Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Phase One XF Camera  (Read 31107 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13637
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2015, 09:58:13 pm »

The "different look" of medium format is, well, it's a bit of a chimera.

In fact, I don't think it is.

There are 35mm lenses offering an outstanding look, I own my share of those, but there is something subtly different when you combine a larger sensor and longer lenses. This can be reproduced with stitching, but it doesn't apply well to most situations where MF cameras are used professionally, be it fashion, architecture,...

Try it out yourself if you have the chance. You don't need to spend a fortune on the latest phase one, a P25+ or dirt cheap ZD back will enable you to see that.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: June 02, 2015, 10:12:12 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2015, 10:26:46 pm »

Well, yes. Stitching and pixel binning will certainly get you there.

If you have a sufficiently nice full format sensor you can open up a couple stops from wherever you'd shoot with the Phase ONE, and crop it square or 6:7, and virtually nobody (and possibly absolutely nobody) is going to be able to tell in blind testing, unless you print big enough that the raw pixel count will tip your hand. But you can't always open up a couple of stops, etc.

I get that MF is a different thing. I know that. It just seems that for almost all the cases I can think up, I can replace a $48,000 camera with a $1000 camera and a very modest extra effort. What I'm curious about is specific use cases in which that won't work, or in which the extra effort isn't pretty modest.

Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1951
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #22 on: June 03, 2015, 01:54:57 am »

Well, yes. Stitching and pixel binning will certainly get you there.

If you have a sufficiently nice full format sensor you can open up a couple stops from wherever you'd shoot with the Phase ONE, and crop it square or 6:7, and virtually nobody (and possibly absolutely nobody) is going to be able to tell in blind testing, unless you print big enough that the raw pixel count will tip your hand. But you can't always open up a couple of stops, etc.

I get that MF is a different thing. I know that. It just seems that for almost all the cases I can think up, I can replace a $48,000 camera with a $1000 camera and a very modest extra effort. What I'm curious about is specific use cases in which that won't work, or in which the extra effort isn't pretty modest.



I would think that would be when you want the best possible single-shot application: for example, shooting fashion models who are in motion, not necessarily for magazines, but for the actual clothing stores. Go look at the photos in a Victoria's Secret store sometime -- creamy complexions on photos that are 9-10 feet (three meters) tall. These are not rare shots, either; if you walk through Manhattan, you'll see something like them in most stores -- thousands and thousands of large individual fashion shots. There are also landscape applications for things like this -- not a static landscape, but perhaps one of those flower shots as in the Arup Biswas article (the cover shot for the article.) The problem there is if you are planning to print large to put the photo over somebody's couch, as a piece of art, you may have to go six feet (two meters) wide and the flowers, in even the lightest wind, won't hold still for stitching shots. And with a shot like that, with somebody maneuvering a light modifier just out of camera view, you could shoot a couple hundred shots to get a perfect one. There are some serious uses for single-shot, high-resolution cameras. That doesn't mean that everybody needs one. They're specialized instruments, and if you take one out to shoot street in the wrong neighborhood, you could find the camera stuck where the sun don't shine. Because of the shooting I do, I'll stay with a Panasonic GX7 and a nice discreet zoom; not many people are gonna want one of my shots over their couch, anyway, and I have no desire at all, or need, for one of these things. But some people need them.

As far as price goes, it's no more than a lot of cars, and if you use it to make a living, and can deduct the cost, the price doesn't look quite so formidable.
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #23 on: June 03, 2015, 02:17:24 am »

There are 35mm lenses offering an outstanding look, I own my share of those, but there is something subtly different when you combine a larger sensor and longer lenses. This can be reproduced with stitching, but it doesn't apply well to most situations where MF cameras are used professionally, be it fashion, architecture,...

A myth often repeated. There is no difference using a longer lens os stitching compared to shooting in a single frame with whatever camera as long as the FOV and distance from the subject is the same.

Jeffrey Lubeck

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • Jeffrey H. Lubeck
    • Jeff's Web Site
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #24 on: June 03, 2015, 02:31:25 am »

Thanks to to Luminous Landscape and Kevin for the coverage.  It is appreciated.

The new offering looks to be worthy of consideration.  I shoot both DLSR (Nikon D3x and D810 and best available lenses) and MF (IQ180 with Phase DF or Cambo WRS and best available lenses).  I will be evaluating over the next short period of time.
Logged
Jeffrey H. Lubeck

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13637
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #25 on: June 03, 2015, 03:12:00 am »

A myth often repeated. There is no difference using a longer lens os stitching compared to shooting in a single frame with whatever camera as long as the FOV and distance from the subject is the same.

Hans,

Then you'll have to explain me why the DoF formulas take into account the Focal length of the lens. Or why most photographers know that they will have more DoF with a compact camera compared to a 4x5 one... ;)

Fortunately, the reason is the same, the DoF is basically proportional to the fomat size, but this simple rule which is further impacted by technological considerations resulting from the design of the lens (the differences in bokeh).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: June 03, 2015, 03:17:20 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

laughingbear

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 232
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #26 on: June 03, 2015, 03:22:54 am »

Nice!

Quote
The Hyperfocal Point Focusing feature allows a user to register a custom hyperfocal point for each lens and then autofocus to that point at any time when needed.

So, the IQ3 50MP is CMOS and IQ3 60 & 80 MP are CCD. The CMOS has 14 stops DR with a physical size of 44 x 33 and a lense factor of 1, and the CCD 13 stops with a 53.9 x 40.4 size and lense factor of 1.3.
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #27 on: June 03, 2015, 03:27:03 am »

Hans,

Then you'll have to explain me why the DoF formulas take into account the Focal length of the lens. Or why most photographers know that they will have more DoF with a compact camera compared to a 4x5 one... ;)

Fortunately, the reason is the same, the DoF is basically proportional to the fomat size, but this simple rule which is further impacted by technological considerations resulting from the design of the lens (the differences in bokeh).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

Cheers,
Bernard


I didn't think your previous comment was about DOF which is clearly different. It is often mentioned that the MF gives a different look because of longer focal lengths and this is what is a myth and what I commented on. Do you agree?

Regarding DOF and bokeh there does not need to be much of a difference since there are lots of 35mm FF lenses that are much faster than MF lenses, so equivalent DOF can be achieved.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2015, 03:29:07 am by Hans Kruse »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13637
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #28 on: June 03, 2015, 03:49:32 am »

I didn't think your previous comment was about DOF which is clearly different. It is often mentioned that the MF gives a different look because of longer focal lengths and this is what is a myth and what I commented on. Do you agree?

Hans,

I agree that there is little to no difference of look when infinite DoF can be achieved, but I believe most people who speak about MF look speak about the transition from sharp to un-sharp areas. They are typically not speaking about inifinite DoF applications.

Regarding DOF and bokeh there does not need to be much of a difference since there are lots of 35mm FF lenses that are much faster than MF lenses, so equivalent DOF can be achieved.

I am well aware that 35mm has wider opening lenses that can generate a more limited DoF, but in my view this is not the only factor. The transition from sharp to un-sharp isn't exactly the same with a shorter focal length/wide aperture vs longer focal length/more narrow aperture and there are also technological considerations resulting from lenses design that generate some differences of look.

Technological aspects can include the shape of the glass elements, but also the manufacturing process. One interesting example of impact of manufacturing technology on look is the granular look of OoF circular highlights generated by my Otus 85mm f1.4 that seems to result from the grinding process used for the aspherical elements.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: June 03, 2015, 03:56:46 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #29 on: June 03, 2015, 03:56:42 am »

Hans,

I agree that there is little to no difference of look when infinite DoF can be achieved, but I believe most people who speak about MF look speak about the transition from sharp to un-sharp areas. They are typically not speaking about inifinite DoF applications.

I am well aware that 35mm has wider opening lenses that can generate a more limited DoF, but in my view this is not the only factor. The transition from sharp to un-sharp isn't exactly the same with a shorter focal length/wide aperture vs longer focal length/more narrow aperture and there are also technological considerations resulting from lenses design that generate some differences of look.

One interesting example of impact on manufacturing technology on look is the granular look of OoF circular highlights generated by my Otus 85mm f1.4 that seems to result from the grinding process used for the aspherical elements.

Cheers,
Bernard


So what is it then that is subtly different with large sensors that can be replicated by stitching?

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13637
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #30 on: June 03, 2015, 03:58:30 am »

So what is it then that is subtly different with large sensors that can be replicated by stitching?

Exactly what I explained above. The usage of a longer focal length/more narrow aperture.

To me stitching is not limited to infinite DoF applications.

But this is out of topic, I'll stop here.

Cheers,
Bernard

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #31 on: June 03, 2015, 04:06:47 am »

Exactly what I explained above. The usage of a longer focal length/more narrow aperture.

To me stitching is not limited to infinite DoF applications.

But this is out of topic, I'll stop here.

Cheers,
Bernard


I agree, it is a myth, really.

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13637
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #32 on: June 03, 2015, 04:14:01 am »

I agree, it is a myth, really.

I don't think it is a myth for the reasons explained above, so we don't agree on this... but we agree to stop discussing this here. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3424
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #33 on: June 03, 2015, 06:02:44 am »

i think the two of you; Hans and Bernard have a funny discussion here showing how difficult it is to communicate..:)

on topic:
I think Phase shows with the new body a development in MF that everybody may welcome.
It is good for all. Denmark is famous for industrial design and it shows.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2015, 06:09:48 am by kers »
Logged

haplo602

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #34 on: June 03, 2015, 06:03:27 am »

can it use a film back ? if yes, I'll start raising money for one.
Logged

AreBee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 638
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #35 on: June 03, 2015, 06:50:58 am »

haplo602,

Quote
can it use a film back ?

No.
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #36 on: June 03, 2015, 09:54:08 am »

i think the two of you; Hans and Bernard have a funny discussion here showing how difficult it is to communicate..:)

It should not be so difficult, but some myths live long and hard.

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #37 on: June 03, 2015, 10:19:14 am »

I do agree with you that for landscape, there are much cheaper ways to get to much higher levels of image quality through the usage of stitching when applicable. This is nothing new and the new camera/back doesn't change anything as far as this is concerned.



Ironic you then post an 800px image to demo the quality of massive number of megapixels.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #38 on: June 03, 2015, 10:29:20 am »

If you have a sufficiently nice full format sensor you can open up a couple stops from wherever you'd shoot with the Phase ONE, and crop it square or 6:7, and virtually nobody (and possibly absolutely nobody) is going to be able to tell in blind testing, unless you print big enough that the raw pixel count will tip your hand. But you can't always open up a couple of stops, etc.
Well actually as most MF lenses have much faster equivalent field of view 35mm lenses, that is in fact easily doable. Aperture wise.
But as already said above, big fashions shots you see several metres high in stores are pretty obviously not done on 35mm.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2015, 10:31:08 am by jjj »
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Phase One XF Camera
« Reply #39 on: June 03, 2015, 10:33:24 am »

i think the two of you; Hans and Bernard have a funny discussion here showing how difficult it is to communicate..:)
And this is a funny comment.  ;D
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up