for me all the companies show an incredible lack of practical knowledge, which is at the same time astonishing and incredible. they need one,two or three photographers which are experienced and professional and to whom they trust, not hundreds of opinions which is what they try to collect and to filter.
to handle this different was what happened in my relation with sinar and me ( they trusted in my opinion/advices after some years of receiving input as important as brumbaer tools, stefans centerfold algorythm and much more details ) and the results is now i.m.o. by far the best professional system for digital arcitecture photography,- not to say the only one which really works out of one hand from camera over back to software without that there are mad compromises or workarounds.
but what i mean above is:
how is it possile that phase one removed their lcc correction from dng files in newer sotware?
how is it possible that hasselblad still ignores and neglect the color shifts produced by shift lenses and not offering a solution which works 1005 colorshiftfree?
how is it possible that leaf didnt ever resolved completely thier centerfold issue, just using the ( i cal it ) workaround of inverting whitefiles to subtract it?
how can alpa say that there is no need for a sliding back?
why arca dont have a website?
what is linhof thinking building a nice new architecture camera without fixed infinity points so one has to focus for every infinty image again with loupe ?
why sinar didnt build a camera as the artec years ago? why they sold years only software which didnt allow to remove colorcasts omn location?
why never was a batch workflow in any software for correcting color shifts in software till SH and me created the brumbaer workflow and sinar became convinced to let me show them how to do a similar thing in exposure?
many whys, and each of it is absolutely fundamental. i am sure that in other fields of photography there are much more ? to ask.
how can expect these companies to gain big enough professional market, delivering not ready thought products for very high prices? i am not surprised at all about whats happening now in the market, i expected this earlier. i am more surprised that so many photographers are contently working with their mf gear.
WARNING, LONG RANT
Amen Brother Rainer. I think you and SH's involvement with Sinar produced the best digital architecture system available. Sinar is the clear leader in this field. What baffels me is why the big players never had a similar collaboration with fashion, interior, tabletop product shooters. I mean a real collaboration, not a product endorsement. Phase had JR do a shoot for them but did they call up JR when planning out C1 4 or the P65? I don't think so. Did Sinar? They seemed to have listened with the ESpirit 65, but I've never seen one, or even heard of anyone using one. Its almost like a myth, a Unicorn of a fashion shooter's camera. Leaf seems to have color issues for fashion/portrait worked out, and the S series backs are fast enough, but I still hate Leaf Capture, even though its solid. I usually use LRoom if its for press, and LC just for tethering. In any case, the main problem I see is that these companies have primarily worked on their backs and let the camera side and work flow languish. Phase sort of dropped the ball with C1 4, but its still best of the bunch, which when you consider the manufacturers' software in general, isn't saying THAT much. Blad is in their own world, and its not a bad place to be if you like the H system.
The main problem is simply this: all of the back makers products somehow, one way or another, get in the way of just making a picture. Either the camera is a piece of shiznit (Mamiya AFd series with the shutter lag is a pig with digital, nice with film, the H is just awkward with any lens other than the 80), the back isn't fast enough, software stability, no in camera jpegs, non-compatability with LR/ACR, dropped frames, color casts, half assed solutions or expensive solutions, all of these things put the gear in the forfront, rather than the creative process. I'd rather spend time lighting than keeping track of a botched renaming job, or talking and interacting with the subject than explaining to the client why there is a color shift, why the preview looks like crap, why we lost some frames, etc. In frustration I slapped on a film back for my AFd one time and I lost myself in the work, not in the gear. It was liberating. Using a 1ds gets you to the same mental state: a Canon or Nikon melts into the background, letting you work. That being said, I loved my P30+ IQ, hated the camera it was attched to (AFd). In order to put it on an RZ, I would have to use wakeup cables and a dead plate (expensive and cumbersome) or buy a RZ ProIID with the same buggy, crappy, slow digital communication protocal as the AFd, for an extra $2k. It also eats batteries, and you still need an adaper plate, for another $700. This was unacceptable to me. Sold the P30+, started shooting film again. I later bought a Leaf 54s from a friend for under $6k with a H to RZ plate, and now I have a workable system with an "obsolete" back attached to an "obsolete" camera. The question the back makers should ask, based on my experience, is why the best workable solution to a working photographer involves product that is no longer currently available from a manufacturer. The answer is because it works.
In many ways the Hy6 is the perfect solution, but too late. Everyone who wanted a DB already bought a Phase/Leaf back in a dedicated mount, and invested in lenses, extension tubes, etc. for their camera, or went H. The Hy6, while compelling, isn't worth the substantial hit to the bottom line involved in switching systems. I would love to buy a Hy6, but it just does not offer much over my RZ/Leaf 54s, which, all in, cost less than a 1ds3 w/o a lens. I really wish all of the players in this market the best of luck. Unfortunately they are all too small to be bailed out.
