Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 18   Go Down

Author Topic: You can't do That with medium format  (Read 113818 times)

jduncan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 432
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #40 on: October 11, 2010, 08:18:38 am »

Because, image quality matters to me...for example, this image on Monument Valley was done with 8 P65+ captures with a 45mm lens. See: Monument Valley.
From what you said (8 P65+ photos) Image quality should be excellent. But what I love is the beautiful  composition and color. The image is magnificent.
Logged
english is not my first language, an I k

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10143
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #41 on: October 11, 2010, 08:23:08 am »

Ah, so your experience is medium format film, not medium format digital huh? Big difference bud. Bottom line, you really can't compare a 24MP DSLR capture with a 60MP medium format capture. Apples/oranges...the only question is; does medium format get relegated to only use on a tripod for non-moving subjects? Jim Martin says no...I agree. You use the equipment you need to use to get the IQ you want. In Jim's case, that's medium format, even if he's shooting close ups of a bug or a lemur.

What do you mean, Jeff? Are you implying that the quality differences between film formats is less? The only way to find out which is better and by how much is to compare them. We all should know by now that a 60MP DB, under conditions which are ideal for it, will always produce better results than a 24mp DSLR under the same conditions, comparing single shots at very large print sizes. However, in the real world, conditions are frequently not ideal.

I would have thought that the image quality differences between MF film and 35mm film are actually greater than the differences between DSLRs and MFDBs. In fact, I think it would be true to say that the reasons for a 35mm film shooter to upgrade to MF film would have been far more compelling than the reasons to upgrade from a 24mp D3X to a 60mp Phase DB, not only because the cost difference was much less amongst different film formats, but the technical quality differences between the film formats was greater. It was greater because the differences in film area were greater.

Consider the difference between the D3X and P65+ formats. Both sensors have about the same pixel density so could be analagous to two different sizes of film with the same grain size. But the P65+ is slightly smaller than the minimum upgrade in film formats, ie from 35mm to 645 film. The P65+ sensor is only about 2.5x the area of the FF 35mm sensor, whereas my GWS690 (6cmx9cm) is over 6x the area of 35mm film.

Not only that, when I used a particular brand of high ISO film, say Superia 800, with my GSW690, I knew that the film would have the same characteristics when used in a smaller format on my 35mm SLR and that the technical quality differences between images from the two formats would remain at the same order of magnitude. This is not the case with MFDBs. At ISO 800, the differences between the P65+ and  the D3X are greatly reduced to the point where they might actually disappear.

Comparing the P65+ at ISO 800 with a D3X at ISO 800 is not the sort of comparison you tend to see, because I suspect it would place the P65+ in a poor light. Now I don't believe you own a D3X, but you do own a 1Ds3 and a P65+, so how about it, Jeff - a comparison between the P65+ and the IDs3 at their respective real ISOs of 800? What would be even more sensible is a comparison at equal DoF and equal shutter speed, which would mean comparing the 1Ds3 at the manufacturer's specified ISO 400 with the P65+ at the manufacturer's specified ISO 1600.

According to DXOmark, the 1Ds3 at ISO 400 is actually ISO 285, and the P65+ at ISO 1600 is actually only ISO 698. The difference between ISO 285 and ISO 698 is roughly 1 & 1/3rd of a stop, which is approximately the f stop difference required to equalize DoF and maintain equal shutter speed at the respective ISO's of 400 and 1600.
Logged

John R Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1357
  • Still crazy, after all these years
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #42 on: October 11, 2010, 08:39:44 am »

Another thing I might gently point out, is that I thought this was supposed to be the Medium Format section of the LL Forum here. That is, for people who actually own and use MF cameras, be they film or digital. Not particularly for people who do not use them but seem to be on a mission to persuade all the MF shooters that they have made a huge mistake.

John
Logged
Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
an

Dennis Carbo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #43 on: October 11, 2010, 08:51:17 am »

Agreed John, OP just doesn't get it - I hope some one tells Phase one, Sinar , Leaf that they are making a big mistake too !  poor fools ! :o :o
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10143
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #44 on: October 11, 2010, 09:06:46 am »

Another thing I might gently point out, is that I thought this was supposed to be the Medium Format section of the LL Forum here. That is, for people who actually own and use MF cameras, be they film or digital. Not particularly for people who do not use them but seem to be on a mission to persuade all the MF shooters that they have made a huge mistake.

John


Have you tried reading the description of this section, John? It ends with the following sentence:
Quote
Users of all brands and models are welcome, as are all photographers interested in learning more about this equipment.


Sometimes in order to get the the truth, one has to be a bit forceful in one's enquiries. I get a sense there's a lote of hype and salesmanship going on here.

I've just had a private bet with myself that Jeff will not show us a comparison between the P65+, at F13 and ISO 1600, and the 1Ds3, at ISO 400 and F8, using the same shutter speed with both cameras.

The fact is, I already know that a P65+ at ISO 50, on a tripod, will produce a sharper and more detailed image of a static scene than a 1Ds3 at ISO 100, or even a D3X at ISO 100.

But I don't know what a comparison of equal DoF using the same shutter speed would look like. If someone shows me such a comparison, I shall have learned something.

Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10143
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #45 on: October 11, 2010, 09:15:45 am »

The advantage of using MF for stitching is that you can include larger moving objects, like waves, boats cars etc.

Good point! It doesn't apply in Death Valley of course, but that's certainly worth bearing in mind should one be in a position of shooting panoramas with large moving objects.
Logged

Dennis Carbo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #46 on: October 11, 2010, 12:21:10 pm »

Ray, do you actually own a MFDB ? Do you make a living strictly from photography ?

"the fact is, I already know that a P65+ at ISO 50, on a tripod, will produce a sharper and more detailed image of a static scene than a 1Ds3 at ISO 100, or even a D3X at ISO 100" 

"or EVEN a D3X ?".....Nevermind the P65 my 6 year old 22mp Sinar 54M will produce a sharper more detailed static scene that the D3X - and Yes I have used both .

You seem hell bent on proving the 35mm FF format is a better choice, when in reality it is for some work and is not for others. If you dont want to use a MFDB fine, Things I found attractive and worth the expense were:

No AA filter, 16 bit files, big 9 micron pixel size, increased dynamic range, low base ISO are all things that attracted me to MF.  Virtually any MFDB made in the past 5 or 6 years yield far cleaner and crisper images than any DSLR to date .

Once again - Guess I dont see the point...It is a very competitive field out there and I need to deliver the best image to my client i possible can, Sometimes that means MFDB...sometimes DSLR...and yes sometimes even Film !  If you are truly in this forum to "learn more about this equipment" why then dont you seem to want to listen to the working photographers that actually use this equipment in question on a daily basis ?

It all good - lets just keep shootin !

D



Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4144
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #47 on: October 11, 2010, 12:51:13 pm »

I've just had a private bet with myself that Jeff will not show us a comparison between the P65+, at F13 and ISO 1600, and the 1Ds3, at ISO 400 and F8, using the same shutter speed with both cameras.

Hmmm. Ray is comparing a digital back at high ISO to a dSLR at low ISO. Reminds of debating whether Cassius Clay with a 200lb backpack and half a dozen shots of whiskey in him could still win against a fight again Mike Tyson in his prime. Normally I wouldn't bit at such a post, but...

Based on working knowledge of both systems: a P65+ at max ISO for full resolution (ISO800) would be well outperformed by a D3X at ISO400 (which is one stop above it's base ISO) in terms of noise, usable/aesthetic dynamic range and color fidelity in hard areas (e.g. subtle shadow transitions, and continuous dark neutrals).

However the P65+ in Sensor+ Mode woud produce a very sharp 15 megapixel ISO1600 shot (3 stops above base) and would actually be a meaningful match. I've not done that specific matchup, but Steve did a [email protected] vs [email protected] test either of our offices would gladly provide the gear to anyone who wants to do the test at our office.

Still these kinds of questions are kind of moot. It's like asking how the D3X would fair against the P65+ with both cameras set to ISO50 (the joke being that the D3X can't shoot at ISO50). Horses for courses: if you're low on shooting light and don't want to or can't introduce more light or use a tripod/monopod or open up then of course a smaller-sensor CMOS chip is going to be a better option.


Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #48 on: October 11, 2010, 01:13:43 pm »

What do you mean, Jeff? Are you implying that the quality differences between film formats is less? The only way to find out which is better and by how much is to compare them. We all should know by now that a 60MP DB, under conditions which are ideal for it, will always produce better results than a 24mp DSLR under the same conditions, comparing single shots at very large print sizes. However, in the real world, conditions are frequently not ideal.

I'm not implying anything. By your own admission, you don't have medium format digital back experience...so, you don't know what the IQ differences between a 1Ds MIII or D3X and a P65+ really would be nor the difficulties that would lead one to choose one over the other. Trying to extrapolate what the differences are based only on your medium format film and 35mm film isn't really applicable...

However, the whole point of the article (as indicated by the title You can't do That with medium format) is that digital medium format's "limitations" can be overcome and that carrying a medium format back and camera and shooting with it should not be automatically rejected simply because the subject or circumstances "seem" to indicate DSLR would be good enough-or at least easier to carry in the first place.

Jim chooses to use medium format digital instead of DSLR for subjects and circumstances where many photographers would not...the article was intended to try to dispel the reluctance some people may have with medium format backs and cameras...since we seem to agree that medium format (all other things being equal) will produce better IQ, the only question is whether or not it's worth the effort to even try to shoot medium format for subjects or in circumstances that seem to suggest DSLR. Now, if you don't have a medium format digital camera, the question is moot-you shoot with what you have...if you have both, the question becomes more interesting. Does the IQ benefits of medium format digital outweigh the difficulties shooting with it. Jim is indicating that his experience shows you CAN shoot medium format in circumstances where a DSLR would be a more common choice.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 02:59:04 pm by Schewe »
Logged

Guy Mancuso

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1133
    • http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/index.php
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #49 on: October 11, 2010, 01:38:24 pm »

I'm not implying anything. By your own admission, you don't have medium format digital back experience...so, you know know what the IQ differences between a 1Ds MIII or D3X and a P65+ really would be nor the difficulties that would lead one to choose one over the other. Trying to extrapolate what the differences are based only on your medium format film and 35mm film isn't really applicable...

However, the whole point of the article (as indicated by the title You can't do That with medium format) is that digital medium format's "limitations" can be overcome and that carrying a medium format back and camera and shooting with it should not automatically rejected simply because the subject or circumstances "seem" to indicate DSLR would be good enough-or at least easier to carry in the first place.

Jim chooses to use medium format digital instead of DSLR for subjects and circumstances where many photographers would not...the article was intended to try to dispel the reluctance some people may have with medium format backs and cameras...since we seem to agree that medium format (all other things being equal) will produce better IQ, the only question is whether or not it's worth the effort to even try to shoot medium format for subjects or in circumstances that seem to suggest DSLR. Now, if you don't have a medium format digital camera, the question is moot-you shoot with what you have...if you have both, the question becomes more interesting. Does the IQ benefits of medium format digital outweigh the difficulties shooting with it. Jim is indicating that his experience shows you CAN shoot medium format in circumstances where a DSLR would be a more common choice.

I do it all the time with the P40+ on sensor plus i will shoot PR and Corporate Events , Runway and all kinds of things that normally it would be normal practice to shoot 35mm DSLR cams in. So yes I concur you can do a lot when people say you can't. For working Pro's the word CAN'T does NOT exist in our vocabulary or we simply will not have food on our table. We are paid to produce images for pay how you get that done is up to the shooter and personally if it is a 8x10 view camera than that is what I will do. I shot speed graphics out of helicopters with 4x5 sheet film. Talk about inconvenient. These topics are absolutely stupid to be honest. You shoot what you have and you buy the best you can within your budget. This 35mm Vs the world war is not productive at all. Just like film the famous line was bigger is better , can someone please point out where that changed when it comes to sensors. `
Logged
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showt

Fritzer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 212
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #50 on: October 11, 2010, 02:32:53 pm »

Another thing I might gently point out, is that I thought this was supposed to be the Medium Format section of the LL Forum here. That is, for people who actually own and use MF cameras, be they film or digital. Not particularly for people who do not use them but seem to be on a mission to persuade all the MF shooters that they have made a huge mistake.

John

Amen, bro .
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #51 on: October 11, 2010, 03:21:20 pm »

Quote
I do it all the time with the .......snip

When I began shooting digital, I learned a lot from the old Rob Gailbraith Forums and even DP review.

Mostly from wedding photographers because their goal was simple.  To shoot the best photo they can, shoot many multiples for options, cover the event, deliver quickly and deliver an image as good as they were producing with film.

Back then that was a tall order, but wedding photographers really lead the way.

Now today, it's different on the forums.  To begin with there is a whole bunch of reps, salesman and photographers that are giving seminars and/or associated with dealers/reps/makers, so  for the person starting out and reading these forums you have to take the information along with the presenter and the agenda. 

Obviously someone that wants to teach is going to tell you one format or the other is difficult to learn.  Obviously people that sell cameras with high margins are going to offer the camera with the most profit for the dealer and the maker. 

I own every format of digital camera (except a tech camera) and IMO I can tell anyone what I've learned and sum it up in a few points.

1.  Just like film cameras, larger formats usually produce a more detailed image.  Unlike film cameras, larger format digital produces an much inferior preview image.  Also unlike film cameras, larger format digital tends to moire.

2.  Just like film cameras, larger formats are slower to work and though don't always require it, work a lot better with a tripod, if for focus alone.

3.  Just like film cameras, 35mm is usually cheaper (not counting Leica) than the larger formats.  Just like film cameras the 35mm versions usually are more innovative.

4.  Unlike film cameras, digital larger formats requires a little more post work as there is no real embedded jpeg that is suitable for proofing.

5.  Just like film cameras, medium format digital cameras are virtually the same as they were in the film days as all of the medium format digital bodies started life as 10 year old film camera designs.

6.  Unlike film cameras, there just isn't that huge a difference in formats.  645 to 35mm might be double the size, but it's nothing compared to what was offered in film with 6x7, 6x9, 4x5 and 8x10.

7.  Just like film cameras most people shoot the format they prefer.  Today it is a photographer's option, not usually a client demand.

8.  All of the cameras are good, any good photographer can shoot any of the major brands 35mm or 645 and have success.  The camera will not change your career, your artistic abilities or your billing.

IMO

BC
Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #52 on: October 11, 2010, 03:45:48 pm »

When I began shooting digital, I learned a lot from the old Rob Gailbraith Forums and even DP review.

Mostly from wedding photographers because their goal was simple.  To shoot the best photo they can, shoot many multiples for options, cover the event, deliver quickly and deliver an image as good as they were producing with film.

Back then that was a tall order, but wedding photographers really lead the way.

Now today, it's different on the forums.  To begin with there is a whole bunch of reps, salesman and photographers that are giving seminars and/or associated with dealers/reps/makers, so  for the person starting out and reading these forums you have to take the information along with the presenter and the agenda. 

Obviously someone that wants to teach is going to tell you one format or the other is difficult to learn.  Obviously people that sell cameras with high margins are going to offer the camera with the most profit for the dealer and the maker. 

I own every format of digital camera (except a tech camera) and IMO I can tell anyone what I've learned and sum it up in a few points.

1.  Just like film cameras, larger formats usually produce a more detailed image.  Unlike film cameras, larger format digital produces an much inferior preview image.  Also unlike film cameras, larger format digital tends to moire.

2.  Just like film cameras, larger formats are slower to work and though don't always require it, work a lot better with a tripod, if for focus alone.

3.  Just like film cameras, 35mm is usually cheaper (not counting Leica) than the larger formats.  Just like film cameras the 35mm versions usually are more innovative.

4.  Unlike film cameras, digital larger formats requires a little more post work as there is no real embedded jpeg that is suitable for proofing.

5.  Just like film cameras, medium format digital cameras are virtually the same as they were in the film days as all of the medium format digital bodies started life as 10 year old film camera designs.

6.  Unlike film cameras, there just isn't that huge a difference in formats.  645 to 35mm might be double the size, but it's nothing compared to what was offered in film with 6x7, 6x9, 4x5 and 8x10.

7.  Just like film cameras most people shoot the format they prefer.  Today it is a photographer's option, not usually a client demand.

8.  All of the cameras are good, any good photographer can shoot any of the major brands 35mm or 645 and have success.  The camera will not change your career, your artistic abilities or your billing.

IMO

BC
Yes,
but
unlike in the film age, tech is moving at the speed of light.
I remember in film cameras (I went late into digital), I had a Nikon FM2, F3 and F4, then moved to Contax (my latest film camera), kept some Pentaxes, worked also with a few Mamiyas ...I mean, all these cameras where from different generations but basically they were the same thing.
When student in fine arts, I could afford without too much problem a second-hand Mamiya with...one glass!
Who's student can own a MFD nowdays?
Then, the evolution of DSLR has always been faster than MF in film age, but now in digital, the gap is each time bigger. DSLR technology evolve much much faster.
My F3 was not obsolete in any date. Now, in a question of few years the evolutions are huge.
Think that just few years ago full frame was a luxury, video was a dream, decent imagery at 800iso was hard and a pro 2000 dollars camera simply did not exist. Without talking about connections, live-view, dust removal, etc...And look where we are now.
To me, the difference between now and before is a matter of speed.
   

Logged

Nick-T

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 462
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #53 on: October 11, 2010, 04:21:30 pm »

Ray welcome back to the forum.

It's been a while since we've heard from you, I can only assume you've been away.
 Just to bring you up to speed, while you were "away" (I'm not suggesting you were locked up or anything), many of the posters here (myself included) have been shooting for clients and for themselves with medium format gear. Some of us have even been paid to shoot with our medium format gear. Just sayin'.

Oh and I came across this really interesting Wiki entry the other day, here's an excerpt:

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in "that was an excellent troll you posted". While the term troll and its associated action trolling are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with trolling being used to describe intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context."

Nick-T
Logged
[url=http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.c

jduncan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 432
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #54 on: October 11, 2010, 04:52:58 pm »

Based on working knowledge of both systems: a P65+ at max ISO for full resolution (ISO800) would be well outperformed by a D3X at ISO400 (which is one stop above it's base ISO)
The base ISO of the D3x is 100.  Is not one stop above is two.
Still these kinds of questions are kind of moot. It's like asking how the D3X would fair against the P65+ with both cameras set to ISO50 (the joke being that the D3X can't shoot at ISO50).
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
The D3x can shoot at ISO 50.  Guess someone don't use Nikon :)
By the way I agree, in general,with your comment.  Just pointing out a minor error (where you thinking of the D3s?) for the sake of completeness
« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 05:04:42 pm by jduncan »
Logged
english is not my first language, an I k

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4144
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #55 on: October 11, 2010, 05:56:46 pm »

Thanks. Accurate details are important to me, and I was wrong.

I was in fact thinking of the D3s.

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #56 on: October 11, 2010, 06:09:58 pm »

MF DSLRs and lenses are heavy, and a mirror-free MF system with several lenses might actually be lighter than a MFDSLR system?

My Alpa gear is lighter than my 5dMk2 gear ... 
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #57 on: October 11, 2010, 06:20:21 pm »

My Alpa gear is lighter than my 5dMk2 gear ... 

And after spending some time with Mark Dubovoy I've come to appreciate the compact and light weight nature of tech cameras and lenses...but the thing I still don't like is the limitation of ground glass/back swapping you have to do. For classic landscape type work that wouldn't be so bad and in the studio is easy, but a lot of what I'm shooting with the P1 system and 1Ds MIII isn't quite so easy to do with a tech camera. So, I'm still on the fence...
Logged

Dennis Carbo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #58 on: October 11, 2010, 06:40:16 pm »



"More recently, the local litmus test is how few of Nashville's talented shooters bother with MFDBs, few. I can take a serious guess that there are more digital backs in the local photo schools than in the equipment cases of working pro shooters doing client jobs. I could probably count maybe half a dozen local shooters I know for sure use MFDBs for their work. Truth be told, 5DII's, 1DsIII's, D3x's, and then many other DSLRs are the mainstay for these highly talented shooters."

I shoot architecture primarily in the northeast (CT,NY,RI,MA) - sure I agree more are shooting DSLR but most of my serious competitors getting a 2k and better day rate shoot MFDB with Pancake or view cameras - I shoot MFDB most of the time, The prints look almost 3D and my clients love it .......They love the results and it gets me work and referrals. Could i do it with a DSLR? maybe....but MFDB works for me and my style......... I just feel blessed to be able to make a living at something I love

Logged

cyberean

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
Re: You can't do That with medium format
« Reply #59 on: October 11, 2010, 07:36:14 pm »

Based on working knowledge of both systems: a P65+ at max ISO for full resolution (ISO800) would be well outperformed by a D3X at ISO400 (which is one stop above it's base ISO) in terms of noise, usable/aesthetic dynamic range and color fidelity in hard areas (e.g. subtle shadow transitions, and continuous dark neutrals).


actually it be two stops
... but who's countin'
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 18   Go Up