Valid MF criticism or not?

[Craig Lamson]

......If I was the arguing type, which I am,...... [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Me too    I knew there was something I liked about you Mark, aside from your photography

[feppe]

It is a little bit of a sad state of affairs when were looking for something that might "do just fine" for the sake of convenience. Also with regard to people who justify writing a check for a MFDB for personal work, have you forgotten that photography isn't just about economics?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not just about economics? Plonking as much on a single piece of photographic equipment as a good car, diamonds for the missus and around-the-world trip is, indeed, all about economics for amateurs. Spending 1/10 of that on a dSLR instead is not about convenience, it's about using your head. For the vast majority of us the marginal improvement MFDB offers is just not worth it, and it never will.

Us amateurs without the aforementioned trust fund have to think about the economics every time we invest in our hobby. And before you say "it's all about priorities," there's not that many working people who can afford a good car, diamonds for the missus and around-the-world trip, let alone to forgo those for our passion.

Sad state, perhaps, but I prefer to live in reality.

[Bruce MacNeil]

Compromise -

Photography is in many respects the art of the compromise.

In my perfect world every picture would be captured in sublime spontaneity on 8x10 film with perfect waning light and heart rendering emotion. Rich in detail and subtle range of tones with saturation and contrast where appropriate. Every actor in the image a perfect mix of engagement and unaffect.

These features never exist together. We need compromise.

The Canon is an appropriate compromise in many instances as is the 8x10 view camera in others. A balance between what we are wiling to carry: who we are wiling to hire: how far we are wiling to travel or whose home we wish to invade.

I have shot an awful lot of large format film over the years (decades?) and always compromised. When someone would ask how I decided whether to shoot colour or black and white the most honest answer was always - when I have colour film in my camera I shoot colour and when I have B&W film I shoot B&W.

Also spent a lot of time kicking down doors with the view camera and way too many lights. Compromise. Then some bastard stole my view camera and I kind of bonded with the Canon. Now, that is a compromise. A teeny little sensor and some sanitary digital chip. No soul, no variance, no nothing - some sucking little thing that always yielded some sucking version of life.

Then after a while you figure out how that compromise works and a few decent images begin to appear to the extent that this is a pretty good choice for lots of kinds of pictures. Pretty good. Not terrific but it works. And, I am certainly not going to carry the Deardorff on the back of a horse in the middle of the Atlantic as  have with my Canons.

A problem people - hobbyists - have with cameras is that they are afraid to drop them in the water or let a lens hit the ground or throw the entire rig at a wall. Try that a few times - the repairs are usually not terribly expensive and what you lose in water-loggedness you usually make up in compelling images. So, what is a compelling image? Another thing that digital has done is inoculated a large portion of the populace against any molecule of empathy.

So now I think - MFD or more film or both? What the hell - the most tragic compromise of all is the unwillingness to be embarrassed or put out or simply use the dam,n thing on a regular basis.

Mark Tucker is right - the MFD is a pretty slight imitation of what would be possible with something about 8 times larger. And, why do we try so hard with the distressed image and film like quality when a few bucks in film basically give you a very filmic quality.

[eronald]

Hehe Mark, you make a clear and compelling argument.

 Let me summarize: Canon is lighter, faster, and more flexible that the MF gear and this HUGE usability advantage means it will deliver consistently in many situations where MF will stumble. And Canon is *very considerably* cheaper.

 But the above applied equally well to Hassy vs Nikon in the olden days.

 So what's changed ? Why would it have been worthwhile to shoot MF then but not now ?

Edmund

My point was, and continues to be: You can't make absolutes in this argument. If I was the arguing type, which I am, I could say this about these precious medium format files that you guys are so insistent on defending:

1. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you're shooting a camera body like the H1, that's got mirror slap like an angry ex-wife? You spend your thousands of dollars, and then you realize that the design of the H1 body forces you to shoot ambient or HMI at no less than 1/125th? I've shot tests, on the tripod, where I've got mirror slap at 1/125. Does the Canon do that? No.

2. What good are your precious 16 bits, if the back that you've bought recycles so slow that you miss good frames, (good facial expressions), when you're shooting people? You write a check for that P45 and you're waiting waiting waiting for the back to recycle, and pushing the shutter release, and having nothing happen. How frustrating is that? Does the Canon do that? No.

3. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you realize that the light is dropping, and then you reach and move the ASA up to 400 or 800, and the whole damn file falls apart? Does the Canon do that? No.

4. What economic sense does is make, really, to choose medium format, when back number one costs $27k, and then you realize you've got to have a back up? What are you gonna do then? Write another $27k check? Because what kind of a pro walks into a paying job without a backup system? And then, if you buy Canon for backup to MF, are you gonna drag around TWO camera systems and two sets of lenses? Maybe you, but not me.

5. For those landscape guys out there worried about megapixels, you can always stitch multiple frames together, with the Canon, to, in effect, double your megapixels, without writing the check for the MF back.

6. For what I read about what some of the guys on this board are shooting, can you economically justify writing a MF check for personal work? What kind of sense does that make? Are you all trust fund babies? For a lot of what I see here, why not shoot film and have it scanned, if you're after every ounce of detail on that tree branch?

---

I write all this in the spirit of hopefully assisting another photographer, who might get caught up in all the hype about medium format, when the Canon might just do just fine. We have to stop our old mindset of thinking of Canon as "35" and thinking of Hasselblad as "120", because now, they're clearly merging, in terms of file sizes. With proper sharpening and file prep, the Canon file can hold its own with MF any day of the week, if your deal is CMYK reproduction. Yes, maybe the P45 or A75 will be a little tighter, but unlike many people on this board who are so insistent about the superiority of MF, the differences, after reproduction, or on an Epson print, can be quite small.

Just one opinion. TEST FOR YOURSELF, in your style, before you write the check. It's a drag to waste money. I should know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[rainer_v]

here are to many words written from people who  try to improve their results  with better equipment,- and for the lack of knowledge they believe that "you get what you pay for it ".
you will never get the desired results if you think you can pay for being a good artist ... or that one could pay enough money and the results would be good or even just better images.
there is NO problem to make good photographs with nearly any camera out there if you know to use it and if you are willed to accept its shortcomings and to use these shortcomings creative.
if you do not know to do this not any **mp sensor with **bit dynamic might help you,- just the opposite because it will cut the time which better is invested in trying and learning what the tools you already own can give you.

i am coming back to this discussion although i did not saw sense to do this before, following the arguments which are discussed here,-  the main ( and only ? ) thing i fully agree is that it has been stated that different kinds of photography need different tools....  you also could hardly compare film work between the systems,-
it would have been just ridiculous to  say that a leica M6 is better than a linhof technikardan or vice versa.

 i myself have good reasons to work with mf backs, although i am able to create with my 35mm canon equipment images which can not be differentiated in normal usage ( prints ) from that ones i take with my mf  backs.

this comes mainly because i know to use my tools and my files,
i spent many 100 hours in learning how to use digital cameras and their files.
after being experienced with drum-scanning  i worked a lot in trying to press out the best possible result from 35mm digitals as the quirky kodak 14n and slrn,- but also from fuji s2 and canon 1ds,1ds2 and 5d,- together with all possible shift solutions which i could find. most lenses i sold immediately again, some i still hold. never i was content 100% because the lenses have not been enough free of distortion or showed other shortcomings,- compared to the 4x5" lenses i was used to use.
but i learned to correct unsymmetric distortions, to create noise-free sky colors and shadows, to add grain, to de-saturate partially, to stack and to stitch images.
most i did with critical eyes, which means i was not searching average results.
i started using digital cameras in my work, after i realised with my first digicam - the fuji s2 - that it allowed me an image language, esp. colors , which i could hardly get out of film.
this was interesting for me, so i bought a FF 35mm kamera, a kodak, and slowly by slowly i integrated digital images in my work. beginning with fast jobs or details, i improved my lenses and my knowledges how to treat the files.
i stitched, inverted color shifts, corrected moustache distortions and others , and shot digital for certain light situations and 4x5" film for others.
was very complicate but i could not leave digital capturing anymore- it brought so many new possibilities to me that i decided to learn for which it is good and for which not. and 4x5" work was complicate also, because i was one of the few architecture guys in germany who did not deliver chromes to the clients but files which i made with my scanmate 5000 scanner.

at the moment i am working, digital only, with an emotion22 and an emotion 75 as well as with a canon. the mf backs with shiftable lenses from 28 to 100mmand with a contax 645 with lenses from 35 to 210mm.
the canon with a set of shift lenses starting from nikon fisheye, 12-24mm sigma lens, 300 +  400mm manual nikon  teles over the olympus 24PC and a bundle of pentax 645 lenses with the zoerkendorf shift adapter.
with the canon 5d the shift lenses allow me to take images between 20 and 30 mp  ( stitching two or three frames). the workflow is not bad, esp. after the new PS3 release with its fabulous stitching possibility although i use mainly my mf equipment, because its more practical and delivers still better results or it delivers them more easy cause i do not have to stitch and the dynamic is somehow better.
 at the moment i "learn" to handle HDR images or i try out till which degree this technik fits in my style,- and which motifs cannot be treated in this way.

i have had enough publications where my shots have been mixed, 22 or 33mp backs together with images from the 35mm cameras ( which at the moment is i.m.o. the best ff 35mm camera out in the market ).
till now no one could see the difference between these images,- and you might believe it or not, these publications have been reviewed from many very critical people with critical eyes, but as i said before- i know also why my main used gear are the mf backs.

[vgogolak]

well, since so many have piped in after 12 pages, I thought I would share a top down perspective:

Products and pricing are like the stock market- not perfectly efficient, but close enough that fighting it is a losing game.

I also remember a sage friend ; he was about my age, 64, and I was about 30 when he told me this- and it has helped me deal with what so many here are dealing with-what you want, what you can afford.

He said there is 10 to 20 times difference between the 'best' of anything and something that 'just barely does it"

In cars, 15-20k (honda civic, etc) will get you a car (not Jugo!) and 150k to 200kwill get you the best (whatever that might mean. (like a top MB or a Bentley) [and sure, you can go higher with Maybach, Ferrari etc, but those are different animals. we are talkingt basic family like car] HOEVER, you will NOT get 10x in any measurable way like speed, longevity, capacity etc. - it will include a lot of intagibles. (remember these 'intangibles' when I discuss cameras below)

Along the way, $50-70k mercedes looks pretty good to most of us. No Honda, or Hundai no matter how luxurious is gonna be as good as a Merces. Lifve with it!
If you want but can't afford a MB, save, sacrific, or live with something less .

Now we have the 'Canon DSLR is as good as MF',  on and on....issue. Whaere does THAT fit?

I have seen the "Canon 5D is better than the Leica DMR. "L" or "MNOP" Canon lenses are good or better than Leica.


Sorry (and I know you will think this is elistist, but it is just reality) MF, $30k backs and Zeiss lenses are going to beat the pants off the Conikn stuff. Just as Leica lenses and M8 and DMRs will. They cost more, are better overall INCLUDING INTANGIBLES, (that we owners have a hard time explaining!) and yes, some of you can make a great living with Canikon gear. just as Hertz and cabs make a lot of money with Chevies. Only Paris cabs are smart enough to know a MB is best in the long run KNow why? They get to use them as family cars!

I can afford a MB, not a Bentley. I can afford a P45+, not a LF system with all the folderall (good folderall, I might add!  :-)

You know what I find? It is effortless! MF Contax 645 P45+ doesn't take hours - images are there- little sharpening, with C1 the product is great. Like any good tool, it feels GOOD in my hands. I may not take the best images from an artistic point of view, but the craft quality is there. GREAT resolution, color, 3D etc.

(Same with Leica and their dig cameras)

So, I have read all the comments, and fail to see why anyone would go so deep into someything that is so simple- in a relatively efficient world, and the camera MF/135 is, you will NOT get 2x or 5x quyality when you pay 2x or 5x. You will get that indefinable 'better' that lasts. Contax on my last trrip to europe still stopped people for comments (the , "I had contax-great stuiff etc) curiously they did not comment on the phase back just saying 'oh yes, good back. Works well with these lenses.,,,,)

You notice I provided no facts or figures. This is not a technical argiument, but a social  and historical one.

Those of you who paid $20-30k for a camera have little to fear from the under $10k camera, except if you expect  to be 'measureably' 2-3 times better. Better you are. And like me you should be deleriously happy that you can afford it.

best regards
Victor

[samuel_js]

My point was, and continues to be: You can't make absolutes in this argument. If I was the arguing type, which I am, I could say this about these precious medium format files that you guys are so insistent on defending:

1. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you're shooting a camera body like the H1, that's got mirror slap like an angry ex-wife? You spend your thousands of dollars, and then you realize that the design of the H1 body forces you to shoot ambient or HMI at no less than 1/125th? I've shot tests, on the tripod, where I've got mirror slap at 1/125. Does the Canon do that? No.

2. What good are your precious 16 bits, if the back that you've bought recycles so slow that you miss good frames, (good facial expressions), when you're shooting people? You write a check for that P45 and you're waiting waiting waiting for the back to recycle, and pushing the shutter release, and having nothing happen. How frustrating is that? Does the Canon do that? No.

3. What good are your precious 16 bits, if you realize that the light is dropping, and then you reach and move the ASA up to 400 or 800, and the whole damn file falls apart? Does the Canon do that? No.

4. What economic sense does is make, really, to choose medium format, when back number one costs $27k, and then you realize you've got to have a back up? What are you gonna do then? Write another $27k check? Because what kind of a pro walks into a paying job without a backup system? And then, if you buy Canon for backup to MF, are you gonna drag around TWO camera systems and two sets of lenses? Maybe you, but not me.

5. For those landscape guys out there worried about megapixels, you can always stitch multiple frames together, with the Canon, to, in effect, double your megapixels, without writing the check for the MF back.

6. For what I read about what some of the guys on this board are shooting, can you economically justify writing a MF check for personal work? What kind of sense does that make? Are you all trust fund babies? For a lot of what I see here, why not shoot film and have it scanned, if you're after every ounce of detail on that tree branch?

---
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark, let me answer:

1.- This is false. The H1 (or H2 or H3) is a wonderful camera, with great lenses a very practical design. This mirror problems are personal to you I think. I've never had this limitations. It has a powerfull mirror slap (love the sound with the shutter actually) but never interfered in terms of quality or sharpness of any kind.

2.- You don't buy a MF if you need a lot of speed. If in any case you need both, the speed and the quality, you buy a P21 for example. Great portraits has been taken with the V system too. My camera never decides when the picture is taken so a million frames per second does nothing to me.

3.- As I've been photographing 20 years I'll know when the light will drop. I've been using film a very long time to know the there's other options than changing the ISO. I don't think I'll never miss a shot because of an ISO changing. In any case, the best solution is to use your creativity the best you can.

4.- Flexibility is the history of medium format, and not compromise like someone said before. If the back fails you can use film. And is apropiate to have two bodies, actually cheaper than two Canon bodies. Anyway most of us have a car and take  a lot of equipment with us.... and there's also assis...  

5.- Why shoud I stitch exposures when my back can do it with one shot? This not an effective solution for some situations. The last seconds of a sunset? Water? or anyting moving.... You can stitch MF shots too...

6.- People (both proffs and amateurs) can buy what their money can buy. I don't see any problem with that. Also film is kind of history if you do proff assingments. Depending on what you do of course. But I can tell you, scanning and editing 10 rolls of portraits on film like I was doing a few months ago was not funny. And it's a nonsense if you can afford a DB. Also, more job comes today when the client knows that the files are almost for instant delivery and that they are not paying for film and developing and scanning...


But there's more, a lot more. A lot of us that use MF think in this way... Why should I buy a canon? A camera that delivers less quality than a DB? That won't let me put a film back if  I want? That has bad lenses that are outperformed by the sensor? That has a diminute viewfinder? That has way more speed that most of us need? That has millions of menus, settings and options that I'll never use? Than won't allow me to change the back when it's obsolete? Etc...

It's personal needs, but not anyone need to compromise.

Again, only my opinion.

[william]

6. For what I read about what some of the guys on this board are shooting, can you economically justify writing a MF check for personal work? What kind of sense does that make? Are you all trust fund babies? For a lot of what I see here, why not shoot film and have it scanned, if you're after every ounce of detail on that tree branch?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I recently took the route Mark suggested.  When I was running my own studio, I could (just barely) justify purchasing the Phase One P30+.  Since I've closed the studio and am no longer regularly taking paying jobs, I had to ask myself whether it made sense to keep the Phase.  The answer -- for ME -- was no.  Here was my thought process, FWIW:

(1) For the sporadic paid gig, the P30+ would be overkill in terms of megapixels (notice that I said megapixels, not "image quality" or "look").  The average client just won't see the difference.  If I were getting paid to shoot every day and could recoup the cost of the back fairly quickly, then I could justify a digital MF back if for no other reason than my personal satisfaction.  But absent that, it didn't make economic sense to have that much capital wrapped up in a tool that wouldn't present me with any tangible economic gain versus a cheaper tool.  Since I am most definitely not independently wealthy, an item of this magnitude needs to be financially justifiable for me.

(2) If in the course of my now mostly personal shooting, I get a paid job where I really think that digital MF would be required, I can just rent a back for that job.  Or, if its not a job that really requires medium format, I'll just shoot my 5D.  (Or Nikon D3, when I get my hands on one!)

(3) Despite the economics, I as a photographer really enjoy shooting medium format for my personal work.  It changes the way I compose and shoot and I prefer the look (not necessarily the "sharpness") of medium format lenses compared to most 35mm lenses.  But then I realized, I can still have those two things -- different shooting style and MF lenses -- by using film!  Since I started as a film shooter, this shouldn't have been a terribly radical realization.  But the last 6 years of shooting digital has really blinded me to even considering film for commercial or personal work.  (Again, for commercial work, the reality is that shooting digital is now the norm and I would therefore either rent a back or shoot 35mm digital for paid work).

So, I sold my P30+, but kept the Contax system and have been running some film through it recently and enjoying it.  I also picked up a small Hassy system as well. And since I still have my Nikon 9000 scanner, I'm good to go.

PS: You know what I miss most about shooting MF digital versus MF film?  The ability to change ISO at will.

[awofinden]

Not just about economics? Plonking as much on a single piece of photographic equipment as a good car, diamonds for the missus and around-the-world trip is, indeed, all about economics for amateurs. Spending 1/10 of that on a dSLR instead is not about convenience, it's about using your head. For the vast majority of us the marginal improvement MFDB offers is just not worth it, and it never will.

Us amateurs without the aforementioned trust fund have to think about the economics every time we invest in our hobby. And before you say "it's all about priorities," there's not that many working people who can afford a good car, diamonds for the missus and around-the-world trip, let alone to forgo those for our passion.

Sad state, perhaps, but I prefer to live in reality.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138086\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Of course it depends on everyones economic status as to whether they can afford a back or not but it's not entirely a return on investment decision. There is that little not unimportant idea of craft involved too. Many decisions in life aren't made from an economical ROI angle and this is obviously the case for a lot of keen amateurs and why should it?

[Ray]

Let me summarize: Canon is lighter, faster, and more flexible that the MF gear and this HUGE usability advantage means it will deliver consistently in many situations where MF will stumble. And Canon is *very considerably* cheaper.

 But the above applied equally well to Hassy vs Nikon in the olden days.

 So what's changed ? Why would it have been worthwhile to shoot MF then but not now ?

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138089\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Edmund,
Can I make a few suggestions as to the differences between Hassy film versus Nikon film situation, and the 1Ds2/3 versus MFDB situation.

(1) With both film systems you needed the body (and/or back) to hold the film plus a number of lenses. The Hassy system with lenses would probably have been significantly more expensive than the Nikon.

The price of the 35mm DSLR body has increased dramatically compared with a 35mm film body, but not so much that the cost of the lenses that people accumulate over the years is not of far greater value.

However, US$30,000 for an MFDB which basically just replaces a very simple and inexpensive device which used to hold the film, seems a bit excessive.

I think you could buy a Hassy body with a few good lenses for less than $30,000. If that's true, the MFDB becomes the jewel in the crown.

(2) The difference in sensor area between an MFDB and FF 35mm is just double. That's a relatively small step-up regarding format size. The difference in area between Nikon 35mm film and Hassy 6x6cm film is 4x.

(3) The nature of film is such that any increase in format size resulted in less noise, equating grain with noise. The larger the format, the lower the noise, the smoother the result. What's more, this improvement was proportional to format size, assuming the same film type was used. There was no 'law of diminishing returns' at work. With each step up in format size, the effective grain size was reduced relative to the image size.

It's probably true that there's a sense of slightly lower noise and smoother skin tones in the MF digital shot, at base ISO. I can accept that. But it seems to me you are paying an awful lot for such a subtle effect.

Please show me the differences between the Canon 5D skin tones, which you prefer, and the 1Ds2 skin tones so I can get an idea of the magnitude of the differences   .

[Jonathan Wienke]

Good for you if the people you show can't distinguish between both images, but I can and I value my work enough to want to have the highest quality files for it and am willing to spend for it. Maybe I'm just too idealistic...

I'm NOT talking about clients, I'm talking about people like YOU; participants in this thread who claim that the differences between DSLR and MFDB are sufficiently great that they can consistently distinguish the difference even in web JPEGs. And when it comes to actually demonstrating that claim, there has been an overwhelming silence from the people making the claims, even though several "guess the format" images have been presented in-thread, and a web site with a mixture of DSLR and MFDB images has been posted for interested participants to pick out the MFDB shots and explain how they were able to tell the difference.

Looking at full-res files at 100% in Photoshop, or 16x20 inch or larger Epson prints, yeah, you should be able to tell easily. But in web JPEGs, or even a typical issue of Vogue? Show me. Anybody.

[AndreNapier]

here are to many words written from people who  try to improve their results  with better equipment,- and for the lack of knowledge they believe that "you get what you pay for it ".
you will never get the desired results if you think you can pay for being a good artist ... or that one could pay enough money and the results would be good or even just better images.


[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rainer,
I did sign off on this topic but really felt compelled to respond to this statements of yours.
I have red the whole topic again and just tried to make sens what made you jump to this conclusion which is quite offensive to say the least. First of all I could not find one compelling reason which would make you a good judge of what an artist is or is not. Drum scanning and 100's of hours of digital training certainly are not qualifying factors. Granted, you are a very good photog in your field, great technition but I am not certain that neither knowledge is widely recognized as art expertise.
I am privilege to know  few great artists who strugle everyday to define themselves and the definition of an art. Every piece of their creation is born in pain and in doubt and luck of self confidence.
Before you will close this topic I would like to know who said these... too many words. I would like to know whom did you address.
People are on this board because they have love and passion for photography. There are countless man/hours spent to respond and share. I do not believe that ones higher status in photographic hierarhy is any indication of having always the right answers.
When I was nine my dad put his almost annual income in Poland to buy me a Pentacon6 for my first communion. By the age of 14 I was spending most of my folks money to shoot human face expressions on 8x10 film. Of course 35mm would do as fine but my parents wanted my to work with what was the best same way like other parents were buying fortepians for their kids while struggling to buy food for themselves.
When I came to age I decided that making money from photography would be like prostituting love of my life. I choose to ern money from different fields and in retrospect made a lot great investment choices that never interfered with photography. Throughout the years I was lucky enough to always be able to afford best tools at will. I took photography professionally  recently and very late in my life when I got board and burned with other fields. Although it will be long time before I will make my 51% of income from photography to truly qualify as a pro according to APA, in just first year I made enough money not only for the DB but also for the Big Benz to carry it and than some.
It really does not matter if one is a pro or amature. If you love to play violin buy the best that you can afford and practice. Don't let anyone tell you that at your level you should be playing with wooden box. Time and only time can tell. Remember if someone think that he is an artist, he is most likely not.

[a href=\"http://andrenapier.com]http://andrenapier.com[/url]

[rainer_v]

i agree, its offensive written,- offensive because here in LL are many photgraphers whose work i appreciate very much .......
to say names now is not fair also,  because its not my intention or wish and also not my role to judge or to hurt here anybody personally.
but reading again and again arguments as this 16bit thing <(*) makes me nervous.
here is so much dogmatism and "believe" in the game that i thought it isnt that bad to provoce a little bit.
i do not want to flame here blindly,- but i just could not find better words to express the impression which comes to me reading this 13-pages topic,- so full of speculations and believes.

ofcourse good images are not the domaine of "pros" or "amateurs" .
but i do not like dogmatism. and this discussion for me shows in many aspects a kind of "believe" in the more expansive technik, regardless for what its used and how its used.
also i resist myself very much to the frequently made statement, that people who think they are able to create images with "lower" end equipement as the canons ( or other cameras ), are somehow less critical or have less demand or a miss of "eyes".
users of canons have not to be sport shooters or people with less approach. to claim this  (direct or indirect) is b.s. and it makes me angry to read it so often. ..... as it would be a qualification to have a mf back,- mf backs used as a way of getting an entry card to some higher level of photography with hi approach.
it is not in this way.
eyes and knowledge are the basics, not mf backs.

personnally i doubt that a bigger car is such a better or more intelligent investment than a mf back ( or some expansive audio equipment ). also i do not have so big problems with the pricing of the mf gear, more upset makes me if the products are not ready or if the products are manufactored and sold with heavy issues and the manufactors negate these and go on selling.

(*)
 (not any mf back has real 16bit processing- all backs work with 14bit )

[thsinar]

For knowing Rainer well, I can tell that its intention was not to hurt, never, nor to pretend being an artist in comparison to others.

I understand well what he is trying to express. It is very simple, and it comes to what I have said here in this tread earlier, or in different other treads earlier and since month:

it is not important to speak about the gear you are shooting with. A good photographer will produce great images with any of it. "Good" means here for me "knowing" its material perfectly: its camera, its lenses or its digital back. Knowing its possibilities, BUT (more importantly perhaps) also its limitations. We all know that each system, each camera, each brand has its limitations, but to know them excatly and where or when those limitations are hindering your work, that is another story.

The best camera in the world, the best lens, the best DB will not create any acceptable or good image, or let's say better than another system, as long as you have not full knowledge of it.

To make a comparison: I am a motorcycle driver. When I'd got my license, years back, all my friends told me that I could now drive a motorcycle. My answer was "No, it will take me at the very least 15 to 20'000 kms to know my machine and to claim that I am a driver. I need to know the limits of this machine, and I need to know my own limits on this machine". And I can tell it know: it really took me these 20'000 kms until I felt "secure", until I knew excatly what I could do with it (due to its limitations or my own).

The same with a camera or any other equipment: test it, spend hours to test it, learn to work with it, learn all possible technics involved. This is where I fully agree with Rainer: it needs hours and hours of time spent with the camera and its digital back (or dsrl), with the files produced and how those files should be handled, post-produced, output, etc ... to give the best out of it.

Just buying the "stuff" (expensive or not, high-end or not) won't do the "thing", and that's Rainer's message, IMO.

Best regards,
Thierry

Rainer,
I did sign off on this topic but really felt compelled to respond to this statements of yours.
I have red the whole topic again and just tried to make sens what made you jump to this conclusion which is quite offensive to say the least. First of all I could not find one compelling reason which would make you a good judge of what an artist is or is not. Drum scanning and 100's of hours of digital training certainly are not qualifying factors. Granted, you are a very good photog in your field, great technition but I am not certain that neither knowledge is widely recognized as art expertise.
I am privilege to know  few great artists who strugle everyday to define themselves and the definition of an art. Every piece of their creation is born in pain and in doubt and luck of self confidence.
Before you will close this topic I would like to know who said these... too many words. I would like to know whom did you address.
People are on this board because they have love and passion for photography. There are countless man/hours spent to respond and share. I do not believe that ones higher status in photographic hierarhy is any indication of having always the right answers.
When I was nine my dad put his almost annual income in Poland to buy me a Pentacon6 for my first communion. By the age of 14 I was spending most of my folks money to shoot human face expressions on 8x10 film. Of course 35mm would do as fine but my parents wanted my to work with what was the best same way like other parents were buying fortepians for their kids while struggling to buy food for themselves.
When I came to age I decided that making money from photography would be like prostituting love of my life. I choose to ern money from different fields and in retrospect made a lot great investment choices that never interfered with photography. Throughout the years I was lucky enough to always be able to afford best tools at will. I took photography professionally  recently and very late in my life when I got board and burned with other fields. Although it will be long time before I will make my 51% of income from photography to truly qualify as a pro according to APA, in just first year I made enough money not only for the DB but also for the Big Benz to carry it and than some.
It really does not matter if one is a pro or amature. If you love to play violin buy the best that you can afford and practice. Don't let anyone tell you that at your level you should be playing with wooden box. Time and only time can tell. Remember if someone think that he is an artist, he is most likely not.

http://andrenapier.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[rainer_v]

some years ago i used 35mm mostly for taking details aside my 4x5" work, i used a leica r8 with some lenses and,- as private "little" camera because i like them,  a M4p and later a M7.
sometimes i visited leica forums in the net.
in this forums i felt often some attitude, which seems to me very similar what i review now here. ofcourse this attitude was not expressed by all the members of these forums, or even not the most,- but it was there,- some style i could find in the conversations in these (leica) forums which i think i find it here now also...

in some way between the letters allways i could read that if you have a leica you qualify yourself to be a good photographer, or at least you are part of some leica world.
 if you use a nikon or a canon.... well thats another world, not worth to discuss with these people seriously because they do not see and they cannot valuate the true and only quality which you owned with your fantatisc sharp and coma-free leica lenses.
it made me angry to read this b.s. and i expressed that sometimes. now i see a similar thing here,
and i do not like it more than in that time and i think it is not less ridiculous.
maybe i am wrong and just oversensitive, but this is what i see in this topic. ofcourse not in all answers and replies,- but for me this elite attitude is here in some degree that i do not like it.

and for me its too much if it is claimed repeated that its just a miss of good eyes if someone cannot see in any case how superior is a mf print. or how much more 3D are mf images or how much more plasticity they have. using 1 average or sub-average image which is posted from canon as a reference, shot at f1,8 with a 85/1,2 lens.
and telling people who have compared prints and gear and use both regardless of its price ( as me and others here are doing ) that they just dont see enough or are not enough critical.

[Chris_Brown]

It ain't whatcha got, it's whatcha do with it that matters.

[jjj]

Mark, let me answer:

3.- As I've been photographing 20 years I'll know when the light will drop. I've been using film a very long time to know the there's other options than changing the ISO. I don't think I'll never miss a shot because of an ISO changing. In any case, the best solution is to use your creativity the best you can.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138098\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can never know for certain re the weather. Ever!
I rented a H3 with a 39M back recently for a shot which I knew a 35mm Digital camera was unable to deal with that well. It was a group shot of seven hundred people and I needed every ounce of quality to resolve people as best as I could.
It was taken in July at 7.30 in Sweden, which from past experience has lots of light at that time. Even so I booked a couple of big flash heads and soft boxes, for fill light just in case. At tea time it started to rain and got heavier and heavier and heavier, but at 7.15 it started to ease off and out of the woodwork about 4-500 people appeared. I then had to wait a few minutes for the trio of VIPs to arrive and then the light vanished. Almost completely, it was like instant sunset.  So I had to set camera to 400 ISO, grabbed a couple of shots without even time to fine tune exposure and then it rained again. I had about 30secs to get the shot.
And I got the shot. But and it's a big but, the quality was abyssmal, for a £20,000 [$40,000] camera, the results were $%$ing awful.

What is the point of having an ISO setting that is so bad it's near unusable?

Not the sort of shot I normally do, but next time I may simply use a smaller sensor that can actually do decent high ISO images and then do a stitch instead.

[samuel_js]

You can never know for certain re the weather. Ever!
I rented a H3 with a 39M back recently for a shot which I knew a 35mm Digital camera was unable to deal with that well. It was a group shot of seven hundred people and I needed every ounce of quality to resolve people as best as I could.
It was taken in July at 7.30 in Sweden, which from past experience has lots of light at that time. Even so I booked a couple of big flash heads and soft boxes, for fill light just in case. At tea time it started to rain and got heavier and heavier and heavier, but at 7.15 it started to ease off and out of the woodwork about 4-500 people appeared. I then had to wait a few minutes for the trio of VIPs to arrive and then the light vanished. Almost completely, it was like instant sunset.  So I had to set camera to 400 ISO, grabbed a couple of shots without even time to fine tune exposure and then it rained again. I had about 30secs to get the shot.
And I got the shot. But and it's a big but, the quality was abyssmal, for a £20,000 [$40,000] camera, the results were $%$ing awful.

What is the point of having an ISO setting that is so bad it's near unusable?

Not the sort of shot I normally do, but next time I may simply use a smaller sensor that can actually do decent high ISO images and then do a stitch instead.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138163\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was talking about light, not weather, but I live in Sweden so this things about intant changes are very normal to me, believe me. In this case It seems to me that the problem was people not beign there at the time they should not the back. And if you're in Sweden, this just doesn't happen so often, specially if it's linked or depending on the weather. Always have a plan B here because the rain can appear in two seconds... But I see you point, if you've had a Canon.... But in the way  I see photography the problem had been the shot being taken i bad light conditions. If you see the  sky turning black what do you think? "I need 800 maybe 1600 ISO to fix this" or "this light won't work for this shot".  I don't know what the work was about but did it work to shoot 500 people under a very grey sky? I understand you trusted the back because it was given it'd be a sunny day... and that you knew 400 ISO in the P45 isn't the nicest option...

[jjj]

I used to be very interested in audio hi fi matters several years ago. I used to read hi fi magazines strong on advertising and subjective impressions but short on objective analysis. I always remember the occasion when one such magazine reported on a serious attempt to test the objectivity of audio experts who claimed they could always tell the difference between an exotic system with oxygen-free copper cables, ultra-expensive amplifier etc, and an ordinary but good hi fi system.

They each brought their own music, every nuance of which would have been familiar to them. They were asked to identify which system was in use as the music was switched between various system, some systems employing expensive amplifiers, some with cheap amplifiers. The speakers were always the same though.

The results were astounding. They were about as accurate as tossing a coin. However, there was one respect in which the results were consistent, but unfortunately consistently wrong. One particular system with a cheap Pioneer amplifier was consistently confused with another system employing a terribly expensive Mark Levinson hybrid amplifier which most hi fi enthusiasts would have drooled over.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

More expensive is not always better. I helped a friend buy some hifi gear and there were big differnces between the gear, even at the lower end she could afford. And just for the hell of it I also tried a CD player outside her budget - and it didn't sound as good as the less expensive players. Which made her happy. But I've also tried high and low end stuff and the amount of detail and quality of sound improvement you can get by getting better gear is phenomenal. You can hear instruments and sounds that are simply absent on lesser Hi-Fi. As for the test you mentioned, some gear simply doesn't work well together, even if the individual bits are good. A bright amp and bright speakers may well sound awful but a cheaper, but less bright amp and bright speakers may be a great combination. And sometimes less expensive gear is simply brilliant.

[eronald]

I have tested and used several generations of digital from phones to digital backs. I have made exhibition-quality non-digital looking prints from my Nokia N93 (3.2 MP) phone images, and frankly think I if necessary I could do full-page fashion magazine work with the new phones, with some Photoshop post, it's just a question of getting enough light, and converting to black and white.

From my subjective tests, I would say that the best of the current generation of digital backs is 2-3 generations ahead of the current digital full-frame (1Ds2), when used in decent light, and at least three generations ahead of the crop-frame prosumer cameras. In other words, about 4-6 years. The backs are not "better" than the dSLRs, they are just ahead on the color quality and resolution curve. Whether this translates into "better" images is anybody's guess: as my phone photographs demonstrate, postprocessing and art are great equalizers.

Edmund