Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras  (Read 61561 times)

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #60 on: December 21, 2010, 09:17:25 pm »

Has Mark Dubovoy said or implied that photographs made with 'lesser' cameras constitute inferior photography, or that great photographic work cannot be done with these 'lesser' bodies?  If yes, where?  If not, what is this Sturm und Drang all about?


No he didn't and like you I'm having a hard time understanding the basis for the "Sturm and Drang" too. :-)
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

PierreVandevenne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 512
    • http://www.datarescue.com/life
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #61 on: December 21, 2010, 09:32:17 pm »

For example, "Lots of folks shoot landscapes with small format DSLR's.  To my eyes, the results are sub-standard."

Maybe "sub-optimal" would be a better word?

Among other things, I've seen landscapes by Plisson shot on a DSLR - they didn't look sub-standard to me.

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #62 on: December 21, 2010, 09:46:26 pm »

For example, "Lots of folks shoot landscapes with small format DSLR's.  To my eyes, the results are sub-standard."

Among other things, I've seen landscapes by Plisson shot on a DSLR - they didn't look sub-standard to me.

Shocking! Two people having different opinions about the same thing. Who has ever heard of such a thing!?

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #63 on: December 21, 2010, 09:46:55 pm »

For example, "Lots of folks shoot landscapes with small format DSLR's.  To my eyes, the results are sub-standard."

Maybe "sub-optimal" would be a better word?

Among other things, I've seen landscapes by Plisson shot on a DSLR - they didn't look sub-standard to me.



I don't understand. Clearly there are DSLRs and there are DSLRs - small format ones, larger format ones, inexpensive ones, costlier ones. Which ones was Mark Dubovoy talking about, which kinds do Plisson and the photographers represented in his shop use? This discussion is like nailing jelly to a wall.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

billmac

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
    • McClure Photography, LLC
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #64 on: December 21, 2010, 09:48:17 pm »

Jeez, I love a good food fight!  :)

Bill
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #65 on: December 21, 2010, 09:50:29 pm »

Jeez, I love a good food fight!  :)

Bill


Sorry to disappoint, but it's not a fight, it's a discussion - perhaps a bit forceful here and there, but a discussion nonetheless.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

PierreVandevenne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 512
    • http://www.datarescue.com/life
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #66 on: December 21, 2010, 10:10:15 pm »

Sorry to disappoint, but it's not a fight, it's a discussion - perhaps a bit forceful here and there, but a discussion nonetheless.

Agreed.  Mark Dubovoy's articles have always been great discussion catalyzers.

Logged

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #67 on: December 21, 2010, 10:15:23 pm »

I don't understand. Clearly there are DSLRs and there are DSLRs - small format ones, larger format ones, inexpensive ones, costlier ones. Which ones was Mark Dubovoy talking about, which kinds do Plisson and the photographers represented in his shop use? This discussion is like nailing jelly to a wall.

Assuming you mean Philippe Plisson, then I am one of the photographers represented by his company. My images in his catalogue were mostly shot on Canon 5D, 5D2, 35mm film, Pentax 6x7, Ebony 4x5, Mamiya RZ67, Mamiya RB67, Silvestri etc etc

Others that I know personally like Charlie Waite and Yann Arthus Bertrand use a similarly eclectic mix of tools. Charlie sometimes likes to shoot on a Mamiya Press on Fuji Press neg film. YAB shoots his aerials on 1Ds3s...

Point is, use the tools that you have and like, for whatever reason. Now I use the S2, and I absolutely love it. If I could'nt afford it I'd not loose sleep, I'd just press on with my Canons and do more stitching!

My mate in Western Australia, Christian Fletcher runs three galleries and recently bought a P65. The big showcase images on his gallery walls are spectacular. Thus it was a good choice of camera for him, irrespective of the cost.

I'm a little tired of this cognitive dissonance - MR has written about this in past years and I agree with him. Did photographers gripe about not being able to afford 10x8 cameras twenty years ago?

The best camera in the world is the one you have in your hand.
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #68 on: December 21, 2010, 10:40:58 pm »

Assuming you mean Philippe Plisson, then I am one of the photographers represented by his company. My images in his catalogue were mostly shot on Canon 5D, 5D2, 35mm film, Pentax 6x7, Ebony 4x5, Mamiya RZ67, Mamiya RB67, Silvestri etc etc

Others that I know personally like Charlie Waite and Yann Arthus Bertrand use a similarly eclectic mix of tools. Charlie sometimes likes to shoot on a Mamiya Press on Fuji Press neg film. YAB shoots his aerials on 1Ds3s...

Point is, use the tools that you have and like, for whatever reason. Now I use the S2, and I absolutely love it. If I could'nt afford it I'd not loose sleep, I'd just press on with my Canons and do more stitching!

My mate in Western Australia, Christian Fletcher runs three galleries and recently bought a P65. The big showcase images on his gallery walls are spectacular. Thus it was a good choice of camera for him, irrespective of the cost.

I'm a little tired of this cognitive dissonance - MR has written about this in past years and I agree with him. Did photographers gripe about not being able to afford 10x8 cameras twenty years ago?

The best camera in the world is the one you have in your hand.

I thought I should review precisely the meaning of "cognitive dissonance" and came-up with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance, complete with "sour grapes" ! I love it.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #69 on: December 21, 2010, 10:49:19 pm »

Bernard, when I click on your link for stitching I get a needlepoint website. What's up with that?

Strange isn't it? :)

Cheers,
Bernard

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #70 on: December 21, 2010, 10:54:46 pm »

Strange isn't it? :)

Cheers,
Bernard


No not strange - it's the secret app Bernard uses for stitching his panos. He was never a fan of Photoshop for doing this, as far as I can remember. :-)
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #71 on: December 21, 2010, 10:58:48 pm »

No not strange - it's the secret app Bernard uses for stitching his panos. He was never a fan of Photoshop for doing this, as far as I can remember. :-)

Mark, you know me way too well. :)

Cheers,
Bernard

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #72 on: December 21, 2010, 11:13:20 pm »

I thought I should review precisely the meaning of "cognitive dissonance" and came-up with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance, complete with "sour grapes" ! I love it.


This is what MR wrote on the subject back in 2004

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cognative.shtml
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #73 on: December 21, 2010, 11:47:01 pm »

Ray - a simple question to help evaluate what you are saying: how many MF systems have you personally tested at varying ISO settings, printed the outcomes and seen the results?

I contest the notion that these systems can only be advantageous under controlled studio conditions. It's just not true.

Only two, Mark. They were the Mamiya RB67 and the Fujifilm GW690III. I believe the increased resolution from these two cameras would have exceeded the resolution of my Canon 35mm film-camera by a greater degree than a P65+ exceeds the resolution of a 1Ds3, 5D2, A900 or D3X.

I bought these MF systems second-hand for what I thought was a good price. I got the impression that many professional photographers at the time, around the year 2001, were dumping their MF gear in favour of lower resolution digital which was far more convenient to use and the images far cheaper and easier to process.

Around this time, Canon's first DSLR offering, the 3mp D30, was selling in Australia for around A$6,500. I preferred to spend A$6,000 on Nikon's first affordable MF scanner, the 8000ED, so I could scan my 6x7cm and 6x9cm negatives which would provide considerably more resolution than a 3mp DSLR.

If I'd known at the time that within  3 years or so Canon would double the MP count and produce a D60 at a lower price than the D30 (I recall the 4mp 1D preceded it), I would not have bought into those MF systems.

As soon as I experienced that amazing convenience and flexibility of the D60, all my film gear including the higher resolution MF gear, remained on the shelf.

I'm a bit fanatical in some respects, but not so fanatical that I'm going to lug around a lot of heavy and inflexible gear for the odd occasion that I can get a high resolution shot that wouldn't be possible with a DSLR because the scene didn't lend itself to a stitching procedure.

I wonder if you realize, Mark, that half a dozen D7000 images (perhaps fewer depending on overlap) stitched to produce the same file size as a single shot from a P65+, would actually have equal or higher image quality in every respect.

The D7000 would have marginally better color sensitivity, but so marginally better we can call it equal.

The P65+ would have very marginally better tonal range, but so marginally better we can definitely call it equal.

The P65+ would also have marginally better SNR at 18% grey, of the order of 1.2dB. Definitely of no consequence.

However, the stitched D7000 shot would have almost 2 stops better DR. Now that's definitely of consequence, wouldn't you agree?

One should also bear in mind that all these improvements (or equalities) of the stitched D7000 image are achieved at approximately one stop higher ISO; to be precise ISO 83 for the D7000 as opposed to ISO 44 for the P65+.

It is assumed if one is stitching images from a smaller format to reach the same file size, FoV and DoF as a larger format, then one would use the same focal length of lens at the same F/stop as one would  use on the larger format for the single shot of the same scene.

There might be further nitpicking issues regarding AA filters, but I think these would be offset by the fact that lenses designed for 35mm format, with their smaller image circle, usually manage a slightly higher MTF response at any given resolution than equivalent quality MF lenses. If it's not completely offset, then stitch 8 images instead of 6. No big deal.

I think the stitched image would also have the advantage of better edge performance. As you know, all lenses have a significantly worse MTF response towards the edges, including MF lenses. A 35mm lens on a D7000 not only has the advantage of the soft edges being cropped by the sensor, but the edges of the stitched composition will have the benefit of the sort of resolution one would expect from the central area of the image circle.

MFDB just doesn't make sense to me. I understand very well the principle of the 'best tool for the job'. If I were in the position of certain professional photographers who always know the nature of their assignment beforehand, then I would be in a position to choose what I thought was the best tool for a specific job, and there might well be certain occasions when I would select the MFDB system from the shelf, if I had an MFDB system.

However, that's not my situation. Photography for me is an adventure. I may have an idea of the sorts of scenes I will encounter, but for me, flexibility (consistent with good technical quality) is the name of the game.
Logged

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #74 on: December 22, 2010, 12:01:00 am »

The D7000 would have marginally better color sensitivity, but so marginally better we can call it equal.

The P65+ would have very marginally better tonal range, but so marginally better we can definitely call it equal.

The P65+ would also have marginally better SNR at 18% grey, of the order of 1.2dB. Definitely of no consequence.

However, the stitched D7000 shot would have almost 2 stops better DR. Now that's definitely of consequence, wouldn't you agree?

There might be further nitpicking issues regarding AA filters, but I think these would be offset by the fact that lenses designed for 35mm format, with their smaller image circle, usually manage a slightly higher MTF response at any given resolution than equivalent quality MF lenses. If it's not completely offset, then stitch 8 images instead of 6. No big deal.


Ray, where do you get the idea that the D7000 has two stops better DR than the P65?

And where do you see MF lenses having inferior MTF to 35mm lenses? The term 'equivalent quality' bothers me somewhat - the best lenses for MF are considerably better than the best lenses for 35mm. Check out the Schneider Digitar MTF charts and the Leica S2 lens MFTs as well.

« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 12:02:53 am by Nick Rains »
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #75 on: December 22, 2010, 12:01:28 am »

Ray,

Stitching is rather easy now, using smart blend and similar algorithms. Nevertheless, it's still very easy to get artifacts on things that move or change between exposures, like waves.

Best regards
Erik

Only two, Mark. They were the Mamiya RB67 and the Fujifilm GW690III. I believe the increased resolution from these two cameras would have exceeded the resolution of my Canon 35mm film-camera by a greater degree than a P65+ exceeds the resolution of a 1Ds3, 5D2, A900 or D3X.

I bought these MF systems second-hand for what I thought was a good price. I got the impression that many professional photographers at the time, around the year 2001, were dumping their MF gear in favour of lower resolution digital which was far more convenient to use and the images far cheaper and easier to process.

Around this time, Canon's first DSLR offering, the 3mp D30, was selling in Australia for around A$6,500. I preferred to spend A$6,000 on Nikon's first affordable MF scanner, the 8000ED, so I could scan my 6x7cm and 6x9cm negatives which would provide considerably more resolution than a 3mp DSLR.

If I'd known at the time that within  3 years or so Canon would double the MP count and produce a D60 at a lower price than the D30 (I recall the 4mp 1D preceded it), I would not have bought into those MF systems.

As soon as I experienced that amazing convenience and flexibility of the D60, all my film gear including the higher resolution MF gear, remained on the shelf.

I'm a bit fanatical in some respects, but not so fanatical that I'm going to lug around a lot of heavy and inflexible gear for the odd occasion that I can get a high resolution shot that wouldn't be possible with a DSLR because the scene didn't lend itself to a stitching procedure.

I wonder if you realize, Mark, that half a dozen D7000 images (perhaps fewer depending on overlap) stitched to produce the same file size as a single shot from a P65+, would actually have equal or higher image quality in every respect.

The D7000 would have marginally better color sensitivity, but so marginally better we can call it equal.

The P65+ would have very marginally better tonal range, but so marginally better we can definitely call it equal.

The P65+ would also have marginally better SNR at 18% grey, of the order of 1.2dB. Definitely of no consequence.

However, the stitched D7000 shot would have almost 2 stops better DR. Now that's definitely of consequence, wouldn't you agree?

One should also bear in mind that all these improvements (or equalities) of the stitched D7000 image are achieved at approximately one stop higher ISO; to be precise ISO 83 for the D7000 as opposed to ISO 44 for the P65+.

It is assumed if one is stitching images from a smaller format to reach the same file size, FoV and DoF as a larger format, then one would use the same focal length of lens at the same F/stop as one would  use on the larger format for the single shot of the same scene.

There might be further nitpicking issues regarding AA filters, but I think these would be offset by the fact that lenses designed for 35mm format, with their smaller image circle, usually manage a slightly higher MTF response at any given resolution than equivalent quality MF lenses. If it's not completely offset, then stitch 8 images instead of 6. No big deal.

I think the stitched image would also have the advantage of better edge performance. As you know, all lenses have a significantly worse MTF response towards the edges, including MF lenses. A 35mm lens on a D7000 not only has the advantage of the soft edges being cropped by the sensor, but the edges of the stitched composition will have the benefit of the sort of resolution one would expect from the central area of the image circle.

MFDB just doesn't make sense to me. I understand very well the principle of the 'best tool for the job'. If I were in the position of certain professional photographers who always know the nature of their assignment beforehand, then I would be in a position to choose what I thought was the best tool for a specific job, and there might well be certain occasions when I would select the MFDB system from the shelf, if I had an MFDB system.

However, that's not my situation. Photography for me is an adventure. I may have an idea of the sorts of scenes I will encounter, but for me, flexibility (consistent with good technical quality) is the name of the game.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #76 on: December 22, 2010, 12:18:15 am »

Quote
Well, let's go back to our example of someone playing the violin. Some of us have had the excruciating experience of listening to a violin beginner. If you give a beginner a mediocre violin, because the instrument is not very responsive and not particularly loud, the beginner can go along without causing too much pain to the ears of others. However, give the same beginner a very fine instrument that is extremely responsive and quite loud, and you are looking at a real catastrophe.


I was very amused at the above comment from Mark Dubovoy. Where did he get such an idea? Is this comment inserted just to provoke a response from music lovers?  ;D

High quality violins and pianos are not high quality as a consequence of their being loud, but high quality because they produce more mellifluous, more appealing, more attractive and more subtle tones that are a delight on the ear.

If you want to encourage your kids to develop an appreciation for fine music, the last thing you should be doing is to buy them a cheap musical intrument that produces a harsh tone, whether loud or not.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #77 on: December 22, 2010, 12:35:15 am »

Hi,

I got the impression that Leica S2 lenses are really excellent, but that wouldn't help a Hasselblad user. An MFD you can put on any device and can be used with the Schneider Digitar. Regarding the P65+ let's not forget it has a larger sensor, MFDBs are not created equal.

The approach that Mark suggests, using the best MFDB on a camera body built with tight tolerances and carefully matched to the individual MFDB, completed with the best lenses and exact focusing is probably what is needed to extract optimum quality.

So, technically speaking, I agree with Mark's writing.

On the economical side, it's my belief that anyone can use his/her hard deserved Dollars/Kronor/Euros as they want. Some of us have more and some have less. It's my belief that excellent images can be made with any decent equipment. Whatever equipment at hand we need to make best use of it. Having a Leica, Hasselblad or Nikon D3X will not make one a better photographer. They are just tools.

I used to say that it is not only the sensor, it's also what you put in front of it, like lens and subject, what you put under it (like a tripod) and what you put behind it (like a decent photographers) that matters.

So, Mark's writing makes a lot of sense to me.

On the other hand, I recall Michael Reichmanns interview with Charlie Cramer. Charlie also bought a P45 (at that time) and for him it was a very major investment, he still decided to do it and was quite happy.

Best regards
Erik

Ray, where do you get the idea that the D7000 has two stops better DR than the P65?

And where do you see MF lenses having inferior MTF to 35mm lenses? The term 'equivalent quality' bothers me somewhat - the best lenses for MF are considerably better than the best lenses for 35mm. Check out the Schneider Digitar MTF charts and the Leica S2 lens MFTs as well.


Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #78 on: December 22, 2010, 12:49:40 am »

The approach that Mark suggests, using the best MFDB on a camera body built with tight tolerances and carefully matched to the individual MFDB, completed with the best lenses and exact focusing is probably what is needed to extract optimum quality.

So, technically speaking, I agree with Mark's writing.


I agree too.

How one spends one's money, whether for a business or a hobby, is one's own concern.

How one spends one's time is the same - I personally don't want to spend much time shooting lots of images carefully for stitching and then a certain amount of time running them through PS or PTGUI or whatever. I want to make the shot, and then another and another...the light is changing...OMG...I have not finished my sequence for the 4th row yet! I can definitely get more shots as single images, and spend less time in post too - time is money so over a period of time maybe the expensive MFDB is actually more economical.

As they say, YMMV, so one person's overpriced bling is another's workhorse.
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Thoughts on Medium Format Cameras
« Reply #79 on: December 22, 2010, 02:29:36 am »

Ray, where do you get the idea that the D7000 has two stops better DR than the P65?

And where do you see MF lenses having inferior MTF to 35mm lenses? The term 'equivalent quality' bothers me somewhat - the best lenses for MF are considerably better than the best lenses for 35mm. Check out the Schneider Digitar MTF charts and the Leica S2 lens MFTs as well.



Hi Nick,
DXOMark is now my source of technical performance of sensors. I trust their results because they conform very closely with my own testing of my own equipment, and other equipment I've tested in the store, such as the Nikon D3 some years ago; in a comparative sense of course.

I have no way of determining that the SNR at a particular tone is, for example, 36dB. But I understand that 36dB is noisier that 39dB. If I see increased noise at 18% grey, (or 128,128,128), when comparing two models of cameras, and later find that DXOMark indicate that the camera with visibly less noise has 3dB higher SNR on their graphs, then I consider their results confirmed.

At the pixel level, the D7000 is shown as having almost 2 stops better DR than the P65+. (1.84 EV to be precise). Below is a jpeg of the DXO chart. As you can see, the D7000 is streets ahead, even when the P65+ is in 'sensor plus' mode, which incidentally would put the two images at a similar resolution.

My impression that larger format lenses with bigger image circles tend to have a lower MTF response than high quality lenses for smaller formats, was gained from the old Photodo MTF charts.

Photodo did test quite a few MF lenses using the same procedures they used to test 35mm lenses. I remember well that a particularly fine Tamron SP 90mm lens I owned had a higher MTF response than the Hasselblad 80mm/2.8 planar, which was of course much more expensive than the Tamron.

The Tamron SP 90/2.8 was one of Tamron's finest lenses, and although it had a higher MTF response in the central area of the image cricle, that central area would not have been as large as the central area of the Hassy Planar. In other words, comparing resolution at 20mm from the centre, the Tamron would have shown the typical fall-off, whereas the Hasselblad lens would still be very good, in fact better. But 20mm from the centre of the Hassy lens is a long way from the corner of the frame.

When comparing a stitched D7000 image of similar resolution to a single P65+ shot, it's the performance at the pixel level that's relevant (regarding DXO graphs), not the performance at a normalised print size.

I'm quite willing to be persuaded that the best of the current crop of MF lenses have a higher MTF response than the best of the current 35mm lenses. Unfortunately, Photodo no longer do MTF testing and I don't trust manufacturers' charts.

Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10   Go Up