Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?  (Read 72250 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11284
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an observation…
« Reply #40 on: March 01, 2014, 03:56:18 am »

Hi,

Most of the posting here are questioning my (fill in please)

Anyway, a few posts indicate that MF superiority is visible at larger sizes and that may be helpful for the person asking the original question.

I would also like to thank Jerome_m and Fine_Art and some other posters I have forgotten for comments that may not answer the question posted but are relevant in the context.
--------
Aloha,

I think after about 40 inches getting solid prints from 35mm is a crap shoot, and depends a lot on how perfect the shot was and the subject matter, I also think a lot of the problems from big 35mm prints comes from lens choice. But again I think sometimes you can get really nice big prints from 35mm

I don't shoot 35mm anymore, I do tons of printing but all to developed film using lightjet, this in itself probably makes big 35mm prints seem nicer, but everything I shoot now has the potential to be done as a big print, so I don't risk shooting 35mm.

I also feel the quality of the gear in MF to be much better than 35mm and a lot of the lenses superior in every way.
I think in the print size of 36 to 72 inches MF will just shine against 35mm in a more consistent manor, in that more of your shoots will look great big.

After 72 inches I don't know how even MF will hold up when examined critically, as you are starting to up sample a lot by then, and things start to smooth out, a couple of my friends start to add noise on really big prints to counter balance this.

I guess there are so many variables depending on camera, subject, post work, etc…         
----------------
No in small prints I can't.  Where I will start to see the difference is in a print that is 23 x 33 (fits a 30 x 40 frame matted) and larger.  I like to print up to 36 x 72 and I for this I prefer not to interpolate unless totally necessary.  Here the larger resolution of the MFD helps as you can get there much easier.  However I realize you can stitch 35mm, as I have been doing that since early 2003.

As for small prints no, I can't see much difference, say 20 x 30 and smaller.  However it's also sometimes depending on the subject matter of the print.  If the image has a lot of small details the MF back print will do better in my experience. 

This is printing on a 9900 only.  Canvas or paper.

Paul C.
-----------------

Best regards
Erik
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2014, 05:28:50 am »

Quite frankly, Erik, I don't see why you are asking this question since you already have the answer. You posted pictures taken with your P45+ and with your A99 and people could not tell which was which.

Anyway, the answer to your question is that, for landscape pictures taken with the best lenses and careful technique, people will not see a difference between a MF and a 35mm digital shot on A2 prints. But that is a rather silly question to ask: everyone here should know that a 35mm DSLR is able to produce extremely good A2 prints.

Furthermore, and that is something you refuse to understand, the answer is implicit in the question asked: you are selecting the best picture a 35mm DSLR is able to produce and comparing that to the best picture a MF can produce and find out that they are of the same quality. Basically, out of 100 pictures taken by each camera, you compare the best one of each. You will indeed find that they are similar: one in a hundred selected here and one in a hundred selected there.

What your test does not show is that, for these 100 pictures, you will only find one or two at that level in the batch of 100 out of the 35mm DSLR but you will find 40-60 at that level in the batch of 100 out of the MF.

Last but not least, this discussion is only about the following criteria: sharpness, exposure and dynamic range, colour accuracy. May I ask why you are only interested in these aspects?
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11284
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2014, 07:40:35 am »

Hi Jerome,

This question was asked on a different thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87606.msg713822#msg713822

"I have very much enjoyed large format and medium format with film.  One of the issues that keeps me on the fence regarding moving to MFDB is that I don't have a need to
print large which is a frequently reported virtue of digital medium format.  Most of my prints are A3 and rarely A2.  Like some others I have experienced challenges with D800
color and skin tones.

For those who have seen significant differences in printed images from MFDB files,  at what print sizes do those differences emerge?  (I am in the process of arranging to rent an
H4D-40,  but I am trying to gather as much information as I can.) Also, for portrait work are there benefits in color rendition and skin tones from FF sensors like P65+ or Credo 60
compared to entry level cropped sensors like Credo 40 or H4D-40?  I have no need for wide angle lenses and do understand the differences in DOF.

Appreciate any thought or suggestions.

Richard
"

I feel that is a good question, and I feel it deserves a good answer.

I know my answer, and that is that I don't see an advantage of MF in A2 size and below. But I also know that other posters may have a different answer.

My guess is the guy who asked the question regards buying a low end MF equipment which means spending a significant amount money, he wants to know if there is an advantage of such equipment at the sizes he prints.

Best regards
Erik


Quite frankly, Erik, I don't see why you are asking this question since you already have the answer. You posted pictures taken with your P45+ and with your A99 and people could not tell which was which.

Anyway, the answer to your question is that, for landscape pictures taken with the best lenses and careful technique, people will not see a difference between a MF and a 35mm digital shot on A2 prints. But that is a rather silly question to ask: everyone here should know that a 35mm DSLR is able to produce extremely good A2 prints.

Furthermore, and that is something you refuse to understand, the answer is implicit in the question asked: you are selecting the best picture a 35mm DSLR is able to produce and comparing that to the best picture a MF can produce and find out that they are of the same quality. Basically, out of 100 pictures taken by each camera, you compare the best one of each. You will indeed find that they are similar: one in a hundred selected here and one in a hundred selected there.

What your test does not show is that, for these 100 pictures, you will only find one or two at that level in the batch of 100 out of the 35mm DSLR but you will find 40-60 at that level in the batch of 100 out of the MF.

Last but not least, this discussion is only about the following criteria: sharpness, exposure and dynamic range, colour accuracy. May I ask why you are only interested in these aspects?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2014, 09:39:28 am »

This question was asked on a different thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87606.msg713822#msg713822

I did not notice that question in that thread at the time, sorry. I was more interested in the experience other people had with their MF cameras.

Quote
I feel that is a good question, and I feel it deserves a good answer.

I know my answer, and that is that I don't see an advantage of MF in A2 size and below. But I also know that other posters may have a different answer.

My guess is the guy who asked the question regards buying a low end MF equipment which means spending a significant amount money, he wants to know if there is an advantage of such equipment at the sizes he prints.

"Is there an advantage of MF cameras if I only print at A2 size maximum?" is a different question than the one you are asking, even if one is only interested about sharpness (which is what SQF measure). Coming back to what I wrote earlier, there is an advantage of getting 60% of "sharp pictures in A2" versus 1%. Or you can say that there is an advantage of getting 60% of "sharp pictures" in both cases, but having less constraints in focal length and aperture choice for the MF. Or you can say that there is an advantage of getting 60% of "sharp pictures" in both cases, but just having to click a button in the manufacturer software for the MF and having to find, install and learn to jump between 3 or 4 different programs for the 35mm DSLR.


Last but not least, you framed the discussion to be only about the following criteria: sharpness, exposure and dynamic range, colour accuracy, while the original question was only about "advantages". May I ask again why you are only interested in these aspects?
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6638
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #44 on: March 01, 2014, 10:34:56 am »


Furthermore, and that is something you refuse to understand, the answer is implicit in the question asked: you are selecting the best picture a 35mm DSLR is able to produce and comparing that to the best picture a MF can produce and find out that they are of the same quality. Basically, out of 100 pictures taken by each camera, you compare the best one of each. You will indeed find that they are similar: one in a hundred selected here and one in a hundred selected there.

What your test does not show is that, for these 100 pictures, you will only find one or two at that level in the batch of 100 out of the 35mm DSLR but you will find 40-60 at that level in the batch of 100 out of the MF.

Last but not least, this discussion is only about the following criteria: sharpness, exposure and dynamic range, colour accuracy. May I ask why you are only interested in these aspects?

Jerome,

Don't let your passion get in the way of politeness! Civility has always been a feature of this forum, and it has served us well in the past, so let's continue that way.  

We all encounter people here who we would not be meeting in real life, who do not belong to our own professional culture, and we need to find common ground with them. Cameras are designed and see first light in labs where no sun is ever seen and women wear bunny suits, and then they are exposed to supermodels and jungle climates :)

Now regarding the choice of images. My experience with MF has been that the keep rate is fairly low, because of technical issues with my pictures. My Mamiya shift lens was never really subjectively sharp, I don't know why, and it impacted my landscape images. Even with AF I had a lot of focus failures with the 80mm on portraits. The used 150mm I got cheaply was razor sharp, focused cleanly, and even took perfectly sharp images handheld under streetlights. Performance of the elements of the Mamiya system was unpredictable, and it is a complaint which I've found echoed in user-reviews on the web. I never found a fast portrait lens with an outstanding look. In the end I sold the MF system because the technical issues involved with bringing back a clean picture had become impossible to overcome consistently at my level of handheld incompetence. The keeper rate was often *zero*.

With the AF cameras I used, I found that the first images of a model session -often taken with an extreme tele in the street- were clean, sharp, and focused; so were the last, made in the studio. In between were some good and bad shots but the technically unusable were a small percentage. And of course in the end, the first and last images were usually the selects. Some of the Canon lenses eg the 135/2 have interesting "looks", I found for portrait. My Nikon files were consistently average with later models, focus mostly spot on, although the first Nikon I had, the D1x had very good color, and paradoxically I made a lot of nice portraits with the 17-35. In summary, I'd say that my chances of getting a usable retouchable first cut of  the image I want with a dSLR, from a planned session, are just about 100%.

The Phase One had good skin tone, and superb color; the dSLR skin tones ranged from horrible orange peel to really good, with most in the "usable, nothing to write home about" category. Some of the dSLRs had good landscape color eg. 5D2, some unimpressive eg. D3x, with most somewhere in between.

At the huge shooting rate of dSLRs, and camera phones, one should look at the number of bursts, not frames, that yield a keeper.

One interesting camera I had was the Leica M8. This produced extraordinary images quite often, but had a bad habit of blanking out at random. Here I was virtually guaranteed several outstanding pictures per card.

The only camera I now use is a very battered Canon 1Ds3, acquired cheaply in a swap. It has a wonderul finder, fast AF and gives me decent colorful focused images about 90% of the time, decent skin tone, and is *completely predictable*.

If you have better success rates with MF and dSLR, well you are a better practitioner of MF than dSLR.

Edmund

« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 04:06:28 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11284
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #45 on: March 01, 2014, 10:40:32 am »

Hi Jerome,


Good question, but I have no good answer.

Ease of use is not visible in prints. Also, I am perfectly happy with the user interface on my DSLR. I, like you on the A900, have three presets and those take care of most issues for me. There are some things I would like have different, but that is very camera and user dependent. I almost exclusively use live view for focusing when shooting with camera on tripod, that is very helpful with focusing.

- Skin tones, I have little knowledge in the area
- Bokeh, I care not so much about bokeh. I feel the Sony lenses I have are OK. Hassy have some weakness, but those are lenses of some age.
- User interface, not so much user interface on the Hassy. OK, I hate the aperture ring on the 80/2.8 Planar, anyone exited by that?
- Large apertures? The Zeiss lenses don't shine, but they are old designs.

I don't know about good picture/bad picture ratio. I shoot more exposures on the MF-kit, but that depends on a few things, like I am pretty sure I nail everything on the DSLR with the first shot, but on the MFDB I am "forking in" exposure, once I have done it I do MLU and shoot the final image, and that is the only one that will be used. Not much of relevance to share.

Best regards
Erik

I did not notice that question in that thread at the time, sorry. I was more interested in the experience other people had with their MF cameras.

I cannot comment on skin tone, as my experience of skin is nil. I don't shoot people and don't sell images. So I don't have he slightest interest in skin so I cannot say anything on the issue.

Also, colour interpretation is highly subjective. I have posted at a lot of images of what I have shot, people can download develop with their choice of raw developer.

But I cannot simply say what is good, nice, bad, correct or horrible. Measurable quantities are easier to discuss.

Same with lenses, most lenses will do fine when stopped down medium apertures. I seldom shoot large apertures, specially on MF, partly because I cannot focus dead on with live view. The lenses I have are 20-30 years of age, and quite likely not as good as later designs in corners and large apertures. Actually the Sonnar 150/4 is good at full aperture across the field, but that lens is the exception of the five I have. Discussing medium apertures and lens sweespot is more adequate.

The viewfinder on the Hassy is not so great, so that is so much to discusse either.


"Is there an advantage of MF cameras if I only print at A2 size maximum?" is a different question than the one you are asking, even if one is only interested about sharpness (which is what SQF measure). Coming back to what I wrote earlier, there is an advantage of getting 60% of "sharp pictures in A2" versus 1%. Or you can say that there is an advantage of getting 60% of "sharp pictures" in both cases, but having less constraints in focal length and aperture choice for the MF. Or you can say that there is an advantage of getting 60% of "sharp pictures" in both cases, but just having to click a button in the manufacturer software for the MF and having to find, install and learn to jump between 3 or 4 different programs for the 35mm DSLR.


Last but not least, you framed the discussion to be only about the following criteria: sharpness, exposure and dynamic range, colour accuracy, while the original question was only about "advantages". May I ask again why you are only interested in these aspects?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11284
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #46 on: March 01, 2014, 10:57:15 am »

Hi,

Regarding keepers I cannot really tell. For instance, when I shoot "street" I usually have my Sony Alpha 77, which is smaller than the Alpha 99. The MF kit is strictly landscape.

I had been quite busy recently and we had (have) an ugly winter, days are short and I had little time to shoot for private reasons. But days soon get longer and wether may be less boring.

BTW, I don't find Jerome unpolite, and he makes a lot of good points. His findings sometimes differ from mine, but I guess we have different ways of shooting and different priorities. Also Jerome has Hasselblad H-system and I have Hasselblad V.

Best regards
Erik


Jerome,

Don't let your passion get in the way of politeness! Civility has always been a feature of this forum, and it has served us well in the past, so let's continue that way.  

We all encounter people here who we would not be meeting in real life, who do not belong to our own professional culture, and we need to find common ground with them. Cameras are designed and see first light in labs where no sun is ever seen and women wear bunny suits, and then they are exposed to supermodels and jungle climates :)

Now regarding the choice of images. My experience with MF has been that the keep rate is fairly low, because of technical issues with my pictures. My Mamiya shift lens was never really subjectively sharp, I don't know why, and it impacted my landscape images. Even with AF I had a lot of focus failures with the 80mm on portraits. The used 150mm I got cheaply was razor sharp, focused cleanly, and even took perfectly sharp images handheld under streetlights. Performance of the elements of the Mamiya system was unpredictable, and it is a complaint which I've found echoed in user-reviews on the web. I never found a fast portrait lens with an outstanding look. In the end I sold the MF system because the technical issues involved with bringing back a clean picture had become impossible to overcome consistently at my level of handheld incompetence. The keeper rate was often *zero*.

With the AF cameras I used, I found that the first images of a model session -often taken with an extreme tele in the street- were clean, sharp, and focused; so were the last, made in the studio. In between were some good and bad shots but the technically unusable were a small percentage. And of course in the end, the first and last images were usually the selects. Some of the Canon lenses eg the 135/2 have interesting "looks", I found for portrait. My Nikon files were consistently average with later models, focus mostly spot on, although the first Nikon I had, the D1x had very good color, and paradoxically I made a lot of nice portraits with the 17-35. In summary, I'd say that my chances of getting a usable retouchable first cut of  the image I want with a dSLR, from a planned session, are just about 100%.

At the huge shooting rate of dSLRs, and camera phones, one should look at the number of bursts, not frames, that yield a keeper.

One interesting camera I had was the Leica M8. This produced extraordinary images quite often, but had a bad habit of blanking out at random. Here I was virtually guaranteed several outstanding pictures per card.

If you have better success rates with MF and dSLR, well you are a better practitioner of MF than dSLR.

Edmund


« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 11:14:20 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #47 on: March 01, 2014, 11:16:15 am »

Edmund and Erik: I did not say that I get 60% of "good pictures" with the MFD and only 1% with the 35mm DSLR. I said that, in the case of landscape photography, I will find it much easier to get 60% of "sharp pictures". By "sharp pictures", I meant "pictures which would fare high on the SQF metrics: without lens defects up to the corners, with good colours and good exposure.

Everything is important in the sentence:
1: it has to be landscape pictures
2: they must be judged on criteria measured by SQF.

Remember what question was asked, please.

Now, if you ask about "good pictures", I would say that of these 60% of "sharp pictures", most aren't very interesting. And of the 99% of DSLR pictures with some defects measurable by SQF metrics in A2 size, some have been printed to A2 and exhibited. They have defects I can see (mostly lens defects), but these defects aren't important to the overall picture.

How can I say that and be understood? The problem here is not about the cameras, it is about the question asked. The discussions are becoming more controversial and Erik is increasingly frustrated with the forum because he is asking one question but others are giving answers to a different question. That can only lead to conflict.
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #48 on: March 01, 2014, 11:16:36 am »

Ease of use is not visible in prints.
I believe that the ease of use of my DSLR vs my RX100M2 is "visible" in my images. The former allows me to power up the camera, put the viewer to my eyes, focus, check exposure and fire a series of images before the motor lens of the compact camera have moved into place.

This ought to be visible in the form of a higher number of interesting and technically ok images.

On the other hand, the weight/size of the Sony means that it will be brought at events where an SLR is out of the question. "Image" certainly is visibly better than "no image" :-)

-h
Logged

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #49 on: March 01, 2014, 11:24:00 am »

I believe that the ease of use of my DSLR vs my RX100M2 is "visible" in my images. The former allows me to power up the camera, put the viewer to my eyes, focus, check exposure and fire a series of images before the motor lens of the compact camera have moved into place.

This ought to be visible in the form of a higher number of interesting and technically ok images.

Yes, but Erik is measuring something different. Out of 100 pictures taken with the DSLR and 100 pictures taken with the RX100, he would select the ones which are as perfect technically as possible and compare them. That process is designed so that it cannot measure ease of use.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11284
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #50 on: March 01, 2014, 11:37:27 am »

Hi,

On the DSLR I would say something like 100 hit ratio. Live 11X magnification and histogram and blinkies make for images of good technical quality.

On the Hasselblad I have a 3X monocular for focusing or an ocular made for my eyesight, but I have been told that my images lack in quality sharpness. Exposure is a different thing, I shoot until I get it right.

The Hasselblad is always on tripod.

I don't know, but I am pretty sure the hit/keeper rate is better on the DSLR. Essentially, I am using the Hasselblad for static shooting on tripod but with the DSLR I also do "street type" shooting. So it is hard to say. Need more experience to tell.

Anyway, my shooting skills don't show up in prints, really. If I feel a picture is not a keeper I don't print it.

Best regards
Erik

Yes, but Erik is measuring something different. Out of 100 pictures taken with the DSLR and 100 pictures taken with the RX100, he would select the ones which are as perfect technically as possible and compare them. That process is designed so that it cannot measure ease of use.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #51 on: March 01, 2014, 11:43:40 am »

Anyway, my shooting skills don't show up in prints, really. If I feel a picture is not a keeper I don't print it.

So you never had a picture which was technically imperfect, but which you decided to keep anyway because the subject, ambiance or overall apparence made it such that it was interesting nevertheless?

This is Robert Capa:

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11284
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #52 on: March 01, 2014, 11:50:53 am »

Hi,

I am not Robert Capa…

I don't really know, I would certainly not print an image which I found unsatisfactory. I did some shooting of a horse jumping a year ago for a colleague and I missed focus, but I could still make a "decent" A3-print. That was shot on ISO 6400 and at 6FPS. Didn't want to use AF.

Else, I try to get them right.

What spoils my images mostly is dullness, or having better images from the same shot.

But yes, there are some images I kept although I wished they would be better, technically or otherwise:







Best regards
Erik

So you never had a picture which was technically imperfect, but which you decided to keep anyway because the subject, ambiance or overall apparence made it such that it was interesting nevertheless?


« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 12:26:07 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #53 on: March 01, 2014, 12:00:32 pm »

I am not Robert Capa…

I don't really know, I would certainly not print an image which I found unsatisfactory. I did some shooting of a horse jumping a year ago for a colleague and I missed focus, but I could still make a "decent" A3-print. That was shot on ISO 6400 and at 6FPS. Didn't want to use AF.

Else, I try to get them right.

What spoils my images mostly is dullness, or having better images from the same shot.

We all try to "get them right", Erik. And none of us is Robert Capa. That is not the question.

You wrote that "what spoils your images is mostly dullness". How could you address that problem?



(Image: Rinko Kawauchi. Camera: 6x6 MF)
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 03:30:14 pm by jerome_m »
Logged

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2610
    • Rolleiflex USA
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #54 on: March 01, 2014, 12:41:40 pm »


Still I feel it is a bit amazing how well small MP often holds up.


This isn't my experience.  After using my MF and LF systems, I'm almost always disappointed with the results from 35mm and smaller cameras. This is even true with tiny prints.  There is a MF look that can't be easily gotten with smaller cameras.  Also worth noting, sometimes I am still really amazed by film prints - analog capture and analog printing.  Sometimes, not all the time, but even small prints.
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

jschone

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 86
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #55 on: March 01, 2014, 01:10:26 pm »

So you never had a picture which was technically imperfect, but which you decided to keep anyway because the subject, ambiance or overall apparence made it such that it was interesting nevertheless?

This is Robert Capa:


Well, this is probably the wrong example, since Capa didn't decide anything here. Life was the editor and there was not much to choose from since most of the films were ruined during development. Nevertheless a strong image, but not necessarily the photographers'/editors choice.

By the way, The work of Rinko Kawauchi is of course great as well...
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 01:14:17 pm by jschone »
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #56 on: March 01, 2014, 01:53:57 pm »

So you never had a picture which was technically imperfect, but which you decided to keep anyway because the subject, ambiance or overall apparence made it such that it was interesting nevertheless?

This is Robert Capa:

Puzzled how you see this as relative. The technical issues are acceptable only because of it's historical significance ... I doubt if anyone on this forum is doing that kind of work, and if so probably aren't hanging out here to learn how to do it.

Shoot the same blurry shot on a movie set and it gets deleted.
Logged

rgmoore

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
    • http://
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #57 on: March 01, 2014, 03:12:30 pm »

Erik and others,  thank you for all of the thoughts and suggestions.

In the 1980's I was smitten with MF when I first looked down the WLF of a Mamiya RB67 and even more so when viewing 8x10 prints from my Nikon compared to those of the RB67.  Back in the film era it was easier to make comparisons between formats;  I just needed to learn how to process sheet film in my darkroom when considering a move up to LF.

In the last few years, while following the MFDB development on Lu-La and GetDPI, I have been saving for a digital medium format purchase. During that period of time, even with the advances made with digital backs,
the trend seems to have been toward smaller formats. While I don't have any knowledge of the statistics of the industry, I have observed the switch just by reading the posts made by the pro photographers whose work I have admired and whose writings have been informative and entertaining.  Here is a short list of them in no particular order:


- eronald - from P45 to D3x

- Paul Schefz - from Phase One to 5DII

- Mark Tucker - from Hassy H to D3x

- Graham Mitchell - from Hy6 with Aptus II 12 (staunch defender of the MFDB faith) to D800

- Rainer -  designed a brilliant tech cam for Sinar and used DBs to singing praises of 5DII and Canon wides for architectural work

- Rethmeier - MFDB (don't recall which) to D3x

- Simon Harper - from Mamiya RZ and with Leaf to D800 and looking forward to D4x

- Andre Napier - from various DBs to D3x

- Guy Mancuso - founding father of GetDPI, pro, course instructor and user of many backs for stated financial reasons switched to D800E and more recently A7 and A7R

- Jack Flesher - founding father of GetDPI, instructor user of MFDBs for stated financial reasons moved to D800

- Michael Reichmann - has many cameras including MFDBs but seems to have posted most of his images in the last couple of years with various smaller formats

- bcooter -  has recently acquired S2 to extend the use of his Contax lenses, but even upon request had not posted any images form the new tool while in almost every
                recent post has extolled the virtues of Olympus OMDs


I hope that I have not misrepresented or offended any of the folks mentioned. If I did, it was my mistake and I apologize.  They are my "forum" teachers and I look up to them. (Some have not posted for a while.)

The good news and the bad news at the same time is that prices of DMF drop rapidly and drastically.  In the last 14 months Leica S2 and 70mm lens have been available for less than 50% of the original cost.  (Camera West)
So the problem with a MFD purchase is not just the original cost, but rapid loss of value for resale or trade ins. This is difficult to ignore in our high tech world in which a new "Holy Grail" camera is always just around the
corner.

While ordering supplies from B&H the last few times, I asked the sales people about the outlook on MFDB since there have been zero reviews of H5D cameras since they were released over a year ago. The answer was the same
from at least 5 different salesmen:  more and more pros are moving to smaller formats, not just for the lower cost, but also, for ease of use and improved quality.

Even so, later this year when I have some time off, I will rent a MFDB and try it out for myself. I am sure that the learning curve is steeper than tray processing sheet film.

Richard 



   

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11284
    • Echophoto
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #58 on: March 01, 2014, 03:20:26 pm »

Richard,

Thanks for responding and enjoy your journey!

Best regards
Erik


Erik and others,  thank you for all of the thoughts and suggestions.

In the 1980's I was smitten with MF when I first looked down the WLF of a Mamiya RB67 and even more so when viewing 8x10 prints from my Nikon compared to those of the RB67.  Back in the film era it was easier to make comparisons between formats;  I just needed to learn how to process sheet film in my darkroom when considering a move up to LF.

In the last few years, while following the MFDB development on Lu-La and GetDPI, I have been saving for a digital medium format purchase. During that period of time, even with the advances made with digital backs,
the trend seems to have been toward smaller formats. While I don't have any knowledge of the statistics of the industry, I have observed the switch just by reading the posts made by the pro photographers whose work I have admired and whose writings have been informative and entertaining.  Here is a short list of them in no particular order:


- eronald - from P45 to D3x

- Paul Schefz - from Phase One to 5DII

- Mark Tucker - from Hassy H to D3x

- Graham Mitchell - from Hy6 with Aptus II 12 (staunch defender of the MFDB faith) to D800

- Rainer -  designed a brilliant tech cam for Sinar and used DBs to singing praises of 5DII and Canon wides for architectural work

- Rethmeier - MFDB (don't recall which) to D3x

- Simon Harper - from Mamiya RZ and with Leaf to D800 and looking forward to D4x

- Andre Napier - from various DBs to D3x

- Guy Mancuso - founding father of GetDPI, pro, course instructor and user of many backs for stated financial reasons switched to D800E and more recently A7 and A7R

- Jack Flesher - founding father of GetDPI, instructor user of MFDBs for stated financial reasons moved to D800

- Michael Reichmann - has many cameras including MFDBs but seems to have posted most of his images in the last couple of years with various smaller formats

- bcooter -  has recently acquired S2 to extend the use of his Contax lenses, but even upon request had not posted any images form the new tool while in almost every
                recent post has extolled the virtues of Olympus OMDs


I hope that I have not misrepresented or offended any of the folks mentioned. If I did, it was my mistake and I apologize.  They are my "forum" teachers and I look up to them. (Some have not posted for a while.)

The good news and the bad news at the same time is that prices of DMF drop rapidly and drastically.  In the last 14 months Leica S2 and 70mm lens have been available for less than 50% of the original cost.  (Camera West)
So the problem with a MFD purchase is not just the original cost, but rapid loss of value for resale or trade ins. This is difficult to ignore in our high tech world in which a new "Holy Grail" camera is always just around the
corner.

While ordering supplies from B&H the last few times, I asked the sales people about the outlook on MFDB since there have been zero reviews of H5D cameras since they were released over a year ago. The answer was the same
from at least 5 different salesmen:  more and more pros are moving to smaller formats, not just for the lower cost, but also, for ease of use and improved quality.

Even so, later this year when I have some time off, I will rent a MFDB and try it out for myself. I am sure that the learning curve is steeper than tray processing sheet film.

Richard 



   


Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

jerome_m

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
Re: Can you see a difference in small prints between an MFDB and a DSLR?
« Reply #59 on: March 01, 2014, 03:36:14 pm »

Well, this is probably the wrong example, since Capa didn't decide anything here. Life was the editor and there was not much to choose from since most of the films were ruined during development. Nevertheless a strong image, but not necessarily the photographers'/editors choice.

Puzzled how you see this as relative. The technical issues are acceptable only because of it's historical significance ... I doubt if anyone on this forum is doing that kind of work, and if so probably aren't hanging out here to learn how to do it.

Shoot the same blurry shot on a movie set and it gets deleted.

The pictures are iconic examples of images where the technique failed, but the results were felt to improve on what message would have been conveyed by simple, technically perfect shots. There are many pictures of D-day, most of which are reasonably sharp. This one from Capa is probably the most famous because it is a blurred, surreal shot, which conveys the chaos and confusion of the day.

That picture is world famous because it is not sharp.

By the way, The work of Rinko Kawauchi is of course great as well...

Rinko Kawauchi (thank you for correcting my spelling error) works with a Rolleiflex and an Hasselblad V camera (with film). So she uses medium format cameras. She does not use them to get pictures sharp enough to be enlarged beyond A2 size, she uses these cameras because of the way they are operated and the rendering that she gets. I think she is a valid example of a photographer who is not interested in maximum sharpness yet prefers to use a MF camera.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15   Go Up