...and I'm out.

[Chris Barrett]

My IQ260 just left the premises for good.  MFDB's make really beautiful files, and I am a little sad to see it go.  I just didn't feel like it was the most appropriate workflow for me anymore.  

I've had a lot of fun building a smaller kit around the Arca Universalis, A7r and a bunch of Hasselblad CFi lenses (plus the Canon tilt / shifts).

While the images don't start out quite as beautiful as the Phase One files, there is still lots of quality there and the files have quite a bit of malleability in post.  The on-set workflow is just so much more efficient and efficiency is quickly becoming the name of the game in commercial imaging.

Gearing for photography seems to be a never-ending adventure and it's one I rather enjoy.  I'll still check in to this sub-forum on occasion, but if you're looking for any new work of mine, you'll find it here:  http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99472.0

Cheers,
CB

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for sharing your experience here on the MFD forum, and thanks for sharing on the new thread you have started.

Personally, I hang on to my Hasselblad P45+ kit, in part because I guess it is hard to sell it for decent money, but also because I actually like to use it.

On the other hand, I just put an order on a Sony A7rII and a Batis 1.8/85 and will order a Canon 24/3.5 TSE in part due to your recommendations. A Hartblei/Mirex T&S adapter for use with the Hasselblad lenses is also in the pipe line.

Best regards
Erik

My IQ260 just left the premises for good.  MFDB's make really beautiful files, and I am a little sad to see it go.  I just didn't feel like it was the most appropriate workflow for me anymore.  

I've had a lot of fun building a smaller kit around the Arca Universalis, A7r and a bunch of Hasselblad CFi lenses (plus the Canon tilt / shifts).

While the images don't start out quite as beautiful as the Phase One files, there is still lots of quality there and the files have quite a bit of malleability in post.  The on-set workflow is just so much more efficient and efficiency is quickly becoming the name of the game in commercial imaging.

Gearing for photography seems to be a never-ending adventure and it's one I rather enjoy.  I'll still check in to this sub-forum on occasion, but if you're looking for any new work of mine, you'll find it here:  http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99472.0

Cheers,
CB

[kers]

...  The on-set workflow is just so much more efficient and efficiency is quickly becoming the name of the game in commercial imaging....

CB

and i thought that you were THE photographer that did not have to deal with efficiency, just with outcome...
(What does this say about the rest of us?)
I think it is just evolution... everything can be smaller ; we do not need special photo-trainwagons anymore to make a large print...
There is a physical limit in the lenses going to smaller sensors, but with 35mm we can do very well.

[Hywel]

and i thought that you were THE photographer that did not have to deal with efficiency, just with outcome...

What Kers said!

I'm keeping my MF for now, but I doubt that I'll stick with it for the next refresh. The A7R II is a very compelling prospect...

Cheers, Hywel

[Manoli]

If the A7rII works as listed on paper, they can replace both our motion and still cameras.
[...]
and after a period almost disposable.  Much like the Sony A7 series.

Coots, for you, I can but imagine what a quantum leap of faith that took!
I hope it works out well for both you and CB - it certainly did for me - just don't be too disappointed when neither of you get any more Valentine Day cards from the MF dealers ...  [/light-hearted-quip]

M

[Chris Barrett]

Man, I can not wait to get the A7r II and do some 4k video on the view camera.  That's going to kill it.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Man, I can not wait to get the A7r II and do some 4k video on the view camera.  That's going to kill it.

You are going to use the Arca Universalis to shift the lens and get correct verticals in 4k video?

[Chris Barrett]

That's the idea, Abdul.  This is also my stills camera now... platforms are converging.  I've just received the Canon mount for this system... next up is to start experimenting with zooms to see which are usable with movements.

[eronald]

Coots, for you, I can but imagine what a quantum leap of faith that took!
I hope it works out well for both you and CB - it certainly did for me - just don't be too disappointed when neither of you get any more Valentine Day cards from the MF dealers ...  [/light-hearted-quip]

M

Manoli,

 Let me interpret that for J: A quantum jump is usually the smallest possible detectable change of state

 I guess he will soon post that the A7RII is the Jcam, and then this forum will dissolve in bansmoke


Edmund

[ciccio]

that is a good prediction...
people at phase didn t understood that they lost the last train...
they didn t launch the full frame cmos , and now is too late you will se the big big squeeze.
i bet it.
best.

[epines]

Interesting post. And I'm on the verge of upgrading my H3DII-39 to a more modern MFDB kit (TBD). I've never found it to be a hindrance on big production days, and for me the viewfinder and larger image / groundglass completely distinguish the MF experience from smaller formats. That alone is a reason to keep MF around, in my opinion. (Not to mention True Focus, which I've never had until now. And I do find the files to be extremely rich and deep.) I find I compose much differently (and better), and I almost can't stand when I have to use the Canon / smaller formats.

My upcoming solution to the changing technology was going to be getting the Canon 50MP when it's out, and better lenses for it, enabling me to shoot commercial-grade files when higher ISOs are needed, and solid video as well. I have no idea about the capabilities of the new A7R. Interesting. I'll check into that.

[Telecaster]

…I guess since I still own a Leica S2 (which I'm not sure is medium format)…

I'm partial to fuller frame myself. 

-Dave-

[Kolor-Pikker]

I'm partial to fuller frame myself. 

-Dave-

Yeah, medium format ceased to exist when film fell out of favor. Leica's 30x45 isn't MF, and neither is 33x44, 37x49, nor 40x54mm, they are all just arbitrary sensor sizes that happen to utilize the same legacy lenses and camera systems everyone was used to... except for Leica's S, because it was built from the ground-up with no legacy ties, as well as technical cameras which are inherently format agnostic. What is it "medium" compared to? scanning backs? 35mm that's now "full-frame"?

There needs to be a consortium to manage the nomenclature in photography, especially if it means getting rid of the ancient fractional inch measurement system for small sensors that was based on freaking vacuum tube diameter in early video cameras.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi BC,

Personally I don't really care about terminology. The term "medium format" essentially meant larger than 24x36 but smaller than large format, alternative systems using 120/220 film. Large format was blade.

For me, MFD is systems using sensors larger than 24x36. Leica S fill that bill...

If discussing formats we could as well discuss 24x36 and smaller formats like 4/3. 24x36 is four times the size of 4/3, quite similar to the ration of "full size 645" to 24x36. Still, I don't see that kind of heated discussions about "full frame 24x36" and 4/3.

More importantly, the 4/3 folks are building really good systems. No doubt, a properly adjusted 24x36 camera with an excellent lens will give better detail than a well built 4/3 camera, but if the 4/3 camera is good enough for ones needs, little is gained using a larger camera.

Funny enough, I know a great lady who shoots a Panasonic GH3 and feels it is not professional enough. I told her about one of the leading commercial photographers in the US (JR AKA BC) using the GH3. When we were shooting together she could compare the size of my full frame Sony 70-400 and her 100-300. She also got great shots, I was mostly shooting my Hasselblad/P45+ combo along with the Sony, and we had very different focus.

My take is that we can use any equipment that is god enough for our needs. I used to say what is in front (subject and lens), behind (photographer)  and under (tripod) the camera matters more than the camera it self.

Best regards
Erik

I agree, I thought this was always silly until the last few years when full frame 645 came out and even back in the film days few people called that medium format.   Most companies advertised it as the "ideal" format, larger than 35mm for better reproduction with more speed and easier use like 35mm cameras, but medium format was always a minimum of 6x6.

I know people love there older and even newer 645 cameras and I can appreciate that, but I always found it kind of strange to have a tiny 645 digital film frame, stuck on the back of a big 6x7 body.

I personally don't care, but I know I didn't sell my p21+ though it got three times the use of the p30+ because it shot faster, more like Contax film per second speed.

That's why this section of the forum always confused me.   As I said it originally was just for more advanced photography, either technical or artistic because of the cost buy in for higher end equipment.

Today, it's moved to something different and honestly I don't know what that is, but when you see someone like CB that loves equipment and owns more in one set of re barraled Leica R lenses for Cinema, take a Sony that cost less than his RED cameras viewfinder, you know he didn't change because the Sony is inferior or not workable.

IMO

BC

[Ken R]

I agree, I thought this was always silly until the last few years when full frame 645 came out and even back in the film days few people called that medium format.   Most companies advertised it as the "ideal" format, larger than 35mm for better reproduction with more speed and easier use like 35mm cameras, but medium format was always a minimum of 6x6.

I know people love there older and even newer 645 cameras and I can appreciate that, but I always found it kind of strange to have a tiny 645 digital film frame, stuck on the back of a big 6x7 body.

I personally don't care, but I know I didn't sell my p21+ though it got three times the use of the p30+ because it shot faster, more like Contax film per second speed.

That's why this section of the forum always confused me.   As I said it originally was just for more advanced photography, either technical or artistic because of the cost buy in for higher end equipment.

Today, it's moved to something different and honestly I don't know what that is, but when you see someone like CB that loves equipment and owns more in one set of re barraled Leica R lenses for Cinema, take a Sony that cost less than his RED cameras viewfinder, you know he didn't change because the Sony is inferior or not workable.

IMO

BC

When I worked with film I used 35mm or 6x7. I never even owned or used 645. To me it was too close to 35mm even though there was a difference. But 6x7 offered a very unique look. With digital I did not have a choice since we all know the 60MP Dalsa chip is the largest available. So that is what I got. I find it just large enough to see a good difference from the 35mm size DSLRs. However, I would love a 6x7 digital camera. Doubt we are ever going to see one in the market.

[jduncan]

Manoli,

 Let me interpret that for J: A quantum jump is usually the smallest possible detectable change of state

Scientist and their precise interpretations

 I guess he will soon post that the A7RII is the Jcam, and then this forum will dissolve in bansmoke
Bansmoke ?  Very creative.

Edmund

[gazwas]

Medium format in the film days basically meat a significant jump up in quality from the 35mm films of the day. This does not hold true any longer and personally think the emphasis on what format you shoot has no relationship to the quality of work produced. Gear heads on here get so wrapped up in discussion (argument) defending MFD, Leica, Alpa or what ever, when in reality its all just hot air. I'm not bothered any longer what camera brand people choose to use, just as long as they can enjoy it, share and respect other peoples choices.

[yashima]

My opinion is different. Format standardisation is important, the main reason being lens coverage.

Lens are often the most expensive part of our purchase, and they are always optimised for specific image circle. We don't want our lenses to be obsolete with a new format in town.

My preference of shooting MF is actually not much to do with image quality, but viewfinder. For me, viewfinder is defining in image making process, it isolate and concentrate your focus, and large optical viewfinder is not replaceable. Secondly, I also like the fact that most MF has a very limited but definitive lens line, about 7-8 lenses for the whole line and most of them of stellar quality. For any 35mm system, there must be about 1 millions compatible lens, and that does nothing good for my OCD.

There should be a different in quality from 35mm to MF though, because what ever advances they make in 35mm, that can be applied into MF with additional advantage of bigger photo wells, lenses do not have to resolve tiny pixel pitches etc ... The reason its not as clear cut as it should be, is because MF manufacturers are tiny in comparison with 35mm's, with limited R&D and shrinking market.

[torger]

While I do suspect that the pro market is shrinking, I think the enthusiast market is growing. Maybe even so much that it sells more MF cameras than before. China and Russia are new markets where you can sell this type of gear to. I have no hard numbers though. I do know that my Linhof dealer has seen a large increase of enthusiast photographers during the past 10 years and it seems to continue growing.

Professionals need to see to workflow efficiency and customer needs, while the enthusiast photographer may just want something different, even some luxury.

I'm an enthusiast photographer myself and use MF tech camera mainly for creative reasons and don't mind the slow workflow. The problem with my category though is that I'm price sensitive. No way I'm paying $35K for a back with slighly better image quality than a $3K 135 camera, so I'm playing the second hand game. I could pay $10K or maybe even $15K though, Pentax 645z is a reasonable price range. I hope Hassy and Phase will target my customer group more in the future, but I doubt it, I think it's the luxury segment that's going to get most of their attention. It's easier and less risky, as you don't need to scale up manufacturing volumes to get down in price.

[synn]

Medium format in the film days basically meat a significant jump up in quality from the 35mm films of the day. This does not hold true any longer and personally think the emphasis on what format you shoot has no relationship to the quality of work produced. Gear heads on here get so wrapped up in discussion (argument) defending MFD, Leica, Alpa or what ever, when in reality its all just hot air. I'm not bothered any longer what camera brand people choose to use, just as long as they can enjoy it, share and respect other peoples choices.

I know this horse has been beaten to death several times now, but there is a middle ground. Certain types of work and certain working styles require certain gear. If not, everyone will be shooting with iPhones now.

Quality of work and gear specifications are not mutually exclusive. The key is to find the synergy between both rather than obsess over either end.
"I don't care what people shoot with, I only look at the final output" and "I don't care what people shoot, I only look at the gear" are both very broad strokes that do not paint the final picture.