Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Mike Sellers on January 25, 2013, 11:54:40 am
-
Which one would produce better 40x60 prints?
-
This question is lacking sufficient background information for relevant/useful replies. Suffice it to say they can both make great large prints and they can both make awful large prints.
What kind of subject matter?
What kind of shooting style?
On tripod or hand held?
What kind of lens (wide/long/normal)? For that matter, on the H body or on a tech camera body?
etc etc etc
Far better, IMO, to tell us about what you want to do, how you would like to do it (i.e. shooting style) and then ask what the advantages and disadvantages of each system would be for you. There are (IMO) many applications where a digital back will produce a significantly nicer file for printing, and there are plenty of applications where the D800 would be a better tool.
If ALL you care about is print quality at 40x60 then the only meaningful way to answer this question is for YOU to go shoot both in a scenario similar to the one you intend to use it in, and then for YOU to print it (or have it printed) and for YOU to view and compare.
-
Rent both and shoot them side by side and discover which one works for you best to produce the type of prints you do.
Since I'm used to shooting with a Nikon D800 and shoot at the edge of light, I could probably print a better 40x60 with it than if you gave me an H3D and had me do the same thing.
However, in the studio with the H3D and good lighting, I'd might get better IQ with it over the D800.
Each is unique and each fills a different niche and only you can decide which will be the better tool.
It all boils down to the vision and craft of the photographer which will give you the best IQ. In capable hands, each tool is capable of great results.
-
Which one would produce better 40x60 prints?
depends on the printer
-
I shot a ton with an aptus 65 so it had similar image quality to the h3d30. In broad daylight at base ISO or under studio conditions but when the light faded the aptus was put back in the bag and the d800e shined. Couple with top notch glass the d800e is continually blowing my mind. I sold my hasselblad/aptus setup because I found myself using the d800e on more commercial jobs.
Now, when you factor in the look of larger format glass you have a different problem. This is something that I do miss a bit.
What are you shooting and printing? If you're shooting with the lenses stopped down and at infinity you won't really need to worry about the look of the medium format glass.
-
I do nature photography on a tripod. It is looking like the Nikon is the camera for me until the Foveon comes out in a full frame version.
-
I do nature photography on a tripod. It is looking like the Nikon is the camera for me until the Foveon comes out in a full frame version.
What leads you to that conclusion?
-
Take a look at this article:
http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/ (http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/)
This is a comparison between an IQ180 with more that twice the MP count of the H3D 30 and a larger sensor area.
The lens used on the IQ 180 was a tech cameras lens so it is better than the Hasselblad equivalent due to fewer design constraints.
At 30×20 inches, you can see subtle but clear differences between the IQ180 and the D800E.
Not all of them weighted in favour of the medium format camera, though.
For instance, the D800E produced much more pleasing shadow areas on the prints of the photographs produced to test dynamic range.
Resolution and detail of the IQ180 prints was better than that of the D800E prints – but not massively.
Again, the difference was there, but it wasn’t huge. Certainly not €30,000 huge.
And we were stunned just how close the D800E ran the IQ180 when the files were printed at 60×40 inches, which is bigger than many dining room tables.
Put simply, Nikon has produced a phenomenal camera.
Medium format camera manufacturers have cause for concern.
-
Hi,
I tried to do some kind of drill down regarding MF compared to full frame DSLRs. The article has been checked by several person who has been there and done that (two of them owning both Nikon D800E and Phase One IQ 180) and also by Tim Parkin. It is not based on own experience but on samples, measurements and sample data. All images were used by the permission of the authors.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts
I don't think you find anything sensational.
Personally, I would probably go the Nikon way. You can buy a D800 and a few top of the line Zeiss lenses for the fraction of the cost of an MFDB.
If you go for an MFDB, it may be worthwhile to visit one of the leading dealers like DT or CI, they can help you if things don't work out as expected.
Best regards
Erik
Which one would produce better 40x60 prints?
-
If you do nature photography, the Nikon sure is a lot lighter to carry around.
-
You can buy a D800 and a few top of the line Zeiss lenses for the fraction of the cost of an MFDB.
The O.P. asked about the H3D-31. I would think that the price will not be higher than a D800 with Zeiss glass.
-
If you do nature photography, the Nikon sure is a lot lighter to carry around.
Depends
A digital back on a compact tech camera like the RC400 (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/cambo-new-bodies)/Factum (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/arca-swiss)with three Schneider wides (e.g. 24XL/35XL/47XL) is around the same weight as a Nikon D800 with three Nikon or Zeiss wide-angle primes or PC lenses. It also packs in the same approximate area.
Naturally an SLR medium format system with three wide angle SLR lenses will be a good bit larger/heavier than both.
-
Hi,
Have you checked any price list?
It's about a camera, an MFDB and several lenses. I don't really think you can buy a decent MFDB below 5000$, than you need the body, say 3000$ and a few lenses at 3000$ each. Some of that stuff would be used.
Zeiss lenses are not that expensive, and some of the Nikon lenses are really excellent, too.
Best regards
Erik
The O.P. asked about the H3D-31. I would think that the price will not be higher than a D800 with Zeiss glass.
-
Hey Doug--- in this link, http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/
um, I thought the Schneider 35XL was one of those lenses that really isn't the best choice with the IQ180 (that was back in the times of C1 Pro6)??? ... and even with the greatly improved C1 Pro 7, the Schneider 35XL isn't a great lens with the IQ180... I thought that was pretty much the consensus among technical camera users.
I would think the Rodenstocks would have been a much better choice, but I think that's also part of the difficulty in attempting any comparison as there is always some variable that skews the results in some manner despite good faith best efforts....
Of course, it's simply best to just buy both camera systems and enjoy the best of both worlds. ;D
-
Isn't the Schneider 35 that was used considered to be a very poor match to the IQ180 ?
The lens used on the IQ 180 was a tech cameras lens so it is better than the Hasselblad equivalent due to fewer design constraints.
-
How much is the Factum?
-
How much is the Factum?
The Arca-Swiss Factum is $4,390.
The Schneider 35XL is not the best choice for the IQ180. Many people use it, but it is not optimal for use with movements on the IQ180.
Lance
-
Isn't the Schneider 35 that was used considered to be a very poor match to the IQ180 ?
The IQ180 has color cast issues with the XL35, in particular when shifting. Many say they have less color cast issues
with the IQ160 so it's more of a sensor problem.
-
Hey Doug--- in this link, http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/
um, I thought the Schneider 35XL was one of those lenses that really isn't the best choice with the IQ180 (that was back in the times of C1 Pro6)??? ... and even with the greatly improved C1 Pro 7, the Schneider 35XL isn't a great lens with the IQ180... I thought that was pretty much the consensus among technical camera users.
I would think the Rodenstocks would have been a much better choice, but I think that's also part of the difficulty in attempting any comparison as there is always some variable that skews the results in some manner despite good faith best efforts....
Of course, it's simply best to just buy both camera systems and enjoy the best of both worlds. ;D
Here is a direct Nikon vs 40MP Hasselblad
Full frame
(http://www.photigy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Nikon-d800e-test-review-sample-image.jpg)
Crops
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69391.0;attach=64261;image)
Photogy did this test and a forum member here did the processing for the side by side photo.
Photogy article here:
http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/ (http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/)
-
Fred, that's excellently scary
-
Here is a direct Nikon vs 40MP Hasselblad
Um, actually I was asking Doug Peterson. Ahem, that's why you see the "Hey Doug" in my post. See, I'm actually asking for an answer from someone who has actual experience using a technical camera and MFDBs, and also happens to know a lot about the lenses and the new C 1 Pro7. I'm not looking for the "google" response or the anecdoctal reply of what you may have heard somewhere... Myself, I opted for the Rodenstock over Schneider with the IQ180, and so who else better to ask about the Schneider 35XL (using the new C1 Pro 7) and someone who actually knows what they are talking about and actually uses MFDBS---than our resident expert, Doug (and yes, thank you Lance!).
Nice photo. I've only seen that one posted by you maybe ten or twelve times now. I have no idea why you posted it in reply to my post. Rather than keep posting someone else's work, do you have any images that you have taken yourself with the Nikon D800? That certainly would be a more helpful contribution than the constant ad nauseum anti Phase/MFDB rants.... How about some puppies? Anything.... ::)
I think I liked it better when all the forum threads were about how Fuji saved the world and waxing poetic about what a better place it was with the Fuji GX680.... ;) At least you have experience with the GX680.
-
Fred, that's excellently scary
The D800E is quite a camera. It's almost silly how much quality a small 3,000 dollar camera can put out. Same goes for the New little Fuji cameras.
Richard
I took a look at your work.
The Chinatown USA project and the Occupy series are really nice. Very nice processing too.
Faces of the smart world is a brilliant.
I also read about your other projects. IF you need an loaner MF film camera or 8x10 in Los Angeles let me know.
-
Um, actually I was asking Doug Peterson. Ahem, that's why you see the "Hey Doug" in my post. See, I'm actually asking for an answer from someone who has actual experience using a technical camera and MFDBs, and also happens to know a lot about the lenses and the new C 1 Pro7. I'm not looking for the "google" response or the anecdoctal reply of what you may have heard somewhere... I opted for the Rodenstock over Schneider with the IQ180, and who else better to ask about the 35XL (using the new C1 Pro 7) and someone who actually knows what they are talking about and actually uses MFDBS---than our resident expert, Doug (and yes, thank you Lance!).
Nice photo. I've only seen that one posted by you maybe ten or twelve times now. I have no idea why you posted it in reply to my post. Rather than keep posting someone else's work, do you have any images that you have taken yourself with the Nikon D800? That certainly would be a more helpful contribution than the constant ad nauseum anti Phase/MFDB rants.... How about some puppies? Anything.... ::)
I think I liked it better when all the forum threads were about how Fuji saved the world and waxing poetic about what a better place it was with the Fuji GX680.... ;) At least you have experience with the GX680.
Aah... How silly... I fell for the bait. If you know I've linked to that image before you know that there is a direct Hasselblad D800 comparison.... there are a few others too.
-
Have you checked any price list?
It's about a camera, an MFDB and several lenses. I don't really think you can buy a decent MFDB below 5000$, than you need the body, say 3000$ and a few lenses at 3000$ each. Some of that stuff would be used.
Zeiss lenses are not that expensive, and some of the Nikon lenses are really excellent, too.
The O.P. asked about a "H3D 30mp", it is even in the title. It is a 7 years old camera, which can only be bought second hand. I came to this particular forum because I bought one last week to complement or replace my D800. I also bought a 80mm and 150mm lenses with it. When I see the price of a D800E (almost impossible to find second hand) and 2 equivalent used Zeiss lenses in Nikon mount, the total is more than what I paid for my H3D-31 with lenses, even factoring the cost of sending it back to Göteborg for cleaning.
-
Hi,
OK. Sorry for asking.
I was checking out prices recently and came up with a higher figure, but I was looking a Phase back to put on a Hartblei HCam. I also mostly checked H-lenses.
Zeiss 50/1.4 ZF.2 costs about 725$ at B&H photovideo. You get a used HC 80 for that price? New they cost 2595 at B&H.
Zeiss 85/14 ZF.2 costs 1283 at B&H, while the HC 150/3.2 costs 3795$ new at B&H.
I realize the D31 back is cropped sensor so the corresponding focal lengths should be a bit different. Anyway, you got your camera at a very good price, enjoy!
Best regards
Erik
The O.P. asked about a "H3D 30mp", it is even in the title. It is a 7 years old camera, which can only be bought second hand. I came to this particular forum because I bought one last week to complement or replace my D800. I also bought a 80mm and 150mm lenses with it. When I see the price of a D800E (almost impossible to find second hand) and 2 equivalent used Zeiss lenses in Nikon mount, the total is more than what I paid for my H3D-31 with lenses, even factoring the cost of sending it back to Göteborg for cleaning.
-
Zeiss 50/1.4 ZF.2 costs about 725$ at B&H photovideo. You get a used HC 80 for that price? New they cost 2595 at B&H.
Zeiss 85/14 ZF.2 costs 1283 at B&H, while the HC 150/3.2 costs 3795$ new at B&H.
A quick look on completed listing in the US on ebay shows that the going rates for the Hasselblad lenses is 900$ and 1500$ respectively and the price for the Zeiss lenses is about 550$ and 1100$, so there is indeed a difference, but not a huge one. The difference is even smaller in Germany, where I live.
Used Hasselblad digital cameras seem to be particularly cheap at present, probably due to a combination of:
-the D800 coming to market
-reduced prices on low-end Hasselblad cameras to bring them in line with the Pentax 645
-offers on the H4D cameras now that the H5D is announced
-recession.
In consequence, the prices of a used H3D system with a 22 or 31 mpix back and 2 or 3 lenses is, at present, comparable to the price of a D800E with 2 or 3 Zeiss lenses and I expect that more people will ask questions about the comparison in one direction or the other: there are some pro photographers with old Hasselblads who wonder whether they should replace them with the lighter and cheaper cameras if they are good enough for their line of business as well as amateurs tempted to try a different way of taking photographs.
-
Thanks for good info!
Erik
A quick look on completed listing in the US on ebay shows that the going rates for the Hasselblad lenses is 900$ and 1500$ respectively and the price for the Zeiss lenses is about 550$ and 1100$, so there is indeed a difference, but not a huge one. The difference is even smaller in Germany, where I live.
Used Hasselblad digital cameras seem to be particularly cheap at present, probably due to a combination of:
-the D800 coming to market
-reduced prices on low-end Hasselblad cameras to bring them in line with the Pentax 645
-offers on the H4D cameras now that the H5D is announced
-recession.
In consequence, the prices of a used H3D system with a 22 or 31 mpix back and 2 or 3 lenses is, at present, comparable to the price of a D800E with 2 or 3 Zeiss lenses and I expect that more people will ask questions about the comparison in one direction or the other: there are some pro photographers with old Hasselblads who wonder whether they should replace them with the lighter and cheaper cameras if they are good enough for their line of business as well as amateurs tempted to try a different way of taking photographs.
-
Jerome,
You sure found a good deal on the Hasselblad outfit. Was it on ebay? I would be interested in your impressions of how it compares to the Nikon going forward.
Mike
-
Which one would produce better 40x60 prints?
The one in the hands of the better photographer. Sorry, but that's as good an answer as you get on that question.
Cheers,
- N.
-
Hi,
A good answer. I know you have experience of both!
On the other hand I used to say it depends on what is in front (subject, lens), under (tripod) and behind (photographer) the camera.
If you don't use tripod and MLU there is little reason to discuss the issue.
Best regards
Erik
The one in the hands of the better photographer. Sorry, but that's as good an answer as you get on that question.
Cheers,
- N.
-
Again it's all down to what fits you.
I do weddings, headshots and for myself, landscapes.
My H4D is a purely indulgent purchase for times on holiday when it's just me, the camera and a beautiful vista.
The side benefit to this is it's also used for headshots / portraiture and on a sunny day, some wedding stuff.
Other than that it's the 1DX to fill in the chasm left by the H4D.
Or the H4D used to fill the weaknesses of the 1DX of which there aren't many but if you want ultimate image quality it's the Hassy.
But, comparing an older back to a newer camera is something else. The 5D3 for example puts out an image directly comparable to the P25 back (I tested it).
When you get to the point both cameras are equal in IQ you have to base your decision on other things like sensor blooming, ISO performance, general usability and so on.
-
The one in the hands of the better photographer. Sorry, but that's as good an answer as you get on that question.
Cheers,
- N.
+1
-
The one in the hands of the better photographer. Sorry, but that's as good an answer as you get on that question.
Cheers,
- N.
+2
-
The one in the hands of the better photographer. Sorry, but that's as good an answer as you get on that question.
Cheers,
- N.
+3 (and add someone who knows how to print!)
-
The Factum looks neat but I would have go back to my view camera days to drag out my one degree spot meter! That seems a little retro to me but I suppose not a problem to an architectural photographer. Not saying I wouldn`t like to have one for my landscape work,though.
-
Jerome,
You sure found a good deal on the Hasselblad outfit. Was it on ebay? I would be interested in your impressions of how it compares to the Nikon going forward.
Mike
Yes, I bought that H3D-31 on ebay. Nobody else bet, so it went for a really good price, but I don't feel I can give you a really meaningful answer yet: I have only had the camera for a few days, so I have not really tried it yet. Furthermore, the camera is fine but the back IR window has spots of mould. I could clean the outer side (I posted how I did it in another post), but I can't clean the inside without dismounting the glued window, so I will end up sending back to Hasselblad in Göteborg to have the window exchanged. According to their web site, this is a fixed price of €326,- plus tax, which is reasonable. But it means I will not be able to use the back for at least a month. On top of it, I need the back cover to send it without the camera. The cover is ordered, but delivery should take about 10 days… So I'll have to be patient. In the mean time, I can use the back up to f/5.6-f/8 without the spots being too visible. I may also use the camera with film: the H3D is the last digital model which accepts the film backs.
What I can say, however, is that a comparison of the cameras on output only makes little sense. The cameras are very, very different in their use and I will certainly not make the same pictures when I use one or the other. For landscape photography, which is what you seem to be interested about, I would say that the D800 is more adapted if you want to produce the typical over-saturated, wide-angle panoramas which are fashionable at present, while the Hasselblad may be more adapted to a documentary in the style of the New Topographics or to details with little depth of field. The Hasselblad is big and heavy, especially when taking the lenses into account and I would not take it to a mountain.
As to the D800, since I have a bit more experience with that camera, I do not like the rendering of many Nikon lenses or the skin colors the camera produces (which is my motivation to get something else), but the autofocus is miles ahead of the competition (not useful for landscape) and some lenses like the famous 14-24 have no equivalent anywhere else. And of course the D800 can be used with Zeiss lenses, which have a rendering completely different to the Nikons and which I learned to appreciate on my Sony A900.
The real question you should ask yourself is, maybe, what kind of landscape pictures you want to make. What kind of aesthetics are you looking for? How should your pictures look like? What colours? What rendering of sharp or out of focus zones? What landscape will you photograph (in terms of light, colours but also accessibility)? When you know what you want to get, the type of camera should be evident.
-
Hi,
I made a couple of comparisons between Zeiss lenses forSony and non Zeiss and could see little difference. I have also tested a Sonnar 150/4 on Sony, compared Minolta 80-200/2.8 APO and Sony 70-500/4-5.6G. I have not seen a lot of difference.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/72-zeissness?showall=1
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/73-sonnar-150-cb-on-dslr-using-arax-tilt-adapter
Best regards
Erik
Yes, I bought that H3D-31 on ebay. Nobody else bet, so it went for a really good price, but I don't feel I can give you a really meaningful answer yet: I have only had the camera for a few days, so I have not really tried it yet. Furthermore, the camera is fine but the back IR window has spots of mould. I could clean the outer side (I posted how I did it in another post), but I can't clean the inside without dismounting the glued window, so I will end up sending back to Hasselblad in Göteborg to have the window exchanged. According to their web site, this is a fixed price of €326,- plus tax, which is reasonable. But it means I will not be able to use the back for at least a month. On top of it, I need the back cover to send it without the camera. The cover is ordered, but delivery should take about 10 days… So I'll have to be patient. In the mean time, I can use the back up to f/5.6-f/8 without the spots being too visible. I may also use the camera with film: the H3D is the last digital model which accepts the film backs.
What I can say, however, is that a comparison of the cameras on output only makes little sense. The cameras are very, very different in their use and I will certainly not make the same pictures when I use one or the other. For landscape photography, which is what you seem to be interested about, I would say that the D800 is more adapted if you want to produce the typical over-saturated, wide-angle panoramas which are fashionable at present, while the Hasselblad may be more adapted to a documentary in the style of the New Topographics or to details with little depth of field. The Hasselblad is big and heavy, especially when taking the lenses into account and I would not take it to a mountain.
As to the D800, since I have a bit more experience with that camera, I do not like the rendering of many Nikon lenses or the skin colors the camera produces (which is my motivation to get something else), but the autofocus is miles ahead of the competition (not useful for landscape) and some lenses like the famous 14-24 have no equivalent anywhere else. And of course the D800 can be used with Zeiss lenses, which have a rendering completely different to the Nikons and which I learned to appreciate on my Sony A900.
The real question you should ask yourself is, maybe, what kind of landscape pictures you want to make. What kind of aesthetics are you looking for? How should your pictures look like? What colours? What rendering of sharp or out of focus zones? What landscape will you photograph (in terms of light, colours but also accessibility)? When you know what you want to get, the type of camera should be evident.
-
Yes, I bought that H3D-31 on ebay. Nobody else bet, so it went for a really good price, but I don't feel I can give you a really meaningful answer yet: I have only had the camera for a few days, so I have not really tried it yet. Furthermore, the camera is fine but the back IR window has spots of mould. I could clean the outer side (I posted how I did it in another post), but I can't clean the inside without dismounting the glued window, so I will end up sending back to Hasselblad in Göteborg to have the window exchanged.
If you have mold spots on the sensor glass both inside and out it is highly likely that there are problems in other areas of the camera.
The lens may have problems too. Before mold becomes visible to the naked eye or with a loup it can create haze that is quite hard to see.
However this haze will reduce shapness and contrast especially in situations with quite high contrast.
A quick check can be done by looking at a small light source against a dark background.
Take the lens off the camera and look at the small light source through the lens.
No haze, halo or significant dust should be seen. Even a very very slight halo in this viewing mode
is an indication of a bad problem.
I bought an 8x10 lens once that looked spanking clean until viewed as I described above.
I dismantled it and cleaned each element with DMSO and distilled water. After that it was perfect.
However an 8x10 lens is easy to dismantle.
-
The one in the hands of the better photographer. Sorry, but that's as good an answer as you get on that question.
Cheers,
- N.
While the photographer is obviously a determining factor there are quite a few IQ characteristics you simply cannot miraculously
alter.
In landscape photography dynamic range is very significant.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8313/7978852007_ab3016ee9d_b.jpg)
Here the D800 shows 2.5 stops better dynamic range than the Hasselblad at 100 ISO (effective ISO 100)
You can't change the lighting at the best moment in the day for a mountain. Dynamic range is your friend.
High dynamic range means you can fit more of the subjects range into your capture.
This gives you great highlight recovery, especially if your shadows are so good that you can expose with an overall darker exposure.
Here is an example of d800 recovery.
Right side is recovered from the left side.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5340/7412274614_0ab5f4bf2f_c.jpg)
-
Regarding skin tones both Hasselblad and the D800E produce excellent skin tones.
The common mistake that people make is to judge the skin tones on post processing choices made by the default
raw conversions.
Erik Kaffehr very clearly demonstrated that for us by using color calibration made correctly for both cameras.
The skin tones are indistinguishable.
(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69391.0;attach=64261;image)
Both camera can achieve the same skin tone results and each can be styled to the photographer preference.
The real truth of the matter is that good skin tones in a photo go like this.
50% Casting the right subject
25% Having a makeup artist that doesn't smother the natural skin with bad makeup
24% Color calibration of already very good gear and correct post
1% or less the difference between a D800 and an MF sensor.
I think that it's far more realistic to say that the day in the menstrual cycle of the model will have a bigger effect on
skin tones than the difference between a d800, d600 or an MF sensor. Hell even how hot or cold the model is.
-
My H4D is a purely indulgent purchase for times on holiday when it's just me, the camera and a beautiful vista.
Guys,
This is becoming a bit boring. Since 6-12 months, we get questions now about these 2 cameras (I recommend we should make a separate folder for these discussions - please Michael - help us).
I tried both. IMHO, both are great cameras, but they are so different. The 800E can match the H4D40 if you spend the money on the glass. The 800E performs fantastic in low light, in action shots. But when I work with an H4D40, I just slow down and I make so much better pictures. :)
Price of H glass has come down, so for the price of a Nikon 200f2, you can get 3 great H lenses. What are you waiting for? With a 28mm, a 50mm and a 100mm, you can do anything.
-
Guys,
Price of H glass has come down, so for the price of a Nikon 200f2, you can get 3 great H lenses. What are you waiting for? With a 28mm, a 50mm and a 100mm, you can do anything.
Except what you can do with a Nikon 200mm f2. Not really a valid comparison.
-
But when I work with an H4D40, I just slow down and I make so much better pictures. :)
Without commenting on the H4D40 that I have not used, speed is a state of mind that has nothing to do with the gear being used.
Being forced into slowness with some equipment is not an asset, it is at best a learning opportunity whose outcome can be applied to a Canon S110 also.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Using a tripod slows me down.
Best regards
Erik
Without commenting on the H4D40 that I have not used, speed is a state of mind that has nothing to do with the gear being used.
Being forced into slowness with some equipment is not an asset, it is at best a learning opportunity whose outcome can be applied to a Canon S110 also.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
The discussion may be less boring if you think about spending your money. I got the impression that the original poster considers if he would buy H3D (which of course is pre owned) or a D800E (probably a new one, with warranty). Please note also that he asks about H3D with a 30MP back.
Here are some facts, as I see it:
The cameras come with different crop factors, Nikon is 3:2 and Hasselblad is 4:3. Cropping either format looses pixels. If you crop Nikon to 4:3 you end up with 32 MP.
The Nikon comes with a workable live view, so exact manual focus is possible.
Nikon has much better high ISO capability and in all probability much cleaner shadows. The Hasselblad probably holds a small advantage in midtone noise.
I don't think that there is any area where it is very obvious that the Hasselblad would be a superior choice.
There are sample variations. Nikon has earned some bad reputation for QC recently. I also guess that there are sample variations on Hasselblads.
Then there are a lot of perceptions. One camera may be nicer to work with. If you enjoy shooting the pictures may be better.
This article may be a good read: http://www.ludd.luth.se/~torger/photography/mfdb-guide.html
Update:
You want to do 40x60 prints. You mean 40" x 60", that is pretty large?! 40x60 is the same crop ratio you have on the D800E so you would have 36 MP. The Hasselblad has 4:3 crop so you would loose some pixels due to cropping so Hasselblad would have 27MP, not to bad.
Regarding lenses/pixel size it's hard to say. There are quite few very good lenses for Nikon, Zeiss 18/3.5, 21/2.8, 24/2 and 100/2 Macro planar are all famous lenses, although some may have problematic corners. Sigma 35/1.4 is said to be very good and Sigma 70 is a lens that made to "Foto's ten sharpest list".
Lloyd Chambers made a comparison shot with Nikon D800E and Macro Planar 100 vs. Leica S2 and their macro lens. The results were close with the Nikon Zeiss combo having better corners and the Leica having the edge on the center. What Lloyd also noticed that he made 5 series of exposures with the Leica and only two were critically sharp due to problems with focusing. The Nikon he focused using live view manual focus.
Lloyd had also tested the Hasselblad, with a 50 MP back. The impression I got was that he didn't really like the camera. The lens he tested was the 100/2.2 and the old 28/4. He found both lenses lacking. The 28/4 was obviously a bad sample but the 100/2.2 was OK and it did not impress him either. Now, the 100/2.2 is with all probability a very good lens for portraits, but if you are looking for the ultimate sharpness it may not be the ideal lens.
Lloyd's articles are subscription only, unfortunately.
To sum up: I would assume that if sharpness in large prints you are looking for at reasonable cost the Nikon D800E is the way to go, with a couple of very good lenses. Check lens/sensor alignment best you can, focus with live view and expose with MLU and self timer. I forgot to mention, get a decent tripod and a good head.
Best regards
Erik
Guys,
This is becoming a bit boring. Since 6-12 months, we get questions now about these 2 cameras (I recommend we should make a separate folder for these discussions - please Michael - help us).
I tried both. IMHO, both are great cameras, but they are so different. The 800E can match the H4D40 if you spend the money on the glass. The 800E performs fantastic in low light, in action shots. But when I work with an H4D40, I just slow down and I make so much better pictures. :)
Price of H glass has come down, so for the price of a Nikon 200f2, you can get 3 great H lenses. What are you waiting for? With a 28mm, a 50mm and a 100mm, you can do anything.
-
Hello,
I’ve just spent most of this Sunday shooting 360 degree panoramas for a client at a new property development and are now putting them together on my home Mac Pro and I am just dumb struck with the resolution and dynamic range this $3,500.00 beast is producing just amazing.
Cheers
Simon
-
If you have mold spots on the sensor glass both inside and out it is highly likely that there are problems in other areas of the camera.
The lens may have problems too.
The lenses were bought from another person. The mould on the sensor IR glass probably come from inappropriate cleaning techniques.
I made a couple of comparisons between Zeiss lenses forSony and non Zeiss and could see little difference.
I have read your article. You would see little difference with the kind of subject. The difference is more apparent outdoors on sunny days and when depth of field is reduced.
Regarding skin tones both Hasselblad and the D800E produce excellent skin tones.
The common mistake that people make is to judge the skin tones on post processing choices made by the default raw conversions.
If the default raw conversion on one camera give good skin tones out of the box and the default raw conversion on another camera need extra work to come to the same result, the first camera is of more value to me.
-
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result.
These threads have gone on for 7 years and yes I'm as crazy as the next guy, because I've participated in way too many of them.
The truth is if you take a potato chip, poke a hole in it, hold a unexposed piece of film in one hand, your thumb over the hole, count to 1 close the hole and if you're proud of the result . . .
that potato chip just may be the right camera for you.
Now if you shoot for commerce, have the world 6 inches from your back trying to set you ass on fire and you don't own one of these electronic marvels like the Nikon or Canon, then you're probably making a mistake.
On the flip side if you don't explore other alternatives than what everyone else is using, you might be missing something that's hard to quantify on paper or charts.
But whether your shooting with a crew of 20 or on a mountaintop by yourself, then you should enjoy it because whether it takes 10 minutes or 10 hours, that's time your not getting back and enjoying as many seconds as possible is damn important.
We talk about cameras like a crumb of noise is sinful, or anything that doesn't shoot at iso twenty billion is antiquated and sometimes it's true, usually it's not.
We talk about cameras like they really will give us magical talent, or a more accurate eye and that's never true.
A trillion beautiful photographs have been made by cameras and receptors that won't go over 400 asa, require manual focus and shoot about a frame every two seconds at best. (iso, or asa I don't even know if these are real standards).
A trillion beautiful photographs have been made when the photographer says, hold it, that's beautiful, don't f*****g move because I'm shooting at 1/8th of a second.
A trillion beautiful photographs that haven't been made yet will be taken with all kinds of cameras, hopefully some will do things we can't even imagine.
The last line I have my doubts, because other than pixel count and the ability to shoot in low light, nothing is that much different with cameras today than they were 7 years ago when this discussion started.
The Nikon is a $3,000 wonder, sure I guess, though it wasn't long ago that $3,500 bought a lot better camera than a small Nikon. The Hasselblad is overpriced. Maybe, but if price decided value, then BMW wouldn't be rolling in money and GM wouldn't have needed a bailout the size of Ireland's GDP.
This is the running from the bear story. You know, don't try to be faster than the bear, just be faster than the guy running next to you.
That'll work and you can brag you were faster than a bear, but that's not true. You just faster than the poor guy that stubbed his toe.
What you really want to do is be really faster than the bear, because in this context the bear is the final photograph.
No matter how you get there do something your proud of .
Do it the thoughtful, less easy way because even is easy is as good, it's not as rewarding.
Do it and enjoy it.
Then you've outrun the bear.
This photograph was shot by my friend Melvin Sokolsky with a Canon 1d. Not 1ds, Not 1dx, but a 5mp 1d.
http://www.sokolsky.com/#/classics/narrative/parker_train_680
Whether he shot it with a 36 million pixel Nikon or a 30 million pixel blad, the difference would be small if at all noticeable
Melvin can outrun the bear.
IMO
BC
-
BC
Thanks for the link to your buddy: a new one for the 'favourites' list! I wonder why I forgot to add him right from the start?
One aspect comes to mind, as a reminder of things lost, from even the very brief first look at his site: those 60s covers of magazines were SO much better designed than now: clean, simple and graphic and just works of art in themselves. How friggin' much has been dumped in the modern quest for 'more!' in everything, and the fear of the buyer's three-second interest span.
Thanks again,
Rob C
-
Hi BC,
You are of course right.
On the other hand, the original poster wants to make large prints, 60"x40" (I think) and seems to wants the best option at a reasonable cost.
If you print that large and look close I would think image quality matters, but equipment may matter little unless best use is made of it.
Best regards
Erik
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result.
These threads have gone on for 7 years and yes I'm as crazy as the next guy, because I've participated in way too many of them.
The truth is if you take a potato chip, poke a hole in it, hold a unexposed piece of film in one hand, your thumb over the hole, count to 1 close the hole and if you're proud of the result . . .
that potato chip just may be the right camera for you.
Now if you shoot for commerce, have the world 6 inches from your back trying to set you ass on fire and you don't own one of these electronic marvels like the Nikon or Canon, then you're probably making a mistake.
On the flip side if you don't explore other alternatives than what everyone else is using, you might be missing something that's hard to quantify on paper or charts.
But whether your shooting with a crew of 20 or on a mountaintop by yourself, then you should enjoy it because whether it takes 10 minutes or 10 hours, that's time your not getting back and enjoying as many seconds as possible is damn important.
We talk about cameras like a crumb of noise is sinful, or anything that doesn't shoot at iso twenty billion is antiquated and sometimes it's true, usually it's not.
We talk about cameras like they really will give us magical talent, or a more accurate eye and that's never true.
A trillion beautiful photographs have been made by cameras and receptors that won't go over 400 asa, require manual focus and shoot about a frame every two seconds at best. (iso, or asa I don't even know if these are real standards).
A trillion beautiful photographs have been made when the photographer says, hold it, that's beautiful, don't f*****g move because I'm shooting at 1/8th of a second.
A trillion beautiful photographs that haven't been made yet will be taken with all kinds of cameras, hopefully some will do things we can't even imagine.
The last line I have my doubts, because other than pixel count and the ability to shoot in low light, nothing is that much different with cameras today than they were 7 years ago when this discussion started.
The Nikon is a $3,000 wonder, sure I guess, though it wasn't long ago that $3,500 bought a lot better camera than a small Nikon. The Hasselblad is overpriced. Maybe, but if price decided value, then BMW wouldn't be rolling in money and GM wouldn't have needed a bailout the size of Ireland's GDP.
This is the running from the bear story. You know, don't try to be faster than the bear, just be faster than the guy running next to you.
That'll work and you can brag you were faster than a bear, but that's not true. You just faster than the poor guy that stubbed his toe.
What you really want to do is be really faster than the bear, because in this context the bear is the final photograph.
No matter how you get there do something your proud of .
Do it the thoughtful, less easy way because even is easy is as good, it's not as rewarding.
Do it and enjoy it.
Then you've outrun the bear.
This photograph was shot by my friend Melvin Sokolsky with a Canon 1d. Not 1ds, Not 1dx, but a 5mp 1d.
http://www.sokolsky.com/#/classics/narrative/parker_train_680
Whether he shot it with a 36 million pixel Nikon or a 30 million pixel blad, the difference would be small if at all noticeable
Melvin can outrun the bear.
IMO
BC
-
Hi,
What you are saying is that Zeiss lenses perform better at large apertures?
I cannot really comment on that. Two of the Zeiss lenses I tested were zooms and the third one an old but T* coated Sonnar 150/4. The Sonnar 150/4 indeed performed well at full aperture.
I sometimes use the Zeiss zooms at maximum aperture and they are sharp in the center but not really acceptable in the corners. I'm pretty much a zoom shooter. The way I photograph I select the viewpoint and than the focal length to match.
Best regards
Erik
I have read your article. You would see little difference with the kind of subject. The difference is more apparent outdoors on sunny days and when depth of field is reduced.
-
What you are saying is that Zeiss lenses perform better at large apertures?
No, I am not saying that at all. It seems that you are mainly comparing lenses on a single criteria: sharpness. In the centre or at the corner, but still only sharpness. But you can have two equally "sharp" lenses, in the sense that you could see the same level of detail when peeping pixels, but which would still render the same scene very differently. Since you are apparently from a technical background, part of the explanation could come from contrast: what level of contrast is transmitted at various spacial frequencies. Another part of the explanation comes from subtle colour changes. Zeiss lenses, in particular, give the impression that the darker part of high contrast transitions have a slight blue cast. Think about the picture of a resolution test target where the edge of the dark lines would be a bit bluer, depending on their spacing. That could be explained by the multicoating of the lenses, since it has an effect on contrast and its effect depends (a bit) on colour. A third part of the explanation is the rendering of the out of focus parts of the image and the in-focus to out-focus transitions on tridimensional objects, what the Japanese call bokeh. There may be other effects, but I think that these three should be the most important.
All these effects are more notable at large to moderately large apertures. All these effects work together in producing a particular rendering of what is photographed. None of these effects is measured by imatest or even visible on resolution targets. What I was saying is that it is easier to perceive the differences in rendering between a lens from Zeiss and, for example, a lens made by Minolta when taking pictures outdoors on sunny days relatively wide open so that depth of field is reduced. Why? Because that in this situation you have a relatively harsh light (so that contrast is high) with perfect colour content (think about metamerism) and in-focus to out-focus transitions.
-
This photograph was shot by my friend Melvin Sokolsky with a Canon 1d. Not 1ds, Not 1dx, but a 5mp 1d.
http://www.sokolsky.com/#/classics/narrative/parker_train_680
Whether he shot it with a 36 million pixel Nikon or a 30 million pixel blad, the difference would be small if at all noticeable
Melvin can outrun the bear.
If one is lacking talent and ideas and tries to compete in a market as crowded as landscape photography, there is always a strong temptation to differentiate oneself on technical superiority. Technique can be bought and makes an obvious difference, for example the achievable size of the final prints.
-
If one is lacking talent and ideas then larger and sharper shite ain't going to make the difference.
It is worth a try. Anecdotical evidence seems to indicate that a surprising number of pictures appear to sell themselves on technical prowess.
-
It is worth a try. Anecdotical evidence seems to indicate that a surprising number of pictures appear to sell themselves on technical prowess.
Indeed, and size also evokes emotion, e.g. this piece of 'work' (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/38047008).
Cheers,
Bart
-
What nonsense! That's no turd, that's a symbolic KaKa snake, as found in the surrounding grasses of any wooded lay-by on main road networks.
Pfff!
Rob C
-
Anyway, for years the doomsayers have predicted 35mm with MF resolution would rival MF quality. They didn't predict that the MF guys would stay greedy and dumb and refuse to update their cameras while hanging on to both prices and margins, but that just happened too.
The 5DII was a warning shot, the D800 is a flesh wound. The next Canon will probably hit a vital organ.
The day is here
Edmund
-
They didn't predict that the MF guys would stay greedy and dumb and refuse to update their cameras while hanging on to both prices and margins, but that just happened too.
Interesting that you still choose to hang out with those greedy and dumb MF guys...
-
+1
Thats what I wonder too.
All this people, not shooting MFDB, not having MFDB, not interested in MFDB,
and still they post over and over again about MFDB and what a waste of money and time
it is shooting with it.
Why not just stick to the DSLR threads and share some experiences there.
Why all this effort to prove that DSLR are equal or better than MFDB??
I my self have had lots of MFDB, from Light Phase to IQ140 and some HXDs and Leafs.
Love retouching the files, but also frustrated how much more difficult it is to
shoot with than DSLR. Especially the bad LCD on the back.
When I bought the D800E, I thought I had got a DSLR that could make me forget
about MFDB.
Not so.
It is a terrific camera and the shadowtweakability :-) is unmatched by any camera, MFDB or DSLR.
Highlight not so much ( still good but... )
Sharpness is almost as good as any MFDB.
BUT.. I want something that I love shooting with ( D800E has no personality ).
And everybody shoots with it.
I always loved Contax 645 and when I stumbled over a package with 6 lenses and
everything in mint condition for a very low price, I bought it and one more house.
Then I bought a P65+ with less than 1000 shots on it for halve the price.
I did not need it for my professional assignments and and the LCD on P65+ sucks.
I doesnt matter.
I will use the LCD for the histogram and make sure I exposure to the right,
because the shadows get very noisy fast if you underexpose a MFDB.
I made this move for the Contax lenses and the share joy of working with
equipment that gives me some excitement and inspiration.
I will keep my Nikon D800E, but I am more happy and excited using my Contax.
And Fred, I also have a Fuji GX680 I will put the P65 on :-).
I really hope all these threads about comparing D800E to MFDB would end,
or just had their own forum :-).
It is just noise and destroy somewhat the MFDB forum.
If you do not like MFDB, stop hijacking this forum and let us, that
still enjoy our MFDBs, share information and experiences without all
this noise.
If you think D800E is the ultimate camera - fine.
You do not have to degrade other equipment to make your point.
Enjoy your D800E, make good pictures and be happy.
IMO
-
Hi,
The original poster asked about image quality in large (60x40) prints and not about the camera having personality or not. This is not a question about D800E being greatest camera ever but giving the poster information the best information so he can spend his hard earned money wisely.
Best regards
Erik
+1
Thats what I wonder too.
All this people, not shooting MFDB, not having MFDB, not interested in MFDB,
and still they post over and over again about MFDB and what a waste of money and time
it is shooting with it.
Why not just stick to the DSLR threads and share some experiences there.
Why all this effort to prove that DSLR are equal or better than MFDB??
I my self have had lots of MFDB, from Light Phase to IQ140 and some HXDs and Leafs.
Love retouching the files, but also frustrated how much more difficult it is to
shoot with than DSLR. Especially the bad LCD on the back.
When I bought the D800E, I thought I had got a DSLR that could make me forget
about MFDB.
Not so.
It is a terrific camera and the shadowtweakability :-) is unmatched by any camera, MFDB or DSLR.
Highlight not so much ( still good but... )
Sharpness is almost as good as any MFDB.
BUT.. I want something that I love shooting with ( D800E has no personality ).
And everybody shoots with it.
I always loved Contax 645 and when I stumbled over a package with 6 lenses and
everything in mint condition for a very low price, I bought it and one more house.
Then I bought a P65+ with less than 1000 shots on it for halve the price.
I did not need it for my professional assignments and and the LCD on P65+ sucks.
I doesnt matter.
I will use the LCD for the histogram and make sure I exposure to the right,
because the shadows get very noisy fast if you underexpose a MFDB.
I made this move for the Contax lenses and the share joy of working with
equipment that gives me some excitement and inspiration.
I will keep my Nikon D800E, but I am more happy and excited using my Contax.
And Fred, I also have a Fuji GX680 I will put the P65 on :-).
I really hope all these threads about comparing D800E to MFDB would end,
or just had their own forum :-).
It is just noise and destroy somewhat the MFDB forum.
If you do not like MFDB, stop hijacking this forum and let us, that
still enjoy our MFDBs, share information and experiences without all
this noise.
If you think D800E is the ultimate camera - fine.
You do not have to degrade other equipment to make your point.
Enjoy your D800E, make good pictures and be happy.
IMO
-
WOW. Talk about missing the point.
I know I probably should have started a new tread with my post and I know I did not give the OP any answers to his questions.
But it was just some thoughts about all this noise about comparing cameras in MFDB treads.
The trend is that it is more post about comparing cameras and science about these and that
instead of talking about photography and showing great pictures.
Its not only the MFDB haters thats hijacking the MFDB treads, but also the scientists and mathematicians
are posting more than the creative people.
IMO, that is a big step back from how it was some years ago.
-
WOW. Talk about missing the point.
I know I probably should have started a new tread with my post and I know I did not give the OP any answers to his questions.
But it was just some thoughts about all this noise about comparing cameras in MFDB treads.
The trend is that it is more post about comparing cameras and science about these and that
instead of talking about photography and showing great pictures.
Its not only the MFDB haters thats hijacking the MFDB treads, but also the scientists and mathematicians
are posting more than the creative people.
IMO, that is a big step back from how it was some years ago.
+1.
-
+1.
Please add me. Willow (post 190) is just fine. I've seen some posts here and there, requesting info for this dslr or that dmfc that have more the scent of just being provocative than anything else. I won't say, so please don't ask me.
I decided for the time being not to make the jump to DMF for various reasons. My professional work is not much these days. My portrait work is about zero. I'm mostly into the real estate business for now. Photography still is my main passion and hobby. Everything I do, I do just fine (an understatement) with my EOS system. I lurk here almost everyday and once in a while I post. I enjoy reading both parts of this feud because is very informative and why not, entertaining. Ok, sometimes it is irritating.
Since dslrs gain grounds every year, it helps me feel better about not having a DMF rig which I truly believe, its the pinnacle of image quality and rapport. It's limitations and shortcomings as well as the ridiculous prices are another thing. For sheer image quality this is it. Accept it.
If we deny the advantages (IQ wise) of a bigger MF sensor over a 35mm sensor, then we can all the deny the advantages of the 35mm sensor over the APS sensor. We can also deny the advantages of APS over M43 and so on.
Things to do:
Let's all get a Canon or Nikon point&shoot, sell all other rigs and be happy forever.
or
Try a little more love to thy neighbor.
Eduardo
-
WOW. Talk about missing the point.
Perhaps because there was no MTF chart in your reply...? :)
I know I probably should have started a new tread with my post and I know I did not give the OP any answers to his questions.
But it was just some thoughts about all this noise about comparing cameras in MFDB treads.
The trend is that it is more post about comparing cameras and science about these and that
instead of talking about photography and showing great pictures.
Its not only the MFDB haters thats hijacking the MFDB treads, but also the scientists and mathematicians
are posting more than the creative people.
IMO, that is a big step back from how it was some years ago.
+1. In my opinion the gear forum (or perhaps a new dedicated forum) would be more appropriate.
-
The lenses were bought from another person. The mould on the sensor IR glass probably come from inappropriate cleaning techniques.
Good that the lenses come from another person.
Mold on the back is more likely to come from humidity condensation and mold where it was stored.
The problem you need to have Hasselblad look at is if there isn't mold elsewhere in the back. Specs under the glass could be an indication of that.
Mold has a nasty habit of growing back if it is not totally eliminated.
If the body came from the same person as the back I would have it cleaned and "steralized". IF there is some mold in the body the auxiliary
shutter and mirror flapping around could spread the mold again. Mold spores can stay dormant for a very long time.
That said Hasselebald from my experience has excellent repair service and quite reasonable.
I have had complicated repairs and lens cleanings done on out of production
lenses and the turnaround time was just a few days (excluding shipping) even when requiring a new iris.
Their service is so reasonable that when ever I sold a Hasselblad lens I would send it in for a cleaning and iris replacement.
I could then sell it with the Hasselblad service warranty of 6 months. I would get back the money spent
for the service and have a happy client. 100% favorable ebay feedback feels good.
-
Mold on the back is more likely to come from humidity condensation and mold where it was stored.
The problem you need to have Hasselblad look at is if there isn't mold elsewhere in the back. Specs under the glass could be an indication of that.
Mold has a nasty habit of growing back if it is not totally eliminated.
If the body came from the same person as the back I would have it cleaned and "steralized". IF there is some mold in the body the auxiliary
shutter and mirror flapping around could spread the mold again.
Are you a mycologist?
-
Its not only the MFDB haters thats hijacking the MFDB treads, but also the scientists and mathematicians are posting more than the creative people.
Scientists and mathematicians are creative people. I mean: real scientists and real mathematicians.
(I'll edit this post to explain a bit more, recent comments have made me realise that it was a bit too short to be understood. I don't believe in the idea that being gifted in science would be a different thing than having creative abilities. I had the pleasure to meet some renowned scientists and they stroke me as extremely creative people. It takes imagination to invent and visualise a new theory where the less gifted only see random data.
Still I understand what the comment meant: the technical discussion of cameras are of little interest and take too much importance lately.)
-
WOW. Talk about missing the point.
I know I probably should have started a new tread with my post and I know I did not give the OP any answers to his questions.
But it was just some thoughts about all this noise about comparing cameras in MFDB treads.
Sounds sort of legitimate in this thread since comparing the image quality is the very point, is it not?
On your point, we all have our most fun gear to shoot with, it would be an Ebony 4x5 camera as far as I am concerned. Now, when I need to produce images, I have reached the painful conclusion that the only upside my Ebony has resultwise (meaning in the images produced) compared to a [D800 with the right lens + stitching] for my landscaper needs is... movements... For the rest it is behind in every compartment (again, in terms of images produced), including looks, creativity of produced images, image quality, dynamic,...
But now... photography is only part of my life, I can afford not to have as much fun with it as I could when I shoot. I guess you see things differently when shooting is all you do.
This debate was had a thousand times, but the take away still seems biased. Everybody agrees with you really, I am indeed not aware of any DSLR shooter unaware that MF has tens of reasonably arguable objectives values (fun to shoot with being potentially one of those) compared to a D800. Doug had come up with a very good itemized list highlighting these a couple of months ago.
The only aspect some argue about is the supposed clear superiority in terms of image quality of equipment costing 5 times too much. Interestingly, this is the very point the OP wanted to discuss.
But then, we are all fishing for something, aren't we?
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8474/8383904693_748b595ab8_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Are you a mycologist?
You know perfectly well I'm not a mycologist. I'm a professional photographer.
Simply sharing my knowledge.
Before going into photography my three chosen subjects were Chemistry, Biology and Physics.
But it's from a rather unfortunate personal experience that lead me learn what I could on mold.
When I was 5 I had tuberculosis that severely damaged my lungs, in particular my left lung
and to the point of deforming my ribs and sternum. It took many years to recover.
Being very careful of molds. particulate and various respiratory bugs I'm glad to say that despite my
limited lung capacity I still mountain bike and kitesurf.
Well anyway you remind me of the bullies in school that liked to chase me and watch me drop.
A real pain being 6'4" and have shot lungs.... the bullie always like to prove they can beat up the big guy.
-
Scientists and mathematicians are creative people. I mean: real scientists and real mathematicians.
Two posts in a row.... charming
-
Hi!
You perhaps don't realize, but the MFD forum is a gear forum. It is under equipment & techniques. If a poster asks if he should spent his hard earned money on a pre owned MF equipment possibly bought on EBay or a brand new DSLR with warranty I certainly think that question deserves a serious answer.
As I see it, there is a significant risk in buying pre owned equipment. Buying from a reliable dealer, like CI or DT reduces that risk, and I actually think that CI and DT do give good advice.
One of the interesting facts is that that there is a lot of talk, but I have seen very little images comparing up to date DSLRs with MFDBs. I have seen a few posted Marc McCalmont and Tim Ashley and the famous comparison by Alex Koskolov (which I happen to believe is quite good). Miles Hecker, who owns a Pentax 645D has made some good comparisons and of course the test published by Lloyd Chambers. Can you come up with more?
Best regards
Erik
Perhaps because there was no MTF chart in your reply...? :)
+1. In my opinion the gear forum (or perhaps a new dedicated forum) would be more appropriate.
-
You know perfectly well I'm not a mycologist. I'm a professional photographer.
No, I don't. I don't know you personally, I don't know the members of this forum I joined a few days ago and I did not know you were a professional photographer. Are members supposed to be professional photographers on this forum? If such is the case, I will have to cancel my account because I am not one.
If you feel offended by my question, please accept my apologies. It was not in my intention to remind you of your illness or bullies you met in school and I am sincerely sorry of that.
-
Scientists and mathematicians are creative people. I mean: real scientists and real mathematicians.
Doesn't make them visually aware though does it?
And I'm not talking about looking at the corners of brick wall images or test charts either.
-
Doesn't make them visually aware though does it?
And I'm not talking about looking at the corners of brick wall images or test charts either.
I edited the comment your responded to, so as to better explain myself. But you are asking an interesting question. Remember: the post was about "scientist and mathematicians". Don't you think that a mathematician specialised in geometry or topology is "visually aware"?
-
As an aside regarding fungus on the H3 series IR sensor, this was fairly common, or at least several people I know had this issue with their H3s and Fotocare was aware of the issue. Blad repaired them for free at the time, when they were still under warranty, so i don't think its an issue of how the camera was cared for in its previous life.
-
You perhaps don't realize, but the MFD forum is a gear forum. It is under equipment & techniques.
I should have been more specific. I meant the Cameras, Lenses and Shooting Gear forum here on LuLa or perhaps a new dedicated forum.
If a poster asks if he should spent his hard earned money on a pre owned MF equipment possibly bought on EBay or a brand new DSLR with warranty I certainly think that question deserves a serious answer.
I don't disagree but almost every other thread recently has resulted in a D800 vs MFDB discussion. You make it sound as if it is the first time the question is being asked.
... I have seen very little images comparing up to date DSLRs with MFDBs ... Can you come up with more?
No, but I am basically not interested either. I shoot a Rolleiflex Hy6 (film) and a Hasselblad H4x (P30+) and I love both shooting experiences.
Whether they are better than a D800 or not will certainly not keep me awake at night.
-
Great write-up, Erik. Thanks.
Hi,
I tried to do some kind of drill down regarding MF compared to full frame DSLRs. The article has been checked by several person who has been there and done that (two of them owning both Nikon D800E and Phase One IQ 180) and also by Tim Parkin. It is not based on own experience but on samples, measurements and sample data. All images were used by the permission of the authors.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts
I don't think you find anything sensational.
Personally, I would probably go the Nikon way. You can buy a D800 and a few top of the line Zeiss lenses for the fraction of the cost of an MFDB.
If you go for an MFDB, it may be worthwhile to visit one of the leading dealers like DT or CI, they can help you if things don't work out as expected.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Thanks for good comments! I may add some of my own:
For my part I don't deny the advantages of a larger sensor. I have written a lengthy analysis on the issue: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts, admittedly on the basis of contributed images.
Regarding sensor size, I shoot both APS-C and full frame DSLR and I normally carry both. Why? Because sometimes APS-C is better. If you shoot telephoto it is better to shoot 24 MP APS-C than shoot 24MP full frame and crop to 10MP. APS-C also gives more depth of field. Autumn 2012 I was shooting some autumn leaves, and it was quite windy. It was at dusk, so I wanted to keep shutter speed up and aperture down. I started shooting with my Sony Alpha 900 and 70-300/4.5-5.6 but had problems with DoF and shutter speed.
So I switched to my Sony Alpha 55. With that camera I could use live view for pin point focus and also use the faster and better 24-70/2.8 lens. Because of lower readout noise I could notch up ISO to 400. When processing the images and printing both in A2, I decided that the APS-C image was going on the wall. Mostly because the better DoF.
Everything being equal, I would expect a larger sensor to have an advantage. But, everything is not equal.
Normally, I have two full frames and an APS-C in my back. Why two full frames? It is convenient to have one for the 24-70 and one for the 70-400.
One nice feature of DSLRs is that they can shoot video. I often combine stills and video in my presentations. Don't have a good sample of a presentation but here is some video: https://vimeo.com/user13834009/review/52012348/534f46deb5
This is a small presentation of video/stills from a wildfire in Yellowstone. Unfortunately it's not shot on tripod. I sort of felt I shouldn't stand there...
https://vimeo.com/user13834009/review/50739392/87d00d86d9
Best regards
Erik
Please add me. Willow (post 190) is just fine. I've seen some posts here and there, requesting info for this dslr or that dmfc that have more the scent of just being provocative than anything else. I won't say, so please don't ask me.
I decided for the time being not to make the jump to DMF for various reasons. My professional work is not much these days. My portrait work is about zero. I'm mostly into the real estate business for now. Photography still is my main passion and hobby. Everything I do, I do just fine (an understatement) with my EOS system. I lurk here almost everyday and once in a while I post. I enjoy reading both parts of this feud because is very informative and why not, entertaining. Ok, sometimes it is irritating.
Since dslrs gain grounds every year, it helps me feel better about not having a DMF rig which I truly believe, its the pinnacle of image quality and rapport. It's limitations and shortcomings as well as the ridiculous prices are another thing. For sheer image quality this is it. Accept it.
If we deny the advantages (IQ wise) of a bigger MF sensor over a 35mm sensor, then we can all the deny the advantages of the 35mm sensor over the APS sensor. We can also deny the advantages of APS over M43 and so on.
Things to do:
Let's all get a Canon or Nikon point&shoot, sell all other rigs and be happy forever.
or
Try a little more love to thy neighbor.
Eduardo
-
Hi,
This is an interesting discussion but I don't really feel it belongs here. I think we need a new thread on the shooting gear forum.
Best regards
Erik
No, I am not saying that at all. It seems that you are mainly comparing lenses on a single criteria: sharpness. In the centre or at the corner, but still only sharpness. But you can have two equally "sharp" lenses, in the sense that you could see the same level of detail when peeping pixels, but which would still render the same scene very differently. Since you are apparently from a technical background, part of the explanation could come from contrast: what level of contrast is transmitted at various spacial frequencies. Another part of the explanation comes from subtle colour changes. Zeiss lenses, in particular, give the impression that the darker part of high contrast transitions have a slight blue cast. Think about the picture of a resolution test target where the edge of the dark lines would be a bit bluer, depending on their spacing. That could be explained by the multicoating of the lenses, since it has an effect on contrast and its effect depends (a bit) on colour. A third part of the explanation is the rendering of the out of focus parts of the image and the in-focus to out-focus transitions on tridimensional objects, what the Japanese call bokeh. There may be other effects, but I think that these three should be the most important.
All these effects are more notable at large to moderately large apertures. All these effects work together in producing a particular rendering of what is photographed. None of these effects is measured by imatest or even visible on resolution targets. What I was saying is that it is easier to perceive the differences in rendering between a lens from Zeiss and, for example, a lens made by Minolta when taking pictures outdoors on sunny days relatively wide open so that depth of field is reduced. Why? Because that in this situation you have a relatively harsh light (so that contrast is high) with perfect colour content (think about metamerism) and in-focus to out-focus transitions.
-
I edited the comment your responded to, so as to better explain myself. But you are asking an interesting question. Remember: the post was about "scientist and mathematicians". Don't you think that a mathematician specialised in geometry or topology is "visually aware"?
Possibly but in my experience generally no. I just think their brains are wired up differently from photographers/artists/cinematographers
(that's also why I hang out more in this section of the forum, you are more likely to encounter the 'visually aware' and their imagery. Apart from the lawyers/dentists (sorry :-) ) the higher entry costs of the equipment perhaps means more interesting imagery than the iPhone ephemera that pollutes the interweb)
-
Interesting that you still choose to hang out with those greedy and dumb MF guys...
I didn't realize you owned an MF company. Sorry about that.
Now, regarding the original poster's question of H3D vs D800 E, I own both Phase/Mamiya P45+, a Nikon D3x, and a D4. I have done some testing with Phase cameras and models later than my P45+, and with Hasselblad, and think that if you want to go MF a current model Hassy (H4) is a good choice because it focuses well. Focus is much more critical with MF than with dSLRs because of the more shallow intrinsic depth of field which assists the "MF look". The older H3 models do not yet have the H4 TrueFocus system which is useful because MF systems do not have multiple AF sensors spread out across the field.
Regarding the question whether MF is worth it, well that depends on your work. The sensors are very good if you have enough light and then the files are astonishing, the viewfinders are superb, tethered shooting works, the lenses are very good if you like the look of your brand, but the bodies themselves don't handle as quickly as dSLRs, focus is slower and not always foolproof, shot to shot is of the order of one shot per second rather than the 10 or so of a dSLR, mirror slap can be horrendous, camera ergonomics are disturbingly bad eg. try holding an H body in portrait format for an extended period of time, the carry weight of the camera and lenses is HEAVY, and your tripod and its head had better be solid.
If you have good light eg. full daylight or studio flash, a fairly slow moving subject eg. a building, a diamond ring or a model, a good tripod and a strong assistant/porter, and the money, I would recommend MF unreservedly because when the files are good they are very very good. However if you use big flash, then current dSLRs will allow you to work at ISO 800, easily saving you half the weight and cost of lighting equipment to lug around, and also the focus and available light abilities of the new dSLRs are impressive compared to MF, and this can have advantages even in the studio, as can the liveview abilities and the video recording.
Last not least, MF requires a good dealer to support you. SLRs are more of a known quantity and can be more easily bought, fixed and repaired.
As far as I'm concerned, always good enough beats sometimes very good. An insight which I reached, I guess, after my son was born.
I hope this helps the OP, and wish all of you a very good day :)
Edmund
PS. None of the disadvantages of the MF, apart from weight are really intrinsic to the format, they are the effect of a slow moving industry which is investing more in marketing than in engineering. There are in particular no reasons why modern CMOS sensors cannot be incorporated into current MF cameras.
-
"Regarding sensor size, I shoot both APS-C and full frame DSLR"
So why are you here in Digital Backs - and Large Sensor Photography? :-)
Of course everybody can post where everybody wants, but whats the point?
You do not own or shoot with gears you write hundred of posts about.
I see no value of reading post by people who do not have practical experiences
of the gear they are writing about.
And that includes people who shoots brick walls or other test objects once in a while.
Or had an older MFDB years ago.
Its like reading a movie critic from a person who has heard about a film and then write a critic about it.
Why not just write in the DSLR threads where you can write about your practical experiences ?
Want you and some other persons do not understand is:
most of us MFDB users do not care if D800 is a better camera than a MFDB or
if we can save a lot of money by just buying a D800 and a couple of Zeiss lenses.
Stop trying to save us from our "stupidity".
Just let us waste time and money on these hopeless over prized gadgets.
If we can see the difference between a D800 and a MFDB picture, its
because we are blind and gadget freaks and think that if it cost a lot more,
it must be a lot better.
I wish it was an option here on LuLa where you could just
supress some posters posts. :-)
-
I wish it was an option here on LuLa where you could just
supress some posters posts. :-)
Some threads, like this one, become too much work to read as they digress into pointless diatribes. I just stop clicking on it. That option is always available.
Besides, I'm busy. I'm running from that same bear that's chasing bcooter and he's clearly further ahead of the bear than I am.
-
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result.IMO
BC
How can this be? Am I nuts? I have been using the same lottery numbers for as long as the Euromilliones has been running, and in that time I have won several cups of coffee at retail prices and so why would I give up a system that works?
Anyway, that would be impossible: imagine giving up on those unforgettable birthday numerals and then finding they have arrived?
Now that would lead to instant insanity!
Rob C
-
Its not only the MFDB haters thats hijacking the MFDB treads, but also the scientists and mathematicians
are posting more than the creative people.
In my humble experience: there tends to be a lot of creativity in good science, and there tends to be a lot of science in good art. Attempts to label people into either camp with the goal of excluding "the others" is not a good approach imho.
Would Ansel Adams be dismissed as "pixel-peeping wannabe scientist" had he posted here today?
-h
-
Thanks to Jerome,Erik and anyone else who stayed on point to my original question. I was merely wondering about the technical merits and capabilities of each system.
-
Its not only the MFDB haters thats hijacking the MFDB treads, but also the scientists and mathematicians
are posting more than the creative people.
IMO, that is a big step back from how it was some years ago.
You don't think scientists and mathematicians are creative? I would suggest that they are far more creative than most photographers. Without them (the scientists and mathematicians) the photographers would have no tools with which to ply their trade.
Regards,
Bill
-
H4D50 - 150mm Mk1 lens with the 1.7x TC shot wide open - Handheld, from 7 metres away at 1/125 of a second (despite the focal length being 250mm)
No sharpening.
Why did I post this? No reason.
(http://www.chrisgilesphotography.co.uk/forums/rog.jpg)
-
How can this be? Am I nuts?
Now that would lead to instant insanity!
Rob C
Rob,
Stop running! You're there! :)
Edmund
-
PS. None of the disadvantages of the MF, apart from weight are really intrinsic to the format, they are the effect of a slow moving industry which is investing more in marketing than in engineering. There are in particular no reasons why modern CMOS sensors cannot be incorporated into current MF cameras.
Ronald,
You know that you can't sell anything on a worldwide stage without heavy marketing. It's not unusual to spend 1/2 as much on marketing as you do in production on a product like a movie, or a consumer electronic device. Finally Phase stepped up at least to the 20th century and started marketing.
It seems to me there is a lot of pent up anger towards some of the medium format companies and they can be frustrating, especially when your heavy in production and they make a change in firmware or software, or your staring down the price of a $4,000 lens. Then again you don't have to change firmwares or softwares and lenses can be had second hand. I didn't update my Phase backs for 3 years because everything worked.
Also in the world of professional cinema, a $4,000 lens is just scratching the surface, so in a way, still photographers are spoiled.
The thing is we have such a small diversity in cameras. No more x-pans, widelux, Mamiya 7's, fuji 680s, contax, (all three) so for professional use it's either look alike Canon, Nikon dslrs with that look alike cmos chips, or Leica, or medium format. That's mostly it and that's kind sad and strange that in a world of electronics you'd think we'd have cameras that worked on a professional level that were 22nd century stuff.
Maybe the real next camera is a 22mp ipad. We all think the millenium generation only cars about touch screens, though every assistant I work with owns a contax g2, a mamiya 7 or some kind of legacy film camera that is different. They'd love nothing more than if those cameras came in digital but they don't, or if they did I doubt if that generation would/could pay $24,000 to buy one.
I believe with all my heart, if specialty cameras are too survive they first need to get their cameras in the hands of young photographers and find some type of financing, leasing that really works for their income level. I also believe they need to ramp up with a consumer company like Samsung where they can produce different style cameras in a faster cycle.
Maybe this just isn't possible.
Anyway, I DON'T want to see the specialty cameras go away, anymore than I want to see Mole Richardson or Arri disappear. I think real professional equipment is important and reflects the health of our industry.
IMO
Bc
-
Rob,
Stop running! You're there! :)
Edmund
Well that's a relief; no more need to work on it and refine the technique in hope!
;-)
Rob C
-
James,
I think we both want to see novel equipment. For us to use, for the young crowd to astonish us with and push us.
In a way, I guess we thought the 5D2 etc would do it, but it's just seems to have led to more TV serials being shot with dSLRs.
And 80MP MF hans't seemed to improve web images one iota :)
I'm sure we're going to get something new, in a few dog-years.
There is no reason to think that new formats will be linked to print; it's an electronic world out there now.
And we shouldn't forget that for most of us, digital itself was a revolution that came late in our life.
Edmund
Ronald,
The thing is we have such a small diversity in cameras. No more x-pans, widelux, Mamiya 7's, fuji 680s, contax, (all three) so for professional use it's either look alike Canon, Nikon dslrs with that look alike cmos chips, or Leica, or medium format. That's mostly it and that's kind sad and strange that in a world of electronics you'd think we'd have cameras that worked on a professional level that were 22nd century stuff.
Maybe the real next camera is a 22mp ipad. We all think the millenium generation only cars about touch screens, though every assistant I work with owns a contax g2, a mamiya 7 or some kind of legacy film camera that is different. They'd love nothing more than if those cameras came in digital but they don't, or if they did I doubt if that generation would/could pay $24,000 to buy one.
I believe with all my heart, if specialty cameras are too survive they first need to get their cameras in the hands of young photographers and find some type of financing, leasing that really works for their income level. I also believe they need to ramp up with a consumer company like Samsung where they can produce different style cameras in a faster cycle.
Maybe this just isn't possible.
Anyway, I DON'T want to see the specialty cameras go away, anymore than I want to see Mole Richardson or Arri disappear. I think real professional equipment is important and reflects the health of our industry.
IMO
Bc
-
On my desk right now is Super D Graflex. Back in the day it was "The 4 X 5 SLR". One of my missions this week is to find some super techie guy to tell me how to marry graflex to a phase one back. Not sure what I would get. But damn it would be fun to play with.
In my sphere of photography I've seen photographers who carry an old film camera such as a Mamiya 7ii along with a DSLR. To be more specific I saw two photojos who were on the Mitch Romey campaign trail. And as far as other contemporary photographers, Martin Schoeller still brings along his 8 x 10 on his digital shoots as well. So you say print is dead, long live print. Shooting for a print magazine is only an ends to a means. Your pictures can be used in books, photo exhibitions and fine art sales.
If one wants to shoot an 80 MP MF for web. I say go for it. That web image is only one usage. Who wants to limit their creative vision.
Thank you,
Jeffery
-
Jeffery,
I believe a graflok adapter is available for your Phase Back. Unfortunately, I think it runs in the neighborhood of $800 (yeah, I know---I asked). But I think it could be a lot of fun in a holga-ish sort of way... :)
ken
-
This adapted Mamiya looks kinda cute
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Modified-Mamiya-6-camera-for-Hasselblad-V-mount-digital-back-with-75mm-Lens-/261096296055?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item3cca8d4e77
Jeffery,
I believe a graflok adapter is available for your Phase Back. Unfortunately, I think it runs in the neighborhood of $800 (yeah, I know---I asked). But I think it could be a lot of fun in a holga-ish sort of way... :)
ken
-
You don't think scientists and mathematicians are creative? I would suggest that they are far more creative than most photographers. Without them (the scientists and mathematicians) the photographers would have no tools with which to ply their trade.
Regards,
Bill
There are very few creative scientist that make science progress and there are very few creaative photographs that make photography progress. There are many middle and lower level scientists that think they are scientists because they have the degree nailed on their wall. And there are many middle and lower level photogtaphers that think they are professional because they can find a "weakness" in others works and viewpoint and find a sharoness default in anotheŕs picture.
-
"Regarding sensor size, I shoot both APS-C and full frame DSLR"
So why are you here in Digital Backs - and Large Sensor Photography? :-)
Of course everybody can post where everybody wants, but whats the point?
You do not own or shoot with gears you write hundred of posts about.
I see no value of reading post by people who do not have practical experiences
of the gear they are writing about.
And that includes people who shoots brick walls or other test objects once in a while.
Or had an older MFDB years ago.
Its like reading a movie critic from a person who has heard about a film and then write a critic about it.
Why not just write in the DSLR threads where you can write about your practical experiences ?
Want you and some other persons do not understand is:
most of us MFDB users do not care if D800 is a better camera than a MFDB or
if we can save a lot of money by just buying a D800 and a couple of Zeiss lenses.
Stop trying to save us from our "stupidity".
Just let us waste time and money on these hopeless over prized gadgets.
If we can see the difference between a D800 and a MFDB picture, its
because we are blind and gadget freaks and think that if it cost a lot more,
it must be a lot better.
I wish it was an option here on LuLa where you could just
supress some posters posts. :-)
+1
-
A little D800 landscape I shot Saturday on a walk up the trail behind my house.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8092/8426025426_0f1cd80bfb_o.jpg)
Higher res here.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8044/8424931951_b5e0b5ae19_o.jpg (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8044/8424931951_b5e0b5ae19_o.jpg)
I love the little bird in the bottom right corner... perched right on the top if a tall stem.
-
Another from the same walk.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8232/8426296956_4aedb894de_o.jpg)
Higher res here:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8082/8426317400_70e03f5d82_o.jpg (http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8082/8426317400_70e03f5d82_o.jpg)
-
Hi,
The question I try to answer is the difference in image quality between a 30MP DB and a Nikon D800E, which was what the poster was asking for.
Stuff like physics, photons, reality are the same regardless of format. I don't comment on feel. But I do comment on images I had the possibility to analyze.
Best regards
Erik
"Regarding sensor size, I shoot both APS-C and full frame DSLR"
So why are you here in Digital Backs - and Large Sensor Photography? :-)
Of course everybody can post where everybody wants, but whats the point?
You do not own or shoot with gears you write hundred of posts about.
I see no value of reading post by people who do not have practical experiences
of the gear they are writing about.
And that includes people who shoots brick walls or other test objects once in a while.
Or had an older MFDB years ago.
Its like reading a movie critic from a person who has heard about a film and then write a critic about it.
Why not just write in the DSLR threads where you can write about your practical experiences ?
Want you and some other persons do not understand is:
most of us MFDB users do not care if D800 is a better camera than a MFDB or
if we can save a lot of money by just buying a D800 and a couple of Zeiss lenses.
Stop trying to save us from our "stupidity".
Just let us waste time and money on these hopeless over prized gadgets.
If we can see the difference between a D800 and a MFDB picture, its
because we are blind and gadget freaks and think that if it cost a lot more,
it must be a lot better.
I wish it was an option here on LuLa where you could just
supress some posters posts. :-)
-
James,
I think we both want to see novel equipment. For us to use, for the young crowd to astonish us with and push us.
In a way, I guess we thought the 5D2 etc would do it, but it's just seems to have led to more TV serials being shot with dSLRs.
And 80MP MF hans't seemed to improve web images one iota :)
I'm sure we're going to get something new, in a few dog-years.
There is no reason to think that new formats will be linked to print; it's an electronic world out there now.
And we shouldn't forget that for most of us, digital itself was a revolution that came late in our life.
Edmund
Hey Edmund,
I started digital probably in the middle of my career and am not ancient . . . yet.
Actually I adopted digital early and it double our studios billing for multiple years and allowed us to produce what I think was the best commercial work we'd ever did. Mostly because we could get the base ides in "the can" and get on to other alternatives.
Also it allowed us new revenue streams and closer client contact, which always brings more and more interesting business.
Now that everyone that's 15 years old (yes they all look 15 years old to me, has a Canon 5 something, or a Nikon D whatever, some of the medium priced projects have taken a hit in billing, creativity and production values, (at least in my opinion).
We've moved on and shoot as much digital motion as we do stills and though my heart will always be with still photography motion opened up new streams of revenue.
Actually the downside of digital stills is the group think with multiple monitors and Ipads all glowing away, with a hundred opinions in the room. I don't mind most of it and actually find some of it inspiring, though it does break the flow of how we shoot.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand.
I'd love to see a brand new type of camera. Something like an Ipad with interchangeable lenses, 20 something megapixels, handles, track pad touch focusing and automatic manipulation software like snapseed that allows you to build in a look as you go.
Even if we had that, I'd still use some of my legacy cameras. If my Nikons and Canons disappeared tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear as to me they have the same dna as an I-phone 5, but if I lost my contax, my mfd backs, my Leica that would be sad as I have an attachment to those cameras.
I'll admit I'm damn bored with the d800 talk on this forum. For someone like Simon I'm good, cause he works day in day out and his word means something to me.
For some of the other people that post here I can respect their knowledge but rarely if ever see any decent photography that moves me towards the Nikon.
In fact i'm so bored with hearing about the d800 I'd probably wouldn't buy one if it sold for 12 bucks.
I just think a lot of this trolling with an agenda and that shit gets old, but hey that's just my opinion so take it with a grain of salt as I'm on a mission to enlighten. (that last line was a joke, sort of.)
That doesn't mean I'm mired in old think, but that also doesn't mean I can't use what I enjoy because it's my choice and I can learn and respect what people post but at the end of the day, I've always found if I do things that are good for me, it all works out.
Which leads me to my final thought on this. Why do so few people that produce such a huge volume of these damn Nikon threads have such a h**d on for medium format?
It's almost like they wish these companies would disappear and that's just such strange ass small mindset I can't figure it out.
In the last 5 to 7 years I've seen the world's best effects houses, labs, editorial companies, print makers, magazines, camera companies, just dry up and disappear, displacing thousands of hugely talented people that dedicated their lives to perfection, because so many self proclaimed, one hand clapping artists believe that flicker, instigram, facebook and youtube are really respected media.
That's what I mean by dumbing down of the process and personally I don't want to see any professional segment of my industry disappear, never want to see an excellent artist or technicians or reps displaced from their chosen profession.
I don't want to see models turn into cg, architecture made from templates, car photography spit out by a wireframe and computer tech.
Do many of these traditional companies I mentioned need to change? Yes.
Disappear, no.
But if they do, I can promise you we're all going to be the worse for it.
IMO
BC
P.S.
Everyone hates car to camera comparisons, but I just bought a new, modern, computer controlled, 300 hp sports sedan.
It's perfect, does everything well, does way too much for me and honestly is the most dangerous car I've ever driven. I can't tell when the rear end is breaking loose, to turn on the radio requires you to look at a screen and scroll and all the computer controls makes you feel like Fernando Alonso until your in over your head.
Consequently I have an EVO 8 which is like a go kart with a roof and everything is manual, but if you don't actually drive it and keep 90% attention to what your doing your doomed.
The EVO is a much more rewarding car to drive.
-
Why do so few people that produce such a huge volume of these damn Nikon threads have such a h**d on for medium format?
Maybe because they get a h**d on for something that is alive, has a heart beat, is of the same species and consensual.
-
If my Nikons and Canons disappeared tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear as to me they have the same dna as an I-phone 5
Now I know where I saw you... you're the guy trying to make a long distance phone call with a 1DS and a 400mm lens.....
......just kidding.
-
Maybe because they get a h**d on for something that is alive, has a heart beat, is of the same species and consensual.
A positive choice for one alternative still does not explain the negativity towards other alternatives.
-
Hey Edmund,
I started digital probably in the middle of my career and am not ancient . . . yet.
Well then, I think I can promise you MF quality with a screen the size of an iPad within 15 years - in other words as a geezer you'll get a digital view camera with a digital ground glass :)
Edmund
-
Hi,
There is an advantage to size. The Nokia phone with 41 MP delivers very good images, it seems, but the extreme resolution comes in part from the tiny size. It would not be feasible to build a lens like that in large size. The tiny size means that noise characteristics and DR cannot match larger formats.
On the other hand, it seems that smaller formats make inroads into larger format territory. Fujinon APS-C and Micro 4/3 are serious competition to DSLR-s of yore and also full frames. I think they are often used when weight and size matters.
Best regards
Erik
Well then, I think I can promise you MF quality with a screen the size of an iPad within 15 years - in other words as a geezer you'll get a digital view camera with a digital ground glass :)
Edmund