Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon vs Phase  (Read 70719 times)

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #100 on: September 22, 2007, 04:30:13 pm »

I have no doubt that your system works well for you. In case my point was lost, I was "led" into using Canons by a regular photographer for Architectural Digest (my main competitor regionally of 25 years). His argument was that we had been shooting overkill for much of that time for most needs. I resisted this for years, but like you got tired of scanning. He was right about FF DSLR being more than adequate for most applications and the acceptance of this change by my clients like HOK affirm this. I always try and exceed the expecations of my clients, and shooting a well crafted DSLR image still allows me to do that.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2007, 04:35:39 pm by Kirk Gittings »
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

ericstaud

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
    • www.ericstaudenmaier.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #101 on: September 22, 2007, 04:35:47 pm »

Quote
In case my point was lost, I was "led" into using Canons by a regular photographer for Architectural Digest (my main competitor regionally of 25 years). His argument was that we had been shooting overkill for much of that time for most needs. I resisted this for years, but like you got tired of scanning. He was right about FF DSLR being more than adequate for most applications and the acceptance of this change by my clients like HOK affirm this. I always try and exceed the expecations of my clients, and shooting a well crafted DSLR image still allows me to do that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141292\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I understand Kirk, and of course your images are very nice.  It is sad to me that magazines would drive the quality of our work though.  Every month I pick up Architectural Digest I see the image quality decline.  And of course just like my clients the editors at the Digest trust your friends opinion about the quality of the Canon camera.  They shouldn't, he is wrong.  The Digest should not be in a race to the bottom like so many photographers seem to be.
Logged

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #102 on: September 22, 2007, 04:47:27 pm »

Is it a reflection of a more general trend in society, not to be any more 'professional' than you need to... the idea of just doing enough to satisfy the clients expectations?

If so, I suspect that this will not pervade in the longer term. Magazine editors (et al) change, and what might satisfy one (who by implication has lower standards for acceptable photography) may not be at all acceptable to another.

Like they say; 'there's always room at the top' ....moral is perhaps, don't lose your fine photographic skills, or ability to use larger format equipment. Some day you might need it again.

I've always felt as photographers, we should always strive for excellence, irrespective of what the client would be 'happy' with. I don't feel I could deliver that with dSLR equipment, and as Kirk said in another post; he could shoot with a dSLR, but there was little or no headroom.

As an inexperienced photographer of architecture,  I definitely need that headroom!
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

RobertJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 706
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #103 on: September 22, 2007, 06:13:57 pm »

Quote
I liken you to Flanders, from the Simpsons; You never mean to be annoying.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141289\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LOL!
Logged

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #104 on: September 22, 2007, 06:27:19 pm »

Anybody seen Pekka Saarinen's review of the 1Ds III (http://photography-on-the.net/1DmarkIII/)

One point he makes is that to get the higher quality image that this camera can produce, you need to increase shutter speed by 25-50%. (Read the article for yourself. I don't want to be accused of taking it out of context. It's in the 'image quality' section) No wonder Canon had to include a safety ISO switcher!
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #105 on: September 22, 2007, 06:42:29 pm »

Quote
Anybody seen Pekka Saarinen's review of the 1Ds III (http://photography-on-the.net/1DmarkIII/)

You mean the 1D MkIII... ?
« Last Edit: September 22, 2007, 06:43:05 pm by foto-z »
Logged

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #106 on: September 22, 2007, 10:26:41 pm »

Jon,

Who are you referring to with this?
Quote
Is it a reflection of a more general trend in society, not to be any more 'professional' than you need to... the idea of just doing enough to satisfy the clients expectations?"
I said
Quote
I always try and exceed the expectations of my clients, and shooting a well crafted DSLR image still allows me to do that.
Please, if this is in reference to my statement above, try reading my posts before you paraphrase me, and also I think as someone who has done this for 29 years with a national clientel, been a staffer for Architecture Magazine and taught and lectured on AP all over the country, I have a pretty good notion of what is "professional" architectural photography. Oh, and I also wrote the photography manual for the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Eric,
Quote
It is sad to me that magazines would drive the quality of our work though.
Markets change and we should to. The standard in the 30's was 8x10 B&W. My biggest clients are magazines and have been for years, but they nor anyone else determine the quality of my work, it is a business decision that I make. And really my work, that is my fine art photography, has always been 4x5 film and will likely remain so. I only do commercial work to pay the bills.

Just to be clear, the point I am arguing is the notion that to do professional level architectural photography right you need a state of the art MF digital camera (there is no doubt that the Alpha system is superb), that it cannot be done "right" with a DSLR. Nonsense. I do it (as do others) with a 5D, a 50year old view camera and a scanner. AP is not one big uniform market and if you know what you are doing there are many ways to do it professionally. For instance I only do commercial AP, but I do it for magazines, architects, interior designers, HABS/HAER projects, annual reports and I teach it to would be commercial photographers, artists and historic preservationists. It is a very diverse field with a huge variety of needs and requirements. I used to shoot only 4x5 for all of these, but that was unnecessary and limiting in later years for all those uses.

Actually when you get right down to it, if someone thinks that making it as an AP is about equipment they are mistaken. It is about "seeing" architecture and some of the best never used 4x5 view cameras even when they were the industry standard.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 01:56:23 am by Kirk Gittings »
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

marc gerritsen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 299
    • http://www.marcgerritsen.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #107 on: September 23, 2007, 12:55:27 am »

Quote
Actually when you get right down to it, if someone thinks that making it as an AP is about equipment they are mistaken. It is about "seeing" architecture and some of the best never used 4x5 view cameras even when they were the industry standard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

so true... same as for any photographer...."seeing" their subject
Therefor these comparison talks are becoming more and more futile to me
marc
Logged

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #108 on: September 23, 2007, 06:15:59 am »

Quote
Jon,

Who are you referring to with this?

No Kirk, I wasn't referring to anybody, and certainly not you... just asking a question. I've seen and respect you and your work (Well, actually I haven't seen you, but you know what I mean  ). You have no need to cite your reputation to me...you're just preaching to the converted!

You, and a few others have been most illustrative and helpful in the forum in the time I have been here, and I'm surprised that you read into what I said as a personal attack...it simply wasn't.

Sorry for the inadvertent offence.

As regards equipment, I completely agree it is first and foremost about the photographer and technique. As you implied in another post, to shoot architecture with a 5D  (which I have) requires great skills and leaves little room for manoeuvre. I don't have that skill set yet, and need the headroom. I also don't have the big reputation to be able to tell clients that, no, they don't really need MF for the use that they are going to make of the photos. Some clients (a minority; the rest don't care) want MF (despite that) and can't be convinced otherwise. I often wonder where they got that idea from?

Nevertheless, I'd rather not turn my back on them, since I have bills to pay as well.

The point about AP not being a uniform market is well taken though; I would a bit inflexible in my thinking on that sort of issue.

BTW, how do you do camera movements on your 5D?
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 06:33:49 am by jonstewart »
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #109 on: September 23, 2007, 06:18:07 am »

Quote
You mean the 1D MkIII... ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141308\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh thats so funny.... Late at night here, long day etc. Sorry (Embarrassed looks)
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

Bernd B.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 265
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #110 on: September 23, 2007, 06:26:05 am »

In the eye of the Canon pic is a reflection showing purple fringing (unfortunately the Phase pic doesn´t have this reflex, I´d like to compare that). I have this often with my 5D but unfortunately also sometimes with my valeo 17 in backlight situations.

Is there a succussful approach to get rid of that in photoshop?
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #111 on: September 23, 2007, 06:28:17 am »

Quote
Eric, that's lovely image quality from the Schneider!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My impression is the Schneider is slightly backfocused. It is sharp on the trees on the background but not so sharp on the houses. Which leads to the interesting question on how one is supposed to focus such a thing. Maybe focus-bracketing is a necessity, even at F16 ? Does the lens have a focus shift, maybe ?

Edmund
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 06:34:34 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #112 on: September 23, 2007, 08:55:35 am »

Kirk,

After the last post, I went off and thought about what you said, and came to a conclusion that I was confusing two different questions.

1. What is the most appropriate camera equipment for a particular job, and,
2. What range of equipment should one have in their arsenal to cover all (95%+)  of eventualities.

I think your response clearly indicates that the most appropriate equipment for AP is not always MF or bigger, but that you would always have larger format available for when you do need it. I, however was considering the both must have the SAME right answer, so perhaps you can understand my last post better.

Just to be clear, the equipment is ONLY a means of suitably capturing the artistic and creative vision of the photographer, nevertheless, I think it's important to have the best / most appropriate equipment, so I'm now happier that I didn't waste my time and money investing in some MF digital equipment! I went to bed very unhappy last night thinking I had made a big mistake, after agonising over it for 6+ months!
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 09:52:06 am by jonstewart »
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

Mark_Tucker

  • Guest
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #113 on: September 23, 2007, 09:13:02 am »

While that Alpa thing sounds interesting, and I'm sure the lense are fine, I cannot imagine shooting a job where I left the job hoping that I'd focused the camera properly. I also can't imagine shooting a job where I'd have to "bracket focus" either. It's just too nerveracking, the thought of it. But I guess you could have a MacBook Pro there, beside you, with CaptureOne tethered, to check focus.

