Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New to site and DMF... Just in time with H5D ! Help Please.  (Read 25303 times)
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119



WWW
« Reply #60 on: October 10, 2012, 04:04:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually Yaya... he had already replied just a few posts back and I was simply adding my point of view on the discussion.

Bernard is talking about 80MP $50K cameras and AFAIK (which is not much) there's no such thing as crop-sensor 80MP...and since he has more real-life experience with small-sensor stitching than all of us put together and some very impressive landscape work under his belt (as opposed to others who prefer to share anecdotal articles/ links), I am genuinely interested in his insights and opinion on this matter.

Yair
Logged

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

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #61 on: October 10, 2012, 04:31:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Here we go again, all the DSLRs are the same?

There is no difference btwn a D5100 pixels and D800 pixels?

Yup, you said it!! Agreed, what is up with that??? How then there can be no difference between the pixels on a D800 and 80MP back ??  Shocked Of course there is!!!  (though some seem to be dreaming...) Grin

Further... there seem to be few followers to the "religion" called to stitch, most folks seem to shoot one shots. What is up with arguing stitching so aggressively then, is that not misleading??? And, what is up with compare a 200MP stitch from a D800 to a single from an IQ 180 ?? ? Must be tad mad per most peoples standards... plus of course, the pixels are not same and does not contain same information no matter how many pixels one assemble.

Notably few posters in above seem to really figure out that there are more differences than the number of pixels to an image. Is that really true??? ... Notably except EricWHiss and Yair... and BC, excellent posts guys Smiley

FredBGG is good at Googling... can he do else for us, say actually post a medium format digital image as good as his claimed to have shot film 6x8 cm images?Huh??

I think BCs post sums up to OP>

I swear if this was a e-magaizne on cars, somebody would record the sound of a toyota door slamming next to a BMW swearing the toyota was quieter.  There are buyers of both brands and some people even buy both, though I bet the drive the bmw more.

I know I have a bunch of 35mm digitals, some medium format backs and cameras, digital video and digital cinema cameras and . . . actually  . . . well probably, way too many cameras, but we use them all and usually for different reasons.

In the new normal it seems we work very robust days and use about all of our equipment, every project.

Anyway, TMark.  I will probably eventually get someone to ship me a D800E and look at it but right now I'm pretty well set on cameras, then again I don't disbelieve that it's a capable camera.  I know with my Nikons, the D700 and the D3, both are very difficult to manage skin tones and colors.

We can do it, but under lower iso, they're an issue, though maybe the D800 is better.

I know the original poster is talking about landscapes and I'm really not the guy to answer that question.  All I can suggest again is to test them, regardless of price and gasp, gasp regardless of ultimate image quality, whatever that is.

I do know if I did do landscapes and REALLY and truly needed 80 mpx I'd just buy an 80 mpx back and camera because I like things in one shot, but hey, that's just me.  Also I don't really care if a lens is sharp edge to edge because I very rarely need edge sharpness, think it's pretty when a lens has falloff and some softness to the corners.  In fact some of the prettiest work we've ever done and a style that continues to get us work is using the Contax with that old Boris Hartiblie tilt shift and I can tell you nothing is really sharp on that lens but the very center.

Buying clients like the look because I think it looks less digital, less clack clack, more click manually focus, think about it, click.

Now, those are the things I know, but what i think is with all these very heated discussions three things are left out.

1.  Why do you have to have any one camera?  It's quite reasonable to have multiple formats.  I do, I use them, they're paid for, they make me money and shoot the way I want.

2.  There is nothing wrong with using a camera that is not as efficient as something that costs less, or more.  I love the Contax(s) I use and love the analog feel.  I spend a lot of time with my eye on a viewfinder and my eye on a computer screen and I like the viewfinder a lot more than a computer screen, so cameras that feel less computer and more camera is fine by me.

3.  We all know we're in this weird world wide economic stagnation and everybody is looking for the less expensive alternative.  Clients, suppliers, everyone, but I'm fortunate that I own my own equipment and can shoot to my standards not just what the budget dictates.  I have to admit I appreciate that Phase (and I guess all medium format companies) have continued to update their software so my cameras are more viable today than they were when I bought them.   Speaking of economics, just add up buying a $3,000 camera you'll use for two years or a $15,000 camera you'll use for 7 years and the numbers are close to a wash and even if they weren't wouldn't you rather have something that feels special, a device that becomes part of you and your work?

4.  (I know I said 3).  Use what you want to use, to shoot what you want to shoot.  I have no doubt that they people that stitch like working that way.  I also know some photographers love the latest model of everything.  There is nothing wrong with either direction, but to try to get back to the original poster, really test before you buy.  Any good dealer will either rent or or rent discounted if you buy almost any camera and even if you have to fly to do it, you'll be much happier to know that what you bought fits for your style of work, not you fitting to it.

5,  (yea yea, I know I said 3 but I'm on a roll).  

The last few years I've grown tired of hearing about the "new normal" of only delivering what is required and holding things to a low bar rather than higher.  

I also find it somewhat absurd that people that want higher salaries, higher rates and fees take exception to a camera maker that wants decent profits.  Actually I find it strange that living in a world economy profit has become a word said in hushed tones.

Sure, $30,000 to $50,000 is very high for a camera (any camera) but if you look, shop, test and maybe just wait you can find a deal and there are deals out there from reputable dealers of all makes, but the OP's desire to buy an H4 makes sense to me.  He wants to buy one step from the latest and enjoy a camera, but instead of anybody with an H4d making a post, everyone says buy a Nikon.  

Maybe the Nikon is the new normal and everyone should buy one, maybe we all should wear grey jumpsuits and ride in push carts, but I doubt if the world is going to go that way.

Whether you shoot for pleasure or business, (hopefully both), there is no joy in limiting yourself, less joy in just joining the crowd.  

Does a camera make you better . . . I don't know, maybe-maybe not, but does a camera you like using make you feel better about what your shooting and delivering, whether it goes on the living room wall or in Times Square?    Hell yes.


IMO

BC

P.S.  2 years ago, my business partner/producer wife wanted a Leica.  She didn't like focusing my M-8, so we went to a dealer and tried everything.  She bought a Leica X-1.  Were there better cameras, I dunno, maybe. Were there better prices . . . sure, but that doesn't matter because she likes it, it makes her feel good, she takes photos with it and will use it for years.  

It makes her happy.  Happy is good.



Lets see, what else... any pictures for a change? Here are two from my prior 28MP Leaf. It is tad of what the poster asked of I believe. Nope... I would not have enjoyed shooting them with a dslr instead, but that is mere me. I experienced a difference in quality of image, but... that is per my experience as a photographer, e.i. individual. A choice. In end the image is what matters. Wink

Could I have made same images stitching? Why should I care. Why would I want to do that and make more difficult??? I was frank indeed pleased with that 28MP back, but somehow I kept using Velvia 50 slide film at times alongside because of its pleasing colors to my eye. My 80MP made me prematurely drop all film, because - though different colors - the sensation from the images finally brought me same in digital as film. DSLRs are similar improving in colors, but notably have less good colors than digital backs. That includes the D800.

What more? I read years ago that when you pick up medium format you have an immediate improvement in your images, because the cameras are not that different to operate than an SLR, yet you see better and they encourage to slow down...

That is about it. Can we end this thread now???  Grin
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 04:48:22 PM by Anders_HK » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7725



WWW
« Reply #62 on: October 10, 2012, 05:34:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Yup, you said it!! Agreed, what is up with that??? How then there can be no difference between the pixels on a D800 and 80MP back ??  Shocked Of course there is!!!  (though some seem to be dreaming...) Grin

Available data shows the gap to be much smaller btwn the pixel quality of the 80mp back and D800 vs the gap btwn the D800 and D5100. Note that I have not said that the pixel quality of the D800 was the same. I have just pointed at recent reports from people having shot both with opposite views. Reason would indicate that they are pretty close.

Further... there seem to be few followers to the "religion" called to stitch, most folks seem to shoot one shots. What is up with arguing stitching so aggressively then, is that not misleading??? And, what is up with compare a 200MP stitch from a D800 to a single from an IQ 180 ?? ? Must be tad mad per most peoples standards... plus of course, the pixels are not same and does not contain same information no matter how many pixels one assemble.

What would be misleading would be not to make the OP aware that great things can be achieved with stitching at a low cost.

Since I would not benefit in anyway from him deciding to stitch, what makes you think that this advise is not genuine? Who is the agressor here? Who is calling a shooting technique a "religion"?

I have not written a single negative word about MFDB, I have solely focused on the existence of an extremely valuable alternative. I do fully acknowledge the fact that this technique is not universal, and that it does require a learning curve. But it is well suited to grand landscape.

My offer stands to do a real world comparison. I'll be in Shanghai next week, want to do a test Tuesday 6AM on the bund?

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 11:58:29 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

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

Posts: 1651


« Reply #63 on: October 10, 2012, 08:12:57 PM »
ReplyReply



FredBGG is good at Googling... can he do else for us, say actually post a medium format digital image as good as his claimed to have shot film 6x8 cm images?Huh??


So now you are accusing me of not having taken the 6x8cm film images that I have posted on the forum? That's quite an accusation. You realize that you are accusing me of
plagiarism! That is totally unacceptable.



Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370



WWW
« Reply #64 on: October 10, 2012, 09:47:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Anders - I like that 2nd shot! Nice!

Fred,
He means digital not film since that is what we are talking about.  I would have suggested LF film might be a low cost alternative for landscape otherwise.  

Do you do any landscape work?  Got to be much different from celebrity portraits.   And any of that with digital medium format backs?   Love to see something.

I'm doing scientific imaging, art repro and my own artwork which isn't landscape either but I do take some on occasion.   Mostly with either LF film or my 80mp AFi-ii 12.   Stitching doesn't work for my subject matter at all.  

But here's one of my landscape shots from last year using my AFi-ii 12  (80mp) - the light was changing so fast then, I don't think I could have stitched this but no doubt the forum pundits here would tell me otherwise and how I could have done better.  Still I can print this single frame quite large.  



« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 11:37:29 PM by EricWHiss » Logged

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

Posts: 1834


« Reply #65 on: October 10, 2012, 10:14:23 PM »
ReplyReply

You know, it's sort of uncool and in fact actionable to defame someone on a public forum, especially when they earn their living behind a lens.  I would suggest that everyone cool it.  Just rebut points objectively. This isn't the Middle Ages.

One thing that strikes me as odd is that the IQ180 owners aren't frothing at the mouth, nor are the Blad and Leica S people.   Am I missing something?  Something else that I find odd are the statements that people who don't own a Leaf Aptus II 12 cannot comment on it. Their opinions are invalid due to a lack of ownership. However, if I'm not mistaken, Anders doesn't own a D800 nor does Erik, yet there is plenty of opinion voiced about its defects, real or imagined.

I say all this because this bullshit is ruining the forum. I'll go on record to say the Aptus II 12 AFi samples I've seen on other forums are stunning, better than my 75s, old 54s, old P30+, or Sarah Silver's Sinar 54m. Better than my D800e. If handled correctly the D800 e is as good or better than the last generation backs. But it looks different due to lenses, and to a degree sensor size.  That's my take away.  Agree disagree whatever. I'm no fan boy. I value objectivity. Now please stop arguing over this shit.

T
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7725



WWW
« Reply #66 on: October 10, 2012, 10:16:19 PM »
ReplyReply

But here's one of my landscape shots from last year using my AFi-ii 12  (80mp) - the light was changing so fast then, I don't think I could have stitched this but no doubt the forum pundits here would tell me otherwise and how I could have done better.  Still I can print this single quite large. 

Nice image!

I guess that this is me...  Grin I only mention stitching to those people who are looking at a different solution for what they do, either to reduce cost or to reach higher levels of pixel counts because they need them for their applications, typically landscape.

If you are happy about the quality you have achieved with this image, I don't see why I would propose you another approach.

Although Anders would have you think otherwise, I am not married with stitching, I am fully aware of the limitations of the technique and am only advocating it as one possible solution to consider for suitable applications.

I tend to get amused when some posters, including - again - Anders, refuse to acknowledge the value of stitching, seemingly only to protect their dear feeling that the camera they own is the device delivering the best image quality in the world.  Wink

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 7234


WWW
« Reply #67 on: October 11, 2012, 12:26:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Just a few comments.

The original poster was not asking about IQ180 but MF equipment in the 14000$US range.

Obviously, there are several options in that price range, including Pentax 645D and lower end Hasselblads.

I would certainly suggest that Bernard has a very good point about the Nikon D800/D800E offering very high quality at low cost.

Regarding pixel quality, I actually think pixels are created equal. I would not be able to tell a single pixel shot with an early model canon Ixus from a IQ180 pixel. A pixel is just a number.

Stitching is a good thing. I do often stitch instead of cropping. Why waste perfectly good pixels? Sometimes I stitch for wide angle of view. The enclosed image is an example of that. Field of view here is around 180 degrees, horizontally.

Obviously, different equipment has different capabilities. Cameras are just tools, but some tools may be better suited for certain work than others. Personally, I much prefer live view to focusing on viewfinder screen, I don't think magnification is high enough in viewfinders. With tilt and shift I'm pretty sure live view makes life much easier.

Contrary to some, I think that it is OK to compare cameras based on test images, if those images are properly executed.

FredBG pointed to a discussion on GetDPI.com started by "TAshley". This gentleman shot a comparison image with Nikon D800 and a Leica Summicron lens and an IQ 180 with an 80 mm lens. http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/36838-someone-had-do.html

The raw images are here:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/76366907/_DSC0510.NEF

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/76366907/CF001872.IIQ

I downloaded both and checked. One thing that is pretty clear is the Nikon image has somewhat cleaner shadows, even when the Nikon image is uprezzed to the original size of the Pase image. I was using LR 4.2, using Capture One might have given different results. From this test it seems to me that the "pixels" on the Nikon are better, but the Phase One has more of them. Sharpness is a bit difficult to compare. Uprezzing the Nikon image to Phase One size adds artifacts. The Nikon image also has more DoF.

