Downgrading my MF

[bcooter]

Well this has given me a lot to think about. It seems .........snip

I get it , but don't get it.  Right now your shooting pretty images with your current equipment.  It may have limitations, but ask yourself is your equipment keeping you from something?  i.e. sales, different images, better (artistic) images?

I dig gear, wish to say I didn't and try to rationalize every purchase, but photography is an emotional excersize and there is nothing logical about the process of buying, shooting and displaying.

I know people that can use the same cameras for decades and never miss a beat, others just have to have to newest thing and they make good use of it.

Personally, if your working successfully in a 4:3 format I'd stick with that and since you have found ways around your current equipment, probably a few lenses would be more fun than a complete overhaul.

Me, I've held on to my Contax and phase backs for years, use them some, love to use them when I can and though I've looked at everything from the latest phase/leaf backs to the H5d and Pentax, nothing was offering me something I couldn't live without.

That's not to imply I'd suggest a contax, though I love working a camera that has a shutter knob and an f stop ring.  It's as close to the film experience you can get with digital and even though my backs (p21+_p30+) are eclipsed by modern dslrs when I use them they work for everything I need.  Actually I use the p21 more than the larger p30 because it is more responsive and shoots more in the speed of a film back with less delay.

Also phase continual upgrading of their software has made the files much more "modern" and useable.

The only downside is like most medium format cameras, the cameras are from old legacy designs.  Phase and Hasselblad have improved their cameras a great deal, but they are still old legacy base designs and nothing short of a clean sheet is going to change that.

But, and take this suggestion with a grain of salt, since your shooting landscapes and can shoot at a slower pace, why not look at a Pentax 645d?   It gives you the latest and probably last kodak sensor at 40mpx, you have a good lcd, a huge variety of lenses that can be bought and adapted and the cost is now very low, about 6 grand for a body.

To me that would be a great solution and if I didn't have to tether and the 645d had a larger buffer I'd have bought one.

IMO

BC

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

One of the vendors has tested medium shutter speeds on H-Series and found no issue with mirror slap. I guess it can vary, and the effect involves everything. Tripod, vibration dampening and so on.

Best regards
Erik

There again, I don't get what the problem is about. The mirror of H cameras maybe noisy, but it is well damped. By direct comparison with a D800, the slap does not appear to be much stronger, even if the mirror is about twice as large. Then, of course, the camera has more inertia...

[JV]

The H1 and 2 were much faster but the shutter shock was a bitch. 

There again, I don't get what the problem is about. The mirror of H cameras maybe noisy, but it is well damped.

One of the vendors has tested medium shutter speeds on H-Series and found no issue with mirror slap.

Personally I don't get it either...  Would love to be educated...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

According to basic physics, mirror slap would not be a problem because angular momentum is kept. Mirror accelerates and decelerates, those factors should cancel out. If you add dampening by hand and tripod acceleration and deceleration don't cancel out.

Practical tests: https://captureintegration.com/a-look-in-the-mirror-slap-contax-vs-hasselblad-h/


But I don't know if those were proper tests. In a test I made I could see little effect of MLU visually, but when I calculated MTF the difference was dramatic. After seeing MTF I also saw the loss of sharpness in the images. Brain works that way.


Best regards
Erik

Personally I don't get it either...  Would love to be educated...

[satybhat]

Not sure what anyone thinks of the Leica S here.... seems that in terms of sensor size, you are "downgrading". Perhaps not within budgets ( never within budgets with Leica  ).
There's some love for it on the getdpi forums, although no concretes for the new system.
I myself am on the reverse path, changing from a D800e to something higher.

[tnabbott]

Upgrade even more by going to film.   You can optically print with results surpassing all of the options raised in the OP.  The best part is you can avoid the endless upgrade cycles imposed by digital technology (wasn't the original 1Ds or 5D the subject of such posts 8-9 years back).   Film cameras are cheap and so is film when compared to the 2-3 year cycle of investment that digital seems to inspire.

[BernardLanguillier]

I myself am on the reverse path, changing from a D800e to something higher.

Out of curiosity, what is it the D800e cannot do relative to your needs and what are you considering upgrading to?

Cheers,
Bernard

[jerome_m]

If it's possible for anyone to shoot a 30 second exposure on a Hasselblad H3DII-31 and send me the original file I would be very grateful. If the noise was within reason it wouldn't be a problem for me to stack multiple 30 second exposures to achieve an even longer exposure effect. That's how I did the seascapes above.

I can't do a H3DII-31, but I can do a H3D-31 (without the "II").

I was a bit surprised when I read in this thread that the Hasselblad backs would produce horrible noise when exposed longer than a few fractions of a second. I have little interested for long exposure myself, so I did not know what to think of it, but I found it surprising. The Kodak CCDs used in these backs are used in astronomy for exposure times counted in hours.

So I did a little test. The result of a 64s exposure can be seen here, on my flickr account. The full resolution is that link. 64s is the maximum of that particular camera (in auto mode, I have not tried to time the bulb setting), I know that the H3DII-50 can expose for twice as long. You have a week to check it, I don't want to leave that boring picture on my flickr account forever.

It is a quick and dirty test, just showing the view outside my window. I used a cheap Chinese manufactured ND1000 filter from Haida to reduce light. The raw data was treated in Phocus, without noise reduction. The only think I did was to adjust white balance. Phocus will hide hot pixels relatively efficiently and does so automatically. If you want the raw data file, give me a server where I can dump it.

Quite frankly, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. The output looks reasonably good to me. Or did I miss something essential about your question?


1 minute shutter time

[BJL]

The only reason why this is true is because phaseone backs are calibrated to underexpose one stop at base ISO.

Bernard,
what you mean, I suspect, is that Phase One's raw output is calibrated to give about one more stop of headroom above metered midtones than the roughly three stop minimum headroom used in the ISO standard for measuring the saturation based minimum "safe" exposure index (base ISO speed). I wish people would stop misinterpreting this ISO standard for "highest acceptable mid-tone placement consistent with adequate highlight headroom in all-round usage" as being "the only correct tonal placement in raw files". This confounding makes particularly little sense with the combination of CCD sensors with ADCs that have several stops more DR than the signal going into them, where greater analog gain (higher raw placement) does very little to improve shadow noise because almost all noise enters the signal before gain is applied, but definitely increases the risk of highlight clipping.

To put it another way, with 16-bit ADC applied to a sensor signal with at most 13 stops or DR, there are several stops of latitude in raw placement that will have essentially no adverse effect on IQ, the ISO standard 12232 has no intention or authority to declare one unique choice within that range, no matter how much the DxO folks choose to reinterpret it.

(I now expect comments from people that it is important to be able to use a raw conversion workflow that ignores the camera makers' specifications as to default tonal placements in conversion, so that it is wrong to ever offer more than about three stops of raw headroom in normally metered exposures.)

[Fine_Art]

Hi,

According to basic physics, mirror slap would not be a problem because angular momentum is kept. Mirror accelerates and decelerates, those factors should cancel out. If you add dampening by hand and tripod acceleration and deceleration don't cancel out.

Practical tests: https://captureintegration.com/a-look-in-the-mirror-slap-contax-vs-hasselblad-h/


But I don't know if those were proper tests. In a test I made I could see little effect of MLU visually, but when I calculated MTF the difference was dramatic. After seeing MTF I also saw the loss of sharpness in the images. Brain works that way.


Best regards
Erik

You have to factor in the time component which results in torque then the reverse torque, on the rest of the system. The first torque is already dissipating by the time the reverse kicks in which is the problem. He says in the article he can feel the slap vibration in the camera. So then the question is at what time interval are these vibrations present? Is the shutter open over that time interval? Testing at 1/125 and 2 sec is avoiding the problem. You know from the feel in your hand that the mirror slap vibration is over in under a second. How much under? Ballpark 1/8 1/4 1/2 of a second? test that. 1/125th is too fast.

If they have built in a damping system for exactly the speed of the mirror there is no problem. If they have that they need to advertise it.

[pjtn]

pjtn, what is your name ?

Hi Bernd, my name is Peter.

I can't do a H3DII-31, but I can do a H3D-31 (without the "II").

Thanks heaps for that Jerome, the file looks fantastic! Unfortunately the one I was watching has sold now. The price was very attractive because it was less than I could sell my P25+ for. Since I only have a single lens I feel if I'd rather be shooting another system, now is the time to make the change.

It does seem Capture One processes files better than Lightroom, although the library feature is taking some getting used to. It really gets confusing with catalogs, folders, projects, albums, etc.

My most desired feature is a very simple one, to right click and select 'edit in photoshop'.

Peter

[Doug Peterson]

My most desired feature is a very simple one, to right click and select 'edit in photoshop'.

This is very easy to do.

Create a process recipe set to "Open With: Photoshop" and "Root Folder: Image Folder".

Then you don't even need to right click, just push the process button or Command-D.

We cover workflow like this in our Capture One classes.

[pjtn]

This is very easy to do.

Create a process recipe set to "Open With: Photoshop" and "Root Folder: Image Folder".

Then you don't even need to right click, just push the process button or Command-D.

We cover workflow like this in our Capture One classes.

Hmm, it sort of worked. My file was processed and opened in Photoshop, it even seems to be in the correct folder. But it doesn't come up in Capture One. It would be even better if came up in Capture One and stacked it with the original.

Also not sure what to set Output Location to. Leaving it without a folder selected wont allow the process to work. If I set just set my desktop to the output folder it doesn't seem to appear there though.

I suppose if want to come back to a file I've worked on in Photoshop I either need to process it again or find the file in the system.

It all seems very clunky.

[pjtn]

Also, is it normal that leaving the battery in the DB will flatten in very quickly? If I don't take the battery out after each use it's usually flat a couple days later. This was the same on my P30+ too.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would suggest that you continue using LR (if that is what you are using). Just keep your files in raw and not DNG. That way you can reprocess any file in C1. For my kind of photography I don't feel I need C1 and prefer LR5. For important images there may be other great alternatives like RawTherapee or DPP. On some images with bad aliasing RawTherapy does a better job than LR5 or C1.

Really wish Capture 1 would support DNG fully.

Best regards
Erik

Hmm, it sort of worked. My file was processed and opened in Photoshop, it even seems to be in the correct folder. But it doesn't come up in Capture One. It would be even better if came up in Capture One and stacked it with the original.

Also not sure what to set Output Location to. Leaving it without a folder selected wont allow the process to work. If I set just set my desktop to the output folder it doesn't seem to appear there though.

I suppose if want to come back to a file I've worked on in Photoshop I either need to process it again or find the file in the system.

It all seems very clunky.

[JV]

Also, is it normal that leaving the battery in the DB will flatten in very quickly? If I don't take the battery out after each use it's usually flat a couple days later. This was the same on my P30+ too.

No, it is not.  I usually charge my battery after a shoot and leave it in the P30+ till the next shoot.

[jerome_m]

Thanks heaps for that Jerome, the file looks fantastic!

Why did you think otherwise, if I may ask?

[satybhat]

Out of curiosity, what is it the D800e cannot do relative to your needs and what are you considering upgrading to?

Cheers,
Bernard

Hi Bernard,
I'm going to get a bit philosophical about this.
I understand that we may be digressing a bit here, but hey, these are forums and who doesn't ? Hopefully, I may also open a can of worms.
Firstly, my needs:

I mainly do landscapes ( with some seriousness ) and family portraiture ( bit of fun and for aiding my memory in the future ).

My issues with D800e.
Great resolution, but poor corner performance on many lenses. I have the 24-70 that I carry mostly on family holidays. Great for portraiture, but try and do some serious landscapes and the corners crumble. I have since resorted to shooting in the 5x4 mode, but even this does not, well, satisfy my aesthetics. The 45pce is another lens I often carry. This is, well very nice at the 45mm focal length. but its kind of a one trick pony.
Another issue is the clipping of highlights. I've found that at values 240-255, I need to be really careful about how the channels behave.
The one thing I never liked about Nikon is the colour signature. I have in the past switched to canon once for this reason.
All this is no obvious reason to quit the entire system ( mind you I am quite invested in the Nikon system at present ).
The other reason I use it for is birding. The 80-400 is a killer. But lately I have gravitated down to contemplative landscapes only.

Why another system ? no idea, perhaps the Leica S will offer me the following:
1. corner resolution. I am already astounded by the "much maligned" Leica X-vario lens. the corner resolution is quite simply astounding even at 18MP, even being a zoom.
2. Better weather sealing
3. the 30-90 should be heaps better than the nikon 24-70.
4. Great lenses ( most of them ) in the lineup.
5. Simpler haptics.
6. Larger sensor ( just enough for my needs ) without having to resort to the next leap of IQ 160. ( I understand I am giving up movements here ).

So what do you think ?

[eronald]

Hi Bernard,
I'm going to get a bit philosophical about this.
I understand that we may be digressing a bit here, but hey, these are forums and who doesn't ? Hopefully, I may also open a can of worms.
Firstly, my needs:

I mainly do landscapes ( with some seriousness ) and family portraiture ( bit of fun and for aiding my memory in the future ).

My issues with D800e.
Great resolution, but poor corner performance on many lenses. I have the 24-70 that I carry mostly on family holidays. Great for portraiture, but try and do some serious landscapes and the corners crumble. I have since resorted to shooting in the 5x4 mode, but even this does not, well, satisfy my aesthetics. The 45pce is another lens I often carry. This is, well very nice at the 45mm focal length. but its kind of a one trick pony.
Another issue is the clipping of highlights. I've found that at values 240-255, I need to be really careful about how the channels behave.
The one thing I never liked about Nikon is the colour signature. I have in the past switched to canon once for this reason.
So what do you think ?

I think the perfect system doesn't exist
I also think you could go and buy/rent a Zeiss lens for your Nikon.
And you could use Rawdigger to determine the channel position, or simply underexpose by one or more stops, @ISO 200 by daylight with a D800 that should still leave you with more DR than you can use. At this point, 35mm photography is more about misusing the camera creatively than using it properly. Creative misuse might also improve color which is one of the few real weakpoints of Nikons cameras.
Last not least, Doug, who posted earlier, will probably have some suggestions for squeezing more out of you existing MF setup, or advise you clearly about its limitations compared to other solutions.

[BernardLanguillier]

Sorry for the digression indeed. As far as colors on the D800 go, they easily go from ok to great by grey card clicking in C1 Pro.

Although I own a copy of the 24-70f2.8, I hardly ever use it and never use it when I shoot for pleasure (which is 99% of the time). I far prefer using the Nikkor 24mm f1.4, Sigma 35mm f1.4, Zeiss 50mm f2.0 and Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AF-S. The 24-70f2.8 is a PJ lens and is in fact very good, but it is not meant for landscape shooting.

Cheers,
Bernard