Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Older backs vs new DSLRs  (Read 14398 times)
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #40 on: August 20, 2012, 04:24:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I keep on hearing this bogus logic.

If you have a problem accepting that some photographers prefer to use the larger formats because it "slows them down" then that's your problem, not theirs.
Logged

EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2427



WWW
« Reply #41 on: August 21, 2012, 11:31:04 AM »
ReplyReply

[quote author=BernardLanguillier link=topic=69645.msg553156#msg553156 date=1345435519

The 2 lenses I mentioned are probably the 2 most expensive R lenses to be found (except some super exotics), most of the others can be had for less than 1500 US$. They may not be as good though.

Cheers,
Bernard

[/quote]

That's probably true - I think you can still buy some really fantastic Leica glass such as the 60mm macro elmarit and the 35-40mm f/4 zoom for $600-800 and these are quite good.   but they also have some very expensive lenses like your 280/4.   I had the leica 35-70mm f/2.8 lens which i used on my canon 5d2.  Now that was a really fantastic lens!  Wonder how that would sing on the d800e? 

I really only am familiar with the used market on Rollei and Mamiya RZ glass, but it seems like lots of the MF lenses are cheaper than the Leica R lenses - certainly the RZ and mamiya 645 glass is and the Rollei stuff may be.  Lot's of good schneider and zeiss PQ lenses going for under $1k these days.    I'm wondering outloud if these MF lenses could not be fit to the nikon too?

I do think some of the color rendering on the MF lenses is nicer than color on the canon lenses.  Can't speak to the nikon glass.  Leica R glass makes a rich color look.  It isn't just all about sharpness. 



Logged

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

Posts: 8202



WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 22, 2012, 03:44:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I really only am familiar with the used market on Rollei and Mamiya RZ glass, but it seems like lots of the MF lenses are cheaper than the Leica R lenses - certainly the RZ and mamiya 645 glass is and the Rollei stuff may be.  Lot's of good schneider and zeiss PQ lenses going for under $1k these days.    I'm wondering outloud if these MF lenses could not be fit to the nikon too?

I do think some of the color rendering on the MF lenses is nicer than color on the canon lenses.  Can't speak to the nikon glass.  Leica R glass makes a rich color look.  It isn't just all about sharpness. 

True. I think some adapters exist  but I'd have to check to see what MF lenses can be mounted on F mount.

Cheers,
Bernard

Logged

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

Posts: 8202



WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 22, 2012, 04:00:23 AM »
ReplyReply

True. I think some adapters exist  but I'd have to check to see what MF lenses can be mounted on F mount.

Hassy V:
http://fotodioxpro.com/index.php/lens-mount-adapters/medium-format-120-220-lens-mount-adapters/professional-pro-medium-format-adapters-lens/fotodiox-pro-adapter-hasselblad-v-lens-to-nikon-f-camera-mount-adapter-for-nikon-d1-d2-d3-d3x-d3s-d100-d200-d300-d300s-d700-d40-d40x-.html

Mamiy 645:
http://fotodioxpro.com/index.php/lens-mount-adapters/medium-format-120-220-lens-mount-adapters/professional-pro-medium-format-adapters-lens/mamiya-645-lens-to-nikon-camera-fotodiox-pro-lens-mount-adapter.html

Pentax 645:
http://fotodioxpro.com/index.php/lens-mount-adapters/medium-format-120-220-lens-mount-adapters/professional-pro-medium-format-adapters-lens/pentax-645-lens-to-nikon-f-camera-lens-mount-fotodiox-pro-lens-mount-adapter.html

Pentax 6x7:
Novoflex has an adapter

Contax 645:
http://www.dl-kipon.com/en/product.asp?id=77

My quick search didn't reveal any RZ -> F adapter, but it could exist nonetheless.

Cheers,
Bernard


Logged

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

Posts: 1137



WWW
« Reply #44 on: August 22, 2012, 12:23:19 PM »
ReplyReply

My quick search didn't reveal any RZ -> F adapter, but it could exist nonetheless.

The Cambo X2-Pro does it and adds some T/S capability...not as cheap as an adapter but much more fun!
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@mamiyaleaf.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #45 on: August 22, 2012, 10:41:47 PM »
ReplyReply

If you have a problem accepting that some photographers prefer to use the larger formats because it "slows them down" then that's your problem, not theirs.

My point is VERY SIMPLE. With a little bit of discipline you can shoot just as slow and deliberately with a camera that also has faster shooting abilities.
A lot of photographers in a certain sense are missing out on what their gear can do.

I don't have a problem with the photographers you are referring to... I do however have a bit of a problem when this influences other photographers... especially new ones. IT's also really rather silly when it becomes one of a dealers sales pitches..... more of a sign they are running out of reasons to justify MFD
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 10:55:12 PM by FredBGG » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #46 on: August 22, 2012, 11:02:21 PM »
ReplyReply

True. I think some adapters exist  but I'd have to check to see what MF lenses can be mounted on F mount.

Cheers,
Bernard



The problem is that the Mamiya RZ lenses do not have a focusing mechanism on them.

Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8202



WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 22, 2012, 11:16:35 PM »
ReplyReply

The problem is that the Mamiya RZ lenses do not have a focusing mechanism on them.

Yep, but my "hope" was to find a bellow type adapter that would enable focusing.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 1651


« Reply #48 on: August 22, 2012, 11:36:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Yep, but my "hope" was to find a bellow type adapter that would enable focusing.

Cheers,
Bernard


You could do this with the Front end of a Fuji GX680 and GX680 lenses.

The two rails come off the camera with just two screws.

You could use the 4 peak canvas fuji bellows and mount an F bayonet on the back.

You can fashion a mount for the whole lot using a Mamiya triopd adapter.

I'll post some photos later.

I made one for my D800, but it was snitched at a rental studio... need to make another.

The 115mm 3.2 makes a great tilt shift portrait lens for the D800.
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2427



WWW
« Reply #49 on: August 22, 2012, 11:37:34 PM »
ReplyReply

"The problem is that the Mamiya RZ lenses do not have a focusing mechanism on them."

Actually as soon as Yair mentioned the X2-pro, I realized this was a viable solution. It has a built in stage to move the whole front 'standard' in and out.   Probably the Horseman VCC would also work too.  

I'd love to see something for the Rollei lenses too, but that would take some kind of electronics to operate the aperture blades.
Logged

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

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 23, 2012, 03:21:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't have a problem with the photographers you are referring to... I do however have a bit of a problem when this influences other photographers... especially new ones.

You think photographers need a Messiah to work that one out? Frankly if they haven't the savvy to glean that for themselves then perhaps they'd be better suited to a career in dry walling.

IT's also really rather silly when it becomes one of a dealers sales pitches..... more of a sign they are running out of reasons to justify MFD.

Hey, shopkeepers will be shopkeepers.

Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #51 on: August 23, 2012, 03:39:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Frankly if they haven't the savvy to glean that for themselves then perhaps they'd be better suited to a career in dry walling.

That's a bit uncalled for. I don't know about you, but I don't look down on the fellow that put up the dry wall in my house.
Actually a fine painter and put his wife and kids through college dry walling.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2012, 03:41:38 AM by FredBGG » Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 23, 2012, 03:57:30 AM »
ReplyReply

That's a bit uncalled for.

I was brought up in the East End of London before moving to a tough council estate. On leaving art college I took a job as a cab driver to support myself and my family while I established myself as an illustrator and painter. Most of my family and friends are from a working class East London background.

The trouble with this web thingy is you can't see the twinkle in the eye.
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #53 on: August 23, 2012, 04:43:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I was brought up in the East End of London before moving to a tough council estate. On leaving art college I took a job as a cab driver to support myself and my family while I established myself as an illustrator and painter. Most of my family and friends are from a working class East London background.

The trouble with this web thingy is you can't see the twinkle in the eye.


Oops Wink Yup we definitely need a "twinkle in the eye" emoticon!



Logged
David Schneider
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


Portrait Studio Owner


WWW
« Reply #54 on: August 26, 2012, 06:09:24 PM »
ReplyReply


But frankly, I have come to feel that the preference for medium format has much to do above and beyond the image quality. I believe that many - especially those who are interested in say, a Mamiya RZ rather than a Hasselblad H4D or Phase One DF - are attracted by what medium format truly offers. And that is the ability to use many interesting cameras combined with many interesting lenses. And typically cameras that are pretty void of automatic features. What I believe is that some photographers, when they use a Nikon D800/D4 or a Canon Mark III/1DX feel that on some level the camera itself is at least partly responsible for the final result. Now, we know the camera actually has to be used to produce a resulting image and the camera chosen will in part determine the resulting quality (or lack of it). We know this. But there is something about shooting a manual Hasselblad camera or a Mamiya RZ, a View Camera, or even a Fuji GX680 that gives me the sense the photographer feels that he was more in control or that the result is more his doing.

This is all perception. This is all perspective.

But I believe it's there.

I've sold more digital backs for Mamiya RZ cameras in the past 6 months than I did the 2 years prior. There's something going on. I see it not as a revolution, but as a bit of minor pushback. That the emphasis of photography is to deeply feel like that the image is coming from you, through you. And I think - for some - shooting with automatron 35mm DSLR's makes this more difficult. It's not as simple as - I want to slow down - I think it's more like, I want to be the one driving, I don't want to feel so much like the passenger.

I'm really just guessing at things that aren't easily quantified. And that is really where much of medium format exists (other than the 60 megapixel or 80 megapixel varieties). When someone asks me if they will get a better image from a Leaf Aptus 22 than a Canon 5D-MKIII, I tell them I don't really know. Better how? In the conditions the Aptus will excel in? Yeah, probably. But you may not even be able to notice the difference. To some the difference may knock you out, to others, it may go right by them. If someone asks me that, I don't think the answer will matter. People who buy medium format don't usually ask that question. Because if they know medium format or if they want medium format, they already know that yes, in the right conditions, it will be better.


Thanks for putting into words the feeling I get using my "old" Hassie H3D2-39 vs. my Canon 5Dmk2, especially in the studio.
Logged
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 909



WWW
« Reply #55 on: August 27, 2012, 05:03:33 AM »
ReplyReply

I see very little distinction between the 2, but then I work with manual focus lenses that have movements, the real difference is in focussing as the live view actually works on the 35mm camera.
The way of working stays the same, just a different camera.
Logged
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1132


WWW
« Reply #56 on: August 27, 2012, 09:31:14 PM »
ReplyReply

The fact is there are millions and millions of photographers worldwide who have no problem shooting with a 35mm DSLR. Is it so hard to imagine that annually, some 6,000 - 8,000 prefer to shoot with a different camera?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
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 #57 on: August 28, 2012, 03:13:27 AM »
ReplyReply

The fact is there are millions and millions of photographers worldwide who have no problem shooting with a 35mm DSLR. Is it so hard to imagine that annually, some 6,000 - 8,000 prefer to shoot with a different camera?


Steve

Steve,

So how do you make a larger user base?

In fact (if your allowed) you can answer these following question probably better than most working photographers.

None of us pick up a camera to become a scanner operator, or a computer technician, at least none that I know.  Digital or not, we still try to  select cameras to express an idea, a unique visual and we do it because we enjoy it, regardless of pay, regardless of effort and most importantly regardless of what anyone thinks.

At the "professional-earn a living segment" of using a camera, a lot of what we do is just damn hard.  From the vast amount of  creative treatments, multiple estimates, weeks of 18 hour pre production,  down to the final delivery one of the most enjoyable things we do  is shooting a camera you like, using one that feels special.

So why is it that nobody makes a RZ designed for a digital back.  Obviously not 6x7 because it seems no company will invest in a sensor that large, but I'm not talking about backs I talking about the cameras.  I'm talking about the dog wagging the tail, not the way it's become where the little digital stuff in the black boxes, seems to get the attention and I assume most of the profit.

The kids that work for me all buy either Nikon 800's (or is it 8000) or Canon 5D threes.  Most of them have a TR style yashica or Contax rangefinder they mess around with and shoot a roll of film per month for fun, but for their portfolio and the jobs they sometimes get, they use a Canon or Nikon.

Is there no market for professional cameras THAT professionals buy?

I think most photographers . . . we're kind of lost in our own world with our client's projects, our personal projects, who we work with and for, so it's difficult for us to gauge where the professional photography market is going.  Up or down.

Every week I use to know.  If I went to A+I at midnight to pick up snips and if the parking lot was overflowing into the alley, I knew it was a good, busy time.  Or if I went to a rental house and there were pallets of equipment going out the back, I knew things were cooking.

Now we spend so much time in front of the computer, in our own offices and studios I can't tell, because I don't rent a lot and I obviously I'm not at the lab.

I've noticed Phase and Hasselblad (mostly phase) have directed a lot of their marketing effort towards "serious" amateurs.  I know the few times I go into a camera store, at the medium format section the customer to my right is not asking about skin tones or fps, they're asking if they can get more detail in their nature shots, how long will the batteries last in the mountains, is the sensor dust proof if they shoot in the desert.   

So is that the group professional cameras are designed for, the weekend warrior?  Has the professional gone to second tier on the sales effort?

Regardless, I do understand the push back to reacquire some feeling of analog and the computer operated feel that is lost in cameras compared to their analog cousins.

Hell I'm still using my Contax(s) because the f stop falls next to the focus on my left hand, the shutter is next to the release on my right hand and I can shoot and adjust most of the day without ever looking at a dial or especially a blinking lcd.  Also I have a strange set of lenses that give a lot of different looks.  I can do that in post with a Canon, but it's always in Post and kinda looks like post work.

So why not a digital RZ, or a square camera that the back really rotates  (not one you have to take on or off) that has cropping blades that let you know if it's horizontal or vertical.  How about a miniature Fuji with the bellows and tilt shift, or glue three sensor together and make a panoramic camera?

Was it the chicken or the egg that made the HY6 or Rollei or F+H (whatever it's called) become so marginalized?  Did that camera just kinda of hit the skids because Phase, the biggest digital film maker didn't jump on board, or since Hasselblad already had a camera they saw no need to add their back to the HY6.   Or did these two companies not get involved because there was no market for this camera?

Did this experience just leave us with a Hasselblad and a Mamiya that were the only new medium format cameras produced, because everyone was afraid to take the plunge?   ( I guess I should add Pentax and would add Leica if I thought that was a viable camera for my work.)

Anyway.

The Mamiya and blad have been warmed over, but they are still 10 year old designs that haven't changed that much and IMO way too much digital interface and interference and not enough of as you say "driving the car yourself".

Or is the professional market just about cost vs. megapixels?  Once dslrs got to over 20 something megapixels and costs under 4 grand did that become good enough, so why bother with anything else?



IMO

BC
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #58 on: August 28, 2012, 04:25:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Cooter

1. Picking up a camera. You are right: thereís no wish to pick up something thatís a computer instead. In my own case I even went as far as selling my F4s in favour of an new, older model, the F3, because I detested the self-loading trick which almost always failed me, leaving a perma-blush on my face every time I had to use it in front of another human Ė or even my dog.

2. Using a camera. Again, youíre spot on. There was always a buzz using the F and F2 and the 500 Series was a dream of its own in suitable situations. Even more importantly, the two formats had different personalities that carried over into how I, as the user, felt and worked with the model in front of me. That is absolutely true and without a hint of exaggeration: one felt and moved and thought in entirely different ways.

3. Market for professional cameras that professionals buy. Iím not sure whether what your assistants buy tells the whole story; perhaps they are budget-limited like most of us in life. But, for anyone with a photographic business Ė as in shooting Ė then buying becomes tax-deductible and as long as your turnover allows, then buying isnít a problem.

But your point is more to do with design of cameras for pro use. I donít really know whether the manufacture of 6x7 sensors is or is not beyond reason in terms of production or cost, and frankly, I donít believe much that any manufacturer says: they produce what they think they will be able to sell, and by and large, I doubt their willingness to discuss it with the public! But, I do agree that something like a 500 Series with a rotating back Ė a real one Ė and using a format like the old 645 would be the best solution. The quality from sensors is already so good that I can imagine few situations where much more (bigger) is essential. We can never reach a point where any single camera will cover all final picture ratios, but I think 645 is pretty good! 6x6 would be better, but Iím willing to compromise on that.

4. Visits to the lab. Indeed; it was good and also helpful to be able to get a grasp of how busy or otherwise people were; it didnít do much for inter-snapper relations though, even if the gossip was nice, because the feeling always was the same: we held hands to prevent the other guy from picking our pocket! Most photographers I knew were like salesmen: everything was cool, even the day before they went bust, which many did. The main problem was the lab: there were two of them in Glasgow that were any good, and both also did photography, a shitty situation that took away secrecy of what our clients were doing. That was one of the reasons that I was heavily into Kodachrome where time allowed.

5. For whom are cameras designed? It was always common belief that the much bigger size of the amateur market supported the development that went into the professional. As an extension of that, I would expect that as top equipment gets ever more expensive, then the more concentrated the emphasis on how the expensive stuff will suit the wealthier amateurís imagined needs. But itís not all gloom: you do have your Reds etcÖ

6. To sum up my general feeling about this: I donít believe that costs will kill off the more Ďglamí names like Leica of Hasselblad. They are strong enough (I hope) to survive on the magic of a name, as did Rolls-Royce, Bentley and Aston Martin etc., even if they had to be bought over (some several times) in order to achieve that state of stability. But the difficulty is that I think many people today Ė the young especially Ė have a totally different take on camera stuff: they are brought up with computers and computer toys, things Iíd hate to have to play with, and menus and buttons are their delight. Why would they miss rational, manual controls that few of them will have experienced? I firmly believe that playing with buttons and menus is part of the public display, the show of expertise they might feel: if itís complicated, itís got to be good! But any old pro knows photography is simple, and that you can complicate it as much as you or your idea of whatís wanted can make it.

Rob C

Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #59 on: August 28, 2012, 05:56:39 AM »
ReplyReply

...To sum up my general feeling about this: I donít believe that costs will kill off the more Ďglamí names like Leica of Hasselblad. They are strong enough (I hope) to survive on the magic of a name, as did Rolls-Royce, Bentley and Aston Martin etc., even if they had to be bought over (some several times) in order to achieve that state of stability.

The times when Leica or Hasselblad could survive solely on the magic of a name are long gone, if they ever existed.

The time-frame whereby MFD companies can survive without increasing user base is very limited and they won't increase user base by offering what is essentially more of the same. I suspect that at least one of the major players in MFD came to this conclusion some time ago and will target a wider user base with new product.

Time will tell.
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad