Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 56 MP Leaf AFi10  (Read 65525 times)
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #60 on: July 31, 2008, 09:11:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Yair,

Who is this camera marketed to  . . . Landscape guys or everyone?

Yes, in horizontal the 2:3 widescreen look is somewhat impressive.  It's when you go vertical that it all gets confusing.

This format thing has been argued by a lot of people for a long time.

Actually, up until today I would bet nearly everyone that sells medium format has discussed how much better a 4:3 crop vs. a 2:3 crop is for vertical page formats.  In fact I would bet the argument was quite vigorous in favor of 4:3, especially for high pixel count backs whos primary purpose in life is for large print produciton.



I've shot a billion 2:3 images in vertical and unless I completely black the viewfinder and the lcd off to around 4:3, I'm always shooting too tight.

I bet I've grafted in extra sides to 2:3 images about a billion times and I can promise you it ain't no fun.

Or I shoot without a mask and just when I'm at the point of everything looks right, I then have to remember to take 6 steps backs which makes everything different, from the way the lens pullls focus (or lack of) to the way the lens just looks.

This image is the perfect example.  When you shoot it's pretty, but cropping to page size it doesn't work well, so I'm back to putting in more sides.



Now I could somewhat understand the rotating sensor, 2:3 crop thing if it was a variable crop and it automatically blacked out the viewfinder (and the lcd) but this looks like another medium format fix where I pull out black tape and make my own crops.

For 7 grand I guess I'll put black tape on the camera, but for 40 grand, that's asking a lot.

JR


Quote
Thanks David, here below are a few images that help in visualising the size and the achievable crops from the new sensor:




BR

Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211956\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #61 on: July 31, 2008, 09:18:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
At this point in time, I doubt there will ever be a square chip, but I'd like to make a case why square was so useful during film days. If you were a commercial photographer, shooting for clients, (clients that many times change their minds), and say you were shooting for an ad that was roughly vertical 8.5x11. Say that ad was to run in multiple publications. Say that that ad would change sizes slightly, depending on the size and format of each publication, thus forcing this ad to be "repurposed" as they say, for each publication.

So you have this one image that you shot, that will now be used in five different sized ads. And as we all know, most photographers like to fill the frame, and compose appropriately.

If you'd shot the job on a square Hassie, the AD would simply recrop the image for each magazine, and there would be TONS of extra room on the sides, to go get more image. There'd never be that dreaded phone call at 4:59pm, (before you left on another job the next day), saying, "Uh, is there any more image on the side of this frame? Uh, could you clone some?" Or, in those days, the phone call would be more like, "Uh, we had to order an expensive dye transfer print, and then hire a retoucher to build in bleed, because you shot the image so tight". And then he'd hang up, pissed.

So, with FF 645, things are relatively OK, but with this Leaf crop, (or Canon/Nikon crop), I'm all the time feeling this "squeeze" when you're shooting vertical. You fill the vertical part appropriately, but then there's not enough extra frame on the side, so then, you scoot back, and then there's this voice in your head saying, "Jesus, there's way too much dead space above the guy's head".

In short, 2x3 proportion = Bad News for a commercial photographer.

Again, who are these companies consulting with in advance? Only weekend-warrior landscape photographers?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212039\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I tell you one thing that really gets me about 2:3, when I look at a vertical 2:3 it looks  . . . how can I put this politely . . . well I guess I can't . . . inexpensive.

I just see all those flicker pages and all those millions of images sent to me by assistants moving to Silverlake and Brooklyn that want my opinion.

My first opinion on looking at their D40 images is, take 10 steps back, or buy a roll of black masking tape.

I am still fascinated by who asked for this?   I mean we had the 2:3 in about a billion Canons and Nikons and all for bargain basement prices.

Who is asking for a widescreen medium format back?

This either has to be a cost thing,  or some kind of secret handshake contractural arrangement where nobody gets a FF sensor for 2 years except Phase.

But we'll never really know because medium format is like the Masons (no disrespect meant to Masons), where everything is only told by word of mouth.

I promise you in the next 10 days some dealer will tell me they heard from the wife of a friend who knows the guy that parks the car for the head designer at Dalsa that the reason this is a 2:3 chip is because homeland security only allows one full frame sensor per country.

(Whatever Full Frame means)*

*end of disclaimer



JR


Edit:  Speaking of secret handshakes, the medium format companies should all get together and meet at the Holiday Inn at the Des Moines airport, (this is where Dick Cheny hides out) and make a secret pact to not release any information before 1.  The product is ready   2. The product has a suggested retail price  (not including anything "value added")  3.  All the details are in order and ready to realease.

They should then fly around the world, walk into every major rental company and "loan" them their complete kit.

That way maybe somebody could actually rent one and try it without having to sign a value added agreement.

Then they should go to Chase Manhattan and figure out a way to finance these things  (maybe ask Dick when they bump into him in Des Moines.  I'm sure he has some friends in finance.)
« Last Edit: July 31, 2008, 09:56:05 AM by James R Russell » Logged

uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #62 on: July 31, 2008, 12:27:41 PM »
ReplyReply

James:
All these late news seem to me like a few secret handshakes among chip and back makers.  

Eduardo
Logged
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 423


« Reply #63 on: July 31, 2008, 02:17:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not for or against that new sensor. But I would like to add something about 2:3 portraits/images:

Mona Lisa by Leonardo DaVinci is 2:3 (77x53cm)
Madonna dell Granduca by Raffael is 2:3 (84x55cm)
The Inspiration of Saint Matthew by Caravaggio is 2:3 (292x186cm)

If anyone wants I can add more.

Best,
Johannes
« Last Edit: July 31, 2008, 02:20:14 PM by jsch » Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3949



WWW
« Reply #64 on: July 31, 2008, 02:24:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Edmund,

A regretable mishap for which I have no problem apologizing a second time. Any next trip to Tokyo planned?

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211945\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'll need to go to Tokyo again, I don't know when. I'll make an appointment by email this time

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3949



WWW
« Reply #65 on: July 31, 2008, 02:29:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
JR
Edit:  Speaking of secret handshakes, the medium format companies should all get together and meet at the Holiday Inn at the Des Moines airport, (this is where Dick Cheny hides out) and make a secret pact to not release any information before 1.  The product is ready   2. The product has a suggested retail price  (not including anything "value added")  3.  All the details are in order and ready to realease.

Why not come out with it, straight ! The MF guys should all go hunting with Dick Cheyney.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #66 on: July 31, 2008, 02:45:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm not for or against that new sensor. But I would like to add something about 2:3 portraits/images:

Mona Lisa by Leonardo DaVinci is 2:3 (77x53cm)
Madonna dell Granduca by Raffael is 2:3 (84x55cm)
The Inspiration of Saint Matthew by Caravaggio is 2:3 (292x186cm)

If anyone wants I can add more.

Best,
Johannes
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212111\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Those artists are not working anymore.

And if they were they would be cropped if they ran on the front of a magazine.

Actually all the "new" Mona Lisas are cropped.

Logged

woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #67 on: July 31, 2008, 03:15:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Juergen Teller seems to do quite well with the 35mm aspect ratio no?
Logged
PdF
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 291



« Reply #68 on: July 31, 2008, 03:25:17 PM »
ReplyReply

3 new MFDB (Hasselblad, Leaf & PhaseOne). No news about live-video.

PdF
Logged

PdF
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #69 on: July 31, 2008, 03:28:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Juergen Teller seems to do quite well with the 35mm aspect ratio no?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212130\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So does T-Bone but their style isn't really for beauty or portrait, and no AD is telling T-Bone or Jurgen T what to do.  

I've learned to live with it, but I do fill the frame in portrait when shooting 35, and I always forget to back off.  It has caused problems.
Logged
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 423


« Reply #70 on: July 31, 2008, 03:51:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Those artists are not working anymore.

And if they were they would be cropped if they ran on the front of a magazine.

Actually all the "new" Mona Lisas are cropped.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212122\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would guess an artist like Leonardo, Caravaggio or Raffael wouldn't allow an art director to crop his paintings. And if the art director really understands an artist in this league (but what is art, what is an artist), he/she wouldn't do it. But you are right: they're dead, we can't ask them. But the pictures still impress me more than any cover of a magazine.

But it is interesting to see that a blow job can bring you on the cover of the New Yorker, I'm not so successful with my images. I end up only in third rate national publications. BTW, I don't offer blow jobs.

Johannes

P.S.: Don't get bored about me. It is only an opinion. I really love paintings and I studied them in all terms: aspect ration, lighting, posing, colours, expression and many more. And I couldn't find any preferences in terms of aspect ratio. Some painters used 3:4 a lot in portraiture, Dürer for example - but others not. And to limit the aspect ratio thing on magazines and hobby landscape photographers seems to narrow for me.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2008, 03:55:05 PM by jsch » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #71 on: July 31, 2008, 03:59:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So does T-Bone but their style isn't really for beauty or portrait, and no AD is telling T-Bone or Jurgen T what to do. 

I've learned to live with it, but I do fill the frame in portrait when shooting 35, and I always forget to back off.  It has caused problems.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212135\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, there is little doubt that 35mm vertical shots of heads do not work very well at all - for me, at least! - but on the other hand, the 35mm horizontals are pretty damn near perfect on head shots, again, for me. The problem is more than just the standard shape of magazine pages, it is also an aesthetic problem of the format in isolation: the dynamic doesn´t always work in both dimensions.

All things being equal, which they certainly are not, the square offers a pretty good compromise, but having said that, I expect that Mamiya replaced a lot of Haselblads just because it DID offer a taller option for heads/covers and also more reasonable pricing for similar quality.

I really was impressed by James´s comparison with digital and film - digital does indeed seem to represent a sort of mad-house of matching and not matching.

Rob C
Logged

rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1129


WWW
« Reply #72 on: July 31, 2008, 05:24:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Don´t get to hyped up about it. You can´t run away from facts. And what i cant stand is people insinuating that problems solved will reappear as if nothing had chanced, and the blindfolded belief in a company.
I would like facts and not what someone thinks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212031\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i am sorry to come back a last time on this, but i cannot allow you to talk about my postings as if i would be hysteric.

i think the 2:3 leaf is very tempting for wide angle work, although it might be not everybodys taste.
unfortunately the cf problem seems not to be solved with the current 33mp chips in many cases.
so i simply hope that it will not go on with this new backs, which are quite interesting otherwise.
i will be in the first line to test an afi10 as soon the first units become available in munich.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2008, 05:29:35 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

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

Posts: 854


« Reply #73 on: July 31, 2008, 05:55:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote

I found that graphic rather confusing , so here's a version I made comparing them in another way, which shows the difference more clearly - a little on the length, but a lot on the height.

blue is Phase P65+ Red is Leaf AFi 10

Logged
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


« Reply #74 on: July 31, 2008, 06:05:02 PM »
ReplyReply

oh and once again, to those who are posting about 2:3 being good: the new leaf is not 2:3 its 2:3.1

crop off the .1 and you are back to the phase length (see the above graphic) and may as well have that back and the extra headroom to crop as you prefer - same Mp, same image, indeed same sensor pitch from same manufacturer!
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #75 on: July 31, 2008, 06:55:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks David, here below are a few images that help in visualising the size and the achievable crops from the new sensor:





And here is a table with some popular crops (in horizontal view) and the actual sizes in pixels:




Yair
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=211956\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

that's all great but the P65 is not 48x36 it is 54x40.4...so (as with most sensors that are 3:4) you get almost the same width but quite a bit more height.....it is much easier to just crop the top and bottom from the file to make a nice panorama.....

hey i am sure leaf did their homework and their targetgroup is not commercial photographers (who have been asking desperately to get a 3:4 DSLR or at least findercrops of some sort for years) but actual landscape shooters! who knew that market was so large.....

if this is all really for wiiiiiide shots, i wonder why the hassle of making it rotate?
Logged

tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #76 on: July 31, 2008, 08:15:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
that's all great but the P65 is not 48x36 it is 54x40.4
I think the table just shows examples of crops made with the Leaf chip and its resolution with regard to different proportions. Also there is no 35 DSLR with 54MP ;-)
The outline shows the proportions of the P65+.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2008, 08:17:21 PM by tho_mas » Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2390



WWW
« Reply #77 on: August 01, 2008, 12:25:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Don´t get to hyped up about it. You can´t run away from facts. And what i cant stand is people insinuating that problems solved will reappear as if nothing had chanced, and the blindfolded belief in a company.
I would like facts and not what someone thinks.
I have owned and used Aptus 22, Aptus 75, Aptus 75s, AFi 7. I now own and use AFi 7 and Aptus 75. The Aptus 75 showing some centerfold but nothing to worry about in post. I actually like it so much that i bought it 3 weeks ago as a refurb. It will defenately be a keeper as i have not seen a bettter file from either sinar or phase.
What i am more worried about is the AFi. As i staded earlier on in another post. The build quality is somewhat lacking and i really thougt that the manual schneider linses were better than they are. Those lenses cant resolve moere than 22 MP, and are canon like to look at compared to Hasselblad H lenses wich i used for 2 years. I know that the new AFD lenses are better, they
just dont have the same guality about them. I find myself shotting alpa more and more, even whith jobs that might be more comfortable with a mirrorreflex.
And by the way i allso know tons of people who shoots Leaf and Sinar and Phase and Hasselblad,
hell i even have a friend whoes soon plays football with hasselblads CEO´s son. But that doesnt make me an expert.
best
berg
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212031\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Your experience with the schneider lenses does not match up to mine but I don't have a son that plays football with anyone that works with Hasselblad let alone their CEO. Oh and I'm not "running away from that fact"  
« Last Edit: August 01, 2008, 12:28:00 AM by EricWHiss » Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
berg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #78 on: August 01, 2008, 10:15:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Your experience with the schneider lenses does not match up to mine but I don't have a son that plays football with anyone that works with Hasselblad let alone their CEO. Oh and I'm not "running away from that fact" 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello Eric
If you did, you would know that Hasselblad is giving them away for free, and i havent even tried their backs and probably will not in the future.  

If you can show me a Schneider 40/3.5 for AFi/hy6 without barreldistortion and CA, then i will give you a good price or ill give you mine and a beer when you are in Berlin or Copenhagen.

Facts!.............well a long time ago people thoght it was a fact that the world was flat.  
best
berg
« Last Edit: August 01, 2008, 10:17:31 AM by berg » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #79 on: August 01, 2008, 10:52:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm not for or against that new sensor. But I would like to add something about 2:3 portraits/images:

Mona Lisa by Leonardo DaVinci is 2:3 (77x53cm)
Madonna dell Granduca by Raffael is 2:3 (84x55cm)
The Inspiration of Saint Matthew by Caravaggio is 2:3 (292x186cm)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212111\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure, there are 3:2 portraits (and even ones beyond 2:1 for full body portraits). On the other hand there are many 5:4 and 4:3 landscapes: a lot of Ansel Adam's work for example, and he was willing and able to crop heavily in order to improve a composition.

But when I looked through large collections of art books that give painting dimensions and studied the distribution of aspect ratios:
- The great majority are between 5:4 and 3:2, with the most common shape ("mode") being about 4:3 for verticals, 7:5 for horizontals.
- Even with horizontals, the great majority of paintings in my survey were a bit less wide than 3:2, and a bit less wide than 3:2 was more common than shapes wider than 3:2.
- Outlier shapes seem more common than with photographs, running from square and 6:5 to 2:1, 3:1 and beyond: canvas shape choices are more flexible than film frame shape choices, and there are no "image circles" to work within.


Surely a good choice for a photographer working with a single camera is a shape near to that particular photographer's most common choice, or in the middle of the range of his or her common choices, to minimize percentage loss to cropping in either direction.

Those who must suffer under AD's that might wish to change an image from horizontal to vertical or vice versa probably benefit from a fairly square shape. Or otherwise, might need to learn "shape bracketing"!

With film there was an additional constraint, as there was a big cost advantage to staying with the existing 135 roll film with its 24mm emulsion width. Within that constraint, the wider 3:2 shape of 36x24mm includes as crops all less wide shapes like 5:4 (30x24mm) and 4:3 (32x24mm). Changing to a less wide frame shape could only be achieved by effectively imposing a crop at the sides of every frame compared to the 36x24mm option.

120 roll film went mostly in the opposite direction with frame shapes, but perhaps for similar reasons: even when using the 56mm roll width as the long dimension was sufficient, greater flexibility was achieved from a greater value for the other dimension, so it makes sense that sizes bottomed at 56x42mm and 4:3 (645) rather than going down to about 56x37mm for 3:2 shape.

But we are getting the last and smallest of these shapes in MF now with the Leaf/Dalsa sensor, probably due to sensor cost constraints.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad