MF - dont bother

[awofinden]

I disagree with you Gary, I can see a difference in a 5*7 print, it's the tonality. Only some scenes will show it of course but if you've got deep shadows and hot highlights you should see it.

[Morgan_Moore]

FotoZ wrote..

- you are basically limited to still scenes (a deal-breaker for most people)

But the low ISO and difficult handling characteristics often limit you to still scenes anyway

- the colours and tonal gradation are still 'second best'

I dispute this :  with 'multi exposing a DSLR to get a wide latitude'  but it is ultimately true

- you are stuck with the extra post-production overhead

This is absolutely true. e.g if I where a pack shooter with 50 items to do stitching would be a pain, shooting one packshot with stitching - not so much

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally..

There is no doubt that DBs are better ultimately - my mission on this thread is to help people balance real world quality (mine is glossy mag publications)

Financial costs etc

And also dispell the myth of the 'point and shoot' MF DB.....

Shooting sharp pictures is very hard to do - hand holding a Hassy and a Canon you will get a bigger file with a Hassy no doubt

With the hassy you can zoom in and see your focus errors and camera shake but have you actually captured any more USEFUL information ??

You may then realise that  to capture USEFUL information you need a big tripod and small aperture (with resultant logn exp time) you might as well stitch as fast movers have been ruled out anyway

Or if you commit to a big tripod  - you might as well shoot tethered and can save $$$$$ by buying a S/H tethered back

Choosing stitching or a tethered only back can save $$$$, Saving $$$$ is valuable to SOME people

So IMHO DBs have 'USE POINTS' there is a subtle range of 'use point curves' you could draw and at some point the MFDB would cross into being an asset for you

Bright Light
Static Objects
Lots of attempts at the same shot
Financial Freedom
Repro A3 or larger

Choosing the MFDB route is about understanding one own needs on those curves

My argument is that MFDBs may pop out of the top of the curve at less points than the casual observer or potential buyer may realise...

[Geoffreyg]

Well....I'm not so sure. There is with film a remarkable difference between MF and 35mm. Someone once said that up to about 5x enlargement you had one set of tonal transitions, and after 10x, another set of rules came into play. While hardly scientific, I have found that to be the case as well especially in scanned BW film. For example, 6x6 up to about an 11" x 11" print just has that wonderous tonal range, but 35mm doesn't hold up at that size (to my eyes).

As to sensors and mb size, that's pretty complicated, but the TIF's from the Leica DMR are about 55 mb in size - they hold up pretty well to a 16x20 print. I haven't compared them to MF backs, but they are impressive. Of course, I still think they don't quite have the resolution of the scanned film from a 6x6 MF camera (Rollei), but that could be due to a lot of things. I've been using the new Leica zoom lenses instead of the primes, and that may have something to do with it.

[Morgan_Moore]

"with film a remarkable difference between MF and 35mm"

There is more data - no doubt - usefula data ? that is the question that is harder to anwer and very driven by shooting circumstances

[Graham Mitchell]

But the low ISO and difficult handling characteristics often limit you to still scenes anyway

I really don't know what you mean. I can still take action shots of people or other moving shots, frozen with flash. With stitching, that's not possible.

I don't need high ISO. I shoot 99% at ISO 100 anyway.

Not sure what you mean by handling. My old Hass V was just a pleasure. It weighed so little, and was pretty small. The larger viewfinders of MF make it so much easier to concentrate on the image, rather than struggling to see how the scene is looking through a tiny VF. For me, MF wins the handling contest.

I dispute this :  with 'multi exposing a DSLR to get a wide latitude'  but it is ultimately true

Do you mean HDR processing? Once again, the scene has to be perfectly still. Not applicable for most situations.

There is no doubt that DBs are better ultimately - my mission on this thread is to help people balance real world quality (mine is glossy mag publications)

Nothing wrong with a reality check from time to time

[Morgan_Moore]

You are looking for black white yes no answers I am suggesting a greyscale between MFDB is 'the thing' to MFDB is 'totally innapropriate'.

You say you can do 'action' with MF

Surely everone agrees that a DSLR is better for photographing a sprinter running at camera given one chance

Conversely given infinite chances you could eventually get a sharp image with an MFDB

That sharp image would be better than the DSLR version

So when evaluating equipment there is a curve - some photographers want to do sport some just still life

Some photographers are pleased with one keeper image from a days shooting - others need 20 in ten minutes

Most lie somewhere between these extremes

It is my argument that as an MFDB and SLR user the MFDB is much farther towards the still end than the sprinter end than many non MFDB users would imagine

In fact so far that an MFDB is inappropriate for many jobs - something that potential users should be aware of

Yes they always render more pixels but this advantage is often outwieghed by lack of sharpness caused by movement or focus innacuacy

(I know that it is a wild presumption to assume that the purpose of a camera is to render a sharp image)

To get a sharp image I either shoot tethered or take many frames - gently rocking to ensure one sharp one (or use huge amount of lights)

Having a sitter with the time for for this or subject matter where on can shoot tethered are both privilages not available to many all of the time

I repeat that I think many potential MFDB users need to gain a full awareness of the CURVES and thier steepnesses before purchase

Many reading this forum are considering the jump - I hope I can offer some useful experience

[Graham Mitchell]

You say you can do 'action' with MF

I didn't mean sports, but anything that moves even slightly such as a sitter for a portrait is unsuitable for stitching.

It is my argument that as an MFDB and SLR user the MFDB is much farther towards the still end than the sprinter end than many non MFDB users would imagine

Perhaps. I can't read their minds

In fact so far that an MFDB is inappropriate for many jobs - something that potential users should be aware of

It sounds as though your complaints are more against the MF cameras than the backs themselves. The only real limits of the backs as such are the limited sensitivity (compared with the best of 35mm DSLRs) and the slowish frame rate. Yes, people should be aware of this.

Yes they always render more pixels but this advantage is often outwieghed by lack of sharpness caused by movement or focus innacuacy

Again this seems to be an argument against medium format itself, because neither of those issues are due to the backs. It will depend on the shooting style, of course, but I never had these sorts of issues using Hass V or Mamiya 67.

To get a sharp image I either shoot tethered or take many frames - gently rocking to ensure one sharp one (or use huge amount of lights)

Which apertures are you experiencing these problems with? Which MF system are you using? Are you focussing manually? You have made several claims that it's so easy to get a blurred image with medium format, but that is either a problem with the AF or with your own manual focussing technique, or unsteady hands, etc. None of these issues are due to the DB.

Just trying to understand your disappointment.

[Morgan_Moore]

I shoot both Auto and Manual with my H1

It is well calibrarted unlike the Mamiya which I owned before

I do tend to shoot one stop from open  for some portraits  but not exclusively interiors I go down to F11/16

I am indeed questioning the combination of backs and cameras/focus technology available. faster ISO and rock solid multipoint AF would make a huge difference (while possibly slaying the beast at the same time)

Maybe I am admitting that the steadyness of my hand and sharpness of my eye in all but the britest environments are only 16mp - Beyond that I need to rely on technology for stability and focus

No one can see the barbs on sheeps wool without a microscope

If you are still shooting film or DSLR I think you will agree when you examine 22mp files shot in real life situations

------------

"Just trying to understand your disappointment."

There is no dissapointment - the resolution of my back 'only' 22mp just exposes 'technical error' in a way I never saw on film - This technical error in my opinion lowers the effective resolution, when used by me, in many day to day situations, of the kit to DSLR levels or on occasion less therfore rendering the tool overkill

The fact that the sensitive throttle on a Ferrari can put you in the ditch is the same exitement that it also gives

Just not neccecarily the best tool to get to the shops in - in fact possibly only useable on the track

Never dissapointing - just sometimes inappropriate in day to day use

[Jae_Moon]

My intention is to make people think why they really want to move to MF and most impotantly listen carefully to those existant owners on these threads who make subltle points about thier use.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76846\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Morgan:

I understand your intention but your arguments  and their tones sound lot like that of a 'zealot' than one who wants to share his experiences, both good and bad.

Jae Moon

[pobrien3]

I'm with you, Sam - you make some excellent points, most of which get overlooked as the gear-heads strive for the biggest and best.  And I speak as one of them - I'm probably more guilty than most when it comes to chasing the 'best' equipment.  My stereo is unsuitable for my house, my car is undrivable in Hong Kong, etc...

So when the P45 came out, I tested it for several days and was very excited about it.  No doubt, it was fantastic - loved it, and still want one.  But when it came to the decision to part with so much cash, even I had to question whether it was worth it for the uses I would get from it.  Unfortunately the answer was, and still is no.  I printed shots up to 24"x36" to compare with my 1DsII and I could see the P45's were 'better'.  But, none of my friends could say which was best - they could see they were a little different (didn't get colour balancing and compositions exactly the same between cameras), but not which was best - even at 3 feet high.  Back it went to the dealer.

Eventually, I still want a digital back I can use on my old and much-loved Mamiya RZ67 house brick, but not at these prices when my Canon gives me such good results and versatility.