Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Valid MF criticism or not?  (Read 59011 times)
phila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 259



WWW
« on: August 29, 2007, 05:22:05 AM »
ReplyReply

The gauntlet is thrown down to the MF back manuafacturers:

"...Consider, too, the question of continuity, a matter of considerable relevance when the
purchase of an $8,000-or- more camera is on the table. Where the EOS-1Ds MarkIII is
completely compatible with virtually all vast EOS System, and can be expected to
remain compatible—and supported—for decades to come (note the current software
support for the D6000 and D2000), today’s medium format digital backs often do not fit
even recent products from the same manufacturer. Will a newly-purchased component
be compatible with same-brand software and hardware in the not-too-distant future?
Betting on, and investing in, the EOS-1DsMarkIII isa sure thing."


http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/news/pro...-Whitepaper.pdf


So is this a valid point or just marketing spin? I'm sure Contax owners (not a digital back manufacturer I realise, but a warning none the less?) can relate to this. Are Mamiya owners feeling nervous? Pentax fans have just had their hopes dashed. What about those who bought the Fuji MF back? Or the Kodak backs?
Logged

thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2007, 05:36:58 AM »
ReplyReply

just a start of an answer from my side:

Sinar will be there for 60 years, next year in this market. I am not sure if Canon was already there, at that time.

Did you said "Marketing Hype"?

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
The gauntlet is thrown down to the MF back manuafacturers:

"...Consider, too, the question of continuity, a matter of considerable relevance when the
purchase of an $8,000-or- more camera is on the table. Where the EOS-1Ds MarkIII is
completely compatible with virtually all vast EOS System, and can be expected to
remain compatible—and supported—for decades to come (note the current software
support for the D6000 and D2000), today’s medium format digital backs often do not fit
even recent products from the same manufacturer. Will a newly-purchased component
be compatible with same-brand software and hardware in the not-too-distant future?
Betting on, and investing in, the EOS-1DsMarkIII isa sure thing."
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/news/pro...-Whitepaper.pdf
So is this a valid point or just marketing spin? I'm sure Contax owners (not a digital back manufacturer I realise, but a warning none the less?) can relate to this. Are Mamiya owners feeling nervous? Pentax fans have just had their hopes dashed. What about those who bought the Fuji MF back? Or the Kodak backs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
josayeruk
Guest
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2007, 05:48:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Its one thing to be compatible with a vast range of lenses...

But how many of those are good enough for digital capture?

Jo S. x
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 05:48:45 AM by josayeruk » Logged
Rick_Allen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 183


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2007, 05:59:25 AM »
ReplyReply

As I look over my VAST canon Fd system I smile with great pain.
Logged

phila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 259



WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2007, 06:13:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
just a start of an answer from my side:

Sinar will be there for 60 years, next year in this market. I am not sure if Canon was already there, at that time.

Did you said "Marketing Hype"?

Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136140\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well I do note that the latest Leaf (not Sinar I realise) Capture 10 software only covers back to the Valeo 11 back of 2003 - four years. Canon support apparently (going by their statement) goes back to the D2000 of 1998. Surely a valid point. Of course whether anyone is still using a D2000 is probably moot, but I assume there would be photographers out there still using pre 2003 Leaf backs who can no longer take advantage of the latest software?

71 years in production for Canon, Thierry.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 06:22:18 AM by phila » Logged

thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2007, 06:26:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't know if Canon does support this 1998 digital camera with their most recent or latest softwares version. Nor do I know if servicing and repairs are provided ad vitam eternam for those "old" cameras (I doubt).

But I can say that Sinar does support all backs introduced since the begining, being it on a software level with the most recent versions, when this is possible or then with previous (older) versions: we do have scores of customers still using a SB 22 (I mean here the very first 4 MPx sensr back) or then the SB 23).

Also, we do service/repair all backs back to the very first ones, if the electronical and other HW components as well as the sensors are still available on the market (which is obviously not the case always, neither for Canon).

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
Well I do note that the latest Leaf (not Sinar I realise) Capture 10 software only covers back to the Valeo 11 back of 2003 - four years. Canon support apparently (going by their statement) goes back to the D2000 of 1998. Surely a valid point. Of course whether anyone is still using a D2000 is probably moot, but I assume there would be photographers out there still using pre 2003 Leaf backs who can no longer take advantage of the latest software?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2007, 06:27:22 AM »
ReplyReply

OK, I did not know this. Thanks for the information.

best regards,
thierry

Quote
71 years in production for Canon, Thierry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
phila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 259



WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2007, 06:53:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Also, we do service/repair all backs back to the very first ones, if the electronical and other HW components as well as the sensors are still available on the market (which is obviously not the case always, neither for Canon).

Best regards,
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136145\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not sure of current day practice, but back in the '80s when I worked as a Canon technician (before moving to the 'right' side of the camera) we would repair (and still had parts for!) Canon II & III rangefinder models from 1950/1.

One suspects that the situation is not quite that good today. :-(
Logged

Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2359


« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2007, 07:03:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Backwards compatibility is a term that is really overestimated. It is also a real curse that prevents many companies to go really forward.

It makes a lot of software really bad.

Sure Canon software might support even the first digital files but do you really want that even when it means you will have to cope with less stable software that also carries a lot of unnecessary overhead?

Leaf Capture 10 software might mention the Valeo11 as the last model supported however I know from experience it also works with the Valeo6. LC8.0 which is also freely downloadable by anyone supports models like the C-Most and Cantare which by todays standards come from the stone-age. The fact that many of these backs are not mentioned doesn't necessarily mean they don't work with the software but they have not been tested with it.

Not sure why people are looking towards the 'one solution, ends all'. Working with MF equipment is in many ways very different than working with 35mm DSLR equipment. Resolution or high ISO performance is not necessarily the most important difference.

I believe there is a place for both, there are times I take a DSLR and times I take a MFDB with the appropriate equipment.

I do totally agree with you that nowadays cameras are considered to be consumption goods with a limited life-span after which you are supposed to replace the thing instead of getting it fixed.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 07:07:07 AM by Dustbak » Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2007, 07:51:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree with my fellow dutchman

Also, of course canon has alot of lenses, but please ask yourself how many do you need ??

I love the MF system just for that.
There is one lens or a zoom, pick what you want
Logged
canmiya
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2007, 07:51:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The gauntlet is thrown down to the MF back manuafacturers:

"...Consider, too, the question of continuity, a matter of considerable relevance when the
purchase of an $8,000-or- more camera is on the table. Where the EOS-1Ds MarkIII is
completely compatible with virtually all vast EOS System, and can be expected to
remain compatible—and supported—for decades to come (note the current software
support for the D6000 and D2000), today’s medium format digital backs often do not fit
even recent products from the same manufacturer. Will a newly-purchased component
be compatible with same-brand software and hardware in the not-too-distant future?
Betting on, and investing in, the EOS-1DsMarkIII isa sure thing."
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/news/pro...-Whitepaper.pdf
So is this a valid point or just marketing spin? I'm sure Contax owners (not a digital back manufacturer I realise, but a warning none the less?) can relate to this. Are Mamiya owners feeling nervous? Pentax fans have just had their hopes dashed. What about those who bought the Fuji MF back? Or the Kodak backs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When Canon changed from the Fd mount to the EF mount, 25 years ago with their film cameras, one could have made a similar statement regarding compatibility or lack thereof with respect to recent products.  Even in the digital domain, one only has to look at the ef-s lenses to realize that Canon makes products that are not fully compatible with all of its' dslrs - current and past.  

I don't think the gauntlet has bee thrown down at all with respect to mf manufacturers, as MF has not represented itself as the "all in one solution", but accepts and embraces the niche nature of the business.  I also do not feel that the gauntlet has been thrown down, because the limitation of the 35mm style dslr will always be its' sensor size.  Just as Canon has made a significant case for the ff sensor and its benefits, the same benefits exist between the ff 35mm sensor and the larger medium format sensor.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 07:53:47 AM by canmiya » Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2007, 08:12:29 AM »
ReplyReply

A lot of people will keep comparing the two.
For me it's two different systems and I pick up my Canon for everything were it's needed, but I did some midday shooting today with the Leaf on ISO25 and full on flash and this gives me a result I could not pull off with the canon without the use of ND filters and the consequences in focus.

As long as people only look at the MP count there will always be people calling out MF dies or is death.

I made the switch only 2-3 months ago and I feel so secured in my switch everytime I open a file from the backs and from the 5D.
The 5D is a wonderful machine but the files or so fragile and soft compared to the MF output.

Alot of people however don't see that.
Recently there was a thread on DPREVIEW about the H3D39 compared to the 5D and there was one replier who did an upscaling of the 5D and claimed he could not see a difference......
Well ok what do you want to talk about than
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2007, 08:47:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I sold my D200 in June and bought a Mamiya ZD camera body with six lenses in July. The 1Ds Mk III does not make me nervous. Nothing about its sensor speaks of more than a doubling of the sensor in the 1D Mk III and from what I have seen of images from them there seem like only incremental improvements in DSLR quality not near my ZD.

What has got me nervous is the D3. Not because I believe that one gets near my ZD but because Nikon really did their homework on that one, and that has me wonder of the upcoming larger pixel Nikon rumored  for next year. Its not about pixels, but about if Nikon does their homework same well on that one and if it may be with a high quality sensor for landcape, art and studio (non high ISO). My ZD will be high quality images for many years, but... I just sold my D200 and am in process selling my Nikon gear, simply because I did not believe Nikon would come out even with what they did with the D3!

On other hand....

   ZD = 2x area of sensor of 1Ds Mk III & D3, regardless makes difference.

   ZD lenses lighter weight than Nikon    ... and the new Nikkors presented are heavier than the lenses they replace!!! So, in essence my ZD with any zoom lens will be lighter in weight than what I would have needed to use on a D3 as example. Weight in my camera bag is same with either system, I checked.

   ZD & medium format backs do not appear to be upgraded as frequent as DSLRs.

Regards
Anders
Logged
mattlap2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2007, 08:59:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Right now the biggest factor that makes older Digital backs incompatible with current solutions is more hardware than software.   I am sure that Leaf, Sinar or any other manufacturer would not have a problem making software backwards compatible if the hardware needed to support the feature sets of newer software would support it.

Remember ...  many of the older backs took PCI Fiber Optic cards or SCSI cards that are no longer compatible with current hardware.   It is moot to make a software package compatible that needs 2GB of memory if the older hardware needed for the back cannot support it.
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2007, 09:10:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting that Canon are not playing the 'image quality' card  They know they are beaten in that respect. I think we all already know that Canon has some virtues, which makes them the camera of choice for many. Image quality isn't one of those virtues, so for people looking at max IQ they go for digital MF or large format film.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
bradleygibson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 829


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2007, 09:17:17 AM »
ReplyReply

As someone who just left the 1-series EOS in June for MF after four years of deliberation and six months of research, I definitely have an opinion on this.

It's clear Canon is making progress with their cameras, as are all the manufacturers in both small and medium format.  The question is, whether the improved image quality of MF is worth the additional expense, weight and time it takes *for you*.

In my case the answer is clearly 'yes'.  But I can see how the convenience might cause someone less picky about image quality to leave the medium-format fold, as it were.

I hope there are enough of us who are willing to put out those extras for the quality MF can provide to keep this industry viable for decades to come.

The link posted above to the Canon 1Ds Mark III whitepaper gave me an error.  This link seems to work.

Best regards,
Brad
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 09:18:12 AM by bradleygibson » Logged

hankg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2007, 10:01:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I think Canon is just taking a swipe at Hasselblad. Hoping to capitalize on any discontent about the H3D being a closed system and the new 28/4 not working on the H2. I don't really see how the Canon system is any more of an open platform then the Hassy though.
Logged

Carl Glover
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133



WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2007, 11:58:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Bearing in mind that I use quite a bit of Carl Zeiss and Nikon glass on my 1DS MkII (via adapters) I'd say that Canon is a tad more 'open platform' than Hasselblad, though admittedly by default.

For image quality though, my Sinar 54LV/Rollei 6008 blows the Canon out of the water, I don't expect that to change for a while either...
Logged

wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5698



WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2007, 01:33:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think Canon is just taking a swipe at Hasselblad. Hoping to capitalize on any discontent about the H3D being a closed system and the new 28/4 not working on the H2. I don't really see how the Canon system is any more of an open platform then the Hassy though.

When I read that quote I was thinking of Hasselblad as well.  If you go back a decade or two within the Hasselblad system, one of the things they were noted for was backward compatibility, with parts from one camera being able to mount on another.  This started to change in a big way when they got into electronics and particularly the cameras with focal plane shutters - CFE lenses and the F series lenses for example, but the 205FCC for example was still able to use and work with the old C series lenses even if a 500C couldn't use an F series lens.

I remember this compatibility as being a marked difference to several different 35mm companies - when Pentax went from screw mount to bayonet mount (arguably a good thing), or when Minolta went from the X-700 to the newer 'Maxxum' autofocus cameras for example and all of a sudden everything 'old' was no longer compatible.  Of course one could argue both ways - on the other hand the companies could say that they were simply keeping up with the latest technological advancements.

Still, I personally think Hasselblad is digging a hole for themselves - time and the market will be the determining factor.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
geesbert
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 533



WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2007, 03:18:42 PM »
ReplyReply

i think backwards compatibility for software is a very important point. i am very sure there are only very few people using a canon d2000 nowadays, but there must be some of the millions of files from that time that might need to be opened nowadays. i am not so sure a software from 1998 still works on current machines.


what are you doinig if you know you have a picture taken 1998, but can't open it with todays software? maybe search ebay for a 9 year old computer.

maybe it is a good idea to DNG all your raw files.


another thing: being in buisness for decades doesn't help a bit. voigtländer, contax, zenza bronica, pentax MF, just to name a few...
Logged

-------------------------
WWW.RANDLKOFER.COM
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad