Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: the price of the used MF back  (Read 15605 times)
paul_jones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 565


WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 26, 2008, 04:35:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: david olivier
lot of items for H... and good price for buyer... I'd go for a Mam mount.

although h-mount is a system that wont be updated as far as cameras and other backs go, the h1/2 is a far better camera for many things than a mamiya. ive used mamya quite a few times, and it has a long way to go to keep up with hasselblad. im not sure of the numbers, but hasselblad would be by far the most used and rented systems still professionally.
its also the most proven and complete system.

paul
Logged

check my new website
http://www.paulrossjones.com
jimgolden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


WWW
« Reply #41 on: November 26, 2008, 05:19:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricWHiss
I just sold a Mac G5 dual tower for $800 that cost me over $4k with the memory and graphics card.    That's technology for you!  Obsolete in like 6 months!

a G5 hasn't been state of the art in over 2 years...first mac pros were on the market in mid 2006 if I remember correctly...lets be realistic

things are only worth what people are willing to pay...
Logged
klane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785

I live in a c-stand fort.


« Reply #42 on: November 26, 2008, 05:55:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jimgolden
a G5 hasn't been state of the art in over 2 years...first mac pros were on the market in mid 2006 if I remember correctly...lets be realistic

things are only worth what people are willing to pay...



Jim I think he was making a blanket statement about technology, not a direct reference to the age of the machine
Logged
BobDavid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1064


« Reply #43 on: November 26, 2008, 08:52:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm amazed at all of the banter about Canon and Nikon being even remotely comparable to medium format digital. Try shooting fine art repro or a still life with lots of shadows, highlights and subtle, sharp detail with a Canon or Nikon and compare it to the output of a medium format camera, especially one that does 4-shot. I wouldn't even think of taking a medium format camera out to do handheld low light photography where the Canon and Nikon offerings shine. Comparing medium format digital backs to Nikons and Canons is like comparing a Minox to an 8" X 10" view camera. Either tool is a good tool provided that it is used for the right task.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 08:55:21 PM by BobDavid » Logged
ixpressraf
Guest
« Reply #44 on: November 27, 2008, 01:55:28 AM »
ReplyReply

A lot of photographers never shoot high demanding stuff such as advertising, still life, landscape etc. As you see here in the image gallery images that attract the most people are those of fashion and girls. as if there is nothing else in a professionals work. Doing high end reprography is a lucrative business if done well. Only you will never be able to do that with a 1dsmk3 or alpha900. For the one or the other reason people solely shooting dslr never get that.  A back is a tool that needs to be used for the wright job. And laws of optics and physics still apply to us, so a technical camera such as a p3 or x-act will always stay nesessary.
Logged
ctz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #45 on: November 27, 2008, 02:11:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ixpressraf
A lot of photographers never shoot high demanding stuff such as advertising, still life, landscape etc.
....
And laws of optics and physics still apply to us, so a technical camera such as a p3 or x-act will always stay nesessary.



Good Point!
Well Said!
Logged
ixpressraf
Guest
« Reply #46 on: November 27, 2008, 02:30:50 AM »
ReplyReply

[quote name='ctz' date='Nov 27 2008, 04:11 AM' post='239864']
Good Point!
Well Said!
[/quote

That is about the same thing as we had over here a few month's ago when people who never used a MFDB  came telling me that a DSLR had the same image quality, even a higher one, them my hasselblad back. Well I use back's eversince the mid 90ies and i still haven't seen a dslr that beats my Leaf Cantare image file ( a back from 1997). The spectrum of professional photographe reaches much further than fashion and portraiture. It is not about the insane amount of pixels, it is about how they are reproduced on paper in all its smoothness, transitions and detail. And then there is the " money factor" people always seem to justify choises linked to their personal wallet: in the 80ies we had over here in europe a lot of people driving "Lada" cars. These were rusian replica's of early seventies Fiat models. Now for one, the Fiat cars were crap, and the russion Lada was even worse. But it drove from place A to place B. And when in a survey people got asked about car fidellity and happiness with their cars they always scored best. Unfortunately that had nothing to do with their lada car but everything with their financial situation, perception of their ' angry living world" and the fact that one does not likes to admit that the money one spent could have been used more wisely. In the 90ies a lot of those people again where asked about their Lada they drove mid 80ies and now it was a complete different story.  
Logged
Martin Kristiansen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 166


WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 27, 2008, 05:42:23 AM »
ReplyReply

In the past, i.e. film days, it was never debated to my knowledge that a 35mm could do all a LF camera could do or vica versa. It was generally accepted that they were different tools used for different things.

Saying that a dslr will equal in performance a MFB on a view camera or good MF camera is just wishful thinking. I don't take a view camera to an event shoot and don't take a dslr on a food shoot.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2206


WWW
« Reply #48 on: November 27, 2008, 05:57:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Martin Kristiansen
... don't take a dslr on a food shoot.

but many clients are happy with food shot on a DSLR - shame but true

the whole thing is most clients think DSLRs are 'good enough' and most photographers equip themselves to a level that is good enough for thier clients

S


Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Martin Kristiansen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 166


WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 27, 2008, 07:43:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Morgan_Moore
but many clients are happy with food shot on a DSLR - shame but true

the whole thing is most clients think DSLRs are 'good enough' and most photographers equip themselves to a level that is good enough for thier clients

S

You are quite correct of course. The point for me though is not is it good enough for the client but for me. It is my job to do work in such a way that the client will choose me instead of another person. My clients trust me to be the expert and tell them what will be best for there needs.

Anyway my position is that I believe that MF is better than DSLR for some things and for those things that is what I use. I think the extra cost is worth it. It creates a barrier to entry. It separates me from my wealthy clients who have the money to buy top equipment, and do, but who lack the technical expertise to use a view camera. It allows me to justify a higher charge out rate to visual illiterates who are only impressed by expensive gear. It cheers me up and calms me down to use view cameras.
Logged
lisa_r
Guest
« Reply #50 on: November 27, 2008, 10:31:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BobDavid
I'm amazed at all of the banter about Canon and Nikon being even remotely comparable to medium format digital. Try shooting fine art repro or a still life with lots of shadows, highlights and subtle, sharp detail with a Canon or Nikon and compare it to the output of a medium format camera, especially one that does 4-shot. I wouldn't even think of taking a medium format camera out to do handheld low light photography where the Canon and Nikon offerings shine. Comparing medium format digital backs to Nikons and Canons is like comparing a Minox to an 8" X 10" view camera. Either tool is a good tool provided that it is used for the right task.

Keep in mind I was referring to the end result (i.e., prints, catalogs, magazines, billboards, etc...) - not 100% pixel peep.
To that end, it would be cool if people pointed to images which clearly show the superiority of the MF backs *in final repro.* For the copy work which is referenced here, where does it end up? In museum catalogs? Elsewhere? How large are they printed?
Not trying to pull anyone's chain, just really curious about where the differences show in the real world. (I can personally see the differences when in front of the computer looking at full-size TIFFs, but that is not what I am talking about.)
Logged
ixpressraf
Guest
« Reply #51 on: November 27, 2008, 10:54:49 AM »
ReplyReply

To be honest Lisa, there is actually no visible difference. A DB is just a toy to let people see that our business is dong fine. In the old days we had the guys shooting hasselblad and mamiy RZ67. That was a joke, they were just showing off. I was talking lately with a photographer who used to work with Ansel Adams and he told me that even he was fooling us by making it look he took pictures at least with a 4'by5' camera, mostly 5'by7' and bigger when he could have done that with a Laika or Nokin. There is actually no reason why you should go MFDB unless you have a huge pile of unused dollar bills. I myself have never seen a difference between a picture shot with a Canon 5d and one shot with a Phase one or hasselblad. People say there is a difference but i never saw it. In the old days to me there also was no difference between landscape shot with 35mm tri-x and a  8'by10' polaroid or panatomic-x ( unless they where enlarged to more then 15 foot wide).
Logged
Carl Glover
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133



WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 27, 2008, 10:56:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I do a lot of LP covers in my line of work - the difference, especially on a gatefold is quite apparent.
Logged

yaya
Guest
« Reply #53 on: November 27, 2008, 11:14:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lisa_r
Keep in mind I was referring to the end result (i.e., prints, catalogs, magazines, billboards, etc...) - not 100% pixel peep.
To that end, it would be cool if people pointed to images which clearly show the superiority of the MF backs *in final repro.* For the copy work which is referenced here, where does it end up? In museum catalogs? Elsewhere? How large are they printed?
Not trying to pull anyone's chain, just really curious about where the differences show in the real world. (I can personally see the differences when in front of the computer looking at full-size TIFFs, but that is not what I am talking about.)

Here's one example: London by Richard Bryant and Peter Ackroyd which happens to be launched tonight at Somerset House, London

If you see the book (done on 4-colour offset print) and the 7'-12' Lambda prints you will be able to tell the differences between a high end digital back and anything else.

Yair


Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2359


« Reply #54 on: November 27, 2008, 11:26:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Deleted...
« Last Edit: November 27, 2008, 11:40:04 AM by Dustbak » Logged
klane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785

I live in a c-stand fort.


« Reply #55 on: November 27, 2008, 12:22:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I can tell almost always what has been shot lf digital in magazines and catalogs. The principles of dof and the dof plane still exist, dslrs did not change that.
Logged
John_Black
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 262


WWW
« Reply #56 on: November 27, 2008, 01:15:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: klane
I can tell almost always what has been shot lf digital in magazines and catalogs. The principles of dof and the dof plane still exist, dslrs did not change that.

Yes, I completely agree.  Given a choice, I'll shoot medium format for this "benefit" if conditions permit.  
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3876



WWW
« Reply #57 on: November 27, 2008, 01:24:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been shooting a Canon G10 these days. It's easier to carry round than my Mamiya+Phase back, actually works when I take it out of my pocket, and has huge depth of field. I print 44 inches wide from it with no problems.

In practice between a tripod for the MF@F11 in winter light,  and ISO 100 handheld @5.6 with the built-in stabilizer for the G10 the G10 still wins in my street shots due to environmental vibration. I think it's time the MF guys and gals improved their product. Hi ISO and a decent screen please ?

Edmund
« Last Edit: November 27, 2008, 01:28:03 PM by eronald » Logged

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

Posts: 1064


« Reply #58 on: November 27, 2008, 04:47:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I used to use an 8" X 10" view camera strapped around my neck for street photography. But now I'm so stooped that the view camera drags against the ground. The Minox sure comes in handy now.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3876



WWW
« Reply #59 on: November 27, 2008, 06:15:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BobDavid
I used to use an 8" X 10" view camera strapped around my neck for street photography. But now I'm so stooped that the view camera drags against the ground. The Minox sure comes in handy now.

Hehe. But the G10 sure is providing some very good images, as long as there is a lot of light.
I wish there were a digital equivalent of the Plaubel Makina, or the Fujis, with the rangefinder focus.

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad