Valid MF criticism or not?

[Morgan_Moore]

50lense   35sensor   3m focus   1.2aperture   0.26DOF   0.282COCat5m
80lense   p45sensor   3m focus   2.8aperture   0.33DOF   0.291COCat5m

http://www.stegmann.dk/mikkel/barnack/

Is a depth of field calculator

This example show an 80at2.8 on a p45 has greater DOF while blurring the background more compared to a 50 at 1.2 on a 35mm chip.

IMO the 3d effect is about getting 2point of subject sharp and the back being thrown more

----

Mark you seem big on checkin weight.

I wonder how you compare the wieght of say elinchrom rangers Vs 2qflashes and three Qturbos packs - about a quarter?

That is my 'flying' lighting kit - made possible by fast synch of my MF kit which cuts the required light output by a factor of roughly four if filling against a fixed ambient level

----

The economics of a 5d are of course fabulous and those of MF pretty poor - compared with what that money can buy - lighiting - and a great book - model hire client dining budget etc

I went MF when it would pay for itself in 'film' in 6 months - and the biggest non MF solution was 6 or 8mp - would I do the same now - who knows??

Times have moved indeed

S

[Frank Doorhof]

Hi,
Maybe you don't get how depth works (I don't mean disrespect).

Let's make it very simple.

When you photograph a white piece of paper lying on the floor front straight above no human soul can see the difference between a DSLR, P&S, MF etc.

HOWEVER
When you go in the forest in the goldenhours and make a picture with some nice fog and the light hitting the trees I think the story changes alot and alot of people will see much more depth in the MF capture.

It's not ONLY the light, it's not ONLY the MF backs.
It's the combination of both.

But actually that's 101 photography

[mmurph]

.. duplicate ..

[awofinden]

If it was only that easy, (and that inexpensive). You are not making note of the two sets of lenses, two sets of chargers, two sets of accessories, two sets of camera bodies, etc. That alone adds another potentially tens of thousands of dollars to the investment, when you're talking about medium-format.

I suggest that most anyone reading this could get by just fine with two 1ds3 bodies, five or six lenses, and that's it. Walk on the plane with one carry-on bag. That's very hard to do with Contax/Phase solution, especially with many of the smaller planes now in use, with smaller overheads.

Now that TSA won't let you Zip-Tie your checked luggage, it makes it very hard to think about checking backup bodies and lenses. My second assistant just flew out west, two weeks ago, and someone at TSA took his 5D and two zooms. When he got to Albuquerque, the slots were wide open, where the 5D and two zooms had been. And since you can't Zip-Tie your cases, there's no way to prevent this. Yet another reason to keep your kit small.

Since a few of you here seem to be independently wealthy and not concerned with economics, this part is for the rest of the crowd here: When you read stories about massive layoffs at both Corbis and Getty, and you realize that even the Stock business is in the tank, it does make a prudent person wonder whether it's wise for a young photographer to invest tens of thousands of dollars in MF bodies and backs, when they're depreciating at a very rapid pace. I got an email request from a major NY magazine last week that I worked for about ten years ago, and the editorial job offer was for $300 a day, plus a measly digital prep fee, and maybe a tiny amount for an assistant. It was all I could do to hold my tongue, and not write a nasty email back to her. If any bean counter did the math, and realized how much gear a photographer takes to a job, compared to a normal editorial fee, they'd have a heart attack, and immediately recommend you moving toward a career in Insurance or Appliance Sales. If I was a young photographer, just starting out, it simply is hard to justify investing in medium format, given the total cost investment, no matter how good the files are. At some point, the rent comes due...

Just one opinion. But my point is, in the Real World, there's a hell of a lot more involved in this decision that 12 bits versus 16 bits, or focus fall-off.

MT, http://www.marktucker.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138242\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I shoot the mamiya 645 afd which can be had for 2500 dollars with lenses and how many lenses do you need for the canon, a 24-70mm zoom pretty much does the job, thats actually 3200 dollars.
My advice to young photographers is to think of nothing but the images, do all you can to make the best images and for some visions that means a digital back. You do need to keep a roof over your head. Call me a romantic but it's a sad state of affairs when your advice to a new photographer hinges on ROI calculations.

[mmurph]

a few of you here seem to be independently wealthy and not concerned with economics, this part is for the rest of the crowd here..... 

...and the editorial job offer was for $300 a day...

Thanks Mark - I thought at least *you* were beyond such nonsense offers by now.    

I closed my studio 1 year ago due to chronic pain problems.  I already have $70K  worth of equipment. Rather than go to $100K with a MFDB, I would be better off selling it all and making an average 12% in the markets without having to work.

The economic realities of trying to make a living in this field really help you  decide when "good enough" is - enough. And, aside from commerical work, how often do you really need to do 40x60 inch prints? Are your images *worth* making large prints that large? And, really, who in the world **cares** about your personal work?       For me, the answer is "nobody".

Still, I tried to go back to film. Even at 4x5, I miss the clean, clear colors of digital.   I first saw that in a 2MP digital image a friend made at my sons BD party 6 years ago.  I was shooing 6x7 at the time and I liked his images better than mine - I *knew* I had to go digital to get that color!    

Plus the depreciation on a 1Ds3 is less than the cost of film per year, so that seems to be the sweet spot. Unless you can bill like Mark or some others here. I am just too old and tired to make a living in this field any more. Maybe a 40D is enough for me?  

Best,
Michael

[awofinden]

Thanks Mark - I thought at least *you* were beyond such nonsense offers by now.   

I closed my studio 1 year ago due to chronic pain problems.  I already have $70K  worth of equipment. Rather than go to $100K with a MFDB, I would be better off selling it all and making an average 12% in the markets without having to work.

The economic realities of trying to make a living in this field really help you  decide when "good enough" is - enough. And, aside from commerical work, how often do you really need to do 40x60 inch prints? Are your images *worth* making large prints that large? And, really, who in the world **cares** about your personal work?       For me, the answer is "nobody".

Still, I tried to go back to film. Even at 4x5, I miss the clean, clear colors of digital.   I first saw that in a 2MP digital image a friend made at my sons BD party 6 years ago.  I was shooing 6x7 at the time and I liked his images better than mine - I *knew* I had to go digital to get that color!   

Plus the depreciation on a 1Ds3 is less than the cost of film per year, so that seems to be the sweet spot. Unless you can bill like Mark or some others here. I am just too old and tired to make a living in this field any more. Maybe a 40D is enough for me? 

Best,
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey I've been hearing great things about the 40D, best thing of all is it's only a thousand dollars. Nice and light too. Now thats progress.

[mmurph]

Call me a romantic but it's a sad state of affairs when your advice to a new photographer hinges on ROI calculations.

Mark offered his creative advice in his post about Santa Fe.  I think he offered very good *business* advice in that post.  I have both a degree in photography and an MBA, and I would agree. Most photogs are sorely lacking in business acumen.

If a photographer has images that actually have important content - as opposed to the formal characteristics this thread has been about until now - their work will show through whatever they do, and they will find the means to make that work.

I remember a well known photographer showing his own 4x5 large format work, and then showing the work some 15 year old kids did with P&S's in a "Shooting Back" -type program he led.  The kids work blew his away, it was so vital and alive, v. his static, traditional, *boring* B&W LF images. So much for DOF and Bokeh.  

[mmurph]

Hey I've been hearing great things about the 40D, best thing of all is it's only a thousand dollars. Nice and light too. Now thats progress.

Yeah, reality check.  Time for me to stop thinking I am Alec Soth.        

Plus the dog got hit by a car and just had $3,500 in medical fees. I think my life has shifted to be more about my son and family than my obsessions.  Time for the nursing home.  

Best,
Michael

[Craig Lamson]

Hi,
Maybe you don't get how depth works (I don't mean disrespect).

Let's make it very simple.

When you photograph a white piece of paper lying on the floor front straight above no human soul can see the difference between a DSLR, P&S, MF etc.

HOWEVER
When you go in the forest in the goldenhours and make a picture with some nice fog and the light hitting the trees I think the story changes alot and alot of people will see much more depth in the MF capture.

It's not ONLY the light, it's not ONLY the MF backs.
It's the combination of both.

But actually that's 101 photography
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138253\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are trying to pee up a rope Frank.  You and others laid down this "the backs have a more 3d look" stuff and when called on it you defaulted to "its the bad light."  Gosh I do love watching people do the backstroke.  You do it like a gold medal champion.  I looked at those images in question and I failed to see that white seamless.  Where did I miss it.

But hey, what do I know about light and shadow, and creating the illusion of 3d in a 2d photograph?  I mean I've only been creating complicated lighting sets in the studio for 30 years.  

And if this 3d look is so special from a 645 sensor, then dang it must be amazing from a Betterlight back...right?

[Ray]

This example show an 80at2.8 on a p45 has greater DOF while blurring the background more compared to a 50 at 1.2 on a 35mm chip.

IMO the 3d effect is about getting 2point of subject sharp and the back being thrown mor

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Morgan,
I haven't tested the Canon 50/1.2 at f1.2 but I would expect the performance to be abysmal at that aperture. The DoF is so extreme with such lenses that people tend to ignore the fact that the resolution at the plane of focus is plain lousy. Compared to the blurred background, it might seem okay though.

I have no doubt that a good MF 80mm lens at f2.8 would be sharper, especially with a P45.

Canon also used to make a 50/f1. Wow! F1! I guess it was just too expensive for the resolution it produced at F1 because it's no longer made, having been replaced by the 50/1.2 which would presumably be at least a little sharper at full aperture than the 50/1.

[Mark_Tucker]

I own the Contax 80mm f2, and it's awful wide open. You have to get down to f4 for it to get sharp. It's so pronounced that f2 clearly renders this "summers eve" quality that, on some occasions, with some content, can be accidentally appealing, in this "Barbara Walters Diffusion Filter" kind of way. It renders like some old funky view camera lens with tons of abberration. Most of the time, though, it's not appealing; it's just bad.

I also owned the Canon 50mm f1.0, and it was awful too. I never sent it off to Canon Irvine to get calibrated, but I'd almost think that every 1.0 lens should be sent off for calibration to a particular body, because the DOF is so tiny. Even when you accidentally got it accurately focused, the DOF was so slight that, at first glance, everything simply looked out of focus. Even the "in focus" areas were full of nastiness. This is one lens that I sold too cheap; I could have gotten much more, due to the hype around it. Sadly, the hype was highly overrated. There are reasons that lenses are discontinued; that one clearly deserved it. A truly awful lens.

The 85 f1.2 wide open is a jewel. I have not shot the new 50 1.2, and don't plan to.

The lesson to learn here is, just because a company makes a lens to shoot at a wide fstop, it doesn't mean that it's anywhere near sharp at that fstop. Not even close.

[jpjespersen]

This seems like an argument between people who can afford MFDB and those who cannot and want to make themselves feel better.

[Chris_Brown]

My second assistant just flew out west, two weeks ago, and someone at TSA took his 5D and two zooms. When he got to Albuquerque, the slots were wide open, where the 5D and two zooms had been.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138242\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This makes me both nauseous and pissed.

I check everything. My strobes, cables, tripod, soffboxes and cameras all go through the portal. I carry on my data. Perhaps I should check the laptop and carry on the cameras.

"Excuse me. Sorry for bashing your shins with this hard-ass Pelican case. I hope it doesn't pop out of the overhead."

[mmurph]

This seems like an argument between people who can afford MFDB and those who cannot and want to make themselves feel better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138283\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Personally, I *can* afford it.  But I also understand cost/benefit analysis. And I don't want to do the work required to pay for the back.

I used to be fast track, type A, pagers and laptops. I'd read my e-mail at 6am before I even got out of bed.  Always connected, always turned on.

Ain't worth it anymore.

[Ray]

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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

JJJ,
I should have made it clear in my audio analogy that the comparison was not between whole systems of different quality and expense, but between exotic and expensive components such as amplifiers which, on paper, might all have differences, but which differences could be considered either inaudible to the human ear or completely masked by other imperfections of a far greater magnitude in the chain, such as the imperfections of loudspeaker and room acousticts.

In order to sell such components and persuade people to upgrade from a perfectly adequate amplifier to one costing perhaps 4x the price, it was necessary to bestow upon the equipment magical properties.

It was necessary for salesman and those in the audio industry to promulgate the notion that the scientific specifications don't tell the whole story; that there are great subtleties to be heard, extra 3-dimensionality etc that would flow on merely from the fact that the wiring might be made from oxygen-free copper in the more expensive amplifier, for example.

When I come across the frequent references in this thread to the extra 3-dimensionality of MFDBs, I'm reminded of this audio analogy.

If there's a sense of extra 3-dimensionality in MF digital photography, it's because of one or more or a combination of the following properties:

(1) MF sensors are higher resolving (more pixels).

(2) Are usually less demanding on the lens due to wider pixel spacing.

(3) MF lenses are probably sharper at the equivalent aperture and focal length required for equivalent DoF to 35mm. Ie. an MF 120mm lens at f2.8 is probably sharper than a 35mm format 85mm lens at f1.8.

To test whether I'm right or not, you would need to find two lenses of roughly equal performance at their respective FLs and apertures for equivalent DoF, but ensure that the MF lens exhibited slightly less resolution at a particular MTF in order to compensate for the wider pixel spacing of the DB.

If you were to use two lenses of exactly equal resolution capability at the same MTF %, the larger sensor would capture greater contrast at the plane of focus and therefore look sharper, even though the pixel count is the same. That greater contrast might well account for a greater sense of 3-dimensionality.

My audio analogy:

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.

[nicolaasdb]

I drive a Porsche...do I need it? NO!!.  I also got a BMW X5...did I need 15K in extra's? NO!! Did I need that diamond covered Breitling watch? NO a timex tell's me the same time and digital!! BUT damn if you can afford it life is so f'ing NICE! At least you know what you are doing it all for....for about 3 minutes and than you realize:
Can I do without it?? SURE...do I want to? NO! Does it really make my life nicer?? NO!!

Can I live without my MFDB? EASILY!! But it feels so nice to "whip it out!" and have the client drewling...and understanding why he got to pay you the big bucks.
Having larger files that are about 4bit nicer and no (or hardly no) crop factor is also nice.

What I am trying to say is that this debate can go on and on and on....for another 300000000 pages and it will never stop.

In the end the ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS:::::: GETTING "THE" IMAGE!!!! Terry Richardson shoots with a 'throw-a-way-camera"...Peter Lindberg with an old shitty 35MM camera...just to name 2 pretty damn good photographers (making millions!)

IT IS ALL IN THE EYE!!! And it is only the dumb ones....like myself....who need to prove themselves with the big"guns" (MFDB)....

Your image is only as good as your eye is!!          

And I sense that people are getting nasty......but just take an honest look at your work!! Do you really think that the images would have looked better with the MFDB?? or do you really think your images would have looked so much worse with a 35MM??? You know that if your images suck...you got to work harder and train your eye...trying to find the excuse in the equipment is BS!!      

[jpjespersen]

I don't want to sift through the 15 pages of text here to see if this has been brought up, but I think it is relevant to bring up the customer service issue.  I know that when my Nikon breaks or has a problem it usually takes 2-3 weeks for it to be sent in fixed and sent back.  Now with my new P45+ I will have a loaner back within 24 hours.
Also the fact that phase one offers upgrades to the newest and best for what I think is a reasonable price, is huge to me.  
I feel like DSLR's depreciate extremely quick, then when you go to sell them they are worth nothing,  this may change now that the megapixels are starting to level out.  But still I have never received the customer service from cannon or nikon that I get from Phase One, and for a professional with a lot of work lined up this is very important and worth the extra money alone.

[Mark_Tucker]

I know that when my Nikon breaks or has a problem it usually takes 2-3 weeks for it to be sent in fixed and sent back.  Now with my new P45+ I will have a loaner back within 24 hours.
Also the fact that phase one offers upgrades to the newest and best for what I think is a reasonable price, is huge to me. 
I feel like DSLR's depreciate extremely quick, then when you go to sell them they are worth nothing,  this may change now that the megapixels are starting to level out.  But still I have never received the customer service from cannon or nikon that I get from Phase One, and for a professional with a lot of work lined up this is very important and worth the extra money alone.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138297\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I swear to God I'm not being argumentative, but again, let's think about this:

Say that you're starting a job, and it's 10 oclock in the morning, and you're on Shot #2, of a planned eight shots for that day. It's 10 oclock am, and your Phase back goes down, and you're not shooting in Manhattan. Say you're shooting in Dallas, or any city where there's not a Phase dealer. So, your back goes down, and you turn to your client, and you say, "Uh, sorry, but our camera just broke, but we can get one sent to us by tomorrow, (if he happens to have that brand of camera body, ie Contax version or H version, in stock, on the shelf)". Your client turns to you, knowing that there are models booked, support crew booked, studio booked, catering booked, motor homes booked, so basically, at 10am, the day is over, and all that crew and support would have to be cancelled for that day.

Are YOU going to write that check for those cancellations for that day? (The answer is no).

So what do you do? You either own TWO phase one backs, or you whip out your Canon, (but the files and the workflow will be different).

Or, you just buy TWO 1ds3's for the price of one P21+, and when the camera breaks, you quietly reach into the Pelican and whip out Canon body #2, before the client ever notices.

I had the shutter go out in my 1ds2, and I fedexed it to Irvine, and I had it back in 48 hours, and I"m not even a CPS member. I'm not saying everyone would get that service, but in the real world, I did. And I didnt call in any favors either.

I've never had the courage to go into a job with only one Phase back in my bag. Even with their advertised claims, I know that there are "claims" and there is "the real world". Sometimes, in the real world, even with the most well intentioned dealer, someone like Dave Gallagher in Atlanta, there might come a time when he might not have a backup loaner P21 or P30 in Contax mount, to send me. He might, but he might not, but I'll never take that chance.

I never want to look a good client in the eye, and say, "Uh, our camera broke, but we're on the phone, trying to find another one. But we need to cancel all the shots planned for today".

These backs rarely break, but I don't want to be the guy that has his only back go down, in the middle of a multi-day job.

So again, either write the BIG check, ie two Phase (or Leaf) backs, or buy two Canons.

Just a thought. All I'm suggesting is, when you go Medium Format, you reach for the Big Checkbook. Two 1ds3's, for less than the price of one P21+, and that's not counting the camera body for the front end of the P21+.

[Morgan_Moore]

Morgan,
I haven't tested the Canon 50/1.2 at f1.2 but I would expect the performance to be abysmal at that aperture. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138279\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My point was just to demonstrate the differenct DOF characteristics of MF v 35mm and hence a more 3d effect

I find my nikkor 50 1.2 useable at 2, my blad 80 a 2.8 or preferably 4

----

In terms of cameras I also really enjoy my D80

So light

So small

So cheap

What I really am after is a camera light small and cheap enougth for me to give it to a kitesurfer to attach to thier kite etc

S

[AndreNapier]

Mark,
The LOL in the morning was really funny. It is hard not to like you.
I hope you can cancel that ebay listing. In any case if you get to be forced to sell I still have my
baby Lancaster 12x15 circa 1888. You have seen it and with bit of work it will still shoot.
I can trade you this beauty for you P21 with body and lenses. It is a great deal as always. I can even throw 3 sheets of glass as added value.

Rainer,
 I understand and fully accept.

Finally, since we are all about saving I will add to all the great advices that workshops are great but if the new talents can also  skip reading this technical meaningless discussion and SAVE this time to study and practice the craft they will be much better photographer very soon.
Alternatively Save the time wasted on reading about superiority of one system over the other, get a part-time job and soon you will be able to shoot with whatever you desire. Also invest your savings in good marketing of your services. It is more important than your talent. How can you expect editors or AD's to know better if even your own peers can not tell apples from oranges.

Economy is hard nowdays. Photography is a business. I do not know of any business that you can open with less that 100K and hope to make it in profit in one year. Why would it be different in our field.  Hey, Rz67 with all lenses still under 3K. A22 around 9K.
12 thousand for complete MFD system beats the Canon offerings.
Finally, finally I have to admit that as a businessman it was really stupid of me to try to perswade anyone of superiority of DB's or show the files. Canon is superior in every respect. Honesty is honesty but I need to make a living.

Http://AndreNapier.com