Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: dergiman on March 27, 2012, 01:08:12 pm
-
Hi,
i just want to ask if anybody ever went back to a 35mm digital camera after owning and using a digital medium format camera for some time?
Did you regret it and what was the reason that you no longer use MFD? Did you regret selling your medium format gear?
Philipp
-
Philipp
I think this is an odd question, really. Most serious photographers, certainly in film days, and probably now too, who worked with MF and LF would also have 35mm kit in their cupboard. I know I always did. There are things which MF simply can't do, like fast-moving sports and candid work, and you have to have a 35mm camera around to cover that.
John
-
Biggest reason I have seen is people get older, and don't want to carry or can't carry their MFD or MF equipment.
-
Hey Phillip, I'm trying to do just that right now - switching to the new Nikon instead of medium-format digital for my landscape stuff. I use the D800 Nikon for high-ISO wide angle night work and long telephoto images anyway (since I can't do either with medium-format digital), so was hoping it could do double duty and allow me to have only one camera system. But after shooting with the D800 for several days alongside the 40mp medium-format stuff - and really looking into the files and making 40x60 prints from both (same scene, same light, same FOV lens, etc.) - I have come to the conclusion that the Nikon does not quite give me the details I need for my prints, even though the megapixel count is so close. If I never made really large prints I would be a happy camper with the new Nikon, but the extra detail (due to larger pixels?) spoils ya.
-
the extra detail (due to larger pixels?) spoils ya.
I agree.
-
Yup, 90% of what I did could be done on a 35mm dslr. Otherwise rent an MFDB. I know landscapers have higher requirements than fashion shooters, but the MFDBs just aren't fast enough (in every way) for people photography, unless its a static job like beauty or portraiture. While I think the backs of all flavors have better absolute IQ than any DSLR I've used, I think the D3x the best of the bunch when it comes to DR, resolution, and color rendition. Not to mention in focus frames.
The D800 should be amazing, although the frames I've seen thus far of confused cats and dogs, inane street scenes, badly posed C grade models in bad taste fashion spreads, leave me a bit cold.
-
For me it certainly isn't demand. I enjoy the technology of the camera as much as I enjoy the process of actually making pictures, and medium format offers me a unique experience to most of the people around me, and allows me to do different things and think differently. It also weighs a lot more and has other technical limitations for certain applications.
-
...but the MFDBs just aren't fast enough (in every way) for people photography...
Now you tell me. I have been shooting street photography with my Pentax 645D. I know others that do similar work with MFDB on Alpas and such. But now that I know I can't do that...
;)
-
everyone's different, like snowflakes
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianhirschfeldphotography/6025679799/in/set-72157627269991041/
anything can be done with practice and effort ;)
-
Yep, I moved from a Mamiya ZD to a Nikon D3x.
The files of the ZD were good, although not significantly better than those of the D3x.
But the main reasons why I moved back to 35 mm were:
- usability in the field for landscape (cold weather shooting battery life, speed, screen,...),
- disappointing lenses compared to the best 35mm lenses, especially on the wide side where the Mamiya/Phaseone 28mm f4 didn't impressed me much on the 48x36mm sensor of the ZD. Very sharp in the center but less so in the corners,
- overall reliability of the system (loose mount tolerances, some software bugs,...),
- bulk and weight indeed,
- lack of DoF when shooting at best possible aperture,
- lack of T/S lenses,
- lack of eco-system (brackets, raw files support in DxO,...).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I moved from a Mamiya P45+ to a D3x and now D4.
The back was fine, I guess, but I couldn't live with the camera.
Edmund
-
Yep. Owned an Aptus 22 with AFDII and RZ bodies. No client of mine has ever asked for me to shoot with a MFDB system, yet in film days clients did request 2 1/4 or 4x5 film, but not anymore in digital. It's so rare that my clients need very large repro and if they do, it still depends on what the printed resolution requirements in visual terms are desired. You'd be amazed what a well done 5DII file with the current version of BlowUp can do.
People need to get away from the petty war between digital sensor sizes. Honestly who cares. Use what you can afford. Use what fulfills the needs of your clients. Use what best represents the prints you want to create. But too many cameras now of many sensor sizes are so good at creating files that the failure is far too often the skills of the shooter.
I am approaching 40, in better shape now than I have been in a decade, stronger, more desire to do things in the world, but the least desirable thing for me now is hauling tons of gear. I simply no longer care about gear. I want a client job done as well it can be with as little gear as possible. To me creativity is not just in the art of the image, but the intelligent use of equipment and problem solving. One problem all photographers have is too much shit. Lessen the load, broaden the vision and just get things done. I would rather have power tools to build my shed, build my boat, grow a vegetable garden, stain my deck, redo spaces in the house than worry about the nonsense of photography gear.
I've been shooting for clients for 14 years. My new goal is to continue using the 5DII until it dies. Bleed everything out of it. Because if I were going to buy a new camera, I'd bang my head into the wall and instead go buy the Honda outboard I want which would give me far more pleasure with friends on the lake than another minute with new photo gear.
This is very similar to my view, and experience. I too had an Aptus 22, but after it was stolen I decided to get a couple of 5DIIs. I continued shooting for the same clients I had been shooting on MFD for, with the 5DII, and nobody could see a difference in image quality. And the 5DII was so much easier to shoot with than the Mamiya AFD.
Admittedly MFD has (or had...) more dynamic range, but this was most apparent to me when I converted files to b&w - nicer tonal gradations, etc.
I too hope to shoot on the 5DII until the cows come home. I don't particularly love the camera, but it works fine, and the quality is plenty good enough.
-
I have both the 5D MK11 and the Aptus 75 and my customers like the look of my food
images shot with the Aptus 75 rather than the 5D .
My clients often say that i must quote with my "big camera"
It is also the fact that the 2x3 format is quite wasteful when cropping to the 4x3 format.
For me i find both essential to my business.
Regards
Terence
http://www.terencehogben.co.za (new)
-
I too hope to shoot on the 5DII until the cows come home. when the cows will be home? I never hear that sorry..but what the cows have to do with u having 5d2?
Cows control u? This site getting crazy, people killing hoses,bitting them to death, now waiting for cows, come home to hide the camera i guess??? Animals getting kill, others controlling what camera u should use..OH LORD!
my customers like the look of my food...They look your food? while u eating? I hope its NOT death horses, the turn to CAT meal, or cows the control with what you taking photos..
Maybe the cows, think you will shot them from both side of the fence?
-
What are you talking about Blas ? :-)
-
This seems to be a hot topic.
Keep´em coming!
-
I must say i would like to see Nikon 800E files possibly they might enable
a switch to a fully 35mm based system , but not too excited from what i have
seen of the Nikon 800 files.
Regards
Terence
http://www.terencehogben.co.za
-
Never left 35mm when I started MFD. I still use my cell phone camera and an x100 as well. I guess I just shoot with whatever is in my hand. There is something about the slap of the bigger mirror and the slower methodical process that you are forced to use when shooting MFD that I would miss. ISO 25 and 50 have their place just as much as 6400 and above.
-
I too hope to shoot on the 5DII until the cows come home. when the cows will be home? I never hear that sorry..but what the cows have to do with u having 5d2?
Cows control u? This site getting crazy, people killing hoses,bitting them to death, now waiting for cows, come home to hide the camera i guess??? Animals getting kill, others controlling what camera u should use..OH LORD!
my customers like the look of my food...They look your food? while u eating? I hope its NOT death horses, the turn to CAT meal, or cows the control with what you taking photos..
Maybe the cows, think you will shot them from both side of the fence?
Blas, I suspect that you write with tongue in cheek?
Waiting for the cows to come home means you are going to be hanging about for a long, long time. Dead horses are often found to have been flogged to their deaths.
In my last place of employment we used to have a sink in the darkroom under which lay a horse that had been flogged to death; it was often joined by other things in the same condition. Not that said horse was actually visible, you understand, but we were all aware that there it lay, as sure as paper would fog if some asshole switched on the lights whilst the lids were off the paper boxes.
Rob C
-
I think the only person the i had read about, taking 50 to 100 photos in put it all together is Bernard. No way after u shooting with MD you will go back to 35 mm now U will keep 35 mm for very fast shooting.
Rob, I do not write with tongue in cheek. Oh so those cows are very far away? they walk slow, that is why people hold the 5d2 for long time? they do not get tired of holding it the long? those cows must getting everyone mad.
Are u sure those are not mad cows? mad cows, attack. They kill..so the dead horse was under the sink..poor horse,,I will be scare, working in a sink the a death horse was frogged to death,special if they turn the light off to often.
But its big different from 35 mm to MD, even Bernard will say no...Love U too
-
i'm spending a lot of time in front of my computer with my files... i must prefer working with leaf aptus 22 files than canon 5DII...
my canon stuff gets stolen, till then, i'm using an aptus II 7 with great success !
The fact that i can use the back on an arca swiss F line for the studio, an arca RM3D for architecture, and everything else with the DF is a good point !
I was was using only the DF, i would tried a Nikon D800...
-
I must say i would like to see Nikon 800E files possibly they might enable
a switch to a fully 35mm based system , but not too excited from what i have
seen of the Nikon 800 files.
Including these? http://www.bezergheanu.com/TestNikon/Test-Nikon-D800/22087378_KqWcB7#!i=1763885715&k=BN6QTnD
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But its big different from 35 mm to MD, even Bernard will say no...Love U too
I guess it is probably safer to agree with you.
Just one question though, where from was the cow you ate?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Speaking about cows coming home -
it reminds me of a story about the Southern Utah farmer who replied, when asked about the Bryce Canyon, that it was a helluwa place to lose a cow.
-
Including these? http://www.bezergheanu.com/TestNikon/Test-Nikon-D800/22087378_KqWcB7#!i=1763885715&k=BN6QTnD
Cheers,
Bernard
Those are.....pretty impressive.....and I bought an IQ180 and a D4 why again?
I'll comfort myself while falling to sleep tonight telling myself the IQ180 has better DR and the D4 is better at uh High ISO? (Hopefully) or FPS or something
-
Including these? http://www.bezergheanu.com/TestNikon/Test-Nikon-D800/22087378_KqWcB7#!i=1763885715&k=BN6QTnD
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes Bernard those look great , i shoot forestry as well as pretty much everything , i think the extra resolution would be very
nice in that situation.
I switched from Nikon years ago it would be expensive to go Nikon again , but something to mull over , one system would be nice
with the best glass one could buy.
Thank you for the link.
Regards
Terence
http://www.terencehogben.co.za
-
Aloha,
Shooting with the Pentax 645D
after about 6 months, my system is pretty well built out.
I would never consider shooting my landscapes with 35mm again.
I don't care how much they jack into the sensor...
-
Terence, I agree - the files from the D800 just don't impress me at all.
I owned a D3X and loved the colors from it, but not even that sensor had that "edge acuity" from the -ancient- Leaf Aptus 22 I'm using on a Mamiya AFD-II. The MF camera has all kinds of quirks, the DB is sometimes not recognized by the body, the body quits auto-focusing so I have to remove the battery pack and re-insert it to get things working again; but I love the shots I get out of the camera. I still routinely shoot with a D3S but there is no comparison.
I've got a D800E on order, we'll see if that leads to sharper images like the Leaf delivers.
-
I've got a D800E on order, we'll see if that leads to sharper images like the Leaf delivers.
It won't its all a function of sensor size....simple as that...
-
I had Hasselblad CF22, and I used it with both Contax 645 and Hasselblad 500CM and Flexbody. I had every Contax 645 lenses and most popular Hasselblad V lenses.
But now my primary kit is M9 + 50/f2 + 135/f4. I'll get 25mm for my net trip.
I rarely print beyond 24inch. For these size, M9 is good enough. It's hard to say which is better, Zeiss (Hasselblad/Contax) or Leica, neither is replacible, but the convenience of Leica M system is unbeatable.
-
Unless your sponsored by a camera company, give camera company seminars, or sell cameras (which in a way covers all three of the above) this doesn't really matter and honestly if you fall into one of those groups your validity on camera selection comes with an agenda, though it doesn't mean the agenda is wrong, or not honest, it just means there is a built in bias.
Shoot what you want, shoot multiple systems/brands, shoot what is right for you and for the creative brief. I just don't believe it's a one camera fits all world and the only real suggestion I have to anyone selecting a camera is if you buy right, you'll use that camera until the paint falls off.
I can draw you a thousand instances where on a specific day a RED is better than a 5d2, a FS100, a Hasselblad, a Leica or a Nikon, but it all comes to two reasons to make your selection. 1. Do you like to use that specific camera and 2. Doe the camera your using enhance what you shooting not limiting it.
I recently returned from Europe where I carried 4 camera systems, 2 REDS, 1 Canon, 1 Sony and used them all and honestly they were all scene, subject, dependent.
We never made the mistake of saying to ourselves, heck I paid _______ for the expensive camera and I better damn well use it, or the opposite which is the smaller camera works faster, so screw it, I'll just make my life easy.
Good photography ain't easy, but I see photos on this and every site where I can tell the artist locked themselves down to the wrong equipment for the scene . . at least that's my opinion.
This argument will rage on until all photography is done on an I-phone, but at the end of the day, if you print a 44: print, even from a 6 mpx camera, the world will go wow. Big always looks impressive.
Also at the end of the day, a blad, a Nikon, A canon, A RED, A sony, A _______ all are very, very, good cameras . . . just different.
Difference is good.
BC
-
...but at the end of the day, if you print a 44: print, even from a 6 mpx camera, the world will go wow. Big always looks impressive...
+1
-
Brian H., you wrote "It won't its all a function of sensor size....simple as that..."
I don't think this is true. Just look at Leica M8 files. The M8 of course is a non-AA filter CCD camera, however, and I suspect that this is the reason for the sometimes brutal sharpness, along with the Leica lenses.
I sold just about everything and started on a Khmer Year Zero policy, now that I rarely shoot professionaly. The only things I kept are my M6 and a Summicron 35mm F2, a Nikon Fm2, and a Nikon F4. These I kept for sentimental reasons. I also kept a Leaf Aptus 75s in H mount and my Nikon lenses. I ordered both flavors of the D800 and bought an X100 last week. If the Nikons don't do it for me I'll buy an H2 for the Leaf. The X100 thus far is pretty good. In many ways I prefer it to the M8 and M9 I sold.
Whether or not 35mm or MFD is for you is a personal choice based mor ethan anything on your working approach and your training. If you come from a documentary background you may see a picture and try to get it, and develop the composition as you start shooting if you see something else in the subject after you take that first frame. This is how I work, and how Annie L. works as well, which is why I prefer a system that lets me improvise and doesn't get in the way of that process. This is why Annie L uses her Canon more than anything else. Other people work differently and that's fine, and maybe an MFDB doesn't get in the way of their process. I think that in realistic terms the IQ difference between the high end DSLRs and most MFDB's isn't enough to require that a DMF sytem be used over a DSLR. That should not be the deciding factor. Your creative process should be the deciding factor, because at the end of the day, that extra IQ from the back is not going to show when the substance of the photo is compromised by using a system that gets in your way. essentially, just choose what works for you, like most lady photographers I know. They just use what works for them and their creative process. For some its a tripod mounted H 503CW with a tehered only Sinar 54m and 18000 watts of Broncolour, while for others its a 5d. Neither is wrong.
-
As far as great imagery, the camera is not going to be the deciding factor. There are great APS-c and 35mm systems out there. The camera is certainly a personal/creative choice by the photographer. Format size also impacts results. I don't mean to say bigger is better, but rather it is another factor in the process that present advantages and disadvantages--I like the DoF my E-P1 gives me at large apertures, just like I like the DoF my MFD gives me at large apertures.
There is one thing though I think needs to be addressed. MFD are not simply tripod cameras. There is really no difference between my Pentax 645D and any other DSLR. Handholding MFD for documentary work is easy as well. There is not some mystical bar that MFD, or even the new D800, set in terms of usability. Just in terms of technical quality (which I do not think is the most important aspect of photography), my 645D always is better than my EP1, even with motion blur from slow shutter speeds. I wish folks would let their hair down around MFD.
-
Unfortunately i cannot handhold my Aptus 75 with ease , especially with the Hasselblad 500CM mirror
clunking down and spoiling the shot , but i do get your point most modern MFDC are well able in this regard.
And maybe its my eyes at 52 but i battle to get accurate focus with the lens fairly wide open , so for me its
a tripod mounted shooting style and mirror lock up before i fire with a cable release , this drives me to my
5D mk2 but the quality of the Aptus forces me back to the Aptus.
You could say i have a love hate relationship with the camera. I am going to have to keep loving the cameras
i have though , business is sporadic at best. ;D
Rgds
Terence
-
Unfortunately i cannot handhold my Aptus 75 with ease , especially with the Hasselblad 500CM mirror
clunking down and spoiling the shot , but i do get your point most modern MFDC are well able in this regard.
Handholding the old Hasselblad 500s with a DB is perfectly possible, and I shoot that way most of the time. It takes a bit of practice, though -
* You need to use a higher shutter speed than you might expect. 1/125s at least for the 60mm and 80mm, and 1/250s for the 100mm and 150mm. Or higher speeds, of course. You might just get away with 1/60s on the 50mm, but I wouldn't bank on it.
* Use the WLF, press down against the strap and in against your abdomen. Breath half-way out, pause, and fire. Or, the 45 degree prism works quite well hand held - you jam the camera up against your eye and in against your chin.
* If the subject permits, always take a safety shot - one of the two will usually be sharp.
John
-
Some 150 year ago we had a complete trainwagon that functioned as a camera
Now we have cameras of square mm in our phone...
It is al evolution and yes the pictures are different but one is not really better than the other…
I think the much better (coating of the) lenses also plays a important role in the image quality apart from the sensor/film area.
This image would not have been better if made with a d800e or a MFB camera anno 2012.
-
Boy, if those Indians only knew what that white guy was going to do next..... :)
-
I really like the view finder in my Rollei and that keeps me mostly shooting with that when I can. The IQ is better but even if it wasn't I'd provably still use it. But lately I have also been shooting with an old Nikon F4. Wow! That's got a great viewfinder - too bad Nikons lost this great interchangable finder.
-
I really like the view finder in my Rollei and that keeps me mostly shooting with that when I can. The IQ is better but even if it wasn't I'd provably still use it. But lately I have also been shooting with an old Nikon F4. Wow! That's got a great viewfinder - too bad Nikons lost this great interchangable finder.
But that's progress, Eric. At least (today) you don't have to struggle with the F4's lousy self-loading system. That was the single reason that I went back out and bought an F3. Even then, Nikon was playing mind games: when I bought the F4s I had concluded, from the lack of advertising, that the F3 had been discontinued - not so: they had just stopped promoting it. I still have that F3. But, compared with my earlier F and F2 Photomic, it's flawed: you need batteries.
;-(
Rob C
-
I really like the view finder in my Rollei and that keeps me mostly shooting with that when I can. The IQ is better but even if it wasn't I'd provably still use it. But lately I have also been shooting with an old Nikon F4. Wow! That's got a great viewfinder - too bad Nikons lost this great interchangable finder.
People don't realise just how utterly crap modern viewfinders are. Pick up an old Nikon F, or even a Pentax K1000, check out a Rollei 2.8F or a 'Blad 500 with an acutematte screen and be amazed. It doesn't matter, of course, because now everybody has liveview and is squinting at their pathetic LCD screens thinking that this is photography.
John
-
If composition matters, then the viewfinder that enables this is central. The rest is secondary.
MF gives big view finder. Gives a flexibility that LF doesn't, but now with digital backs, close to that quality level. DSLR is too much "hey I've got it, snag it", run and gun. BIg viewfinders help one step back and think a bit more.
WLF and prisms for different situations.
Apart from the size/weight issues, the MF setup is hard to beat for the more thoughtful work. Would love smaller, lighter answer, but MF makes more keepers.
-
People don't realise just how utterly crap modern viewfinders are. Pick up an old Nikon F, or even a Pentax K1000 ...
This is one place that I can modtly agree with the nostalgic curmudgeons: the arrrival of auto-focus drove SLR viewfinder designs in a direction that perhaps works better when using auto-focus, but at the cost of not supporting some things like manual focusing as well. But ...
... now everybody has liveview and is squinting at their pathetic LCD screens thinking that this is photography.
There is of course another option, the EVF, which for often stated reasons (the ability to magnify near the desired focus point, possibly with the overall framing still shown around the zoomed portion; DOF preview without dimming of the image; the ability to "switch screens" to get various overlays like grids for vertical and horizontal alignment ...) can be far better than any optical viewfinder in most respects. The main remaining EVF disadvantages relate to fast moving subjects and lag, which is now down to 1/120s or maybe even 1/240s.
In a pinch, even the zoomed image on a rear screen is a more precise focusign tool than any optical viewfinder, even those in medium format cameras. It is ironical that this much-maligned composition tool so closely resembles the top-down ground glass viewfinders of older MF designs. The 56mm width of those VFs with 6x6 or 645 is about the same as with a 3" rear LCD screen.
Of course, there are not yet any 35mm format cameras with EVFs, but there will probably be one later this year, in the form of a Sony "SLT" to repace the discontinued A900 and A850. I wonder why no SLR maker has yet offered an accessory tiltable EVF, usable in the hot shoe.
-
Most cameras need a zoomed image exactly because the viewfinders are utterly crap.
That might indeed be the cause with respect to "two-eyed" rear screen viewfinders (which I can tolerate in some situations but would not want to rely on.) But since the consequence is a tool that is far more accurate for manual focusing with high resolution cameras, why should I care about that bit of history? Caring about history is clearly not one of my strong points!
From what I have read, the image on the ground glass viewfinder of a 35mm format SLR has resolution that at best corresponds to about 2MP, and maybe 5MP in 645. (The scattering of the image from the lens off a frosted glass or plastic surface into the secondary image seen through the one-eyed viewfinder or the two-eyed viewfinder screen atop an old-style MF camera does terrible things to image sharpness and detail!)
P. S. Since no one has yet brought up range-finders as an alternative to those low res. frosted screen VFs, I will not discuss the extreme difficulty or impossibility of calibrating the focusing accuracy of that mechanism well enough to match 18MP+ resolution. At least the viewfinder image overall can be sharp.
-
You think the principal purpose of a viewfinder is a focusing aid?
Not the only role, but that is surely one important task of the viewfinder --- unless one always uses auto-focus, and the "focus and recompose" strategy that almost all medium format cameras require for off-center subjects. DOF preview is another use I mentioned, where an EVF has a clear advantage over an OVF stopped down more than one or two stops, basically because a good modern sensor is far more sensitive to low light than our eyes, and so the dim stopped-down image can be magnified up to a useful brightness.
For other purposes, my resolution numbers indicate that medium format OVFs probably have some advantage for now.
I did forget to mention VF image size: that is one place that a larger format has a natural advantage over a smaller one when it comes to TTL optical viewfinders ... but the difference goes away if and when EVFs (good one-eyed ones) come into play.
Of course, the current lack of good one-eyed EVFs in 35mm format mean that for now, the TTL OV of a MF camera offers some clear advantages, for a little while longer. I wonder where we will be in four year's time, which is when I expect the next wave of high end 35mm format models from Canon and Nikon.
-
Not the only role, but that is surely one important task of the viewfinder --- unless one always uses auto-focus, and the "focus and recompose" strategy that almost all medium format cameras require for off-center subjects. DOF preview is another use I mentioned, where an EVF has a clear advantage over an OVF stopped down more than one or two stops, basically because a good modern sensor is far more sensitive to low light than our eyes, and so the dim stopped-down image can be magnified up to a useful brightness.
If you mean using the central focussing spot to focus on an item off-centre, then re-positioning the camera with that off-central subject back in its original place, you'll never get it critically crisp: lenses don't work like that. This has been discussed and proved here in LuLa quite some time ago. Basically, what that technique does, is take the T-square that's formed by the line through the central axis of the lens where it meets the plane of the subject (the head of that imaginary T-square) and then swings it into another plane altogether. If you mentally project the straight line formed along the axis of the T-square's head, you'll see at once that swinging that 'head' from position to position alters the plane that the lens is trying so desperately hard to render flat. The plane running through the original subject when you focussed on it by moving the angle of the lens axis, is no longer that same plane when the camera is reset to the taking position. That plane on which you actually focussed now lies much closer to the camera than it did when you were focussing on it, even though the subject itself has not moved.
The only way you can defeat the geometry is by using a lens with a shell-like plane of focus – exactly what you get with poor wide-angles, and what all lens makers try to avoid.
It really is easy to understand if you take that T-square idea: imagine viewing down the centre-line of the long strip and think where the extended line through the axis along the centre of the length of the head lies. Shift that into another position by pivoting from the same point, and that projected centre-line along the length of the head is miles off in another place.
Rob C
-
If you mean using the central focussing spot to focus on an item off-centre, then re-positioning the camera with that off-central subject back in its original place, you'll never get it critically crisp: lenses don't work like that. This has been discussed and proved here in LuLa quite some time ago. Basically, what that technique does, is take the T-square that's formed by the line through the central axis of the lens where it meets the plane of the subject (the head of that imaginary T-square) and then swings it into another plane altogether. If you mentally project the straight line formed along the axis of the T-square's head, you'll see at once that swinging that 'head' from position to position alters the plane that the lens is trying so desperately hard to render flat. The plane running through the original subject when you focussed on it by moving the angle of the lens axis, is no longer that same plane when the camera is reset to the taking position. That plane on which you actually focussed now lies much closer to the camera than it did when you were focussing on it, even though the subject itself has not moved.
The only way you can defeat the geometry is by using a lens with a shell-like plane of focus – exactly what you get with poor wide-angles, and what all lens makers try to avoid.
It really is easy to understand if you take that T-square idea: imagine viewing down the centre-line of the long strip and think where the extended line through the axis along the centre of the length of the head lies. Shift that into another position by pivoting from the same point, and that projected centre-line along the length of the head is miles off in another place.
Rob C
I want true focus for my Mamiya 7 ... ;)
-
I wonder why no SLR maker has yet offered an accessory tiltable EVF, usable in the hot shoe.
I thought Contax had introduced something like that for its ill fated N SLR system. Some googling indeed dug up this:
Contax FE-1 LCD Viewfinder
1.5 inch screen, probably only usable with the N1 body, $699, ~2001 vintage
-
Since I bought up the idea of pointing the cameras at an off-center subject to focus on it (manually or with auto-focus) and then recomposing, it seems to me that
- it is often perfectly good, if not speedy, and I use it with single point AF a lot of the time
- it can fail when DOF is shallow, as Jonathan Weinke argued and demonstrated in these forums some years ago and for the reasons that Rob C just indicated
- in situations where "F&C" is not good enough, the only solutions that I can think of that will work with high resolution images are
(a) manual focus with zooming on an electronic viewfinder (the one-eyed or two-eyed options are both viewfinders in my understanding of the word)
(b) auto-focus with correct composition and off-center AF sensors
(c) in-camera calculation of corrections for F&C, allowing for the distance change after focusing. Doesn't Hasselblad offer something like this?
With the camera on a tripod, my preferences would be in that order, since the first two options avoid recomposing, and the first avoides fiddling with focus point selections, but I do not pretend to speak for everyone.
-
Unfortunately, that Contax FE-1 LCD Viewfinder just takes the image from the OVF, not direct from the sensor, so still has the limited resolution and lack of zoomability of the OVF image. Contax did not have much choice, since the Phillips full-frame type CCD of that camera does not support Live View.
-
Viewfinders: the Hy6 has a gorgeous viewfinder.
Back to 35mm: haven't gone back, but 4/3 and m4/3 with their sensors continously increasing in image quality, great lenses, and compact size have been a wonderful addition for those times when the medium format kit is just too heavy.
-
Rob, thankfully I'm not trying to focus wide open on a nipple.
That becomes more of a question of concentration, rather than of optics, even after a few years of practice.
;-)
Rob C
-
- it can fail when DOF is shallow, as Jonathan Weinke argued and demonstrated in these forums some years ago and for the reasons that Rob C just indicated
That's the man!
Has he dropped out of LuLa? I had completely forgotten his identity - he was in the US Army, I think, and quite an interesting, experienced writer. I seem to remember that he was ill in some way. Any news about him, anyone?
Rob C
-
Has he dropped out of LuLa? I had completely forgotten his identity - he was in the US Army, I think, and quite an interesting, experienced writer. I seem to remember that he was ill in some way. Any news about him, anyone?
Unfortunately not. He was like posting 100 times a day and then vanished almost instantly after his decision to go to Irak. I hope he is doing fine.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I use both, but have to admit that the mf files are much much nicer! I use 1ds, 5dmkII, leaf65 and leaf II-6 and just orderd a d800.
And no clients don't ask me to shoot mf, but don't you want to create be best image files? Full body shot of models with a 5d and the eyelash separation is pretty much gone, with the leaf it's still there.
I am trying to convince myself that its not important, because the clients will never know...but I do!
I honestly hope that the d800 files come very close, so I can shoot easy and error free ( because shooting mf is like driving a stick shift ferrari.... Expensive and very quirky ... But what a ride it is!!!) while shooting with a 35mm is like driving a automatic Honda ... Cheap and easy and it gets you from a to b )
My 2 cents ;-)
-
Focus and recompose works just fine for me. I'd rather have a beautifully composed image than critically sharp shit.
I would argue that beautifully composed and critically sharp are not mutually exclusive. I work to get both in my shots.
-
see? :)
-
Nicolaas said it perfectly.
-
I have noticed a quirk in this thread and some others: discussions of DMF vs 35mm digital that involve lots of "DMF is better than the Canon 5D" comments. There was a time when the 5D Mk II gave arguably the best image quality in 35mm, and at a great price, so maybe that lead many MF users to choose it as their 35mm alternative, but that time is past (since the arrival of the Nikon D3x and Sony A900). I for one am going to wait until some good photographers with DMF experience have put the Nikon D800 and D800E through their paces.
One question I look forward to: is it the aliasing effects and/or less smoothing at high contrast edges due to lacking an OLPF filter that leads to the enhanced "three dimensional feel" often artributed to MF? Some kind of enhanced accurance? I wonder just because one person has said the same of the D800E too.
-
I wonder just because one person has said the same of the D800E too.
Before it has started shipping :-\
-
Hi,
This "3D" experience is a bit underdefinied, IMHO. What does it mean, any samples with and without the "3D" effect?
Now, a larger sensor comes with some advantage. Any detail will be larger on the sensor surface, and magnification will be higher. The amount of contrast transferred by the lens is higher for larger details than for smaller ones. So for small details an MF lens will transfer more contrast.
Finally, the lack of AA-filtering will also keep more fine detail contrast. It will also induce fake detail, which may add to the perceived quality. A typical example may be that feathers on birds may have finer structures than the sensor may resolve. So the feather may essentially just be a gray mass. Now if the lens can transfer say 35% contrast at the pixel size some of that contrast will be reproduced as low frequency aliases, that is fake detail. So we see patterns in what would be gray mass.
Regarding the 5DII I would say it was a fine camera and still is. I don't know if the Sony Alpha 900 is a better camera as I own an Alpha 900 but not a 5DII. The Nikon D3X has better DR, and that may matter in some cases. I may add that it may be that the Nikon is simply better.
A very good comparison of MFD and Nikon 3Dx is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50977.0
Best regards
Erik
I have noticed a quirk in this thread and some others: discussions of DMF vs 35mm digital that involve lots of "DMF is better than the Canon 5D" comments. There was a time when the 5D Mk II gave arguably the best image quality in 35mm, and at a great price, so maybe that lead many MF users to choose it as their 35mm alternative, but that time is past (since the arrival of the Nikon D3x and Sony A900). I for one am going to wait until some good photographers with DMF experience have put the Nikon D800 and D800E through their paces.
One question I look forward to: is it the aliasing effects and/or less smoothing at high contrast edges due to lacking an OLPF filter that leads to the enhanced "htree dimensional feel" often artributed to MF? Some kind of enhanced accurance? I wonder just because one person has said the same of the D800E too.
-
Finally, the lack of AA-filtering will also keep more fine detail contrast. It will also induce fake detail, which may add to the perceived quality.
I don't get this not having an AA-filter, do people think color moire is a desirable feature? Do people think resolution of the MF sensors is so low that false detail on the pixelpeep level must be introduced? Here's a IQ180 shot, look at the fur in parts that are in focus http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/JacquelineMegaw.jpg
I find false colors to be more disturbing and worrying than pattern moire. AA-filter plus sharpening would have yielded better image quality for that picture. For small apertures I guess one can be saved by diffraction though.
Since we always tend to want mooore resolution I also find being without AA-filter rather tempting, I might actually choose D800E for landscape work, but rationally, not putting in an AA-filter is a signal processing error which produces artifacts. You would never consider do the same in audio for example. My guess is that "no AA-filter" has since the start become one with the "MF brand", people expect the aliased pixelpeep look so now it is hard to introduce a MF back with AA-filter, although it frankly is a better design.
-
Do people think resolution of the MF sensors is so low that false detail on the pixelpeep level must be introduced?
Indeed, for me at least, even the recent D800 samples, with a mere 36MP and a "smear filter", offers resolution beyond almost any non-pixel-peeping purpose.
To be a bit dogmatic and simplistic, my big print strategy would be:
(a) Always print at high enough PPI to suppress any discretization effects; at least 200PPI+ for any prints that can be approached within a couple of feet. (camera pixels/inch, not up-sampled or DPI).
(b) If that means that the prints are not as big as you want, then get more real resolution, by upgrading to a sensor with more photosites, using a multi-shot back, stitching, or whatever.
But
(c) If you are serious enough to pay DMF prices, don't try to fake it with inadequate PPI plus an aliasing-induced increase in accutance.