Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: You can't do That with medium format  (Read 55831 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 09, 2010, 08:49:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not surprised. The weight of a P65+ system plus lenses plus sturdy tripod would make it very impractical to carry the additional weight of a 1Ds3. Carrying just two 35mm DSLRs creates a conflict for me. I like my D700 with 14-24/2.8 lens, but I also like my 5D with 24-105/F4 and my 50D with EF-S 17-55/2.8, not to mention my 100-400 IS zoom.

Well, the conflict for me only boils down to which camera system to pack and carry...do I put the Phase One and P65+ with 28mm, 45mm 75-150mm and 300mm in my Sling bag 300 or the 1DS MII with a 16-35mm, 24-105mm and 70-200mm in a sling bag 200. The tripod would be the same, the Gitzo system 6 carbon fiber tripod. So it boils down to slightly less than 20lbs. for the 1Ds MIII system to about 35lbs for the Phase...depending on what I'm shooting, one wins out over the other. But the P65+ is winning more time than the 1Ds MIII since I have both because IQ is very important to me. If you don't have medium format, the choice is, of course, simpler.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #21 on: October 09, 2010, 10:17:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Or use a Phase One P65+ and stitch 7 or 8 60MP captures together...it all depends on what you are trying to achieve. Max image quality with stitched 60MP medium format captures is pretty impressive. It will beat the heck out of a DSLR...

But why would you want to stitch 7 or 8 60mp captures together? Is there a printer big enough to make full use of so much detail? That would be a truly massive project. Not even a billboard requires that much detail. Are you seriously claiming that you find the 60mp of the P65+ sometimes inadequate for your purposes?

Stitching images has often been a pain because of parallax errors when the subject is close, and is something I would rather avoid doing if there's an easier alternative. Stuffing around with pano heads or even using an L bracket to shift the camera body in the opposite direction to the lens shift, is something I've painstakingly tried in the past. I've also wasted a lot of time trying to get perfect stitches of hand-held shots with standard lenses, so I'm now overjoyed I can use a TSE without tripod, for close subjects too, and get perfect stitches as easy as falling off a log.

I think you would probably agree that a stitch of 3 images with a TSE lens on a 1Ds3, with camera vertical, would provide as close as matters to the resolution and detail of a P65+, especially if one fills in a bit of sky or grass with 'context aware' instead of cropping. In fact, in some respects I think the stitched TSE image would be better with regard to edge distortion which gets pretty obvious with extreme wide-angle lenses. I don't believe a lens exists for the P65+  that could provide the angle of view of a stitch of 3 images from a Canon TSE 17mm. Am I right?

Now, if you need to go to the trouble of stitching images from your P65+ in order to get a sufficiently wide angle of view, wouldn't you prefer to uses a lighter set-up and make it easier for yourself, or do you see merit in producing images with unecessary trouble that are unnecessarily detailed for the intended print size?

Quote
So, Ray, do you shoot medium format? Are you talking from experience or a reluctance to buy/use medium format because of cost or convenience? If you don't have medium format experience then your opinion may have less relevance and your opinions are more likely an attempt at rationalizing your lack of medium format capability than being truely knowledgeable in your opinions of the limitations of medium format capture. Don't know...just asking...

Yes, Jeff. I was using MF film for some time before I bought my first DSLR, the Canon D60, and used to scan the negatives on the Nikon 8000 ED MF scanner which I bought for the purpose. I still have my Mamiya RB67 stored away with a few prime lenses ranging from 50mm to 300mm, and the much lighter Fuji GSW690 III rangefinder MF camera with fixed 50mm lens. I preferred the GSW690 despite it having a fixed lens, because it was much lighter and easier to handle than the Mamiya tank. As I recall, I avoided using F22.


Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2010, 01:05:55 AM »
ReplyReply

MF sucks
DSLR sucks

I recently taked to a very good and high paid painter and according to him nothing beats a good horse brush.
It's a lot cheaper also.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2010, 01:30:44 AM »
ReplyReply

MF sucks
DSLR sucks

I recently taked to a very good and high paid painter and according to him nothing beats a good horse brush.
It's a lot cheaper also.

I'm a painter too, Frank.

I paint (or draw) with light. It's called photography.

By the way, Frank, Caravaggio would have appreciated the chiaroscuro effect in many of your photos you've shown us on this forum. I couldn't help noticing the similarity. Well done!  Smiley
« Last Edit: October 10, 2010, 01:41:14 AM by Ray » Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2010, 01:56:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I love the old masters.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2010, 02:30:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, the conflict for me only boils down to which camera system to pack and carry...do I put the Phase One and P65+ with 28mm, 45mm 75-150mm and 300mm in my Sling bag 300 or the 1DS MII with a 16-35mm, 24-105mm and 70-200mm in a sling bag 200. The tripod would be the same, the Gitzo system 6 carbon fiber tripod. So it boils down to slightly less than 20lbs. for the 1Ds MIII system to about 35lbs for the Phase...depending on what I'm shooting, one wins out over the other. But the P65+ is winning more time than the 1Ds MIII since I have both because IQ is very important to me. If you don't have medium format, the choice is, of course, simpler.

If the choice is simpler it's because the total weight of carrying two systems is less. The difference in format size between the P65+ and full frame 35mm is about the same as the difference in format size between the Canon APS-C and FF 35mm.

Because of the lower total weight and the compatibility of lenses between the two Canon formats, it's much easier to throw in a 7D which will of course deliver sharper results with your 70-200 at 200mm when 200mm is not long enough with the 1Ds3.

It becomes more complicated, or at least as complicated as your situation, when the choice of an additional, but different brand of FF 35mm camera, may be desired, as in the D700 with 14-24/2.8 lens in addition to Canon gear.

When making such choices you really do have to consider the effective focal length of the lenses you intend to carry.

In your situation, you've deprived yourself of the flexibility of a couple of zoom lenses in the wide angle and telephoto range, by choosing the P65+ in preference to the 1Ds3. Now that's fine. It's your choice. You've sacrificed flexibility and lower weight for enhanced image quality. But let's not pretend there's no sacrifice.

« Last Edit: October 10, 2010, 02:32:12 AM by Ray » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #26 on: October 10, 2010, 03:06:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I love the old masters.

So do I. I'm really pissed off that I didn't buy a 17mm TSE and 5D2 for my recent trip to Europe and Russia. I just assumed I wouldn't be allowed to photograph those marvelous works in the Russian Museum and the Hermitage in St Petersburg, not to mention the scores of churches and palaces containing amazing murals.

Of course, MFDB and the mandatory tripod, or flash, are definitely banned in such places. If you tried to use an MFDB without a tripod, the maximum ISO would not be sufficient to get a sharp result in the lighting conditions, so it would be a waste of time and effort.
Logged
Dennis Carbo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 163


WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 10, 2010, 07:31:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Seriously...this is ridiculous...Ray you obviously love your Canon DSLR and I am sure it produces fine images, But we could start a thread "You cant do that with  an 8 x 10" ......I mean every format has its strengths and weaknesses and situations where it shines, Your Canon DSLR is more portable than a MF system...great...but to pretend it equals a MF system in image quality is silly...A MFDB from 2004 will produce better files than any current DSLR - I know because I use both every day to earn a living -  There is more to it than stitching together images to equal the resolution of a MFDB

Many of us use both systems, I have shot with my DSLR and thought damn i wish I had the MF, I have also shot with the MF and said "damn wish I had the 4 x 5".....had the 4 x5 ...wished I had the 8 x 10 - In my work rarely do I wish I had a smaller format, but I will use the proper tool for the job !

Well ...off to shoot the local game with my P2 and scan back !  cant beat the resolution !  Tongue Roll Eyes

Happy shooting !
Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 10, 2010, 11:34:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, the conflict for me only boils down to which camera system to pack and carry...do I put the Phase One and P65+ with 28mm, 45mm 75-150mm and 300mm in my Sling bag 300 or the 1DS MII with a 16-35mm, 24-105mm and 70-200mm in a sling bag 200. The tripod would be the same, the Gitzo system 6 carbon fiber tripod. So it boils down to slightly less than 20lbs. for the 1Ds MIII system to about 35lbs for the Phase...depending on what I'm shooting, one wins out over the other. But the P65+ is winning more time than the 1Ds MIII since I have both because IQ is very important to me. If you don't have medium format, the choice is, of course, simpler.

Okay way off topic. Jeff you can get your Phase Kit in the Sling Bag 300. I'm using Think Tank Streetwalker Pro and maybe looking for a change basically same kit in size DF/Back 28,35,55LS,80LS and 150. Have to check one out.

Thanks and to add to the topic .

It's nothing to carry a MF kit anywhere, if you can't handle 35 lbs to go to work on your back than get a roller bag. Like Jeff i want the best image quality period and this just goes with the territory. If MF is what you chose to shoot you WILL find a way to get it done.


Back to the rerun topic. LOL
« Last Edit: October 10, 2010, 11:36:08 AM by Guy Mancuso » Logged

Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #29 on: October 10, 2010, 03:26:35 PM »
ReplyReply

F22 with a medium format is better IQ than a DSLR at F22...again, depends on what you want.
In the same shot (with a shorter lens and same angle-of-view) you would not need f22 with ff 35mm.

The under-bonnet shot I posted the other day was @ f22, to get the DOF @ COC = 30 microns, and the Airy disc was also 30, so at the PoSF the pic was no sharper - it all looked sharp, as none of it was sharp.

I did do it with MF (without movements) ...but did I get a better picture than I could have done with FF 35mm? ...and a T/S lens?

...This was on a tripod with MLU, but when you are hand-holding a 300mm on 645, you have to compromise between high-ISO noise and camera shake and DOF  ...and with a H4D-40 you might do OK, but with any other MF?
Logged

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

Posts: 1730


« Reply #30 on: October 10, 2010, 03:37:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, the conflict for me only boils down to which camera system to pack and carry..
MF DSLRs and lenses are heavy, and a mirror-free MF system with several lenses might actually be lighter than a MFDSLR system?

The Schneider Apo-Digitars are light, and not too bulky on small lensboards (e.g. P3/F3).

The Hasselblad Flexbody is light, but the MF lenses for it are quite heavy.

Does anyone back-pack a mirror-free MFD system, and what does it weigh?

What is the best Medium format Digital view camera for back-packing?

...of course, if you want to use your set of lenses for other work, you might want a lightweight system using the same lensboards.
Logged

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

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 10, 2010, 05:31:49 PM »
ReplyReply

But why would you want to stitch 7 or 8 60mp captures together? Is there a printer big enough to make full use of so much detail? That would be a truly massive project. Not even a billboard requires that much detail. Are you seriously claiming that you find the 60mp of the P65+ sometimes inadequate for your purposes?

Because, image quality matters to me...for example, this image on Monument Valley was done with 8 P65+ captures with a 45mm lens. See: Monument Valley. That image is sized at 36" x 107" at about 288 PPI (for printing on my Epson 9900 printer). What would the print size be with an 8 shot pano with a 1Ds MIII? Smaller for sure. Yes, I could have stiched 2 or 3 28mm P65+ captures to get the same final crop but at a much smaller print size. The image was done with only 3 P65+ captures: Monument Valley 2.

Many of the shots at SW Selects were P65+ panos. Again, if you care about image quality, larger captures are better even if you have to stitch to get the size you want. And, again, the whole point of the article is to encourage people to consider medium format for things some shooter would shy away from using medium format for.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2010, 05:37:49 PM by Schewe » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 10, 2010, 05:36:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, Jeff. I was using MF film for some time before I bought my first DSLR, the Canon D60, and used to scan the negatives on the Nikon 8000 ED MF scanner which I bought for the purpose.

Ah, so your experience is medium format film, not medium format digital huh? Big difference bud. Bottom line, you really can't compare a 24MP DSLR capture with a 60MP medium format capture. Apples/oranges...the only question is; does medium format get relegated to only use on a tripod for non-moving subjects? Jim Martin says no...I agree. You use the equipment you need to use to get the IQ you want. In Jim's case, that's medium format, even if he's shooting close ups of a bug or a lemur.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2010, 03:31:06 AM »
ReplyReply

"Ah, so your experience is medium format film, not medium format digital huh? Big difference bud."

I don't think that's fair argumemt, Schewe; the point being made is about ergonomics and the portability problems associated wih larger, heavier equipment.

Exactly the same quandries existed in film; think of film as a different sensor, nothing more, nothing less, and you can't avoid seeing the similarity. It's the equipment that is heavier, not as versatile and more clumsy. It isn't really so much about quality because in the real world, people making prints at the sizes you mention are very few and far between, so other than for them, quality is much the same. Regarding stitching, there are always going to be those who need it, as there will be those who are in thrall to the experience simply because it's another game to play.

Let's just accept that horses for courses is the reality; that money is often a big issue for the non-pro; that some people who can afford to spend more also use their discretion and observe that splendid and famous French concept; rapport qualité-prix (RQP) which can easily be forgotten in the excitement of the camera shop blandishments. The Pretty Woman shopping scene psychology comes to mind.

Rob C
Logged

Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2010, 04:03:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Back in the late 80s I was told in no uncertain terms that if I didn't shoot 6x7 (as opposed to 35mm) I would not be able to get into the stock game.  This was good advice and I shlepped around a Pentax 6x7 for many years. Compared to that, MFDB systems are a total breeze.

If you want maximum image quality you need to suffer.

Then I moved to 4x5, better quality, more suffering.

Now, my S2 is smaller, lighter and vastly better quality that my old Pentax 6x7. OK is more expensive but it's easier to use, has better AF (!), shoots faster, has a better viewfinder - I could go on. I suffer a tiny bit compared to my Canons, but it's a small price to pay for the awesome results.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #35 on: October 11, 2010, 04:11:44 AM »
ReplyReply

This seems to me to be yet another of these nonsensical threads, where there is endless debate over the truth (or not) of the blindingly obvious.

Of course your choice of camera equipment and format to some extent limits the kind of photography you can do and the quality of the result. That is a given - one would not choose to shoot 10x8 film to cover a football match. And equally, the photographer will choose an appropriate camera and format to match his or her intended subject. Beyond that, it merely a matter of personal preference and cost.

End of story.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #36 on: October 11, 2010, 04:31:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I can't help feeling that the OP would be better served by agonising over his own images and gear rather than that of others.
Logged

Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 700



WWW
« Reply #37 on: October 11, 2010, 05:11:57 AM »
ReplyReply

one would not choose to shoot 10x8 film to cover a football match.

No, but you could do it in theory. Don't forget all sport was shot on 4x5 camera a while back and they got pretty good results. They worked with the tools that they had.

Sometime pushing the boundaries leads to special results. I was once involved in shooting a live rock and roll concert on 6x17 film, not exactly a normal choice of camera. It was not easy but the 'hero' shot from the project ended up being printed 6 feet long in an exhibition and it looked utterly amazing. Consider standing in the centre of the mosh pit on a milk crate, with two security guys for 'cover' and shooting live action with no TTL viewfinder and only 4 frames per roll.

Not easy, but I believe the original article was, like Jeff Shewe says, making the point that sometime you can force the 'wrong' gear to do things it is not really meant to do, but if you can pull it off through inspiration and/or perspiration, then the results can transcend the ordinary.

Using the rock concert example, there were plenty of images taken at the same time on more appropriate gear but only one image ended up as the centrepiece of the exhibit - ours. It was worth the effort.
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Landscape Photographer
www.nickrains.com
iPad Publishing
www.photique.com.au
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #38 on: October 11, 2010, 06:30:08 AM »
ReplyReply

No, but you could do it in theory. Don't forget all sport was shot on 4x5 camera a while back and they got pretty good results. They worked with the tools that they had.
¿Remember the Speed Graphic?
- no, I am no that old either ¿Rob?
...but, with the new fast 5 * 4 sheet film in pre-loaded holders, photojournalists with press shutters could shoot several frames a minute - and you could even use them hand-held in good light!
Logged

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

Posts: 8878


« Reply #39 on: October 11, 2010, 07:06:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Because, image quality matters to me...for example, this image on Monument Valley was done with 8 P65+ captures with a 45mm lens. See: Monument Valley. That image is sized at 36" x 107" at about 288 PPI (for printing on my Epson 9900 printer). What would the print size be with an 8 shot pano with a 1Ds MIII? Smaller for sure. Yes, I could have stiched 2 or 3 28mm P65+ captures to get the same final crop but at a much smaller print size. The image was done with only 3 P65+ captures: Monument Valley 2.

Many of the shots at SW Selects were P65+ panos. Again, if you care about image quality, larger captures are better even if you have to stitch to get the size you want. And, again, the whole point of the article is to encourage people to consider medium format for things some shooter would shy away from using medium format for.

Jeff,
I will not try to pretend that those stitches of scenes from Death Valley are anything less than spectacular and appear to be of the finest technical quality, even in the small jpeg form displayed on your site.

However, if you're going to set up a system to take multiple shots for stitching purposes, is it not just as easy (or almost as easy) to use a 35mm DSLR and take more shots for the same resulting image size? In your example of Monument Valley, instead of 8 shots with a P65+ you would probably need 16 or 20 shots with a 1Ds3.

Of course, I would agree that 8 shots with a DSLR is easier than 20 shots with a DSLR, but I'm not sure that 20 shots with a DSLR is much more difficult or more time-consuming than 8 shots with a P65+, considering the really slow frame rate of the P65+ and (I presume) the relatively small buffer in relation to its large files.

In fact, at the 5 fps the 1Ds3 is capable of, you could could probably quite easily and quickly exposure-bracket each position and get a resulting stitched image with equal resolution but higher DR than your P65+ stitch.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 19 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad