Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ramblinlamb on July 14, 2014, 02:36:37 am
-
Hey folks,
I have a friend who is an active wildlife photographer who is considering switching to digital medium format to shoot wildlife. Upon hearing this my mind hit the brakes and pondered "how the heck would one do that and get the utmost sharpness from medium format"?? In all the reviews of the various "unobtanium" digital medium format cameras the one constant is the need to SLOW DOWN one's behind the camera process to maximize the sharpness potential of an digital medium format camera.
Is it possible to shoot digital medium format in a very fluid wildlife moment and still maximize sharpness? Is the potential framerate adequate?
Resolution is an addictive drug. I confess to being a card carryin addict. But in wildlife work speed with sharpness is almost as important, or even more important.
Since this mere fotog doesn't have enough cash for an exquisite/unobtanium digital medium format (although that new Pentax 645Z is looking mighty sweet) I have no real hands on experience to be able to judge if a digital medium format could do the job as well as say a Canon 1 Series or an equivalent Nikon.
So, any and all feedback is greatly appreciated! Thx!
-
Shooting wildlife with a medium-format or even large format camera can be quite rewarding. In my film days, I used to shoot wildlife with a 617 panoramic camera.
You won't get the same type of closeup portrait as with a 600mm lens and a 35mm camera, but on the other hand you can capture the animals in their environment and sometimes get a more complete story.
http://www.panoramicimages.com/singleproduct.asp?media_type=Images&searchword1=109483&player=real&done=true (http://www.panoramicimages.com/singleproduct.asp?media_type=Images&searchword1=109483&player=real&done=true)
-
Nick Brandt uses a Pentax 6x7 and a normal lens, so I'd say what you can & can't do with a medium format camera is all about the photographer.
(http://static.curiator.com/art/x_cb4c24805516f9ffe481a34adb25ea9a.jpg)
-
Hi,
Andy Biggs does that, too. There are some long lenses for medium format. We have a photographer named Matthias Klum in Sweden who used to shoot Pentax MF for National Geographics, so it obviously can be done, but I guess he is on DSLRs now.
Another question is if it is a smart thing to do?
Best regards
Erik
Hey folks,
I have a friend who is an active wildlife photographer who is considering switching to digital medium format to shoot wildlife. Upon hearing this my mind hit the brakes and pondered "how the heck would one do that and get the utmost sharpness from medium format"?? In all the reviews of the various "unobtanium" digital medium format cameras the one constant is the need to SLOW DOWN one's behind the camera process to maximize the sharpness potential of an digital medium format camera.
Is it possible to shoot digital medium format in a very fluid wildlife moment and still maximize sharpness? Is the potential framerate adequate?
Resolution is an addictive drug. I confess to being a card carryin addict. But in wildlife work speed with sharpness is almost as important, or even more important.
Since this mere fotog doesn't have enough cash for an exquisite/unobtanium digital medium format (although that new Pentax 645Z is looking mighty sweet) I have no real hands on experience to be able to judge if a digital medium format could do the job as well as say a Canon 1 Series or an equivalent Nikon.
So, any and all feedback is greatly appreciated! Thx!
-
Let's get this out there right away: no matter your talent level or level of experience the number of keeper frames you can generate per day will be lower shooting medium format for wildlife vs 35mm.
You will miss more shots. You will be unable to take some shots that you otherwise would have found easy.
The gear is very unforgiving and demanding on the photographer; no IS, larger mirror, much slower AF (or no AF), slower frame rates etc
That said, I've seen some incredible wildlife/bird work shot on MF.
It's not normally what I'd suggest (and my job is at a dealership that sells Phase One and Leaf!), but that doesn't mean you can't do it. Sometimes it's fun to use the "wrong" tool for a job.
So your friend should think about what his goals are. If he will cringe because he missed a cool shot then this is probably a bad idea. If he's okay getting less shots, but (potentially) loving the handful he does get then it's at least worth some testing/evaluation.
I would really really really suggest he rent or demo before he commits to *anything* in medium format. Most pro dealers can arrange a rental-towards-purchase (at least that's true of us).
-
It is certainly possible to shot birds with MF. My real interest is landscapes and macro and I use a 645D; however, because of my location (migratory path, Great Lakes shore) I see many opportunities to shoot birds that I can't ignore. If birds were my major interest I would use a 35mm with fast and accurate AF for sure. The first five shots below were taken handheld with 645D and a Pentax 400mm lens using AF. The remainder used the Pentax 600mm with a 1.4x; manual focus, tripod.
I include the last one to show it is possible to catch a bird in flight using MF, although the keeper rate is low :)
Tom
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3791/12384937325_1847641434_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/jSq3oa)20120818_1515 (https://flic.kr/p/jSq3oa) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7025/6496578259_1ca5d0253f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/aU5EnZ)_IGP6448 (https://flic.kr/p/aU5EnZ) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7065/6823296352_cd50e37206_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/boXbhy)1_IGP7118 (https://flic.kr/p/boXbhy) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2922/13899235349_187601a180_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nbedqM)_IGP1148 (https://flic.kr/p/nbedqM) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7377/13034551504_6179e7770c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/kRPu3C)20140223_0756 copy (https://flic.kr/p/kRPu3C) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2886/12865041203_e5300ecffb_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/kAQGxe)_IGP1004 (https://flic.kr/p/kAQGxe) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5486/12756580203_76c1067a7c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/krfNRZ)_IGP0783 (https://flic.kr/p/krfNRZ) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
-
There are two things in play: focus and speed. AF for MF isn't as fast as DSLR, and manual focus isn't good for most birds. Then there is the issue of shutter speed - on some leaf type shutters 1/500 is the fastest and thats not good for longer lenses. So IMHO I'd recommend a setup with 1/1000 if 300 mm or more.
-
Tom,
Nice shots!
-
Thanks Eric!
-
+2 on very nice shots. What was the shutter speed on the hummer if I can ask.
Love the 2nd shot
Paul
-
Thanks Paul. 1/500s for the hummer @f8.
Tom
-
Yes, very nice pictures!
Erik
+2 on very nice shots. What was the shutter speed on the hummer if I can ask.
Love the 2nd shot
Paul
-
Thanks Eric.
-
Hi,
Wildlife photography is more about knowing your subject than about gear. But once you get close the wildlife gear can be helpful. I would say the Pentax 645 is well posed for wildlife among MFD systems as there is a good selection of long lenses of good quality. Also, I would guess that AF is advanced by MFD standard.
The 645Z is probably an upgrade in that area.
Having a crop factor, and also relatively small pixels, is normally an advantage in wildlife, as getting near to wildlife is often problematic.
Best regards
Erik
-
I made the move in 2012 and haven't looked back. I am finishing off a long blog article on the subject, and hopefully it will answer some questions you may have.
-
It depends on a couple of things;
-how close can he get to the wildlife/how big is it (an elephant next to your car doesn't need a big lens)
-how does he shoot, burst fire action shots or more thought out scenes (action can be shot on the medium format but it's a lot harder)
Given the choice I would switch and then buy something like a Canon 7D with a 400mm lens and have the best of both worlds.
-
Hey guys-
I just posted a blog entry on the very subject. Thoughts?
http://www.theglobalphotographer.com/the-global-photographer/2014/7/27/why-medium-format-digital.html
-
Nice article!
Best regards
Erik
Hey guys-
I just posted a blog entry on the very subject. Thoughts?
http://www.theglobalphotographer.com/the-global-photographer/2014/7/27/why-medium-format-digital.html
-
To make MF worth it you need to adapt a shooting style that make use of its strengths and minimises the impact of its weaknesses. Modern wildlife photography often make use of the progress in 35mm AF, speed and reach. Many photos you see published would be much more difficult to capture with MF gear.
However there are alternate styles. Animals that sit relatively still and allows the photographer to be close opens up for MF.
In the film days I guess MF was used more, but then 35mm was more primitive too. If you compare yesterday's wildlife shots with today's you can see that standards have been raised. To make wildlife with MF today one need to adapt a style that does not rely on AF and speed.
-
I agree like for most everything else, DSLR is more convenient but MF is sexier - though not even taking into consideration the costs involved I would hate to have to try and snap a quick series of shots of a lion suddenly popping up out of the grass and racing after a gazelle with any MF outfit. So if you do decide to go with MF maybe consider adding a tranquilising gun like the wardens use to your gear?
The MF shots of the birds in flight are fabulous. The question that I think needs to be asked is how many years did you spend refining your technique to get these shots with that gear?
-
................................................The MF shots of the birds in flight are fabulous. The question that I think needs to be asked is how many years did you spend refining your technique to get these shots with that gear?
Thanks for the compliment. I don't think any special techniques are required to use the 645D; it handles much like a large 35mm. I can't speak to other systems since I have no experience with them. I've been photographing since 1972, first with a TLR, then 35mm, then 4x5, then 645 and 67 film cameras; the same principles apply. As I mentioned, most of the shots I posted were handheld using AF. The AF in the 645D is not spectacular, but once you understand its limitations, it works well. If I had the strength and resources to carry two complete systems, I'd have something like a 5DII to use for wildlife and reserve the 645D for landscapes. Coincidentally, I shot some gannets diving for fish in Nova Scotia last week. The birds dive from a height of 100-150 ft. and hit the water at up to 60 mph. They are big birds with a wing span of about 6 ft. All shot with the 600mm, manual focus (different birds, different days).
Tom
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3858/14576517377_16c61e3b6d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/od5sM8)_IGP2940 copy (https://flic.kr/p/od5sM8) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5579/14576342938_bcc7f446c8_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/od4yVy)_IGP2969 copy (https://flic.kr/p/od4yVy) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5557/14759797861_d92152670a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ougPFt)_IGP2970 copy (https://flic.kr/p/ougPFt) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3911/14762969995_a6d1a72c5d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ouy5Dr)_IGP3035 copy (https://flic.kr/p/ouy5Dr) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2916/14576274860_6d2366f5ff_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/od4dFN)_IGP3016 copy (https://flic.kr/p/od4dFN) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3843/14782876263_157a4acd07_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/owj75X)_IGP2961 copy (https://flic.kr/p/owj75X) by tsjanik47 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr
-
do you find hand holding the 645D as easy as shooting a 67 MF film camera or 35mm digital DSLR hand held, or does the larger than DSLR size of the 645D sensor plus the boxy shape make avoiding camera shake particularly at lower shutter speeds more difficult?
-
do you find hand holding the 645D as easy as shooting a 67 MF film camera or 35mm digital DSLR hand held, or does the larger than DSLR size of the 645D sensor plus the boxy shape make avoiding camera shake particularly at lower shutter speeds more difficult?
The 645D is much easier in every way than working with the Pentax 67 II. I use a Pentax K5 for casual photos and when carrying a heavier system isn't practical. The 645D is not much more difficult to use. I think the mass and size of the 645D helps mitigate handheld shutter shake. Shutter shake is a problem at the speeds where handholding is not practical. I don't have the 90mm with SR, but reports indicate that it's quite effective. When the body is mounted to a good tripod, shutter shake is not an issue, but with long lenses with a tripod mount, it becomes a problem at those intermediate slow shutter speeds. The Z, with its high ISO performance, may solve that problem.
Tom
-
thanks Tom for this useful comparison of the 645D with DSLR. How about the opposite direction ie comparison of the IQ you get from the 645D with a larger sensor MFDB that is not so easy to use but may deliver better IQ in terms of detail, dynamic range etc for large prints? Since many suggest the larger size of the Pentax 645D sensor really does result in a noticable difference in IQ compared to a full frame digital DSLR particulalry for big prints then does not the same noticable difference emerge when comparing a smaller-sensor 645D image with a larger sensor-sized MFDB?
-
I can't answer your specific questions since I have no personal basis of comparison. I can say that there is no contest between the files from a K5 to the 645D. I can also say that the 645D convinced me to stop using the 67II. I think the 645Z will be a considerable step up and the DR should be spectacular based on the reports I've seen.
-
Hi,
First to say, I am impressed by Tom's images.
With regard to image quality I may mention some experience. I am shooting with a P45+, same generation Kodak sensor as the Pentax 645D and also 24 MP on both full frame and APS-C. Tom shoots Pentax 645D and APS-C, so I add my experience of the P45+ vs. full frame 135.
Regarding DR the Sony Alpha 99 is king of the three. Resolution-wise the P45+ rules, not per pixel, but there are more pixels.
But, there is no discernible difference between A2-prints (16x23") when looked at close up. Not with my eyes and not with the few other eyes who helped me checking. Printing larger like A1 there may be a difference, but probably not visible side by side. At 30x40" I am pretty sure it would be a noticable difference.
Pentax 645D makes better use of those pixels than the P45+, by the way, at least according to DxO. Impressive as the P45+ sensor is crop 1.1X while the 645D sensor is crop 1.3X.
The sample below is an actual pixel image of P45+, Alpha 99 (FF) and Alpha 77 (APS-C) upscaled to P45+ resolution:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/Samples/Castle2/ThreeFormats_1.jpg)
Note: As most screens have around 100 pixels per inch and prints are normally at 300-360 PPI the images above are something like 3-3.5X enlarged compared to prints.
As a side note, I expected less difference between the Sony Alpha 99 and the Alpha 77, but I made another shot of the same subject with nearly identical results. Same lens was used on both Sony Alpha cameras (Sony 24-70/2.ZA at f/8). I am pretty sure the 16-80/3.5-4.5 would give slightly better results on APS-C.
These articles reflect my experience this far:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/76-my-medium-format-digital-journey
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/82-why-i-cannot-see-a-difference-in-a2-size-prints
Best regards
Erik
thanks Tom for this useful comparison of the 645D with DSLR. How about the opposite direction ie comparison of the IQ you get from the 645D with a larger sensor MFDB that is not so easy to use but may deliver better IQ in terms of detail, dynamic range etc for large prints? Since many suggest the larger size of the Pentax 645D sensor really does result in a noticable difference in IQ compared to a full frame digital DSLR particulalry for big prints then does not the same noticable difference emerge when comparing a smaller-sensor 645D image with a larger sensor-sized MFDB?
-
So "no contest" between K5 and 645D, same goes for APS-C and upwards, but not such a huge difference perhaps between 645D and P45+... am I interpreting this wrong or does the law of diminishing returns come into play as the sensor gets bigger ie a lot more difference between eating one or two icecreams (APS-C - full frame DSLR) than between eating 86 and 87 icecreams (645D - P45+)? Obviously I am no economist! What I would like to know is what actually does one lose by moving from a legacy MFDB with a larger sensor like the P45+ to a newer neoMFDB with a somewhat smaller sensor like the 645D, since apart from IQ there appears to be plenty to gain from such a move, right?
Or to return to the good question that started this thread: what effect if any does a wildlife or any other photographer run into by moving up or down from one type of camera to another one with a little but not a lot of difference in sensor size and a heck of a lot of other differences in ergonomics etc?
-
Hi,
I am no wildlife photographer myself, more landscape… Anyway, here is my take on the issue:
- If you print really large, more pixels is a good thing. Andy Biggs prints large and can get close enough to his subjects.
- Ergonomics and AF plays a role of course, but Tom's bird shots shows that manual focus also works.
- Personally, I use mostly the APS-C camera for reach. It is my "wildlife camera".
- Lenses play a role. Tom has some pretty impressive tele lenses. Pentax ED glass is usually excellent.
- The Pentax 645 D or Z are the most SLR like MF cameras. The 645Z has a similar sensor to Nikon D800 and Sony A7r, but almost twice the size. The size alone gives some significant advantage.
- The larger the sensor, the longer the lens needed to fill the image.
Personally, I typically shoot landscape with the Hasselblad/P45+ combo, even if I feel that it offers little advantage the sizes I print. I have five lenses for it 40/4, 50/4, 80/2.8, 120/4 and 180/4. My general purpose camera is the Sony Alpha 99, normally used with a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-400/4-5.6 and an 1.4X converter. The kit is completed with extension tubes for the Hasselblad and/or couple of ultra wides for the Sony. The ultra wides may be the Sigma 10/3.5 fisheye, the Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 or the Samyang 14/2.8. The Samyang 14/2.8 is very sharp. This is what I normally have in my Gura Gear Kiboko bag.
I obviously don't take that equipment for long walks, a couple of km in easy terrain is OK. Anything longer the Hasselblad stays behind.
For walks I have Sony Alpha 99, 24-70/2.8, 70-400/4-5.6, 1.4X extender, Sony Alpha 16-80/3.5-4.5 and Sigma Fisheye 10/3.5 as normal equipment.
If I shoot "street" it is just a Domke west with a 70-300/4.5-5.6 in one pocket, a Sigma 10/3.5 in another and the 16-80/3.5-4.5 mounted on the Alpha 77.
Alpha 77
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Other/KSU-1/i-9P8PF3G/0/X2/20120404-_DSC0720-X2.jpg)
Alpha 77
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Other/KSU-1/i-TLJNbHc/0/X2/20120711-_DSC2283-X2.jpg)
Hasselblad 555ELD/P45+
(http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Other/Technical/P45/i-j6jXJ5h/1/X2/20130630-CF043307-X2.jpg)
Best regards
Erik
So "no contest" between K5 and 645D, same goes for APS-C and upwards, but not such a huge difference perhaps between 645D and P45+... am I interpreting this wrong or does the law of diminishing returns come into play as the sensor gets bigger ie a lot more difference between eating one or two icecreams (APS-C - full frame DSLR) than between eating 86 and 87 icecreams (645D - P45+)? Obviously I am no economist! What I would like to know is what actually does one lose by moving from a legacy MFDB with a larger sensor like the P45+ to a newer neoMFDB with a somewhat smaller sensor like the 645D, since apart from IQ there appears to be plenty to gain from such a move, right?
Or to return to the good question that started this thread: what effect if any does a wildlife or any other photographer run into by moving up or down from one type of camera to another one with a little but not a lot of difference in sensor size and a heck of a lot of other differences in ergonomics etc?
-
Keep in mind that Erik is shooting the P45+ on a V mount Hasselblad, so other lens/body combos may show better. I was shooting BIF today - they're painted blue and yellow - and I saw a local gent who is having fun. It's the Pentax 67 800mm lens adapted to the 645D (and yes, he's waiting for his 645z to show up). It's all a matter of what you want, how you're going to use it, and how much you're willing to spend for long glass.
-
Here's what I was able to catch of the 'birds' with the H4D-50, 1.7x and 150mm HCD lens. I want to grab the 210mm next time, but as you can see in the full image, and the crop, it's possible, it's just what do you expect your keeper ratio to be. Poor CCD got a little warm in the sun and shooting as many frames as I did today.
-
Hi,
Absolutely right…
Pentax 645 owners have access to excellent long glass. To make use of MFD, the whole image needs to be filled, so it is essentially a matter of getting close enough.
If we stay with the Hasselblad V/P45+ and Zeiss combo, I am pretty sure that there are better lenses that would give better images with higher resolution backs. On the other hand I am still pretty sure that large prints are needed to make that difference visible.
The two images below are actual pixel crops from a P45+ image at native size and a Sony Alpha 99 image uprezzed to match image height. Sony top and P45+ bottom. The P45+ image is obviously much sharper at actual pixels. But, if printed in A2 (16x23") they cannot be told apart, without using a loupe on the print. (Well, except for the 24 MP Alpha 99 image having wider DoF). In A1 (23x32") there would probably be a conceivable difference viewed with the naked eye. Making identical prints from two different systems in field conditions is not easy, unless both images contain a good reference, like the colour checker.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/PrintSize_3/RealWorld/RW1.jpg)
Keep in mind that Erik is shooting the P45+ on a V mount Hasselblad, so other lens/body combos may show better. I was shooting BIF today - they're painted blue and yellow - and I saw a local gent who is having fun. It's the Pentax 67 800mm lens adapted to the 645D (and yes, he's waiting for his 645z to show up). It's all a matter of what you want, how you're going to use it, and how much you're willing to spend for long glass.
-
Erik,
Your experience has been noted repeatedly, and based on your use cases, it works for you. Might I point out that others have different expectations, eyes, screens and printers. Showing more comparisons with non-MF gear would be a topic for a different board.
Oh, and I can crop in a lot to make up for focal length compared to 35mm. Tracking BIF objects that move fast with a 4/5/6/800mm lens is a challenge, especially when working a large arc (I spun around a few times tracking planes). By shooting with MF, I can hand hold, and more importantly I'm not relying on filling the frame. MF is much more forgiving of framing in the instant I take a shot, where as with a FF setup, the most minor twitch can leave half the plane out of the frame.
-Joe
-
Is 645D or Z MF?
-
Is 645D or Z MF?
Well technically no. It's a size in between 645, and 35mm... (44x33) So it's larger than full frame (36x24), but smaller than traditional medium format film (60x45). Perhaps they should call it the 443z? ??? :o
-
Hi,
MF comes in different sensor sizes. With DSLRs we used to have full frame, APS-H and APS-C. So there is full frame 645, and cropped frame MFDs. Leica S, Pentax 645D & 645Z and Phase One P40+, IQ-140 and IQ-250 are all cropped frame 645, around 1.3X crop factor.
Best regards
Erik
Well technically no. It's a size in between 645, and 35mm... (44x33) So it's larger than full frame (36x24), but smaller than traditional medium format film (60x45). Perhaps they should call it the 443z? ??? :o
-
You can use the MF system in conditions where it works well, but you would narrow down your possible shooting scenarios compared to what will work with a 135 system.
Great high ISO performance and wide shooting apertures would generally be much more important than high resolution to get the best possible image quality in typical wildlife shooting scenarios. Not all the best wildlife shots are made in broad daylight, and you often need very short shutter speeds. Ie you need high ISO, AF that works well in weaker light, and wide shooting aperture.
To capture great shots of moving animals you need high shot rate too so you can pick out the shot where the wings/legs/whatever are in the best looking position. Much wildlife shooting does have a "spray and pray" element to it.
I'd say that bird photography is the worst case for MF to compare with 135. Shooting resting large animals which are not shy MF will compare better of course :-)
In later years I've seen more and more bird photography made with wide angle so super-teles is not the only thing used these days. Competition is tough out there so photographers hunt for new angles. Not too familiar with these techniques but I assume remote controlled cameras are being used in many cases.
Here's some examples of great bird photography of one of Sweden's best, Brutus Östling (including number of wide angle shots):
http://www.digitalphotographycourses.co.za/phenomenal-bird-photography-by-brutus-ostling/
Shooting that type of images would be very difficult to do with a MF system. It really depends on what you want to do and how you want to develop. If you choose to use MF you have narrowed down your path at the start so you really need to know.
-
You can use the MF system in conditions where it works well, but you would narrow down your possible shooting scenarios compared to what will work with a 135 system.
Great high ISO performance and wide shooting apertures would generally be much more important than high resolution to get the best possible image quality in typical wildlife shooting scenarios. Not all the best wildlife shots are made in broad daylight, and you often need very short shutter speeds. Ie you need high ISO, AF that works well in weaker light, and wide shooting aperture.
To capture great shots of moving animals you need high shot rate too so you can pick out the shot where the wings/legs/whatever are in the best looking position. Much wildlife shooting does have a "spray and pray" element to it.
I'd say that bird photography is the worst case for MF to compare with 135. Shooting resting large animals which are not shy MF will compare better of course :-)
In later years I've seen more and more bird photography made with wide angle so super-teles is not the only thing used these days. Competition is tough out there so photographers hunt for new angles. Not too familiar with these techniques but I assume remote controlled cameras are being used in many cases.
Here's some examples of great bird photography of one of Sweden's best, Brutus Östling (including number of wide angle shots):
http://www.digitalphotographycourses.co.za/phenomenal-bird-photography-by-brutus-ostling/
Shooting that type of images would be very difficult to do with a MF system. It really depends on what you want to do and how you want to develop. If you choose to use MF you have narrowed down your path at the start so you really need to know.
Torger,
Thanks for the link - some remarkable images there; although I must say I find some of the PP a bit too much HDR-like for my tastes. Those photos are strong enough to stand on their own without embellishment, IMHO :)
I'm still on the fence regarding the 645Z (but leaning), but I must say it addresses many of the issues with MF you list: high ISO, 3 frames/s and improved (but still not 35mm standards) AF.
Tom
PS Erik, in every case you posted above, I prefer the P45+ image, especially the color in the geranium leaves.
-
Keep in mind that Erik is shooting the P45+ on a V mount Hasselblad, so other lens/body combos may show better. I was shooting BIF today - they're painted blue and yellow - and I saw a local gent who is having fun. It's the Pentax 67 800mm lens adapted to the 645D (and yes, he's waiting for his 645z to show up). It's all a matter of what you want, how you're going to use it, and how much you're willing to spend for long glass.
Joe,
I've been tempted by that lens. There are a couple on ebay right now for around 5k and one sold a few months ago for under 3k. Ultimately, I realize that I'm not going to use a 6.5 kilo lens very often.
Tom
-
+1. Over-stylized, unfortunately cancels out the care taken in getting the shot.
-
Thanks for the link - some remarkable images there; although I must say I find some of the PP a bit too much HDR-like for my tastes. Those photos are strong enough to stand on their own without embellishment, IMHO :)
I agree on that. Pushed saturation and overdone tonemapping will hopefully lose popularity soon... but anyway that's post-processing, it's not the camera's fault :-).
He has a popular/commercial style which generally means this type of post-processing these days (not all his work look like that though, but to sell workshops which the link was about it's probably good to have images that 'pop'). Putting post-processing to the side I think his type of images composition-wise is a very good demonstration of where a 135 system would be much preferable.
On the other hand the strive for unusual compositions with new shooting techniques can also be seen as a bit popular/commercial/gimmicky, but in his case it's about humour (there are more and better examples of his humour to be found than on that posted link).
Anyway one should use a camera system that lets you capture the shots you need for the style you want to achieve. A photographer like Nick Brandt would not gain from using a 135 system, while Brutus makes great use of its specific strenghts. The Pentax 645 seems to be a middle way that can work well.
-
I have not used medium format for wildlife photos so take my opinions with a grain of salt... but for wildlife photos I have been using a DSLR with a frame rate that could be described as 'leisurely' even with a good tailwind and without AF, so I don't see slower frame rates and slower AF as insurmountable problems. The things I'd be concerned about are object field at minimum focus distance, shallow DOF and size/weight for an equivalent angle of view.