Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Do we get what we paid for?  (Read 6974 times)
klane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785

I live in a c-stand fort.


« Reply #20 on: April 10, 2010, 05:27:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey Chris care to snap a quick photo of the little brackets you have had machined? I'm curious to see exactly what they look like.
Logged
CBarrett
Guest
« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2010, 05:34:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: klane
Hey Chris care to snap a quick photo of the little brackets you have had machined? I'm curious to see exactly what they look like.


Sorry Klane, I'd have to unload the car to do that... LoL.  I'll grab a snap, though, when we get to Charlotte on Monday.

-CB
Logged
klane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785

I live in a c-stand fort.


« Reply #22 on: April 10, 2010, 05:47:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
Sorry Klane, I'd have to unload the car to do that... LoL.  I'll grab a snap, though, when we get to Charlotte on Monday.

-CB

Chris, stop the grip mobile on the shoulder and unload asap.   I kid  

Whenever you get the chance man, I'm just curious.

The thin style U hooks work awesome attached to the superclamps on c stand for what we are talking about on a smaller scale to hold large flat pieces as a background if you are cutting the top and bottom of the material used out of frame (so they are unseen of course)
Logged
rueyloon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 187


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 10, 2010, 11:59:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
And sure, my P65+ was 40k but in the 9 months since I bought it I've collected 24k in capture fees.

Capture fee is the shoot fee ? or additional fees that you get to charge beyond the shoot fee ?
Logged
marc gerritsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 299


WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2010, 12:30:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rueyloon
Capture fee is the shoot fee ? or additional fees that you get to charge beyond the shoot fee ?


Yeah I wonder too how you charge,
I charge about 20% of my fee as capture for run of the mill projects.
All my photos are charged by the piece, fully retouched with min orders depending on contract.
for larger project the capture fee goes down to about 10% but usually the orders for larger projects is quite big.

but coming back to the original post
I got what I paid for sometimes more sometimes less

here's my rapport card

H3D39     B+
35 mm    A+
50 - 110  B

nikon D3   A+
70-200     A
50mm      A

Nikon  D2x  C+

Nikon D100  B

Pentax 67   A+


   
Logged

Theresa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2010, 04:03:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
talking about bargains,
it has been mentionned the 5D II, maybe also the sony A 900 and 850 also seem to be regarded as very good values for money.

In MFD, I see the Pentax 645D will force the current backs to price-down, don't you think?

I'm waiting for a reasonnable   50MP Sinar.

My Sony a850 is a great camera.  It does everything I need it to do.  I researched for months and went back and forth between the Sony and the Canon and finally chose the Sony because I have a tremor and need stabilization for all my lenses.
I had a Calumet view camera with a Schneider lens back in the early seventies.  It and the 4"x5" Speed Graphic gave me the best images I've ever made.  I wish I could get the same quality of black and white out of the Sony.  The Pentax is tempting but I think the Sony is about as large a camera as I can handle these days.

Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2389



WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 11, 2010, 05:55:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dustbak
One would think so Eric but the 2nd hand market for MFDB seems totally dead. I know a lot of people that simply seem not to be able to sell their 2nd hand backs not even for rock bottom prices.

But that's what I mean, if you are doing the buying, then the older MFDB's are a bargain.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2010, 11:25:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: CBarrett
While I pretty much agree with this on interiors, if you need to shoot a tall building in an urban environment, a 23 or 24 can become fairly essential.

Or... check this out... shot with the P1 645 and 28mm D on a P65+... now that's wide.  But if you know how to use it....
That is nice, Chris.

I think there is a bit of barrel distortion, but not as much as one might expect from an ultra-wide.

Did you do any correction for barrel distortion, or was that how it came out of the camera?

Did you point the camera horiz and cut off the foreground to get the verticals parallel? ...but it looks as eye level is half way up the picture anyway?

So many Estate Agent window pictures are obviously taken with cheap fish-eye lenses,making it obvious that there is another building right in front of the building they are trying to sell.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 11:31:20 AM by Dick Roadnight » Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1096


WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 11, 2010, 01:05:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EricWHiss
Maybe a tangent, but how about the used MF back market?  Okay I know the latest backs are great but if you are shooting in studio or at base ISO the difference in IQ between a $4k used back and a $40k new one just is not that big while the price diff is like 10X.  The opposite is true with DSLR's - new 5D2  $2.5k or used 5D for $1k  - not much price difference but a huge change in quality and features.

I think it's actually a great time for photographic equipment purchases and options. Every product has its compromises, but there is now, compared to just a few years ago, such a range of solutions available that all produce excellent results at a very wide range of prices. Even Eric's example of the large change in features between 5D and 5DMKII is a great example how for $1,000, you can get a camera that produces wonderful results and has been used by many professionals.

It will be interesting to follow Pentax and the effects on the medium format market, although if you look at that market, it has largely turned into 2 segments, low end and high end, and I see that continuing. Cutting-edge products like the P65+ at the very top of the pricing spectrum (and out of range for most photographers, though not all) but very viable choices like P25+/P30+ etc, second hand below $10,000. And Pentax will perhaps help inspire Phase, Hasselblad, Leaf to populate that further with new options.

As we go along, the pricing options have expanded, and the compromises continue to be reduced.



Steve Hendrix
Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
MFDB: Phase One/Leaf-Mamiya/Hasselblad/Leica/Sinar
TechCam: Alpa/Cambo/Arca Swiss/Sinar
Direct: 404.543.8475
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #29 on: April 11, 2010, 03:26:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Steve Hendrix
-snip
 it has largely turned into 2 segments, low end and high end,
-snip-

From a user standpoint, what I see is a leveling off of the higher pixel still cameras.

Other than pixels, a little better iso and higher pixel count there is really no difference between my 1ds1 and my 1ds3's .  Same with the p series backs.

With the Canons I could even mount a strong argument that the 1ds1's produced an overall prettier image.

Maybe Hasselblad has made the greatest strides in their product line by offering a bigger lcd and getting their software together.

The Pentax is kind of another matter because it's the only camera I've seen that attacks both the high end dslrs in usability (lcd, jpegs in camera, multiple color settings, price) and the high end european medium format backs (1/2 price).

All of this is conjecture because I haven't seen one in person . . . yet . . .  but if the Pentax does what is says it does it probably will be hugely successful.  If it tethered reliably I might fly to Tokyo and buy one.

But as far as the quote of the p65+ being out of the range of most photographers, that covers a lot of territory, but historically, some the world's best photographers, never rushed over to buy the latest camera, film or digital.  They used what they used, found the workarounds and spent their efforts on the photograph not the camera.  Actually most of the icons of our industry were married more to a film and a lab than they were a certain camera.  Walk around the corner in NY and if you see Bruce Weber shooting, you'll see him and 4 assistants holding Pentax 6x7's.

If Mr. Weber loved shooting a 1ds1 rather than a 1ds3, those 4 assistants would be holding those, or if he thought a p21+ was just peachy, that would be the camera, regardless of final intended print size.

There is also other factors that come into play today with video and motion convergence.  You may be a photographer that never "wants" to shoot video but some client will eventually ask/require some video capture which changes the lighting dynamic, from flash to continuous or a combination.

Start pricing HMI kits and they make buying any digital camera look like a bargain.  If you want to be serious, starting thinking about putting $50,000 towards a grip truck.   Your name on a 24' black gmc truck will wake up the neighborhood.

But as a professional, it's not what you can afford, it's what where you put your money to move forward.  For some 10 to 20 more mpx may be the answer, for others the money is probably better spent in front of the lens than the box behind it, IMO.

I just had a conference call Friday on a portfolio we sent out.  It's a large book, printing around 13" x  19" and it's full of images from the multiple cameras I've owned through the years, Canon, Phase, Leaf, Leica, Nikon and of course some film.  Through the conversation the images that were mentioned had nothing to do with camera or format, the discussion was all based on the esthetics of the image, not the actual device, or reproductive size.

Obviously, that's important, but it's assumed at a certain level you know what camera produces what you need to deliver and I've never met a client that knew what a p anything was, including a pentax.

Now the interesting thing about this was the reason we are considered for this project is we previously shot the celebrity that will be the centered around the campaign.  On the previous shoot we got her in and out with no drama, no issues and made her look good.  That's the real goal. Had there been one hiccup, either in equipment, personalities, or final delivery of the "look", the portfolio would have stayed in the closet rather than on a conference room table.

What I'd love to see at this point is just better software processing to make all of these cameras look less digital and more film like, without moving twelve sliders in the raw processor and 10 layers in photoshop.  The format is the least important thing to me, it's the overall look of the image and that "film like look".  Film still has that magic.

Go look at Ellen Von Unwerth's  beautiful $700 book, http://tinyurl.com/ylpcl4m shot on film and then look at her latest work shot on digital.

http://home.frognet.net/~mcfadden/evu/Elle...h_Lady_Bird.htm

There is a difference and my point is it really is the final look of the image that moves your forward.  The digital camera that is the most "film like" IMO will be the one that wins.

I can make digital almost look like any film, but it ain't easy and it ain't fun.

But, talking high end , vs. the low end, it's not the costs of the camera.  It's the price of the photographer that makes the real difference.  

Of course I'm biased on that last thought.  (insert one of those silly smiley faces here)

BC

P.S.   Sorry to ramble, but last night went out went friends in Hollywood for dinner, dancing (everyone else dances, I don't dance)  and everything that comes with that.  Took that little panasonic G whatever that shoots stills and video.  Had a blast and shot some very cool imagery.  It truly is the most complicated and complex menu system ever devised, (think Mars meets France) and even with that it's just amazing how cool that camera works.  Low light, no light, video that's bluring, flash that blends, it's kind of magic and if I understood the menu better might be something I'd consider for a project.  A real project.  The beauty of this camera is it does look different.  To some that's good, to others well, it's all personal.

At least when you get tired of it, tossing a grand in the bottom drawer doesn't hurt that much.
Logged
cyberean
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 11, 2010, 04:18:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
...
What I'd love to see at this point is just better software processing to make all of these cameras look less digital and more film like, without moving twelve sliders in the raw processor and 10 layers in photoshop.  The format is the least important thing to me, it's the overall look of the image and that "film like look".  Film still has that magic.
...
if i want the "film look" ... i'll shoot film ... which is still relatively painless to do.
what i really want is s/w that gives me the wet plate and/or tintype look ...
w/o moving all them sliders and layers and stuff.
... now, that'd be something
« Last Edit: April 11, 2010, 04:21:14 PM by cyberean » Logged

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

Posts: 1730


« Reply #31 on: April 11, 2010, 04:32:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: cyberean
if i want the "film look" ... i'll shoot film .
Some photographers print on canvas, varnish it and try to make their photographs look like oil paintings - I can see some logic in that (especially if the canvas disguises the over-enlarged look) ..

...but I want my pictures to look like looking through an open window at what (I would like the observer to think) was in front of the camera!
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
cyberean
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 11, 2010, 04:57:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
Some photographers print on canvas, varnish it and try to make their photographs look like oil paintings ...
yup ... and some painters give a photo-realistic look to their paintings.
seems like some/most always want something else, other than what's already there.


Logged

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

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 13, 2010, 04:41:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
we get what we paid for

Is this adage saying true with high-end gear?

Some examples:
The discontinued Contax 645 seems to be a real bargain for what it gives in return,
on the other side, the recent Leica S2 seems to be frankly overpriced.

The recent Pentax 645D shows that MFD is now possible for less than 10.000 euros.
Do you remember gear that where cheap but very good value?
And the opposite, do you remember clear abuses.

So, what are your thoughts about "we get what we paid for"?

Regards,

Fred.

Ps: I'm not talking here about the fact that we should be good with the gear we have, or that the camera is only a camera and it's up to the photographer to...etc...That is another topic IMO. I'm talking strictly about the market value of the equipment, and it's real value on the field.

Not sure how you judge the worth. I needed fast lenses so I bought f1.4 primes to use at f1.4. You pay a lot more for f1.4, to me it was the difference between being able to do the jobs or not. Most photographers would be happy with f2.8 and still stop down a notch or two, so the extra would be poor value for money. I'm sure if Phaseone could make a healthy profit selling the P65+ for 50. they would do it. The value for money or punch for your pound is only for you, your bank manager and accountant to decide. One mans overkill is anothers necessity. It's not what it costs, more what will it earn.
Feel free to add your own pithy cliche.
Kevin.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2010, 04:49:56 AM by KevinA » Logged

Kevin.
Hywel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 157


WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 13, 2010, 08:14:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bcooter
What I'd love to see at this point is just better software processing to make all of these cameras look less digital and more film like, without moving twelve sliders in the raw processor and 10 layers in photoshop.  The format is the least important thing to me, it's the overall look of the image and that "film like look".  Film still has that magic.

There is a difference and my point is it really is the final look of the image that moves your forward.  The digital camera that is the most "film like" IMO will be the one that wins.

I can make digital almost look like any film, but it ain't easy and it ain't fun.

While I absolutely agree that spending money on making the photographs (rather than just on the box behind the camera) is a very good maxim, I do wonder why so many people are hung up on getting "that film look". It is even more endemic amongst indie film makers and videographers than it is among stills photographers.

Videographers have the excuse that shooting your short on big format film is *extremely* expensive, not an option for a lot of people outside of big studios. At least shooting film is still viable in some areas of stills photography. (Landscape photography = yes, high volume fashion or reporting = no).

I think there will be a gradual shift away from slavishly trying to imitate what film did well (roll-off in the highlights, 24 frames per second, 180 degree shutter angle, heavy cameras on trucks) towards trying to get the best out of the new  digital medium, making much more of the things that digital does well: low light video with available light, 60 frames per second, "forbidden" shutter speed/frame rate combos, extremely deep focus from small sensors- Citizen Kane style...

Personally, the look I was always striving to get from film was the look that even my first digital SLR (Canon D30) gave me clean out of the camera. I preferred the results to those I was getting on fine-grained slide films, certainly after I'd had those slide films scanned. I'm lucky- the velvety smooth, crisp, grain free, fairly contrasty look with crushed blacks was just what I was trying to achieve. It was easier and much more controllable with a dSLR than with Velvia (especially as Velvia didn't really give skin tones much love).

In terms of the original post, I think the results obtainable from more or less any modern dSLR are jaw-dropping, when you consider what was available just ten years ago. The 5DMkII is the sweet spot for stills right now, the 7D is the sweet spot for film making (I'll take the 60 fps for slowmo over the additional sensor size- you can still get fantastically shallow depth of field with an fast prime, especially compared with my 1/3" HVX200's). For medium format the H3DII-31 was the sweet spot for me, and for smaller format the Panasonic GF1.

What's a rip off? This is:
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-hassel...cord-h/p1003266
(that's almost $75 USA). For a friggin' button and a cable which can't possibly cost more than a dollar to make.

Which illustrates another feature of this revolution- taking the costs from the headline price and adding a horrendous markup to the ancilliaries. (Ink jet printer ink, anyone...?)

Cheers, Hywel.

P.S. bcooter, have you looked at Magic Bullet Looks?
http://www.redgiantsoftware.com/products/a...et-photo-looks/
I don't know how well the photoshop version works, but this is the gold standard software for replicating film looks from video footage, developed by Stu Maschwitz
I've been using it very successfully for video footage for a couple of years, and they just released the stills version. Would be even nicer as a Lightroom/Aperture plugin...
« Last Edit: April 13, 2010, 08:19:46 AM by Hywel » Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #35 on: April 13, 2010, 08:43:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Hywel
What's a rip off? This is:
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-hassel...cord-h/p1003266
(that's almost $75 USA). For a friggin' button and a cable which can't possibly cost more than a dollar to make.
I have one of these Hasselblad H wire releases, and would not want to be without it for MLU. This is progress... when we used to use air releases or cable releases.

If you buy a 750 camera it might come with a wireless remote, and if you buy a 30,000, a proper wireless shutter release is a hundred pounds?
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1663



WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 13, 2010, 08:59:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Hywel
What's a rip off? This is:
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-hassel...cord-h/p1003266
(that's almost $75 USA). For a friggin' button and a cable which can't possibly cost more than a dollar to make.

...and particularly when they go tits up within months.

Buy cheap Chinese alternatives from eBay and always have back-ups.
Logged

revaaron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


« Reply #37 on: April 13, 2010, 09:17:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I just made a post on DPR that said my nikon D3 was my best camera investment (second only to my 17-55mm lens in use for payment).  223K pictures and 2.5 years later and the camera is still working like a champ.
Logged

JonathanBenoit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 414


WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 13, 2010, 09:35:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: KLaban
...and particularly when they go tits up within months.

Buy cheap Chinese alternatives from eBay and always have back-ups.


This is a hasselblad release cord. Why would one want to buy a cheap alternative?
I bought my hasselblad h release cord new on ebay from a dealer for $35.

Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1663



WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 13, 2010, 12:47:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JonathanBenoit
This is a hasselblad release cord. Why would one want to buy a cheap alternative?

I'm well aware this was a Hasselblad release cord, and so were mine.

If the Hasselblad cords are going to go tits up within months then one might as well buy the cheap Chinese alternative.



Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad