Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Frank Doorhof on November 07, 2008, 03:07:10 pm
-
For people interested in one of the most advanced digital cameras in my opinion (I just love the big sensor) I have done a small review on my blog, www.doorhof.nl/blog
I have already shot several times with the AFi-10 during development and last wednesday and thursday we did small workshops in Denmark for C/AV here are a few samples with a 100% crop. The 100% crop is not sharpened.
Remember it's still a BETA sample, so the final version can only be better.
1.
-
I just don't get it with 2:3 the aspect ratio of the afi10. with 35mm i am cropping nearly everything that will end up in a commercial print to a shorter rectangle, as nearly everyone does. what's the point?
-
Well you have MORE than enough room to crop.
But it's nice to have the option to shoot wider.
I really like it, and in the start I thought about it and did not think I would like it, the reality is that there is so much room that you can crop without loosing detail or loosing your DOF control.
The sensor is full 645 format.
And you can always set it to 4:3 for an auto crop.
-
Well you have MORE than enough room to crop.
But it's nice to have the option to shoot wider.
I really like it, and in the start I thought about it and did not think I would like it, the reality is that there is so much room that you can crop without loosing detail or loosing your DOF control.
The sensor is full 645 format.
And you can always set it to 4:3 for an auto crop.
sorry, I don't think it is a full 645 sensor.. or it would have that proportion.. 6:4.5 - it has 56x36.. 3:2.. not full.
lets not get into the habit of calling things full when they aren't, hassy went down that road and it is just confusing.
-
Wider than the P65 and that a "full" sensor!
-
I forgot to mention Full size (REAL full size by the way) on the LONG side.
It still crops at the top.
Sorry if it was misunderstood.
-
I just don't get it with 2:3 the aspect ratio of the afi10. with 35mm i am cropping nearly everything that will end up in a commercial print to a shorter rectangle, as nearly everyone does. what's the point?
Same back on a Cambo RS/ 35mm Digitar/ 2 horizontals stitched in CS4:
[attachment=9530:Picture_10.jpg]
-
I always assumed this back was aimed at landscape shooters who like the longer ratio.
Nice image by the way, Frank.
-
Well it can be used for everything of course.
There are millions of photographers shooting with 35mm and doing fashion/glamour/architecture and whatever.
There are also alot of photographers shooting square and 4:3.
It all depends on knowing what you want and working with that.
When you shoot square you will adjust your composition to it.
Same with 3:2
For our print sizes (A4 etc) a 3:2 sensor makes more sense than a 4:3 actually.
For me personal I love the option of HAVING the 3:2 option and the large sensor, when I mount this on my RZ67ProII (hope to test that in the future) I think it will be absolutly stunning.
-
Well it can be used for everything of course.
There are millions of photographers shooting with 35mm and doing fashion/glamour/architecture and whatever.
There are also alot of photographers shooting square and 4:3.
It all depends on knowing what you want and working with that.
When you shoot square you will adjust your composition to it.
Same with 3:2
For our print sizes (A4 etc) a 3:2 sensor makes more sense than a 4:3 actually.
For me personal I love the option of HAVING the 3:2 option and the large sensor, when I mount this on my RZ67ProII (hope to test that in the future) I think it will be absolutly stunning.
What I would be more interested in is high ISO performance or let's better say ISO 400 and 800. I know that both the AFi-10 and P65 are brilliant at ISO 50 or 100, but for me that isn't really interesting. So any new on that ? What I have seen so far from both backs was horrible and a lot worse than current backs, but again both companies blame it on pre-production models. So when will we finally see some ISO performance of real world images ?
-
Thank you, Frank for the samples.
First time I've seen defined eyebrows at full-length scale.
-
The 100% crop is not sharpened.
(http://www.doorhof.nl/models/albums/userpics/10001/6_November_20080008v2.jpg)
Frank,
I understand the 100% crop is not sharpened.
