Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why A MF forum, when it sucks ?  (Read 19938 times)
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2007, 10:46:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The last few days however I'm getting more and more the feeling the Medium format system is laughed at and the photographers using it downgraded to guys who are blind, believe in the placebo effect or just don't know what they are doing.

To be honest, it bugs me so I made this post.

I understand that most people don't use MF, for several reasons.
HOWEVER why is it so difficult to just believe the differences.

If it was IMPOSSIBLE to detect the difference between a MF system and a DSLR why do people spend so much money for an according to most inferieur system ?

Whoa, Frank, you're blowing this way out of proportion. Nobody is disputing whether a P45 will outperform a 1Ds-II head to head in the studio looking at the files at 100%. If that wasn't a given, anyone doing business with Phase would have to be absolutely retarded. But when you claim that the differences are so great that they are obvious even in web JPEGs, somebody's gonna call bulls**t, because that's what that claim is.

MFDBs are great in studio where light is plentiful, the pace of shooting is deliberate, huge prints are demanded, and budgets are large. But switch over to a concert where strobes are verboten, ISO 1600 or higher is necessary, the action is frenetic, and fast-reacting and highly accurate autofocus is a necessity to keep the action in focus, and I guarantee that a 1Ds-II or -III will beat the P45 like a red-headed stepchild. Each system has its strengths and weaknesses, and touting either one as being unequivocally superior is wrong-headed.
Logged

feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 10, 2007, 11:45:23 AM »
ReplyReply

I believe a lot of it has to do with incredulity and experiences from other mediums. I made the comparison to high-end audiophiles in another thread. They are reviled by anyone outside that clique - and for a good reason, as their claims don't hold up in double-blind studies, and even the ones do are so marginal as to be meaningless in the real world. I'm afraid some MFDB owners are (probably inadvertently) aligning themselves as the kooks of the camera world. The "cause" is hurt by people who make unsubstantiated or unfalsifiable claims, such as the oft-repeated "3D-look," or who claim they can consistently tell the difference from a web-sized JPEG.

My experience shooting MF (6x6 Provia out of my Mamiya C220 which is about my age) is somewhat limited, and I have zero experience with MFDB. I'd shoot a lot more, but I've come to the conclusion that spending money on travelling and dSLR glass is a better long-term photography investment than film for me. But the scans I have are absolutely stunning, and 35mm film or 30D doesn't come even close. So I have little doubt that MFDBs produce superior results.

And another biggie is the price: for the vast majority of shooters - whether they're pros or not - justifying a massive investment on a tool that's quite specialized and offers just a marginal quality improvement doesn't make sense.
Logged

jing q
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 594


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 10, 2007, 11:48:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Sensor vs sensor in a studio environment (most likely 50 or 100ISO), which is what the new 1DsMkIII is purporting to compete in as stated in the original thread,
medium format backs are still going to take the cake in terms of image quality alone.
All of us who use MF know that MF (slower) works differently from 35mmm but there are compromises made.

I don't know why there are so many people who are so worked up
I wonder if half the people have even used a MF camera before.
And I would never make a judgement on the quality of a file from a camera without actually having TESTED the camera+file myself.

Feels abit like dpreview right now...
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 10, 2007, 11:48:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Somehow what I say is not understood correctly I'm afraid.

I'm not meaning it in a harsch way, I also did not realise that with the 5D vs ZD I started it, hope not any way

I love my 5D and will not let go of it, indeed for all those sessions I need higher ISO more portability, but I shot both side to side in a few sessions and somehow the 5D is just flatter that was what I was getting at.

I don't want to start a war, let alone be in the middle of it.

When I made the switch I thought that the people using it saw the same things I did, even on webformats. Than again I have to admit that I see it because I know exactly what my 5D gives me and comparing it to the Aptus or the ZD I saw the difference.

Giving just a picture is indeed incredibly difficult to judge, let alone on webformat. However even in the survey posted on this forum some shots jumped out to me as having incredible depth, I would love to see which ones were actually shot with MF and which with DSLRs

Again I'm not offended, I'm not defending, I was just curious and a little bit overwhelmed with what happens to be a DSLR vs MF while I'm more a photographer that sees it as horses for courses, I would not think of bringing the MF to a concert, however with a wedding I would bring both.

I can't pick one favorite camera to be honest, I do know what I like in good light

Sorry to have started this, I never meant to make the cut on photographers and artists but somehow it got picked up like that and that's is actually not what I meant. What I meant was that I know alot of people who are seeing photography soley as WORK I would also in that case NEVER EVER upgraded to MF.
However I have a passion for what I do and I'm in many ways someone that wants to have the best quality it can be even if I'm publishing for web, so it was more a crime of passion


By the way, the Aptus 22 is as far as I know a 16 bit system not a 14 bit system.
Logged
blansky
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


« Reply #24 on: September 10, 2007, 11:59:24 AM »
ReplyReply

While some of the veterans around here may have started to find the thread under discussion to be contentious, I  found it fascinating and informative.

As a relative newby to digital, (although I've been a portrait photographer mainly with Hasselblad and 4x5 for 30 years) I welcome the discussions and the comparisons to help me make some of my difficult decision which direction to head in the digital maze.

Presently I scan 6x6, and shoot personal stuff with a Nikon D200, but I am now planning to buy the new 1Ds Mk3 when it comes out. I have been debating for some time whether to get a digital back for my Hasselblad, or buy a ZD camera but with the announcement of new Canon I think that would be my best choice.

That being said, I still plan on buying a digital back within the next year or so because I too can see, on large prints that there is indeed a quailty that MF has over DSLR.

So thank you, and keep up the discussions.


Michael
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 10, 2007, 12:09:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I believe a lot of it has to do with incredulity and experiences from other mediums. I made the comparison to high-end audiophiles in another thread. They are reviled by anyone outside that clique - and for a good reason, as their claims don't hold up in double-blind studies, and even the ones do are so marginal as to be meaningless in the real world. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've auditioned high end hi-fi and the differences and extra information you can hear with good systems compared to less expensive kit is very, very noticeable. Just like when you use a 10x8 compared top a point and shoot camera.
But then I have good hearing and have looked after it, which may be a big factor in my ability to hear differences in hi-fi kit. Maybe you should get your ears syringed and go and have a listen for yourself, rather than base claims on spurious tests.

This is not to say inexpensive hi-fi cannot sound good or even better than more expensive kit as it can. Daft claims are made by salespeople in all industries so are all industries 'reviled'?
'Reviled', what a ridiculous claim. Anyone who is not interested and therefore outside 'that clique', couldn't care less would be a more sensible and less hyperbolic phrase.
People who use 10x8 + 5x4 - are they also a clique who are reviled for their claims that they see more details in images created by their esoteric cameras?


Quote
My experience shooting MF (6x6 Provia out of my Mamiya C220 which is about my age) is somewhat limited, and I have zero experience with MFDB. I'd shoot a lot more, but I've come to the conclusion that spending money on travelling and dSLR glass is a better long-term photography investment than film for me. But the scans I have are absolutely stunning, and 35mm film or 30D doesn't come even close. So I have little doubt that MFDBs produce superior results.
Your limited experience is showing you up. You are making assumptions based on poor analogies.
36x24mm film = 864mm square
60x60mm film = 3600mm square
So MF film is over 4 times bigger and therefore much better.

48x48mm Sensor = 2304mm square the biggest current MF sensor size I believe which is just over 2.6 times the size, many are only twice the size.
Your view also ignores the fact that film cameras can use the same capture medium. Digital cameras have different sensors and some designs are superior. So if Canon or Nikon or Sigma...have the best sensors, they don't need to be as big as Hasselblad or Phase or leaf or...

I have used both A 48x48mm sensor [not too much admittedly] and a 35mm sensor. And you know what, I'm very underwhelmed by the quality. Even at 200 IS0 there is a nasty mottling like as if I used a tacky PS filter on the out of focus areas. The sharp bits are quite nice, but the background ugh! Add a bit of grain and it looks lovely, but that's not what most people want from a high res camera.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 12:42:15 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
awofinden
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


« Reply #26 on: September 10, 2007, 12:16:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've auditioned high end hi-fi and the differences and extra information you can hear with good systems compared to less expensive kit is very, very noticeable. Just like when you use a 10x8 compared top a point and shoot camera.
But then I have good hearing and have looked after it, which may be a big factor in my ability to hear differences in hi-fi kit. Maybe you should get your ears syringed and go and have a listen for yourself, rather than base claims on spurious tests.

This is not to say inexpensive hi-fi cannot sound good or even better than more expensive kit as it can. Daft claims are made by salespeople in all industries so are all industries 'reviled'?
'Reviled', what a ridiculous claim. Anyone who is not interested and therefore outside 'that clique', couldn't care less would be a more sensible and less hyperbolic phrase.
People who use 10x8 + 5x4 - are they also a clique who are reviled for their claims that they see more details in images created by their esoteric cameras?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138448\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree, dismissing an entire group of people because of your ignorance is the hight of arrogance. Really the fact that you can't tell the difference between high and low end audio is o.k. but it does mean you dont really have a valid opinion about it because your ears really can't be that good, the differences aren't small.
Logged
gehle
Guest
« Reply #27 on: September 10, 2007, 12:24:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What keeps me interested in Medium Format is the real estate in the viewfinder, it slows me down and I think a little clearer about what I am trying to create.  The  slightly greater quailty doesn't hurt either.      

db
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Believe me: I have trained myself to make this a non-factor. I surely miss my MF cameras, especially my 680, but I have become a very effective shooter with those bastard Canons, shooting both landscape & life style images. Prior to my "digital change over" I rarely shot 35 format. I mean RARELY. Sure the new III with a promised larger viewfinder is going to make me run to get one but the thought of using MF day-in/day-out in what I do scares the hell out of me. And with the ever changing landscape of technology I am not going to stayed married to any gear, thus my collection will remain at a minium from here on. I just don't see a MFDB fitting this policy of mine, regardless of the final product it produces.

I will say that many who have stated the case for a DB on a MF camera have probably chosen the right tools for their situation. If you have the type of jobs that need MF and allow you to pay for the gear in a 12-18 month period (I mean pay for it - no "funny photographer's numbers - like it paid for itself in one job - BS") then you have made the right choice. No need to sweat this issue.

Great stuff everyone - best threads I have read here in a long time.

Ken Gehle
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 01:19:59 PM by gehle » Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2007, 12:34:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've auditioned high end hi-fi and the differences and extra information you can hear with good systems compared to less expensive kit is very, very noticeable. Just like when you use a 10x8 compared top a point and shoot camera.
But then I have good hearing and have looked after it, which may be a big factor in my ability to hear differences in hi-fi kit. Maybe you should get your ears syringed and go and have a listen for yourself, rather than base claims on spurious tests.

This is not to say inexpensive hi-fi cannot sound good or even better than more expensive kit as it can. Daft claims are made by salespeople in all industries so are all industries 'reviled'?
'Reviled', what a ridiculous claim. Anyone who is not interested and therefore outside 'that clique', couldn't care less would be a more sensible and less hyperbolic phrase.
People who use 10x8 + 5x4 - are they also a clique who are reviled for their claims that they see more details in images created by their esoteric cameras?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I fell for one of my own pet peeves: don't use comparisons as you end up debating the comparison instead of the issue at hand. Oh well...

I wasn't clear enough: I was comparing high-end audiophiles to audiophiles - in camera world that would translate to 1Ds owners vs. P45 owners.

I shoot guns so my hearing is shot. But I challenge you to produce a valid double-blind study showing that difference between a €5.000 and €50.000 audio system is discernible to anyone but a few pairs of golden ears in a listening room.

And yes, I stand by the claim that high-end audiophiles are [a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A58447-2001Jun12]reviled pretty much everywhere[/url].
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 10, 2007, 01:08:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I fell for one of my own pet peeves: don't use comparisons as you end up debating the comparison instead of the issue at hand. Oh well...

I wasn't clear enough: I was comparing high-end audiophiles to audiophiles - in camera world that would translate to 1Ds owners vs. P45 owners.

I shoot guns so my hearing is shot. But I challenge you to produce a valid double-blind study showing that difference between a €5.000 and €50.000 audio system is discernible to anyone but a few pairs of golden ears in a listening room.

And yes, I stand by the claim that high-end audiophiles are reviled pretty much everywhere.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One sensational and contradictory article is not exactly 'pretty much everywhere' and when journalists are talking about specifics they often show how little they know, so I take even less notice than usual. Having said that, it does not claim there is no difference as you do. The reporter admits the one kit sounds 'amazing' and this is another quote  "Can you hear it? It's amazing, isn't it? It feels relaxed. People can't believe all that sound is coming from these speakers."
He's right. The music sounds like it's coming from everywhere. It feels round, vibrant and alive. The experience sort of tickles and is a little eerie; it seems like there's a pianist and a drummer in the room and you can't see them. All this tickling and eeriness, by the way, costs $50,000.

The journalist is not exactly 'reviling' the systems and listeners here. The only negative comments were by a bitter chap who'd been hard done by in that business.

A good example of newspaper 'accuracy', last week many of the national British papers including the quality press printed pictures taken by some cute animal in the zoo [I forget which one]. A big picture with the camera the critter used, with animal sitting on it was also shown and this gifted animal managed to get several shots onto the memory card, despite the camera used being very obviously a film camera.
The newpaper articles are still online

There are huge differences in sound between 2 different £5,000 systems, so another more expensive one will also probably sound different. As to better, that's another and completely different matter. I can tell them HiFis apart, but as your hearing is shot, you will simply have to take my word for the fact there are big differences.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 01:12:53 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
awofinden
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2007, 01:19:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I fell for one of my own pet peeves: don't use comparisons as you end up debating the comparison instead of the issue at hand. Oh well...

I wasn't clear enough: I was comparing high-end audiophiles to audiophiles - in camera world that would translate to 1Ds owners vs. P45 owners.

I shoot guns so my hearing is shot. But I challenge you to produce a valid double-blind study showing that difference between a €5.000 and €50.000 audio system is discernible to anyone but a few pairs of golden ears in a listening room.

And yes, I stand by the claim that high-end audiophiles are reviled pretty much everywhere.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138457\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If your hearing is shot how can you have opinions about high end audio? I'd stick to things you know something about if I were you. (are we getting a little off topic here?)
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 10, 2007, 01:21:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If your hearing is shot how can you have opinions about high end audio? I'd stick to things you know something about if I were you. (are we getting a little off topic here?)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138465\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Double-blind studies.
Logged

pixjohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 671


« Reply #32 on: September 10, 2007, 02:10:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I will be honest, I only read a few post, and skipped the rest on this thread and the other thread. I could careless what the canon/nikon guys have to say about MFDB. They should spend less time around here and more time at DPreviw. They are just like religious people telling me I have to convert or go to hell. If you would just stop reading and responding to the trash, it would all end. I know the quality of  my work with a MFDB is far superior to other photographers shooting the same type of work with DSLR.

P.S. I am also an Audiophile, so I guess I am going to hell.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2007, 02:19:46 PM »
ReplyReply

It will be a happy place in hell

I'm a videophile and audio lover
Logged
vgogolak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 337


WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 10, 2007, 02:21:14 PM »
ReplyReply

let's throw a little more gas on the fire

I really feel my Audio Research SP-10, D-79, D 200 , Linn and Infinity SRS Betas are jsut about as much better than a Bose and Bang and Olafsen as Contax 645/P45+ and Zeiss lenses are than Conikon stuff.

It seems many of the high end audio, and Photo MF owners hear feel the same.

If we are wrong about it being better, it almost doesn't matter, 'cause guess what

1. we have it
2. we use it
3. we appreciate it

It's not really about the image, it's about #3

If the DSLR people feel the same about their gear, then we are ALL winners

Victor

PS. and if the DSLR peopel DON'T feel the same about their gear, maybe time to start saving

:-)
Logged
urbanpicasso
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64



WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2007, 02:36:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I too am very much interested in DMF and I know the diff. I'm waiting on N&C to show their latest and greatest big guns. This as well as Mamiya contribution with the ZD are quickly driving used backs down to reasonable levels. Don't get me wrong, I'll keep a DSLR system for it's versatility. But I also want those big fat no anti aliasing filter files for the fine art in me.
By the way here's a shot from a 4 mp camera that in my eyes shows plenty of the 3d effect. I think lighting and glass plays as much a part as format.
 
davidbogdan

http://i.pbase.com/u46/davidbogdan/upload/29483201.h2.jpg
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1130


WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2007, 02:38:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I will be honest, I only read a few post, and skipped the rest on this thread and the other thread. I could careless what the canon/nikon guys have to say about MFDB. They should spend less time around here and more time at DPreviw. They are just like religious people telling me I have to convert or go to hell. If you would just stop reading and responding to the trash, it would all end. I know the quality of  my work with a MFDB is far superior to other photographers shooting the same type of work with DSLR.

P.S. I am also an Audiophile, so I guess I am going to hell.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138476\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

surrender
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 04:06:57 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2007, 03:12:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Now go to my website and listen to the intro music. Was this a cheap or a very very expensive spanish guitar? Please don't count the web quality....



IT WAS A JOKE , IT WAS A JOKE!!!  JUST KIDDING ok? Don't do it !!  



         
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1130


WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2007, 03:49:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Now go to my website and listen to the intro music. Was this a cheap or a very very expensive spanish guitar? Please don't count the web quality....
IT WAS A JOKE , IT WAS A JOKE!!!  JUST KIDDING ok? Don't do it !!  
        
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

very expensive. this guitar sounds so 3D  as if there would be more than one !!!! phantastic.  

good night .....
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 04:12:43 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 10, 2007, 05:28:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just for comparison, here is a silly little personal project I did several years ago. No idea what camera it was; probably the original 1ds. But the lens was the 85 1.2, shot wide open. Streetcorner, available light. Dimension and fall-off is appealing to me. It ain't 8x10, but those people never would have waited for me to stumble around and load holders:

http://www.marktucker.com/07faces/

Could this have been shot with the Hasselblad 100mm 2.2, or the Contax 80 at f2, with medium-format? Certainly. But clearly, this one Canon lens has a unique look to it, and unlike other fast Canon lenses, at wide open, it's still tack sharp.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138419\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,

Very nice example. It shows it is about vision, does it not? Vision and making into art. Few DSLR users use such lenses, while at MF it is at hand. Finders in MF are much larger, perhaps forcing more vision, and format to slow and think. Yet... either MF / DSLR is compromise and the important is the artist and vision.

Anders
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad