...and I'm out.

[JoeKitchen]

To me, right now, it is all about the experience and how the camera works.  

IQ is good, but a technical camera is still much better at shooting architecture then the T/S lens designs.  Having independent x and y movements and tilt/shift that is not dictated by how you need to shift is a real plus.  Not to mention the back shifts, not the lens, keeping my perspective in line.  I can never go back to working with those T/S lenses; I just never felt conferrable with using them.  

I was at one of the XF events last week and I really liked the camera.  (I really hated that my P45+ will not work on it and will not consider buying until it does!)  The way it felt in your hand was really nice; you could wrap your entire hand around the camera and really hold on.  The view finder was nice and large too.  

Before going, I was kind of skeptical with how well it would work with the WLF, being that the handle does not pivot.  But they added a button at the base of the camera so you could use it like an old Hassy, very nice.

They also had a Sony A7r boomed above the camera and connected to a TV when giving the demo, so we could all see the controls.  Afterwards, I picked up the Sony, and although I knew it takes a great picture, it did not feel nice.  The handle was not long enough so my pinky finger could fit.  Also, it was too thin; I had to hold it with my finger tips, thumb and the top of my palm.  My mid and lower fingers were not flush with the camera, which I could tell would eventually cause my hand to hurt if I used it all day.  

Sure the XF is heavier, but it felt more comfortable to hold.  My girlfriend felt the same way too.  

Of course, in CB's case none of this matters.  He is still using the Sony on a tech camera and never shoots handheld.  I think his system looks pretty cool.  However I just would not want to deal with a bellows camera outside of a studio and it does not look like you can attach the Sony to a plate camera.  

[Kolor-Pikker]

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.

This is actually part of the problem, more often than not we don't even know the IC coverage of the lenses we use, and format is instead based on sensor size, which as we can see has a tendency to be completely erratic. Someone put the Canon 85LII to a digital back and found that if cropped to a square on a full-frame 645 back, you have a usable image circle that basically covers 40x40mm - significantly larger than the 36x24mm is was meant for. If you were to measure the ICs of typical SLR lenses they would range anywhere from almost cropping in on the sensor to being several times larger, all within the same lens ecosystem.

[yashima]

This is actually part of the problem, more often than not we don't even know the IC coverage of the lenses we use, and format is instead based on sensor size, which as we can see has a tendency to be completely erratic. Someone put the Canon 85LII to a digital back and found that if cropped to a square on a full-frame 645 back, you have a usable image circle that basically covers 40x40mm - significantly larger than the 36x24mm is was meant for. If you were to measure the ICs of typical SLR lenses they would range anywhere from almost cropping in on the sensor to being several times larger, all within the same lens ecosystem.

Hi KP,

I think the reason for such difference in IC is about sharpness fall off near edge of IC. For a premium lens such as 85LII, Canon wants edge to edge sharpness, hence they have to make IC much larger than normal. For a lower end lens its perfectly acceptable to have some sharpness fall off, then they would make IC smaller.  They would reduce IC whenever they can, because it save on cost.

[Kolor-Pikker]

Hi KP,

I think the reason for such difference in IC is about sharpness fall off near edge of IC. For a premium lens such as 85LII, Canon wants edge to edge sharpness, hence they have to make IC much larger than normal. For a lower end lens its perfectly acceptable to have some sharpness fall off, then they would make IC smaller.  They would reduce IC whenever they can, because it save on cost.

Having used the 85LII for many years, I can tell you that there are few aperture steps below f/8 that this lens is sharp edge-to-edge, especially since it's meant to be use wide-open, where maybe the central 30% of the image is sharp (quite decently where it is though). If adding extra image field around the edges, thay are 99% likely to be out of focus anyway, and the sharpness is inconsequential, but it would produce a unique image.

Alternatively you have the Tilt-shift lenses, which some people have adapted to MF backs and are using them as more than a curiosity, as they still maintain edge-sharpness. I bet that if Canon released a square-format 36x36 sensor, a good half of their lenses, at the least, would still produce a decent image.

[geesbert]

To me, right now, it is all about the experience and how the camera works.  

IQ is good, but a technical camera is still much better at shooting architecture then the T/S lens designs.  Having independent x and y movements and tilt/shift that is not dictated by how you need to shift is a real plus.  Not to mention the back shifts, not the lens, keeping my perspective in line.  I can never go back to working with those T/S lenses; I just never felt conferrable with using them.  

I was at one of the XF events last week and I really liked the camera.  (I really hated that my P45+ will not work on it and will not consider buying until it does!)  The way it felt in your hand was really nice; you could wrap your entire hand around the camera and really hold on.  The view finder was nice and large too.  

Before going, I was kind of skeptical with how well it would work with the WLF, being that the handle does not pivot.  But they added a button at the base of the camera so you could use it like an old Hassy, very nice.

They also had a Sony A7r boomed above the camera and connected to a TV when giving the demo, so we could all see the controls.  Afterwards, I picked up the Sony, and although I knew it takes a great picture, it did not feel nice.  The handle was not long enough so my pinky finger could fit.  Also, it was too thin; I had to hold it with my finger tips, thumb and the top of my palm.  My mid and lower fingers were not flush with the camera, which I could tell would eventually cause my hand to hurt if I used it all day.  

Sure the XF is heavier, but it felt more comfortable to hold.  My girlfriend felt the same way too.  

Of course, in CB's case none of this matters.  He is still using the Sony on a tech camera and never shoots handheld.  I think his system looks pretty cool.  However I just would not want to deal with a bellows camera outside of a studio and it does not look like you can attach the Sony to a plate camera.  

The Sony 7 series first generation is not a pleasant camera to shoot with, especially with the shutter button so far on top that you can only reach it by distorting your hand. The second generation is much better in that respect.

I personally don't think a too much molded grip helps to hold a camera comfortably for a long time, it forces the hand into one position which is strenious. The Hasselblad H is such a camera, especially with the large standard zoom, what a pain to shoot for a long time, even in landscape, don't get me started on portrait.

I think a good example of a design which doesn't rely on a bulbous grip is the last iteration of Leica Film cameras, m6ttl and m7. when you look at them, one cannot imagine how nice the are to be held. the digital bodies got too fat.

I haven't had the change to hold the XF yet.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am mostly shooting on tripod so handholding matters little to me.

Best regards
Erik

The Sony 7 series first generation is not a pleasant camera to shoot with, especially with the shutter button so far on top that you can only reach it by distorting your hand. The second generation is much better in that respect.

I personally don't think a too much molded grip helps to hold a camera comfortably for a long time, it forces the hand into one position which is strenious. The Hasselblad H is such a camera, especially with the large standard zoom, what a pain to shoot for a long time, even in landscape, don't get me started on portrait.

I think a good example of a design which doesn't rely on a bulbous grip is the last iteration of Leica Film cameras, m6ttl and m7. when you look at them, one cannot imagine how nice the are to be held. the digital bodies got too fat.

I haven't had the change to hold the XF yet.

[Ken R]

At least on paper the Sony A7RII has the perfect sensor for most of the folks that constantly complain around here and it is priced right. It is BSi, which you guys asked for quite a bit, so it should work well with many many lenses even the older tech camera lenses, with movements. Dynamic Range should be through the roof and of course shadow noise should be very low and high iso and long exposure image quality should be superb. The only thing in question is Sony's compression of the raw data on the raw file. Also since It does not have an AA filter so a few of you are going to find false color / aliasing artifacts and complain although the pixel density is high enough that those issues will most likely be pretty rare.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Ken,

I put an order on it with a Batis 1.8/85 and a Canon 24/3.5 TSE. So I guess I will find out in a month or two.

Regarding Sony's raw compression I am quite familiar with the issue. Im not sure the Sony cameras I own have it. Let's put it this way, I have some basic understanding of signal processing and the raw compression in Sony raws gives me far less concerns than the lack of OLP-filtering.

Lets put it this way, bad OLP-filtering gives you artefacts on 100% of your pictures while Sony raw compression gives you problems on 0.01% of your pictures. Which is your main concern?

Best regards
Erik

At least on paper the Sony A7RII has the perfect sensor for most of the folks that constantly complain around here and it is priced right. It is BSi, which you guys asked for quite a bit, so it should work well with many many lenses even the older tech camera lenses, with movements. Dynamic Range should be through the roof and of course shadow noise should be very low and high iso and long exposure image quality should be superb. The only thing in question is Sony's compression of the raw data on the raw file. Also since It does not have an AA filter so a few of you are going to find false color / aliasing artifacts and complain although the pixel density is high enough that those issues will most likely be pretty rare.

[gwhitf]

One thing little mentioned that would keep me away from anything i've seen in medium format, is the limitation of the center mounted autofocus sensors. Yes, Pentax claims to have more sensors in the 645Z but they're really just a few sensors just a bit away from the center; nothing compared to the Canon 5DMarkIII.

What good is a million megapixels, if they're all focused soft?

Count me still very much in the Canon camp for the foreseeable future.

Last time I checked, focus is still a big issue, especially with digital.

Thanks.

[yashima]

Have you tried Hasselblad True Focus?

[Ken R]

Hi Ken,

I put an order on it with a Batis 1.8/85 and a Canon 24/3.5 TSE. So I guess I will find out in a month or two.

Regarding Sony's raw compression I am quite familiar with the issue. Im not sure the Sony cameras I own have it. Let's put it this way, I have some basic understanding of signal processing and the raw compression in Sony raws gives me far less concerns than the lack of OLP-filtering.

Lets put it this way, bad OLP-filtering gives you artefacts on 100% of your pictures while Sony raw compression gives you problems on 0.01% of your pictures. Which is your main concern?

Best regards
Erik

Looking forward to seeing your results with the A7RII.

So between the 5DS and the 5DSR you would pick the 5DS to minimize the possibility of artifacts?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The thing is that a sharp lens on a digital sensor will give a lot of artefacts. It is simple laws of math, question is if those artefacts are disturbing or not.

Gapless microlenses, like the ones on modern sensors, reduce aliasing quite a bit.

From what I have seen the OLP filter on the Canon is quite weak, so it does not really suppress aliasing.

Yes, I would choose the 5Ds over the 5DsR. It is good that Canon gives us the choice and bad that Sony and Nikon does not. Stopping down eliminates aliasing as diffraction acts as a softening filter. I would be pretty sure that aliasing would not be observed at f/11 the Canon 5DsR.

The enclosed image is from one of the usual test shots from Imaging Resource. All OLP less cameras show aliasing on that label. Nikon D800, D810, Pentax 645D, Pentax 645Z.

Best regards
Erik

Looking forward to seeing your results with the A7RII.

So between the 5DS and the 5DSR you would pick the 5DS to minimize the possibility of artifacts?

[synn]

The handful I times I've encountered aliasing, I've managed to fix it (sometimes not completely, but enough to get a decent print) with C1P.

Funny enough, the worst case I encountered was not with medium format, but with a Nikon 1 and its tiny pixels and AA filter.

[ErikKaffehr]

Well,

The lenses for the Nikon 1 are intended for those small pixels, so they may produce aliasing at larger apertures.

I can agree that colour moiré can be suppressed in C1P, but a properly designed system would not produce moiré. The best way to get correct rendition is to increase resolution. There will be no aliasing artefacts if the finest detail is properly resolved.

Colour aliasing is not the same as moiré, check sunlit hair on the enclosed images. P45+ processed in C1 (top) and LR6 (bottom). This was from my only portrait session in modern times.

Best regards
Erik

The handful I times I've encountered aliasing, I've managed to fix it (sometimes not completely, but enough to get a decent print) with C1P.

Funny enough, the worst case I encountered was nit with medium format, but with a Nikon 1 and its tiny pixels.

[voidshatter]

I'm thinking about putting my IQ 260 up for sale.  I have no idea what these things are going for.  Anybody have a clue?

Mamiya mount, mint condition & apprx 8500 actuations.  Since these were, what, about 35k new... If I couldn't get 25k, I'd just keep it.  Thanks for the feedback.

CB

It's good to see that you have moved on. If the digital back is not suitable for your use case then there is little point keeping it as it would just continue to depreciate over time. A rational decision would be to ignore the sunk cost and make the best for the future. Letting some non-performing assets change your shooting style or slow down your workflow is not a brilliant idea.

[eronald]

It's good to see that you have moved on. If the digital back is not suitable for your use case then there is little point keeping it as it would just continue to depreciate over time. A rational decision would be to ignore the sunk cost and make the best for the future. Letting some non-performing assets change your shooting style or slow down your workflow is not a brilliant idea.

Ya know, I think Void is right, less is more, in this case at least 5 A7RII bodies, enough to see you through several generations of equipment renewal

Edmund

[buckshot]

...what is a 'digital capture fee' - and will the amount ... charge[d] ... change as a result of ... using a different type of camera system ...

It's explained better than I can here. Since a capture is a capture, what is charged is (in theory) independent of the gear used.

[eronald]

It's explained better than I can here. Since a capture is a capture, what is charged is (in theory) independent of the gear used.

In that case, the number which you sell the back for in DOLLARS doesn't matter, what matters is how many CAPTURES with new equipment it buys you.

Edmund

[JoeKitchen]

In that case, the number which you sell the back for in DOLLARS doesn't matter, what matters is how many CAPTURES with new equipment it buys you.

Edmund

Digital capture fees basically covers post-production and (some) retouching work for the final images.  The actual camera used is of no concern.  It is pretty much the digital equivalent of film lab and retouching fees. 

Not counting my test captures, if I were to deliver 6 final images to my client, I would be charging them $750 for digital capture.  This usually covers all the work required for post-production. 

If the client wants serious retouching made to the images, then we would start to charge additional fees.  For instance, when shooting the image below, the MRI machine had not yet be completely unpacked, and would not be until Siemens came back to calibrate the machine.  Considering it was a $10M+ machine, nobody wanted to remove the wrapping and we considered unwrapping it in post.  This was far beyond the work I include in my digital capture, not to mention something I could not do myself.  In the end, it was too much money to "unwrap" the machine in post, especially since this was more of a documentary shot to be used internally, not a main marketing image. 

[David Eichler]

It's explained better than I can here. Since a capture is a capture, what is charged is (in theory) independent of the gear used.

If I understand the explanation you cited correctly, the "capture" fee is, in part, based on the cost of the equipment used to create the digital file.