Does that also mean the full image is not sharpened?
Translation: Did you do any sharpening on the full image before posting the 100% crop that was not sharpened?
Thanks,
David
-
Thanks too Frank, and nice shots.
Thierry
For people interested in one of the most advanced digital cameras in my opinion (I just love the big sensor) I have done a small review on my blog, www.doorhof.nl/blog
-
about high ISO
To do a good comparison one should also downscale the mf file to the same resolution as the dslr you're comparing with you will see that the difference is much less than when comparing both on 1:1.
I have used my Aptus on 400 a few times and on prints the noise is reasonably low. A2 prints.
The small picture is sharpenend for the net.
-
I disagree since I don't use the MFDB to downscale it to the size of the DSLR. The purpose of that is to be able to use it at full size and having to downsize it before it gets acceptable is kind of loosing the point of having big files. OTOH, the strength of MFDB is mainly in low ISO. For high(er) ISO I would never consider MFDB but take DSLR (even when need to upsize).
Anyway, a 100% view of how high ISO performs is sufficient to see whether that performance is acceptable for eaches taste. Some people can stand it more than others. Even than performance varies with circumstances so it would be only an indication.
-
I disagree since I don't use the MFDB to downscale it to the size of the DSLR. The purpose of that is to be able to use it at full size and having to downsize it before it gets acceptable is kind of loosing the point of having big files. OTOH, the strength of MFDB is mainly in low ISO. For high(er) ISO I would never consider MFDB but take DSLR (even when need to upsize).
Anyway, a 100% view of how high ISO performs is sufficient to see whether that performance is acceptable for eaches taste. Some people can stand it more than others. Even than performance varies with circumstances so it would be only an indication.
I'm not expecting noise free ISO 400 but ISO 200 and 400 should be better or at least equal on these newer backs than on older back, if that wasn't achieved than in my eyes leaf and Phase have failed. (Again what I have seen so far is that even underexposed by one stop at ISO 200 both backs (Afi-10 and P65) were not really usable. Way to noise and even worse banding and stuff all over the place. I don't even have to start about ISO 400 and this is sad. I use my P45+ a lot on ISO 200 and 400 and really like what I get, I don't mind some noise as long as the image is artifact free.
About downsizing ? Sorry what ? Why the hack should I make a 50 or 60 MP file into a 20MP file to get better ISO 800 ? If I want that kind of resolution I would have a 5DII which would kill a downsized file even with ISO 3200....
-
It all depends on what you do which system you choose.
I own a 5D soon to be replaced by the 5DMKII and I own two MF systems (both with the same Leaf back).
For the low ISO work I use the MF for 99% of the work, for the high ISO work I use the Canon.
ISO400 I often shoot on the MF system, when it is commercial I shoot on both cameras just in case.
The downscaling remark was not so far strechted as you may think.
More pixels normally equals more noise.
I see alot of people comparing a 100% crop of a 5D to a 100% crop of a 39/33/22MP digital back and complaining about noise.
When you downscale the 22MP to 12MP the difference becomes much less.
Of course you want the more resolution of the digital back, but we are talking about making a comparison.
In other words will I shoot on the DSLR or on the MF system, it's the chicken and the egg story.
You have to make the decision if you want clean 12MP files or somewhat more noisy 22/31/39MP files.
When printing I think sometimes the higher resolution files especially on larger prints will look much better than the 12MP files.
Printing on A4 I think you will hardly see a difference between a 22MP ISO400 digital back or a ISO400 DSLR with 12MP.
On downscaling, there are brands (don't have to name them) that are using lower resolution than the full resolution for the higher ISOs.
I believe that was called a good option in the past.
For me it isn't.
I would rather shoot ISO800 and downsize myself than have my back do it for me.
I think in the end I strongly believe that a 5DMKII will be a great asset to own next to a good MF system, and you can have the best of both worlds.
Or in other words horses for courses.
-
Frank,
Which lens(es) did you use,
and how's their performance at the extreme edges of the frame?
Thank you,
Billy
-
I don't think I can yet give a 100% answer to the performance simply because it's a beta unit, it's not finished yet.
But what I have seen till now it's very very good.
Which isn't really a surprise seeing the system is based on a 6x6 lens base so even with the 10 there is still some cropping.
The lenses used are the 90mm and 180mm.
-
I looked thru the waist-level, the 45, and the 90 finders on both the Leaf afi and the Sinar Hy6 at Photo East. I think both of them would be nice studio cameras if you were on a tripod or camera stand, and you weren't hurried, or if you shoot catalogue all day.
But for me personally, trying to combine 6x6 and 645, at least in its current state, would not work for me. Too confusing.
When you look thru the finders you see a square image on the ground glass, with the corners of the square gone. If you can imagine that. Imagine a vertical 645 and a horizontal 645 laying on top of each other.
With the Leaf, you have to look down at this icon to see if the back was set to horizontal or vertical. With the Sinar, you had to look down at the LCD to see if you were set to horizontal or vertical. To me, it just added this extra element of doubt and anxiety -- would I shoot the camera in the wrong orientation? Again, you only encounter this anxiety with the hy6 design, since it's the only one based on square potential. Of the two bodies, I vastly preferred the Sinar rotating back design, since you could easily look down at the LCD and check your orientation.
Back in the Dark Ages, I shot a Fuji 680. When the Mark III version of that camera came out, the Finder in the camera had metal blades in it that were coupled to the orientation of the film back. So when you rotated the film back to horizontal, the tiny little men inside the finder put on their work gloves and they physically moved the metal blades inside the finder to show which orientation you were in. In short, it was a BRILLIANT DESIGN, because you always only saw what you were shooting -- either vertical or horizontal. The Mark I and Mark II versions of that camera did not do that, and oftentimes, I'd get in a hurry or be shooting spontaneously and I'd think I was shooting a vertical, and then when the film came back the head and feet were cropped out. Bad design.
So the Hy6 is not for me, unless they introduce a bladed viewfinder. Other than that it seemed like a nice camera, (especially when fitted with the 6x6 film back).
What I want is a simple digital MF camera that feels in my hand like a Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7, with a four inch or five inch LCD, and it shoots a 31mp RAW file. No bells and whistles. Pure and easy and spontaneous, like the Canon 1ds3, but with a giant viewfinder and a larger file. I can dream...
-
[!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=gwhitf)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE (gwhitf)[div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]Of the two bodies, I vastly preferred the Sinar rotating back design, since you could easily look down at the LCD and check your orientation.[/quote]
That argument sounds counter-intuitive, to me. I would think the thumbwheel stops of Leaf Verto would give you an instantaneous 'feel' for the orientation of the sensor without even looking at the camera.
David
-
I looked thru the waist-level, the 45, and the 90 finders on both the Leaf afi and the Sinar Hy6 at Photo East. I think both of them would be nice studio cameras if you were on a tripod or camera stand, and you weren't hurried, or if you shoot catalogue all day.
But for me personally, trying to combine 6x6 and 645, at least in its current state, would not work for me. Too confusing.
When you look thru the finders you see a square image on the ground glass, with the corners of the square gone. If you can imagine that. Imagine a vertical 645 and a horizontal 645 laying on top of each other.
With the Leaf, you have to look down at this icon to see if the back was set to horizontal or vertical. With the Sinar, you had to look down at the LCD to see if you were set to horizontal or vertical. To me, it just added this extra element of doubt and anxiety -- would I shoot the camera in the wrong orientation? Again, you only encounter this anxiety with the hy6 design, since it's the only one based on square potential. Of the two bodies, I vastly preferred the Sinar rotating back design, since you could easily look down at the LCD and check your orientation.
