Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Not worth it ?  (Read 28473 times)

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Not worth it ?
« on: November 19, 2013, 08:36:42 am »

The undercurrent here looks to be saying MFDB is not worth it. The difference between DSLR and MFDB was once defended to the death, now I get the feeling the D800 gets the nod.
Not that the MF is not better, but more the difference is of little practical value compared with the extra outlay.
I don't mention it as detractor from the value of the MFDB, I come at it as someone that is doing the sums on a P65+ kit, every couple of years I go through this. Wondering if the difference would make a difference, wether a MFDB would add or subtract from my bottom line, that and a desire to have MF again.
I've never used MF digital only DSLR, film days it was the reverse, I still prefer the MF way of working, but I need more than that to justify the cost.
I'm using the 1DX after the 1DsmkII and III, I'm very impressed, yet I still hanker after a MFD system.
Logged
Kevin.

gerald.d

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 438
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2013, 08:48:36 am »

I'm shooting with 1Dx's on a project at the moment.

Great cameras that can of course do so much more than any MF system ever could.

But there is simply no comparison between the files you get from the 1Dx, and what pops out of my IQ180.

Every time I click on a 1Dx file in Lightroom to see the full detail, my reaction is "meh".

Every time I double click on an IQ180 in Capture One to see the full detail, my reaction is "OMFG". Every. Single. Time.

I don't think it's just down to the resolution. Frankly, I don't really care what it's down to.

If you're not seeing sense in going for a P65+, then don't waste your money. But...

Second hand, the IQ180 is less than 3x the price of a 1Dx body. I'd say that was a bargain.

Kind regards,

Gerald.

Logged

jonathan.lipkin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2013, 09:16:21 am »

I'd say it depends on the application. I shoot with both a Canon 5d.ii and a Hasselblad h3dii-39. The canon works very well in some situations, especially low light and shooting handheld, when I need a print no larger than 24x36. The Hasselblad produces a file that I can print upwards of 44x60 inches, and I can use the HTS adapter to produce panoramas that are tack sharp from edge to edge, even though it is using the outer limits of the image circle. But, I would not hand hold the Hasselblad at a shutter speed of less than about 1/180.

 I do find the Hasseblad significantly sharper than my Canon.

Finally, I have been shooting with the Hasselblad for about two years, and see no need to upgrade it. It works very well for what I need it to do, and there is no area I can see where it would need to be improved. Lenses are tack sharp, resolution is as high as I need, etc.
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4172
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2013, 09:31:57 am »

I guess I can't speak for all the forum members. Though I don't see nearly the consensus you do, and to some extent anyone who loves MFDB has been sick of these conversations for a decade so you'll forgive them if they don't jump into every nearly-identical-to-the-last-one-thread.

But I can speak to the end result... at least in the NY and TX market that Digital Transitions is primarily involved in, sales of MFDB are up year over year for several years now. Since the D800 was announced early in 2012 our sales are up, not down.

Tech camera sales are way up from even two years ago, DF/DF+ sales are way above what they were during the AF generation.

For some shooters a MFDB is not only not worth it, but would be WORSE than a dSLR even if they cost the same amount. When I'm shooting a wedding and the day turns into night and I'm in a dark reception hall with fast moving dancing I'd be insane to shoot medium format. But during the ceremony, during the bridal portraits, during cocktail hours (especially if they are outside or in a well lit room) it's so much more enjoyable for me to shoot a MFDB and the color and lens quality and ability to add flash to ambient (even at large distances) by syncing at 1/1600th and staying wide open and the size of the viewfinder make it my goto choice every time.

For other shooters the difference is going to be more stark. As one example relevant to this forum, for many shooters a tech camera with even a "low res" back (e.g. 20mp/40mp) is a far better tool for landscape, architecture, interiors than a D800 and SLR style TS lenses. You'll be hard pressed to find any significant % of tech camera shooters who are not absolutely overjoyed with the results they get.

For still other shooters the difference in handling, style of shooting, ergonomics, or aesthetics make it enough.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 09:40:23 am by Doug Peterson »
Logged

jonathan.lipkin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 156
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2013, 09:41:58 am »

One other thing I forgot to mention: I had been comparing the Hasselblad with 4x5 film, not 35mm digital. I'd been shooting 45, and due to the way I shoot (many sheets per shoot), taking a loan to buy the hasselblad ended up being much cheaper than paying to buy, scan and process the 45 film.

I reached the decision after coming back from a shoot with 200 sheets of film. The processing bill was quite high.
Logged

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2013, 10:24:59 am »

If you are asking about "the bottom line", the right question is whether your customers are ready to pay for the difference, isn't it? On one hand, a modern SLRs will produce prints good enough for many commercial applications. On the other hand, some customers will simply require that you use a MF, and one with multishot as well (think museum reproduction, for example).

We can't really answer your question without knowing what your particular line of business is, can we?
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2013, 10:59:53 am »

If you are asking about "the bottom line", the right question is whether your customers are ready to pay for the difference, isn't it? On one hand, a modern SLRs will produce prints good enough for many commercial applications. On the other hand, some customers will simply require that you use a MF, and one with multishot as well (think museum reproduction, for example).

We can't really answer your question without knowing what your particular line of business is, can we?

This is backwards thinking.  You should be charging prices that allow you to work the way you want to way before you start to put together a budget for better equipment.  I went MF this year and only marginally raised my pricing, b/c I was already charging a good amount.  My justification for my pricing revolves mainly around service, planning, and lighting the images correctly.  I made due with DSLRs with bracketing and layering to provide the quality needed; now with MF, I do less bracketing and less layering, freeing up time in post, while getting better results.

For me, an architectural shooter, MF is way worth the money.  First, the lenses are much sharper, by a few orders of magnitude.  Also, there are no aberrations with any of the lenses I use, none.  I always find it kind of interesting when new DSLR lens come out and no one ever comments on this (even though those lenses aberrate a lot); it is like DSLR shooters have become complacent and just accept it, like it is unavoidable.  Also, if we look at controlled perspective lenses, MF offers many more choices.  My lenses have no distortion; I never worry about it anymore and it was quite an issue with the Canon lenses.  

The DR is better in the files and I can push the shadows much more.  I also love the fact that I can do multiple exposures again, making my life in post much easier.  

The camera body is much more intuitive to use and considerably more precise with focusing.  

With that said, I shoot architecture, work with a tech camera and use a lot of lighting.  Like Doug said, if I shot in low light conditions, I probably would not shoot MF.  

PS: my fiancée, who shoots food, would like to get a H4X with a P65+ next year.  MF for her is better because the blacks are way better, the camera is designed better that the DSLR counterparts, no aberrations, she can use leaf shutters (I do not know of any DSLR that offers this) with her drink shots that involve movement, 3:4 is closer to the format adverts and magazines use, 3:4 also makes cropping a horizontal into a vertical easier and vise versa.  
« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 11:22:36 am by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Primus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2013, 11:55:48 am »

This is an endless debate.

I have a 1DX and have bought and sold two Leica Ms over the past four years (the M240 only a month ago). Over the past 12 years I have bought almost every major DSLR from Canon, have used them with a variety of lenses from the 24TSE to the 600 MkII.

I am not a professional, never made a penny from my photography. I print all sizes, up to 44 X whatever at home. My prints are given away to friends and family or simply hung around the house. So my needs are quite different from somebody who needs a camera to make a living and I can therefore only address my comments to my own situation.

However, I do like perfection and have always aimed for the best image quality, both on the monitor and on print. I am my own critic and while I may not have a good eye for composition and other such nebulous elements that make a 'good photograph', I can tell a sharp and detailed print from one that is not.

I bought the IQ180 because I fell for the exquisite detail that is present in the images captured with it. Took a lot of thought and even after buying it for a while I wondered if I had spent too much money on quality that I could not market in any way. In fact up until a week ago I was seriously considering selling the system because I feared that I had 'paid too much for it'.

Then last weekend I went and took some pictures with my 1DX of the New York skyline again, at sunset and after dark. Came home and compared those with the ones taken with the IQ180 a month earlier. No question, the MFDB is simply so much better at detail and crispness. There is a discernible difference even when viewed at 'fit the screen' resolution and the picture is simply more appealing. I have not done people with this camera yet, but I am told it excels even more at portraits.

The big question is, is the difference in quality worth the huge difference in price?

That is very, very relative. Many comparisons of P&S cameras vs DSLRs have shown that there is not too much difference in the end results and yet the price is much higher at one end. The 1DX costs 10 times as much as an entry level DSLR with a kit lens, is the quality that much better? People who buy the 1DX do so not simply based on the difference in ultimate IQ but many many other factors that are important to them.

I won't even bring up the car analogy here.

The MFDB is not for the casual shooter, the limitations are obvious - no long exposures, need good light, preferably a tripod, slow, deliberate shots, not good for action or sports or wildlife (though Andy Biggs would differ). But for what it does well, it does extremely well with no competition. A high density sensor requires much more technique than a smaller one, as the new Sony A7R reviewers are discovering

In the end it all boils down to your style of shooting and the cost vs benefit ratio which is going to be variable for everyone. Some of my friends would buy a $100K car in a heartbeat but would never spend even $1K on a camera.

For me the sheer pleasure of the image quality and the extreme detail it can pull out is well worth my money. YMMV.

Pradeep
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4172
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2013, 01:15:23 pm »

The MFDB is not for the casual shooter, the limitations are obvious - no long exposures, need good light, preferably a tripod, slow, deliberate shots, not good for action or sports or wildlife (though Andy Biggs would differ). But for what it does well, it does extremely well with no competition.

I couldn't agree more about your overall point.

Though
- long exposure is an area that some MFDB is world-class at. See our IQ260 long exposure test. It's only some backs which are limited in longer exposures.
- 90% of my personal medium format files were taken in mixed-quality lighting, handheld, with seconds of deliberation. But as a wedding shooter my needs are obviously going to be different.

But for sure, your overall point is sound - a 1DX can handle a wider breadth of shooting (e.g. sports) well while a good MFDB system can handle a narrower range of shooting extremely well.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 01:18:24 pm by Doug Peterson »
Logged

Codger

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 85
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2013, 02:10:19 pm »

Where does the Leica S2 and S fit into this discussion?  Their lens line-up is not extensive but does cover the "regular" range of view angles, and the image quality is seldom surpassed.  The pixel count is sufficient for good resolution and the sensor itself is a "tweener," bridging the size of the so-called full-frame (24x36) CaNikons to nearly the smaller of the Hassy and Phase models.  The leaf shutter alternative is there, and with the convenient form factor and size/weight, it would seem to be viable.  The cost clearly pushes it beyond the 1Dx and 800E realm, but comparable with the MFDB systems.
Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2013, 02:11:14 pm »

I usually shoot MF Film, but recently had the chance to try out an IQ260 with an RmDi - great experience.
I can't compare to a DSLR though, just to my MF scans or P/S files- but hell - this was an experience ....
Now I'm craving ....

Chris Barrett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 730
    • www.christopherbarrett.net
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #11 on: November 19, 2013, 02:21:45 pm »

I think it's all largely personal preference.  My 5d is decent enough for a lot of applications, but I enjoy working with my Rm3d / IQ 260.  It's slower and sometimes a pain in the ass in comparison, but I really enjoy the methodology of it.

Now if it was a choice between a 645DF and a D800, I might go for the D800, but neither of those cameras is suitable for my professional work.

Primus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #12 on: November 19, 2013, 03:01:07 pm »

I couldn't agree more about your overall point.

Though
- long exposure is an area that some MFDB is world-class at. See our IQ260 long exposure test. It's only some backs which are limited in longer exposures.
- 90% of my personal medium format files were taken in mixed-quality lighting, handheld, with seconds of deliberation. But as a wedding shooter my needs are obviously going to be different.

But for sure, your overall point is sound - a 1DX can handle a wider breadth of shooting (e.g. sports) well while a good MFDB system can handle a narrower range of shooting extremely well.

Sorry Doug, was referring to the IQ180. The IQ260 can of course handle a 60 minute exposure very well.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11296
    • Echophoto
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2013, 03:41:58 pm »

Hi,

I recently went MFD, admittedly on the low end. What I got was a used Hasselblad V series camera with a P45+ back. I am quite happy that combo. On the other hand I don't know if I see a lot of benefits to MFD. My investment in the camera and lenses was something like 15000$US. Normally I am shooting with a Sony Alpha 99 and a few zoom lenses.

A modern camera like Phase One,  Hasselblad H-series or Rollei of course offers AF and better integration.

Getting to the images, I see a significant gain in resolution over my Sony Alpha 99, but I guess it corresponds to the 24MP vs. 39 MP difference. Other than that , I feel that the there is not a lot of difference in image quality. I am pretty sure that the Sony has better shadow detail. The Sony also has live view and no moving mirror.

Personally, I have quite a few issues with aliasing (both color and monochrome), but for most shooters it doesn't seem to be a problem. Stopping down to f/16 seems to take care of that issue.

An MFDB can be used on both on an SLR-type body, a view camera or a technical camera, that is a great feature.

I have no Nikon D800/D800E or Sony Alpha 7r, so I cannot compare the P45+ to a 36 MP 135 format camera. From what I have seen I would expect some small advantage in resolution for the MF option.

But resolution may not be so important. It is nice but I would guess it is seldom needed. I am not sure it really matters, because 24 MP is quite enough, and I honestly feel that 12 MP may also be quite enough, mostly. It depends on your needs.

It has been said that modern lenses for Hasselblad H and the newer lenses for the Phase One are much better than the V-series lenses for the Hasselblad. Many DSLR-s may also be challenged in lens quality. Again, it depends on your needs.

You can buy a Nikon D800 with a D600 as backup and half a dozen very good lenses for the price I paid for my used equipment, new MFD stuff comes at a higher price.

No question, high end MFD has quite a lot more resolution and in all probability some very good lenses. But it is a lot money. Again, it depends on your needs.

I have published a few images (with raw files) from my P45+ and there are also some comparisons with my Sony Alpha 99.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples2
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/Samples3

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR/
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/MFDB_VS_DSLR2/

Two articles about the experience I had with MFD:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/76-my-medium-format-digital-journey
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/77-two-months-of-mfd-looking-back

Would I buy into MFD again? No, I don't think so, to little benefits for the cost.
Will I keep the MFD kit? Probably, I actually enjoy it a lot!

Best regards
Erik

The undercurrent here looks to be saying MFDB is not worth it. The difference between DSLR and MFDB was once defended to the death, now I get the feeling the D800 gets the nod.
Not that the MF is not better, but more the difference is of little practical value compared with the extra outlay.
I don't mention it as detractor from the value of the MFDB, I come at it as someone that is doing the sums on a P65+ kit, every couple of years I go through this. Wondering if the difference would make a difference, wether a MFDB would add or subtract from my bottom line, that and a desire to have MF again.
I've never used MF digital only DSLR, film days it was the reverse, I still prefer the MF way of working, but I need more than that to justify the cost.
I'm using the 1DX after the 1DsmkII and III, I'm very impressed, yet I still hanker after a MFD system.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Ken R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #14 on: November 19, 2013, 05:26:01 pm »

The undercurrent here looks to be saying MFDB is not worth it. The difference between DSLR and MFDB was once defended to the death, now I get the feeling the D800 gets the nod.
Not that the MF is not better, but more the difference is of little practical value compared with the extra outlay.
I don't mention it as detractor from the value of the MFDB, I come at it as someone that is doing the sums on a P65+ kit, every couple of years I go through this. Wondering if the difference would make a difference, wether a MFDB would add or subtract from my bottom line, that and a desire to have MF again.
I've never used MF digital only DSLR, film days it was the reverse, I still prefer the MF way of working, but I need more than that to justify the cost.
I'm using the 1DX after the 1DsmkII and III, I'm very impressed, yet I still hanker after a MFD system.


Is it worth it?

It depends. If you are looking for more detail and resolution, specially in wide angle landscapes then unless you go for a P65+/IQ160 and IQ180 or an IQ260 or IQ280 and a technical camera then I believe you might be better served by a D800E or a Sony A7R. The big sensor 60/80 backs combined with high quality tech camera lenses will wipe the floor silly with any DSLR. Results are not close. With other backs the tech camera setup will still have an edge but is it enough to warrant the cost? It is a tougher call.

If you are looking for more dynamic range and deeper color and a different color response then there are a lot of good options in regards to digital backs. You can easily get a very nice setup with a few lenses for under $10k.

If you work mostly in a studio and with strobes then a SLR/MFDB setup might be a great choice. They are great for tethered work. The large viewfinders are great for working with people and the high flash sync speeds are great for creative exposure control when working with flash also the different depth of field characteristics offer unique look possibilities.

So it all depends. Medium Format Digital is not one solution. There are many options and choices available. It all depends on want you want and need. Not all the solutions are extremely expensive there are good choices in the $6k range.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2013, 06:41:34 pm »

It is clear that people who use tripods and take landscape images, or work studio with flash will find MF quality much better than dSLR. Every test I did showed me that. People who do not fall in this category should do extensive tests before they buy.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13614
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2013, 07:31:56 pm »

Interesting to note than the 4 photographers in this thread currently owning DSLRs and backs are all Canon shooters so far.

I have a feeling that many people still have not realized to what extend Canon is behind pretty much everybody else (at least Sony and Nikon) in sensor technology at the lower ISOs typically used in applications for which backs are most appealing.

As a D800 shooter, my view remains that the image quality of recent back is a bit better a equal resolution and have obviously a higher resolution when everything is done perfectly, which does not always happen due to the lack of live view. In many cases, stitching with a DSLR is a low cost high returns approach to higher resolutions when prints larger than A1 are targeted.

There are of course many applications for which the back has inherent advantages, starting with movements on LF style cameras.

Now, I recently took the decision to invest in a Betterlight Super 6K back instead of a second hand MFDB because I don't consider the 40MP backs to offer significant value over my DSLR and am intimately convinced that the lack of live view removes most of the potential value of MFDB LF/Pancake camera mounting.

This is less an issue with the scanning backs because:
- the area being scanned is much larger, or put it otherwise, the pixels are much bigger, so the accuracy required in terms of focusing is less,
- the lenses are optimized for a smaller f stop (typically f16) which helps also,
- there is a form of live view, although it is a bit crude.

This being said, my first casual tests indicate that ever the BL super 6K is probably no significantly better the D800 in terms of image quality or at least that it is an order of magnitude (no exageration here - meaning 10 times) more challenging to tap into its potential... and that it is studio where nothing moves and time is available.

I don't regret my purchase at all, I love the ability to shoot 4x5 again without having to scan, but I did it with an objective understanding of how good the D800 is.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 07:51:44 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3979
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #17 on: November 19, 2013, 07:48:01 pm »

The decision has definitely gotten a bit harder with the Nikon D800.  In my workflow I use both a IQ260 and D800. 

I am strictly an outdoor photographer working traditional landscapes with occasional wildlife thrown into the mix.  I purchased my first MFD in March of 2008 with a P45+ and AFDIII camera body from Digital Transitions.  Before that I was working with Canon's 1ds MKII and MKIII stitching 3 portrait frames into 1 3:2 image by using a Zork adapter.  I found that with this solution I was able to great final details and large prints up to 30 x 45 and 36 x 72. However this work was tedious and I was hoping that by using the P45+ I could get by with single frame captures.

After working with the P45+ and various Mamiya/Phase One lenses, I was still not satisfied with the wide angle lens selection as most of the lenses I had were not consistently sharp to the corners thus requiring a crop which quickly reduced the overall resolution of the files from the P45+.  Overall I found that the P45+ files were not very forgiving with exposure (highlights being very easily blown and shadow details problematic).  I had read about the tech camera solutions, but was worried about focus issues due to the lack of live view (workable) on all current MFD backs.  However in the demo's I did with both Cambo and Arca solutions, I was amazed by the results.  The workflow is tedious and cumbersome but the results can be most impressive.   

I made the move to the IQ160 with a Arca tech camera.  The results of the 160 were a vast improvement over my P45+ and the tools the IQ series offer both though hardware and software are a big asset.  I found the Dynamic range of the 160/P65+ chip allowed me a much greater workable range with a single image.  With the P45+, I usually had to shoot a series of bracketed exposures for highlights and shadows.  The IQ160 output at base iso was cleaner and on average I found the ability to adjust a single image as much as +2,-2 stops.  With the advent of Capture One vr. 7, the output from the IQ back was improved considerably.

The D800/e to me is still one of the most revolutionary chips since the announcement of the original Canon 1ds MKII.  The range of a single exposure from this camera still impresses me 1.5 years later.  To me the single most important aspect to the D800 is the fact that a shot taken at base iso 100 can easily be pushed as much as 3 to 3.5 stops, with nominal noise in the shadows.  Before the D800 was announced I used Canon's and had tried them all up to the 1ds MKIII.  I found Canon just can't do this and if you try, you will see way too much destructive noise in the shadows.  My method of shooting with both the Canon and P45+ was always a bracketed series of exposures since I knew that I was not going to be able to pull up my shadows without noise.   The exposure range of the D800 is most impressive.   

I guess the most important aspect of the system I use is the versatility.   The weight of a Acra rm3di & lens/IQ260 and a D800e/14-24 lens is pretty close and I believe the D800e will be just a bit heavier.  With the Arca, I am limited to a max shutter speed of 1/500 and use of a manual shutter.  Workflow is slow and I have to also add in the time to shoot a LCC.  Since most times I will also shift for the ability to have a short panorama, this also adds in work.  Everything is manual expect for the image previews on the MF back.  I am also pretty limited to iso 200 with the IQ260 if I want the maximum details and dynamic range from the IQ back.  With the IQ260/Arca a tripod is always in use also.  The D800 offers me more flexibility with shutter speed and iso combinations.  There are times I don't want to be tied to a tripod.  I can also get a very good result from iso ranges up to 3200.  Images that can be used at full resolution.  The IQ260 offers sensor plus but at the expense of 3/4's of the output resolution.  15MP instead of 60MP.  I am also hoping that Phase One will continue to make improvements to the IQ260 imaging with further firmware upgrades.  When I want to walk around and shoot with a mid range telephoto, the D800 is my first pick. Not my Phase One DF and 75-150 lens.  I have VR,  excellent AF and just more control over what I am trying to shoot. 

With both solutions, D800 and Phase One, I found that working with a dealer made the most sense.  If you are looking at a MFD back, (at least Phase One) I strongly recommend working through a dealer.  Warranty/repair issues are complicated enough and if attempt to work through these by yourself it can be tedious.  The dealer should provide you added value, something you don't hear about as much anymore.  But it's important.  You are not going to walk into a local camera store and find a Cambo/Arca/Alpa--Phase One setup to try out or anyone in the store knowing much about the equipment.  Phase One relies on the dealer channel to do their marketing.  Being able to demo the equipment is very important. 

I will also say, I find viewing web comparisons of these cameras is pretty worthless.  I don't think you can begin to get a feel for the full range of the output unless you are working with the raw files and able to view them at a 100% view within LR or Capture One.  Files that have been processed for web viewing just don't show the finer aspects of these cameras.  Even 100% crops IMO don't do them justice.  If you are serious about a MFD solution a 1 demo from a dealer or photographer working with the product is worth 100% web reviews. 

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

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1516
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #18 on: November 19, 2013, 07:53:12 pm »

Interesting to note than the 4 photographers in this thread currently owning DSLRs and backs are all Canon shooters.

I have a feeling that many people still have not realized to what extend Canon is behind pretty much everybody else (at least Sony and Nikon) in sensor technology at the lower ISOs typically used in applications for which backs are most appealing.

Cheers,
Bernard


Bernard

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

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.

The 1dx makes sense because it focuses faster, goes to higher iso, than the d800 and for me who shoots some still frame motion at fast fps, the 1dx works well.

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.

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.

No offense but the 1dx files kind of have that Nikon color look when processed in lightroom.

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.

IMO

BC


« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 07:56:22 pm by bcooter »
Logged

Ken R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
Re: Not worth it ?
« Reply #19 on: November 19, 2013, 08:24:42 pm »

I own Canon also but I rented a D800E, a Zeiss 15mm ZF, a 14-24mm and a 24 PC-E to test the camera. While it did have more resolution than the Canon and the Dynamic Range was indeed impressive I used it in several situations I would normally use the Canon in and the results were similar unless I went up and beyond the 20x30" print size. The extra DR did help in a few situations though. I did find the Live View on the D800E really bad. Very tough to focus and almost useless at night. Might as well use the IQ160 live view :). The Sony A7R is actually a better bet than the Nikon for Landscape and macro. Also, you can mount almost any lens on the Sony. The nikon mount is quite limiting.

I also compared the Pentax 645D to the Nikon and it was very close call in landscape situations.

Check out this test comparing the D800E to the Canon 5D3 and the best wide angles HERE and HERE
« Last Edit: November 19, 2013, 08:27:29 pm by Ken R »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8   Go Up