Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: noah a on November 06, 2014, 09:47:04 am
-
For the past five years I've been shooting mostly 4x5 color film for my urban landscape-focused documentary work. I'm satisfied with the results, barring the occasional lab screwup, but the cost of film is getting somewhat prohibitive and finding good processing is a hassle. There are no labs in my city so I need to send my film out for processing, which makes me nervous and adds to the cost. (Also because I shoot two of everything so I can ship it in separate batches for insurance.)
I've also been shooting with a D800E for occasional editorial jobs. It's great for jobs-- I like the camera and am amazed at the quality I can get out of it, since it's so small and fast. But I'm not a big fan of the 35mm aspect ratio and if I crop to 4x5 proportions I'm throwing out quite a few pixels. For my self-generated documentary projects I make large prints so I need enough resolution to make a great 40x50. The d800E is almost there but not quite. I don't want this do devolve into a film or d800E vs MFD thread. I'm just mentioning this so you know where I'm coming from.
I have a relatively small budget in MFDB terms. My needs are a high-quality image that can print to 40x50 with no excuses, I mean a sharp print even when you look at the print from up close. I also need access to a few great lenses, speaking in terms of the 35mm format, I need a lens equivalent to about a 30-35mm lens (but no longer) and a 40-60mm lens (I love my Nikkor 58mm but I could get by with a 45 or 50mm equivalent).
I'd also like the option to have some kind of shift or PC lenses in the future when my budget allows.
I've been thinking of a used H3dII39 or H4d40. But I'm a bit concerned that the H4d40, with it's smaller sensor, won't be different enough from my D800E to make it worthwhile. Am I off base here? It will give me the aspect ratio I like so that's an advantage. I know the H3dII is older, but I'm thinking the larger 39mp sensor would give me more of an MF look than the smaller, newer sensor. Also the bigger sensor might work out better for my lens requirements. Does the newer sensor of the H4d40 make up for it's smaller physical size?
With the Blad I could go with an 80mm, which is cheap and plentiful, and a 50mm. Later, I could add a wider lens and the HTS1.5.
How reliable are the older 'blads, like the H3dIIs? Should I be very concerned about getting hit with big repair bills right away?
The Pentax 645Z looks great on paper, but I'm concerned about the lenses. And all of the online samples I've seen have been horrible. The ones on the Ricoh site are a joke. The 45mm and 75mm lenses are cheap, but I've heard that the 45mm is a dud and that is my main focal length. Are there any shift/pc options for the pentax right now?
As with the H4d40, I'm concerned that the smaller sensor, and the CMOS sensor in the case of the Pentax, will be very similar to my D800E in the look of the files. I don't dislike the 800E, but looking back I did really like working with CCD cameras.
I don't care too much about high iso. I shoot 160 Portra on 4x5, and in fact one of the reasons I want to switch to MF is because I like the discipline and rigor that shooting with a large or medium format camera imposes on the photographer. (Being able to handhold occasionally might be nice, but I'll mostly be working with a solid tripod and linhof 3d micro head.) So if I need to shoot mostly at iso 50 or 100, that's fine by me.
Obviously, with the exception of the Pentax, I'd be buying used. And I've found it somewhat difficult to find good sample files from these cameras. The hasselblad site has samples from the new cameras but not the older ones.
Any advice or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
-
On the 645z you can find most of your answers in two previous forum posts:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94209.0 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94209.0)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94845.0 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94845.0)
You can also find great info in the twin reviews by Michael and Nick on this site. Two very good perspectives on the 645z
Paul
-
Find a dealer that has cameras that you can use for a few days.
Call them on the phone, nothing beats a good telephone conversation.
Use (test) the cameras by using them as you normally shoot film.
Review the results,
Test at least 3 different camera systems.
Shoot the Nikon and compare.
If you can test the cameras yourself you will be able to use your own judgement.
A good dealer will ship gear to you for testing!
I miss seeing 4x5 transparency film.
Love your photos, BTW
-
Based off what you're looking for, I'd actually suggest you also consider the 645D. It's half the price of the Z, and a 4:3 ratio at 40mp, so less wasted pixels than the D800E. You can rent both the D or Z from lensrentals.com .
I would be cautious about purchasing a H3/H3DII system due to their 'best effort' state for repairs.
-
I have a relatively small budget in MFDB terms. My needs are a high-quality image that can print to 40x50 with no excuses, I mean a sharp print even when you look at the print from up close. I also need access to a few great lenses, speaking in terms of the 35mm format, I need a lens equivalent to about a 30-35mm lens (but no longer) and a 40-60mm lens (I love my Nikkor 58mm but I could get by with a 45 or 50mm equivalent).
I don't think that you will be pleased by a 39 or 40 mpix camera at that print size, especially if you come from sheet film. You should probably really try to get a 50 mpix model and even that will barely do it.
With the Blad I could go with an 80mm, which is cheap and plentiful, and a 50mm. Later, I could add a wider lens and the HTS1.5.
The 50mm exists in two versions. The older one, the only one you will find used, is not as good (reputedly). Of course, if you use them at f/11-f/16, any lens is good.
How reliable are the older 'blads, like the H3dIIs? Should I be very concerned about getting hit with big repair bills right away?
The price for repairs is on the Hasselblad site.
The Pentax 645Z looks great on paper, but I'm concerned about the lenses.
Here again: almost any lens is good used at f/11-f/16. Maybe that is an option?
I had a look at you site. Very nice pictures, but your series on cities appears to have been taken when travelling to third world countries. Are you sure you want to bring an expensive and heavy camera system on travel?
I also notice that you are based in Columbus, Ohio, USA. It is important to say so, since used prices in Europe and in the USA are different.
-
Hi,
My take is that I would wait a couple of months. Sony and Canon are said come out with 46-54 MP sensors. Now it is not all about sensors, we also need lenses to match.
Zeiss now have two really excellent Otus lenses 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 and Sigma tries to match those lenses with Art series.
I would also add that in many cases you are getting in a diffraction limited world. Perhaps you can do at f/5.6 with a 135 system but you may need to stop down to f/11 - f/16 on MFD to have same depth of field?
For the ultimate quality you would probably need high end backs with a technical camera. A technical camera can use tilt for infinite DoF (in a single plane of focus).
In the mid range, I don't think it is clear which way to go. Hasselblad is interesting for sure, and I have seen a few samples from the Phase One IQ-series that have been quite impressive.
Personally, I shoot a Hasselblad 555/ELD with a P45+. I very clearly got some great images from that equipment, but manual focus without live view is sort of a gamble.
-
Erik, may I suggest that you have a look at Noah Addis web site (http://www.noahaddis.com) (the original poster)? You will find out that the requirement to print very large with a pleasing result and the requirement to get perfectly sharp images are quite different things.
-
As the need is for big prints, per the OP, 40 x 50 or so, there are a lot of options.
You should easily be able to get a 40 x 50 out of a D800e with stitching, I can and the details I can capture seem to work for my clients. I realize some shots won't easily work in a stitched solution and as Nikon doesn't have a good TS-E lens (again IMO) that's up to the sensor, then the 50mp Pentax or Hasselblad would also get there.
Even 50mp native may not be enough without interpolation (i.e. photozoom, genuine fractals, etc.) from a single image. I may have missed the printer he plans to use. But Canon is optimized at 300 dpi and Epson 360.
Back to Nikon, if the scene allows it, a simple 3 part pano (vertical) to create a horizontal image, will give you more overall useable resolution than say the 645z. Lot less investment also.
Paul
-
Hi,
Well, I would suggest that an IQ 180 (or so) with a technical camera and a Rodenstock or Schneider digital lens is the pinnacle of optical performance at optimal apertures. But, the OP says he is on limited budget.
As a side point, when the P45+ arrived, it was seen as good alternative to 4x5" film, with a careful workflow:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml
On the other side, Tim Parkins testing shows that 4x5" scanned at higher resolution does offer advantages over most digital backs:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/camera-test-editors-commentary/
This is a comparison of Hasselblad H3D39 image quality with Nikon D800, also fro Tim Parkins website:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2013/04/hasselblad-h3d39-vs-d800/
Another point is that it is always possible to stitch. A good stitch of three images with the camera in the vertical position essentially doubles camera resolution and works most of the times.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, may I suggest that you have a look at Noah Addis web site (http://www.noahaddis.com) (the original poster)? You will find out that the requirement to print very large with a pleasing result and the requirement to get perfectly sharp images are quite different things.
-
Probably your best sensor size per dollar solution.
-
The difference between the sensor sizes of 44x33 cropped sensor medium format and full frame is more than full frame and APSC. So if you notice a difference between the latter two, you will with the former two.
I have a cropped sensor digital back (credo 40) and I can most definitely see a difference in the output over a D800 for my applications.
-
Thanks all for the insights. I should have mentioned, I'm in the US and I usually print on an epson 4990. I drum-scan my Portra 160 negs on my Howtek 8000. I'm very happy with the print quality at 40x50 inches and could probably go bigger if I wanted. At that size some grain is visible, but it's minor and visually pleasing.
I would be cautious about purchasing a H3/H3DII system due to their 'best effort' state for repairs.
I wasn't aware of this, but that makes an older Hasselblad seem like a big risk. I went to my local shop and to my surprise, they had a 645Z so I was able to take some test photos. They rent it too, but I figured a quick test should give me an idea.
Still, with the pentax I worry about things like support, service and also the future of the system. But I'll take a serious look at the files later today and tomorrow. They only had the 55mm which seems pretty nice. But I read (elsewhere on this forum) that the 45 is a bit of a dog. Now it may be that it's good enough at f/11. I'm not worried about corner-to-corner sharpness wide open, but i don't want visible smearing or huge amounts of CA either.
Perhaps it's not a good time, maybe sticking with 4x5 and my Nikons for another year is worthwhile. But a year's worth of 4x5 film and processing could pay for a good chunk of an MF system, so that's what got me thinking about it.
I'm not really interested in stitching, perhaps it's my journalistic background but I like to get everything in one frame, and get it right to start with. Also, there are many small moving things within a lot of my photos, so it would be difficult.
And yeah, the P65s, tech cams and the like are out of my price range.
Thanks again. You all have given me a lot to think about.
-
I'm biased as hell but IMHO you'd be crazy to invest any money in any system without trying a mid or high res back on a tech camera.
A P45+ or P65+ or Credo 40 (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/dt-blog/mamiya-credo-special-promo) on a basic Tech Cam (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/tech-camera-systems-main) kit will have:
- movements on all lenses
- access to amazingly good lenses, both in sharpness (bite/draw/microcontrast), but also in OOF rendering, and in lack of CA, even when shifting
- the ability to flat- stitch within the image circle
- fantastic color and smooth tonality
- no mirror or focal plane shutter (no added vibration and no wear/tear)
- a shooting experience chuck full of traditional tactile knobs, mechanical movement, whirring shutters, and manual recocking. To me that is zen and heaven; to others it is slow and clunky - but you should give it a try to see what you think.
- an open platform where upgrading the sensor (back), body (tech cam), and lenses (Schneider/Rodenstock) are all separated out
I'm not saying this is for sure the way to go. You are the only one that can say this or not. But I am saying you owe it to yourself to give it a try. I'm in NYC and from Ohio and would be glad to answer any questions you have. Note my signature for obvious bias - I'm not impartial; though I like to think I've earned a reputation on the forums for good honest advice.
-
Developing at home is also an option.
-
Looking at your work, it doesn't seem to me like you would need a tech cam for it. A Credo 40, some older mamiya lenses and a 645 DF+ would work just fine for your application.
-
Hi Noah,
First off, your work is both spectacular and keenly socially relevant.
Second, it looks like 4x5 done by somebody who knows what they're doing with 4x5. You are one of the few people who seek advice on these forums who actually will see the differences that the better equipment gets you.
Third, my strong feeling is that 35mm just won't do it for you. However, you might want to look into the possibility of multiple frame stitching on something like the Harblei cam with an A7r mounted on it, using technical cam lenses. That might get you close.
Fourth, your work made me think of Ed Burtinsky right away. Ed came from LF film work and transitioned to really high-res digital MF. That's probably the way forward for you, too. That said, do not bother with the 40MP 33x44 backs. They are way too expensive and do not offer a sufficient quality jump from something like the D810, especially stitched. I know Synn will jump down my throat for saying this, but I sold my 645D because the difference to the 800e wasn't sufficient.
What I think would be your ideal is actually one of the older 50MP or 60MP backs. An H3D2-50 for under $10K might be perfect. The back will probably never go down, and can be used on a tech cam - either right away or in the future. And for your kind of work, the cruddy older cameras (Phase or Hassy - both painful) won't really get in your way, because coming from 4x5 they will seem breezy-quick.
Don't go less than 50MPs. I have heard that the 50MP CCD Kodak-based sensors are also really good with tech cam lenses, though others might chime in more on that.
You're a serious artist, and I think this is the kind of gear that you should be looking at if you are exiting film.
Oh - one last thing. If you often don't have movement in your images, a multi-shot back might be ideal. The detail and quality in those is stunning. A 39MP multi-shot might be an something to look at. Under ideal conditions the quality exceeds the 50 and rivals the 60MP chips.
Lastly, if you can wait, the price of the older backs will tumble even further soon with the next-gen chips in 35mm that are coming, and with the new $10K MF reality imposed by the 645z.
As for the 645z....great camera. Much better in the type of climates you look to be working in. It's fully weather sealed, tough, and the batteries last. The lenses are better than people credit them. You can find a 45-85 that would probably make you quite happy. With the exception of the 45mm, it's good kit. Sadly, most of the samples online are autrocious crap. I have printed some 28x36" prints from my own 645z files, and they look excellent.
Cheers,
- N.
-
You should easily be able to get a 40 x 50 out of a D800e with stitching, I can and the details I can capture seem to work for my clients. I realize some shots won't easily work in a stitched solution and as Nikon doesn't have a good TS-E lens (again IMO) that's up to the sensor, then the 50mp Pentax or Hasselblad would also get there.
...
Back to Nikon, if the scene allows it, a simple 3 part pano (vertical) to create a horizontal image, will give you more overall useable resolution than say the 645z. Lot less investment also.
Paul and Noah,
I have browsed through your future cities portfolio. Love the concept and the images. I visit Mumbai/Pona/Chennai twice a year and can completely relate to your photographic intent.
I read your comment about you not being interested in stitching after I wrote what's below, so feel free to ignore it.
But IMHO, your images would be very easily dealt with with stitching. The only one that would require a bit of thinking is the one with the blurred bike in the middle, but even that would in fact be pretty easily done if you know what you are after.
Most of the others would just be about using a pano head, 2 rows of 3 images (capture time about 1 minute max), open them in PTgui, correct for verticals, output a layered PS file and retouch the possible ghosting for those images with people in the distance. Processing time max 10 minutes for the difficult cases, 2 minutes for 80% of your images.
Before spending several thousands of US$ on a back, why not try it out with a 500 US$ pano head and trial version of PTgui and/or Autopano pro?
In fact I'll be in Pona in a few weeks and will give it a try. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Haha nick, I don't jump down the throats of those who know their stuff. :)
I guess the Pentax didn't suit your needs and I am not too surprised actually. During my research phase, I worked on enough 645D and credo/aptus shots made to see that the latter is indeed a step up in quality while the Pentax wasn't too different from the D800(To be fair, the new Pentax lenses were not out then and of course, pentax files were processed in LR that adds the complimentary "Adobe AA filter to every image). Many may disagree here, but for my purposes, I see a significant step up in quality with the credo, and that's all I care about. In fact, the D800 only comes out when I need 16mm. Even when I actively pack it with me wherever I go.
Sometimes I feel like a masochist for carrying all that extra deadweight that I never use ;D
-
Fwiw, +1 for Doug's advice above. Tech camera, good lens and digital back. Even an Aptus7 would surprise you. By the way, lovely work. Very subtle, controlled, and meaningful.
-
Don't let my comments on the H3 stuff completely scare you off - the ability to use the Hasselblad back on a technical setup is there, and if you wanted to, you could even go as far as shooting an Alpa FPS to utilize a wide variety of glass, both MF and 35mm.
Check out what folks are saying/doing with the CFV-50c, it may be an option that hits your price point as well.
You didn't talk about your editing workflow - you may want to consider playing with the CaptureOne demo as it may push you in that direction. Consider doing one of the POCP classes as it includes a license for CaptureOne Pro and will give you a chance to work with the gear. Set it up for an extra day or two shooting with the dealer.
-
Thanks again for all of the kind words and the advice. My post-processing workflow with film is very simple of course, that's one of the things I like about film. (Other than spotting the drum scans, of course!) With digital I really like C1Pro. I have a somewhat out-of-date version but I like it and it seems to produce the best results with my Nikon files. I'm open to trying other software.
I was quite impressed with the Pentax 645Z actually. It's an ugly beast but it seems to be really nice to work with. The files are really nice and definitely a step up from the D800E. My shop only had the 55/2.8, and I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the lens. It feels kind of cheap in terms of build quality, but it was sharp in the corners and didn't seem to have any bad characteristics. I normally shoot stopped down and on a tripod. If I'm shooting wide-open and/or handheld, it's probably for a portrait so absolute sharpness in the corners is irrelevant. But even wide open it didn't seem too bad.
It seems like I could pick up an H3dII50 body for less than the price of the Pentax body. The lenses will cost a bit more, but they'r e more of a long-term purchase. The Hasselblad has a larger physical sensor, possibly better lenses and at least one tilt/shift solution that I could add later. The back could also be used on a tech cam later. The downsides are that it's an older, used camera and service and/or parts availability may become an issue. Also I think I read somewhere that it can't use UMDA-7 CF cards, which means I'd have to buy all new cards. Not a big deal, but it brings up the issue of compatibility since it's an older system.
The Pentax is new and has a warranty, may have better weather sealing, and may be more versatile...for example it can be used at higher iso. That's not important for most of my work, but being able to handhold or shoot aerials from time to time may open up some new possibilities. I really like that it has two card slots for redundancy. I use the dual slots in my Nikons for an instant backup. I also really like that it can shoot DNG instead of a proprietary format. Downsides are that the lens selection is limited, and what would have been my main lens (the 45mm) is apparently a dog. There is no shift solution, and two of the three lenses I'd start with are older designs. I'd go for the 55, 75 and either a zoom or a 35.
-
Noah,
Remember, that if you are only using these lenses(likethe 50mm, 2nd version) for a few weeks at a time, you can always rent the lenses for your trips. Yes, owning them is nice, but if you're only using them somewhat sparingly, it might be more cost effective to rent them.
However, seeing that you've been using a view camera for a few years, and if you feel that perspective control is a must for your workflow going forward, I'd keep your options open to that being a possibility down the line. The Linhof Techno is a wonderful little camera, and if you should choose to shoot (some) film, you can also use a rollfilm back on it, in addition to a digital back! I was talking with someone recently about using the "digital" lenses on MF film, and some of them have large enough image circles to allow for movements on 6x7 film(possibly even 6x9!). They mentioned that there is a NOTICEABLE difference between the latest "digital" lenses shooting onto film, vs the earlier Schneider/Rodenstock film-era lenses(even the last ones made, APO-Grandagon's and such). Just a thought.
You mentioned processing costs, have you considered DIY processing? Second-hand JOBO CPP/CPA-2's are on ebay quite a bit, and mixing up the chemistry from the Kodak bulk boxes isn't that hard, or expensive in the long run. But the convenience of having a lab do it is nice, however. I won't argue with that :)
cheers,
Dan
-
Hi,
I have posted a few samples from my P45+ here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Shoots/BernardSamples/
A lot more images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up?start=5
Now, this is P45+, but it is using a Kodak sensor similar to the ones used in the Pentax 645D and the older Hasselblad backs. Processing is done in Lightroom, which counts as a criminal offence to Capture One enthusiast, but C1 would not support either Hasselblad or Pentax, anyway. I use my own DCP profiles.
It has been a learning experience, later images are probably better than the older ones.
All images available in raw. (http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/2.5/se/88x31.png)
Best regards
Erik
-
My post-processing workflow with film is very simple of course, that's one of the things I like about film.
If I may voice a dissenting opinion...
It just so happens that I visited an exhibition with large prints from 4"x5" (and even 8"x10"...) negatives this week-end. It also happens that I sometimes print fairly large from digital files. Considering your choice of subjects and the fact that you own and can operate a scanner many photographers would be prepared to give an arm and a leg for, I think that your idea to switch to digital is a folly.
I am saying this and I own an Hasselblad H4D-50. It is a very nice camera, I love it. It can produce the kind of results I saw on these large prints... barely. But not with a "very simple post-processing workflow".
-
Hi,
The problem with older Hasselblad backs is that repair is not possible due to shortage of parts. Check before you buy. Exchange of IR-filter is still possible.
On the other hand, repair costs on backs are excessive, it seems. What I have read that battery replacement is around 500$ and and a broken fire wire connector may be around 2k$ or more. But this is much hearsay, would Phase One dealers mention realistic and firm prices for repairs that may be helpful.
The new Hasselblad CVF-50c is very reasonably priced (for MFD) but is limited to Hasselblad V series or technical cameras as far as I understand.
Leica S series may also be a consideration, a good weather proof camera at the same price level as the IQ-250, and with a lot of lens options.
The Pentax 645D/Z seems to be a very reasonable option. There may be a question mark about the lenses, but most samples I have seen from that camera (645D) have been seriously good. Lloyd Chambers has tested a lot of those lenses, his site is a pay one, but I would say worth the investment of 50$ if you plan on buying equipment for 20k$. Lloyd is generally pretty harsh in his judgement, any reader needs to be aware of that. The two MFD systems that Lloyd has tested extensively is the Leica S and the Pentax 645. On Leica Lloyd reports high failure rates (close to 50%, including both S2 and M-series) but he had no issues with the P645s he tested.
Best regards
Erik
Don't let my comments on the H3 stuff completely scare you off - the ability to use the Hasselblad back on a technical setup is there, and if you wanted to, you could even go as far as shooting an Alpa FPS to utilize a wide variety of glass, both MF and 35mm.
Check out what folks are saying/doing with the CFV-50c, it may be an option that hits your price point as well.
You didn't talk about your editing workflow - you may want to consider playing with the CaptureOne demo as it may push you in that direction. Consider doing one of the POCP classes as it includes a license for CaptureOne Pro and will give you a chance to work with the gear. Set it up for an extra day or two shooting with the dealer.
-
The problem with older Hasselblad backs is that repair is not possible due to shortage of parts.
Not the H3DII.
-
Noah,
I kind of echo the earlier poster's sentiment that, blessed with capacity with 4x5, coupled with enjoying in using it, I might be disinclined to switch to digital.
That said, I doubt you'll find that the older Hassy backs give you appreciably better results than the 645z. They *will* be much more frustrating to use in the field, but offer tech-cam functionality. A tech cam, with the right lenses, used right (and there is a LOT involved in calibrating the systems to their optimum) *will* give you better results than any MFSLR system. We are, however, talking improvement at the outside margins, both literally and figuratively.
I've made a choice and will be getting myself the "z" in about a week. I'll continue to write about my experiences here, fwiw.
Cheers,
- N.
-
Thanks for good info. According to another post from Jerome_m the following applies:
My comment to make it clearer: The following models have limited repairs (like change of IR-glass)
CFH-22, CFH-39
CF-22, CF-22MS, CF-39, CF-39MS
H2D-22, H2D-39, H3D-22, H3D-39
31 mpix models can still be repaired, H3DII models can still be repaired, all H cameras (cameras - not backs) can still be repaired, for the backs for which full service has been discontinued, some limited repairs are still available
Source: http://hasselbladbron.com/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=entry&id=59&Itemid=128
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=95057.msg776904#msg776904
Not the H3DII.
-
Digital is a situation where new is almost always better, the Pentax 645Z is a great body physically, and houses a top of the line CMOS sensor, I don't see any reason why you would want less versatility (e.g an older 'blad, I owned an H3Dii-39ms) absent needing LS shutters for clash sync or something. From what I have heard / read about the 645 lenses in the past over at http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-645-Medium-Format-Lenses-i4.html they seem to be pretty great overall and they are very reasonable used, and even the new prices, since seemingly they will start importing (or producing?) them again seem very reasonable.
I haven't tested out the Z specifically, though I want to, but the Sony 50mp CMOS MFD sensor is great.....I just wish it wasn't in so many cameras.
Best,
BH
-
...
I kind of echo the earlier poster's sentiment that, blessed with capacity with 4x5, coupled with enjoying in using it, I might be disinclined to switch to digital.
...
I never said I enjoyed shooting 4x5 >:(
I guess to be honest I do enjoy the process of actually shooting and I love the results, but some aspects are not enjoyable. Traveling with film is getting to be more of a hassle, and I always worry about having security open my film boxes, etc. Scanning is time-consuming and who knows how much longer I can keep my scanner running smoothly without spending a fortune. And spotting the scans...don't get me started on that! It takes a solid day to spot each one. My scans are actually really clean, but it would be bad to make a huge print and find out I missed a spot. So I take my time with it.
More importantly, I've missed a few photos because I have no way to shoot handheld in a pinch, which MFD would add.
I'll almost certainly finish my Future Cities project on film just for consistency, but for some other projects I'll be starting soon, I'm not sure which is the better medium.
The pentax seems nice. It was very natural to use and while I wish they had stripped it down more and done away with some bells and whisles, I think it's a great camera. The 55mm also seemed decent. It had nice rendering close-up and stopped down it seemed plenty sharp enough for the urban landscape work I do.
Nick--which raw converter are you using? I tried ACR which was decent, and my older copy of C1Pro which seemed surprisingly less good. Also, in your experience are some of the other lenses in line with the quality of the 55mm? I did read the other thread about Pentax lenses, but I'm wondering specifically if the 75mm and the 35mm are as good as the 55mm? I take it the 45mm isn't good at all? It's a shame because that is the perfect focal length for me. Have you tried the older MF version?
Thanks again for all of the advice. I may decide to stick with film for another year, but before starting any new projects I want to explore my options. Even if I stick with film, this advice has been valuable since it might prevent me from making a costly error.
-
Noah,
I hear you - airports are killing film. As re: the 645z, the FA-75mm lens is really excellent in my experience. My first version was awesomely sharp. For $175. I haven't used my current one yet. But I have tested the A-75mm L/S and 135mm L/S that I picked up, and they were both superb.
The 35s are supposedly both good. Michael loves his FA (autofocus) one, and having shot a few frames with it I agree it's good. Mine wasn't amazing. I will try a manual focus A-35 and post my experience. I like the physical 'tightness' of the "A" lenses. The metal helicals are lovely.
Imho, you can find copies of both which will make you happy. As for the 45mm.......its bad rap has made it dirt cheap. Buy a couple and try them out. (that's a sub-$450 proposition for both). If you hate them, resell them.
I'm still looking for the best way to focus for stationary subjects. Live-view kind of sucks like it does on the D800, but is basically usable. VF focusing is viable too, and I bought a focus magnifier I'm eager to try.
As re: converters, I am a die-hard Lightroom user. Tried C1 years ago and just couldn't get into the UI/workflow. I know it's much better now, but I am deeply invested in time and experience with LR and, frankly, am unconvinced better would be obtainable elsewhere.
- N.
-
Hi Nick,
Hi Nick,
Thanks for an informative reply.
I would mention a few things.
One is that Pentax has solid reputation for environmental sealing and the Pentax 645D was no exception. Certainly a good thing.
Regarding LV focusing, sad the hear that it is Nikon D800 like and not Nikon D800 like (which I have been told is a lot of difference). With regard to "visual focusing" I would mention that I used to use Zeiss Victory 3X monocular on my blad. Have written about it here:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/76-my-medium-format-digital-journey?start=15
Regarding raw conversion, I am also a LR addict. Capture One does neither support the Pentax 645D/Z or Hasselblad backs. But I feel that Adobe should make a decent demosaicer that works well with MFDs.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=94812.0
In general, I would say that LR works well, but subjects like the sample above it fails miserably. Great advantage that it uses DNG profiles that are compatible with many other raw converters, well except Capture One, of course.
Best regards
Erik
Noah,
I'm still looking for the best way to focus for stationary subjects. Liveview kind of sucks like it does on the D800, but is basically usable. VF focussing is viable too, and I bought a focus magnifier I'm eager to try.
As re: converters, I am a die-hard Lightroom user. Tried C1 years ago and just couldn;t get into the UI/workflow. I know it's much better now, but I am deeply invested in time and experience with LR and, frankly, am unconvinced better would be obtainable elsewhere.
- N.
-
Noah, I have nothing to contribute to this discussion except my admiration for your work!
-
Digital is a situation where new is almost always better,
In regards to "newer is better", in medium format, I'm not too sure about that.
When you think about it that makes sense because all medium format, except the leica S series were morphed over film cameras, with the same autofocus, same type of usability.
I haven't used a cmos based medium format camera (probably won't).
Though when I added a Lecia S2 and compared it to my Contax and "ancient" p30+ if I was a pixel peeping, chart printing type of photographer,
I'd say the old P30+ produces an equal, maybe even better image than the leica.
I found the same thing when I tested a H5d 40mpx camera am sure it would be the same with the phase backs and cameras.
The image quality is a toss up.
Camera companies want to sell new cameras and people that are camera junkies like to talk about new cameras.
Until there is a medium format camera with multi point autofocus, maybe even a pdaf sensor with focus points that cover the whole sensor, it's going to hold that for slower,
static more contemplative sessions medium format is good if not better, for faster, looser more action oriented imagery, it has, probably always will be 35mm cameras.
In other words, a cmos sensor is not going to make a medium format camera nimble, not in todays form factors.
Actually expert post processing and retouching will make more of a difference than the capture device.
I'm not saying don't buy what you want, or think is better, but no camera will do everything well.
I can do this all day long, talk myself into a new camera, but in the end, it really is the subject, the lighting, the post work, the planning.
These images were shot with more than ancient p21+ and Aptus 22 and P30+ respectfully and still exist today.
The first and third images were shot as nimble as medium format can work, on 20 session days.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/p21_sony_lot.jpg)
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/aptus22.jpg)
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/swim4.jpg)
No new camera will make them any better.
Really when it comes to innovation, most of it is in the prosumer mirrorless formats.
IMO
BC
-
BC, I'd love to come assist for a week sometime - you seem to have way too much fun.
The Z has Live Focus, with Focus Peaking and it's pretty slick. The justification I can throw out there that newer cameras can do that our workhorses can't is high ISO when shooting in places where a tripod isn't an option. I took the Z through the Chihuly Garden and Glass, and what I was able to do hand held in dark spaces is stunning. Hand held, ISO 3200 f/5.6 at 1/125th using the 45-85 f/4.5 lens. Full image, and a crop in on the detail, straight jpegs from the raws. Here is the overall image they have published: http://chihulygardenandglass.com/static/ee_images/uploads/03_exhibtion_rotator_04.jpg
It's not needed for studio work, but when you're at the mercy of the environment or others, the Z is a handy tool to have available.
-
And spotting the scans...don't get me started on that! It takes a solid day to spot each one. My scans are actually really clean, but it would be bad to make a huge print and find out I missed a spot. So I take my time with it.
Noah lovely work on your site!
here's a spotting technique (for skies) that works really well.
Duplicate your base layer, set the blend mode to "lighten", then nudge the layer up and across using the arrow keys, you'll need to move it the same distance as the size of the largest spot.
Then apply a layer mask and roughly mask away the non sky areas. Really fast way to fix large areas.
Cheers Nick-T