The other reminder about this conversation is: NO ONE has yet compared the 1ds3 to the Phase/Leaf/Hasselblad. So, to me, all this talk about comparisons is silly until the 1ds3 hits the street. The 1ds3 is the first camera, in my mind, that will give MF a run for its money. So let's just be reminded what we're talking about here.

The other reminder is the tilt shift lenses for Canon. If the Canon is tripod mounted, and you use one of the 24, 45, or 90 lenses, and you shift between frames, the 1ds3 in effect becomes almost a 44MP camera, for landscape or architecture, (or people, even). When you shift, it lines up almost pixel to pixel. Shoot a top, middle, and bottom, and stitch them, and bam, a very high rez image. And if you took LiquidNails and glued a tripod mount to the lenses, instead of to the body, and fix the lens and let the body move instead of the lens, the resulting files WOULD line up pixel to pixel, making the stitch almost effortless. I did that all the time when I shot Canon; it's a breeze. Double your money, double your fun.

Speaking of fun, I agree with Kirk -- I tend to explore more options with the Canon than with MF. The Canon is so effortless you just yank it off the tripod and go roam around. The Contax/Phase is much more "serious", and ends up feeling like "work" much of the time. Don't discount that factor.
Logged

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #114 on: September 23, 2007, 09:50:57 am »

Quote
The other reminder is the tilt shift lenses for Canon. If the Canon is tripod mounted, and you use one of the 24, 45, or 90 lenses, and you shift between frames, the 1ds3 in effect becomes almost a 44MP camera...


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interested, and largely agree with the rest of what you said, but I think that you raise another issue about the quality of the L lenses, when put on a 1Ds III. I haven't read great reports about the 24TS lens for instance.

I'm waiting on some stuff coming, including a Mamiya-Canon shift adapter, and can't wait to try the Hartblei Super-rotator (45) and the Mam 45 shift and 50 shift on the 5D.
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

ericstaud

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
    • www.ericstaudenmaier.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #115 on: September 23, 2007, 10:00:53 am »

Quote
While that Alpa thing sounds interesting, and I'm sure the lense are fine, I cannot imagine shooting a job where I left the job hoping that I'd focused the camera properly. I also can't imagine shooting a job where I'd have to "bracket focus" either. It's just too nerveracking, the thought of it. But I guess you could have a MacBook Pro there, beside you, with CaptureOne tethered, to check focus.

The other reminder about this conversation is: NO ONE has yet compared the 1ds3 to the Phase/Leaf/Hasselblad. So, to me, all this talk about comparisons is silly until the 1ds3 hits the street. The 1ds3 is the first camera, in my mind, that will give MF a run for its money. So let's just be reminded what we're talking about here.

The other reminder is the tilt shift lenses for Canon. If the Canon is tripod mounted, and you use one of the 24, 45, or 90 lenses, and you shift between frames, the 1ds3 in effect becomes almost a 44MP camera, for landscape or architecture, (or people, even). When you shift, it lines up almost pixel to pixel. Shoot a top, middle, and bottom, and stitch them, and bam, a very high rez image. And if you took LiquidNails and glued a tripod mount to the lenses, instead of to the body, and fix the lens and let the body move instead of the lens, the resulting files WOULD line up pixel to pixel, making the stitch almost effortless. I did that all the time when I shot Canon; it's a breeze. Double your money, double your fun.

Speaking of fun, I agree with Kirk -- I tend to explore more options with the Canon than with MF. The Canon is so effortless you just yank it off the tripod and go roam around. The Contax/Phase is much more "serious", and ends up feeling like "work" much of the time. Don't discount that factor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,

It's easy to check the focus on that P45+ screen you love so much.  I've never missed it, and never bracketed.

That stitching idea is for the birds.  Moving clouds, blowing trees, people in the scene.  It's fine every now and then, but you should shoot your next job stitching 4 frames together from every setup and get back to me on that one.

The thing about exploring with the Canon is sometimes true, but I have a personal problem here.  Every time I edit my work, I have a much higher hit rate from my Alpa or my 4x5.  It's not about pixels or 3d qualities or anything else technical.  When I look at thumbnails or screen res images to edit my portfolio on the computer far fewer 35mm images make the cut than with the Alpa or 4x5 shots.  It's probably the way I approach the camera.  I don't use the camera to frame the images, I use my eyes to look at the scene directly, move around until the subject looks good to my eyes, and then place the camera in that spot and choose a lens to crop that image in space.  Having a viewfinder to look through gets in the way of all that.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 10:04:35 am by ericstaud »
Logged

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #116 on: September 23, 2007, 10:05:32 am »

Quote
While that Alpa thing sounds interesting, and I'm sure the lense are fine, I cannot imagine shooting a job where I left the job hoping that I'd focused the camera properly. I also can't imagine shooting a job where I'd have to "bracket focus" either.

The higher resolution the sensor, the shallower the DOF and the more critical focus becomes (especially when viewing at 100%). Shooting tethered is a must in these situations, if you want to leave the location knowing you have the shot in the bag. Carry a laptop is really a small price for such an assurance.
Logged

jpop

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #117 on: September 23, 2007, 11:27:54 am »

The body of Mark Tucker's work (stunning btw) is for the most part well suited to shooting with a DSLR.  While I'm sure Mark would make good use of a larger viewfinder, shorter/selective planes of focus and correction provided by medium format/technical cameras, I just don't see it as being an advantage for 90% of his work.

From my perspective this long thread equates to a discussion amongst carpenters as to what the better tool is, a hammer or a saw.  The right answer of course is what ever gets the job done.  I certainly wouldn't want to be doing automotive or food work without a technical/medium format camera and in Mark Tucker's case I wouldn't want to try to get done what he does without the Canon 1Ds.
Logged
John Popp
Dodd Camera Professional Divis

ronno

  • Guest
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #118 on: September 23, 2007, 11:36:22 am »

Quote
If you're shooting landscapes, why mess around with that sissy little, low-rez, P45+?
If you're any man at all, and all you care about is resolution, get out the Deardorff and get to work.

Indeed. Speaking of all this digital 35 vs. digital MF and how the art directors see your equipment...
The only bias against digital cameras I have come across (working with art directors who have worked with Bergdorf Goodman, Vogue, etc., etc.) is that IT'S EITHER DIGITAL OR IT'S NOT. And for the one's who show bias for equipment, ANY digital is cutting corners. They do not give brownie points for the p45 or whatever. If you are shooting digital and you get good results, they are somewhat surprised -- because they have all seen some poor results in the past from digital. (Of course they have also seen poor results from film, but that's another story...)

This is just my experience -- but I would not expect to impress the Digital Doubters with your digital anything. To them, FILM RULES -- even if it's low resolution and fuzzy like these polaroids I shot recently at the end of a digital shoot with a $40 Spectra camera - and which caused the art directors to drool with delight.

Thankfully, many in the fashion industry seem to have caught on to the fact that digital works at least as well as film much of the time.

All I.M.O.

-ron
« Last Edit: September 23, 2007, 12:14:30 pm by ronno »
Logged

Mark_Tucker

  • Guest
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #119 on: September 23, 2007, 12:02:21 pm »

Quote
This is just my experience -- but I would not expect to impress the Digital Doubters with your digital anything.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141412\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I shot a three-day job last week on the road, in a restaurant. Shot it with the Contax/P21+ tethered to Imac 24. We all stood there in front of that giant monitor -- the client, the stylist, me, the main lighting assistant, and the Tech -- and as we were "shooting Polaroids" and doing the initial lighting on each setup, it was so nice to have that monitor. I'd shoot a frame, and each of us would be looking at different respective things in the monitor. The frame would pop up in CaptureOne, and each of us would silently scatter back into the scene, and fix whatever we were working on, whether it was lighting, or the propping, or the clothing. It was this great little Silent Dance.

Yes, it does get irritating when we're shooting "the real film" and people are looking at the monitor instead of the actual scene, but when you're doing you're initial lighting, the monitor is invaluable.

For anyone shooting fashion, I cannot imagine that they'd go through one fashion shoot, shooting tethered to a giant monitor, and then EVER be willing to go back to shooting film. To be able to see the model, and the way the clothing is hanging, and the hair/makeup, and the propping, on a monitor instead of on a nasty, folded 669 Polaroid, well, it's not even worth talking about.

I do wonder sometimes, with the established guys, who've gotten their look down, with their film, if they are now getting pressured to shoot tethered, by clients. Just because you can see it as you're shooting it.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 11   Go Up