Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon vs Phase  (Read 74242 times)

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #80 on: September 21, 2007, 07:44:20 pm »

Eric, that's lovely image quality from the Schneider!
Logged

Dustbak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2442
    • Pepperanddust
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #81 on: September 22, 2007, 04:17:25 am »

Now that is a very very big difference. This is the difference I see with my MFDB and Nikon as well and is the main reason I have only used the Nikon twice this year(covering motor races).
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #82 on: September 22, 2007, 11:40:43 am »



If they still don't see it now, point them to the CA and alliasing artifacts of the DSLR.

You can talk about it for ever but 100% files are much better than words.
Logged

Mark_Tucker

  • Guest
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #83 on: September 22, 2007, 11:48:26 am »

Quote
http://www.ericstaudenmaier.com/Pixels/
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Eric,

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. You want tonal gradations? Shoot 8x10.

Follow the "continue" links on the page below. Three pages of 8x10. Your girly little P45+ can't hold a candle to this.

[a href=\"http://www.afterimagegallery.com/falke1.htm]http://www.afterimagegallery.com/falke1.htm[/url]
Logged

Mark_Tuttle

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
    • http://
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #84 on: September 22, 2007, 01:07:42 pm »

Quote
Eric,

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. You want tonal gradations? Shoot 8x10.

Follow the "continue" links on the page below. Three pages of 8x10. Your girly little P45+ can't hold a candle to this.

http://www.afterimagegallery.com/falke1.htm
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To paraprhase Mick

"but he can't be a man cause he doesn't use the same camera as me ..... I can't get no,

no, no, no"
Logged
Mark Tuttle
MarkTuttle dot Net

Kirk Gittings

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1561
    • http://www.KirkGittings.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #85 on: September 22, 2007, 01:33:09 pm »

Quote
It is not every image that gets printed this size (especially not one so ugly as this), but I go to every architecture shoot knowing that any image can be printed very large.

I have 29 years of architecture files, 95% 4x5, most of which has never been used for prints larger than 8x10's or a double truck magazine spread. The plain fact is that we have been using howitzers to shoot prairie dogs for a century. Now I get a commitment from the client about prospective uses and find I can shoot 90%, even for large national architecture firms, with a FF DSLR. I move quicker, shoot allot more, try things just to see if it will work, am much more profitable and have a ton more fun with the DSLR.

If I need larger files, I shoot 4x5 film and scan it in house on a Creo. It is the best of both worlds. This coming week we have a shoot in Arizona for a national firm. We will do a swing through Canyon de Chelly to shoot some personal 4x5 b&w work and then on to the paying job with the DSLRs. I may print the 4x5 traditionally, digitally or platinum/palladium with digitally enlarged negatives.

We live in the best of times photographically speaking. We have never had more choices. We have never had better films (though we have had more variety). This is the golden age of photography.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2007, 04:17:25 pm by Kirk Gittings »
Logged
Thanks,
Kirk Gittings

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #86 on: September 22, 2007, 01:57:08 pm »

Quote
You can talk about it for ever but 100% files are much better than words.

No one is questioning whether a MFDB will look better at 100%, full resolution, at low ISO. What's being debated is how relevant the differences are in common real-world image applications such as a typical magazine page or web images.

To go back to the audio analogy, it's to be expected that a $40,000 sound system will sound better than a $8000 system in a soundproofed listening room with anechoic foam on the wall and all of the other high-end acoustic enhancements. But put those systems in a typical living room with traffic noise in the background, a refrigerator running in the adjoining kitchen, and the air conditioning or furnace running, and telling them apart becomes much more difficult. Put them both in the cab of an elderly pickup truck with a leaky exhaust pipe and a diverse collection of squeaks and rattles driving down a washboardy dirt road, and it becomes pretty much impossible. If you're buying a sound system for the living room, it's valid to question what that extra $32,000 is really getting you in practical terms of value for the money, beyond the snob appeal of a catchier brand name on the faceplates of the components.

For many photographers, a MFDB offers little in terms of concrete benefits over a DSLR. MFDB has little to offer a concert shooter that cannot use flash and needs fast, accurate AF in lighting conditions where ISO 1600 is the rule rather than the exception. The same is true of an event shooter covering a horse show who must get salable shots of 25 horses and riders during a 4-5 minute event. Let's see a comparison between a 1Ds-II and a MFDB where both are shot at ISO 1600 and see which one delivers more "dimensionality" or even a usable image, like where the subject is moving and the AF has to track it.
Logged

Dustbak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2442
    • Pepperanddust
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #87 on: September 22, 2007, 02:13:30 pm »

You keep narrowing the options down towards a point where a DSLR is always favorable. The discussion was not about just high ISO and bad lighting but this seems where you keep it going for obvious reasons.

Pfff..... yep in your example I would take the DSLR as well. As would every sane person.

Not everybody is taking images under crummy circumstances and at high ISO.

For me real-world photography is working with ISO25/50 with a lot of light (if I don't have it there I take it with me). In this example the MFDB wins hands-down.

Real life is also during daylight with regular light, even here my MFDB is the way to go. I don't know about others but 80% of my photography is below ISO400 and this is where my MFDB definitely can hold its own.

And, yes. It is visible in print as well, though I am sure we can find really bad printers/press that can screw up anything and make everything appear to be taking with a cell phone.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2007, 02:15:31 pm by Dustbak »
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #88 on: September 22, 2007, 02:30:39 pm »

Quote
You keep narrowing the options down towards a point where a DSLR is always favorable.

Just like you do with MFDB.
Logged

ericstaud

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 396
    • www.ericstaudenmaier.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #89 on: September 22, 2007, 02:54:52 pm »

Quote
Eric,

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. You want tonal gradations? Shoot 8x10.

Follow the "continue" links on the page below. Three pages of 8x10. Your girly little P45+ can't hold a candle to this.

http://www.afterimagegallery.com/falke1.htm
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes Mark,  my little man is lacking in size, and I'm trying to make up for it through my P45+.  I just hope I never have to stand at a urinal next to Terry Falke.
Logged

Gary Yeowell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #90 on: September 22, 2007, 02:58:38 pm »

Quote
To go back to the audio analogy, it's to be expected that a $40,000 sound system will sound better than a $8000 system in a soundproofed listening room with anechoic foam on the wall and all of the other high-end acoustic enhancements. But put those systems in a typical living room with traffic noise in the background, a refrigerator running in the adjoining kitchen, and the air conditioning or furnace running, and telling them apart becomes much more difficult. Put them both in the cab of an elderly pickup truck with a leaky exhaust pipe and a diverse collection of squeaks and rattles driving down a washboardy dirt road, and it becomes pretty much impossible. If you're buying a sound system for the living room, it's valid to question what that extra $32,000 is really getting you in practical terms of value for the money, beyond the snob appeal of a catchier brand name on the faceplates of the components.

Spoken like someone who obviously hasn't a clue about Audio equipment....
« Last Edit: September 22, 2007, 03:09:22 pm by Gary Yeowell »
Logged

jpjespersen

  • Guest
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #91 on: September 22, 2007, 03:09:44 pm »

These forums should be divided by types of photography.  Not just types of camera.  If you shoot point and shoot quality looking stuff that won't ever be printed bigger than 12x18 like Wienker than DSLR's are great and MFDB's are not worth the money.  If you do fine art reproduction and fine art landscape work as I do, then DSLR's suck and MFDB's are worth every single penny.  I just made $7,000 on my last days work doing fine art reproduction with a MFDB when DSLR wouldn't have even allowed me to take on the job.  Thats 20% of my camera paid off in one day.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2007, 03:10:23 pm by jpjespersen »
Logged

jpjespersen

  • Guest
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #92 on: September 22, 2007, 03:15:09 pm »

FILL IN THE BLANKS,  THIS IS GREAT.

Quote
For many photographers, a MFDB offers little in terms of concrete benefits over a DSLR. MFDB has little to offer a concert shooter that cannot use flash and needs fast, accurate AF in lighting conditions where ISO 1600 is the rule rather than the exception. The same is true of an event shooter covering a horse show who must get salable shots of 25 horses and riders during a 4-5 minute event. Let's see a comparison between a 1Ds-II and a MFDB where both are shot at ISO 1600 and see which one delivers more "dimensionality" or even a usable image, like where the subject is moving and the AF has to track it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141252\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
FILL IN THE BLANKS,  THIS IS GREAT.

For many photographers, a DSLR offers little in terms of concrete benefits over a MFDB. DSLR has little to offer a fine art landscape shooter that does not need flash and does not need fast, accurate AF in lighting conditions where ISO 100 is the rule rather than the exception. The same is true of a fine art reproduction shooter covering gallery show who must get printable shots of 25 works of art during a 4-5 hour event. Let's see a comparison between a 1Ds-II and a MFDB where both are shot at ISO 100 and see which one delivers more "dimensionality" or even a usable image, like where the subject is not moving and the AF does not have to track it.

THANKS FOR THE TEMPLATE WIENKE
« Last Edit: September 22, 2007, 03:20:25 pm by jpjespersen »
Logged

AndreNapier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422
    • Andre Napier Photography
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #93 on: September 22, 2007, 03:17:30 pm »

Sorry Guys,
but by now it starts to remind me of never ending quest to prove that small penis is as good as big penis. Easier to walk with, easier to take in and out and definitely works great in low light situation.
...and of course the main point being that is the technique that makes the master and not the equipment , which holds it's water only as long as you do not meet a guy with big penis who also knows well how to  use it.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2007, 03:30:37 pm by AndreNapier »
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #94 on: September 22, 2007, 03:34:57 pm »

@Garry,
You beat me to it.

Every high-end user knows that a room has to have a ITDG and RT60.
And chamber with foam will NOT show you what your system can do.

Same goes for MF vs DSLR.

When you downsize everything and print on a bad printer from 8 bits sRGB files you are indeed doing no justice to the files.
Same as your audio example.

I can say that if you use a high-end audio set in a GOOD room with a proper ITDG and RT60 you will get a jawdropping experience.
Same goes for the cheap audio setup, simple the room is one of the most important things in audio (which a lot of people don't know or forget).
 
But than again let's keep ontopic

When shooting a MF system in a bad situation and a DSLR in a good situation the DSLR will win.
(I will take a good room with a premium audio setup every time over a BAD room with a high-end audio setup).

When shooting however in equal situation the difference is obvious.
Well at least for me.

Looking at the samples again, for me the Phase shot has a more 3D (yeah there I go again) look than the DSLR shot.
And the defenition is just stunningly better *just look at the water drops*
« Last Edit: September 22, 2007, 03:37:43 pm by Frank Doorhof »
Logged

CliffSamys

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63
    • http://samys.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #95 on: September 22, 2007, 03:39:04 pm »

Quote
Yes Mark,  my little man is lacking in size, and I'm trying to make up for it through my P45+.  I just hope I never have to stand at a urinal next to Terry Falke.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141265\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Does the P45 chafe?
Logged
Cliff
Samy's Camera, Pro Digital Mana

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #96 on: September 22, 2007, 03:39:13 pm »

LOL at Andre

Wait till you meet a girl who knows what to do with it
Logged

Mark_Tucker

  • Guest
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #97 on: September 22, 2007, 03:42:36 pm »

Quote
who also knows well how to  use it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Speaking of someone who knows how to use it, here is a link to "Manufactured Landscapes", the new film about Edward Burtynsky. I have not seen it, and have no idea if it's worth a look, but it's playing at my local multiplex, instead of the art-house theatre, so it must have some mass appeal.

[a href=\"http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809761975/info]http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809761975/info[/url]

Also, I found this post about "finding your niche" fascinating; to be able to sum up your work in "one word":

http://alecsoth.com/blog/2007/09/11/richard-barnes/

Almost more interesting than the post itself were the Comments that follow it, too.
Logged

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #98 on: September 22, 2007, 03:55:45 pm »

Quote
FILL IN THE BLANKS,  THIS IS GREAT.
FILL IN THE BLANKS,  THIS IS GREAT.

For many photographers, a DSLR offers little in terms of concrete benefits over a MFDB. DSLR has little to offer a fine art landscape shooter that does not need flash and does not need fast, accurate AF in lighting conditions where ISO 100 is the rule rather than the exception. The same is true of a fine art reproduction shooter covering gallery show who must get printable shots of 25 works of art during a 4-5 hour event. Let's see a comparison between a 1Ds-II and a MFDB where both are shot at ISO 100 and see which one delivers more "dimensionality" or even a usable image, like where the subject is not moving and the AF does not have to track it.

THANKS FOR THE TEMPLATE WIENKE
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Got wienke in one! ROFL!

@ Jonathan
Seriously though, anybody who's thinking of buying into MFDB's is doing a lot of homework, and looking at a lot of work of people who use them. They're not very likely to take much account of repetitive diatribe which has little or nothing to add to the body of knowledge. If you don't want to buy an MFDB, because you can see no concrete reason for doing that, well don't buy one, but I for one am tired seeing the same comments from you again and again.

Do you have an MFDB? Which one? What are it's strengths and weaknesses? These are the sort of things I enjoy hearing about on this forum, 'cos I'm here to learn, and in my turn, much later, when I have more experience, hopefully pass on some of what others have taught me on this forum.

I liken you to Flanders, from the Simpsons; You never mean to be annoying.....
« Last Edit: September 22, 2007, 04:37:27 pm by jonstewart »
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

ericstaud

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 396
    • www.ericstaudenmaier.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #99 on: September 22, 2007, 03:59:32 pm »

Quote
I have 29 years of architecture files, 95% 4x5, most of which has never been used for prints larger than 4x5 or a double truck magazine spread. The plain fact is that we have been using howitzers to shoot prairie dogs for a century. Now I get a commitment from the client about prospective uses and find I can shoot 90%, even for large national architecture firms, with a FF DSLR. I move quicker, shoot allot more, try things just to see if it will work, am much more profitable and have a ton more fun with the DSLR.

If I need larger files, I shoot 4x5 film and scan it in house on a Creo. It is the best of both worlds. This coming week we have a shoot in Arizona for a national firm. We will do a swing through Canyon de Chelly to shoot some personal 4x5 b&w work and then on to the paying job with the DSLRs. I may print the 4x5 traditionally, digitally or platinum/palladium with digitally enlarged negatives.

We live in the best of times photographically speaking. We have never had more choices. We have never had better films (though we have had more variety). This is the golden age of photography.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141248\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Kirk,

I bought the Alpa and P45+ because I wanted a system for the long haul.  I used the 1DsII and the D2x on a bunch of jobs.  Every client I asked about file size said the Nikon or Canon would be fine.  After a while I realized they only said yes because I asked the question.  By asking the question about using the Nikon or Canon I was telling them it was O.K.,  they trusted me.  Asking them was useless.  Any serious questions about the quality of my photos have to be asked and answered by me.  I have sold around 15- 24"x30" prints and 15- 20"x24" prints this year.  Very few of the images were destined for that size.

I'd rather have my teeth pulled than shoot, process, and scan 4x5 film.  On the other end, adding up the shooting time and the post time, the Canon or Nikon takes longer to produce a finished image than the Alpa & P45+.  I just got tired of fixing up images.

The Alpa costs much less than 4x5 film.  Of course the Canon is much cheaper, but I think you get what you pay for.  I can't remember the last architects office I was in that did not have 20x24 prints on the wall.  I'm a little surprised by a few architectural shooters who were making killer large sized prints from their 4x5 images a few years ago are walking around with their Canons saying things like "the files up-rez pretty good" with a little crack in their voice.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11   Go Up