Back in the Dark Ages, I shot a Fuji 680. When the Mark III version of that camera came out, the Finder in the camera had metal blades in it that were coupled to the orientation of the film back. So when you rotated the film back to horizontal, the tiny little men inside the finder put on their work gloves and they physically moved the metal blades inside the finder to show which orientation you were in. In short, it was a BRILLIANT DESIGN, because you always only saw what you were shooting -- either vertical or horizontal. The Mark I and Mark II versions of that camera did not do that, and oftentimes, I'd get in a hurry or be shooting spontaneously and I'd think I was shooting a vertical, and then when the film came back the head and feet were cropped out. Bad design.
So the Hy6 is not for me, unless they introduce a bladed viewfinder. Other than that it seemed like a nice camera, (especially when fitted with the 6x6 film back).
What I want is a simple digital MF camera that feels in my hand like a Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7, with a four inch or five inch LCD, and it shoots a 31mp RAW file. No bells and whistles. Pure and easy and spontaneous, like the Canon 1ds3, but with a giant viewfinder and a larger file. I can dream...
yes i agree. with my artec i do exactly this. sinar provides some thin black alu frames which are exactly the sensor size. they are magentic and i turn them round if i change the sensor orientation. i like it much more than formerly with the gottschalt where i have had both orientations in one. maybe sinar and leaf shpould think about this detail, does not sound too hard to make here a solution as you are recommending.
-
That argument sounds counter-intuitive, to me. I would think the thumbwheel stops of Leaf Verto would give you an instantaneous 'feel' for the orientation of the sensor without even looking at the camera.
David
What I'm saying is: I don't even want to pick up a camera, (any camera), that forces me to worry about what orientation the back is in. Period. End of story.
When I'm working spontaneously, what I see in that viewfinder is what I want to be captured by the sensor.
I don't want even one ounce of (dwindling) brainpower to be devoted to "which way is the back set to?"
Both the Leaf and the Sinar have a viewfinder with twelves "sides" to it. Not good. One opinion only. Would be fine for repetitious studio work though, I'm sure.
I react to what I see in the viewfinder. Pure and simple. Here is my inner dialogue when looking thru that Leaf/Sinar/Rollei/Whatever: "Ok, the back is set to Vertical, so that means that even though I'm seeing all that extra stuff there on the left and the right, that means it's not really being captured, but that stuff up at the top and at the bottom is being captured, so I'm going to compose the frame accordingly". I've got enough inner brain dialogue when I'm shooting. The viewfinder image should relax a person; not add confusion.
As awkward as it is to turn the camera body on its side, like the Contax or H1 or Canon, I'd rather do that, and always be seeing EXACTLY what I"m shooting, rather than that twelve sided Afi viewfinder image. The Sinar viewfinder simply needs blades. They should buy a Fuji 680 Mark III on ebay (for a hundred bucks), (the greatest camera ever made), and then copy that blade design. Now that I think about it, the blades in the 680 were in the Body; not in the Finder. The finder 90 was just a piece of plastic. But the film back orientation would "talk" to the blades, and they'd stayed in sync with each other.
-
Frank,
Which lens(es) did you use,
and how's their performance at the extreme edges of the frame?
Thank you,
Billy
90mm Macro @ f11
[attachment=9535:full.jpg] [attachment=9536:100_.jpg]
-
About orientation.
I understand that when you pick up a camera during a show you can feel lost.
However I have shot with several MF systems over the last few months, and can say that the AFi is PERFECT for handheld shooting, it's a very balanced system.
The RZ67ProII even with the grip is a killer to handhold and I mostly use it on a studio stand.
If you want DSLR performance buy a Mamiya 645AFD/III with a back, you can have the same feel of a DSLR but with a large viewfinder and you can turn the camera for portrait or landscape.
Me personally I love to use WLF and with the RZ I have to switch to turn with the AFi I can just use my tumb to turn.
The whole turning the sensor is very easy and is shown in the display how it's orientated.
So before making a judgement go out and try the camera longer than a few seconds
-
So before making a judgement go out and try the camera longer than a few seconds
I am almost fifty years old, sir. A few seconds is all that it takes for me; I know instantly. I have owned and shot every medium format camera made. I recognize good design from mediocre design instantly, for my style of shooting. Again, I spoke for myself and said it was clearly my own opinion. I don't need corrections from you.
I am happy that that camera works for you. Forge ahead.
-
Don't take it as a personal attack I'm not like that
What I meant to say was that when I pick up a camera for the first time I feel very "new" to the system, handling one on an exhibition with people looking and other people waiting will make the experience worse.
When I handled the AFi for the first time it was also very new and weird, after half an hour I shot handheld and without a problem.
I'm 37 at the moment and have to admit I'm a big guy with steady hands so maybe that helps.
Again, no personal attack meant, that's why I posted the smiley.
I just meant that if you tried it out a bit longer you might change your mind.
-
I just meant that if you tried it out a bit longer you might change your mind.
No problem. We're just comparing notes.
Just make sure and never pick up a Mark III Fuji 680, if you've already written the check for the Leaf body, because the Fuji 680 is an illustration of a camera designed properly. My jaw dropped when I first watched those blades change instantly when I rotated the 220 back.
(And how sad that these great old cameras have been left in the dust, ie Fuji 680, RZ, 203FE; yes, there are digital solutions, but they're not elegant solutions.)
-
Of all that is written, I love only what a person has written with his own blood. - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
I never shot with the Fuji but heard a lot of people about it.
I do own a RZ67ProII and am in love with that machine, one of the reasons I don't have an AFi yet myself the sound of the shutter, the cocking the shutter the ..... well about everything.
And the of course the quality of the glass.
However looking at the disadvatages of the system makes me long for the AFi most of the time, untill I play with it again.
For the more quick work I use the 645AFD/III system and the MarkII 5D soon.
The funny thing is that you can just switch backs between them (well not on the Canon ) and use the best of both worlds.
I won't rule an AFi out by the way, especially when I can switch the back to the RZ I would love to put my 645AFD/III to rest for the AFi.
But I have to justify the costs of a whole new system and I think I can't seeing that 99% of the studio work is done with the RZ and I just love that camera for it's looks, handling.... etc.
Well you know the feeling, you know it isn't better but......
-
yes i agree. with my artec i do exactly this. sinar provides some thin black alu frames which are exactly the sensor size. they are magentic and i turn them round if i change the sensor orientation.
Rainer,
any chance you could post a snapshot of the thin black aluminum frames you're referring to, please?
-
As a user of the Hy6,I have to agree with gwhitf.
The mask system of the Hy6/Afi is also my only gripe with the camera,otherwise the camera is great.
I did think about making drop-in mask myself and change while I'm shooting horizontal or vertical.
The arTec magnetic alu frames Rainer mentioned sound like the ideal solution.
Maybe not a solution for everybody,however it would work for me.
Correct the GX680 III was a great camera,I had one as well.
Cheers,
Willem.
-
The mask system of the Hy6/Afi is also my only gripe with the camera,otherwise the camera is great.
I suppose it was much easier in the film days. The exposed area was a fixed 645 size. Now we have so many different sensor sizes to consider (at least 5 MFDB sensor sizes that I can think of).
-
I suppose it was much easier in the film days. The exposed area was a fixed 645 size. Now we have so many different sensor sizes to consider (at least 5 MFDB sensor sizes that I can think of).
* Pentax 6x7
* Fuji 6x8
* Fuji 6x9
* RZ 6x7
* Contax 6x4.5
* Mamiya 6x4.5
* Hasselblad 6x6
* Hasselblad 6x4.5
Film was all over the place too. The real issue was that, out of all those cameras, the RZ and the 680 were never meant to turn on their side to shoot a vertical.
I don't know how the RZ dealt with the vertical/horizontal issue, but I do know that, when shooting people fast and furious, with the Mark I and II, it was VERY easy to blow it, and shoot many frames in a row in the wrong orientation. I'm sure that Fuji had enough complaints that, by the time the Mark III came out, the blades were in place and solved the problem completely.
To my memory, the Leaf Afi has a tiny icon inside the viewfinder too, to show the orientation, but let's be honest -- when the light is fading, and you're on location, and it's crazy pressure, the LAST thing in the world you're going to do is look at that stupid icon. You need to be seeing exactly what you're shooting.
-
The AFi has the indication, the RZ has blades coming into place masking the area.
To be honest all is getting used to and using it.
-
Film was all over the place too.
I meant for a given camera. One a 6x6 camera using 645 framing, there were only 2 possible frame guide positions.
-
Rainer,
any chance you could post a snapshot of the thin black aluminum frames you're referring to, please?
its magnetic.
very precise framing and practical.
-
Thank you, Rainer.
Thierry, would you see if the arTec magnetic mask will fit onto the Hy6?
-
BJNY
I was asking the same question.
I'm planning on purchasing a set of masks from Sinar and alter them to fit my Hy6.
The only issue I can see that I would have to remove the viewfinder every-time to change from portrait to landscape.
It would certainly be better than the current mask.
Cheers,
Willem.
-
BJNY
I was asking the same question.
I'm planning on purchasing a set of masks from Sinar and alter them to fit my Hy6.
The only issue I can see that I would have to remove the viewfinder every-time to change from portrait to landscape.
It would certainly be better than the current mask.
Cheers,
Willem.
yes ask sinar. actually i dont have an idea if they went in the artec as serial accessory or not.
it was just that i asked for a precise screen because i compose different if i see exactly what i get.
i wanted a rotatable mate screen but someone came up with this magnetic mask idea, which is cheaper and better.
one of many real little details which make the work with the artec so nice.
-
before it was decided which system shall be used to "frame" and indicate on the ground-glass the orientation, we did a survey. 90% of the photographers asked choose the semi-transparent acetate.
This being said, I do prefer myself as well the solution with the black covering mask, like in the Sinar arTec.
There is no problem and there should not be a great deal to propose both.
Best regards,
Thierry
yes i agree. with my artec i do exactly this. sinar provides some thin black alu frames which are exactly the sensor size. they are magentic and i turn them round if i change the sensor orientation. i like it much more than formerly with the gottschalt where i have had both orientations in one. maybe sinar and leaf shpould think about this detail, does not sound too hard to make here a solution as you are recommending.
-
Much of this comes down to the style of your own work, and your shooting style. I could see that these masks were GREAT for Rainer, if he's shooting architecture, and he's locked down on a tripod with a non-moving subject, spending many minutes on one shot.
But for a people shooter, on location, where you're using the medium format more like a 35, I could not imagine the thought of those masks. Maybe there is another solution. But any real solution would have to be super-fast and almost invisible to the camera operator.
-
gw,
The solution is to have two complete setups,
one for vertical, and another for horizontal.
-
I did a quick test.
If the 90% viewer is mounted on the Hy6,you can change the grip to a setting where is very easy to turn the camera on it's side.
A bit like shooting with the Contax,H3,Mamiya's.
Best of both worlds.
Cheers,
Willem.
Also,don't most guys shoot tethered anyway.
Easy to see wether the back is horizontal or portrait.
-
I found the 90 degree finder to be much preferable over the 45.
The 90 magnifies the image more; it's a completely different experience than the 45.
The only downside of the 90 finder is that it has that noticeable womp/distortion, similar to the H1 finder. Curvy; not straight lines. Still, even with that, I'd still use the 90 over the 45 or the WL.
-
gwhitf
I just heard from Thierry that the first samples of the 90 degree finder are arriving.
Maybe you looked through a pre production model?
I would hope for $2100 AUD you would get something decent without distortion.
Cheers,
Willem.
N.B $2100 is not the final price
-
For my 2cents worth about the whole orientation indication...
I have recently shot about 250 shots on a Hy6-e75r and I have to say that I personally did not have any issues with the existing viewfinder mask, and it did not pose a problem at any moment. In fact, I have not even considered that the existing masking might be a problem for some until I read this thread. I have been shooting a combination of handheld and on tripod, in both cases, I have shot tethered and untethered, people and objects. I do not have any frames which I expected to come out one way but mistakenly shot it in a different orientation. I guess the bottom line is that "your mileage may vary". Would it be really COOL to have automatic electronic masking (like the 4:5 masking on the Nikon D3)? Sure it would, but I guess that would have added to R&D costs, final pricing, delivery timescale, etc.
Maybe for version 2.
I normally shoot a square sensor on a square viewfinder and I imagine the rectangular cropping I will use later.
shutay
-
gw,
The solution is to have two complete setups,
one for vertical, and another for horizontal.
that's what I do with the canons. one has a 4:3 black mask for vertical, one is traditional 2:3 for horizontal and we have the main lenses duplicated.
it's a lot faster than stopping and rotating anything, an assistant just hands me a camera, ready to go and two mark 3's and lenses are less than any medium format solution with back up.
the vertical camera gets less use since 75% of everything I'm commissioned to shoot is horizontal anyway.
I think medium format is fine if you have a lot of time and a lot of studio light, but I'd love to see one of these tests that everyone keeps showing from a real paying high pressured advertising project.
we are in the new economy of advertising and clients are all talking realism, beautiful imaging, interactivity and they want it all and they want it fast.
I would love to see any of the new cameras with window light, hmi's, on ferry's, or cars in the middle of times square with 6,000 onlookers in the way, 12 clients and a huge chunk of money on the line, or shooting fast where you have a crew of 20 you have to move across a major metro city to three locations in one day.
or even editorial where the "stars" catering cost more than the lighting and your given 9 minutes to get the shot.
I would also like to know how quickly you can get a replacement for any of these cameras everyplace in the world.
I blew out a sensor in one of my mark III's in asia this week. probably got water in it or took a hit I don't know, but canon fixed it in 6 hours.
if your shooting locked down in the studio for a real beauty campaign then medium format is fine, but on location, where there are a dozen clients and two art directors they want their shot, they want it beautiful and they want it now. they are going back to rooms full of dozens of committees and whatiffers, and they have no room for excuses and in those meetings pixel count doesn't mean near as much as getting that one compelling shot they all had burned into their brain months before the project begins.
horses for courses. I hear that all the time, but get real it's not about the camera it's about getting the shot and being secure in getting the shot and having backups.
it's also not about the costs of the cameras. give us a $40,000 camera that does everything and does it without silly workarounds like taking a finder off and flipping a black mask and a lot of us will spend the money, but if your a professional photographer at any pay grade you are now living in a no excuses world.
medium format seems to be fine as long as the world is sunny and bright but be clear, nobody spends a lot of money on photography and gives you a sunny and bright world. they may want the photograph to look sunny and bright but they want it regardless of the conditions.
in today's economy the expectations are beyond huge and the shoot briefs are almost impossible but nobody that hires you cares if the shot list is impossible. they want it, or they go to the next guy.
I am amazed that two years after introduction sinar is finally releasing the 90 degree finder or phase has finally bounced out a pro version of 4.5., with issues. medium format can and will do business anyway they want, but looking at the software issues, the time for delivery, price structures that would confuse a harvard mba, I don't get it and would never rest my reputation on some of these new cameras and software. not without them being on the market for a long time.
I can't imagine what would have happened if I had shoot tethered to 4.5 and then had to tell a client , oops, gotta go back to los angeles because the software trashed the files, or if I needed a 35mm wide angle and it just didn't exist for my camera. what do you tell a client, sorry but I'm waiting for the lens to show up, maybe in a year or two?
this forum is good but has more digital maker/digital dealer/photographer relationships than a soap opera and until I see something that was done where the only agenda is to get the shot beautifully and get paid by an advertising or editorial client, then all of it is just nice samples of eyelash detail.
-
Very impressive Frank, and wonderful photos!
-
that's what I do with the canons. one has a 4:3 black mask for vertical, one is traditional 2:3 for horizontal and we have the main lenses duplicated.
it's a lot faster than stopping and rotating anything, an assistant just hands me a camera, ready to go and two mark 3's and lenses are less than any medium format solution with back up.
the vertical camera gets less use since 75% of everything I'm commissioned to shoot is horizontal anyway.
I think medium format is fine if you have a lot of time and a lot of studio light, but I'd love to see one of these tests that everyone keeps showing from a real paying high pressured advertising project.
we are in the new economy of advertising and clients are all talking realism, beautiful imaging, interactivity and they want it all and they want it fast.
I would love to see any of the new cameras with window light, hmi's, on ferry's, or cars in the middle of times square with 6,000 onlookers in the way, 12 clients and a huge chunk of money on the line, or shooting fast where you have a crew of 20 you have to move across a major metro city to three locations in one day.
or even editorial where the "stars" catering cost more than the lighting and your given 9 minutes to get the shot.
I would also like to know how quickly you can get a replacement for any of these cameras everyplace in the world.
I blew out a sensor in one of my mark III's in asia this week. probably got water in it or took a hit I don't know, but canon fixed it in 6 hours.
if your shooting locked down in the studio for a real beauty campaign then medium format is fine, but on location, where there are a dozen clients and two art directors they want their shot, they want it beautiful and they want it now. they are going back to rooms full of dozens of committees and whatiffers, and they have no room for excuses and in those meetings pixel count doesn't mean near as much as getting that one compelling shot they all had burned into their brain months before the project begins.
horses for courses. I hear that all the time, but get real it's not about the camera it's about getting the shot and being secure in getting the shot and having backups.
it's also not about the costs of the cameras. give us a $40,000 camera that does everything and does it without silly workarounds like taking a finder off and flipping a black mask and a lot of us will spend the money, but if your a professional photographer at any pay grade you are now living in a no excuses world.
medium format seems to be fine as long as the world is sunny and bright but be clear, nobody spends a lot of money on photography and gives you a sunny and bright world. they may want the photograph to look sunny and bright but they want it regardless of the conditions.
in today's economy the expectations are beyond huge and the shoot briefs are almost impossible but nobody that hires you cares if the shot list is impossible. they want it, or they go to the next guy.
I am amazed that two years after introduction sinar is finally releasing the 90 degree finder or phase has finally bounced out a pro version of 4.5., with issues. medium format can and will do business anyway they want, but looking at the software issues, the time for delivery, price structures that would confuse a harvard mba, I don't get it and would never rest my reputation on some of these new cameras and software. not without them being on the market for a long time.
I can't imagine what would have happened if I had shoot tethered to 4.5 and then had to tell a client , oops, gotta go back to los angeles because the software trashed the files, or if I needed a 35mm wide angle and it just didn't exist for my camera. what do you tell a client, sorry but I'm waiting for the lens to show up, maybe in a year or two?
this forum is good but has more digital maker/digital dealer/photographer relationships than a soap opera and until I see something that was done where the only agenda is to get the shot beautifully and get paid by an advertising or editorial client, then all of it is just nice samples of eyelash detail.
With so much pressure on your shoulders and time being so valuable you surely have a lot of time to write over and over of how wrong our choices are. It seems that even in the mids of the biggest campaign the first thing you do when you hit the hotel is log to LL and praise your Canons. You see, poor us we have to entertain our clients and AD's and than process our Raws to get the jpgs for the next morning so they use us again instead of the guy who has the jpgs straight from his camera.
Andre