Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Why Medium Format?  (Read 40045 times)

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2016, 04:37:19 pm »

Thanks for presenting the question in terms of "what sort of work requires..." and not "who requires..." :)
Now let's also remove the element of cost and focus only on the system...
So instead of asking: "what sort of work and output requires $50,000 camera system"
Let's ask: "what sort of work and output requires a 80-100MP MFDB camera system"

The type of work that requires such equipment is the work done by the likes of Edward Burtynsky (documentary landscape), Thomas Struth (contemporary), Richard Misrach (contemporary landscape), Richard Avedon (Portraiture), Victoria Sambunaris (contemporary landscape), Brett Weston (abstract landscape), Ansel Adams (traditional landscape), Hiroshi Sugimoto (seascapes)... even Peter Lik (colorful landscape) and Rodney Lough (colorful landscape)...  etc. etc.

Looking at printed works of these artists, in museums and/or galleries, makes it very clear that such work requires a different type camera system. I understand some of the names I mentioned passed away before the MFDBs even existed - but I am saying that is the 'kind of work' that requires MFDB equipment.
So that's really my answer to your question. 

Now, obviously not everyone "pro" or "wealthy amateur" [I hate that term], who owns such equipment is at the level of the esteemed names I mentioned, but many are interested in doing that 'kind of work'. Many are inspired to do something more significant and in that pursuit, they choose such equipment.

Add to this Andreas Gursky... 

I'm afraid though its not done like you think... Artists hardly use digital backs and if they do, the outcome is mostly out of lower res backs with techniques that are unique to them and very much different to "stitching" as known to PS... Some out of the most famous even use multiple cameras with different lenses on them as to get the results you see on museums and galleries...

You have no idea how far trolling can get in forums... I was present in a "conversation" here in Lula some years ago, where some trolls where posting all shorts of nonsense like "Gursky dropping film in favor of a ....P1 80mp back"! ....and his recent work being out of it! I guess if Andreas was using a digital back he would know it himself!
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: Why Medium Format? Some reflections…
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2016, 05:16:51 pm »

Hi,

The discussion may turn about some issues:

  • Who needs 100MP
  • Does MFD give some specific advantages beyond physics? Is there an MFD magic?

Neither question is really easy to answer. Some posters would argue that 12, 24 or 37 MP are quite enough to any size print, at least with viewing distance taken into account. My experiments sort of indicated that viewpoint making some sense. I was not able to observe meaningful differences between say 24 MP 24x36 and 39 MP P45+ in A2-size prints without a loupe, at least regarding detail. 

On the other hand, I may have observed a weak advantage of the P45+ over say the A7rII at longer viewing distances. Very clearly, would I put two 80x120 cm prints side by side I would not be able to observe the difference. Flipping small crops at short distance, maybe…

If you compare present generation Sony sensors, like the one in the IQ350 and the IQ3-100MP with Sony's present generation of sensors, MFD sensors have the advantage of size.
This thread on GetDPI gives some perspective: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/59021-some-reflections-my-v-series-hasselblad-p45-kit.html

MFD fans may claim that MFD sensors provide better colour, which may or may not be the case. There are obviously differences in colour rendition between my P45+ using C1 and my Sony A7rII using Lightroom. Question is how much of that is profiles and how much is sensor dependent.  My choice is to use home generated profiles with both the P45+ and the Sonys. What I may find is that there may be a colour difference beyond WB (which plays a major role) and colour profiles. But some guys more knowledgeable than me say that colour rendition is 90% profiling and 10% hardware.

This thread covers some of that issue, with a lot of good input from knowledgeable folks on both sides: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/59120-capture-one-lr6.html

Now, smaller formats are getting better all the time. Canon has been revamping it's lens line for high res sensors for a long time and we now have some very nice lenses from Zeiss like the Otus, Milvus and Batis lens lines. So, question is if it is better to spend a set of great 24x36 lenses and a good 24x36mm camera or spend much more on an MFD system.

MFD-backs have often been used with technical cameras or optical bench devices, but modern sensors don't play that well with large format lenses designed for film as sensors don't like oblique beam angles.

Quite a few users have switched from MFD backs on bellow type cameras to smaller systems using MF or Canon lenses with a high MP-count 24x36 body.

The question is of course where 24x36 mm is bound. APS-C seems to stopped around 24 MP right now, that is about 50-55 MP on 24x36 mm. Rumors used to say 70-75 MP for next generation 24x36, it is a bit more than what I would expect for Photokina this year.

Personally, I am pretty sure I am reducing P45+ usage, the Sony system delivers what I need and has a lot of flexibility. Around 40 MP seems to be plenty for my kind of work, the area where I think smaller pixels are beneficial is the reduction of aliasing, that is fake detail any sampling system produces when system resolution is below input resolution. Calculations show that something like 2.5 micron sensors are optimal with Otus-class lenses.

I would say that the original question is a good one that any photographer on a budget needs to ask himself/herself and the answer may be different depending on needs.

Just to mention, I use two Contax RTS era Zeiss zooms, 28-85/3.3-4 and 35-135/3.3-4.5. Both these lenses deliver very good results on the Sony A7rII. The reason I use them that they have manual aperture control.

Best regards
Erik

 
« Last Edit: August 08, 2016, 05:21:16 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

landscapephoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 622
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #22 on: August 08, 2016, 05:36:51 pm »

I am an amateur photographer x 30 years. I shoot moderate to high end 35mm equipment. I recently switched from LR to Capture One and gained some exposure to Phase One's camera equipment which is very interesting particularly their new 100mp back.

I understand that this type of equipment is primarily used by professionals. I know a number of talented professionals (journalists, wedding, portrait, artists etc) and none of them used MF digital although some of them used MF film in the past.

So I'm wondering (genuinely, I'm not trolling here) what sort of work and output requires $50,000 camera systems (over and above 35mm digital systems with 30-50mp sensors) and why. I posted this question on the Phase One forums but got no reply. Most of the discussion there was purely technical of course.

Any insight appreciated.

High resolution digital backs are very popular for digitising museum collections and for aerial photography. And not always in the visible band. You may know some professional photographers, but there is a world beyond "journalists, wedding, portrait, artists...". Just saying.
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Why Medium Format? Some reflections…
« Reply #23 on: August 08, 2016, 05:44:33 pm »

Hi,

The discussion may turn about some issues:

  • Who needs 100MP
  • Does MFD give some specific advantages beyond physics? Is there an MFD magic?

Neither question is really easy to answer. Some posters would argue that 12, 24 or 37 MP are quite enough to any size print, at least with viewing distance taken into account. My experiments sort of indicated that viewpoint making some sense. I was not able to observe meaningful differences between say 24 MP 24x36 and 39 MP P45+ in A2-size prints without a loupe, at least regarding detail. 



Your "experiments" involve different sensors of different technology, different age, different logic in their processors and different optics used.... Nobody ever said that (as far as I can remember) that 12 or 24 or 37 or any other pixel count is enough for any size of print...

What I have said, is that the quality of a pixel matters more than the quantity of them and then that if one has a butch of (near) "perfect" pixels, he can SAFELY print at 72ppi having a print that is (nearly) as sharp as it can be...

If I may repeat then, 72ppi means that the print will have nine pixels in one square mm included and then viewed from a distance of 27cm that is the minimum an eye can focus... It is EXACTLY THE SAME as one trying to discriminate between 9 squares of 30cm each packed in one square meter and then placed 270 meters away.... Can one see them? Now if printing resolution is for 16 pixels included in one square mm (which means nearly 90 ppi required) one would be required to be able to see and discriminate between 16 squares of 25cm each packed in a square meter and placed ...270 meters away....

That's why pros don't care on resolution of sensors but only on the "per pixel quality" of them... They know that its avoiding artifacts, having pixels of good definition and good glass that will provide the material for a great print and then they ensure that the printing technique followed is the one that will achieve the best results.... 
« Last Edit: August 08, 2016, 05:58:26 pm by Theodoros »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #24 on: August 08, 2016, 06:06:06 pm »

Hi,

Good point on both issues.

Best regards
Erik


High resolution digital backs are very popular for digitising museum collections and for aerial photography. And not always in the visible band. You may know some professional photographers, but there is a world beyond "journalists, wedding, portrait, artists...". Just saying.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2016, 06:09:32 pm »

High resolution digital backs are very popular for digitising museum collections and for aerial photography. And not always in the visible band. You may know some professional photographers, but there is a world beyond "journalists, wedding, portrait, artists...". Just saying.

If by "high resolution backs" you mean "high resolution single shot" backs, then it can be the case if (and only if) the museum director or the committee to decide are complete ignorants, or they just "want to direct"  ;) the job to a specific contract maker that is a "friend"... All major work that is digitized in major museums, (Belvenderre, Louvre, Vatican, Florence ...etc) is done in absolute color profiles and by using "true colour" devices for capturing like multishot backs...
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #26 on: August 08, 2016, 06:29:49 pm »

If by "high resolution backs" you mean "high resolution single shot" backs, then it can be the case if (and only if) the museum director or the committee to decide are complete ignorants, or they just "want to direct"  ;) the job to a specific contract maker that is a "friend"... All major work that is digitized in major museums, (Belvenderre, Louvre, Vatican, Florence ...etc) is done in absolute color profiles and by using "true colour" devices for capturing like multishot backs...

And here I was thinking that the "culture" industry is all about friends. All those nice young people with art history degrees at those collections doubtless belong to working-class families?

Anyway, my feeling is that these days there are more second-tier and third-tier institutions with material to digitize, and they need solutions too. I have no doubt someone will in due course make something that works for the local librarian or archivist, or even antique dealer  with an interest in photography but no budget.

Edmund

« Last Edit: August 08, 2016, 06:37:31 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

voidshatter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400
    • www.500px.com/voidshatter
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #27 on: August 08, 2016, 06:40:40 pm »

I got into it because I wanted ..., shallower dof ...

-Doug

Unfortunately digital medium format won't offer shallower DoF when compared against Canon/Nikon/Sony's 35mm cameras and lenses.
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #28 on: August 08, 2016, 06:51:20 pm »

And here I was thinking that the "culture" industry is all about friends. All those nice young people with art history degrees at those collections doubtless belong to working-class families?



The thing is that with major stuff there is a technical report file submitted with the application which makes it difficult  for whatever "relations" (or corruption) to overcome as one can then appeal to the courts against a "smelly" decision (lets not forget that the money involved aren't exactly the average photographer's income)...

Then there is past work results too which are used with the application... So it gets difficult for corruption to go against the institutions own interest as there is past experience to them with appeals filed in courts which can cause the career of a committee member... (and ultra high compensation to the victim and even high loss for the "friend"). I know things in the States aren't as "careful" as in Europe though...   ;)
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9397
    • Flicker photos
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #29 on: August 08, 2016, 06:57:19 pm »

Clyde Butcher who spent most of his life shooting large format film, recently switched to the Sony A7Rii because he was having trouble carry the heavy film equipment.  With the A7Rii, I saw some pretty spectacular large prints comparable to his film prints.  Of course he stitches multiple shots and uses medium format lenses on this camera combined with a Cambo Aptus bellows.  This allows tilts gaining him greater depth of field.  I guess everyone does what they feel they need to do.  Some people drive an SUV or a pickup and find them very useful.  Others look at them and scratch their heads.

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2016, 07:57:38 pm »

I'm the OP. Thanks for all the replies. They help. A couple of comments:

I was not trolling. Just curious. Did not intend to start any arguments.

Someone asked if I'd ever shot MF film. No. I've scanned some but never had the equipment. I've pretty much left film behind and no longer have my dark room equipment. Have come close to purchasing a low end large format rig and processing equipment again but have not pulled the trigger.

As for the Ferrari analogy, I get it. I'm a high performance driving instructor. I drive a 9 year old Nissan on the track. If I was wealthy enough to buy a Ferrari the same way I can buy a used Nissan, then I'd have one. The same goes for camera equipment. I understand that there are lots of reasons to buy camera equipment. Look, feel, nostalgia, price, tech specs, whatever floats your boat and makes you happy. Nothing wrong with any of that. For a very wealthy man a $50k camera system is nothing.

As for large print artists, I am a fan of Adams, Clyde Butcher and Sally Mann. I understand the appeal, capabilities and limitations of large format. I can also understand why a man Clyde's age (and size) might move to MF.

I can understand how a high end MFD system would be useful for really large prints. I would love to do large prints one day but that is a whole other cost constraint in itself.

yaya, thanks for the links. I've seen some of the videos. Afraid to look at more. My wife already has a hard time understanding my Nikon equipment.

Anyway, thanks for the replies. I have a better understanding now.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #31 on: August 08, 2016, 09:14:36 pm »

Now that the OP is happy we can change the topic :)
I'm just watching old Inspector Lewis episodes, and there are open shade and full sun mixed in frames, and no burnout - film was wonderful :)

Edmund

I'm the OP. Thanks for all the replies. They help. A couple of comments:

I was not trolling. Just curious. Did not intend to start any arguments.

Someone asked if I'd ever shot MF film. No. I've scanned some but never had the equipment. I've pretty much left film behind and no longer have my dark room equipment. Have come close to purchasing a low end large format rig and processing equipment again but have not pulled the trigger.

As for the Ferrari analogy, I get it. I'm a high performance driving instructor. I drive a 9 year old Nissan on the track. If I was wealthy enough to buy a Ferrari the same way I can buy a used Nissan, then I'd have one. The same goes for camera equipment. I understand that there are lots of reasons to buy camera equipment. Look, feel, nostalgia, price, tech specs, whatever floats your boat and makes you happy. Nothing wrong with any of that. For a very wealthy man a $50k camera system is nothing.

As for large print artists, I am a fan of Adams, Clyde Butcher and Sally Mann. I understand the appeal, capabilities and limitations of large format. I can also understand why a man Clyde's age (and size) might move to MF.

I can understand how a high end MFD system would be useful for really large prints. I would love to do large prints one day but that is a whole other cost constraint in itself.

yaya, thanks for the links. I've seen some of the videos. Afraid to look at more. My wife already has a hard time understanding my Nikon equipment.

Anyway, thanks for the replies. I have a better understanding now.
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

NickT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 268
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #32 on: August 08, 2016, 09:20:26 pm »

You have no idea how far trolling can get in forums...

LOL
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13542
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2016, 10:11:39 pm »

LOL

Indeed, I have been laughing for a few hours on this one... :)

Cheers,
Bernard

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: Why Medium Format? Colours…
« Reply #34 on: August 09, 2016, 01:42:31 am »

Hi,

Here are a couple of samples I shot on travel a few days ago with my P45+ and my Sony A7rII.

  • Left side: P45+ processed in C, top with WB on white bird bottom with WB set to FLASH
  • Right side:P45+ on top and A7rII at bottom. Both processed in Lightroom using profiles generated by DCamProf and WB on white bird

The A7rII image here is using tilt to get all gravestones in focus. The P45+ image has focus on the gravestone with name jack, it is a part of a series of images to be stitched. Images taken with a Contax 35-135/3.3-4.5 at 135 mm and f/11 on the A7rII and a Sonnar 180/4 at f/11 on the Hasselblad. The lenses are probably equally old.

Raw images are here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/p93qdzl4m8myk8e/_DSC6703.dng?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/iut10y7w60xaev1/CF047249.dng?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hkzpvmsi1l0b0l7/CF047249.eip?dl=0

No great idea to compare sharpness, as the P45+ image has a single plane of focus while the A7rII has a tilted focus plane, I enclose a different crop where focus is near optimal on the A7rII. Both images are around 34 MP after crops.

A side note is that there is a water shortage on Gotland (Sweden) where this pictures were taken so irrigation is very limited, which may affect the colour of the grass.

Note that in C1 processing the flowers turn blue with WB sampled from image. Also note that ambition here was more to make similar processing than a really good one that may be hard to reproduce with another raw processor.

This doesn't say much about modern 100 MP backs and lenses, it is more about the existence of MFD magic or CCD magic.

Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: August 09, 2016, 03:45:18 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Hywel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
    • http://www.restrainedelegance.com
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #35 on: August 09, 2016, 04:13:09 am »

I'm a working professional, mostly shooting people.

I have and regularly use a Hasselblad H3D-31ii and a Sony A7Rii. I also have an assortment of Canons and a Panasonic GH4.

All are great cameras.

The Sony has a wider "shooting envelope"- available light at ISO800, F/1.8, 1/60th of a second with IBIS is a light level so low that the Hasselblad essentially cannot form a useful image for my particular shooting style. So my use of it is more demanding than my use of the Hasselblad, where I throw in a ton of light from flash before I get started, so I'm at 1/400th, ISO 80, F/8.

Nonetheless, I prefer the images from the Hasselblad even when using the Sony in similarly brightly-lit studio settings. The main reason is the colour rendition, which I find more pleasant from the Hasselblad plus Phocus than from the Sony plus Aperture or Capture One. The Hasselblad holds on to skin tones better in mixed lighting scenarios, in my experience, and generally gives better renditions of tricky colours like very saturated purples and indigos.

I don't know at what stage in the chain the critical differences come in- could be the colour arrays on the camera or could be the colour processing in software.  Theoretically it would be nice to understand why, but pragmatically I don't care- I just know that my workflow is significantly faster on sets of Hasselblad images because I need to do a lot less tuning of colours in post than I do with the Sony.

I prefer the colours out of the Canons to those from the Sony- and the rendition is much closer to the Hasselblad's, not coincidentally. I really don't like the GH4's colours for skin tone in stills (but curiously find them fine in video).

That's personal for me, at this moment in time, with the workflow I currently have.

But it is a strong enough reason that I'll be looking to renew my Hasselblad in due course rather than sticking to the Sony.

For landscape photography, the story is different. The Sony is my top pick for landscapes because of the detail and dynamic range, and I tend to push the colours beyond what the eye sees for my landscape work so the Sony does just fine there. It's just not as critical for me personally as the rendition of pretty girls' skin tones is for my day-to-day work.

So there's my personal answer.

Cheers, Hywel
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #36 on: August 09, 2016, 05:21:44 am »

Hi,

Good points. Just some few observations:

  • Hasselblad is known to have very good colour profiles in Phocus and they are said to keep colours similar across all Hasselblad cameras.
  • Regarding issues with saturated purples I have seen that with Capture One and I would regard it more as a C1 problem than a sensor problem. I see the same issue with C1 on the P45+ and with C1 on my Sonys. LR using DCamProf generated profiles doesn't have that issue.
  • The new Sony based MFDs should be very similar to the Sonys in msot respects, but profiting from larger sensor size.

The Hasselblad X1D is an interesting camera...

Best regards
Erik


I'm a working professional, mostly shooting people.

I have and regularly use a Hasselblad H3D-31ii and a Sony A7Rii. I also have an assortment of Canons and a Panasonic GH4.

All are great cameras.

The Sony has a wider "shooting envelope"- available light at ISO800, F/1.8, 1/60th of a second with IBIS is a light level so low that the Hasselblad essentially cannot form a useful image for my particular shooting style. So my use of it is more demanding than my use of the Hasselblad, where I throw in a ton of light from flash before I get started, so I'm at 1/400th, ISO 80, F/8.

Nonetheless, I prefer the images from the Hasselblad even when using the Sony in similarly brightly-lit studio settings. The main reason is the colour rendition, which I find more pleasant from the Hasselblad plus Phocus than from the Sony plus Aperture or Capture One. The Hasselblad holds on to skin tones better in mixed lighting scenarios, in my experience, and generally gives better renditions of tricky colours like very saturated purples and indigos.

I don't know at what stage in the chain the critical differences come in- could be the colour arrays on the camera or could be the colour processing in software.  Theoretically it would be nice to understand why, but pragmatically I don't care- I just know that my workflow is significantly faster on sets of Hasselblad images because I need to do a lot less tuning of colours in post than I do with the Sony.

I prefer the colours out of the Canons to those from the Sony- and the rendition is much closer to the Hasselblad's, not coincidentally. I really don't like the GH4's colours for skin tone in stills (but curiously find them fine in video).

That's personal for me, at this moment in time, with the workflow I currently have.

But it is a strong enough reason that I'll be looking to renew my Hasselblad in due course rather than sticking to the Sony.

For landscape photography, the story is different. The Sony is my top pick for landscapes because of the detail and dynamic range, and I tend to push the colours beyond what the eye sees for my landscape work so the Sony does just fine there. It's just not as critical for me personally as the rendition of pretty girls' skin tones is for my day-to-day work.

So there's my personal answer.

Cheers, Hywel
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Hywel

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 294
    • http://www.restrainedelegance.com
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #37 on: August 09, 2016, 07:49:21 am »

Oh and P.S. I find the leaf shutters in the Hasselblad invaluable for certain shooting scenarios: outdoors in full sunlight, to give me control over the exposure and saturation of the sky whilst getting the models perfectly exposed.

High speed sync flash on the other systems doesn't do the job because the power needed in a HSS flash pulse is too great. With the Hasselblad and two battery powered Hensel Porty flash units I can overpower full daylight by at least two or three stops. That's essential for one of my common shooting scenarios.

I agree, the Hasselblad X1D is an interesting camera! :)

Cheers, Hywel
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8815
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #38 on: August 09, 2016, 08:25:50 am »

Unfortunately digital medium format won't offer shallower DoF when compared against Canon/Nikon/Sony's 35mm cameras and lenses.

They will offer shallower DOF if one shoots approx. the same FOV, because a longer focal length will be used to produce an image circle and FOV that covers the physically larger sensor array.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

douglevy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 354
    • New England Wedding Photographer Doug Levy
Re: Why Medium Format?
« Reply #39 on: August 09, 2016, 08:26:53 am »

Plus, when I stitch panoramas at 2.8 with the 80mm, it gets way shallower way faster.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9   Go Up