Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: John Camp on November 23, 2009, 02:42:04 pm
-
In the "Ken Rockwell" thread, Michael said the following:
"Ever since I started working with a P45 several years ago, and particularly with the P65 last year, it has become very clear to me that to get the most from equipment at this level one has to use the best possible technique. This includes a large solid tripod and head, mirror lockup, self-timer with at least a six second delay (with longer lenses), and the use of optimum aperture.
More casual use will produce images that may appear to be fine, but which will likely be found to be similar to the output from a sub 24MP DSLR.
"We discussed this at some length and then demonstrated it to the participants at PODAS in Death Valley the other week. Some folks were coming back from a morning or afternoon shoot and finding that their images didn't seem to them (or us) to be of the quality that they expected. But then when we went through a check list of shooting technique we always found what the problem was – non-critical focus, camera vibration, etc.
All of these affect all cameras, of course, but when you're north of about 35MP the cameras are so unforgiving of poor shooting technique that the advantages of the system are negated, or at least leveled.
If someone has shot 4X5" film critically with a view or technical camera then this won't come as a surprise, but for people coming from 35mm who think that MF digital systems are the same as what they're used to, there is a rude awakening in store.
This goes a long way toward explaining what one reads and hears from people who test an MF system and then claim that they don't see an advantage. It also helps explain why something like PODAS was so valuable. People had the opportunity to work side by side with instructors who are familiar with the gear and issues as a result of personal experience, even more so I believe than a dealer would be.
Michael"
I thought this was interesting enough for its own thread, because it raises a number of questions.
For one, does this mean that the larger (P65, etc.) backs are not really that useful for things like shooting fashion, where the subjects are in motion, and you can't use a delay? Would an 18-24mp DSLTR work just as well?
-
This includes a large solid tripod and head, mirror lockup, self-timer with at least a six second delay (with longer lenses), and the use of optimum aperture.
*********
I have found it to be true even with my entry level 16MP MF back. Even at that low resolution, I have to "work" a lot harder to not be disappointed with the result. I am finally convinced that Michael is right and among other things, I am doing a major upgrade to my tripod system. (Just the perspective of a hobbyist)
Steve
-
For one, does this mean that the larger (P65, etc.) backs are not really that useful for things like shooting fashion, where the subjects are in motion, and you can't use a delay? Would an 18-24mp DSLTR work just as well?
Indeed, a question for the MF pros (and other pros too, I suppose) in this forum:
What is the highest resolution that you expect to be useful in hand-held photography of subjects moving in a way that cannot be "frozen" by skillful panning?
So not just for fashion but also a lot of wildlife, children, and sports, where flash is often of limited value too.
My speculation is that we might already be there with MF, and even with high-res. 35mm format digital.
-
What is the highest resolution that you expect to be useful in hand-held photography of subjects moving in a way that cannot be "frozen" by skillful panning?
For me, and realizing everybody's physical ability is different, around 12MP tops hand-held. Maybe 16MP net 50% of the time with high shutter-speed (over 1/250th) shots... Bottom line is it's tough to extract everything today's higer-end cameras are capable of if you're hand-holding.
-
Hi,
Michael is right...
Some observations:
- fashion shooters often use flash and/or full aperture to minimize DOF, both help-
- IS helps
- Critical sharpness demands precision work
Best regards
Erik
In the "Ken Rockwell" thread, Michael said the following:
"Ever since I started working with a P45 several years ago, and particularly with the P65 last year, it has become very clear to me that to get the most from equipment at this level one has to use the best possible technique. This includes a large solid tripod and head, mirror lockup, self-timer with at least a six second delay (with longer lenses), and the use of optimum aperture.
More casual use will produce images that may appear to be fine, but which will likely be found to be similar to the output from a sub 24MP DSLR.
"We discussed this at some length and then demonstrated it to the participants at PODAS in Death Valley the other week. Some folks were coming back from a morning or afternoon shoot and finding that their images didn't seem to them (or us) to be of the quality that they expected. But then when we went through a check list of shooting technique we always found what the problem was – non-critical focus, camera vibration, etc.
All of these affect all cameras, of course, but when you're north of about 35MP the cameras are so unforgiving of poor shooting technique that the advantages of the system are negated, or at least leveled.
If someone has shot 4X5" film critically with a view or technical camera then this won't come as a surprise, but for people coming from 35mm who think that MF digital systems are the same as what they're used to, there is a rude awakening in store.
This goes a long way toward explaining what one reads and hears from people who test an MF system and then claim that they don't see an advantage. It also helps explain why something like PODAS was so valuable. People had the opportunity to work side by side with instructors who are familiar with the gear and issues as a result of personal experience, even more so I believe than a dealer would be.
Michael"
I thought this was interesting enough for its own thread, because it raises a number of questions.
For one, does this mean that the larger (P65, etc.) backs are not really that useful for things like shooting fashion, where the subjects are in motion, and you can't use a delay? Would an 18-24mp DSLTR work just as well?
-
Bottom line is it's tough to extract everything today's higer-end cameras are capable of if you're hand-holding.
**********
I am not sure where this thought is going but, thinking back to the days when a "V" system camera was a popular choice for wedding, fashion, etc., would scanned "hand-held" film give an acceptable result (print) whereas the digital wouldn't?
Steve
-
Bottom line is it's tough to extract everything today's higer-end cameras are capable of if you're hand-holding.
**********
I am not sure where this thought is going but, thinking back to the days when a "V" system camera was a popular choice for wedding, fashion, etc., would scanned "hand-held" film give an acceptable result (print) whereas the digital wouldn't?
Steve
Considering that huge posters and exhibition prints are NOT the babies of digital photography, I think you have answered your own question. My own largest prints were 60inch tall on 40inch paper and looked pretty damn good on fashion show stands around the world. These came out of Hasselblad 500C/CM and Nikon, the 120 used for colour prints derived from transparencies via internegatives, and the 35mm for b/w, but not exclusively.
On more modest levels, I am amazing myself with what can be pulled from scanned Kodachrome from Nikon camera equipment.
I think it is all too easy to assume that advertising photography started with the invention of the sensor! ;-)
However, getting to the nub of it, as much care had to be taken with film if you expected to print it large. Nothing is for nothing and nothing much is really easy, either.
Something you can't escape is personal style: using the Nikon made me feel like one kind of person but the H made me another which I didn't really like all that much; you traded mobility for considered, not always the best route to where you had to go.
Rob C
-
Considering that huge posters and exhibition prints are NOT the babies of digital photography, I think you have answered your own question. My own largest prints were 60inch tall on 40inch paper and looked pretty damn good on fashion show stands around the world. These came out of Hasselblad 500C/CM and Nikon, the 120 used for colour prints derived from transparencies via internegatives, and the 35mm for b/w, but not exclusively.
On more modest levels, I am amazing myself with what can be pulled from scanned Kodachrome from Nikon camera equipment.
I think it is all too easy to assume that advertising photography started with the invention of the sensor! ;-)
However, getting to the nub of it, as much care had to be taken with film if you expected to print it large. Nothing is for nothing and nothing much is really easy, either.
Something you can't escape is personal style: using the Nikon made me feel like one kind of person but the H made me another which I didn't really like all that much; you traded mobility for considered, not always the best route to where you had to go.
Rob C
About 10 years ago, I tested my Hasselblad 500 with an 85 Planar against one of my mid '56 Rolleiflexes (Xenotar I believe). On a tripod, with the Hassy mirror locked up, I couldn't see any significant difference on Velvia between the two of them when shooting landscapes. Handheld, the Rollei shots usually looked sharper most of the time. I attributed that to its lack of a moving mirror. Clearly, the Hassy was more flexible due to lens interchangeability, but I learned from that experience that one needs to use the right tool for the right job. I suspect that a big sensor is a great thing for certain kinds of shooting, but probably doesn't offer a useful benefit in others. Gee, who would have thunk?
-
I've found, and this has been corroborated by some colleagues, that most of the time a shutter speed of at least (1 / 3X focal length) will produce high quality results when hand holding a P65+. So, 1/250 sec with 80mm, for example.
Michael
-
I've found, and this has been corroborated by some colleagues, that most of the time a shutter speed of at least (1 / 3X focal length) will produce high quality results when hand holding a P65+. So, 1/250 sec with 80mm, for example.
Michael
I don't move in the exalted MF world, but even with a Canon 5D mark II and an 85 mm f1.2 L (non-IS) lens, I find that the old 1/focal length rule no longer applies for handheld shots. Of course, this may have something to do with my wobbly hands, but I didn't see this with the 5D I and IS lenses.
-
I've found, and this has been corroborated by some colleagues, that most of the time a shutter speed of at least (1 / 3X focal length) will produce high quality results when hand holding a P65+. So, 1/250 sec with 80mm, for example.
Michael
What constitutes high quality results is in the eye of the beholder. I can get what I consider to be high quality results hand holding my 12 MP D3 at 1/500 s and at lower shutter speeds using VR lenses. However, the medium format crowd likely would not consider those results high quality. The critical question is what MP equivalent one get with hand holding the P65+. Jack Flesher estimates that he can get up to 16 MP equivalent under such conditions. Thus it is quite possible that a photographer hand holding the Nikon D3x with a VR lens could get higher quality results than an equally skilled photographer hand holding the P65+. In experiments with the Nikon D3 and a VR lens, Erwin Puts (http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/technique/page40.html) reports that he can get very near to tripod quality handholding the camera. Apparently, Image Stabilizaiton/Vibration Reduction is not available in medium format.
As you are fond of quoting the British, "Horses for courses". MF reigns supreme on a tripod in landscape work, but for action photography or photojournalism under hand held conditions, a DSLR would be preferable.
-
What constitutes high quality results is in the eye of the beholder. I can get what I consider to be high quality results hand holding my 12 MP D3 at 1/500 s and at lower shutter speeds using VR lenses. However, the medium format crowd likely would not consider those results high quality. The critical question is what MP equivalent one get with hand holding the P65+. Jack Flesher estimates that he can get up to 16 MP equivalent under such conditions. Thus it is quite possible that a photographer hand holding the Nikon D3x with a VR lens could get higher quality results than an equally skilled photographer hand holding the P65+. In experiments with the Nikon D3 and a VR lens, Erwin Puts (http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/technique/page40.html) reports that he can get very near to tripod quality handholding the camera. Apparently, Image Stabilizaiton/Vibration Reduction is not available in medium format.
As you are fond of quoting the British, "Horses for courses". MF reigns supreme on a tripod in landscape work, but for action photography or photojournalism under hand held conditions, a DSLR would be preferable.
Well it certainly depends, but I have no problems shooting the P65 with a 45 at 1/125, the 80 at 1/160 and the 150 at 1/320. Of course results are not as sharp as with a LF camera and Rodenstock glass however the results are good enough to make nice big prints that blow away any 35mm camera.
-
In the "Ken Rockwell" thread, Michael said the following:
"Ever since I started working with a P45 several years ago, and particularly with the P65 last year, it has become very clear to me that to get the most from equipment at this level one has to use the best possible technique. This includes a large solid tripod and head, mirror lockup, self-timer with at least a six second delay (with longer lenses), and the use of optimum aperture.
More casual use will produce images that may appear to be fine, but which will likely be found to be similar to the output from a sub 24MP DSLR.
"We discussed this at some length and then demonstrated it to the participants at PODAS in Death Valley the other week. Some folks were coming back from a morning or afternoon shoot and finding that their images didn't seem to them (or us) to be of the quality that they expected. But then when we went through a check list of shooting technique we always found what the problem was – non-critical focus, camera vibration, etc.
All of these affect all cameras, of course, but when you're north of about 35MP the cameras are so unforgiving of poor shooting technique that the advantages of the system are negated, or at least leveled.
If someone has shot 4X5" film critically with a view or technical camera then this won't come as a surprise, but for people coming from 35mm who think that MF digital systems are the same as what they're used to, there is a rude awakening in store.
This goes a long way toward explaining what one reads and hears from people who test an MF system and then claim that they don't see an advantage. It also helps explain why something like PODAS was so valuable. People had the opportunity to work side by side with instructors who are familiar with the gear and issues as a result of personal experience, even more so I believe than a dealer would be.
Michael"
All other things being equal, the pixel pitch is the key factor impacting the importance of good technique.
A Canon 7D is therefore more demanding that a P65+ but yet people experience less problems because:
- they use live view to get critical focus when needed,
- smaller sensors provide more DoF all other things being equal, and lack of perfect focus accuracy shows less,
- the mirror slap is a lot less and better controlled,
- the body + lens is lighter and therefore doesn't require as rigid a tripod.
Michael's comments just re-enforce my long lasting opinion that MF backs today are not the optimal gear for real life outdoor landscape work. They will get closer the day they offer in back live view.
The 200+ megapixel pano below was shot by -15C this Sunday in pretty strong wind, the subject is far, but not at infinity. My eyes were crying because of the cold and wind and I know for a fact that without live view it would have been totally impossible to achieve optimal focus. I am not even discussing battery life or the kind of rugged treatment a body undergoes during deep sub-zero snow bound camping trips like this one...
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2488/4129411734_aba155c4ca_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Michael's comments just re-enforce my long lasting opinion that MF backs today are not the optimal gear for real life outdoor landscape work. They will get closer the day they offer in back live view.
The 200+ megapixel pano below was shot by -15C this Sunday in pretty strong wind, the subject is far, but not at infinity. My eyes were crying because of the cold and wind and I know for a fact that without live view it would have been totally impossible to achieve optimal focus. I am not even discussing battery life or the kind of rugged treatment a body undergoes during deep sub-zero snow bound camping trips like this one...
Cheers,
Eric
-
Hmm,
I tried to look into camera vibration a while ago. What I tried was too shoot a test target and analyze the results using Imatest. This time I was looking at mirror induced vibrations on tripod 1/15s to 1/125s. The interesting observation was that I didn't perceive the images without mirror lockup as unsharp, but according to Imatest about half of my resolution was lost. In camera IS did not help. After that I shoot the same picture with IS on freehand and had very similar results as on tripod without MLU.
So what I found was:
- Mirror lookup is needed
- In camera IS on Sony not very good in reducing mirror related vibration
- Small amount of unsharpness can be easily missed
So now I'm quite religious about MLU on tripod.
Best regards
Erik
What constitutes high quality results is in the eye of the beholder. I can get what I consider to be high quality results hand holding my 12 MP D3 at 1/500 s and at lower shutter speeds using VR lenses. However, the medium format crowd likely would not consider those results high quality. The critical question is what MP equivalent one get with hand holding the P65+. Jack Flesher estimates that he can get up to 16 MP equivalent under such conditions. Thus it is quite possible that a photographer hand holding the Nikon D3x with a VR lens could get higher quality results than an equally skilled photographer hand holding the P65+. In experiments with the Nikon D3 and a VR lens, Erwin Puts (http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/technique/page40.html) reports that he can get very near to tripod quality handholding the camera. Apparently, Image Stabilizaiton/Vibration Reduction is not available in medium format.
As you are fond of quoting the British, "Horses for courses". MF reigns supreme on a tripod in landscape work, but for action photography or photojournalism under hand held conditions, a DSLR would be preferable.
-
@ ErikKaffehr:
Interesting observation !
I think the advice for KM / Sony in body stabilization is to switch it "off" for tripod work. The explanations I have read are that the IS system is really tuned to "hand shake" characteristics and frequency, while it may actually hinder or degrade with the different (higher?) frequency you get when tripod mounted.
Is this in line with your observations as well? Would appreciate your insights.
-
Bernard's comments just re-enforce my long lasting opinion that the optimal gear for real life outdoor landscape work includes a Bernard Languillier operating the camera.
Very kind of you Eric, here is another one from the same shoot. This time only 130 megapixels, but with DoF stacking to make things more fun.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2646/4130622362_ea5e551811_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Stitched panos are wonderful for the scenes depicted in Bernard's images, but when shooting at elevations below tree-line one has the challenges of subject movement. I often wait for several minutes or much more, for breezes to die down so that I can "grab" a shot when the leaves have settled down. I have images which are the result of stitching (even with movement, which may be a creative enhancement), but stitching is not always a substitute for a single exposure.
There are simply different tools for different jobs, and these tools can be used to preform tasks outside of their "ideal realm" with modifications in technique or approach. To dismiss MF as being of no advantage is folly, but so would it be to dismiss any of the other available formats for various tasks. The key is to learn how to extract the best from each, as the comments here have indicated the value of solid support, etc. for the higher resolution cameras.
-
I tried to look into camera vibration a while ago. What I tried was too shoot a test target and analyze the results using Imatest. This time I was looking at mirror induced vibrations on tripod 1/15s to 1/125s. The interesting observation was that I didn't perceive the images without mirror lockup as unsharp, but according to Imatest about half of my resolution was lost. In camera IS did not help.
Exactly. When you look at the pixel level, you will find detrimental effects from the mirror and your hands even at relatively high shutter speeds...
As to a DSLR being better at delivering resolution than an MF camera when hand-held, I don't think so. Again, my experience only, but as I stated above, I lump all high-resolution cameras into the same pot when I say you need a good tripod and MLU to get the most from them. And I agree that you can get very good results hand-held at shorter shutter speeds, but still will usually see a higher percentage of keepers from a resolution standpoint with a tripod + MLU. Really fast shutter speeds (1/1000th +) or short-duration strobes will probably get you to where a tripod doesn't add anything.
I also want to clarify that as respects this thread, I am only talking about the single aspect of gleaning optimal resolution from a system. I feel artistic and other technical factors can significantly contribute to the final look of an image and are usually more important than net resolution itself -- but that's a different discussion.
Cheers,
-
Indeed, a question for the MF pros (and other pros too, I suppose) in this forum:
What is the highest resolution that you expect to be useful in hand-held photography of subjects moving in a way that cannot be "frozen" by skillful panning?
So not just for fashion but also a lot of wildlife, children, and sports, where flash is often of limited value too.
My speculation is that we might already be there with MF, and even with high-res. 35mm format digital.
I recently observed Denis Montalbetti (mcphoto) shooting a moving fashion image on a P65+ and we were using 1/8000 sec flash duration with Profoto and Bron stobes. That did in fact give us critical sharpness, even the fast moving parts of the outfit were crisp. I think anything less than 1/1000 would not have been so crisp.
-
About 10 years ago, I tested my Hasselblad 500 with an 85 Planar against one of my mid '56 Rolleiflexes (Xenotar I believe). On a tripod, with the Hassy mirror locked up, I couldn't see any significant difference on Velvia between the two of them when shooting landscapes. Handheld, the Rollei shots usually looked sharper most of the time. I attributed that to its lack of a moving mirror. Clearly, the Hassy was more flexible due to lens interchangeability, but I learned from that experience that one needs to use the right tool for the right job. I suspect that a big sensor is a great thing for certain kinds of shooting, but probably doesn't offer a useful benefit in others. Gee, who would have thunk?
And you were not mistaken.
I only had the cheap Rollei T with a 75mm Tessar and thought I had won the lottery when I first went out with the brand new 500C and its 2.8/80. Unfortunately, I immediately discovered that unlike with Nikon, that huge bouncing mirror was a real image killer. From then on it lived on a tripod. Oh, another thing: those plasic lens caps used to fall off as soon as you tilted the camera downwards. In fact, with the 50mm I had to put a rubber band on the lens to slip the cap over so it wouldn't fall off. But, in a studio with flash, great optical performance! Unfortunately, the Rollei was traded in against the 'blad...
Rob C
-
Stitched panos are wonderful for the scenes depicted in Bernard's images, but when shooting at elevations below tree-line one has the challenges of subject movement. I often wait for several minutes or much more, for breezes to die down so that I can "grab" a shot when the leaves have settled down. I have images which are the result of stitching (even with movement, which may be a creative enhancement), but stitching is not always a substitute for a single exposure.
There are simply different tools for different jobs, and these tools can be used to preform tasks outside of their "ideal realm" with modifications in technique or approach. To dismiss MF as being of no advantage is folly, but so would it be to dismiss any of the other available formats for various tasks. The key is to learn how to extract the best from each, as the comments here have indicated the value of solid support, etc. for the higher resolution cameras.
Yes, totally true. But the key point I was trying to make was not that panos were the solution to all problems, but that it is simply impossible to focus accurately any high resolution sensor without live view in many circumpstances.
The only image I had available to illustrate the point was a pano, but a single frame would have been just the same.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
it is simply impossible to focus accurately any high resolution sensor without live view in many circumpstances.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's why god invented autofocus.
-
That's why god invented autofocus.
You must be either very forgiving or an atheist then. I expect better than AF from a godly entity.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That's why god invented autofocus.
Autofocus is indeed a godsend in many situations, but one must remember that it is not exact but depends on depth of field to allow for minor errors. This DPReview Thread (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=26804286) discusses autofocus tolerances for Canon cameras, and gives an link to an excellent Doug Kerr (http://doug.kerr.home.att.net/pumpkin/AF_accuracy.pdf) article discussing the matter in more detail. The higher accuracy Canon spec says that the tolerance is within 1/3 of the depth of focus, using the Canon specified Circle of Confusion (COC) for determining the depth of focus. See the Doug Kerr article for a discussion of how depth of focus relates to depth of field and how the depth of focus relates to various standard depth of field charts, which use a rather liberal COC which is too large for demanding situations.
One should also remember that autofocus focuses on the plane of the focus sensor, which may not coincide exactly with the plane of the iamging sensor of the camera due to manufacturing tolerances. Lens tolerances also come into play and the more advanced DSLRs allow fine tuning specific for the lens.
The advantage of live view is that it determines focus in the plane of the CCD or CMOS sensor, not the autofocus sensor and allows viewing of the image at high magnification. With liveview one can check for focus using interference (Moire) patterns and an expensive apparatus such as LensAlign is not needed, as explained here (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html#AF_test_image).
My first experience with liveview was a revelation. I was attempting photomicrography using using my D3 attached to a Zeiss microscope using a 4x Planapochromat ojective, which has a very narrow depth of focus (unlike regular photography where wide angle lenses have a great depth of focus, depth of focus is least at low power in microscopy). In this setup, it is best to use live view with a program (Camera Control Pro 2) which allows viewing the live view on one's computer screen rather than on the LCD of the camera. I was able to obtain the best low power shots that I have ever been able to achieve.
A similar setup could be used for testing focus of regular lenses with an interference target as described in the above link. In the field, one would likely use the camera LCD as Bernard describes. Does the P65+ back allow liveview and fine tuning of autofocus?
-
Hi,
My experience was essentially that:
KM Dimage 7D worked well on tripod and AS (Anti Shake)
Sony Alpha 100 did not work well on tripod and AS
Sony Alpha 700 did work well on tripod and AS
But Alpha 900 has issue with long lenses on tripod and AS
Would be nice if AS was included in preset. I have a preset for shooting on tripod, No AF, 2s timer with MLU, 100 ISO (I would love to add NO AS)
I'm shooting from 12mm to 800 mm, so I have pretty great range...
Erik
@ ErikKaffehr:
Interesting observation !
I think the advice for KM / Sony in body stabilization is to switch it "off" for tripod work. The explanations I have read are that the IS system is really tuned to "hand shake" characteristics and frequency, while it may actually hinder or degrade with the different (higher?) frequency you get when tripod mounted.
Is this in line with your observations as well? Would appreciate your insights.
-
To support your quote--
to paraphrase Woody Allen
If there is a God, he is certainly an underachiever"
You must be either very forgiving or an atheist then. I expect better than AF from a godly entity.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To support your quote--
to paraphrase Woody Allen
If there is a God, he is certainly an underachiever"
Much better put indeed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To support your quote--
to paraphrase Woody Allen
If there is a God, he is certainly an underachiever"
Whilst I agree with the atheistic sentiment, such a statement from Woody Allen of all people, is very transparent. His whole career is based on a comic role which emphasises underachievement and the comic relationships resulting from such underachievment. The net result is, Woody Allen is an overachiever.