Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Phase Camera Body, Back and Programs in the Works...  (Read 19695 times)
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2010, 10:49:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Of all the talk, (mine included), of better lcd's, higher iso, live view I've come to the conclusion that it's quite fine that professional cameras are slightly more difficult to use.

I know, I've said the opposite for years and maybe I'm just going through a stage, but think about it for a moment.  

The world is full of flicker, tumbler,  cloned and copied images shot with inexpensive cameras and though some results are good, 99.9% of this content really hasn't added to the world of photography, advertising or art and surely  hasn't improved the standing of the professional image making  industry.

If anything cheap dslrs have democratized the industry and creativity is not a democratic process.

Early on in digital there was a lot of talk of NOT using the same camera our client's kids could afford and the recent economy and the resulting production levels have moved a lot us to dslrs, but today probably more than anytime it is important not to use the same equipment our clients can use.  Today it's more important to stand out from the crowd than ever before. (and it's a damn noisy crowd).

There are exceptions to every rule but usually easy simple production makes for uninspiring images.  

I'm not dissing any 35mm camera, I have Canons and Nikons and they are quite amazing,  but today I am firm in my belief that it's not a one camera, one system world.  It wasn't in the film days, not so in the digital age either.

I'm also not someone that stares for hours at digital images on the 200% level or truly believes in all the quotes of ultimate image quality, but some cameras that are larger, more difficult to use  allow us (me)  to produce imagery that in my view just looks different.  

Whether this comes from ccd's, no aa filter, using a proper tripod or slightly larger formats is irrelevant.   Different is different.

Now when you factor in price, or the comments that everyone wants larger cameras to costs less, specialty equipment always costs more, but usually has a much longer shelf life.  I may go through computers and iphones, ipads and monitors like water but nothing in our studio has had the shelf life of our medium format backs, no images in our library allow for deeper post production than the ones from the larger cameras, so at the end of the day, the costs of cameras are pretty much equal.

My current two backs have run for 6 years and are still going and the dslrs, their usually 18 months systems.

In fact I believe most of the reason many of us shelved our medium format cameras had nothing to do with the cameras, it was software, as every company seemed to have a period of software glitches, though today, most of them are stable, most are equal and even if my dslrs produce an in camera jpeg, we still process out every image for review so our back end post routine hasn't changed whether it's shot 35mm or larger.

Now where is that white Hasselblad on Samy's website?

JR


James, your post reminds me in some ways an old one that you wrote here before about a friend of you who regularly comes back to film MF when he has the blues, then when satisfy, back to digital imagery.
I guess those are cicles.

« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 09:52:06 AM by fredjeang » Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2010, 12:58:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Of all the talk, (mine included), of better lcd's, higher iso, live view I've come to the conclusion that it's quite fine that professional cameras are slightly more difficult to use.

snip...

Now where is that white Hasselblad on Samy's website?

The moderators might want to investigate this impostor?
« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 01:02:14 PM by Keith Laban » Logged

James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2010, 02:24:52 PM »
ReplyReply

The moderators might want to investigate t


Maybe as Fred says it's a stage and I'm not going to throw away my Nikons or Canons and maybe some of this is just blowback from the way we have worked in the last few years, but I really like a camera that is a professional camera.  I'm not digitally unaware and I'll admit  it never fails to flip me out when I look at that casio watch sourced phase lcd, but when working with lights, in production I've really come to appreciate the digital backs.

We've done so much recently in post with this person put next to that person, that prop moved 4" etc. etc., all at breakneck speed,  that maybe it's just perception but it seems I'm more thoughtful, even respectful when I shoot a larger camera.

Today a friend stopped by.   Someone that started me in photography . . .one of my heros.   He pulled out a little point and shoot and did a snap.  Now this photographer I've known forever and I don't think before digital he probably would have considered a Nikon F3 a small camera. 

Watching him take a few snaps with that little toy just kind of shook me and I realized that's exactly where I don't want to be, taking snaps . . . of anything . . . ever.

It was kind of like seeing Ronaldinho playing croquet.

One thing I do know, rarely if ever have I seen someone who owns a larger camera not eventually go back to it, unless they sold it.


JR
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2010, 03:00:55 PM »
ReplyReply

snip...

...I've come to the conclusion that it's quite fine that professional cameras are slightly more difficult to use.

That's a line I may well purloin.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 03:06:35 PM by Keith Laban » Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2010, 03:07:43 PM »
ReplyReply

even bigger snip...

...It was kind of like seeing Ronaldinho playing croquet.

...and there's another.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 03:09:20 PM by Keith Laban » Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2010, 03:14:47 PM »
ReplyReply

JR,

The market is gravitating back to more produced images.  All that flare, rough and tumble and natural light style was picked up by every Model Mayhem stills shooter from Valley Village to "East" Williamsburg.  Everything started to look the same.  The last mood board I was shown was plastered with 2002/2003 beauty ads, even one I shot on Provia with an RZ.  Really produced, lots of precise strobe, lots of styling.

To summarize: McGinley is out, McDean is in.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2010, 03:14:56 PM »
ReplyReply


but I really like a camera that is a professional camera.  I'm not digitally unaware and I'll admit  it never fails to flip me out when I look at that casio watch sourced phase lcd, but when working with lights, in production I've really come to appreciate the digital backs.

We've done so much recently in post with this person put next to that person, that prop moved 4" etc. etc., all at breakneck speed,  that maybe it's just perception but it seems I'm more thoughtful, even respectful when I shoot a larger camera.

Today a friend stopped by.   Someone that started me in photography . . .one of my heros.   He pulled out a little point and shoot and did a snap.  Now this photographer I've known forever and I don't think before digital he probably would have considered a Nikon F3 a small camera.  

Watching him take a few snaps with that little toy just kind of shook me and I realized that's exactly where I don't want to be, taking snaps . . . of anything . . . ever.


JR

I do too. Maybe that is why I never ended feel totally comfortable with the 5D MK2 handling but yes with the Mark1. Being a fantastic camera the 5d feels like a toy really.
Okay, it is a toy-tool or tooltoy. But it has great IQ, great usability, total universality and... this video.

Cheers.  



« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 09:51:16 AM by fredjeang » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8208



WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2010, 03:23:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Of all the talk, (mine included), of better lcd's, higher iso, live view I've come to the conclusion that it's quite fine that professional cameras are slightly more difficult to use.

Hum... fine, but the lack of live view doesn't just makes things more challenging and therefore a differentiator in favor of the pros, it make it next to impossible to have perfectly optimal results every time. Therefore it does penalize the pro by reducing the image quality that could set them apart from the crowds of amateurs that will nail their focus everytime with their live view enabled DSLR. The same thing goes with inaccurate/slow AF,...

This is probably not a big issue for a fashion pro like you, but think about product photography or landscape.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 1696


« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2010, 03:34:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Hum... fine, but the lack of live view doesn't just makes things more challenging and therefore a differentiator in favor of the pros, it make it next to impossible to have perfectly optimal results every time. Therefore it does penalize the pro by reducing the image quality that could set them apart from the crowds of amateurs that will nail their focus everytime with their live view enabled DSLR. The same thing goes with inaccurate/slow AF,...

This is probably not a big issue for a fashion pro like you, but think about product photography or landscape.
if you are so anal about focus you can also take an Arca Rm3D... especially for product and landscape work.
Then again I am not aware of a lot of landscape photography shot at f1.4 or 2.0...
Live View is certainly nice, and it would be a very welcomed feature on a DB. Then again it's not the only way to get accurate focus...

Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 30, 2010, 03:35:44 PM »
ReplyReply

snip...

Hum... fine, but the lack of live view doesn't just makes things more challenging and therefore a differentiator in favor of the pros, it make it next to impossible to have perfectly optimal results every time.

I doff my hat to you, you're the only photographer I've ever come across who expects perfectly optimal results every time.
Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2010, 04:09:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm still trying to figure out why I would really need live view after all these years without it. There is no way in the world it would make me any better with it. I honestly do not see the need . Now if I am tethered in the first place what really would be the point saving a frame from actually checking the image to see if i got it okay. If it is a focus issue than I just switch off AF and do it myself. I'm rarely off and I know many shooters that go to manual more for comfort zone than relying on AF which anyone that truly trusts AF on ANY cam is always at risk. AF is easily fooled. Sure it has it's place but the DF is pretty much spot on all the time anyway. I'm sure others are as well. This sudden need for live view must be coming from the newer generation shooters. I come from the days where Polaroid was a dream on our cams. But each his own, just another thing to get in the way of shooting. My teaching theory on shooting is keep it simple work on the image not the gear. Again I share this opinion as mine, no need to conform.

Would it be nice, I guess i have it on the Canon never used it. Seriously folks they day you don't trust your own abilities is the day you need to find other work. 
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8208



WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2010, 04:16:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I doff my hat to you, you're the only photographer I've ever come across who expects perfectly optimal results every time.

If we are both speaking about focus accuracy, why settle for less than perfection when technology makes it a breeze? Isn't the strive for perfection the very message that James is promoting here?

Things move forward in every domain and technology does redefine the bottom line. It used to be OK for doctors to mis-diagnose the start of a bronchitic for a cold. Now those who would not bother doing the right test go to jail if they don't get it right every time.

Different types of impacts obviously, but again, I do agree with James that Pros need to be at the forefront in terms of quality of the results, but disagree with him that the lack of live view can be a plus.

The reasonable way of reacting to the current situation is to demand from the back makers that they deliver live view, not to try to deny the fact that DSLRs have a clear advantage there.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 8208



WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2010, 04:24:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Would it be nice, I guess i have it on the Canon never used it. Seriously folks they day you don't trust your own abilities is the day you need to find other work. 

Well Guy, you eyesight must be outstanding then.

Mine is assessed as perfect each time I test it, but yet when I did compare the quality of focus I achieved with naked eyes vs live view using a Zeiss100mm f2.0 at f6.3 for subjects located 100-200 meters away from me, I see a clear difference of average sharpness over 10 frames. This is not a belief, it is a fact for me.

If you did the test also in the context of your needs and couldn't see any difference, then you don't need live view. I wonder if all the photographers who claim they don't need the capability actually did this test or not.

To my eyes, this difference is about the same I see when using the best DSLR lens compared to an average one, both used at optimal aperture.

It is also similar to the difference in sharpness I see when using a best in class tripod as is vs using it weighted down with a 5kg load.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 156


« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2010, 04:44:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Would it be nice, I guess i have it on the Canon never used it. Seriously folks they day you don't trust your own abilities is the day you need to find other work.  

What I want most from a new back - Live View - pared with a decent lcd! - this will makes life so much easier on location with a tech camera, but then again, I apparently don't need it with my lack of trust in own abilities Wink
Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 30, 2010, 04:50:34 PM »
ReplyReply

No it is not but really my point being is sure Live View can be a great benefit be the last to argue that point. It can slow you down also and obviously not always practical in the field and such. The real issue and it gets so overlooked is have you ever met a AF cam with a decent manual focusing screen. Think about it none of them are good at manual focusing. Now go pick up a Leica R9 and manual focus a R lens. Pretty much dead on each and every time. Why because they use focusing screens meant for manual focusing. I have a 7D here I just got actually and sure it does AF but try manual focusing with it , frankly it sucks as they all do. Even my DF is not the greatest at manual focusing it could be better but the AF is pretty accurate on it.

Also the other point is this if it don't have Live View it is crap and I am not buying it. Not speaking at anyone here but what the heck is that all about have we become so dependent on this technology wagon we can't do stuff ourselves . I just keep hearing this whining about this and that and than it repeats 10 more times. The bottom line is Live View is next to impossible with CCD sensors as they heat up when they are ON. Need to solve the heat issue before you can do that. These are BIG sensors that generate a lot of power and heat. I'm not so sure we are truly even there yet. I'm not a scientist by any stretch but just logic alone tells you obviously there is a limitation here.

If anything I think the LCD is more important to most users
Logged

adammork
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


« Reply #35 on: September 30, 2010, 05:08:52 PM »
ReplyReply


If anything I think the LCD is more important to most users

couldn't agree more - Live View, will be pointless with the crappy lcd's we have to deal with every day.... I still can't belive why this is so hard - 80 mp same lcd... it's like putting a V12 in an old VW Beatle.

Now phase have the opportunity to do it right with a new back design - it's going to be interesting to hear the excuses this time for not providing a lcd that can match a phone or a cheap compact camera - I really do hope that the excuses are not needed!
Logged

tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #36 on: September 30, 2010, 05:35:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, those dslr's viewfinders are garbage for manual focusing, so as the autofocus lenses
I think the finders are generally okay, but you have to use appropriate screens. The regular clear AF screens are hard to focus manually. But this also goes for medium format cameras... IMO.
As to AF lenses the Contax AF lenses are okay for manual focusing; not perfect but clearly good enough.
Logged
paul_jones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 565


WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 30, 2010, 06:14:27 PM »
ReplyReply

if anyone at phase is listening.... please make a removable finder!
better yet, make a few different finder options- more money that you can make with selling more accessories.

paul


Logged

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

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 30, 2010, 07:01:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Honestly what I REALLY want is a viewfinder that can magnify to the crop sensor. So if you have a P40, P45 you can just dial in to that crop and see nothing but image to size. Not crop lines. That would make my day for sure
Logged

BobDavid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1079


« Reply #39 on: September 30, 2010, 09:34:07 PM »
ReplyReply

The only high-resolution digital camera that I can focus manually with 95% reliability is the Sony a850. The optical viewfinder is terrific. I also have Hassey H2f, which is okay, but not nearly as good as the Sony for critical manual focus.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad