Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Plea to Michael: separate place for 35 vs DMF debates  (Read 13277 times)
JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 659



« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2009, 06:24:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Anyone care for a cup of tea? Darjeeling?

Michael
Would that be with lemon or cream?
Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
"Try not to be just better than your rivals and contemporaries, try to be better than yourself."  William Faulkner
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 311


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 21, 2009, 06:32:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Anyone care for a cup of tea? Darjeeling?

Michael

I prefer Assam.  Milk, please.
Logged

ceyman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44


« Reply #22 on: December 21, 2009, 06:40:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Anyone care for a cup of tea? Darjeeling?

Michael

Why yes, darling, I'd love one.

carl
Logged
pcunite
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


« Reply #23 on: December 21, 2009, 07:53:30 PM »
ReplyReply

As long as medium format camera makers list the specs for their newest lenses with bullet points like Equivalent 35mm Focal Length you know that 35mm and large format often belong in the same discussions. 35mm is not going to go away. It is going to keep chipping away until there is nothing left to chip. If MFD can stand it will stand on it's own merit when 35mm reaches its limits. I warn those who are reading that a purchase of MFD these days should be done for personal reasons or for the following business reasons:

* Printing large for art galleries.
* Impressing clients who own MFD.
* Intimidating newcomers on forums.

Otherwise go buy a Canon 5DII and work on your portfolio.
Logged
Khun_K
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 349


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2009, 12:00:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pcunite
As long as medium format camera makers list the specs for their newest lenses with bullet points like Equivalent 35mm Focal Length you know that 35mm and large format often belong in the same discussions. 35mm is not going to go away. It is going to keep chipping away until there is nothing left to chip. If MFD can stand it will stand on it's own merit when 35mm reaches its limits. I warn those who are reading that a purchase of MFD these days should be done for personal reasons or for the following business reasons:

* Printing large for art galleries.
* Impressing clients who own MFD.
* Intimidating newcomers on forums.

Otherwise go buy a Canon 5DII and work on your portfolio.
It is funny but I often think it does not make much more sense about looking at the size of the sensors. We spoke of medium format yesterday was achieved in comprable qaulity by a smalle camera today, we talk about photography quality that has much beyond just the sensor size, pixels counts and so on. MoMA or other art gallery does not accept exhibition base on what camera one use. Michael says on this forum that some of his most praised images were often took by smaller cameras, but it does not mean he will stop exploring what next on the top of the line.  Many medium format users, I included, also have smaller DSLR and a Canon G10, can't we produce image from small camera because we are also medium format user?  Canon 1Ds series camera, of course now include Nikon and Sony, are in general considered capable of producing comprable medium format quality yesterday, OK, day before yesterday (film or digital) and the P1 P65+ and Leaf AF-II 10 are in the realm of large format, is physical size of sensor or camera still that important?  The concept of differentiate camera system by sensor size is becoming an old concept.  Photographer has his choice to use camera for his work, no one is wrong.

Regards, K
Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1104


« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2009, 12:54:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pcunite
As long as medium format camera makers list the specs for their newest lenses with bullet points like Equivalent 35mm Focal Length you know that 35mm and large format often belong in the same discussions. 35mm is not going to go away. It is going to keep chipping away until there is nothing left to chip. If MFD can stand it will stand on it's own merit when 35mm reaches its limits. I warn those who are reading that a purchase of MFD these days should be done for personal reasons or for the following business reasons:

* Printing large for art galleries.
* Impressing clients who own MFD.
* Intimidating newcomers on forums.

Otherwise go buy a Canon 5DII and work on your portfolio.

I guess you never looked through a 35mm camera mounted on a 4x5 with a LF lens ...Because if you did, you wouldn't have posted this. There are technical workflows that simply don't work well with 35mm.  Try stackinh a macro with a 35, vs a 4x5.

Tools that help this are very few, and priced so you don't buy it.  

But yes... things are getting closer, and perhaps in 2 years there will be tools that help the workflow of technical cameras on a 35mm platform...or better yet, the big dogs will bump the frame size or maybe we can have a 1 to 1 viewfinder along the live view.  Things can stay stagnant, or there can be radical changes.
The future will tell.  

I shoot tethered, so ..Until I can get front lens movement with presice lock down(SINAR) on a 35,(Since live view will bypass the tiny viewfinder)...And until I have a AA filter free option.... I will stick to my MFdB.
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2009, 01:19:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
For the most part (and unlike many forums) we have a group of photographers here who are knowledgeable and enthusiastic. Most are adults, and act like it. The ones that don't, don't last long.

My preference is for this forum to be self-policing to the greatest extent possible. Stupid threads usually die out quickly enough, or they simply get closed and die a natural death.

Michael


Perhaps it is just me... but the change of title to 'Digital Backs & Large Sensor Photography' seems like caused a change to this part of the forum. Now it is mixed 35mm based digital and medium format or larger digital. Prior when the title was 'MFDB and digital backs' or something similar... then it applied equal to film. The current title can be interpreted as tad narrow focused on megapixels...

Photography is photography and gear is gear, albeit gear is what is used for photography. The really important part is the seeing part. A camera or camera system is what we in photography use to see and capture this world. In my personal humble opinion, having used 35mm film and digital based systems and upwards... it is a whole different way to SEE and OPEARATE with a DSLR than with a medium format based system. Of course, attaching a digital back to a stitching (technical camera) or a 4x5 is different still, but is used with same gear - digital back. Not only that... the current title implies film is no longer part.

Perhaps there are more than I who participate less in these forums nowadays? For it seems since around the title change, there were many who have fled or post less, and among those seems were some reputable... Or simply, they perhaps realized photography matter more than gear??? As current it seems GetDpi has more of a medium format forum than LL... it is regrettable, simply because the Medium Format forum that was before the title change was the very best on this site. That was also much to help when starting out with a medium format back!!! Much thanks to all, especially the professionals who spent time to share thoughts and advises.

Only my 2c honesty...

Regards
Anders
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 01:24:43 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
PdF
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 291



« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2009, 01:35:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Where have I the right to speak about my Sinarback 43HR ? 44 Mpix for a ordinary 24/36mm format, on an classical P2.

PdF
Logged

PdF
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2009, 02:26:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Anyone care for a cup of tea? Darjeeling?

Michael

Mmmm, Darjeeling, I'll take you up on that

I agree with Anders that the current title invites some of these problems. I also don't see a reason to rule out film, especially in the kind of numbers of posts they will cause. I would rename it simply "Medium Format Photography", and the description could simply state that it is not for 35mm photography discussions. Then those of us who have no interest in 35mm could just hold our nose and look the other way when a 35mm post does come in.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 02:32:57 AM by carstenw » Logged

carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2009, 02:31:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Khun_K
It is funny but I often think it does not make much more sense about looking at the size of the sensors.

You are right of course, but there are so many 35mm photographers out there that allowing this forum to cover both MF and 35mm would simply allow the MF content to drown in a sea of 35mm discussions. Perhaps that is even the primary reason for not mixing, not IQ, DR, print size or anything else. There are those of us who are simply interested in MF photography as such.
Logged

carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #30 on: December 22, 2009, 02:32:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pcunite
As long as medium format camera makers list the specs for their newest lenses with bullet points like Equivalent 35mm Focal Length you know that 35mm and large format often belong in the same discussions.

I suppose we should also let in the P&S crowd then, because they do that too.

Seriously, that is not a good argument.
Logged

gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 818


« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2009, 07:13:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
For the most part (and unlike many forums) we have a group of photographers here who are knowledgeable and enthusiastic. Most are adults, and act like it. The ones that don't, don't last long.

I, too, thought that the reason that the name of the forum was ammended recently was to allow full-frame DSLR intelligent discussion, and to acknowledge that, in real-world use, a file from a 1ds3 is, in essence, very similar to a file from a P21. My question to Mr. Reichmann: Please clearly define the parameters of this particular forum. The word "large" is extremely vague. Was the forum name changed to allow the S2, or the 1ds3/D3x?
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4783



« Reply #32 on: December 22, 2009, 07:40:07 AM »
ReplyReply

OK, I've changed the name and changed the rules. I don't think it'll make an iota of difference to the tone of the discourse, but we'll see.

Michael
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1127


WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 22, 2009, 07:44:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
OK, I've changed the name and changed the rules. I don't think it'll make an iota of difference to the tone of the discourse, but we'll see.

Michael

michael,

does it mean that a comparison as i did between the 17/24tse and the 23/28/35 HR optics including the cameras/backs behind it is not longer welcome here or that it is in the wrong place in this forum ? i dont see the things more clear with this new undertitle, just the contrary .
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 07:45:22 AM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

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

Posts: 818


« Reply #34 on: December 22, 2009, 07:46:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
OK, I've changed the name and changed the rules. I don't think it'll make an iota of difference to the tone of the discourse, but we'll see.

Excellent, thanks for doing that. It's clear now. Apologies to anyone I've offended, when comparing my 35 system to my old H and Contax 645 systems.

Adios. And thanks.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4783



« Reply #35 on: December 22, 2009, 07:56:48 AM »
ReplyReply

See what I mean?

Sigh

Michael

Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #36 on: December 22, 2009, 08:01:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rainer_v
does it mean that a comparison as i did between the 17/24tse and the 23/28/35 HR optics including the cameras/backs behind it is not longer welcome here or that it is in the wrong place in this forum ? i dont see the things more clear with this new undertitle, just the contrary
Quote from: gwhitf
Apologies to anyone I've offended, when comparing my 35 system to my old H and Contax 645 systems.
as long as it is related to MF (and any comparision is... may that be lenses, handling, workflow...) it fits into the category, no?
This forum would be a desolate place without your contributions...
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1127


WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 22, 2009, 08:04:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
See what I mean?

Sigh

Michael

seriously no.
you do me a favour if you would respond me.
is it the place here for doing such comparisons as i did recently or no.


btw.
#this time i dont understand you. if 2 or 3 photographers express that they want to see mf ONLY treads and 20 or 30 say
the opposite, which ( nearly ) all are using both systems ( 35 + larger ), where was the problem ?
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 08:07:06 AM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
pcunite
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


« Reply #38 on: December 22, 2009, 08:51:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Phil Indeblanc
I guess you never looked through a 35mm camera mounted on a 4x5 with a LF lens ...Because if you did, you wouldn't have posted this. There are technical workflows that simply don't work well with 35mm.

...SKIP...

I shoot tethered, so ..Until I can get front lens movement with presice lock down(SINAR) on a 35,(Since live view will bypass the tiny viewfinder)...And until I have a AA filter free option.... I will stick to my MFdB.

True I don't use rise and shift in my work so I missed that point. With larger glass circles on 35mm could this need not be met? As far as your technical camera requirements, it is the level of perfection you're willing to pay to have, not necessary a fundamental business requirement. Perfectionist and MFD seem to be one and the same. This is why I consider MFD to be a personal choice.

The real point I am making is that we choose the format we want for ultimately personal reasons as most of us could convince any customer that the image they are looking at was made with the finest equipment and given a few years we ourselves will forget which camera took the picture. All these micro differences between them are simply lost when you step away from the computer and look at the image on the wall from five feet.

I just wish current MFD owners would just be honest and say they are guilty of perfectionism instead of going on and on about how they have to use $40,000 backs for business reasons. I want a Bugatti Veyron to make travels to the post office more enjoyable... but really... I just don't need it.
Logged
schaubild
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #39 on: December 22, 2009, 08:57:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
OK, I've changed the name and changed the rules. I don't think it'll make an iota of difference to the tone of the discourse, but we'll see.

Michael

I support this change.

At least there is a slight chance that some self proclaimed experts start to think before they post their opinions against facts.
Thanks a lot!



Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad