundant storage, its all too much to deal with when what you need to do is produce great photos and show them to clients/potential clients.
Of interest is that the film guys who shoot with Reds or Sony EX1s are less overwhelmed because their products JUST WORK. Same with the guys and gals who shoot Canon. It just works with a minimum of fuss.
Meanwhile the best options to hang my Phase back on all suck for one reason or another. They are all servicable options, but the only one I would use out of love is the RZ. The Hy6 is close but there are still odd issues with it, such as no exif, but its getting there. But then there is SinarBron USA which is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. The software seems opaque. I don't know many people who have shot one much less own one.
Its all too much to worry about. I might get a 1ds3 and tune out of the MFD world, maybe tune back in in a few years, see if they have that LCD issue sorted. God knows the clients wouldn't know the difference.
Cheers everybody.
-
But then there is SinarBron USA which is a mystery wrapped in an enigma.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210536\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A spot on description for te whole industry.
-
Yeah, the damn 1Ds3 just works and it works and works and works.
Last week I shot a bigger project for a legal company. After 3 days of shooting I realized that I didn't have a backup body with me all the time. First I got angry at me but then I went like "so what". This cam never failed me once. The 1DS 2 never failed me after 3 years of heavy usage.
Now some one tell me, why should I buy the new hassy kit for about 60K?
I want it, I would love it. I have been dreaming about it for the last 2 years.
But damn, how much better will it be than my 1DS3? About 3 times better, nicer, faster?
No, no chance. So why should I buy it?
If the kit (3lenses) would cost around 35K I would buy it any minute. But there is not enough bang for the buck to justify it. My RED shows me that every day.
The canons are somewhere near 85%. They are so close to perfect that most clients won't see the difference. They dont care and also dont want to pay the difference, so why should we photographers pay it?
It's because we love the high-end quality more than our clients. We love to capture perfect pictures. We love to colorgrade like there is no tomorrow.
But at 60K a kit my love starts to fade.
Maybe we realy should wait another 2 years till the right MF cam comes out. But wait, what if they wont be around till then?
Just some thoughts.
Tim
-
Dear TMARK,
- There IS exif data with the Hy6!
- May I ask which software "seems opaque" and what exactly?
Thanks and best regards,
Thierry
The Hy6 is close but there are still odd issues with it, such as no exif, but its getting there. But then there is SinarBron USA which is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. The software seems opaque. I don't know many people who have shot one much less own one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210536\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I think this proves that everyone, including the photographer wants to see a decent preview.
A powerbook works and I do one on a tripod similar to that when possible and though it is less tied down than the 250 lb. cart o' rocks, there is some limiations.
What I don't understand and this is a real honest question is why if building a back with an extra processor and a decent lcd so difficult or expensive?
I see replacement ipod lcd's for sale at any quanity for $49 and how much does a pentium processor costs, $300, $400 bucks, hell they sell Dell laptops for $600.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210367\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
From what I understand, it doesn't take much heat to generate a whole lot of noise. I am not certain what the "sweet spot" temperature is but this is what has been partly to blame as to why Phase has not improved on their LCD.
-
Yeah, the damn 1Ds3 just works and it works and works and works.
Last week I shot a bigger project for a legal company. After 3 days of shooting I realized that I didn't have a backup body with me all the time. First I got angry at me but then I went like "so what". This cam never failed me once. The 1DS 2 never failed me after 3 years of heavy usage.
Now some one tell me, why should I buy the new hassy kit for about 60K?
I want it, I would love it. I have been dreaming about it for the last 2 years.
But damn, how much better will it be than my 1DS3? About 3 times better, nicer, faster?
No, no chance. So why should I buy it?
If the kit (3lenses) would cost around 35K I would buy it any minute. But there is not enough bang for the buck to justify it. My RED shows me that every day.
The canons are somewhere near 85%. They are so close to perfect that most clients won't see the difference. They dont care and also dont want to pay the difference, so why should we photographers pay it?
It's because we love the high-end quality more than our clients. We love to capture perfect pictures. We love to colorgrade like there is no tomorrow.
But at 60K a kit my love starts to fade.
Maybe we realy should wait another 2 years till the right MF cam comes out. But wait, what if they wont be around till then?
Just some thoughts.
Tim
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agree 200%
My MFDB limit is 15,000...:+} 60,000 is quite a lot considering the 1DsMIII is 8,000
The only problem I see with the 1DsMIII is no firewire... Big error there.
I might have to wait for the MIV when they put it back...
I think the medium format back should be embarassed...
Leaf is the only one that took screen into consideration.. I think Hssleblad is following while Phase is parking trucks on theirs...:+]
Next time my client comes to my studio I say you cannot see the images in te back but you can park your hummer on my DB if you want...
I think James R's little portable screen like the epson p5000 but bigger will come into production before phase get's the lcd worked out..:+]
Snook
I had a 1DsMII, took it everywhere and NEVER had a problem. Only wit the firewire ports which is maybe why they went back to USB???
-
From what I understand, it doesn't take much heat to generate a whole lot of noise. I am not certain what the "sweet spot" temperature is but this is what has been partly to blame as to why Phase has not improved on their LCD.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210571\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Heat?
Uh I'm not a scientist but I don't know about that one. I've shot the Canons, the Nikons and even the Phase in 105F heat all day long and didn't see any real difference in noise.
How can a 3/4" more lcd make that much of a difference.
Anyway, I don't really think it's the lcd any more or less than the previews the backs generate.
In fact I just got this strange Phase extreme newsletter where they freeze it, bake it, and drive a truck over it. so a larger lcd will cause noise? I don't know about that.
It's funny though that this conversation has been going on for years and the lcd's look pretty much the same.
Meidum format, or any professional capture device is never going to escape this issue, because the real benfiit of digial capture is knowing you have the shot.
It's also cost related. You just can't say you spent 40 grand on a back and then show a client that lcd, it's like showing them those little 2 bedroom 1 bath houses in Venice, Ca, next to a Liquor store and telling them they cost 1.2 million. They just shake their head in disbelief.
I have this little hv20 Canon camcorder with a Letus on the front and use Nikon lenses. The little flip out lcd is not what I would call beautiful, but it's so detalied that you can shoot a 50 1.2 wide open and focus on the eyes . . . either eye.
At one point, Fuji had something like that, with that medium format back they made and never sold to anyone. How hard is it do let it flip out and not cause heat, it that really is the issue.
The thing is it's eventually all about the client. Phase's client, miy client, my client's client.
If a client (customer) keeps asking for something and it never comes then they move on.
We all have ways around the lcd, sometimes using the Canon or Nikon as an electronic Polaroid, sometimes using a powerbook or that 250 lb cart o' rocks, but we're in the business of delivering, so we deliver.
Now how do you think the Red would have been received if their lcd was smaller than the hv20?
JR
-
Heat?
Uh I'm not a scientist but I don't know about that one. I've shot the Canons, the Nikons and even the Phase in 105F heat all day long and didn't see any real difference in noise.
How can a 3/4" more lcd make that much of a difference.
Anyway, I don't really think it's the lcd any more or less than the previews the backs generate.
In fact I just got this strange Phase extreme newsletter where they freeze it, bake it, and drive a truck over it. so a larger lcd will cause noise? I don't know about that.
It's funny though that this conversation has been going on for years and the lcd's look pretty much the same.
Meidum format, or any professional capture device is never going to escape this issue, because the real benfiit of digial capture is knowing you have the shot.
It's also cost related. You just can't say you spent 40 grand on a back and then show a client that lcd, it's like showing them those little 2 bedroom 1 bath houses in Venice, Ca, next to a Liquor store and telling them they cost 1.2 million. They just shake their head in disbelief.
I have this little hv20 Canon camcorder with a Letus on the front and use Nikon lenses. The little flip out lcd is not what I would call beautiful, but it's so detalied that you can shoot a 50 1.2 wide open and focus on the eyes . . . either eye.
At one point, Fuji had something like that, with that medium format back they made and never sold to anyone. How hard is it do let it flip out and not cause heat, it that really is the issue.
The thing is it's eventually all about the client. Phase's client, miy client, my client's client.
If a client (customer) keeps asking for something and it never comes then they move on.
We all have ways around the lcd, sometimes using the Canon or Nikon as an electronic Polaroid, sometimes using a powerbook or that 250 lb cart o' rocks, but we're in the business of delivering, so we deliver.
Now how do you think the Red would have been received if their lcd was smaller than the hv20?
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210604\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I guess if people keep buying them why should phase change.
I have to tell you that I on many occasions have felt really small showing off my new P30 back and then the people go to look at the image on my camera and it looks like something from the 80's
I wish I had a picture od their faces everytime it has happened..
they almost keep looking waqiting for the image to get better...:+]
Quite embarrassing with a 16,000 camera back... not to mention the others who paid 25-30k for a p45...
Especially when they just worked with a photographer that has a nikon or a DsMIII.
does anybody know if there is a way to get or can we all write epson and ask them to make the .tif from phase visable... that might be a nice little feature..?
Again I tink some one should make a digital polaroid machine like James mock -up
I'll buy one..:+]
Snook
In any case I was sure that phase was working on it but then when they popped the p65+ out and it was the same... very dissappointing!
Hassle blad is looking better and better.
If it was not for the fan deal on the leaf I almost went with the leaf systems as it is nice to see what you are shooting. ANYTHING is better than the lcd on Phase.
-
The only problem I see with the 1DsMIII is no firewire... Big error there.
I might have to wait for the MIV when they put it back...
I had a 1DsMII, took it everywhere and NEVER had a problem. Only wit the firewire ports which is maybe why they went back to USB???
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The USB works better than the firewire, and it's a *lot* more reliable in my experience. IThe USB is only slow using the Mac OS X because of Apple messed up drivers. On Windows, or using Windows within OS X, the USB interface flies. (I returned 1D cameras about 10 times due to f*ed up firewire ports, but the 5Ds (I have 3 of them) have never had to be returned due to the USB port. And they have seen a TON of tethered use.)
Also, as to heat on the LCDs creating noise issues for the backs, Nikon made a camera with a very good LCD with the lowest noise of any camera on the planet, so how is heat an issue there??
Why doesn't one of the back makers just come out and say why they don't upgrade the LCDs?
-
I guess if people keep buying them why should phase change.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is an interesting comment.
Everything that I hear is that the P45 and plus were the best selling (and most expensive) backs ever to come out of Phase. So maybe that's true -- maybe they're selling, and maybe they expect the P65+ to sell even better. Maybe they've done market research and found that most everyone that's using the P45 and P65 are tethering, and could care less about the LCD.
Maybe they've found that everyone that cares about the LCD has already bailed, and migrated to Canon or Nikon. Maybe they've found their market.
Maybe 99% of the people on this board don't make their living shooting photographs, and therefore it's hard to justify the outlay for a P65. But maybe if you were a catalogue house, on an in-house studio, or a working advertising photographer, the money even at $40k is a complete no-brainer. Maybe the majority of the readers of this board are medium format lovers, but with 35 budgets; maybe that's why the numerous complaints.
I took my truck in for service yesterday. The good ol' boy service manager saw my title, noticed I was a photographer, and then went into a long proud story about owning a 1dsIII and a D3 and a huge printer, and he blows thru wedding after wedding on his weekends, once he leaves the dealership. I must admit if I was honest, it was a bit puckering to hear him say that he was shooting the same camera as me.
So maybe Phase, Hasselblad, and even Sinar know what they're doing. Who knows? Maybe 1% of the readers of this board is the Medium Format target audience. Maybe Phase is laughing all the way to the bank, and already drawing up the 80MP back for next year, for $50k, knowing they'll sell them as fast as they can make them.
Just a thought.
-
I think they have. They can't get them!
The USB works better than the firewire, and it's a *lot* more reliable in my experience. IThe USB is only slow using the Mac OS X because of Apple messed up drivers. On Windows, or using Windows within OS X, the USB interface flies. (I returned 1D cameras about 10 times due to f*ed up firewire ports, but the 5Ds (I have 3 of them) have never had to be returned due to the USB port. And they have seen a TON of tethered use.)
Also, as to heat on the LCDs creating noise issues for the backs, Nikon made a camera with a very good LCD with the lowest noise of any camera on the planet, so how is heat an issue there??
Why doesn't one of the back makers just come out and say why they don't upgrade the LCDs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210613\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
This is an interesting comment.
Everything that I hear is that the P45 and plus were the best selling (and most expensive) backs ever to come out of Phase. So maybe that's true -- maybe they're selling, and maybe they expect the P65+ to sell even better. Maybe they've done market research and found that most everyone that's using the P45 and P65 are tethering, and could care less about the LCD.
Maybe they've found that everyone that cares about the LCD has already bailed, and migrated to Canon or Nikon. Maybe they've found their market.
Maybe 99% of the people on this board don't make their living shooting photographs, and therefore it's hard to justify the outlay for a P65. But maybe if you were a catalogue house, on an in-house studio, or a working advertising photographer, the money even at $40k is a complete no-brainer. Maybe the majority of the readers of this board are medium format lovers, but with 35 budgets; maybe that's why the numerous complaints.
I took my truck in for service yesterday. The good ol' boy service manager saw my title, noticed I was a photographer, and then went into a long proud story about owning a 1dsIII and a D3 and a huge printer, and he blows thru wedding after wedding on his weekends, once he leaves the dealership. I must admit if I was honest, it was a bit puckering to hear him say that he was shooting the same camera as me.
So maybe Phase, Hasselblad, and even Sinar know what they're doing. Who knows? Maybe 1% of the readers of this board is the Medium Format target audience. Maybe Phase is laughing all the way to the bank, and already drawing up the 80MP back for next year, for $50k, knowing they'll sell them as fast as they can make them.
Just a thought.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210620\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with a lot of what you say but you los me when you say the catalogue house is a no brainer. Just becasue you have 40k back does not mean your clients are going to pay you anything different and the quality is "not" "better" just bigger than how can you justify that?
I know I would like to spend 40k on somehting other than another back if the one I have is just fine?
Where do you draw the line. I know in the sates things are different, bu elsewhere I think they are the same as where I live.
Saying it is a no brainer I do not understand..
Snook
-
This is an interesting comment.
Everything that I hear is that the P45 and plus were the best selling (and most expensive) backs ever to come out of Phase. So maybe that's true -- maybe they're selling, and maybe they expect the P65+ to sell even better. Maybe they've done market research and found that most everyone that's using the P45 and P65 are tethering, and could care less about the LCD.
Maybe they've found that everyone that cares about the LCD has already bailed, and migrated to Canon or Nikon. Maybe they've found their market.
Maybe 99% of the people on this board don't make their living shooting photographs, and therefore it's hard to justify the outlay for a P65. But maybe if you were a catalogue house, on an in-house studio, or a working advertising photographer, the money even at $40k is a complete no-brainer. Maybe the majority of the readers of this board are medium format lovers, but with 35 budgets; maybe that's why the numerous complaints.
I took my truck in for service yesterday. The good ol' boy service manager saw my title, noticed I was a photographer, and then went into a long proud story about owning a 1dsIII and a D3 and a huge printer, and he blows thru wedding after wedding on his weekends, once he leaves the dealership. I must admit if I was honest, it was a bit puckering to hear him say that he was shooting the same camera as me.
So maybe Phase, Hasselblad, and even Sinar know what they're doing. Who knows? Maybe 1% of the readers of this board is the Medium Format target audience. Maybe Phase is laughing all the way to the bank, and already drawing up the 80MP back for next year, for $50k, knowing they'll sell them as fast as they can make them.
Just a thought.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210620\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe all of this is true. I don't know, I really shouldn't care.
I do know that when I see that video of Annie photographing the Queen with a Canon it kind of throws me.
I mean, you'd expect the world's most famous photogrpaher would photograph the world's most famous person with a camera that wasn't owned by the service manager at a Chevy dealership.
You'd expect an 8x10, or an RZ with a huge bellows, or maybe even something that said Rolliflex, Leica or Hasselblad.
But a 1ds2 with a zoom? . . . kind of strange looking and not that it should matter because the photos were fine and I'm sure Vanity Fare and their retouching wizards got it all right.
I kind of wonder what would Avedon shoot his western series in the digital world. A Mamiya 645 and a P45?
I don't think the behind the scenes photos would look quite right with that setup.
Still, it's strange we're using the same equipment as auto repair guys.
JR
-
This is an interesting comment.
Everything that I hear is that the P45 and plus were the best selling (and most expensive) backs ever to come out of Phase. So maybe that's true -- maybe they're selling, and maybe they expect the P65+ to sell even better. Maybe they've done market research and found that most everyone that's using the P45 and P65 are tethering, and could care less about the LCD.
Maybe they've found that everyone that cares about the LCD has already bailed, and migrated to Canon or Nikon. Maybe they've found their market.
Maybe 99% of the people on this board don't make their living shooting photographs, and therefore it's hard to justify the outlay for a P65. But maybe if you were a catalogue house, on an in-house studio, or a working advertising photographer, the money even at $40k is a complete no-brainer. Maybe the majority of the readers of this board are medium format lovers, but with 35 budgets; maybe that's why the numerous complaints.
I took my truck in for service yesterday. The good ol' boy service manager saw my title, noticed I was a photographer, and then went into a long proud story about owning a 1dsIII and a D3 and a huge printer, and he blows thru wedding after wedding on his weekends, once he leaves the dealership. I must admit if I was honest, it was a bit puckering to hear him say that he was shooting the same camera as me.
So maybe Phase, Hasselblad, and even Sinar know what they're doing. Who knows? Maybe 1% of the readers of this board is the Medium Format target audience. Maybe Phase is laughing all the way to the bank, and already drawing up the 80MP back for next year, for $50k, knowing they'll sell them as fast as they can make them.
Just a thought.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210620\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You might be right. Maybe I'm myopic, maybe us people shooters are all myopic and can't see what other photographers are up to, why they need a P65. That being said, two people I know just shot some large campaigns for McCann Ericson. Heavy composits of large format and 67 film scans in one case, and D2xs images in the other case. That's right, D2xs. These are six figure jobs. So why blow money on MFD?
The only people who bitch about 35mm digital are beauty clients and retouchers. I like MFD, but its getting harder to justify keeping it around when the ds3 is so close, so easy, almost cheap. The new Nikon should be even better. The new Sony, from what the Sony pro video product manager told me, inherits much of the know how of digital image processing from the pro line Sony video cams like the EX1 and 3. If that is true, the new Sony with its CZ lenses may be the BOMB. So what if you have to gaff tape the Sony logo so people stop making fun of you. It might be a piddling $3k, full kit with CZ lenses for under $7k.
-
I do know that when I see that video of Annie photographing the Queen with a Canon it kind of throws me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do not forget, Annie comes out of a documentary background. A couple of Nikons thrown around her neck, and get on the tour bus. So truth be known, she probably prefers the familiarity. She's also going for the expression, so who wants to be standing next to her when she pushes the shutter release on that P45, and nothing happens, because the back hasn't recycled yet?
I know I don't.
She goes with what works.
As does, sadly, Demarchelier. But again, just make sure and don't tell Anthony R; we don't want to burst his bubble.
-
Do not forget, Annie comes out of a documentary background. A couple of Nikons thrown around her neck, and get on the tour bus. So truth be known, she probably prefers the familiarity. She's also going for the expression, so who wants to be standing next to her when she pushes the shutter release on that P45, and nothing happens, because the back hasn't recycled yet?
I know I don't.
She goes with what works.
As does, sadly, Demarchelier. But again, just make sure and don't tell Anthony R; we don't want to burst his bubble.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Once again I don't sell cameras so I shouldn't care, other than I want what I want and I guess what I want isn't really there.
As far as the p65+ market place (the name of that camera sounds like something from the AARP), I do think there are a lot of people here and a lot of people that read this that exactly ARE the medium format market.
They're just not reaching them.
Some is the lcd, some the is iso, some is the speed of shooting, some is the cart o' rocks and some it's just a money thing.
The money thing is the most interesting, becuase I know and I think you feel the same way, I would drop 20 grand on a camera like the Rolliflex (I'm not going to call it an HY6) if I was positive it would be the only still camera I would have to buy for at least the next 10 years.
It might be, but the way the digital companies work, upgrading by the year, I don't trust that what I spend that kind of money on will be viable until then.
It's fine for 5, 6, or 7 grand if canon pushes me into a new camera but a $40,000 or $50,000 system that THEN takes $20,000 to upgrade to the next . . . that's where the problem is.
It's not the initial costs, its the fact that none of us believe the costs will ever even out.
JR
-
You might be right. Maybe I'm myopic, maybe us people shooters are all myopic and can't see what other photographers are up to, why they need a P65. That being said, two people I know just shot some large campaigns for McCann Ericson. Heavy composits of large format and 67 film scans in one case, and D2xs images in the other case. That's right, D2xs. These are six figure jobs. So why blow money on MFD?
The only people who bitch about 35mm digital are beauty clients and retouchers. I like MFD, but its getting harder to justify keeping it around when the ds3 is so close, so easy, almost cheap. The new Nikon should be even better. The new Sony, from what the Sony pro video product manager told me, inherits much of the know how of digital image processing from the pro line Sony video cams like the EX1 and 3. If that is true, the new Sony with its CZ lenses may be the BOMB. So what if you have to gaff tape the Sony logo so people stop making fun of you. It might be a piddling $3k, full kit with CZ lenses for under $7k.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210627\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dude I work for McCann all the time and do Big AD jobs with them as well as many other big ad agencies here. Dittborn,Olgivy,Lowport etc..
Guys are shooting huge campaigns with 5D's!!
Talk about depressing!
After all the retouching that goes on these days...A lot of technical BS does not matter.
The only difference (for the retocuher like myself) is it is more forgiving with the higher dynamic range.
I personally have not used the 1DsMIII but can imagine if it's DR improved it should be fine for just about anything.
Unless you are shooting Gallery Art images or where you need that extra room.
Your basic magazines billboards and about all of what I do, No-one is going to notice...
Good example...
DaveHill...:+}
He was shooting Big jobs with a friggn' 5D for a longtime as well as white lightning flash
His latest Backstage stuff is with HassleBlad and 30"cinema displays....:+}
I guess he even starting feeling bad about charging 50,000 for a campaign and doing it with a 5D..:+]
SNook
-
I do know that when I see that video of Annie photographing the Queen with a Canon it kind of throws me.
I mean, you'd expect the world's most famous photographer would photograph the world's most famous person with a camera that wasn't owned by the service manager at a Chevy dealership.
You'd expect an 8x10, or an RZ with a huge bellows, or maybe even something that said Rolliflex, Leica or Hasselblad.
But a 1ds2 with a zoom? . . . kind of strange looking and not that it should matter because the photos were fine and I'm sure Vanity Fare and their retouching wizards got it all right.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi James, I agree with you for the most part, but I think it's *great* that my clients are not too concerned with which camera I use. They look at my portfolio, at the LCD during the shoot and the final images and they go by that - as they should. Do any of you want the client telling you which camera you can use for the job?
I think it is very refreshing to see a shift in focus - where the end result is what matters most. They trust the LCD and trust the photographer. I believe that's the way it should be. Do your art directors even know which brand of camera you are using? I'm pretty sure mine don't.
re:
"As does, sadly, Demarchelier. But again, just make sure and don't tell Anthony R; we don't want to burst his bubble."
Out of curiosity, what is sad about it?
-
re:
"As does, sadly, Demarchelier. But again, just make sure and don't tell Anthony R; we don't want to burst his bubble."
Out of curiosity, what is sad about it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Some guys, you just have a picture of them working. With an old school guy like Demarchelier, you want him hunched over a film Hasselblad, or a 4x5. You just want him to be saying, "Yoo eediot -- deed you drop zee dark slide again into zee grass?", instead of saying, "Ah wee on Raw, or on JayPeggzz comprezzion seeex?"
It would be like seeing a picture of Roversi working, and he's sitting in some bad lawn chair, looking through a 5D or something.
There's just something cool about driving by an old man, mowing his yard, with one of those cyclical manual blade lawn mowers. It's like he's flipping the bird to The Future.
Some things, you just don't want to ever change.
-
Some guys, you just have a picture of them working. With an old school guy like Demarchelier, you want him hunched over a film Hasselblad, or a 4x5. It would be like seeing a picture of Roversi working, and he's sitting in some bad lawn chair, looking through a 5D or something.
There's just something cool about driving by an old man, mowing his yard, with one of those cyclical manual blade lawn mowers. It's like he's flipping the bird to The Future.
Some things, you just don't want to ever change.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you want to see people smile, just shoot with that little leica.*
Not that it impresses, actually it does, but it looks like a film camera. I even love you have to take the bottom off of it to change the card.
Not that the camera makes the artist, its always the other way around, but using the same camera the car mechanic uses kinda bugs me.
Personally I don't really care what Annie shoots with, or who does her retouching, I just find it a little strange to see that ugly as hell zoom pointed at the Queen. When I saw that video I really thought she was just scouting locations.
JR
*the leica shoots full rez jpegs AND DNG AND the DNG will work in anything, even photoshop 7.
**not that I have anything against car mechanics***
***Actually I do have something against car mechanics, at least the ones I pay.
-
Hi James, I agree with you for the most part, but I think it's *great* that my clients are not too concerned with which camera I use. They look at my portfolio, at the LCD during the shoot and the final images and they go by that - as they should. Do any of you want the client telling you which camera you can use for the job?
I think it is very refreshing to see a shift in focus - where the end result is what matters most. They trust the LCD and trust the photographer. I believe that's the way it should be. Do your art directors even know which brand of camera you are using? I'm pretty sure mine don't.
re:
"As does, sadly, Demarchelier. But again, just make sure and don't tell Anthony R; we don't want to burst his bubble."
Out of curiosity, what is sad about it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My clients chose me for my artistic interpretation and that they will leave knowing they have a good quality image.
But unfortunately we do not live in a fair world and people are obviosly impressed by names, who should know that better than us.
We are trying the whole time to get people to buy stuff b/c of our images..
It is just a fact that people want and are used to already looking at the back of the LCD.
I used to have a client that every time I took a picture she would actually try and grab my cmaera and look at the lcd all the time and I told her lady or not if she does it again I would smack her upside the head..
It literally drove me crazy.
Now they are always touching and pushing my 30" cinema display..:+}
I love shooting tethered and never need the LCD for that as many stated..
Snook
-
My clients never ask or bother what camera I use. They expect it to be good and be able to use it.
I don't think anything is totally ideal. I don't really care but just take what I can use and like to use.
I love using my DSLR's but do get bored with them sometimes, perfection (in operation that is) can be so deadly boring. The MF equipment with its sometimes nasty attitude is simply much more fun to work with. This, for me always generates images I enjoy a lot more. As long as the inconvenience doesn't get above a certain comfort level naturally.
Most clients don't see the difference when I work with 12MP (Nikon), 16MP MF or 39MF. Some do see it and some do but don't know what they are seeing. I had one lately that I did everything multishot for but the last items. I got lazy and did these single shot. These last items were immediately rejected! Frankly I don't care whether clients can see it, I can and that is enough for me.
Main reason for using MF is the fun of it. Would I still be shooting it when Nikon comes with equipment that is equal in performance? I guess I would.
-
annie shoots canon for probably the same reason she shot RZ with film...she is just about the LEAST technical person on the planet...so she just wanted something that just worked.....and the canons just do....with her retouching crew, she could shoot the queen with a 2 year old rebel and the final images would be amazing....
an assistant of mine mentioned when we talked about film/digital/equipment that wit the arrival of the 5D, the sewer was open....anyone could afford one and anyone could now produce files good and big enough for just about ANY job....so anyone with a 5D started calling themselves a photographer....when i lived in NY, i thought there are 1000s of photographers there and most of them pretty good and knowledgable...here in LA, i think there are actually 100.000s....and most of them have absolutely no clue and just mess up the market from the bottom.....they are the ones people turn to to shoot the small ad, the low budget shoot.....the client usually isn't very happy but did not pay that much and the next time then will go with the next guy....and they just run from anyone who mentions "usage".....
the leica myth started because all these great shooters used leica and everybody wanted to have shots just like them....nothing wrong with that at all...some people sit in a mercedes and think they are Fangio.....buying the same guitar as jimi does not make you play like jimi or if it does, does it put you in the same catgorie? there is a guy on 3rd street who plays "just like jimi...which is exactly his "problem".....
james mentioned the leica and i can say that no camera i have ever owned got that overall positive reaction....i have big hands and it look tiiiiiny....like a toy....(i have had mine sitting next to a H3 and one of the clients mentioned that "now that looks like a camera"...talking about the leica...) but everybody knows leica....nobody owns one (but their great uncle who got them interested in art and photography and really knew a lot about it had one) and once they see the files pop up on the screen and everything looks great and you can count eyelashes, nobody asks about megapixels or resolution anymore......if they do, all you have to do is turn it into a philosophical discussion about "look", "feel"...the drawing of the lenses and they are reminded of the last time they got frustrated because aunt emma, who has no clue but a 14mpix p&s emailed them a kinda shitty looking full rez jpeg and messed up their blackberry for the rest of the day....
it really does not matter what one shoots with and avedon would probably still shoot the west with 8x10...it is still better and no canon, nikon or DMF system would provide that kind of authority.....
in a way the canons and nikons have become the "least" professional cameras because everyone who gets "serious" about photography these days has one......
-
annie shoots canon for probably the same reason she shot RZ with film...she is just about the LEAST technical person on the planet...so she just wanted something that just worked.....and the canons just do....with her retouching crew, she could shoot the queen with a 2 year old rebel and the final images would be amazing....
an assistant of mine mentioned when we talked about film/digital/equipment that wit the arrival of the 5D, the sewer was open....anyone could afford one and anyone could now produce files good and big enough for just about ANY job....so anyone with a 5D started calling themselves a photographer....when i lived in NY, i thought there are 1000s of photographers there and most of them pretty good and knowledgable...here in LA, i think there are actually 100.000s....and most of them have absolutely no clue and just mess up the market from the bottom.....they are the ones people turn to to shoot the small ad, the low budget shoot.....the client usually isn't very happy but did not pay that much and the next time then will go with the next guy....and they just run from anyone who mentions "usage".....
the leica myth started because all these great shooters used leica and everybody wanted to have shots just like them....nothing wrong with that at all...some people sit in a mercedes and think they are Fangio.....buying the same guitar as jimi does not make you play like jimi or if it does, does it put you in the same catgorie? there is a guy on 3rd street who plays "just like jimi...which is exactly his "problem".....
james mentioned the leica and i can say that no camera i have ever owned got that overall positive reaction....i have big hands and it look tiiiiiny....like a toy....(i have had mine sitting next to a H3 and one of the clients mentioned that "now that looks like a camera"...talking about the leica...) but everybody knows leica....nobody owns one (but their great uncle who got them interested in art and photography and really knew a lot about it had one) and once they see the files pop up on the screen and everything looks great and you can count eyelashes, nobody asks about megapixels or resolution anymore......if they do, all you have to do is turn it into a philosophical discussion about "look", "feel"...the drawing of the lenses and they are reminded of the last time they got frustrated because aunt emma, who has no clue but a 14mpix p&s emailed them a kinda shitty looking full rez jpeg and messed up their blackberry for the rest of the day....
it really does not matter what one shoots with and avedon would probably still shoot the west with 8x10...it is still better and no canon, nikon or DMF system would provide that kind of authority.....
in a way the canons and nikons have become the "least" professional cameras because everyone who gets "serious" about photography these days has one......
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210669\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey Paul what are shooting with these days..:+}
Snook
-
an assistant of mine mentioned when we talked about film/digital/equipment that wit the arrival of the 5D, the sewer was open....anyone could afford one and anyone could now produce files good and big enough for just about ANY job....so anyone with a 5D started calling themselves a photographer....
jesus, what did a hassy 500 series and a fist full of porta cost 15 - 20 years ago? or did you have to have a special badge to buy one?
nothing a car salesman couldn't have afforded. if anything, professional cameras, lighting, computers, and and and equipment have become more difficult for a hobby photographer to afford.
as far as i'm concerned everyone on the planet can have the same perfect camera, then if my freakin firewire cable goes down or my lens locks up i can ask the nearest janitor or waitress to loan me theirs.
-
James,
I've found the solution for you.
"The money thing is the most interesting, becuase I know and I think you feel the same way, I would drop 20 grand on a camera like the Rolliflex (I'm not going to call it an HY6) if I was positive it would be the only still camera I would have to buy for at least the next 10 years."
If you don't want the Sinar or Leaf logo on the Hy6,all you need to dois get the viewfinder for the Rolleiflex version of the Hy6.
It's still grey though,not black.
I shoot with the Sinar Hy6 btw and love that little camera!
Keep up the good work!
Cheers,
Willem.
-
Dude I work for McCann all the time and do Big AD jobs with them as well as many other big ad agencies here. Dittborn,Olgivy,Lowport etc..
Guys are shooting huge campaigns with 5D's!!
Talk about depressing!
After all the retouching that goes on these days...A lot of technical BS does not matter.
The only difference (for the retocuher like myself) is it is more forgiving with the higher dynamic range.
I personally have not used the 1DsMIII but can imagine if it's DR improved it should be fine for just about anything.
Unless you are shooting Gallery Art images or where you need that extra room.
Your basic magazines billboards and about all of what I do, No-one is going to notice...
Good example...
DaveHill...:+}
He was shooting Big jobs with a friggn' 5D for a longtime as well as white lightning flash
His latest Backstage stuff is with HassleBlad and 30"cinema displays....:+}
I guess he even starting feeling bad about charging 50,000 for a campaign and doing it with a 5D..:+]
SNook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210641\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i shot mf mainly for the lenses , in architecture this is a completely other theme than for fashion work. i dont talk about magic "3d glowing", i talk about shift / tilt / wa stuff with lo distortion. here i have no choice, either to work with 4x5 film or to work with mf shift camera,.- the things with canons get very complicate although its possible too if someone really knows to use the 35mm cams together with solutions as the zoerk . but just to a certain point, than this 35mm thing becomes to complicate and too limiting.
although in mf still the wide end is limited, so in one of 20 shots i need it wider than my stitched 28HR takes me.
in this cases i take my 5d together with my ( selected ) sigma 12-24 lense,- which is by far the best corrected 35mm wide lens i ever saw .
often these superwide shots are taken by the clients as eye catchers, so they are also often publicated, in this case mostly mixed with my mf stuff,- sometimes as doublespreads in magazines as well as in books. never i had any complain about quality or resolution of my 5d/sigma shots.
..... but as i said. i need good corrected shift lenses whenever i can use them, so i work with mf backs and systems. thats an easier decision in architecture than if i would shoot people,-. in this case probably i would use the canons a lot .
i will upgrade probably in some time to higher resolution, after the first few 100 beta testers will have confirmed that their new phase/hassy/leaf/sinar backs will dcertainly not show nice centerfolds or whatever.
but honestly there is not any NEED to upgrade for higher resolution. and not any hurry.
for me its not such bad time point now, because the need to invest a lot go digital is over for me, i already did it and i have a very nice system and i know to use it to its limits after some years of digital. the big step was to change 4x5" to 22mp and later to 33 including lenses, cameras and so on.
i felt that i had to do this change 3 years before and i havent regretted it.
but now? i dont feel any stress about 50, 65 or xxx MP backs. thats really different to my point 3 years before. even i am not sure if i will upgrade my 5d if the 5d2 will come out. my most used lenses ( the sigma12-24 and the canon 100-400 ) are at its resolution limits ,there will not be a difference visible if i put a 17 or 22mp sensor behind them,- i dont need hi isos... so for what. maybe i will do and upgrade my back if this is possible in the future, maybe not,- but there is no stress in this decision and this is not so bad.
lets see how the mf companies will go on selling this hi-res backs, which nearly no one needs.
you can get now pretty nice p30+ a65 or e54 backs for prices which are not so far away from than the canons. i cant see how phase will get back their investment in the exclusive 65mp dalsa sensor... but lets see.
another story about lenses and about cameras ( clear that i wll work with an artec ... ).
in hardware for architecture shooters the evolution is in the middle and not on a similar point than the mf resolution already stays. but if i have what will work fine for me my interest is going down a lot,- i know this from me. and my e75 back has already reached this point ....
[attachment=7605:attachment]
canon 5d with sigma @12mm
-
i shot mf mainly for the lenses , in architecture this is a completely other theme than for fashion work. i dont talk about magic "3d glowing", i talk about shift / tilt / wa stuff with lo distortion. here i have no choice, either to work with 4x5 film or to work with mf shift camera,.- the things with canons get very complicate although its possible too if someone really knows to use the 35mm cams together with solutions as the zoerk . but just to a certain point, than this 35mm thing becomes to complicate and too limiting.
although in mf still the wide end is limited, so in one of 20 shots i need it wider than my stitched 28HR takes me.
in this cases i take my 5d together with my ( selected ) sigma 12-24 lense,- which is by far the best corrected 35mm wide lens i ever saw .
often these superwide shots are taken by the clients as eye catchers, so they are also often publicated, in this case mostly mixed with my mf stuff,- sometimes as doublespreads in magazines as well as in books. never i had any complain about quality or resolution of my 5d/sigma shots.
..... but as i said. i need good corrected shift lenses whenever i can use them, so i work with mf backs and systems. thats an easier decision in architecture than if i would shoot people,-. in this case probably i would use the canons a lot .
i will upgrade probably in some time to higher resolution, after the first few 100 beta testers will have confirmed that their new phase/hassy/leaf/sinar backs will dcertainly not show nice centerfolds or whatever.
but honestly there is not any NEED to upgrade for higher resolution. and not any hurry.
for me its not such bad time point now, because the need to invest a lot go digital is over for me, i already did it and i have a very nice system and i know to use it to its limits after some years of digital. the big step was to change 4x5" to 22mp and later to 33 including lenses, cameras and so on.
i felt that i had to do this change 3 years before and i havent regretted it.
but now? i dont feel any stress about 50, 65 or xxx MP backs. thats really different to my point 3 years before. even i am not sure if i will upgrade my 5d if the 5d2 will come out. my most used lenses ( the sigma12-24 and the canon 100-400 ) are at its resolution limits ,there will not be a difference visible if i put a 17 or 22mp sensor behind them,- i dont need hi isos... so for what. maybe i will do and upgrade my back if this is possible in the future, maybe not,- but there is no stress in this decision and this is not so bad.
lets see how the mf companies will go on selling this hi-res backs, which nearly no one needs.
you can get now pretty nice p30+ a65 or e54 backs for prices which are not so far away from than the canons. i cant see how phase will get back their investment in the exclusive 65mp dalsa sensor... but lets see.
another story about lenses and about cameras ( clear that i wll work with an artec ... ).
in hardware for architecture shooters the evolution is in the middle and not on a similar point than the mf resolution already stays. but if i have what will work fine for me my interest is going down a lot,- i know this from me. and my e75 back has already reached this point ....
[attachment=7605:attachment]
canon 5d with sigma @12mm
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There will always be a need for technical cameras, which is why Sinar will be one of the surviving companies if and when there is a shakeout in the MF industry. I am really impressed that they made the ArcTec, and I am very impressed with the Hy6. If I were in Europe I'd bite!
Cheers Rainer!
-
an assistant of mine mentioned when we talked about film/digital/equipment that wit the arrival of the 5D, the sewer was open....anyone could afford one and anyone could now produce files good and big enough for just about ANY job....so anyone with a 5D started calling themselves a photographer....
jesus, what did a hassy 500 series and a fist full of porta cost 15 - 20 years ago? or did you have to have a special badge to buy one?
nothing a car salesman couldn't have afforded. if anything, professional cameras, lighting, computers, and and and equipment have become more difficult for a hobby photographer to afford.
as far as i'm concerned everyone on the planet can have the same perfect camera, then if my freakin firewire cable goes down or my lens locks up i can ask the nearest janitor or waitress to loan me theirs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210705\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
itis not about the cost.....canon probably sold more 5Ds in a month then hass 500 series in its lifespan.....
-
itis not about the cost.....canon probably sold more 5Ds in a month then hass 500 series in its lifespan.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210744\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
With a Blad and fist full of Portra you had to know what you were doing. You had to use a meter. It took some time to get film back from the lab or you had to get your hands dirty developing and printing yourself. Skills. Then when you got the film back all that effort could be wasted if the film came back blank, or under exposed, or over exposed etc. Again, skills that take time, dedication and practice to master. You couldn't start blasting away, looking at the screen to see if you have an image. That's why the sewer opened up. Its easy to take an image.
-
itis not about the cost.....canon probably sold more 5Ds in a month then hass 500 series in its lifespan.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210744\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I like cameras, most of them, but the 5d is something I really could never own. I picked one up, looked through it and put it down.
Done.
I think it's just because when I started you saved for cameras, borrowed money for cameras, went in dept for cameras before you would never think about shooting a professional job with an amateur camera, under any circumstance.
I know the people that like the 5D like it a lot but I wouldn't have it.
The Canons are perplexing to me. I absolutley love the original 1ds and will have it forever. I even still use it some, I really have never warmed to the 1ds2. I do use it, sometimes a lot but I just don't like the color, or the file sharpness. I can fix it in post and it's a good workable camera, but I have no bond or feeling for it whatsoever.
Given than I will buy a 1ds3 this week and if I like it I'll buy another for backup.
I don't care about the sewer rot, every industry has it in some form, so I can't blame a camera for that. I just don't like the 5d.
JR
-
I like cameras, most of them, but the 5d is something I really could never own. I picked one up, looked through it and put it down.
Done.
I think it's just because when I started you saved for cameras, borrowed money for cameras, went in dept for cameras before you would never think about shooting a professional job with an amateur camera, under any circumstance.
I know the people that like the 5D like it a lot but I wouldn't have it.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Have no doubt that it is a horrid camera in terms of handling, but it does make a nice picture. I bought it along with a 1ds2 when I abandoned the Nikon ship, and it was a hard adjustment, especially coming from the Nikon bodies. Under lights the 5D looks as good as the ds2. It has less DR than the ds2. What's funny is that, to this day, I'll shoot with the 5D and feel as if everything I shot was an utter failure, until I look at the files in C1.
I wish that the Mamiya AF cams had half of the 5D's handling goodness.
-
Have no doubt that it is a horrid camera in terms of handling, but it does make a nice picture. I bought it along with a 1ds2 when I abandoned the Nikon ship, and it was a hard adjustment, especially coming from the Nikon bodies. Under lights the 5D looks as good as the ds2. It has less DR than the ds2. What's funny is that, to this day, I'll shoot with the 5D and feel as if everything I shot was an utter failure, until I look at the files in C1.
I wish that the Mamiya AF cams had half of the 5D's handling goodness.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210752\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I know the latest version of the Mamiya is better than the first two, but there really was no where to go but up.
JR
-
I know the latest version of the Mamiya is better than the first two, but there really was no where to go but up.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210755\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What's funny is that I have two of the original Mamiya AFd cams. Had one since they came out. The AFd2 is tighter and has better AF, but is still the same beast underneath. I never saw the need to get one, especially since their price used is a shocking $1800 bucks. More than your Contax, which is a fine camera, one you want to shoot. What is really bothersome is that the AFd with film was much better than with digital, much faster. I tried the AFd3/Phase cam and liked it. Much better feel in the hands, much better quality switch gear.
-
With a Blad and fist full of Portra you had to know what you were doing. You had to use a meter. It took some time to get film back from the lab or you had to get your hands dirty developing and printing yourself. Skills. Then when you got the film back all that effort could be wasted if the film came back blank, or under exposed, or over exposed etc. Again, skills that take time, dedication and practice to master. You couldn't start blasting away, looking at the screen to see if you have an image. That's why the sewer opened up. Its easy to take an image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210746\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
absolutely correct! it is hard NOT to take a technically good photo with it.....
-
Given than I will buy a 1ds3 this week and if I like it I'll buy another for backup.
I don't care about the sewer rot, every industry has it in some form, so I can't blame a camera for that. I just don't like the 5d.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
JR,
Let us know what you think of the ds3. It doesn't "wow" like the orginal flavor 1ds, except for the viewfinder.
-
absolutely correct! it is hard NOT to take a technically good photo with it.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210762\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah, hah. Now we hit on the secret to success.
We've been looking at this backwards.
Instead of a better lcd, higher iso, faster shooting, maybe we should ask for more shutter lag, even crappier lcds, (even it requires a polaroid and a meter) and very minimal iso so we need at least 10,000 watts to get an image.
Let's put all the magic back behind the curtain instead of out front like we do now.
Or maybe just a digital polaroid, with only 3mpx but a 5" screen. One that is good enough to view but not good enough to reproduce and then we go back behind the curtain and do the magic.
(just kidding . . . well . . . maybe not)
JR
-
Ah, hah. Now we hit on the secret to success.
We've been looking at this backwards.
Instead of a better lcd, higher iso, faster shooting, maybe we should ask for more shutter lag, even crappier lcds, (even it requires a polaroid and a meter) and very minimal iso so we need at least 10,000 watts to get an image.
Let's put all the magic back behind the curtain instead of out front like we do now.
Or maybe just a digital polaroid, with only 3mpx but a 5" screen. One that is good enough to view but not good enough to reproduce and then we go back behind the curtain and do the magic.
(just kidding . . . well . . . maybe not)
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210766\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So it sounds like you want a Sinar 54m! I loved that back, but it was the MOST difficult thing to coax an image out of but when it finally worked it was really, really beautiful.
I wondered why rates were higher for video/motion and I realize its because the curtain is still down. Film production is hard, even for something really simple. So much collaboration and planning is required, its just fantastic.
-
I think the new flagship for DSLR will be the Nikon D3x or whatever it will be called.
I use a 5D and a Hy6/75LV.
I'm a bit over Canon with their not so great wides.
That new Nikon 14-24 shit's on everything else.
Not interested in the 1DS3 or the upcoming 5D2.
Nikon has listened and is now making gear that the pros want.
Cheers,
Willem.
-
I think the new flagship for DSLR will be the Nikon D3x or whatever it will be called.
I use a 5D and a Hy6/75LV.
I'm a bit over Canon with their not so great wides.
That new Nikon 14-24 shit's on everything else.
Not interested in the 1DS3 or the upcoming 5D2.
Nikon has listened and is now making gear that the pros want.
Cheers,
Willem.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i have some doubts.
the new 24 nikon shift looks so cheap ( in reality - the plastic still looks nice in brochures ... ) and its handling feels so impractical, i couldnt believe it when i saw it first time.
only marketing driven, not any photographic knowledge or intention behind.
-
i have some doubts.
the new 24 nikon shift looks so cheap ( in reality - the plastic still looks nice in brochures ... ) and its handling feels so impractical, i couldnt believe it when i saw it first time.
only marketing driven, not any photographic knowledge or intention behind.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210782\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And it has an electronic stop down button. Meaning you cannot use it on something like a Digiflex or other device that accepts a F mount like you can the older 85PC
Maybe its optical quality is better than the old 28mm shift making it interesting together with a D3/D700(if it fits).
-
Rainer,
Obviously you're not a Nikon fan.
Maybe the Nikkor 24TS is at least worth a test?
It has to be better than the 10 year old design(or more) of the Canon TSE 24.
The new 14-24 Nikkor has certainly earned it's merits.
Regards,
Willem.
-
With a Blad and fist full of Portra you had to know what you were doing. You had to use a meter. It took some time to get film back from the lab or you had to get your hands dirty developing and printing yourself. Skills.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210746\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ironically, out of some of my frustration of tethering and the whole Digital Road Wreck, I (re)bought a couple of my beloved Hassie 203FE's recently, and I've started shooting color neg again. With the 203 and the meter built in, you just set it to aperture priority and shoot away, just like a point and shoot. It's a true joy. And I've got my old lenses back; those sweet Zeiss lenses.
What's even more interesting -- my local C41 pro lab will do web-quality scans, on their Noritsu scanner, of every frame of the uncut film, for the same price as making a color contact sheet. So that means, in effect, you could shoot an actual job on film, and by the next day, have your CD back with web scans on it, import to iView, make a web gallery, and have them uploaded immediately. Every frame. Not that different of a workflow, even compared to digital.
I'm going backwards, and I'm loving every minute of it. The funny part is when the make up artist will look at the back of the 203FE, and all she sees is a dark slider holder... Sweet revenge.
-
Maybe all of this is true. I don't know, I really shouldn't care.
I do know that when I see that video of Annie photographing the Queen with a Canon it kind of throws me.
I mean, you'd expect the world's most famous photogrpaher would photograph the world's most famous person with a camera that wasn't owned by the service manager at a Chevy dealership.
You'd expect an 8x10, or an RZ with a huge bellows, or maybe even something that said Rolliflex, Leica or Hasselblad.
But a 1ds2 with a zoom? . . . kind of strange looking and not that it should matter because the photos were fine and I'm sure Vanity Fare and their retouching wizards got it all right.
I kind of wonder what would Avedon shoot his western series in the digital world. A Mamiya 645 and a P45?
I don't think the behind the scenes photos would look quite right with that setup.
Still, it's strange we're using the same equipment as auto repair guys.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210626\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
JR,
What do you have against mechanics and their photographic abilities?
On a technical level, I think her quality has gone down since using digital. I can spot a AL digital shot on the newstands from pretty far away. Perhaps its the look she's going for but to me it looks like crap.
But who are we to judge on which camera someone uses? If one can make beautiful photos with a canon, then great. To me, all that stands between me and my subject is a somewhat arbitrary piece of glass. When I am shooting, I think about composition, exposure, and light; not that my canon lenses are inferior to medium format.
-
i have some doubts.
the new 24 nikon shift looks so cheap ( in reality - the plastic still looks nice in brochures ... ) and its handling feels so impractical, i couldnt believe it when i saw it first time.
only marketing driven, not any photographic knowledge or intention behind.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210782\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I also find that the Nikon 24 shift feels a bit cheap, I was also a bit disappointed when I first got it in my hand.
But, I tested 2 samples against a Canon 24 ts that where handpicked the same way by an other photographer as you have done with your sigma wide.
Both the Nikon samples performed better than the canon, specially towards the edge, they where sharper and had less CA.
The 14-24 is quite good as well
Nikon have Imo the edge on the wide side and the sample variation on the lenses are not as choking as the Canon's can be.
/adam
-
Thanks Adam and Rainer.
As for the golden rule,I have to test those lenses myself.
Cheers,
Willem.
-
JR,
What do you have against mechanics and their photographic abilities?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I like them better than I like hair stylists that become photographers, or as a friend calls them, Hairtographers.
JR
-
What's even more interesting -- my local C41 pro lab will do web-quality scans, on their Noritsu scanner, of every frame of the uncut film, for the same price as making a color contact sheet. So that means, in effect, you could shoot an actual job on film, and by the next day, have your CD back with web scans on it, import to iView, make a web gallery, and have them uploaded immediately. Every frame. Not that different of a workflow, even compared to digital.
I'm going backwards, and I'm loving every minute of it. The funny part is when the make up artist will look at the back of the 203FE, and all she sees is a dark slider holder... Sweet revenge.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210805\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wonder how many labs would still be in business if they offerred this service, or better yet would archive all of the film, you would just call it in and they would ftp the high rez scans.
It's funny, (Ironic funny, not ha ha funny) I didn't start digital to get rid of film, I started with digital to get rid of polaroid and the unstability and the wait time and the assitants smearing them, etc.
Now it's even more than funny that it took until now with the Nikon to get a preview that was better than polaroid.
JR
-
I like them better than I like hair stylists that become photographers, or as a friend calls them, Hairtographers, not to be confused with Actographers.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210897\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Im glad somebody else notices these things, they drive me nuts.
James you always talk about the great color of the 1ds, I feel the same way about the old canon d60.... people I know always say oh is that like an old camera or something? I jsut say yeah....its um old
-
Im glad somebody else notices these things, they drive me nuts.
James you always talk about the great color of the 1ds, I feel the same way about the old canon d60.... people I know always say oh is that like an old camera or something? I jsut say yeah....its um old
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210901\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was in Osaka shooting 4 athletes for an ad series. During one event, there was this young Japanese photogrpaher, with this tiny laptop uploading some of the most beautiful sports images I've ever seen . . . actually forget the sports part, they were just beautiful regardless of the genre.
At his feet were two Nikon D1's, or whatever the "old" ones were called. They looked like they had been dragged behind a truck.
JR
-
I think the new flagship for DSLR will be the Nikon D3x or whatever it will be called.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think the consensus in the industry is that the big shakeup will come when the Sony fullframe hits the streets. Sony has been quietly commissioning expensive Zeiss full frame lenses and will hit the street with a full system with custom lenses. Canon and Nikon now both have lens issues as moving bodies has soaked up all their energy.
For myself, I suspect that Sony may do a 1-2 and follow up with video-enabled products employing the same lens range.
One shouldn't underestimate the effect of a few good lenses on buying behavior. I use a single lens 85% of the time, and I think that a really good 50, the 85/1.4 or a remake of one of the famed Zeiss zooms may be enough for many to justify buying into the Sony range.
Edmund
-
What lens issues does Nikon have? They have a zoom line from 14mm up to 400mm that performs better than virtually every prime. They have redesigned their macro primes, redesigned the PC lens line with a 24, 45 & 85 (unfortunately electronic making it useless for my Digiflex ). The long teles are redone with VR (which indeed was long overdue).
Now, I agree we are waiting for the updated 1.4 series (28,35,50,85) and yes these are the ones I would be waiting for but the 'older' versions are still very capable.
Besides these there is also the Zeiss ZF line with its truly insane resolution for those that do not mind MF (manual focussing).
The Sony Zeiss lenses look very nice and I am sure are equally good performers but have you checked out the prices of these? Very hard to gain access to an already divided market with these even if Sony comes with a killer 24MP body that really works.
I don't know diddly about the Canon line of lenses besides the 4.0 series which I wished would be available for Nikon as well. Most my Canon-mates tell me Canon has a more extended line of lenses and is cheaper than Nikon. The only thing they envy me for is the wide-angle side.
-
I think the consensus in the industry is that the big shakeup will come when the Sony fullframe hits the streets. Sony has been quietly commissioning expensive Zeiss full frame lenses and will hit the street with a full system with custom lenses. Canon and Nikon now both have lens issues as moving bodies has soaked up all their energy.
For myself, I suspect that Sony may do a 1-2 and follow up with video-enabled products employing the same lens range.
One shouldn't underestimate the effect of a few good lenses on buying behavior. I use a single lens 85% of the time, and I think that a really good 50, the 85/1.4 or a remake of one of the famed Zeiss zooms may be enough for many to justify buying into the Sony range.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210947\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Obviously Sony has the resource to do about anything.
Now, whether they do anything new or groundbreaking is another story.
Up to now they are pretty much selling the same prosumer camera with the same features as everyone else, so I don't see where that moves anyone to a Sony, at least in stills.
Remember, it's Sony (and others) who left the market open for the Red, so unless they come out with something remarkable, or more featured like wi-fi that works easily, a very unique lens line, (1.2's rather than just 1.4's) variable crops, removeable prisms, a modular design, (ala the Red) then I just see this as another line of small cameras that sell well in Japan.
The Ziess glass might help, but it won't carry the day if that's the only difference.
Just like the Red found the hole in the digital video to cinema film market, the same thing exists in still cameras.
For stills, there is the 35-mm mindset which grew from PJ and sports work, where in camera processing, frame dimensions have grown from the 35-mm petri dish, though the larger studio/advertising type cameras coming in somewhat as an afterthought.
Then there is the medium format digital cameras, which came from tethered still life, studio DNA, which is probably the reason they are so computer/software dependent and so unwieldly in location and fast changing situations.
In other words there is a place for the "sweet spot" and so far nobody looks like they are going to address it. Obviously a 50/60 mpx digital back at a $40,000 price isn't the complete answer and another 35mm dslr that is a clone of a Nikon or Canon won't do it either.
There needs to be something new, maybe the rumored leica with a 4:3 crop, (or variable crop) and new lenses, new body, maybe a new viewing system.
Or someone could do the RED mindset where you get twice the camera for 1/2 the price of the competition.
That would work.
JR
-
I don't know diddly about the Canon line of lenses besides the 4.0 series which I wished would be available for Nikon as well. Most my Canon-mates tell me Canon has a more extended line of lenses and is cheaper than Nikon. The only thing they envy me for is the wide-angle side.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210951\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Canon has some good super-teles, a good 90 shift, expensive but very solid 135, 85, 35 primes and a debatable 50 and 24, AFAIK. Their zooms are now pushed into a corner, apart from the 70-200 maybe. The rest of the lenses are now seriously suffering from the 1DsIII resolution, especially the zooms, at least that is what *my* friends tell me. Nikon will probably be in the same position if they release a hi-rez body - remember that because of their reluctance to go full frame hi-rez before now they will now suddenly hit a huge step-up when they do so.
Please don't read this as my saying that either N or C have bad products. All of us here have used their products in the past, and they certainly have got the job done. It's just that they have legacy lineups which get incrementally updated, and which were partially targeted at crop-frame, while Sony has the benefit of coming in with a bang with brand-new custom designs.
Edmund
-
If it's priced at $15,000 rather than $7,000 it has to be twice as good, offer twice as much.
While i agree with most everything you say, it's been my experience in technology based
fields that once you hit the 'high end', you pay thousands for another (roughly ) 2% increase.
The pro audio world is especially like this. I've always assumed it's because once you hit that
threshold, R&D/marketing/all other cliche excuses are exponentially higher to push the
tech beyond that point. Although a 2% increase in a few areas quickly adds up, and those
sensitive to the differences quite often care enough to pay for the difference. To worsen matters
though, sometimes the differences are just subjective preference.
I agree that your model would be nice though.
Or someone could do the RED mindset where you get twice the camera for 1/2 the price of the competition.
That would work.
Put me down for one of them. Or a ticket to whatever planet that happens on.
-
If it's priced at $15,000 rather than $7,000 it has to be twice as good, offer twice as much.
Or someone could do the RED mindset where you get twice the camera for 1/2 the price of the competition.
That would work.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210954\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I anticipate Sony will come in with 25MP under $4K; the announced breakthrough feature for studio shooters is the live-view which I believe can also be exported. Think of being able to put up the SLR view on a big-screen monitor in your studio while you shoot.
I don't think this camera itself will have anything special aside from price/performance, live view, in-body stabilization and good glass at a price. However, there is no limit on the new features Sony can crowd into a new body line - everyone else sure has been resisting innovation as much as possible.
Edmund
-
Put me down for one of them. Or a ticket to whatever planet that happens on.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't kow the history of the RED, but I get this feeling that the owners and makers of that camera actually talked and listened to people that produce professional images for money under high pressured situations. All the way up and down the chain, from pre production to final delivery.
For stills, I get the feeling that the 35mm makers talk and listen to photojournalists, (though the Adobe 98 thing throws me) and the medium format guys may talk to landscape and still life guys, but I would be surprised if either of those two actually spent much time talking to the professional fashion, editorial and advertising photographer.
If they did, I know the Canons would tether easier on a Mac, rename, sort etc., shoot a vertical frame to page size and I am positive that if medium format makers ever spent a week batch processing 1000 raw files a night to jpegs, software, in camera color settings, in camera previews would be a whole lot different than it is now.
As far as the lcd thing, there really isn't anything to add to that. It's obvious that's going nowhere in high end still equipment.
Regardless of the 2% theory, the RED is the exact opposite. It's twice the camera, 1/2 the price and the only downside is the wait time.
Saying all of this, it's probably just the market. Still photography is getting marginalized and moving imagery demands are growing.
That's probably the main difference between the two fields.
JR
-
I would be surprised if either of those two actually spent much time talking to the professional fashion, editorial and advertising photographer.
Excuse my ignorance on such matters, but i would think someone featured on the phase one
website in the case studies section, and also on one of their dealers websites would be able to provide direct
feedback to the company..? Genuinely curious about that situation..?
Regardless of the 2% theory, the RED is the exact opposite. It's twice the camera, 1/2 the price and the only downside is the wait time.
I guess time will tell if RED is the exception to the 'rule', a freak of nature, or a sign of things to come.
-
at least that is what *my* friends tell me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210955\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah, good to hear that some think their grass isn't that green We, Nikon users, have been suffering for so long already
the Nikon zooms (14-24/24-70/70-200/200-400) should be able to pull the necessary resolution for the ~24MP sensor as will the other newly released lenses.
I know you are not telling either one has bad products. Just wondering what you meant. I guess you might be right that at the 24MP mark the glasswork is becoming the part to be very careful with. We will see with the introduction of the D3x. I do know that there is more than one Nikkor/ZF lens that can resolve 20MP+ because I already have something like that (Digiflex with 39MP back together with F mount lenses).
-
I don't speak from personal experience, but some D3 users have found the otherwise well-regarded 70-200, a favorite of PJs, to be lacking in some situations on the D3.
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2008-04-blog....17Nikon70_200VR (http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2008-04-blog.html#20080417Nikon70_200VR)
Some Canon lenses are in the same boat, but the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, perhaps Canon's best zoom, and the longer primes are fine with FF.
(I'm a Canon guy, but the most of the shorter glass is mediocre with all the sensors.)
....
the Nikon zooms (14-24/24-70/70-200/200-400) should be able to pull the necessary resolution for the ~24MP sensor as will the other newly released lenses.
...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210969\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I anticipate Sony will come in with 25MP under $4K; the announced breakthrough feature for studio shooters is the live-view which I believe can also be exported. Think of being able to put up the SLR view on a big-screen monitor in your studio while you shoot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210958\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
breakthrough??
can already be done today with the D3.
(and, very likely, with the Canon's top dogs as well)
-
Great thread.
I'm lost regarding one thing, though. What is this RED that seems to get mentioned about every third post? Yes, I tried Google, and you can't search for it on this site because it's under 4 characters, for some reason.
What the heck is it?
David
-
Great thread.
I'm lost regarding one thing, though. What is this RED that seems to get mentioned about every third post? Yes, I tried Google, and you can't search for it on this site because it's under 4 characters, for some reason.
What the heck is it?
David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211080\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Red One is a digital video camera that shoots at 4k.
-
http://www.red.com/ (http://www.red.com/)
-
Thanks!
David
-
RED was started by Jim Jannard, the guy who founded Oakley. i always thought he saw the need thru dealing w/ action sports video people who yearned for something like what RED became...just my 2 cents, I could be totally wrong...I do think they have a great concept
-
Excuse my ignorance on such matters, but i would think someone featured on the phase one
website in the case studies section, and also on one of their dealers websites would be able to provide direct
feedback to the company..? Genuinely curious about that situation..?
I guess time will tell if RED is the exception to the 'rule', a freak of nature, or a sign of things to come.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210964\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I thought the original premise of this thread was not what is available in medium format , or 35mm dslr, BUT what the sweet spot for location work is and what is NOT available.
I kinda don't think the replies, or better put, the "suggestions" are aimed at Phase, any more than they are about Canon, Nikon, Leica, Phase, Sinar, Leaf, Sony, or maybe even that camera brand that has been invented yet.
If you own and use a medium format back and own and use a dslr you know what each does well, what they don't do well and where they cross territory.
You also know where they both leave territory uncovered and I guess that is what this thread is about.
To mention specific brands . . .Canon and Phase . . . do both listen? . . . I assume so . . . and I'm sure respond in the best way possible, given time, resource and price point.
That still doesn't mean there is not a segment out there that is not being covered.
As far as my relationship with Phase . . . it's simple. I use their equipment, I've shot a promotion for them, they put my name and photos in some promotions.
That's where it starts and stops.
I've never been solicited for ideas, or set in with a team of strategic planners. I doubt very seriously if Phase would ever view me as a contributer to that process and though I have opinions, once again those start and stop with me and probably go no further than this forum.
In other words nobody asked.
They did ask about what I like about what I presently use.
Now in regards to the RED (and once again this is only my opinion and it starts and stops with me), I think in a lot of ways it has a much simpler mission that the still cameras we keep mentioning.
To me the RED was built to be the digital equivalent of 35mm cinema cameras like the Arriflex.
Will it cross over territory like prosumer handicams and high end engs. Yes I'm sure it will, but I think it is main role is to be the digital movie camera.
JR
-
Now in regards to the RED (and once again this is only my opinion and it starts and stops with me), I think in a lot of ways it has a much simpler mission that the still cameras we keep mentioning.
To me the RED was built to be the digital equivalent of 35mm cinema cameras like the Arriflex.
Will it cross over territory like prosumer handicams and high end engs. Yes I'm sure it will, but I think it is main role is to be the digital movie camera.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211115\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, James, you asked for this:
Is there actually "one" digital movie camera, or is it like still cameras where there is a Canon 5D but it is mainly used because it is the cheapest way to get 90% of the jobs done ?
Are the big budget movies going to be done with a BlueImax and the teeny budget ones with a MiniGreen ? While non-projection imagery gets made with the WideTVYellow ?
Edmund
Edmund
-
Sorry, James, you asked for this:
Is there actually "one" digital movie camera, or is it like still cameras where there is a Canon 5D but it is mainly used because it is the cheapest way to get 90% of the jobs done ?
Are the big budget movies going to be done with a BlueImax and the teeny budget ones with a MiniGreen ? While non-projection imagery gets made with the WideTVYellow ?
Edmund
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211121\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There will soon be the Red Epic which should be better than the Arri/Panavision 35mm cams. I think of the Red One as being used where ever people used Super 16 or 35mm. The Sony EX1/3 are like Super 16, in that they can fake 35mm projected pretty well. I think the Sony EX1/3 is a breakthrough product. It's right after the Red One in terms of IQ.
To answer your quesyion, it seems the Red One and the new Red cameras cover all the bases for motion: The Epic will be like IMAX, the One is for 35mm, the new Reds are for ENG and Super 16 like applications.
Of all the other makers, (Canon, Panasonic, Sony et al) only Sony's EX1 and 3 have IQ that can be projected to 35mm standards. The others are either stupidly expensive or lack in IQ, including Sony's 9000 series cams.
-
Hi Mark
You are right in all what you said except that the RED could be used as an ENG camera.
The mo...er is way to heavy. I do sports 5 times a week but it's still to heavy for me over a long period of time.
The epic will be little lighter and smaller. Also the DR will be around 13 stops.
The epic will have 100 fps at 5K., around 125 fps at 4K and 250 fps at 2K or even more.
So this cam will realy enter the "film" world.
Tim
-
I talked to Phase regional rep years ago, right after buying the P25, at my place. P25, well, yes, that was many years ago. I held up my 1ds1 and my P25, and I asked the guy, "Which camera LCD would you base a $50k P.O. on, if it was your ass on the line?" He says something like, "Yeah, we know that our LCD needs some work".
That's why I started this thread -- here we are now with the P65+ announced, and in effect, very little gaining of ground except for megapixels. Same box; same LCD. (When, truth be told, the P25, years ago, offered more than enough megapixels for myself and for untold number of colleagues).
That's why I brought this up here, publicly -- to ask, "Is it me, or are these companies putting their feature emphasis in the wrong places? Most of us throwing away over 50% of the file for reproduction, and yet, if we shoot the back on location, we can't make out anything on the LCD in terms of higher values."
I just feel like I'm in that gap between 35 and MF -- wanting to shoot the MF lenses, but simply not willing to put up with the workarounds and excuses. (Actually, not really excuses -- mostly, just dead silence).
That's why, for me, I simply bailed on MF, and bought two 1ds3's and some film Hasselblads. The time was up. I voted with my pocketbook, and urge you all to do the same.
-
I talked to Phase regional rep years ago, right after buying the P25, at my place. P25, well, yes, that was many years ago. I held up my 1ds1 and my P25, and I asked the guy, "Which camera LCD would you base a $50k P.O. on, if it was your ass on the line?" He says something like, "Yeah, we know that our LCD needs some work".
That's why I started this thread -- here were are now with the P65+ announced, and in effect, very little gaining of ground except for megapixels. Same box; same LCD. (When, truth be told, the P25, years ago, offered more than enough megapixels for myself and for untold number of colleagues).
That's why I brought this up here, publicly -- to ask, "Is it me, or are these companies putting their feature emphasis in the wrong places? Most of us throwing away over 50% of the file for reproduction, and yet, if we shoot the back on location, we can't make out anything on the LCD in terms of higher values."
I just feel like I'm in that gap between 35 and MF -- wanting to shoot the MF lenses, but simply not willing to put up with the workarounds and excuses. (Actually, not really excuses -- mostly, just dead silence).
That's why, for me, I simply bailed on MF, and bought two 1ds3's and some film Hasselblads. The time was up. I voted with my pocketbook, and urge you all to do the same.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It doesn't take an economist to work the numbers and come down to the point that a $20,000 upgrade or $40,000 back purchase is a lot of investment.
Maybe these new backs are worth it, time will tell, but I know that for that kind of money I want the people that pay me to be bowled over by the results, from capture to delivery.
At this price you would assume that the camera back would have few compromises, but I'm not a digital engineer so I don't know if it's possible to make the camera some of us are looking for.
The p65+, the new Hasselblad and whatever/whoever else makes a new back, may be the very best equipment possible given the resource and the price.
The lcd and the in camera preview is something few of us can answer so I guess we have to take the word of the manufacturer's that this is the best possible.
I do know that the proprietary nature of medium format isn't a technical issue, it's a business decision and I am positive this is where medium format limits itself and is developing a self fullfilling prophecy or low volume, high price.
Even putting up with the limitations of the lcd would be a lot easier to take if your original p25 would fit on any camera you chose, including the Hasselblad F, the Rolleiflex, a Contax, a V system . . .
You have to kind of wonder where all of this is going.
The RED, in still phtography terms is an expensive system, but they knew that it would make no sense to limit it to just RED lenses. Almost any lens that was made for 35mm cinema film cameras will fit on the RED and if you want to work the bargain basement you can mount 35mm Nikon lenses.
That's a huge option.
JR
-
It doesn't take an economist to work the numbers and come down to the point that a $20,000 upgrade or $40,000 back purchase is a lot of investment.
Maybe these new backs are worth it, time will tell, but I know that for that kind of money I want the people that pay me to be bowled over by the results, from capture to delivery.
At this price you would assume that the camera back would have few compromises, but I'm not a digital engineer so I don't know if it's possible to make the camera some of us are looking for.
The p65+, the new Hasselblad and whatever/whoever else makes a new back, may be the very best equipment possible given the resource and the price.
The lcd and the in camera preview is something few of us can answer so I guess we have to take the word of the manufacturer's that this is the best possible.
I do know that the proprietary nature of medium format isn't a technical issue, it's a business decision and I am positive this is where medium format limits itself and is developing a self fullfilling prophecy or low volume, high price.
Even putting up with the limitations of the lcd would be a lot easier to take if your original p25 would fit on any camera you chose, including the Hasselblad F, the Rolleiflex, a Contax, a V system . . .
You have to kind of wonder where all of this is going.
The RED, in still phtography terms is an expensive system, but they knew that it would make no sense to limit it to just RED lenses. Almost any lens that was made for 35mm cinema film cameras will fit on the RED and if you want to work the bargain basement you can mount 35mm Nikon lenses.
That's a huge option.
JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211157\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The discussion of the importance over the LCD on the digital back makes me wonder how do we shoot pictures before such thing. I think digital back is more forgivable in this regard because their value is to shoot high quality raw file, I would not rely on checking the LCD all the time for sharpness, it slows down the work. I prefer to trade for more power for operation. The biggest benefit for the LCD for me was to have a quick check on the exposure and histogram and get back to work quickly.
I guess all the gentlemen moving from medium to larger format to digital all have good idea about the focus (from viewfinder, at the time pressing the shutter) and DOF and exposure. View camera or Alpa type camera is another story.
My take on the ideal MF system for location and advertising is the camera we have today, perhaps a bit faster, but I find shooting on my P45+ and H3D39 on CF cards is already very convenient, and acceptable speed. I think if we can have a battery pack with reliable high speed transmitter and can power the firewire port and at the same time getting the digital file sent wirelessly will be nice. For above ISO 400, I will retire the back and use 1Ds MK3 as back up.