Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: why is mfdb still so expensive?  (Read 17364 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7884



WWW
« Reply #60 on: September 11, 2008, 11:02:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sorry but the only thing this camera produces is 24 mp of crap. Not a surprise really...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220921\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not sure where you are getting your facts from.

The people who have played and processed its raw files are rather positive about the quality they are seeing, and this is just a start since the better raw processors like Raw Developper or C1 4.1 do not support it yet.

Smart pros who need new gear with these skill sets (essentially the same as those of MFDB), and prefer to buy a car instead of camera back, will IMHO buy.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #61 on: September 12, 2008, 12:24:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Its all business.  If you can't make 15% - 20% on ypur back for 3 years, then sell it and rent, mark the rental fees up by 15% and get the benefits of ownership w/o the onerous capital outlay.

Just my opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


OK.  There is the little secret as to why anyone should shoot medium format.  

The file holds up better in post.  That may or may not matter to anyone, depending on what you shoot and who you shoot for, but when there is money on the line, a lot of high expectations and the files are going to go through one, two, three or four rounds of retouching, have backgrounds moved around, have 4 layers of soft masks for outlines, are going to be scrutinized by the retouchers, production people, AD's, pre press and the printer, the better the file the less blowback you are going to get.

Sure if the photo is beautiful there is less comment on technical details and technique is not as important as the art of the photograph, but when you go through that many layers of people, the better you start out the less issues you will have on the backend.

Now as far as renting, I'm not a rental guy.  I like to know about my equipment and I like to know it works, can use it in my sleep or when I'm exhausted, or the pressure on set is high.

Renting just throws in another level of the unknown that i'm not that comfortable with.

Do I make money on my medium format backs . . . sure  . . . but if I didn't I sure don't take any risk and even if I use it for only 1/3 of the day, that 1/3 is worth it.

The second little secret is why would  anyone spend 2, 3, 4 times etc. more money for a camera or back.

Well . . . I have a good friend who is a very good photographer.  Not famous, but makes a good living, works hard and is talented.  He just recently bought a p21 for his old V system.  

In just a few months he almost doubled his repeat business.  It's not that the camera made him a better photographer, but it was obvious to his clients that he was offering them the very best image he could afford and though the p21 is a small file, it is a hell of a good file and the good thing about Phase is the p21 back by all appearances looks just like the p45.

In other words he invested in his clients and it showed.

Now the downside of medium format, regardless of costs, lcd, iso is the things are sometimes too color sensitive for some projects.  I wish there was a dumb button on my backs to make them less sensitive to ambient color but overall the file on medium format is deep, detailed and pretty much a no compromise way to produce a photograph.

Medium format is not perfect and you still have to go out with a Canon in the bag, but overall is medium format worth it . . . if you have a lot of scrutiny it is.

JR
Logged

Imaginara
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114


« Reply #62 on: September 12, 2008, 04:18:05 AM »
ReplyReply

re. Sony & Canon (and soon Nikon's) MP Monsters vs. Medium format they can whack a 100MP on that for all that it matters, it still wont let more light through the lens and you will not have the same quality of the image.

That has been true even since the film days (anyone claimed that a 35mm negative produced as good of a image as a medium format? )  and it is still true today with digital.

Diffraction becomes really noticeable on small format at around F6-F8 and this is with some of the best lenses out there, so more MP only produces a larger file with still the crappy small fine detail.

Granted, you could argue that the higher mp resolution would let you post process more and retain a bit of the small detail but the fact is still that the medium format produces a better quality even at smaller MP.

And until someone produces a raw original from a small format that contradicts me thats my opinion and i stand by it. I have seen attempts but none that delivered

Now i also have a canon in my camerabag (3 actually  for the times when i do not need the image quality and pixel resolution a medium format brings, and when i need to shoot fast or high-iso. But i do not see me tossing out my medium format anytime soon.

/Henrik
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3969



WWW
« Reply #63 on: September 12, 2008, 05:23:17 AM »
ReplyReply

All of that is true, but you still have to focus that image on the sensor, and have the camera not move during exposure etc. MF makers have not been so good at investing in good viewfinders, in AF with multiple focus points, and mirror damping and all those other things.

I mean, just compare the Mamiya III body to a 1Ds3 or D3. Don't you feel ripped off ?

Emdund

Quote
re. Sony & Canon (and soon Nikon's) MP Monsters vs. Medium format they can whack a 100MP on that for all that it matters, it still wont let more light through the lens and you will not have the same quality of the image.

That has been true even since the film days (anyone claimed that a 35mm negative produced as good of a image as a medium format? )  and it is still true today with digital.

Diffraction becomes really noticeable on small format at around F6-F8 and this is with some of the best lenses out there, so more MP only produces a larger file with still the crappy small fine detail.

Granted, you could argue that the higher mp resolution would let you post process more and retain a bit of the small detail but the fact is still that the medium format produces a better quality even at smaller MP.

And until someone produces a raw original from a small format that contradicts me thats my opinion and i stand by it. I have seen attempts but none that delivered

Now i also have a canon in my camerabag (3 actually  for the times when i do not need the image quality and pixel resolution a medium format brings, and when i need to shoot fast or high-iso. But i do not see me tossing out my medium format anytime soon.

/Henrik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
ctz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #64 on: September 12, 2008, 05:49:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, what about Mamiya II?

I mean, just compare the Mamiya III body to a 1Ds3 or D3. Don't you feel ripped off ?

Emdund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220978\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
Logged
Imaginara
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114


« Reply #65 on: September 12, 2008, 07:33:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Well i have only used Mamiya 645, RB and RZ-67's =)

The DSLR systems are smaller and faster to use, and thus works perfect when those are key elements to getting the image.

For studio or any situation where you dont have loads of action happening, i don't feel the slower pace of medium format is a big issue.

However, having said that i wouldn't mind a faster and more accurate medium format camera either  But my point was that comparing the DSLR to the medium format today is the same as before. The DSLR is hampered mainly by its optical limits and not image sensor resolution. Afaik they CAN make even better glass than they are doing now, and that is probably where the main advances needs to be made. Problem is that it's extremely expensive to improve the optics on small format, and thus the prices will go sky high.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7884



WWW
« Reply #66 on: September 12, 2008, 09:37:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Diffraction becomes really noticeable on small format at around F6-F8 and this is with some of the best lenses out there, so more MP only produces a larger file with still the crappy small fine detail.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=220974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree that MF has some advantages, but not this one.

Diffracton is not a problem yet. As of now diffraction really starts to show around f9-f10 with a 1ds3, which happens to be slight below the optimal aperture of the lenses still. At around 30 MP on FF, the optimal lens aperture will coincide perfectly with the appearance of diffraction.

This is not a problem since you have as much DoF at f10 on a FF digital sensor than you have at around f14 on MF.

However you look at it, the smaller the format the best compromise between DoF and image sharpness.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #67 on: September 12, 2008, 10:10:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Another good reason to shoot MF for me is I prefer the look, simple as that.
Logged
witz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199


WWW
« Reply #68 on: September 12, 2008, 10:21:21 AM »
ReplyReply

you can't put lipstick on a small sensor... hehe

I like to call the high cost of current gear " Surprise and demand "

I also think that we all agree that if money were no object.... we would buy the highest rez, biggest sensor we could get out hands on.... but that does not mean we would use it all of the time.... right?
Logged
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #69 on: September 12, 2008, 11:10:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Another good reason to shoot MF for me is I prefer the look, simple as that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And then there's the camera:
I personally like MF cameras a lot. Practical and simple. Productive tools.
I loved my contax and my hasselblads and never felt that confortable with the 1ds series.

35mm cameras are way too computerized and have thousands of functions and menus I'll never use.
I wonder how much an 1ds would cost if they were as simple as a contax 465 or mamiya...
Logged
simplify
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 195


« Reply #70 on: September 12, 2008, 11:56:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
you can't put lipstick on a small sensor... hehe

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221036\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

hahahha.

This same argument going on here could be going on with 35mm flilm vs. medium format film.  For me nothing inspires me more than looking at the ground glass of a waist level medium format camera.  I believe I take better photos because of it.
Logged
klane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785

I live in a c-stand fort.


« Reply #71 on: September 12, 2008, 02:12:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And then there's the camera:
I personally like MF cameras a lot. Practical and simple. Productive tools.
I loved my contax and my hasselblads and never felt that confortable with the 1ds series.

35mm cameras are way too computerized and have thousands of functions and menus I'll never use.
I wonder how much an 1ds would cost if they were as simple as a contax 465 or mamiya...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly, when i need the canons they work great otherwise I want something slow,, precise, and mechanical.
Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #72 on: September 12, 2008, 02:30:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Exactly, when i need the canons they work great otherwise I want something slow,, precise, and mechanical.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Personally I love using the canon (except the silly aspect ratio) there light, quick, good batteries, good screens, less mirror slap, good AF etc. I really do have my fingers crossed for someone to come up with the best of both worlds. Maybe the new Leica?
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad