Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DXO now has MF cameras  (Read 30651 times)
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #80 on: February 06, 2009, 12:51:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: csp
i would call this - self fulfilling prophecy - and i too very much doubt that you are able to see a significant differences between perfect processed  35mm and mf files . using files for printing with resolution  above what offset can handle leads to softer reproduction (rip interpolation ) and not increased detail. even under perfect conditions it is very hard to see a difference in a final offset print  between 180 or 300 dpi.
Guys, to each his own.
Some people do not see it, some others do.

One of the reasons I decided to get a new back and a MF camera on top of my DSLR 24mp cameras, was because I could see the difference,  not just on my photos but just flipping pages of well printed fashion magazines. I could not bear it and I had to buy one myself to have it in my bag and ready to be used any time i want to.
There is not full filling prophecy on my case and i do not need to justify my purchase since I spend 4 grands more for the mamiya 645 body with 5 used lenses and 31mp back combined, than buying a naked d3x body. Those money are spent and forgotten.

Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #81 on: February 06, 2009, 01:00:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: geesbert
If we are talking about proffessional advertising photography: 99.9% of people buying and looking at a magazine don't give a shit about micro contrast and tonality. some photographers or art buyers might see the difference, sometimes I do, but i can't think of one single page in a magazine that would have been a better image if a digital medium format camera was used. i see a lot crap postproduction or dreadful lighting or horrible styling or all the bits  that make or break a successfull ad. Micro contrast is not what makes a picture saleable. no photographer is booked because of micro contrast and fine detail @100%.  i see an advantage for big fine art prints, definitely, but for magazine work i don't.

i very much second bcooters opinion about usability of current Medium Format systems.
Sure is true, we normally get booked because we got certain models or stylist the client cannot normally get, we do beautiful pictures, we got a style that please the clients, we wear designer clothing's or dine at fine restaurants and the client thinks we have plenty of style, we ask less than the current guy they are using or simply because we just slept with an freshly divorce' editor begging to get laid.
It is very unlikely we get a booking thanks of midrange contrast and tonality on our images, but that is something some photographers like to have on top of all the above requirements to get booked.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2009, 01:43:37 PM by ziocan » Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #82 on: February 06, 2009, 01:09:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Michael,



As far as the lack of difference in print between A900 and D3x, it makes total sense for the kind of scenes you have been shooting in Antartica, especially if ACR/LR was used for conversion. You would probably see a larger gap at A1 if the D3x files were converted with Raw Developper and optimally sharpened but the gap will mostly show in scenes with more dynamic range still.

Cheers,
Bernard
I really have to ask: "what are you talking about?"
If you use the Raw Reveloper or c1 for both files you will not see a zick of a difference among the two and in case if you put a prime between 50mm to 135mm, the a900 files will eventually show more detail and a better look at any size if shot below 800 iso.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2009, 01:09:44 PM by ziocan » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7973



WWW
« Reply #83 on: February 06, 2009, 03:33:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ziocan
I really have to ask: "what are you talking about?"
If you use the Raw Reveloper or c1 for both files you will not see a zick of a difference among the two and in case if you put a prime between 50mm to 135mm, the a900 files will eventually show more detail and a better look at any size if shot below 800 iso.

Have you checked that on actual images? I have and the facts just don't back up your claims.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
lisa_r
Guest
« Reply #84 on: February 06, 2009, 04:17:18 PM »
ReplyReply

What's funny about all this is that the art directors I know (NYC market, I have worked with ADs spanning the gamut from bergdorf goodman to macys) - and in my experience none of them know anything about cameras much at all. They do not ask about how many megapixels, bit depth, file size, or such. If anything, they think all digital is kind of lame compared to film, but that is changing fast. I have gotten comments like "wow, that's a nice lens! - it was the Canon 70-200 2.8. and I was shooting for a HUGE project for a residential building in Dubai - the tallest building in the world apparently; but for the most part, they do not notice or care about the camera at all. MF - fine. 35 - fine. They do not notice. Their relationship is with the MONITOR, not my camera. I asked an art director last week who is a friend (she has shot large campaigns for Victoria's Secret with Russell James, Patrick Demarchelier, bla bla bla, and she replied that she doesn't know a thing about it and does not care. She assumes that whatever camera they have brought is good enough for the job. What she looks at is the LIGHTING AND COMPOSITION ON THE MONITOR. Now these photographers I mentioned shoot on all kinds of cameras (Phase, Canons, etc.) and it looks like the camera choice is a non-issue for everyone but the photographer on these shoots with some of the largest budgets and biggest models in the world.

Are any of these guys getting fired for lack of micro contrast? Did the art director get scolded for letting a toy camera onto the set? Did inez and vinoodh's images at the fashion photo exhibit I went to look inferior to the other images because they shoot with Canons? Er, no.

Did Paolo Roversi's images look like magic in his show last fall? Yup. It's the lighting, the technique, the medium (film), the printing, models, etc., etc.

As far as I can tell the differences between these cameras we are discussing in this thread are just about microscopic compared to some of the bigger issues such as lighting and technique. And for the most part, anyone who is not the photographer or the retoucher has no clue about it. So while some can spot differences between these cameras (I can sometimes...) which have chips which are not very different in size (35mm vs. CROPPED 645) it can be said for sure that in many instances and for many photographers, the purchase of a cheaper, smaller, lighter camera which performs at 90% of the quality of the cropped 645 camera is a good idea. The extra $15,000 could then be spent on better models, locations, retouching, portfolios, plane tickets. $15,000 extra - thats a lot of trips.

I have personally shot MF and 35 for years, and I may buy one of these new Mamiya DL28 kits next week. But I am not going to kid myself that any of my clients are going to notice ;-)
« Last Edit: February 06, 2009, 04:20:10 PM by lisa_r » Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1110


WWW
« Reply #85 on: February 06, 2009, 05:53:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't be surprised if they do. Mine did and sure let me know about it. Pleasantly I may add
Logged

Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #86 on: February 06, 2009, 06:54:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Time to get you screen calibrated a bit better my friend... but I guess that you just don't see those things... why bother discussing.

More seriously, do you have some work visible somewhere, I'd love to see what you do (I really mean it).

Cheers,
Bernard

Yawn...

Screen is calibrated but tiny photos on internet will not do, perhaps not even JPGs. Do I have photos posted? You should know my name here, I been here awhile. If you missed, look up. Like you I am an amateur, but I do enjoy photography in a slight different way. Changing gear has been pina to me. I prefer to stay with one along time. Digital has not brought that for me. Except, the Aptus 65 because I do find it capable of superb image quality.

Seems the thread go in circles. There is a difference MFDB to DLSR, some see it and use MFDB. Others dont and prefer DSLR. Any problem? Apart from that, this thread is simply a big waste of time.

Cheers
Anders
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #87 on: February 07, 2009, 05:46:09 AM »
ReplyReply

This is my final post in this thread.

The small 3.1MP jpg attached cannot show the ability of a high resolution back. A full size JPG may help, a RAW can help more. You can download such of same photo here, yet such still not show all of a back or camera:
https://rcpt.yousendit.com/650321631/71375f...417c658e27909f2

I am sure some may have comments on technical, pixel peeping etc + this and that. I will ignore all those and further posts in this thread, all respect. If someone have questions on the Aptus 65, please feel free to drop me a private message. I do like the Aptus for my shooting for many reasons. Nope, no interest in DSLR (except my DP1 in pocket).

CS3/CS4 can open or download Leaf Capture software. JPGs are defaults from CS3. Personally I often find colors at already pleasing departure point when I open files. As near sensation of slides as I have experienced in digital. That was on a used slight beaten AFD . Copyright of photo is mine.

Lisa, good luck on the Mamiya DL28. It is a good tool. Yet that is all what a camera is   .

Regards
A
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 06:06:28 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
woof75
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581


« Reply #88 on: February 07, 2009, 06:16:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lisa_r
What's funny about all this is that the art directors I know (NYC market, I have worked with ADs spanning the gamut from bergdorf goodman to macys) - and in my experience none of them know anything about cameras much at all. They do not ask about how many megapixels, bit depth, file size, or such. If anything, they think all digital is kind of lame compared to film, but that is changing fast. I have gotten comments like "wow, that's a nice lens! - it was the Canon 70-200 2.8. and I was shooting for a HUGE project for a residential building in Dubai - the tallest building in the world apparently; but for the most part, they do not notice or care about the camera at all. MF - fine. 35 - fine. They do not notice. Their relationship is with the MONITOR, not my camera. I asked an art director last week who is a friend (she has shot large campaigns for Victoria's Secret with Russell James, Patrick Demarchelier, bla bla bla, and she replied that she doesn't know a thing about it and does not care. She assumes that whatever camera they have brought is good enough for the job. What she looks at is the LIGHTING AND COMPOSITION ON THE MONITOR. Now these photographers I mentioned shoot on all kinds of cameras (Phase, Canons, etc.) and it looks like the camera choice is a non-issue for everyone but the photographer on these shoots with some of the largest budgets and biggest models in the world.

Are any of these guys getting fired for lack of micro contrast? Did the art director get scolded for letting a toy camera onto the set? Did inez and vinoodh's images at the fashion photo exhibit I went to look inferior to the other images because they shoot with Canons? Er, no.

Did Paolo Roversi's images look like magic in his show last fall? Yup. It's the lighting, the technique, the medium (film), the printing, models, etc., etc.

As far as I can tell the differences between these cameras we are discussing in this thread are just about microscopic compared to some of the bigger issues such as lighting and technique. And for the most part, anyone who is not the photographer or the retoucher has no clue about it. So while some can spot differences between these cameras (I can sometimes...) which have chips which are not very different in size (35mm vs. CROPPED 645) it can be said for sure that in many instances and for many photographers, the purchase of a cheaper, smaller, lighter camera which performs at 90% of the quality of the cropped 645 camera is a good idea. The extra $15,000 could then be spent on better models, locations, retouching, portfolios, plane tickets. $15,000 extra - thats a lot of trips.

I have personally shot MF and 35 for years, and I may buy one of these new Mamiya DL28 kits next week. But I am not going to kid myself that any of my clients are going to notice ;-)

Yes the art directors that work with me neither know nor care what my camera is, what they care about is the picture on the screen, THE LOOK I GET "MY STYLE" IS PARTIALLY A RESULT OF MY CAMERA. I GET HIRED FOR MY STYLE WHICH IS MADE UP OF MANY THINGS (LIGHT, COMPOSITION ETC) BUT HOW MY PICTURE JUST LOOKS, VISUALLY, IS AFFECTED BY WHAT TYPE OF CAMERA/BACK I USE.
If there is no point in using these digital backs sometime when you want a certain look, then why do some of the best photographers in the world still use them. Are you so arrogant that you think that you know more about the use of a certain camera/back to achieve Demarchelier's style than Demarchelier himself?
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7973



WWW
« Reply #89 on: February 07, 2009, 06:23:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: yaya
Bernard, I'm wondering how much sense does this make in practice and for which application?

Following up on your question, I have just uploaded a full size 3 frames stitch from the D3x that is about 42 mega pixels. The lens used was a Zeiss 100 mm f2.0, my main stitching lens these days. The image had to be saved in quality 8 jpg to stay below flickr's limit, but it shouldn't impact too much for this image.

I feel that this is representative of the quality I am typically getting, except for the fact that I normally stitch more frames. Don't know how you guys will feel about the quality relative to that of a typical 40MP back.

You will have to click on "all sizes" on top of the image, then "Original size".

http://flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3259513393/

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
G_Allen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #90 on: February 07, 2009, 06:54:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Speaking of 'look' and Art Directors, I find that my 1DsIII is still vastly inferior to my P30+, and my clients agree on the monitor and the printed page. I use the Canon only when time is short (during the filming of a commercial) or the location is particularly unforgiving.

The P30+ excels in studio or indoor locations, even in dim lighting. It tends to have more grain in the final image that the Canons, but the detail and 'look' of medium format is preserved.

I'm not sure if it's the lenses or the Phase sensor, but I certainly notice the difference when the images are printed for advertising. Most of all, wide angle images with the P30+ don't have that characteristic 35mm crappy wide look like my wide Canon shots do. It's hard to describe, but the P30+ shots always look more flattering, with a nicer perspective. I shoot people, by the way.

And it's always important in the business to have a camera the AD doesn't have, or couldn't have. Many of the ADs I work with notice the camera, and comment. Unfortunately, in some jobs, my equipment is a statement of my professionalism, and if you can 'make the grade' to have the best. Yes it's ridiculous, but if we are charging thousands of dollars per day, some clients demand it.

The Canons are great for location fashion, where getting the shot is far more of an issue. I may be the only one, but I prefer the skin tones with my 1DsII to the 1DsIII, and that the 1DsII focuses more reliably.

What's the need to see more detail in facial pores, and unwanted hair?
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 11:28:28 AM by G_Allen » Logged

GREGORY ALLEN
PLASTICIMAGE.COM
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1110


WWW
« Reply #91 on: February 07, 2009, 07:17:12 AM »
ReplyReply

And it's always important in the business to have a camera the AD doesn't have, or couldn't have. Many of the ADs I work with notice the camera, and comment. Unfortunately, here in Mexico, my equipment is a statement of my professionalism, and if you can 'make the grade' to have the best. Yes it's ridiculous, but if we are charging thousands of dollars per day, some clients demand it.


I know this sounds really stupid but the bottom line fact is it is very true. My clients look at my gear and want to know all about it including the costs and what the files will do for them. Anyone with half a brain makes it a point to sell this technology to there clients. It makes them feel if you spent the money on them to impress them with your gear and images than you are worth hiring. Sounds absolutely ridiculous to you and me but the sad fact is they want to be impressed and this is very much a part of being a Pro and the Professionalism that you show your client. Yes it is all about your work and your style but do NOT underestimate the professionalism you show in your gear , your look , your assistants and what you represent. Some may not care but many of my clients are professionals in different sectors of business that wear suits everyday. You spent the money on the gear to improve your style than follow it up with your professionalism to go with it. This stuff actually sells you
Logged

Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #92 on: February 07, 2009, 07:21:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Following up on your question, I have just uploaded a full size 3 frames stitch from the D3x that is about 42 mega pixels. The lens used was a Zeiss 100 mm f2.0, my main stitching lens these days. The image had to be saved in quality 8 jpg to stay below flickr's limit, but it shouldn't impact too much for this image.

I feel that this is representative of the quality I am typically getting, except for the fact that I normally stitch more frames. Don't know how you guys will feel about the quality relative to that of a typical 40MP back.

You will have to click on "all sizes" on top of the image, then "Original size".

http://flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3259513393/

Cheers,
Bernard

Breaking my rule: Bernard, apart from lots of pixels I see purple all over that image, not only in shadows, worse than my ZD did in same condition. Perhaps check your D3X for problem, or some extreme processing image file could not handle??? Where is Snook, he has good eye for purple, he did for ZD and he frank was right and correct. Apart from that, pixel peeping and it looks flat, my Aptus beats it hands down at 100% in same condition, at least per my sensitive eye. Image looks flat DSLR. I would have expected better with all raving you and others do of equal to MFDBs. ZD would have looked better in same condtion, no offense.

Anders
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 07:22:43 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
G_Allen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #93 on: February 07, 2009, 07:24:55 AM »
ReplyReply

A well-known mentor once told me, a long time ago, that one of the most important things in this business is your personal presentation. Be in shape, wear cool clothes, and be an attractive, charismatic person.

Most times they are many photographers who could fulfill the same job, so sometimes it comes down to what the client remembers the next day. Have a nice time, play good music, treat people well, and serve great coffee. At the end of things, we are all in a service business.

It may sound stupid, but that's the way it is. And, most of all, find a really great retoucher.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 07:28:50 AM by G_Allen » Logged

GREGORY ALLEN
PLASTICIMAGE.COM
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7973



WWW
« Reply #94 on: February 07, 2009, 07:31:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Anders_HK
Breaking my rule: Bernard, apart from lots of pixels I see purple all over that image, not only in shadows, worse than my ZD did in same condition.

Hum... I guess that it probably doesn't have much to do with the fact that it is a picture of a purple building?  

Quote from: Anders_HK
Apart from that, pixel peeping and it looks flat, my Aptus beats it hands down at 100% in same condition, at least per my sensitive eye. Image looks flat DSLR. I would have expected better with all raving you and others do of equal to MFDBs. ZD would have looked better in same condtion, no offense.

No offense taken Anders. I am sure though that it your PS skills are as advanced as your eyes are sensitive then you wouldn't need more than a few seconds to give this image more pops if that's how you like them.  

Once more, I'd love to see what the images you like look like, please post one somewhere. I am not questioning your expertise, I just would like to see what you are talking about. Who knows, perhaps I'd be able to comprehend a few percents in a good day?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 2369


« Reply #95 on: February 07, 2009, 07:34:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I just checked that image Bernard. Now it is very hard to look at something and state that another tool might have done it better but in this case I am pretty sure the 39MP H would have done a much better job even in single mode.

Sure you can get rid of the excess magenta and tweak the color until it appears more natural (it might just have been like that so I have no judgement over it). You can also apply sharpening to get the image pop more. It still will not render what the MF equipment will do even if you can come close. It will also take you more effort.

I agree that stitiching DSLR files can generete really nice large images. I do it myself as well. OTOH the same trick can be performed with MF equipment where the Hasselblad has the advantage of correcting the lines before stitching.

As Anders pointed out, these things are merely tools. Even different tools.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 07:35:44 AM by Dustbak » Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #96 on: February 07, 2009, 07:57:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Once more, I'd love to see what the images you like look like, please post one somewhere.

Ehh... Did you see the one above??? I am sure others if interested already have found my old on photonet by clicking on my name to see my profile... then bear in mind that I got serious into photography (such as serious interest and began learning) as recent as 2003. Most recent ones in there are two with D200 from 2006, and while I like those photos, I do not like their lack of detail or flatness of DSLR style. That lead me into larger format and larger pixels. For ZD vs. 6x7 Velvia 50 I am sure you must recall this one... http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....w=&st=&. Or simply search under my name for other posts... Sorry, but no Flickr or similar with snaps... that is not me. I prefer slow.

Nope was not referring to purple reflections, looks like noise to me. Perhaps worth to keep eye on or test. Actually looks much like ZD was in shadows under certain conditions, but not such as that one.

Anders
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7973



WWW
« Reply #97 on: February 07, 2009, 08:01:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Anders_HK
This is my final post in this thread.

The small 3.1MP jpg attached cannot show the ability of a high resolution back. A full size JPG may help, a RAW can help more. You can download such of same photo here, yet such still not show all of a back or camera:

Thanks for posting Anders and all the best with you tool of choice.

My goal has never been to convince you that a DSLR could be a better option for you, just to provide information as objective as possible about what I see with the tool I am currently using.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

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

Posts: 7973



WWW
« Reply #98 on: February 07, 2009, 08:14:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dustbak
I just checked that image Bernard. Now it is very hard to look at something and state that another tool might have done it better but in this case I am pretty sure the 39MP H would have done a much better job even in single mode.

Thanks for the feedback.

Quote from: Dustbak
Sure you can get rid of the excess magenta and tweak the color until it appears more natural (it might just have been like that so I have no judgement over it). You can also apply sharpening to get the image pop more. It still will not render what the MF equipment will do even if you can come close. It will also take you more effort.

The colors are basically OK and close enough to how the scene looked. I took a picture of a color chart also, and trying to neutralize the greys results in a hotter WB, but the light was pretty warm late afternoon.

Quote from: Dustbak
I agree that stitiching DSLR files can generete really nice large images. I do it myself as well. OTOH the same trick can be performed with MF equipment where the Hasselblad has the advantage of correcting the lines before stitching.

Sure, and again, I am not trying to convince anyone that the D3x is the ultimate camera.  I just thought that it would be interesting for some people who might never have tried stitching with a recent DSLR to see what could be achieved quickly knowing that a two row pano of the same scene would have taken less than one minute extra to shoot.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 2369


« Reply #99 on: February 07, 2009, 08:40:36 AM »
ReplyReply

No problem, I totally agree with you that DSLR's can deliver much more than most people are aware of. I would love to have a D3x but after the D1x and D2x I promised myself not to get anything bigger than the size of the 00's series (200,300,700, etc..). Besides that I don't have to have it right now so I can wait until a more modestly priced (smaller) alternative is there.

DSLR's are also much handier in some circumstances. I saw someone mentioning he will take an in focus 12MP DSLR shot anytime over a slightly missed MFDB shot. I completely agree with this as well. Sometimes the MFDB simply cannot make the shots you can with DSLR.

Everything has its place and use depending on who you are, what you do and how you like to do it.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2009, 08:42:12 AM by Dustbak » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad