Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MF versus DSLR. Ending the argument.  (Read 11754 times)
JdeV
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2009, 05:38:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Oleksiy
I am afraid there is no end to this argument.
At the end of the day, everyone makes his/her own decision on the gear he/she wants and/or can afford to use.

My original post was simply an attempt to show how one could clarify facts in order to make decisions. I think the facts are rather murky now.
Logged
JdeV
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 25, 2009, 05:46:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rainer_v
agreed.

i just bought a setup of these new shift lenses for the canon and shot the first job with it, to try it out. its soooo convenient for travelling, and its fantastic to have a real live view. workflow is very good on site and postpro is fast too.
just printed out a shot done with the 17mm tse at 60/90 cm and there is no millimeter of detail to desire.
in the few cases i will go bigger the prints are big enough that no one puts its nose on them, and even if, upinterpolated right and added some grain ( same is necessary with any mf file ) there will be  absolutely nothing to desire, at least this is what i think at this moment, i will see it soon.
i will see how my personal workflow will go on in future, i have the luxury to own two complete setups, so its up to me which i`ll find more convenient
( and better!! ). at this moment i am just more than surprised how these two new shift lenses from canon have changed the game in my working field.


I'm interested you say this. In the Spring I shot an editorial architecture job with the Nikon 24mm and 45mm shift lenses on a D3x and I would not do it again for double magazine spreads. The shifts compared with a view camera were inadequate and the sharpness just wasn't there. When I didn't need shifts the 24-70mm was fine so it wasn't a sensor issue.

However, maybe the new Canon lenses are significantly superior to Nikon's most recent offerings.
Logged
aaron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 25, 2009, 05:59:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JdeV
However, maybe the new Canon lenses are significantly superior to Nikon's most recent offerings.

A thread comparing MFdigital to 35MMdigital and now you want to go Nikon v Canon too
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7975



WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 25, 2009, 06:09:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rainer_v
how often is apearing this discussion is really funny.
do anybdy seriously think or remember that in film days it appeard also similar often the question
if 35mm would be equal than 4x5" or the bigger mf formats as 6x7 ?  ( except from leica fans )  
and why didnt it be questioned in the same way ?

i think because the differences have been quite obvious and VERY big in film, in terms of resolution but also in terms of "look".
in comparation  this huge differences have been marginalized ( imo ) meanwhile the price differences between the systems have multiplied itself.

Good point. These discussions appear endlessly because of the unreasonnable belief that MF digital has some magic qualities going beyond the difference in resolution and look. Nobody disagrees with these 2.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Terence h
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2009, 10:25:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Harold Clark
Terence,

How do you differentiate your pricing between MF & SLR, ie. what percentage extra do you factor in when quoting. This is an important consideration, as we have to quickly recover our "investment" in these disposable cameras.

Harold

Harald i am in quite a tough market in Durban South Africa and sometimes my only advantage is that having the DB swings me the job ,and the %
factor is only about 8%.

Best photographic business practices are very hard to apply here because i would be the only one and business would soon dry up.

Regards
Terence
Logged

Terence Hogben. Durban. South Africa. http://www.terencehogben.co.za
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 26, 2009, 12:47:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I think the argument will never end, because it's another "horses for courses" situation.

IQ is just one aspect, look and feel (like Bernard pointed out) is another but then there's weight, convenience, AF speed, ergonomics and a zillion other factors which sometimes makes a MF preferred and sometimes a DSLR (and sometimes film, P&S, webcam, cell-phone, holga or other means to produce a picture)

Let's not try to end the argument, let's be happy with the diversity in choices we have to execute our job or hobby.
Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1521


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 26, 2009, 02:01:48 AM »
ReplyReply

It's indeed a never ending argument and people forget it's more than IQ indeed:

1. Being able to sync higher than 1/125 (on most MF cameras)
2. Being able to drop down to ISO50 or ISO25
3. Bigger sensor so a more shallow DOF when using lots of lights (combined with 1-2 gives you option you DON'T have with a DSLR).

and:
4. being able to shoot film
5. being able to use a TC
6. working with a WLF (which I love)

It's indeed horses for courses.

When shooting bands or groups I will use a DSLR to get every member sharp in the image without going for lots of light.
When I'm shooting a single person I love the shallow DOF of MF combined with strobes.
When I'm shooting natural light I love the high ISO no noise of my 5DMKII.


There really is no argument to stop.
People having the argument don't have the knowledge about the difference between the two systems.....
OR and don't get me wrong on the first line because there are some VERY good photographers out there switching from MF to DSLR.
They simply can do their work best with a DSLR and than there's indeed for them no reason to switch based on IQ alone.

IQ is better on MF, but in magazine print you will probably not see it in 90% of the cases, unless again you want to do something that you can't with a DSLR.

For people still in doubt and owning both system, just try to shoot f22 on a 22MP 5DMKII and on an Aptus22 and I think you will see the difference.

There simply are things that both systems do equal or slightly better/worse, if you fall in that group go with a 5DMKII it rocks.
There are simply put also photographers out there that push the limits of a DSLR with strobes and ambient and those people will be much better off with a MF.
I've made shots that I would have never been able to pull off with a DSLR without getting to much DOF or a too soft image (or I would have to work with lots of ND filters)
Horses for courses, no argument.
Logged
Barry Goyette
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2009, 12:13:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
This is just a money conversation, always has been.

In the film days a larger format system might costs five times as much but didn't costs $44,000 Vs. $3,500.

That's where this comes from, that and the fact the $44,000 camera doesn't have as many features as the $3,500 one.

lets compare "top of the line" to "top of the line"

p65+  $41,990
Nikon D3x  $7499

Looks like just about 5.5 times to me. Still a lot of money.
For most photographers, I think that this $ difference is simply too much to overcome, but for those of us who need it, MFD is simply worth the difference. It's more than a money conversation. For the type of work I do, my 1dsmkIII simply doesn't cut it. Nor would a D3x. Nor will (probably) the 1dsMkIV.

Finally, Michael has put a very clear description in this forum of what it is, and is not:

"This forum is intended exclusively for the discussion of medium format digital backs, large sensor photography and related topics. Users of all brands and models are welcome, as are all photographers interested in learning more about this equipment."

I can't figure out why there is this continued attempt by some users to negate the value of MFD in a forum exclusively for those who use or have an "interest" in it. If your only "interest" is in saying its a waste of money....then maybe there's a better place than here to say it. I'm just sayin....
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 12:14:46 PM by Barry Goyette » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #28 on: November 27, 2009, 01:34:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Barry Goyette
lets compare "top of the line" to "top of the line"

p65+  $41,990
Nikon D3x  $7499

(snip)

 a forum exclusively for those who use or have an "interest" in it. If your only "interest" is in saying its a waste of money....then maybe there's a better place than here to say it. I'm just sayin....


I have this conversation a lot lately with a lot of photographers.  Not the medium format vs. the 35mm conversation, because most photographers are over that one,  but the way the photography world is now conversation and like it or not it's changed.

I never thought it would take two days of staring into a teevee screen for every day I shoot, but that's the way it is .  I never thought I'd even dream of paying $30,000 for a film back, but once again that's the way it is and we all know the toothpaste isn't going back.

In fact if you want to talk to a client about camera formats, the only format they know is a 24" lcd, they figure the black (or silver thing) tied to the computer is up to the photographer.

This forum covers a lot of territory, but mostly it's just gear talk by people that like to talk about  gear.

We also have a lot of talk where the rubber meets the road and depending on whether your an amateur or a professional,  depending on what you shoot, who you shoot for, the road can go from smoking the tires to cruising, but the only real honest fact of what camera is best "for you" comes when you write the check.

If you write the check you've proved your commitment.  If not, it's just talk.  Also the only validity in these conversations is if you shot the same gig, with different cameras and seen the results, not just of image quality (that covers a lot of territory) but of client acceptance.  

I don't care what any camera anybody buys, I just know that it's not about the camera, it's what you do with it and what you produce.

But taking a page from my friend Master Gwitif's  (I can never spell his name) book, the most important choice is either Pepcid AC or Priolosec.



BC
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 01:40:01 PM by bcooter » Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548


WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 27, 2009, 01:57:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JdeV
I'm interested you say this. In the Spring I shot an editorial architecture job with the Nikon 24mm and 45mm shift lenses on a D3x and I would not do it again for double magazine spreads. The shifts compared with a view camera were inadequate and the sharpness just wasn't there. When I didn't need shifts the 24-70mm was fine so it wasn't a sensor issue.

However, maybe the new Canon lenses are significantly superior to Nikon's most recent offerings.

I have shot dozens of double page spreads for architecture magazines, even with the old Canon T/S lenses. A simple flat stitch gives me all the resolution I need. The new Canon 24 lens does seem to be better than the Nikon based on comparing files of the same subject shot months apart (I no longer have the ability to do an actual side by side test with the Nikon).
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 02:04:00 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #30 on: November 27, 2009, 02:29:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kirk Gittings
I have shot dozens of double page spreads for architecture magazines, even with the old Canon T/S lenses. A simple flat stitch gives me all the resolution I need. The new Canon 24 lens does seem to be better than the Nikon based on comparing files of the same subject shot months apart (I no longer have the ability to do an actual side by side test with the Nikon).


I'm considering kitting out my D3 to be a serious backup solution.  Kirk, you're bringin me down, man!
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 27, 2009, 03:20:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
I don't care what any camera anybody buys, I just know that it's not about the camera, it's what you do with it and what you produce.

Miss bcooter, you've matured into a fine young woman.
Logged

Barry Goyette
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #32 on: November 27, 2009, 05:21:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
But the only real honest fact of what camera is best "for you" comes when you write the check. If you write the check you've proved your commitment.
so it's still about the money? Resolution, image malleability, sharpness, quality of skintones (and conversely low-light performance, capture speed, autofocus)...so these things are not honest facts? I don't want to belabor the point...but is your argument that what camera you use isn't important, that if you commit to buying at a certain price well then congrats you have a great camera, but that doesn't affect your photography, or "what you produce"?

Quote from: bcooter
I don't care what any camera anybody buys, I just know that it's not about the camera, it's what you do with it and what you produce.
I remember being told this in school, and for the most part I agree with you in a very general way. It's a great way to teach people the value of technique, ideas, and creativity over tools, resources and opportunity. On the other hand, I know that when I made my first true "professional" leap into digital...a Canon 10D...that I was not producing work that was as strong technically, but also creatively as I was on 120 film. There were simply too many compromises in the system at that point, and my work (whether my clients knew it or not) suffered. Today, the range of compromises in photographic systems of varying prices has certainly narrowed. A canon g10 can be used to produce files of a highly refined and indeed commercial and artistic nature, yet it is no replacement for the H3D I use in the work that I do. (fashion for retail clients--yesterday alone I enlarged nearly a dozen images at sizes from 2x3 ft. to 5.5 x 6.5 ft.)

I have a friend who is a cabinet maker, and he recently plunked down about 20 grand for a new "edge-bander" (which puts wood veneer down the edge of a panel). Now cabinetry is a craft that is certainly much older and traditional than photography. And edge banding, while a relatively new technique, has probably been practiced for at least the past 60 years or so. This technique can be accomplished with little more than a table saw and some spray glue, so why would someone spend easily 10 times that amount on a machine that does what "some" would say is exactly the same as the low-fi technique. Well, Dave would tell you that not only is the machine faster (and therefore cheaper)...but that it does the job better than one of his guys could do with a simpler tool. And because of this expensive machine...they can work successfully with a greater variety of materials and thus create less compromises to the artistic vision of their clients and themselves. For him...it's about so much more than the money he spent on the damn thing.

I work with a lot of fabricators, in wood, steel, concrete, plastics etc... and I can tell you that most of the ones who do the best work, simply have the best equipment...and that it goes along side their commitment to quality...not just a commitment to the equipment because they have money burning holes in their pockets.

I spent some time with the photographers from VII in Cambodia a few years back. Gary Knight was carrying around an old Leica, and a 500c/m. Alexandra Boulat had a 1ds, and Antonin Kratochvil an Olympus OM-20! It was funny, Gary hated DSLR's because they're too big and heavy (he's about 6'5" and pretty solid), Alexandra was about half his size, but would come back from a days shooting with a couple thousand images..which you could never do on Gary's Leica....Antonin was usually just flirting with the girls and making sure he was in everyone else's shots...then once it a while he'd pick up his beat-up camera and fire off a round or two. The thing is...these photographers all could afford whatever cameras they wanted, but chose the tools that worked best for them. Their work reflects that choice. Today in advertising there is a huge demand for work that is big, sharp and technically precise. Medium Format gives you that. In the art world there has certainly been one trend towards large, technically precise imagery...Thomas Struth, Gregory Crewdson come to mind. Medium Format gives you that. It doesn't give you Antonin's grainy, shakey, scary, amazing, haunting beautiful images. That's his eye and some crazy magic doing that. Yet it's hard to imagine Crewdson's elaborate film sets captured on Antonin's OM-20 instead of the 8x10 he typically uses. Sure you could do it...but it wouldn't be the same...and certainly not be a good match for Crewdson's vision. It's hard to imagine Avedon's "In the West" portraits being as successful if shot on a 5dmarkII (yet I know from many years of imitating and emulating him that my hasselblad is up to the challenge (and that none of my Canon's is).

So when you say "it's not about the camera"...I have to say, that in a very specific way..:~), I respectfully disagree.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 05:24:57 PM by Barry Goyette » Logged
CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2009, 06:03:06 PM »
ReplyReply

The wife and I are watching Closeup : Portraits on Ovation and it's featuring Bruce Davidson.  He's working with a 500 CM.  I love those old 'Blads, man!  The camera DOES totally influence the way you work.  I have 35mm shots I treasure and never could of gotten with medium or large format.  

Take that statement, keep switching the formats around and it will always hold true.

Unrelated:  Why is Albert Maysles so friggin cool?!!!!
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 995


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2009, 07:28:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I totally and absolutely believe it!
Years ago, I bought this cool sports car. One day a friend of mine and I rode to a joint where we parked the car. The car coud be seen by many people. We stepped out of the car and while going inside my friend told me: "God, you walk differently". To which I responded: "Yes I noticed but I can't help it"
Eduardo

Quote from: CBarrett
He's working with a 500 CM.  I love those old 'Blads, man!  The camera DOES totally influence the way you work.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 07:34:43 PM by uaiomex » Logged
Juanito
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2009, 11:54:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Sure cameras influence the way we shoot. But a camera can't compose a shot, direct a subject nor come up with a great idea.

And a super sharp, hi res but crappy photo shot on MFDB is still a crappy photo.

In the midst of a recent shoot, my Leaf back decided to go south after a little tumble. So I switched to my 5DMII. In the final piece which is a composite of six or seven different shots - half taken with the 5D and half with the Hassie/Leaf combo - there's no way to tell what was shot with what. Believe me, I wish I could tell the difference between my fancy MFDB setup and my 5D that every wannabe photographer and their mother owns. But I can't.

John
Logged

cyberean
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 28, 2009, 12:18:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
The wife and I are watching Closeup : Portraits on Ovation and it's featuring Bruce Davidson.  He's working with a 500 CM.  I love those old 'Blads, man!
hasselblad ... schmasselblad
some of his most compelling work was done with 35mil
Logged

check out the size of my sensor ...
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #37 on: November 28, 2009, 07:50:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
The wife and I are watching Closeup : Portraits on Ovation and it's featuring Bruce Davidson.

On either that show, or one of the ones following it, on Photo Night, the segment shows Brigitte LaCombe shooting a portrait in the studio with a handheld H camera. David Grover should watch that segment, in order to see, in a very graphic way, why the H camera needs a Vertical Grip. The segment shows her holding the H, with some giant lens on it, and she's shooting a vertical, but she's holding the camera like she's shooting a horizontal, but she's literally bending over sideways, with her weight to the extreme left, trying to lay her body over to get the H body into a vertical orientation. I literally burst out laughing when I saw the segment. I searched around, at that very moment, for Grover's home phone number, to try to get him to turn on the TV, but then realized that he lives in hiding.

I can't imagine how long Ms. LaCombe could hold that position, while holding that H body. And I imagine every single frame had weird horizon lines, and she tried to lean over to shoot verticals.

A later segment shows her finally giving up, and throwing the body onto a tripod.

http://www.ovationtv.com/programs/FRAMED/   (click on "Close Up: Portraits")

(Unrelated: Fascinating, compelling show on that same night -- interview with Charis Wilson, regarding her time with Edward Weston).
« Last Edit: November 28, 2009, 12:55:08 PM by gwhitf » Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1521


WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 28, 2009, 12:52:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Is there an option for us Europeans to "download" or buy that series ?
Logged
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 820


« Reply #39 on: November 29, 2009, 07:49:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
The wife and I are watching Closeup : Portraits on Ovation and it's featuring Bruce Davidson.  He's working with a 500 CM.

I loved one of his quotes: "I go into the darkroom every day and start printing at 5am, and I finish at 2pm, and that's it", and he said it as if he thought some people might consider 5am-2pm to be a Slacker Darkroom Day.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad