Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Not worth it ?  (Read 28441 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13542
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #20 on: November 19, 2013, 09:03:38 pm »

Didn't it hurt to get that big yellow and black tattoo on your chest?

This isn't about Nikon really, I totally agree that the Sony A7R is a great option and might buy one also. As I said, pretty much everybody besides Canon is now offering sensors with DR similar to that of backs. I would use Canon bodies if they offered something likely to help my photography.

I do also fully understand that those owning a large set of Canon lenses have no other option but to stay on board. The great thing is that I'll be able to use my F mount lenses on a Canon body the day they release something significantly better.  ;)

I think the reason most have Canon is if you own a 30 to whatever medium format back, you are less inclined to go to a high megapixel dslr, because you pretty much have territory covered.

I think most guys bought they backs after their Canon because it did not meet their expectations. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 09:06:28 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3978
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2013, 09:15:48 pm »

Ken brings up a great point on Live view on the Nikon's.  In low light it's very hard to use as no noise is being buffered out.  Canon gives you more of a video image, not quite as sharp, but at least the noise is being buffered somehow. (based on Canon 6D vs Nikon D800e).  It's different than the CCD based live view with Phase.  The huge amount of blooming that goes on on the screen, even with just changing the focus makes the usage next to impossible.  Even with ND"s and other filters in use to help darken the image it's very hard to use.  But it's interesting to note that in low light, noise is nominal with the IQ and view view.

Paul Caldwell
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13542
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #22 on: November 19, 2013, 10:01:45 pm »

Ken brings up a great point on Live view on the Nikon's.  In low light it's very hard to use as no noise is being buffered out.  Canon gives you more of a video image, not quite as sharp, but at least the noise is being buffered somehow. (based on Canon 6D vs Nikon D800e).  It's different than the CCD based live view with Phase.  The huge amount of blooming that goes on on the screen, even with just changing the focus makes the usage next to impossible.  Even with ND"s and other filters in use to help darken the image it's very hard to use.  But it's interesting to note that in low light, noise is nominal with the IQ and view view.

The live view of the D800 has 3 "issues", 2 of which are easy to bypass:
1. It uses the aperture set on the camera and shows therefore an image stopped down. This results in very dark images in low light situations,
2. It offers a high magnification mode going way past 100% (100% being one sceen pixel per sensor pixel),
3. It is based on the video and therefore skips some lines in the image.

The first point is in fact a plus when using lenses with focus shift (most lenses in fact) but results in very dark images in low light situations if nothing is done. The obvious workaround is to focus a full aperture and then stop down later, this works perfect with good lenses with little focus shift but it does add one operation and is indeed annoying.

The second point is in fact great and although the view is pixelized and looks terrible, it is possible to use the look of the staircase to identify perfect sharpness. It works splendid for me.

The third point is mostly about looks and I agree, it doesn't look good.

Like most tools, they have their downsides, some are easy to workaround, some are annoying and some render a tool unusable. I have not found the live view of the D800 to be a major obstacle even in dusk/dawn situations.

Cheers,
Bernard

Gigi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 524
    • some work
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #23 on: November 19, 2013, 10:16:33 pm »

We've been here before, but one more time, with gusto:

There seem to be three variables at play here, each in their own realm:

- convenience, ease of use and latitude in operation
- flexibility in shooting. for low light, what we might call latitude with light
- quality of the image, its ability to stand up under post, perhaps called latitude in the file

There is no doubt that (pick your favorite DSLR) is going to win the first point, that of convenience. The only possible exception (IMHO) is in perspective correction, where the tech camera and MFDB combination actually might be easier to use, or at least more flexible.

With regard to latitude with light, the high ISO capabilities of the DSLR take the crown; except that if one is shooting on a tripod, this difference lessens significantly. Also to be considered is dynamic range, and some will still say the MFDB is superior in this.

The real point tho with MFDB is the quality of the image. And while the D800 has challenged this, the discerning user typically prefers the MFDB, almost universally, at least in this regard. As an earlier post put it, open up the MFDB file and its "OMG", not just "good enough". That thrill happens every day, every shoot.

Its not forgiving, and if you work with MFDB, you have to be prepared to get smacked around - it doesn't help you with the marginal shot, rather it makes a good shot better and a bad oneÖ. well, you don't always win. But  very very few people who have gotten used to MFDB have gone back to DSLRs.

There is a big place in the world for the quicker shooter, and the more forgiving camera. Such tools serve the needs of many photographers, and serve them well. But there is also a small place for the discerning shooter, who treasures quality above convenience, and cherishes that last little bit, where the light doesn't just sit, but dances across the image. Anything less just isn't good enough.
Logged
Geoff

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1516
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #24 on: November 19, 2013, 10:30:49 pm »


I think most guys bought they backs after their Canon because it did not meet their expectations. :-)


Actually, Canon Always met my expectations, from the 1ds on.

The only glitch was the 1ds2 which mine and others had a file corruption problem with shooting then quick lcd viewing.

Canon eventually slowed the cameras up and it worked.

I had two reasons for going medium format.  First was when the 1ds2 hit problems I walked into Samy's with the intention of buying a new camera.  The Hasselblad wasn't there yet, the Aptus wasn't out, Phase had no LCD on their backs so I bought a d2x and a ton of the last Contax in the box cameras, a leaf Valeo (which was a great back) and moved from the Valeo to the Aptus 22.

The second reason for medium format was at this early stage in digital there was a lot of "digital experts" pitching every project I did all saying  their medium format backs smoked those Canons,  so since I had two digital backs and we knew our stuff we could get the "experts"  out of the room and the billing, but honestly, if the 1ds2 hadn't flaked and the digital experts had not appeared I'd probably have never owned any still camera but a Canon.

I've also owned the D2x, D700, D3 (for low light)  and a bunch of nikon glass from legacy manual (which I used in motion imagery) to the newest Nano coating lenses.  My favorite Nikon lens is the old 50mm 1.2 manual and the newer 200mm f2.  I love the 200.

In regards to medium format if I was in 2007 I'd think about buying a new Leaf of Hasselblad, though we  shoot nearly every project in motion and stills with continuous light and medium format isn't the world's best camera for that scenario.

Also after some brief thought this year when I looked at Hasselblad, Leaf and Phase (in that order), I decided I wasn't gaining enough over my p30, p21 and contax to make the investment, but what really happened since 2007 is the cameras didn't change, our business model did.

Today our medium format style cameras are RED motions cameras have two R1's and a Scarlet.   They are the medium format equivalent of motion imagery.  They require a personalized Rep to keep up with firmware, changes and software upgrades, they require crafted light and they're damn expensive, at least in the photo world (not the motion picture world).

I'm sure they will al be replaced someday with something smaller and cheaper. 

But today, I don't think Canon can be ruled out.  I'm sure they'll have a 36 to 40mpx camera and the internet blogs will light up in comparison tests, medium format guys dogging it, the same thing we've seen forever, though in reality, motion or still cameras are made to allow beautiful images to be made and the pundits will hate it, but when Canon comes rolling out, I'm sure a lot of eos lens owners will buy and buy and buy.

I kind of thought the 1dx was the last semi expensive still camera I would ever buy, but with the 1dc just looking at what it can be, not just what it is, if they take it up a notch. go with in camera stabilization, long run time 4k to 5k and allow it to produce a high rez still, Canon could be back on top.
IMO

BC



Shot with the original 1ds which I still use from time to time.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13542
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2013, 10:40:32 pm »

There is a big place in the world for the quicker shooter, and the more forgiving camera. Such tools serve the needs of many photographers, and serve them well. But there is also a small place for the discerning shooter, who treasures quality above convenience, and cherishes that last little bit, where the light doesn't just sit, but dances across the image. Anything less just isn't good enough.

I sure hope those guys stitch every time the technique can be applied to the scene they are trying to capture. ;)

I have read the "nothing less is good enough" many times only to find out that the photographers does not stitch scenes than can easily be stitched... Perfect example being American South West where nothing ever moves. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Cheers,
Bernard

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3978
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2013, 10:43:04 pm »

Bernard,

From my usage with the D800 I realized there were the two options for live view focusing you mention, however I feel that even in the 2nd option, if the scene is all in low light, i.e. sunrise, sunset etc, then the camera still shows way too much noise and the noise makes the focusing very hard.  In any other situation, I find the live view on the D800 to be excellent, once you realize that the "100%" view zoomed past a normal 100% view and back it off by 3 steps. Works great.  However the noise I see in low light makes for a hard time focusing where as with Canon, somehow this noise is buffered out or written  out so that you see a cleaner image and can thus focus much easier.  Over time I have gotten more used to it.

Paul Caldwell
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #27 on: November 20, 2013, 12:19:23 am »

Hi,

For Live View AF I think we need to see every pixel. I don't know how it works on other cameras. But no good idea to focus a 36MP camera at 7 MP.

Best regards
Erik



3. It is based on the video and therefore skips some lines in the image.


Cheers,
Bernard

Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11288
    • Echophoto
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #28 on: November 20, 2013, 12:52:36 am »

Hi,

I don't think BC makes a lot of stitching stuff...

What I have found that I stitch more on MF than I do DSLR, but that is mostly due to having a limited number of primes (5) compared to zooms. So when subject doesn't fit I stitch.

See sample below, I couldn't move back, because of a wall, I couldn't move forward because I could not position my tripod. I could switch lens to a much wider one, but choose stitching as the rescue.

I agree with Bernard that stitching is good, but it often does not work, for instance not for the work BC does.

By the way, I have both DSLR and MFD, but I have Sony not Canon. The main advantage I see with MFD is sharpness. DR definitively not, pretty sure the other way around. Color I don't know. Also a bit a question of taste. The P45+ has warmer colors and is more yellowish, but that could be a question of WB. I feel color rendition on the Sony is subtler and more accurate in measurable terms.

There has been a lot of development in sensors, too. The IQ 180 is much better than the P45+ I have in the DxO tests, that measure noise related things. I have little doubt the IQ200 series are even better.

DxO-mark publishes something called Color Metamerism Index, it measures color accuracy based on the Color Checker, it gives 88 and 85 for my Sonys and 72 for my P45+, for the IQ 180 the CMI is 80, great improvement.

It seems that the Sony SLT is on par or better with the P45+, except in DR at minimum ISO. The IQ180 is significant improvement over both.

The DxO results ignore sensor resolution, lenses and such things.

As a side remark, I actually feel that DR is better on my Alpha 99 than on my P45+, on absolute terms, but that is difficult to measure.


Best regards
Erik




I sure hope those guys stitch every time the technique can be applied to the scene they are trying to capture. ;)

I have read the "nothing less is good enough" many times only to find out that the photographers does not stitch scenes than can easily be stitched... Perfect example being American South West where nothing ever moves. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Cheers,
Bernard

« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 03:51:39 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #29 on: November 20, 2013, 01:56:25 am »

The undercurrent here looks to be saying MFDB is not worth it.
The nikon, if  you put great glass on it, is a great choice and a fantastic camera and certainly is the first dSLR that is very competitive with some MFDB, especially in dynamic range. Of course great glass is something you want to do with every camera but becomes more critical as the sensor resolution climbs and size gets smaller.

 Over on getDPI.com there are several MFDB shooters that have added a d800 to their collection, but can only recall only a few in forums  that have dropped the MFDB system to use the nikon exclusively,  But then Iíve seen quite a few move to MFDB in that same period of time.  when looking at any of those photographers, I think you have to look at their particular needs and what they do with the gear.

As one who owns three systems, Arca Swiss with IQ180 (just purchased about 7 months ago), Phase DF (for the same back) and Nikon d800e with Zeiss prime lenses, the Nikon sees a little use (mainly for macro and some telephoto stuff), the DF a little more, and the majority of the work is with the Tech camera now.  Itís mostly about the rodenstock glass as well as the ability to shift.  Itís also the lightest of the three systems, which is helpful for a 60 year old body.

Most of my work ( i do exclusively landscapes) even with the tech camera is stitched nowadays (I live in that american southwest bernard referred to), so I could move to the Nikon and shoot more shots and end up with very comparable final files.  I just think I get more out of the larger sensor and the Rodenstock glass, and working with the files I just feel I can get more out of the Phase files, even when it comes to shadow detail. Probably more about what Iím used to than anything to do with the files.  I really like the ability to shift to keep the camera level, or sometimes a little closer to level when doing a pano stitch. My end goal is always an image that can handle just about any size (up to 90Ē) and is enjoyable at any viewing distance, whether up close to see interesting textures and details or from a distance to see the grand view.  Thatís my personal goal when I shoot, mainly because thatís the kind of images Iím drawn to.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13542
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2013, 01:59:52 am »

I don't think BC makes a lot of stitching stuff...

I agree with Bernard that stitching is good, but it often does not work, for instance not for the work BC does.

Agreed, never said that stitching was a universal tool and this comment was not meant for BC.

Just said that for many landscape shooters [claim to look for the best possible image quality, derive from that the need to use a MFDB and... not stitch] is pure non sense to me.

I understand that many photographers don't like stitching and that is 100% fine by me, but then the priority becomes convenience and not image quality.

I am just pointing out the incoherence here.

It is exactly as if Ansel Adams had claimed to be looking for best possible image quality and used a Hasselblad instead of his 8x10 camera.

Regards,
Bernard
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 03:23:07 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #31 on: November 20, 2013, 03:56:02 am »

 In the final twenty years of his life, the Hasselblad was his camera of choice, with Moon and Half Dome (1960) being his favorite photo made with that brand of camera. In the same article it states that he was a consultant for Polaroid and made thousands of photographs with polaroid products.

Cheers,
Logged
Tom Brown

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13542
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #32 on: November 20, 2013, 04:05:36 am »

In the final twenty years of his life, the Hasselblad was his camera of choice, with Moon and Half Dome (1960) being his favorite photo made with that brand of camera. In the same article it states that he was a consultant for Polaroid and made thousands of photographs with polaroid products.

Indeed... he also selected convenience over image quality.

chees,
Bernard

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #33 on: November 20, 2013, 04:48:10 am »

I agree that if you want MF-like quality of the file Canon is way behind, as color, dynamic range and resolution at base ISO are so important factors to many. It's still the worst comparison point if you want to compare what DSLRs can do in MF territory today, I would not trust a salesperson that doesn't bring in D800E to compare, today it's simply a must when it comes to evaluating if "it's worth it". Don't even bother mentioning comparison with an MF digital back and a Canon product. For the typical DSLR shooting styles however Canon products shine as always (ie handheld, fast-moving subjects, higher ISO etc), and many prefer them over Nikon.

Thus when MF-like image quality is not a main target, a Canon is a good choice, so it's a good companion camera if you have a digital back. However, if you look into replacing the dual combo with one all-around camera, a D800 is certainly still the best choice by far. If it's good enough to replace your MF system is personal and is impossible to answer, but one can with certainty say that 135 format has never reached so far into MF territory as it does now. The new Sony A7r opens up for an interesting perspective for landscape/interior or other tripod shooters too thanks to the short flange distance. It's a little bit too new yet to know it's full potential though.

The reason I use MF myself is the Linhof Techno which I use for landscape. I have a "large format" style of shooting, but don't like to mess with film so it's a natural choice. I would not get an MF-DSLR as I find them booooring for landscape and sluggish for natural light hand-held work. If I would be a studio portrait photographer it could be otherwise though, might choose a MF-DSLR for the large viewfinder alone. I see my camera choice like choosing a higher end vintage motorcycle instead of a modern small car for transportation. Certainly not the most practical and economical choice (and I still need that car too) but more fun.

It's something I evaluate year for year though. If I can't afford to keep up with MF gear (I use legacy stuff to keep down costs) to compete in image quality with the best DSLRs, I'll probably sell off the stuff and go with a DSLR, because getting the best image quality with the budget I have is important too. As my companion camera indeed is a Canon, I don't think it will happen until Canon has something competitive on the table and have updated their whole tilt-shift range.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 04:53:40 am by torger »
Logged

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1782
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #34 on: November 20, 2013, 07:02:29 am »

We use a D800e and a Leaf 40 megapixel back on a DF in our studio. Repro shooting. The D800 is an equal (bar a couple of megapixels) to the back in everything but colour and that is mainly due to profiles in C1 which are far better for the Leaf back, though one day I'll profile the D800e properly and it will be an interesting test. But we can shoot with the D800e at iso's above 80 (not so with the Leaf), the tethered liveview is heaven in comparison (tethering in general much faster) and about as (non) reliable as the leaf, it's far smaller, a world cheaper, doesn't crap out it's shutter at a rated 40K shots (thu, focuses far more accurately and faster and I'd say that the 60mm macro lens we use is sharper and better than the 80mm schneider LS. If we were starting again from scratch the MF would not have been bought, back then the D800e didn't exist. Please note that this comparison is for repro usage and lighting which is very flat and we really do not have to think about stuff like facial tones.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #35 on: November 20, 2013, 08:14:09 am »

Also a lot of people that when to medium format we're professionals and semi early adopters so they bought into the medium format eco system and had Canons for options, because for a long time Canon was the only Full Frame 35mm Camera.
Yup. Nikon were not even a consideration for that very reason when I move to digital.

Quote
I actually think the 1dx works great except in processing.  In dpp the skintones are beautiful, but in lightroom they look very red/orange warm and kind of global which makes skin tones hard to hit.
Do you use the Canon camera calibration profiles in the Develop module?  I used to have issues with red/orange separation before they were introduced. And if you do use them, you can also specifically calibrate to your camera using a colour chart and a PS action which was the solution before Adobe added the profiles into ACR/LR. Though whilst looking for a link that method, I came across this newer technique.


Quote
But to be truthful, if there had been a 35 mpx dslr like the d800 out when I bought my medium format backs, I might have gone a different direction.
For me, it's not necessarily the MP count as why I would buy a MF back, but the sensor size and different look it gives. Though the odd time I have rented one it was specifically for the MP.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #36 on: November 20, 2013, 10:02:31 am »

Hasselblads were really *much* better than 35mm; the very fact that a D800 and a MF system can be compared is frightening and shows MF are very bad value for money.

BTW, images tend to be better when you can see what you are doing - maybe all we really want is a decent sized clip on screen for the D800 or other dSLR - anything is better than the finders we have since digital came along.


Edmund
« Last Edit: November 20, 2013, 10:29:22 am by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Primus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #37 on: November 20, 2013, 10:36:03 am »

Like I said, an endless debate.

If convenience is the key, then we should all go for a P&S, which costs a fraction of the D800e and perhaps a hundredth of the IQ180 system. The fact that most photographers on this thread have a huge DSLR with all the lenses and paraphernalia suggests that it is also the image quality they are after.

Once you've reached that point, then it is all about a happy marriage between convenience and quality.

However, there comes a time when people want the ultimate quality even though it may be a tedious process to get there and may just cost a lot more than one is comfortable with.

Time to bring in the car analogy :-)

A Honda Civic today has everything you need in a car - bluetooth, navigation, power everything, great fuel economy and on city streets and even the   speed regulated highways of New York,  enough power to hold its own against a real 'sports car'.

And yet, those who can afford the gas-guzzling, high maintenance luxury of a $100K SL500 or an M5 will not hesitate to buy one. Does it offer them FIVE times the speed, comfort, or utility of the Civic? Of course not. The person buying such a car simply wants the best that (his) money can buy.

The same with an MFDB. At ten times the cost of the high-end DSLR and a hundred times that of a good P&S, it is not about the 'value for money'. Thus the question posed by the OP - 'Not Worth It?' can only be answered by 'How much money do you have?'

In the end that's all it boils down to.  Those who have the means and have bought into the hype, if you will, will of course say it is worth it to them. For those who do not, it will always be sour grapes.
Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #38 on: November 20, 2013, 10:59:42 am »

Nothing against IQ, but sometimes IQ
fetishism distracts from art.
A very personal choice where that borderline actually is ...

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #39 on: November 20, 2013, 11:14:46 am »

Nothing against IQ, but sometimes IQ
fetishism distracts from art.
A very personal choice where that borderline actually is ...

You can have the best of both worlds by mounting an IQ180 back on a Lomo or even better Diana.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Up