Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Wanting to learn MF equipment  (Read 9314 times)
AvidVisionary
Guest
« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2011, 11:04:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Steve, the truth is MF film is better then DSLR. The quality is unsurpassed and if treated correctly when scanned then the quality is preserved. However, reading your comment I trust your judgement.

I still would like to know why a canon 17mm wide angle lens is called a CFE 4/40? Why is it called 40mm if it's wide angle?
Logged
Mr. Rib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 866


« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2011, 11:53:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Probably the cheapest GOOD way to scan would be a nikon LS 9000, that is if you can find one. Your other option is a used drum scanner which can be bought for pennies these days. Problem with drum scanning is that there's a learning curve to use it profficiently, ie wet mounting, controlling the software of the scanner etc. Oh and if an element like the bulb is busted then in most cases you can say goodbye to your scanner and look for another one, as the replacement parts would be more expensive than another used drum scanner hunted down on ebay.
The most reasonabe way is finding a lab on which you can depend when it comes to scanning, developing and printing.
If you want to go with anything worse than Nikon LS 9000, your Canon will wipe the floor with it- I can totally agree with it, especially if you take into the equation factors like time spent (wasted?) on scanning, correcting the scanned stuff etc. Epson 700 / 750 - everyone who has used it will tell you a different story, some will tell you that the quality is near 9000, some will tell you that its pretty much useless. It depends on what are your expectations, reading your last comment (about the superiority of MF vs DSLR), Epson wouldn't probaby deliver what you demand from MF. Speaking of which- DSLRs stack really high against MF these days.. you should browse some of the topics here like product photos shot with Canon (as far as I remember) vs Hasseblad H3D-39 shots.. there was a poll and most people here couldn't tell which were Hassy and which were delivered by Canon. So the unsurpassed- yes, probably, but in case of Multi-shot and new generation backs. Otherwise it's a different story. And new Nikons and Canons are just by the corner, I would definitely wait and see their intro prior to any investment at that point. And regarding your last question- hmm, for some questions google would be your best friend.
Logged
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2011, 12:02:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve, the truth is MF film is better then DSLR. The quality is unsurpassed and if treated correctly when scanned then the quality is preserved. However, reading your comment I trust your judgement.

I still would like to know why a canon 17mm wide angle lens is called a CFE 4/40? Why is it called 40mm if it's wide angle?
'
 The reason you aren't getting an answer is that this subject is well addressed (endlessly even)  in many other places - take a look at the manuf web sites (Phase One), a dealers site - (Capture Integration, etc.) or read some of the articles posted on LL. Homework time.
Logged

Geoff
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2011, 12:21:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Take all of this with a grain of salt, but understand your path is a familiar one.

the first thing every aspiring photographer does is pick up a camera, which really should be #3 on the list.

First is study of the masters, to learn why to do something, not how.  How is easy because that is usually just emulating someone else's  vision.

Which is a much different mindset.

The next step is to study the world around you and learn to see it two dimensionally.  My partner/stylist/producer is one of the few non photographers I know that can visualize in two dimensions and I consider her a real artist.

Third is to take a camera, usually one lens and shoot what is in your heart, not what is in your mind.   

In the very best hands a 5d compared to the highest level 80mpx camera only produces about a 1% difference in the final art, if that.

In fact most photographers I know moved to digital because of commercial demands from clients or the difficulty in traveling with film, but if you shoot with proclivity, you will eventually find there is no real cost savings in film to digital.

Not when you factor in computers, drives, software, calibrators, more computers, more drives more . . . plus the many thousands of hours of learning curve to relearn a software suite that results in very little difference from the previous software suite you spent 1,000 hours leaning.

For the casual amateur digital can be a cost saving excercize and for the weekend warrior digital allows a very easy path to seeing what you shot immediately and making corrections, but this usually isn't the best way to learn the art.

Compare drawing on a computer to painting in watercolor.  Obviously on the computer it's easy to make a mistake, easy to go back three steps, but there is no real penalty for mistakes.   On a piece of canvas there is no real redos and the mistake penalty is heavy.   Film is the same way.  You either get it or you don't, but that pressure of having to get it right the first time is a great learning experience.

I mean this in a kind way, but taking a good photograph is not that difficult, making a good photograph is much harder, making a great photograph is either luck of divine intervention.

The camera has little to do with any of this and right now you are at the crossroads.  You can be a camera/techno geek that fixates of pixel size,  sensor depth and spends little time shooting, a lot of time fixating, or become a photographer/artist/image creator.

Remember the more interesting scene you can place in front of the lens, the more interesting image will result.   

When I bought my first two original 1ds'  I told our studio manager if I was smart i would buy 4 more, put them in storage and never buy another still camera again.  i know if i had been smart enough to do that, I would have had more time to improve my art, more time to see the real world from a street level view, not a computer screen facsimile and I would have save $100,000s in the process.

Obviously technique is important, but photography is art aided by science, not science for the sake of science.

If a photograph is pretty nobody mentions technique, pixel depth or file size.  If it's not, that's all they seem to talk about.

Anyway, my suggestion would be to use what you have until you are absolutely positive it's keeping you from going forward, then think about investing in more upscale equipment. 

Or just start at the top end of the equipment heap and at least your leaning one workflow, one set of cameras.  The only problem with that is in the electronic age the top end keeps moving forward, so you never really catch up.

IMO

BC
Logged
LesPalenik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 542


WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2011, 01:06:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I still would like to know why a canon 17mm wide angle lens is called a CFE 4/40? Why is it called 40mm if it's wide angle?
Could be due to culture differences.
Canon lenses are made in Japan, whereas most medium format lenses come from Scandinavia.

A good and fast way to learn the MF photography would be to take a workshop. Both leading MF companies offer them including the equipment. 
« Last Edit: March 01, 2011, 01:10:22 PM by LesPalenik » Logged

AvidVisionary
Guest
« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2011, 11:29:06 PM »
ReplyReply

WOW!!!

You guys have been really informative and helpful. I have made up my mind and will not be buying a hasselblad until I am done with the 5D. I will be renting a hasselblad from time to time. Rent only for now. Just to get my feet wet.

I spoke to a hasselblad representative and he said that they give a monthly workshop for free to try it out and ask any question you may have. I guess I will be doing it once a month since this is the best way to learn.


Thank you to everyone who has helped and replied with my questions. I am so glad I chose this forum.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524


WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 02, 2011, 12:08:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,
About the wide angle.
This ismsimply explained, the larger the sensor gets the more mm's will be called wide angle.
On a 645 for example the 80mm is about equal as the 50mm on a FF DSLR, however on a 6x7 like the Mamiya rx67 it goes up even more app 110-120.

HOWEVER....
When you use a digital back remember that almost all also have a crop factor.
On the 645 this can range from 1.1 for the leaf aptusII5-7 to 1.4 (or more), when placing the same back on the RZ you will get a huge crop, meaning to get the same angle of view on the RZ you will need the same mm lens as on the 645 although the image on the viewfinder is huge, that's why you have to use crop marks on your glass.

About scanning film.
I'm using the v700 with a better scanning tranny (the normal tranny is almost useless if you want quality), I don't know where you got the idea it wipes the floor with the 5d but that is not true.
When I scan on the best possible way, with a good negative the results are stunning, when downsizing and comparing sharpness the REAL detail will clock in at about 16mp, also remember that film is a totally different animal than a digital sensor. With digital the sensor is 100% flat, film never is, meaning if you want real sharpness nothing beats the digital. If you want dynamic range a very well lit shot on film will not get close to a DSLR with most (if not all color film) on some b&w films it's very close or maybe slightly better.

Don't get me wrong I LOVE shooting film but more for creative issues.
Love to just destroy a film by lying it in the sun before shooting, or using expired film, it can get you some wonderful results which you can try to minic in Photoshop later on.

However scanning is a pain in the so called you know what Wink
Prepare for some dust removal after scanning, prepare for spending several hours fine tuning the tranny to get the perfect scan, and get newton glass to sandwich your negatives when they are curved.

Film for fun or creative process is fun, otherwise stick with a 5d mkII.
And when you outgrow that system go for MF but only if you can't do with the 5dMKII what you want.

MF is wonderful but it's not a miracle camera that will transform you into a better photographer, in the end it's about the image, the camera is just a tool.
Use MF when you want less DOF in your shot, use a DSLR when you need more for example.
I would never ever sell my DSLR, but also probably never will sell my MF, horses for courses with the exception that my 5dmkII does everything really well, and my MF does somethings excellent Wink
Logged
AvidVisionary
Guest
« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2011, 02:13:38 AM »
ReplyReply

"Prepare for some dust removal after scanning, prepare for spending several hours fine tuning the tranny to get the perfect scan, and get newton glass to sandwich your negatives when they are curved."

That makes complete sense. Life has ordained that the more hours you put into anything, the rewards are permanent. They are not short lived. The skill always remains with you. I found that that to be true into anything I put an effort towards and time.

I do prefer film more to digital because of the dynamic range. I am creative person more then technical.

This picture was taken with film. That is better then the digital pictures of today in my opinion.

http://img.topit.me/o/201012/03/12913857243528.jpg
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 02, 2011, 04:09:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Can't open the image.
I however think it's a myth that film has higher dynamic range.
Film has a different curve than digital which is pretty linear.
On the highlights film has a nice shoulder on most films but blacks are gone very quickly.
This is what we call expose for the media Wink
With film I will expose for the shadows and with digital I will try to light spot on or for the highlights.

When shooting raw I can't think about a film (except maybe some bw) that has greater dynamic range than a good DSLR.
Logged
AvidVisionary
Guest
« Reply #29 on: March 02, 2011, 04:46:27 AM »
ReplyReply

That's strange. I can open the image fine.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524


WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 02, 2011, 07:55:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree fred, but somehow the rumor still floats around the net Wink maybe with the old DSLRs film won on DR I really never tested it but it sure did not beat my 5d and mkII let alone my digital back.

I'm still shooting film sometimes (could say a regular base if once every 4-5 months is called regular) and I only use it for the LOOK, not for a so called advantage. Don't get me wrong I love film but when I compare it to a digital file that file has my preference for retouch, but film..... Well it's film it looks unique compared to digital which is perfect. Sometimes we just don't want perfect.

When I got into film someone told me it would beat the heck out of my 5dMK1 I was rather surprised when I saw my first roll, were my 5D held detail film was all muddy, but I did fall in love with the look and the feel of some films so I kept the film back for the 645 and later on bought the rz67 mainly to shoot film with, but not long after I also connected the digital back to that camera Wink

If one should point out one advantage it's the look, you can fake it in Photoshop but it doesn't look exactly the same way, it's hard to explain, and with the whole revival of the analogue look shooting film can be more interesting than ever for fashion. I know I still have a fridge full of expired film so who knows the coming weeks I will start shooting it again.

Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #31 on: March 02, 2011, 08:19:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Once someone explained to me, that a part of the different look of film is also due to
different lens design, especially in the area of spherical aberration correction.
Basically he told me that modern lenses which are designed for digital photography
are designed to have a very very strict plane of focus, which tends to create a very
sharp distinction between  sharp and unsharp areas as opposed to lenses designed
for film, which tend to give a smoother transition and are less corrected for spherical aberration.

Logged

AvidVisionary
Guest
« Reply #32 on: March 02, 2011, 08:21:18 AM »
ReplyReply

In cinematography film is more noticeable then digital because it's a moving image format. With still, it can be hard to judge to the untrained eyes.
Logged
coles
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #33 on: March 02, 2011, 10:33:08 AM »
ReplyReply

"Why is it that a wide angle Canon lens is 17mm and a Hasselblad wide angle is 40mm?"

As a college teacher, this reminds me very much of students that email us with a question like: "dear Dr. X, I'm a high school student doing a research paper, due this Friday. Can you please tell me everything about music in the Romantic era, its roots, style characteristics, and major composers?"

I hate to flame the OP, but the question at the top of this post shows so many gaps in his/her absolutely basic knowledge that it seems silly respond. When I was young, I read absolutely everything I could get my hands on for photography, and did lots of experimentation and shooting. Start by educating yourself on the easy stuff.
Logged
AvidVisionary
Guest
« Reply #34 on: March 02, 2011, 10:40:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I am educating my self by asking questions from professionals.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #35 on: March 02, 2011, 04:07:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that many people who recently came into photography are completly hypnotized and confused by equipment before they have gained maturity or experience
and before they can even purchase the gear. I know very well what I'm talking about because I've falled in that trap more than once in the past.

There is a sensation of need, wich of course is false, an idea that this or that gear will help to be a better photographer.

In fact, all they do is creating that way a new problem for themselves and an obstacle.

The internet din that tend to glorify the specs, that put values like DR, noise-free, resolution etc...above what all the great masters have always taught us has a lot to do with that sinistre fact.

Those western societies have managed to create generations of spoiled child who's toys are never enough, never good enough and that's a big trap. Big expensive toys that never garantee big imagery.
When you make a living on imagery, that is another story because those are your working tools.

The other day I saw a russian website with very good pics, a bunch of people shooting for passion with extremely primitives DSLRs and the level was very good. Sure that none of them even ask themselves where the Phase or whatever dealer is. Sometimes (don't get me wrong) limitations can enhance creativity, in fact they do. (I'm not in favor of a post communist reality, but what is happening here, this overdosis of toys and gadgets is creating other kinds of neurosis).

Now I could go MF,  I only shoot it at work but do not own myself a personal MF gear. I was about to do it, but then I asked myself what the hell will I do with an Hasselblad if I have my personal work almost frozen at the moment and I don't even know what I really want to express because it costs me a lot to shoot for shooting without having a "why" and a "what" that I really know authentic. I'm very much like Rob on that aspect. Do I want a 30000 bucks camera to point to some rocks on sunrise? (no provocation to the landscapers, it's just that I do not feel it)
What would I do with an MF gear right now? Some cool bottoms in high heels with more res? That's what I want? I don't bloody know. I don't have the answer just a little intuition about my picture dharma.

I'm precisely studding again the masters over and over again and that is where the answer is and I know it. The equipment is almost pointless because the right equipment will show-up at the right time when things are clear and on their way. For that all you need is to burn frames, a lot of frames and do things with love.

Same the other day when I suddenly had this reminder that my computers are now underpower, but when I asked myself the question if I could acheived so far all the tasks I wanted or needed the answer is yes indeed. The day that will not be the case I will upgrade.

Enjoy photography with what you have AvidVisionary, don't watch the graphics and the gear testings. What you really need will show-up. Don't be in a hurry, just enjoy. Studdy the masters and with the money saved, go for dates and dates with girls and enjoy life.

Inside the internet bazaar, the about 90% of false beleif and useless stuff, you really need to free the mind to stay clear. You where right to ask your doubts here in that section, you had already many good advices above on those pages from people who know.

edit: about gear testing, it's not that I think they are not usefull if done properlly,  but IMO it's better to buy first the equipment being "virgin" and start to use it with a certain inocence. Then, go to the testings if you need.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2011, 04:59:05 PM by fredjeang » Logged
AvidVisionary
Guest
« Reply #36 on: March 02, 2011, 05:01:53 PM »
ReplyReply

You just nailed it. You ingrained in me even more why I should not buy anything else.

Thank you, sincerely honest of you.
Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #37 on: March 03, 2011, 12:53:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I think I'll once get a Holga or Diana .... they are so cheap - its tempting just because of that ...
Logged

Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430


WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 03, 2011, 04:52:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Spend a few months shooting 4x5. Learn about with movements. Struggle with it, get some good shots, and  then MF will make a good deal more sense.

While this suggestion is notoriously old-school, and may seem like an odd way to get to MF, it will make things much clearer. You will be able to understand MF on your own, with clarity - as then the role of the camera, you as photographer, issues of composition, and the impact of technology will all be freshly recalibrated.  Your transition to MF will be much freeer of many of the DSLR biases that can permeate the migration at this time. 
Logged

Geoff
ondebanks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 860



« Reply #39 on: March 03, 2011, 10:36:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I am educating my self by asking questions from professionals.

And you are getting answers from both professionals and amateurs - who are equally knowledgeable because they put the time in to do their own research, as well as using some of these systems.

Now people around here and on the photo.net MF forum will know me as a contributor who generally goes out of his way to be helpful and kind, particularly when factual information is sought and I can bring my role as a physics educator into play...but there are limits! I agree 100% with the responses of Geoffreyg and coles. I tried to steer you onto the path of doing your own research, right at the start of the thread, but you persisted; and you went on to ask kindergarten questions, like why a Canon 17mm lens is considered equivalent to a Hasselblad 40mm lens. In the internet age, why should anyone expect someone else to answer such basic, basic, factual questions for them? I would be embarrassed to come onto a forum with such an attitude. The answers are already at your fingertips - and more than just the direct answers, the learning process which is even more valuable to your education and formation as a photographer.

It's exactly in the same vein as the famous "give a man a fish..." proverb: we could tell you in a few words why you saw some reference to the Canon 17mm and Hasselbad 40mm lenses being equivalent (by the way, they're not really); but if you research it yourself you will not only find that answer, you will learn so much more that the whole deal with MF will make sense...and you would be able to prove for yourself that 17mm on a DSLR like your 5DII is actually wider than 40mm on any Hasselblad body, without even handling either of them. Once you've got that far, then forums like this are perfect for asking questions to fill in the gaps in your body of knowledge.

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

Ad
Ad
Ad