Ad
Ad
Ad
Poll
Question: Can you spot  which files came from the Hasselblad H3D-50?
A C E - 2 (4.3%)
A D E - 7 (14.9%)
A D F - 5 (10.6%)
A C F - 1 (2.1%)
B C E - 3 (6.4%)
B D E - 6 (12.8%)
B D F - 4 (8.5%)
B C F - 4 (8.5%)
no idea, who cares? - 14 (29.8%)
all of them - 0 (0%)
none of them - 1 (2.1%)
Total Voters: 45

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Spot the Medium Format Files  (Read 11143 times)
ctz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2010, 05:48:05 AM »
ReplyReply

BDF for MF
Logged
MH
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #21 on: October 10, 2010, 06:43:01 AM »
ReplyReply

A C F
Logged
geesbert
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536



WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2010, 01:59:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Hasselblad files:  B C F
Canon files: A D E

what does that mean to me? I really try to get that MF thing working for me, I really like big cameras, but whenever I try it either costs me a lot of money (remember my Leaf ordeal?) or it doesn't give me any more value than what I am getting out of my current system. Even more, I don't think I could comfortably work with what's on offer in the MF world.

On my Eizo the hasselblad files clearly show more resolution and I am probably more used to working with canon files, so maybe I messed up the H files, but still, up to today no one has proven to me that the hassle and expense of going MF would help me produce better images.

Often people say MF slows them down and thus makes them think. that doesn't help me in my kind of work when my herbs are wilting cause I cannot find the right focus. The Hasselblad previews appear nearly instantly on my screen, but then it takes nearly 13 seconds to get a 100% view.  With the canon it is 7 seconds, which often feels way too long when you try to catch sauce running of a spoon.

The Hasselblad files take up about 5 times the space on my harddrive. People say storage is cheap, but still I prefer handling a shoot with 10 GB to 50GB.

Handholding the H, especially in portrait, with the HTS is impossible for a whimp like me, but it's quite easy with canon 1ds, with the 5d mk2 I do that 10 hours in a row.

than there is the question of backup. I think this little game has proven that a 5dmk2 is a proper backup to any MF, but when I promise and charge my clients to get them those yummy 100MB files I cannot use a canon if the main camera decides to cave in.

don't even get me started about cost...

If it works for you, I am really happy for you. For me it certainly doesn't.
Logged

-------------------------
WWW.RANDLKOFER.COM
bdp
Full Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 238


WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2010, 02:16:18 PM »
ReplyReply

 Grin
Logged
Terence h
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2010, 02:25:54 PM »
ReplyReply

 Cool
Logged

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

Posts: 136


« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2010, 05:14:01 PM »
ReplyReply

...up to today no one has proven to me that the hassle and expense of going MF would help me produce better images.

Well, I got 'em right, so feel free to send me all your MF gear...  Wink

FWIW, I thought the difference in these examples was subtle, yet fairly obvious at the pixel level. The fine detail is, well, finer... more structured/organized... something. I'm not sure exactly how to describe it, but I can see it.

That said, I think your earlier point about "no one sees them in 100% on calibrated Eizos" is absolutely true. Just because the MF files are better, that doesn't mean the Canon files are automatically inadequate for your work.
Logged
pcunite
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


« Reply #26 on: October 10, 2010, 07:18:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I am shocked, I chose ADE. With the recent posts showing 1Ds Mark III vs. Hasselblad, I am changing an opinion I've had. MFD is not better in the studio (unless you need the resolution) for any reasonable business need. However, I still hold the opinion that MFD is better for distance objects shot outside. If you do extensive retouching MFD seems to be easier as well. I don't know... Annie shot the Queen using a 1Ds Mark III and a 24-70L. Why can't we all just get along? Those of you with MFD, have fun with them, they are neat, I like the DOF control and so on. 35 users have nothing to fear. Seems to me we can all just use what we like and be happy.
Logged
pixjohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 672


« Reply #27 on: October 10, 2010, 07:19:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I was right on 100%, being wrong that is. Sad

I will admit I only looked on my laptop. I now need to go back and look on my other system. I have never worked with a canon camera so trying to judge the look of Canon files against the Hasselblad was definitely a blind test for me. I have been a Leaf Aptus user and also shoot with a Nikon D700. I tested the Hasselblad h4-50 a few months ago, and  was ready to buy the system if I liked the images, and can say I did not like the look of the files.
Logged
claudefiddler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #28 on: October 10, 2010, 07:50:59 PM »
ReplyReply

For me this test confirms that the canon system is right for the type of commercial work (melting ice cream, running gravy, wilting lettuce etc.) shown. But it's not any kind of a test that could be applied to landscape work.

I couldn't see an immediate or glaring difference in the test images but I wouldn't take that to mean that a canon full frame image is close to a medium format system image for landscape work. That comparison would truly fall apart in a large (32x40 inch) print.

So I guess I'll take the test results for what they are. For me they show that different tools are needed (or at least better suited) for different jobs.

Claude Fiddler
wildernesslight.com

 
Logged
MH
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2010, 04:39:39 AM »
ReplyReply

what did you all expect from a canon camera? to only produce s**t?
of course it is a very good camera.

it seems that some of you guys are looking for reasons to put something bad on digital medium format cameras.
but why?
Logged
ced
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 266


« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2010, 06:21:21 AM »
ReplyReply

I hadn't noticed that you had put the answer before I chose B C F as I thought the other files ran to their limit very fast, whereas the MF files could go much further if one still had to blow them up or manipulate them...
Logged
perjorgen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2010, 12:17:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I hadn't noticed that you had put the answer before I chose B C F as I thought the other files ran to their limit very fast, whereas the MF files could go much further if one still had to blow them up or manipulate them...
Being able to manipulate the images much further than 35mm is one of the reasons for going MF. But I feel that the MF pictures look more natural the 35mm has a 'over sharpen' feeling to them.
The Canon delivers beautiful pictures and if you don't have to manipulate them, crop them insanely or make huge posters it will be the best choice because the Canon has much more features.
Logged

favalim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2010, 02:49:00 AM »
ReplyReply

there is a visible MF advantage if you know where to look at! The war between MF and DSLR has always been done on details and pixel peeping but this is the last thing to look at.
On the attached file you can see the different level of Hasselblad  in the creamy tone passage. On C and D files there is a clearly focusing error on Hasselblad shot.
In these days I have my HY6 e75 broken and have to use Canon (1DS MKII) ... the files look toys comparing to Sinar's.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #33 on: October 12, 2010, 08:24:32 AM »
ReplyReply

If you need to 'know what you are looking at', if most photographers who use the equipment involved still got it wrong - why would we think the client can tell the difference? Surely the difference for the client cannot be enough of a selling point if only photographers can tell? It must be other factors such as enlargement, ability to work the files, skin tones etc. Or am I wrong?
Logged

geesbert
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536



WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 12, 2010, 08:48:10 AM »
ReplyReply

On the attached file you can see the different level of Hasselblad  in the creamy tone passage.

The fine detail is, well, finer... more structured/organized... something.  

there is a visible MF advantage if you know where to look at!


that is exactly the BS we are hearing for years now, but hardly anyone really sees it, and no one does once in print. It's why I keep on testing this stuff. And it is why I keep on doing my commercial work with my Canon.
Logged

-------------------------
WWW.RANDLKOFER.COM
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2010, 09:18:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I wonder why they locked him in that box?
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2010, 09:48:27 AM »
ReplyReply

...and why he runs counterclockwise
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #37 on: October 12, 2010, 01:00:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Rumour has it it's a padded cell.
Logged

JBerardi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 136


« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2010, 01:10:32 PM »
ReplyReply


that is exactly the BS we are hearing for years now, but hardly anyone really sees it, and no one does once in print. It's why I keep on testing this stuff. And it is why I keep on doing my commercial work with my Canon.

Wait, the quality that I used to correctly identify all the MF files is BS? How does that work?
Logged
geesbert
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 536



WWW
« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2010, 01:43:33 PM »
ReplyReply

How about plain luck?

why did 92,5% of participants choose something different? 15% chose the canon files, that doesn't mean they are better, it only means the difference is hardly discernable and me personally, I'd rather spend the money and the time I save by shooting a 35mm solution on holidays with my family.
Logged

-------------------------
WWW.RANDLKOFER.COM
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad