Help me choosing medium format camera! 20 - 25K

[FredBGG]

But I'd rather take that disadvantage than the potential for electronic failure on a dSLR-type body in such extreme temperatures. A digital back with moderate protection (a la Ken's shower cap) and a tech camera is an extremely durable machine which has very very few points of likely failure even in crazy weather.

Lets see... Nikons are used in space, including outside of the crafts. This involves very extreme temperature differences.


Here is what it's like for the space station.

A thermometer on the sunny side would reach something like 250 degrees F (121 C),
while a thermometer on the dark side would plunge to something like minus 250 degrees F (-157 C).

A tech camera has it's uses, but reportage and extreme weather photography is very far from ideal.

[JoeKitchen]

Hi,

He lost the front group on a zoom lens on his Hasselblad H, rendering his P65 pretty useless as the zoom was the only lens he had. He was not happy. He was not alone, he found I think about 15 others who also had a similar issue. At that time I got the impression that Hasselblad put the blame on the users, they should not carry the camera with the lens pointing down.

Best regards
Erik

This is weird, I have never heard of a lens element falling out of a lens.  Metal shrinks when it gets cold, should this have made connections tighter and the elements more secure?

[FredBGG]

You can be forgiven for not really having a good working knowledge of this equipment you don't use. But I find it strange you would make your assertion "Not a good option at all." regarding equipment you've never used in practice.

A tech camera is not exactly rocket science. I have plenty of experience with all sorts of formats and
it did not take me more than an hour or so looking at a tech camera to see it's benefits and limitations.

I think that you need to put aside your knee jerk salesman reactions and remember what the op on this thread is asking.
Her budget is not enough for an IQ back with on camera live view. Using a P series back without live view
makes working with a tech camera really slow. She also said that she needs really good low light.....
putting myself in her shoes (and not sticking my fingers in her wallet) this would lead me to believe that she
will also need to shoot wide open. Getting accurate focus relatively comfortably and quickly with a tech camera and a back that fits her budget
will not be possible.

[FredBGG]

This is weird, I have never heard of a lens element falling out of a lens.  Metal shrinks when it gets cold, should this have made connections tighter and the elements more secure?

Sometimes different metals shrink at different rates as temperature goes down. This can lead to loosening of some parts.

[JoeKitchen]

Sometimes different metals shrink at different rates as temperature goes down. This can lead to loosening of some parts.

Yes, this is true, but glass does not shrink really at all.  I just find this odd.  Maybe the lens was not assembled correctly, which is not acceptable for a product that cost so much.  

[JoeKitchen]

Back to the subject at hand, I think a tech camera would be much better.  The controls are bigger than the counterparts on a DSLR.  Also, only the back uses a battery, lessen the chances for total failure due to the battery going dead.  Yes it is heavier, but if you are already carry 50 lbs in clothes to stay warm, whats that mean. 

Space may be a different story.  Especially considering you do not have the advantage of gravity holding things in place (including you and the camera) while you compose a shot, meter it, put the back in place, cock the lens (I am sure this would move the camera considering 0 gravity), and get the shot.  What the hell, if I ever go space, I'll bring a DSLR. 

Time to go call Richard Bransen; I'm sure he'll get me there. 

[Dustbak]

This is weird, I have never heard of a lens element falling out of a lens.  Metal shrinks when it gets cold, should this have made connections tighter and the elements more secure?

It is an old issue HB had with some of the 50-110 Zoom lenses. Some lenses the front element could eventually fall off.

I have had loose front elements with various lenses and converters after transport. Apparently certain vibrations can tum these retainerrings loose. If you have the guts to stick a sharp screwdriver in the opening of the retainerring you can easily fix this by yourself

[Doug Peterson]

A tech camera is not exactly rocket science. I have plenty of experience with all sorts of formats and
it did not take me more than an hour or so looking at a tech camera to see it's benefits and limitations.

[...]Getting accurate focus relatively comfortably and quickly with a tech camera and a back that fits her budget
will not be possible.

Perhaps in your one hour of looking at tech cameras you missed that one of the primary ways users focus a tech camera is rigid presets: ie.. you don't have to focus. A single preset focus point and shooting aperture on a body like an Arca Factum or RM3Di holds the same perfectly-hyperfocal point with zero effort. As I said, the only thing I expect her to do in the field is recock the lens between shots and rotate the shutter speed dial.

If she wants to do isolated-focus shots wide open then this would not be a good approach. If she wants to do sweeping landscape shots it is an even better approach than live view on a dSLR.

[Doug Peterson]

Also I suspect a major driver in the selection of cameras for the space station is the ability for one body to serve many purposes.

I'd be the first to suggest a dSLR if you told me that you wanted a jack of all trades system that could shoot with very long lenses, shoot at crazy ISOs (that link is ISO12800), do snapshots of crew life, do macro shots for scientific research/fun, and maybe even video (speculation only). Especially when you told me it cost US$10k to bring a pound of payload to the station and that you had specialized multi-million satellites at your disposal should you wish to shoot anything "out there" that required extreme image quality.

Medium format is the epitome of specialization. A tech camera would make for an entirely useless system for runway photography. It covers on a narrow range of use (architecture, interior, landscape, zone or hyperfocal focused street photography) but it does it better than anything else can. Only the original poster could say if that range covers what they want to do.

So yeah, if the OP was asking for a camera to go the moon with I'd actually recommend a Canon/Nikon. But somehow I don't find a national agencies needs for general purpose photography in space to be a very close analogy for an individual art photographers search for a suitable camera for their journeys down here on earth.

[Gigi]

Sometimes different metals shrink at different rates as temperature goes down.

And when do they not?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The cameras NASA sent to the moon were Hasselblads, not Nikons. I guess that Natalie is not going to space but to the artic, probably on ship (water ship). Ships roll along three axes, so I don't think she is going to use a technical camera on a Gitzo five series tripod. Astronauts don't wear space suits by the way. I got the impression that the dress code aboard is shorts and t-shirts/polos.

Best regards
Erik

Also I suspect a major driver in the selection of cameras for the space station is the ability for one body to serve many purposes.

I'd be the first to suggest a dSLR if you told me that you wanted a jack of all trades system that could shoot with very long lenses, shoot at crazy ISOs (that link is ISO12800), do snapshots of crew life, do macro shots for scientific research/fun, and maybe even video (speculation only). Especially when you told me it cost US$10k to bring a pound of payload to the station and that you had specialized multi-million satellites at your disposal should you wish to shoot anything "out there" that required extreme image quality.

Medium format is the epitome of specialization. A tech camera would make for an entirely useless system for runway photography. It covers on a narrow range of use (architecture, interior, landscape, zone or hyperfocal focused street photography) but it does it better than anything else can. Only the original poster could say if that range covers what they want to do.

So yeah, if the OP was asking for a camera to go the moon with I'd actually recommend a Canon/Nikon. But somehow I don't find a national agencies needs for general purpose photography in space to be a very close analogy for an individual art photographers search for a suitable camera for their journeys down here on earth.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I am a bit skeptical about hyperfocal focus. My interest in this area was started by a Pentax 645D user complaining about sharpness in the background when focusing at a subject 200-300 yards away. I think he used a 150 mm lens at f/9.5. I made a series of test shots using an equivalent setting and could indeed see a problem. My view is that to achieve critical focus you need to focus on the subject, exactly.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures

My test was done on a Sony with 6 micron pixel pitch. Physics care little about make of sensor, but a better equipment would be even more demanding.

I actually think hyperfocal focus works, but for best sharpness we need to calculate using a very small CoC, making the hyperfocal distance be very far away.


Best regards
Erik

Perhaps in your one hour of looking at tech cameras you missed that one of the primary ways users focus a tech camera is rigid presets: ie.. you don't have to focus. A single preset focus point and shooting aperture on a body like an Arca Factum or RM3Di holds the same perfectly-hyperfocal point with zero effort. As I said, the only thing I expect her to do in the field is recock the lens between shots and rotate the shutter speed dial.

If she wants to do isolated-focus shots wide open then this would not be a good approach. If she wants to do sweeping landscape shots it is an even better approach than live view on a dSLR.

[HarperPhotos]

Hi Erik,

This comment is a doozey

“The Nikon D800/D800E is not really a "pro camera", in the sense that it is intended to be dropped on the floor. Nikon has the D4 for that.”

I’m a pro and my Nikon D800E and D800 are as tough as my old Nikon D3x which I did drop onto the concrete floor of my studio and it did not survive. The entire top plate and prism had to be replaced.

So please stop making ridiculous comments.

Cheers

Simon

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Simon,

Thanks for making this point.

So it is your experience that the D800/D800E is built to similar standards as the D3s and D4?

Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,

This comment is a doozey

“The Nikon D800/D800E is not really a "pro camera", in the sense that it is intended to be dropped on the floor. Nikon has the D4 for that.”

I’m a pro and my Nikon D800E and D800 are as tough as my old Nikon D3x which I did drop onto the concrete floor of my studio and it did not survive. The entire top plate and prism had to be replaced.

So please stop making ridiculous comments.

Cheers

Simon

[Doug Peterson]

I am a bit skeptical about hyperfocal focus. My interest in this area was started by a Pentax 645D user complaining about sharpness in the background when focusing at a subject 200-300 yards away. I think he used a 150 mm lens at f/9.5. I made a series of test shots using an equivalent setting and could indeed see a problem. My view is that to achieve critical focus you need to focus on the subject, exactly.

As you back away from infinity there is some range of movement in which the appearance of infinity does not change, even for critical analysis at 100% (or higher). How far that range is depends on:
- aperture
- resolution
- focal length*
- you're level of analysis**

I'm not surprised that for a 40mp body at f/9.5 with a relatively long lens that the photographer noticed a difference with even the smallest adjustment that was possible on that kind of lens focus barrel.

With a shorter lens, higher aperture number, lower resolution, or more precise focus mechanism I'm sure you can appreciate he might have a different experience.

When switching to an Arca Swiss RM3Di or Factum for instance you can make very precise changes in focus very repeatable and reliable. This makes it much easier to analyze the effect of backing away from infinity by varying amounts. When using the 32HR at f/16 and a 22mp back for instance you can back away from infinity by a considerable amount prior to seeing any visible change at infinity, and further still if you accept "extremely good" rather than "any visible difference" as the threshold for acceptable sharpness at infinity.

Hyperfocal focusing is not a myth (when taken as a practical matter of getting incredibly sharp infinity detail while not wasting any focus beyond infinity). It is, however, far easier to accomplish on a precise tech camera than on an SLR with general purpose lens focus mounts.

**e.g. a computer analysis might show a numerical drop of MTF which even a very picky photographer would not notice or care about

*in so far as it relates to how much focus changes for each degree of rotation of like-sized focus rings

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It is really about making the best images under a wide variety of conditions. Natalie clearly indicated that one of her prime interests is high image quality, as she feels older images don't keep up to todays demands.

On the other hand, she expects the equipment to work under a wide set of conditions. If she travels by air, I also presume that weight is a concern. In addition she needs to use film. What to buy is definitively her decision, and she takes all the risk. My view is that we can point to the best information available.

She got a lot of decent information, some coming from folks who own all kinds of cameras from Pentax K5 to IQ180. We all now that any equipment may fail.

I hope she finds the stuff that satisfies her needs (and wants), works perfectly and helps her in making great images. I don't care a bit about make, name on the lens, CCD/CMOS or format.

Best regards
Erik

Really? Again the generell discussion about MFDB vs DSLR?

[bcooter]

Sorry Natalia for going off track, but I bet by now you've run out of the room screaming. 

I know I would.

This section needs to be renamed the buzz kill forum.

Maybe it's just today's world where expectations are lower, or the weird democracy of the internet where every opinion really, really, really, really matters,  but I think a lot of people missed the story here.

Natalia has saved her money and waited 10 years to "buy a medium format camera".

That was the title, that was the thought, that was the intent.

Anyway, I knew the moment I saw this I knew here would come the Buzz kill with 45 links to other peoples information and photos trying to prove, Nikon is the best  vs. the s**t world of medium format.

I didn't think it would go to astronauts and squirrels but now that I think about it . . . predictable.

Once again, I think most missed Natalia's question and at best sure took a lot of fun out of her buying process.

Who cares or knows what is the best camera for a given person?  I don't.  Heck I don't even know for me sometimes.

Hell photographers have traveled the world with what the vast majority of peers would say is the wrong camera.  8x10 in Africa, medium format digital in the Arctic and they got the image "they" wanted, using the equipment "they" wanted.

I respect other's decisions.  I wouldn't buy the Nikon because it doesn't work for what I do (Today). 

Simon likes it, he shoots with it, earns a living with it, so I respect that.

A lot of other good photographers use other equipment and it works for them, so yes I respect that.

As much as I find this Brand talk boring and I own 5 Nikon digital dslrs, 3 Canon dslrs, 2 phase backs and a lot of other stuff, if you save and want something, you want to hear about that.

This conversation reminds me of pulling in the garage with your new BMW and the neighbor across the alley says "why did you buy that?   

You could have bought two Kia vans and carried more, saved gas, been a better person and stopped global warming."

Buzz kill.

Sorry Natalia.

IMO

BC

[theguywitha645d]

But I'd rather take that disadvantage than the potential for electronic failure on a dSLR-type body in such extreme temperatures. A digital back with moderate protection (a la Ken's shower cap) and a tech camera is an extremely durable machine which has very very few points of likely failure even in crazy weather.

So, then moderate protection would protects the DSLR electronics. So no real difference there.

[Guy Mancuso]

Sorry Natalia for going off track, but I bet by now you've run out of the room screaming. 

I know I would.

This section needs to be renamed the buzz kill forum.

Maybe it's just today's world where expectations are lower, or the weird democracy of the internet where every opinion really, really, really, really matters,  but I think a lot of people missed the story here.

Natalia has saved her money and waited 10 years to "buy a medium format camera".

That was the title, that was the thought, that was the intent.

Anyway, I knew the moment I saw this I knew here would come the Buzz kill with 45 links to other peoples information and photos trying to prove, Nikon is the best  vs. the s**t world of medium format.

I didn't think it would go to astronauts and squirrels but now that I think about it . . . predictable.

Once again, I think most missed Natalia's question and at best sure took a lot of fun out of her buying process.

Who cares or knows what is the best camera for a given person?  I don't.  Heck I don't even know for me sometimes.

Hell photographers have traveled the world with what the vast majority of peers would say is the wrong camera.  8x10 in Africa, medium format digital in the Arctic and they got the image "they" wanted, using the equipment "they" wanted.

I respect other's decisions.  I wouldn't buy the Nikon because it doesn't work for what I do (Today). 

Simon likes it, he shoots with it, earns a living with it, so I respect that.

A lot of other good photographers use other equipment and it works for them, so yes I respect that.

As much as I find this Brand talk boring and I own 5 Nikon digital dslrs, 3 Canon dslrs, 2 phase backs and a lot of other stuff, if you save and want something, you want to hear about that.

This conversation reminds me of pulling in the garage with your new BMW and the neighbor across the alley says "why did you buy that?   

You could have bought two Kia vans and carried more, saved gas, been a better person and stopped global warming."

Buzz kill.

Sorry Natalia.

IMO

BC

Tend to agree here. For MF you can't really go wrong with a Phase back and still keep the battery in your pocket to keep warm. Issue is with ANY system is lenses are not designed for -50 with the grease they use. So any AF lens will slow down with any mechanical lense. So think manual focus here and frankly a tech cam maybe the best solution in extreme weather since the only electronics are the back which I shot Phase backs in very cold weather and never had issues , battery yes as it gives you less shooting ability and can just not work in that cold if weather but you can get around that. Really what you need is to get lenses greased with lubricant to handle extreme temps. If you want to shoot film and digital than you need the AFDIII as it will do both. For your price range a P65 would be lovely . Great back plenty of horsepower full frame and built like a tank. Phase has great glass too. I would get 2 bodies though going in those extremes. Honestly body only is not that heavy. Go for it and enjoy.

[Nick-T]

Just FYI a New Zealand photographer shot in around Scott's huts in the Antarctic with Hasselblad digital and produced a book.

That indicates to me that it is possible to work somewhere cold with medium format... Just saying.

Nick-T