IMO

[BlasR]

pure white, sold 103  year sold 2009 size 24x34 h1-p25 wow.

This pay for p45+, printer, travel, and my  remy martin cocna Lois x111.

so dslr


BTW I'm from Dominican Republic


Ω.Happy new year again.Ω

I have no payne

[gdwhalen]

Which just goes to show P.T. Barnum was right...

P.T. Barnum wouldn't even believe that.

[rolleiflexpages]

Or let the topics range from comparing 8x10 film to a medium format back, or asking about the Hy6 prism.  I hate to bring this up but 8x10 film cameras and hy6 prism's are somewhat dead end systems.  You may like them, but give it another week and you'll see both on the Antique Roadshow.

BC

?!?!

A disappointing remark, IMHO.

A number of contributors to this forum write about equipment they actually own, use or would like to acquire. Nothing wrong with that. If a particular issue is not to your likening, just ignore the posting. There really is no need for ranting about what you think are "dead end" systems or not, and denigrating what other people are using. The value of the equipment is in its use and that may be different for every one of us here.

[bart alexander]

One of the reasons this Medium format + digital backs forum is so popular - apart from it's highly appreciated contributors (you know who you are) : medium format "isn't there yet"

We've waited for years to have 35mm where it should be: swift capturing full size sensors, high iso and 21+ mp.

MF on the other hand, even at 65mp isn't. I wouldn't say MF should be limited to 20+, just because current clients need no more. To be able to produce unlimited quality, one should at least capture in megapixels what the lenses allow. In MF 65mp seems to be the limit for the 645 format. But 6x7 or even 7x7 should be able to make use of 90mp. Sounds like much, but not too long ago MF was 6mp on a full size 35mm sensor.

Obviously 35mm with the right PP software can do the trick for jobs we used to need MF for and commercial shooters don't need more than 12mp in general. But I'm thinking of producing stunning image quality for museums and art galleries.
We'll always have Terry's and Jurgens who will shoot 35mm only, but I'm talking of the new Helmuts and the current Inez and Vinoodh who will be able to make use of such state of the art camera systems.
The moment these cameras start to behave like the current 35mm DLSR's: 5 fps, perfect ISO up to iso 1600, RAW, sRAW, 35mm (klein bild) will become the size/format for photo journalists only again, the professionals 35mm originally was designed for.

Let's not stop where we are now.....

Exactly.  In the end, cheap and "works" wins every time, because other than maybe for a photo gallery or a similar specific use where people are interested in every last detail, the boss will go for the $2500 camera that looks "good enough" almost every time.  And, to be honest, it really does almost every time.

A good example is if it's going to be in a magazine.  Most clients want roughly 300dpi optical equivalent at best(similar to dye-sub@300dpi).  Given that with framing and borders and so on, you're looking at a realistic 8x10 for even a full page ad - maybe closer to 7x8 if it's positioned horizontally and has copy above or below it.  Even at 400dpi 25MP is just overkill by the time it hits the actual page.  A Sony A850/900 will be closer to 500dpi. Plainly overkill.  

**from the adobe cs2 manual/help file**
Newspaper Ad (65-85 lpi) 130 - 170 ppi
Average Magazine & Brochure (133 lpi) 200 - 266 ppi
High End Magazine & Brochure (150 lpi) 225 - 300 ppi
Annual Report (177 lpi) 265 - 350 ppi
Fine Art & Coffee Table Books (200 lpi) 300 - 400 ppi
****

Specs on the A850/A900
• 6048 x 4032 (24M 3:2) - 11X17 is roughly(due to the 3:2 aspect ratio): (200X1.666X11)X(200X1.666X17) - 3666X5666, or 20MP - and that's rarely used, if ever, since actual printed materials tend to max out at 200LPI for most non-specialized things.  The 1.666 is to convert, roughly, for the Bayer pattern's effect on the LPI printed versus digital in both dimensions.   24.6MP is more than your client will likely ever use.

Essentially these tools are all overkill - just take the shot, submit the result after you've cleaned it up/tweaked with it in raw, and let them deal with the rest.

The client doesn't care.  They want their image to stick in their magazine or catalog and you could do that with any of these higher-end cameras.  So limiting this part of the forum to one type of camera when they all are pretty much well beyond what's required for an actual job is silly.

Perhaps a better change, then, would be to have a "professional/high-end photography(20mp+)" label?  This would cover the high-end stuff while leaving the consumer cameras and discussions in their own area.

[/size]

[bcooter]

?!?!

A disappointing remark, IMHO.

A number of contributors to this forum write about equipment they actually own, .......

I guess I didn't communicate well, but I'm not denigrating what camera anyone uses, or believe any discussion should be limited.

In fact I'm impressed greatly with the people that still shoot photojournalism on 4x5 film, or fashion with a point and shoot casio.  To me that's interesting.

I actually think that using a 6x6 Rolliflex is interesting, though more so with film than the standard 645 frame.

Personally I am brand/format agnostic.

My point was if this section of the forum is going to be limited to talk about a certain sized format equipment, might as well limit it to what is sold and available today.

Personally I don't believe any discussion should be limited and I do wish in the digital domain there were more real options beyond a 645 or 35mm frame and when I look around it seems the real innovation is coming from the 4:3's camera makers, but to keep up with those users I have to flip to some other section of the forum and I'm not sure what section that would even fall under.

BC

[pixjohn]

I don't have a problem with this forum posting about med format digital with the occasional posting about the higher end dslr's. I likes the architectural test with the DSLR.Med lens test. It would just be nice to edit out all the crap from people who just want to say my camera is better then your camera. From past posting people started posting snap shot of pet dogs and friends, and had no clue about high quality images. The med format forum should stay on topic regarding the best of the best. I personally stopped reading this post after the first page, it was to redundant, just like my post is redundant.

As per the dealers and manufactures is another topic. It really bothers me that manufacture edit what they want to respond to and ignore people like me who have legitimate problems with their products. I feel a certain name on here never addresses real issues. Even though I think med is better for what I shoot, I will not reinvest with these companies.

[Plekto]

One of the reasons this Medium format + digital backs forum is so popular - apart from it's highly appreciated contributors (you know who you are) : medium format "isn't there yet"

We've waited for years to have 35mm where it should be: swift capturing full size sensors, high iso and 21+ mp.

MF on the other hand, even at 65mp isn't. I wouldn't say MF should be limited to 20+, just because current clients need no more. To be able to produce unlimited quality, one should at least capture in megapixels what the lenses allow.

I have to disagree.  Art and similar uses are great, but the vast majority of people don't spend tens of thousands on these high-end cameras and accessories to just use as a hobby.  The issue is that in the last few years consumer-level cameras have improved to where there's significant bleed-over between what used to be two clearly defined formats.  As such, that only leaves the intended use as a way to differentiate between the two.  MP beyond a certain point is meaningless, since nobody who is paying you money cares at this stage in the game.  They want it fast and "good enough" more than 90% of the time.  The other 10%(running your own photo studio and making your own framed pictures comes to mind) is still there as well, but it's not what the majority of MF users are using it for.  I chose 20MP as a dividing line, since that's essentially 645 format if you scanned film.  

And what happens if Canon comes out with a MkV some day that has a 40MP sensor with no AA filter for $5K?  Does some sort of hole open in the universe and the Earth gets sucked in?  

[gwhitf]

But think about those the shoot landscape (me)  I make good money to pay for my equipments, in no one tell me what to do.

Between DSLR and MF is like night in day.  No way the anyone the shoot with MF will ever shot landscape with dslr.

Another take on it:

http://jimrichardson.typepad.com/richardso...e-no-10525.html

And then, the resulting images. Obviously, half-ass quality with this Nikon camera:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/01/...son-photography

But of course, you *do* have the Magical Glowing Rocks in your image, that clearly, only MF could render so magically:

http://www.bmrworldphotos.com/

[BlasR]

Another take on it:

http://jimrichardson.typepad.com/richardso...e-no-10525.html

And then, the resulting images. Obviously, half-ass quality with this Nikon camera:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/01/...son-photography

But of course, you *do* have the Magical Glowing Rocks in your image, that clearly, only MF could render so magically:

http://www.bmrworldphotos.com/

 

Ya, I'm not going to spend a day to sale print for.

Prices
Size    Unframed    Framed
10''    $19.95    $129.00
14''    $34.95    $159.00
20''    $49.95    $200.00
30''    $89.95    $275.00

if a bear eat me, then what?  my wife will get married again, in the other man will enjoy my money.

one more in finally time.  if you shot with a dslr in then with mf will be like night in day, you like it or not.

I need  drink, I love what i have, i guess is good to be rich  

I sold almost all my canon, I have only the 70-200 and the 400 do between those two will be around 7,000.00

the only two photos i sold from my canon was this two.

with p25 got all my money+ more to keep drinking, with p45+ more then more and more drinking

with h3d-50 i'm braking almost even, ( because some one say if i work hard i need to share with those don't like to work)

so I just enjoying in see if in 3 more years I can work hard in keep my cash in drink little be more.

oh hold I'd been to the 50 state of usa.  almost all europe, asia (almost every were too), centro america from colombia to mexico,in all between, middle east, caribean in more and more.  wow what a great life.  i need more drink love it

but i was my boss (well my wife order me around)  here are those shots.

the boat was sold 201 to the marriott in boston.  but didn't pay for the 1ds.  so MF will be the best.  the birds, (bosque del apache) 32 times

were in the hell is my f™¡£¢∞§•ªºµ√ç≈∂≈Ωåœ÷æ‘ drink

[gwhitf]

with p25 got all my money+ more to keep drinking, with p45+ more then more and more drinking

Best post ever on this board.

So there you have it, boys and girls -- the REAL reason to shoot medium format.

[Streetshooter]

Best post ever on this board.

So there you have it, boys and girls -- the REAL reason to shoot medium format.

This post has made my New Year. Or has April 1st come early......

[mtomalty]

Different 'tools' in action.


http://www.eternalmoonwalk.com/


Mark
www.marktomalty.com

[BernardLanguillier]

Well, I will risk disagreeing with Lisa. I think that separating this forum into forums grouped by photography type would kill them all. I like reading this forum for the variety.

I don't think so.

Either way, there is a form of separation.

What we are looking for is the separation that is most relevant to what we do. The fact of the matter is that most of us have a speciality, and can use different tools to serve the needs of that speciality, in my case landscape photography.

Spending 80% of my time in a landscape section wouldn't prevent me from looking elsewhere if I need to.

One thing is highly disturbing with the current MF forum, there is a certain feeling outthere that high end photography is done with high end gear because high end photography requires the best and therefore the most expensive, in the present case MF digital.

I personnally believe that this assumption is wrong at at leats 2 levels:

- high end photography doesn't require high image quality from a technical standpoint,
- the highest image quality can be achieved with reasonnably affordable equipment (think stitching).

Having subject separation by usage and not by equipment would avoid the current association between money and quality photography by centering the debate on what really matters: how to achieve high quality results for a given type of applications.

Cheers,
Bernard

[pschefz]

seems like a lot of people here print 30x40s...all the time...in 20 years of shooting and working, i have yet to print one..the largest i have seen my work is mag covers blown up to 3x5ft...and in all those prints (non inkjet) i have not seen a difference between a file from scan, digital p&s or DMF....


so why don't we call/arrange the forums by print sizes....up to 11x14....and must see the ant's crack in my 30x40 print....

[CBarrett]

*yawn*

[rethmeier]

*yawn*

+1

[lisa_r]

What we are looking for is the separation that is most relevant to what we do. The fact of the matter is that most of us have a speciality, and can use different tools to serve the needs of that speciality, in my case landscape photography.

...centering the debate on what really matters: how to achieve high quality results for a given type of applications.

Cheers,
Bernard

Exactly my sentiments.

[gwhitf]

Very exciting article.

http://www.harlanerskine.com/blog/2010/01/...weetchat-s.html

[Ray]

I dont post here much any more because my D3 and Hassy/22p have worked fine and pleased my clients for years now - really Ive become disinterested in camera tech - which is great

I agree. It is great. Disinterested is the only way to be when comparing camera technical qualities.

If you are not disinterested, your results and comparisons are worthless.

This is what really annoys me about camera and format comparisons. There's often a lack of disinterest. There's often so much bias and 'pushing one's own barrow'.

Whatever you do, try to be as disinterested as possible when comparing the technical performance of cameras.

[Phil Indeblanc]

I agree. It is great. Disinterested is the only way to be when comparing camera technical qualities.

If you are not disinterested, your results and comparisons are worthless.

This is what really annoys me about camera and format comparisons. There's often a lack of disinterest. There's often so much bias and 'pushing one's own barrow'.

Whatever you do, try to be as disinterested as possible when comparing the technical performance of cameras.

I think most selfd respecting pro's have to be. ....
If they want improved gear...or improve in anything period.  

If all you have eaten is your French onion soup, and you LOVE it, how can you serve people that same soup without trying others LOVED soup and seeing if there are charactoristics in it that actually make sense to switch out?  (hope that loose analogy works)