The end of medium format ?

[bcooter]

The camera doesn't make the photographer.

We all know that.

Then again professional equipment can and will enhance your business and art.

I know the world has changed . . . I know that people want more for less in all spectrums of society, but turning a healthy profit for yourself and clients is not a dirty word.

I personally want my suppliers to have success because if they don't they won't be around. 

Throughout my career we've invested in our business.  Studios, vehicles, equipment.  For a lot of years I had a simple rule that when I produce a large project I would buy something substantial, something that would last.

In a way it was my rainy day fund and when I look at the equipment I own, my medium format backs have lasted longer than anything I use, except some lighting and grip.

What this allowed me to do when budgets contracted I could use the equipment I preferred without having to toss profit to a rental house.

Sure the Nikon is close to medium format in spec, but then again when I bought my backs, there was no 30 mpx 35mm cameras and even today when tethering 35mm hits the buffer, my phase backs don't, 35mm has very limited software suites, my phase backs have robust professional suites and are more viable today than they were when I bought them.

Does that mean everyone should buy a medium format back?  No.  But does that mean that medium format is obsolete.  No.

I do know that commercial clients expect professional equipment.  They might not know a profoto from a Alien Bee, but they do know if the photographer is well equipped enough to produce their project.

They know when lights stop working, or something stops the project.

They know when a camera loses connection in tethering, when a file isn't large enough or deep enough to work in post with options, when skin tones look bright orange instead of beautiful brown.

Lately we get a lot of projects that have the "real" word as the driver of the creative brief.  I always ask a client to send me a visual reference of what they consider "real" and every time its a heavily produced image with a lot of post production.

It may look "real" in their view, but knowing what it takes to produce a comprehensive project, I know that it takes  real professional equipment and crew. 

It's a cute idea to think that real is instigram and that will do, but that is rarely the case. 

When I mentioned the race to the bottom, it's not about quality or effort.  It's just about price.  As I said everyone wants to pay less, but I've yet to meet a client that wants less effort or investment from our studios regardless of price.

That's why we invested long ago and continue to.

What is completely left off of these discussions is what equipment I use for professional work.  I find it interesting that when I go through the portfolio we present, 40%  is shot with CCD based cameras, mostly medium format, though in the broader scheme, probably 80% of what we shoot is done with 35mm.

What I also find interesting that when we shoot something for ourselves, or for editorial (which is really for ourself), we rarely use a 35mm dslr.   

Personal work is the most important thing we do, because this is the work that eventually gets us booked.

Now I'm not married to any camera or equipment and if I need a D800 I'll buy one in a moment, but so far I don't because I invested a long time ago.

But when it comes to investment all I can go from is the past.  In the time I've owned my Phase backs, I've also owned three sets of Nikons and two sets of Canons.

That doesn't mean any of these cameras or bad or not useful, but for me (and I only speak for me) the digital backs have had a much longer life span.

But as I keep saying, don't take my word for it, try everything yourself and look at the world in worst case scenario.

I own Nikons(3), Lecia(1), Canons(3), REDs(3) and a Sony handicam (1) and I can promise that when issues arise (and issues always arise) my Phase dealer gives me information anytime of day or night.  When I previously owned a Leaf I could reach them direct anytime, from any time zone. 

The others don't.

IMO

BC

[Ben Rubinstein]

I'd prefer a product that doesn't need great customer service but still has CPS 3 day turn around and a huge internet information base to a product that has great dealers but boy do you need them. Our Phase One DF and Leaf Back have required more returns to base and/or dealer support in 6 months than my Canon 5Dc's needed in 7 hard years of commercial and wedding photography. I've never had a DSLR crash on me mid shoot, wish I could say the same for the MFDB gear...

[FredBGG]

I'd prefer a product that doesn't need great customer service but still has CPS 3 day turn around and a huge internet information base to a product that has great dealers but boy do you need them. Our Phase One DF and Leaf Back have required more returns to base and/or dealer support in 6 months than my Canon 5Dc's needed in 7 hard years of commercial and wedding photography. I've never had a DSLR crash on me mid shoot, wish I could say the same for the MFDB gear...

That was my tipping point. Taking the camera apart, removing the battery to reboot the camera in front of the client one to many times.

[EricWHiss]

That was my tipping point. Taking the camera apart, removing the battery to reboot the camera in front of the client one to many times.

I guess you don't shoot tethered with your DSLR? 

[FredBGG]

I guess you don't shoot tethered with your DSLR? 

What problems are you having and with what software?

[Paul Ozzello]

Hi,

In the film days I was shooting both MF and 135. I often made a 135 trip and an MF trip to the same place. One day in France I run out of 135 film, but still had 120 with me, so I was using the MF camera to shoot 135 stuff. The results were 135 like.

Best regards
Erik

I can't speak for medium format digital but in the film days there was no comparison between the two, medium format film blows away 135 every time in terms of IQ.

[EricWHiss]

What problems are you having and with what software?

Ah, well you have answered my question on if you shoot tethered with DSLR or not.       Cause you'd know if you did.     

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi BC,

There might be a problem for MF. As you point out MF can be a good investment, because the stuff lasts for ever. You also say that resolution does not really matter.

If MF equipment has a very long lifetime, it may mean that the market would shrink, if existing customers don't upgrade. That may be one of the reasons that Phase and perhaps also Hasselblad work on aerial photography, finding new markets.

Best regards
Erik

The camera doesn't make the photographer.

We all know that.

Then again professional equipment can and will enhance your business and art.

I know the world has changed . . . I know that people want more for less in all spectrums of society, but turning a healthy profit for yourself and clients is not a dirty word.

I personally want my suppliers to have success because if they don't they won't be around. 

Throughout my career we've invested in our business.  Studios, vehicles, equipment.  For a lot of years I had a simple rule that when I produce a large project I would buy something substantial, something that would last.

In a way it was my rainy day fund and when I look at the equipment I own, my medium format backs have lasted longer than anything I use, except some lighting and grip.

What this allowed me to do when budgets contracted I could use the equipment I preferred without having to toss profit to a rental house.

Sure the Nikon is close to medium format in spec, but then again when I bought my backs, there was no 30 mpx 35mm cameras and even today when tethering 35mm hits the buffer, my phase backs don't, 35mm has very limited software suites, my phase backs have robust professional suites and are more viable today than they were when I bought them.

Does that mean everyone should buy a medium format back?  No.  But does that mean that medium format is obsolete.  No.

I do know that commercial clients expect professional equipment.  They might not know a profoto from a Alien Bee, but they do know if the photographer is well equipped enough to produce their project.

They know when lights stop working, or something stops the project.

They know when a camera loses connection in tethering, when a file isn't large enough or deep enough to work in post with options, when skin tones look bright orange instead of beautiful brown.

Lately we get a lot of projects that have the "real" word as the driver of the creative brief.  I always ask a client to send me a visual reference of what they consider "real" and every time its a heavily produced image with a lot of post production.

It may look "real" in their view, but knowing what it takes to produce a comprehensive project, I know that it takes  real professional equipment and crew. 

It's a cute idea to think that real is instigram and that will do, but that is rarely the case. 

When I mentioned the race to the bottom, it's not about quality or effort.  It's just about price.  As I said everyone wants to pay less, but I've yet to meet a client that wants less effort or investment from our studios regardless of price.

That's why we invested long ago and continue to.

What is completely left off of these discussions is what equipment I use for professional work.  I find it interesting that when I go through the portfolio we present, 40%  is shot with CCD based cameras, mostly medium format, though in the broader scheme, probably 80% of what we shoot is done with 35mm.

What I also find interesting that when we shoot something for ourselves, or for editorial (which is really for ourself), we rarely use a 35mm dslr.   

Personal work is the most important thing we do, because this is the work that eventually gets us booked.

Now I'm not married to any camera or equipment and if I need a D800 I'll buy one in a moment, but so far I don't because I invested a long time ago.

But when it comes to investment all I can go from is the past.  In the time I've owned my Phase backs, I've also owned three sets of Nikons and two sets of Canons.

That doesn't mean any of these cameras or bad or not useful, but for me (and I only speak for me) the digital backs have had a much longer life span.

But as I keep saying, don't take my word for it, try everything yourself and look at the world in worst case scenario.

I own Nikons(3), Lecia(1), Canons(3), REDs(3) and a Sony handicam (1) and I can promise that when issues arise (and issues always arise) my Phase dealer gives me information anytime of day or night.  When I previously owned a Leaf I could reach them direct anytime, from any time zone. 

The others don't.

IMO

BC

[bcooter]

I'd prefer a product that doesn't need great customer service but still has CPS 3 day turn around and......snip

I agree, though my experience with the C brand is we've blown 3 or 4 shutters, 1 sensor replaced and the corrupt file issue with the mk2.

Then again , I still use Canon as they make a fine product, so does Nikon, so does Phase, Leaf and a lot of other brands.

When I look at Simon's work with the D800 it looks great and since he's talented and professional it should, but . . .

Once again, I don't think buying a camera is always an either or proposition, at least not for my work and though I'd love to find the perfect camera, I haven't yet.

Maybe a camera that autofocuses as well as a D3, the skin tones of an H4d and 1ds Mk1, the software of Phase, the D3 lcd, the Leaf interface, the p series phase reliability, The lcd stays on while tethering like the Canons and Phase,  the ability to shoot a raw 4k video file like the RED, the Leaf shutter sync of the H series and certain Phase lenses, the . . .

IMO

BC

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

If you shoot Velvia on both yes, but if you shoot Tri-X on 120 and T-MAX on 135 that may be a different case. With 120 you need to stop down two steps more for same DoF. In general I found handling of DoF a major issue with 120. I was mostly shooting 120 on film for a long time, but I used it on tripod mostly.

Regarding MF digital vs. 135 digital it is a slightly different case. Obviously MF has a format advantage and can produce higher resolution images. On the other hand, modern CMOS sensors are very good at keeping noise down. It also seems that for many purpose 12MP - 40MP is quite good enough, and it seems that very good image quality can be achieved on DSLRs (like the D800/D800E) with carefully chosen lenses.

I have written a bit around the issue here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts

A interesting response to that article was:

"Moving to the MF article, I mostly agree, especially about bit-depth and colour rendition. But on the issue of detail in re-sampled files I am less convinced: myself and quite a few people I know who have gone from IQ180 or IQ160 or P65+ but who rarely print over 24 x 36 have largely not looked back: we get easily enough resolution and, correctly captured and processed, the D800E files give us such a high degree of the MF 'feel' (excepting focus falloff characteristics) that we are happy with the transition. My IQ180 is at my dealer pending sale, so I can't run my own comparison, but in print at up to 24" on the long side, I think it would be pretty hard to tell the difference without a loupe and up to 36" hard at 'normal' viewing distance. For me, the extra DR is worth a lot more than the resolution advantage…."


Best regards
Erik

I can't speak for medium format digital but in the film days there was no comparison between the two, medium format film blows away 135 every time in terms of IQ.

[HarperPhotos]

Hi James,

Thanks for the complement you made this Maori boy blush.

Cheers

Simon

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

No reasons to blush;-) Keep up with the good postings, please!

Best regards
Erik

Hi James,

Thanks for the complement you made this Maori boy blush.

Cheers

Simon

[Ben Rubinstein]

Ah, well you have answered my question on if you shoot tethered with DSLR or not.       Cause you'd know if you did.     

Funny that, we've had non stop problems with tethering our Leaf back to C1. That is what causes all the crashes. We have the firewire card Leaf recommend, their powered FW repeater, we still have to reboot the back and camera once every 200 frames or so. I found the tethering of a 5D with a powered USB extension to be pretty solid. Shot for 3 hours that way yesterday to a netbook (!), didn't fail once.

[bcooter]

Simon, my pleasure, but your work speaks for itself.

You cross a lot of territory and genres and do it all very well.

I love to see your success.

BC

[JoeKitchen]

In my opinion, I think there would be a nice sized market for a company to produce backs made with cheaper and easier to make CMOS sensors.  With how close CMOS has come to CCD, I doubt many would be upset with the IQ.  One could probably make a back with a CMOS sensor for half the price.  And I am sure this would help out companies like Arca, Alpa, Rollei, etc sale more cameras and be better capitalized. 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

CMOS sensors have better image quality than CCD but they are more expensive to make. The purported advantages of CCDs is one of the myths lingering around.

Color is not dependent on circuit design. The chips are actually B&W the color is added by a grid in front of the sensor called CGA (Color Grid Array).

The best CMOS sensors today have about one fourth of the readout noise of the Dalsa chip used in the IQ180.

MF sensor have the advantage of size. It is also possible that MF-sensors have better CGA design than other sensors, but it has nothing to do with CCD vs. CMOS.

Best regards
Erik

In my opinion, I think there would be a nice sized market for a company to produce backs made with cheaper and easier to make CMOS sensors.  With how close CMOS has come to CCD, I doubt many would be upset with the IQ.  One could probably make a back with a CMOS sensor for half the price.  And I am sure this would help out companies like Arca, Alpa, Rollei, etc sale more cameras and be better capitalized. 

[JoeKitchen]

I was always under the impression that CCDs are much more difficult to make with more waste than a CMOS.  This could be wrong info.  But in any case, due to the much larger production of CMOS sensors worldwide, I would think it would be cheaper to contract the making of a 645 CMOS.  

For CCDs, there are only two players, Dalsa and Kodak.  For CMOS, we have Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc.  Any of those players have a higher output than Dalsa.  Also, with more companies, this could lead to more competitiveness for who gets the contract, helping to lower price.  

In any event, I still would like to see a CMOS 645 back.  With all factors combined, I think this would be cheaper, thus furthering the use and availability of MF.  It just seems that the current model is precluding entry into this market until you are an established higher end photographer.  By than, most younger shooters will already be dedicated to a system and reluctant to change.  Also, having it cheaper would increase use by schools, making the teaching of technical cameras more applicable; now it seems to be "here is a film tech camera that you will never use professional and you will probably never be able to afford the digital version, so why bother to really learn how to use the thing."  

I mean in the film days we had options.  Not everyone could afford a Linhof, so Toyo View was a the way to go, espicially when starting out.  Not it's $40K+, take it or leave it. 

[EricWHiss]

Funny that, we've had non stop problems with tethering our Leaf back to C1. That is what causes all the crashes. We have the firewire card Leaf recommend, their powered FW repeater, we still have to reboot the back and camera once every 200 frames or so. I found the tethering of a 5D with a powered USB extension to be pretty solid. Shot for 3 hours that way yesterday to a netbook (!), didn't fail once.

Yes Ben, the point I am making is that all the cameras have issues.  My experience has been largely the opposite.  I have more issues with the DSLR.  I think its noteworthy that not everyone's experience is the same.  

[Doug Peterson]

If I had a few hours I'd go through the archives here and pull up every time someone has predicted the death of MF. If you lived in the world of the forums you'd have thought MF died when the Canon 1D was released, then when the 1Ds II was released, then when the 5D2 was released, then when the D800 was released.

Funny thing: each of those cameras were released and people keep buying medium format. It's been a great year for us.

I think what most people don't get is the numbers. If MF doesn't make sense for you, that doesn't mean MF will die. MF was always a minority in the global camera market and MF has been certifiably a niche market for nearly a decade. It doesn't need 10%, or even 1% of "photographers" - it needs a sliver of the market.

This aside from the government/institutional/scientific/industrial applications which are small in the global-camera-market sense but huge markets for medium format.

Plus in addition to the image quality benefits there are many technical, aesthetic, personal, ergonomic, and emotional reasons to buy a MF system:

- large and bright viewfinder***
- touch screen interface (some bodies); hard to find a system you can check 100% focus on faster on a specific part of the image than an IQ or Credo
- tools like auto-horizon and auto-keystone which correct the level and pitch of the image in software based on the electronic levels in the back, making every horizon straight and every vertical parallel without manual tweaking
- Flash sync speed with standard strobes rather than dinky flashes (up to 1/1600th)
- More tactile lens response when manually focusing (large focus barrel, actual lens gearing*)
- aspect ratio (some prefer 4:3 or 1:1, especially for verticals)
- waist level viewfinder (some bodies)
- ability to shoot vertical without rotating camera (some backs)
- low ISO without ND filters (useful for dragging shutter in some styles)
- ability to shoot film with same system as digital (some bodies)
- ability to turn sensor on/off independent of the shutter/flash firing (allows to build up exposure with strobes without excessive ambient light, even in bright conditions e.g. interiors)
- ability to crop a vertical and horizontal from the same frame (even 36mp in 3:2 is not enough for many applications when cropped to a vertical)
- ability to use on specific legacy cameras (some folks just plain love Contax, Hassy 500)
- ability to use on speciality equipment like Aerial, industrial, art-repro systems (obviously a niche)
- ability to use on tech cameras like Arca, Cambo, Alpa
---- rise/fall/shift/swing/tilt on every lens (if IC allows)
---- fully mechanical/traditional shooting
---- extremely precise focusing for specific distances (some bodies)
---- extremely precise focusing for hyperfocal distances (some bodies)
---- absolute best glass, period
---- ground glass (some prefer it regardless of other options)
---- small/light pack size for a body and several lenses (depending on which body and lenses of course)
- compatibility with view cameras
---- close focus possible with many lenses, not just select macros
---- rise/fall/shift/swing/tilt on every lens, not just select TS lenses
---- ground glass (some prefer it regardless of other options)
- less frequent updates required to stay competitive in image quality (we still have many happy studio shooters using H25 backs users, which at base ISO and in the studio easily beats a 5D Mark 3 which is many generations newer; I don't know many happy Canon 1D shooters)**
- longer software support (original Phase One Lightphase from 1998 is still fully supported tethered in OSX 10.7 and Capture One 6, while the Canon 5D from 2006 isn't even officially supported tethered in LR4 or EOS Utility in OSX 10.7, nor 1Ds II in Windows 7 64 bit)
- consistent shooting speed; an IQ or Credo can maintain it's frame-rate indefinitely with a fast CF card, any Canon/Nikon can shoot much faster but unless you restrain yourself you can easily hit a buffer and the camera won't fire when you think it should. The IQ or Credo will be slower (around 1.2fps for the 40mp model) but it is reliably consistent - you know when you can shoot next and can develop a rhythm.
- larger bodies (for some this will be a big negative, but for others their hands are simply too large to comfortably use a camera like the D800, even with the optional vertical grip)
- differentiation: like it or not, fair or not, some (both pros and enthusiasts) will want to have a camera that Uncle Bob does not own, and that Art Director John doesn't use as their point and shoot.
- longevity/durability: some backs are built like tanks and have no moving parts. Anything can break, but the number of field-failures on a P1 back are very low.
- interesting lens selections with unique looks (e.g. Mamiya 80mm /1.9, Zeiss FE 110/2)

*As opposed to e.g. the Canon 85/1.2 with fly-by-wire focusing and a dinky focus barrel
**This is not just a question of cost since of course the 1D owner could have updated to a 1DsII and a 1DsIII and spent about the same; some photographers just dislike the hassle of switching cameras - new batteries, new chargers, new cables, new settings, new button locations, new software, new look (forcing them in some cases to expend time/energy getting the new camera to produce the look of the old camera). Some photographers love getting new gear, some despise it.
***I never understood why this isn't mentioned/discussed more often; you have to look through the viewfinder for nearly every frame you take - it's your portal to the world you are capturing.

The thread is titled "the end of medium format?". My answer is no.

[design_freak]

I
The thread is titled "the end of medium format?". My answer is no.

Doug,
First of all, this is the title of the article that I'm not the author.
I also wrote quite clearly that this is not the end. But that 35mm got really good progress.

We look forward to a new camera and get a + in the name. Not so are the expectations.