You can't do That with medium format

[Ray]

I can promise you, discussions such as happen here never, ever, occurred amongst professional users of photo equipment - only the amateur magazines played those games: they had to; it was their reason for existing, followed by the publication of reader's wives pictures in second place. The pro mags I found - few and far between - were concerned with lens and new film tests more than anything else. New cameras were rare birds!

If that's the case, Rob, you are contradicting yourself. The same preoccupation continues - lenses and film - except film has been replaced by a digital sensor and the RAW image is like a piece of exposed film that can be developed and redeveloped as often as one likes, push or pull processed to taste.

Some films lent themselves to a push-processing technique and other types of film were not so good in that respect, a bit like current DBs.

On the other hand, films that produced the sharpest results usually had a very low ISO rating, a bit like DBs. My favourite film before I switched to digital was Kodak Royal Gold 25. As I recall, it was the difficulty of getting a sufficiently fast shutter speed with that film, when camera was hand-held, that caused me to switch from Minolta to Canon because of the lure of Canon's image stabilisation technology.

[Rob C]

If that's the case, Rob, you are contradicting yourself. The same preoccupation continues - lenses and film - except film has been replaced by a digital sensor and the RAW image is like a piece of exposed film that can be developed and redeveloped as often as one likes, push or pull processed to taste.

Not really, Ray; the lenses (in my memory, at least) were tested and an opinion given for that lens. That's not the same as the fanboy game: x is better than y because I bought into x. The facts, mam, only the facts!

Come to think of it, in 35mm only Nikon, Canon and Leica were seriously mentioned with, later on, one or two Sigma products. The other makes were disregarded, in the main, as cheap amateur country. I don't really remember 35mm Zeiss getting much space in reviews.

With MF it was Hasselblad stuff, Rollei, Mamiya, with Bronica in a sort of making-up-the-numbers rôle; Pentax was mainly mentioned for the difficulty in getting a hands-on experience of it.

The point, really, is that cameras were pretty well set in stone and, in general, only new lenses were introduced or improved. The game had plateaued into a state of fairly damn good on all scores. How nice for buyers - you could hardly go wrong; and for makers, more of the same, please!

With film, it was all about how well it performed. Pushing/pulling etc. wasn't usually on the agenda. Regardless of what many believe, all that sort of non-standard treatment was more part of the am game than the pro. The pro had to have standardized routes to results. Of course there were labs to provide such services, but it wasn't a position anyone wanted to find himself in - it was an emergency case. The pro never sought more problems than he already had to beat.

Rob C

EDIT: I'll give you this - the other computer has just finished scanning four 35mm trannies; 40 minutes to do that!

[Ray]

Not really, Ray; the lenses (in my memory, at least) were tested and an opinion given for that lens. That's not the same as the fanboy game: x is better than y because I bought into x. The facts, mam, only the facts!

Rob C

EDIT: I'll give you this - the other computer has just finished scanning four 35mm trannies; 40 minutes to do that!

So it is today, Rob. Opinions supported by evidence are always preferrable to opinions unsupported by any tests or comparisons. Anyone can have an opinion. When my interest in photography was renewed after the digital darkroom became an affordable option, I found sites like Photodo a valuable resource. I found it interesting that sometimes a Tamron lens had a slightly higher MTF result than a Hasselblad of similar focal length. Of course, the Hasselblad lens would have a wider image circle.

Photodo no longer do MTF testing of lenses. I guess that was just too expensive. But other sites like Photozone test actual copies of lenses. Unfortunately, their results are 'system' results which include the performance of both lens and sensor, so not as useful as the old Photodo MTF tests.

I'm waiting on some reliable testing results, or comparison images showing 100% crops, for the new Nikkor 24-120/F4 VRII lens. It's a lens which interests me, but I need to know if it's at least as good as my Canon 24-105/F4, before I order one.

Of course, the problem with lenses has always been quality variability amongst individual copies of the same model, and this is why a single test, howeveer competently carried out, may be misleading.

10 minutes to scan a 35mm slide seems a bit long, but the last time I scanned any film was a few years ago on my Minolta 5400. I can't remember how long it took at maximum resolution.

Cheers!

[Ray]

Those are the people (and more on the list of course) that I want to know what they use and why. Not laboratory stuff.
And the why has never to do with the web measurements, even if those datas are trustable and scientifically prooved.
If I where making cameras, I'd had much more reliable info anyway that are not published, but I'm not making cameras.
That was my point.

Respect for all, yes. If some find those datas usefull for their imagery, that's perfect to me. I have nothing to object.

Of course. It can be useful to know why a photographer uses particular equipment, if you admire his work. There are ergonomic issues as well as matters of technical quality. It is said that Henri Cartier Bresson, who was a master of 'capturing the moment', found the rangefinder concept of the Leica useful because it allowed him to see detail and movement immediately surrounding the 35mm frame in the viewfinder, when his eye was pressed to the camera.

However, I'm partly getting the impression that you don't want to think about the attributes of the equipment you need for your own purposes, but would rather just use the same equipment as those photographers you admire. Is this true?

[Nick-T]

However, I'm partly getting the impression that you don't want to think about the attributes of the equipment you need for your own purposes, but would rather just use the same equipment as those photographers you admire. Is this true?

For a moment there Ray I thought you were being rude.

Oh wait...

[Ray]

For a moment there Ray I thought you were being rude.

Oh wait...

Me? Rude? Don't be silly!

[Ray]

I have to learn equipment that I can't afford because I assist, and in those, I like some and don't like very much others. Leica S2 handling for example is not for me but I'd like to learn RED.

This is an entirely different issue. If it's your job to assist people who are using equipment you neither like nor can afford, then it's perfectly understandable you should learn about such equipment.

However, when selecting a camera for your own needs, is there not a list of priorities that you use in selecting the best equipment?

For example, if camera A has 1/2 a stop better DR at ISO 3200 than camera B, and a full stop better DR at ISO 200, that in itself might not be significant. However, if camera A is also compatible with a particularly fine lens, such as the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 for example, then such performance features can add up to make a compelling case for purchasing camera A.

In order to discover such attributes, one has to not only listen to opinions but examine the reports from laboratory tests, or at least examine comparison images taken by people who are thorough and meticulous.

To a practical point of view, the Hassy sync is much more important than if the D3 has an 1/2 DR point more than Phase in laboratory, wich means nothing because they don't take the software into the equation as it's been mentionned in this thread and over and over again in Lu-La.

Of course. If a high sync speed is important for your work and you need to get a sharp image of a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun, then a 35mm DSLR probably won't do. The best tool for the job applies.

If a 1/2 stop DR advantage means little to you, then the fact that C1 software may be able to extract a 1/2 stop more DR out of a P65+ file, than Nikon or Adobe software can, simply means that DR is out of the equation. It's not an issue.

I've also heard it mentioned many times on this forum, that the DR of the Phase DBs is better than the DXO results would indicate, but I've never seen comparison images, so I don't know how much better. Maybe such claims are largely defensive bluster, for all I know.

What does seem clear to me is, if it were not for organisations like DXO doing serious laboratory tests, some people would still be claiming that DBs have up to 6 stops better DR than any 35mm DSLR in existence. Thankfully that myth has been exploded.

If you are really serious about subtle files, precision, like in fine arts for example, MF is almost an obliged path if you can afford it. The ones who try to demostrate the opposite don't know what they are talking about. I never condamned MF except for its computer dependence and few other things that could be fixed.

I would not deny that there are situations in which the MFDB is clearly the best tool for the job. Such situations, it appears to me (correct me if I'm wrong) tend to be when high resolution images are required of slowly moving subjects in good natural lighting, or fast moving subjects in good artificial lighting (at high sync speed), when only a single shot is possible to catch the moment and freeze the subject.

For most other situations, such as fast action in natural lighting, acceptable results in poor lighting at high ISO, long telephoto reach for wildlife, extensive DoF for landscapes, stationery subjects where stitching is possible to increase resolution, and exposure bracketing is possible to increase DR, the 35mm DSLR seems at least as good and often better than the MFDB, wouldn't you say?

[Martin Kristiansen]

Very odd thread I think.

I see 2 issues at work here. The first is a desire to justify the large amount of money that needs top be spent to get into MF when frequently MF is not the correct tool for the job. The second is a sour grapes issue for people that cannot afford MF and so do there best to prove that it is all an con and a rip off.

I am in no way calling Ray out on the last point. In fact I agree with almost all the points he makes about the technical issues.

By the way I shoot most of my personal work on a Leaf Aptus7 that I plan on upgrading to a Aptus12 while almost all my commercial work, mostly catalogue stuff, is shot on a Canon 1D MKIII. In essence the Canon pays the bills and supports my MFDB habit. I just happen to shoot landscapes and such that please me more on the Aptus mounted on a Cambo.

As Lance said. "It's not about the camera"

[David Grover / Capture One]

Of course. If a high sync speed is important for your work and you need to get a sharp image of a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun, then a 35mm DSLR probably won't do. The best tool for the job applies.

Ray, this is not the purpose / benefit of high sync speed on a camera.

Rather to balance ambient and flash light without being limited by the 1/125 sync speed.

[Dustbak]

Actually the best chance (pretty much your only chance ) to catch a bullit leaving the barrel is a long exposure (1second or more) and a fast flash.

[Dick Roadnight]

Actually the best chance (pretty much your only chance ) to catch a bullit leaving the barrel is a long exposure (1second or more) and a fast flash.

That would work in the dark, but, if you need to exclude ambient light, it is best to use two shutter-beams (which can react to sound) one to fire the shutter, and one to fire the flash, or a delay circuit.

...or you can use a three-circuit system, and fire the bullet electronically.

[Dustbak]

Dick, even with 1sec. you need the microphone and the delay timer. And the studio doesn't need to be totally dark with this but indeed it does free you to go longer if necessary. In practice it is very hard to do it faster and get good results, even with the Cognysis equipment.

Opening the shutter and the camera delay is one thing that is not totally reliable in as it appears to be not entirely consistent. It also takes quite a bit of time. The best results I get is when I open the shutter first, have the 'event' take place, delay for x amount of micro (yes micro) seconds, set off the flash and close the shutter. It gets a lot more difficult to go under 1 second this way.

I also need the fastest flash I have around to minimize movement.

I have done drops and collissions this way, not (yet) bullits.

Addendum. This is with MF, maybe it goes better with my DSLR. I will give it a try one of these days...

[Rob C]

Actually the best chance (pretty much your only chance ) to catch a bullit leaving the barrel is a long exposure (1second or more) and a fast flash.

Dustbak, you are talking crap.

The best way to catch a bullet leaving the barrel is to stand right in front of it as the gun goes off.

This has been proven time after time; there is casebook after casebook full of the details.


Rob C

[Dick Roadnight]

Dick, even with 1sec. you need the microphone and the delay timer. And the studio doesn't need to be totally dark with this but indeed it does free you. In practice it is very hard to do it faster and get good results, even with the Cognysis equipment.

I have done drops and collissions this way, not (yet) bullits.

How long does it take to open the shutter, with a mirror-less or MLU system?

If it takes longer to open the shutter than it takes for the bullet to travel down the barrel...

...but the application I have in mind would involve photographing the bullet as it hits the target, which would be easier.

[Dustbak]

RobC,

You are right. How could I not think of that. Repeatability is kind of bad that way which might be a downside

[Dustbak]

How long does it take to open the shutter, with a mirror-less or MLU system?

If it takes longer to open the shutter than it takes for the bullet to travel down the barrel...

...but the application I have in mind would involve photographing the bullet as it hits the target, which would be easier.

The mirror is already up.

Be my guest and go ahead. Let me know and see the results...

[Dick Roadnight]

Dustbak, you are talking crap.

The best way to catch a bullet leaving the barrel is to stand right in front of it as the gun goes off.

This has been proven time after time; there is casebook after casebook full of the details.


Rob C

Hi, Rob..

Does this involve placing the mussel of the gun in the hand, or in some suitable orifice, or are you talking of photographing the bullet?

Do you use a gun that fires ping-pong balls? (or squash ball for white backgrounds)?

[Dick Roadnight]

Back to the thread, there is a very simple fact: 80% of the professional choice is Canon. Digital imagery is basically Canon. Why? ...with Canon, no miracles but no hassles. It just works,...
Despite of that fact, many pros also choosed to shot Nikon for good reasons also (sport is one), or to shoot Phase, Hasselblad, Cambo etc...for good reasons.

Do you seriously imagine yourself conversing with Ansel Adams explaining to him that you just discovered that the sensor X has more DR...

I believe that AA did a great deal of "real world" (ambient, outdoor) photography, so DR would be of more interest to him (and landscape photographers) than studio photogs.

You are talking about professional photography with mainstream amateur equipment "no miracles but no hassles. It just works".

Especially with the new T/S adapters and lenses, amateur equipment is adequate for most pro photographs... but some of us try to work to a higher standard that what can be achieved with amateur equipment, or do work that would be technically impossible with amateur equipment.

There are, of course H4D-60s used by amateurs, and there is not enough specialist work out there to make it worth while for every pro to buy equipment that can take pictures that the well-healed amateur could not.

A pro might do a better job than an amateur with the same camera, but the instant feed-back of digital makes it so easy for the amateur or part-timer to get an acceptable result.

How many pros do you come across who use Sinar?

[Ray]

Ray, this is not the purpose / benefit of high sync speed on a camera.

Rather to balance ambient and flash light without being limited by the 1/125 sync speed.

David,
On page 305 of the 443-page Nikon D700 manual, I'm informed that the humble D700 can have flash sync speeds ranging from 1/60th to 1/320th sec when used with the Nikon Speedlight units, such as the SB-900, SB-800, and SB-600 etc. For appropriate balance with ambient light, shutter speeds can be selected from 30 secs to 1/8000th, but apparently at shutter speeds faster than 1/320th the flash range is reduced.

However, this is not something I've experimented with. I haven't even bought a Nikon Speedlight yet. Maybe I should.

[yaya]

David,
On page 305 of the 443-page Nikon D700 manual, I'm informed that the humble D700 can have flash sync speeds ranging from 1/60th to 1/320th sec when used with the Nikon Speedlight units, such as the SB-900, SB-800, and SB-600 etc. For appropriate balance with ambient light, shutter speeds can be selected from 30 secs to 1/8000th, but apparently at shutter speeds faster than 1/320th the flash range is reduced.

However, this is not something I've experimented with. I haven't even bought a Nikon Speedlight yet. Maybe I should.

Glad to hear you've taken the time to read the D700 manual, however 1/320 with small flash guns does not give the same results as when you use an MF or LF camera and flash packs, syncing at 1/500, 1/800 or even 1/1,600 (on the Phase One/ Mamiya 645DF and LS lenses), be it freezing motion in the studio or out-powering the sun outside...

Check Claes Axstål's work as a good example for how flash is used outside

Yair