Regarding color, it is actually mostly math. All sensors produce four monochrome channels, except the Foevon which has three monochrome channels. Interpretation of color is done by the raw converter, which converts those four channels into RGB images. Color can be tweaked almost infinitely.

Jeff Schewe demonstrates this making an image from an iPhone indistinguishable from a P65+ image at print size. The example can be found in his latest book, "The Digital Negative".

Just in case someone thinks I don't take pictures: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/

Best regards
Erik


Nice image!

I guess that this is me...  Grin I only mention stitching to those people who are looking at a different solution for what they do, either to reduce cost or to reach higher levels of pixel counts because they need them for their applications, typically landscape.

If you are happy about the quality you have achieved with this image, I don't see why I would propose you another approach.

Although Anders would have you think otherwise, I am not married with stitching, I am fully aware of the limitations of the technique and am only advocating it as one possible solution to consider for suitable applications.

I tend to get amused when some posters, including - again - Anders, refuse to acknowledge the value of stitching, seemingly only to protect their dear feeling that the camera they own is the device delivering the best image quality in the world.  Wink

Cheers,
Bernard

« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 01:40:46 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1358


« Reply #68 on: October 11, 2012, 01:06:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Can you site any data to back that up?   I've had the most problems with my Leica R camera bodies followed by Canon DSLR's and lenses.  Cross my fingers, but I never had a problem with any of Rollei camera bodies (though I have bought some used stuff on ebay that needed service on arrival).   It would be interesting to poll the user base here and find out how many failures per brand and make and whether they were DOA or failed during usage.  I know a lot of people that have had to send back DSLR lenses they bought new but had issues with them for example. I even had one canon lens that had a air bubble cast into the front element. Why that got past inspection and quality control is a mystery! Canon replaced immediately but still...


Well, repairing MF is expensive, there are price lists for that. Or one may consider it cheap, it all depends. Repairing a 30K back will probably look quite cheap if you put it in relation to the unit price of the back. Replacing a sensor glass costs about 1000+VAT, a little variation depending on how much the middle-man (dealer) wants. You can do this replacement yourself too, and then it is about half. So the work costs 500, which would mean at least 5 hours of work for a 100/h engineer, or the price is set some other way. A service check is included in the glass replacement, maybe that's where all the hours go, but I suspect a classic ripoff :-)

I have noted that many MFDB owner starts calculating percent rather than absolute numbers. And if you relate all prices to a 30K-40K MFDB, it actually looks quite cheap.

Concerning reliability I would expect higher amount of failures from DSLR bodies because they are used in tough conditions, while I would guess many, possibly even most MFD systems don't even see outdoor conditions at all. Some surely do, but the statistics would be skewed because so many are nicely treated. The older backs with open fan vents and external batteries are quite obviously not designed for tough conditions, but this seems to be better with the latest backs. I also think it is a factor that people tend to become very careful when holding a 30K system, while they are willing to take some more risks with a 4K system. When I do documentary photo with my DSLR and it starts raining, I just continue shooting. When it starts raining with on my MFDB I cover it up. The expectations on what the systems can handle is different.

I would expect reliability to be "good enough" for both systems, but you'll have to be prepared to pay.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 01:43:33 AM by torger » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7234


WWW
« Reply #69 on: October 11, 2012, 01:48:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I shot Minolta, Konica Minolta and Sony for 40+ years.

I must have had something like 30 cameras in those 40+ years. A single camera failed for me fully, that was a Minolta XD7. Some of those cameras got soaking wet either shooting or once when my bag rained in during a skyfall.

I had one lens repair, of about 40 lenses I owned, a Minolta 80-200/2.8 APO, bayonette replaced due to wear. One lens came back, supposedly being in specs. I also have Pentax 67 with five lenses.

I guess I was lucky.

Best regards
Erik


Well, repairing MF is expensive, there are price lists for that. Or one may consider it cheap, it all depends. Repairing a 30K back will probably look quite cheap if you put it in relation to the unit price of the back. Replacing a sensor glass costs about 1000+VAT, a little variation depending on how much the middle-man (dealer) wants. You can do this replacement yourself too, and then it is about half. So the work costs 500, which would mean at least 5 hours of work for a 100/h engineer, or the price is set some other way (a service check is included in the glass replacement, maybe that's where all the hours go).

I have noted that many MFDB owner starts calculating percent rather than absolute numbers. And if you relate all prices to a 30K-40K MFDB, it actually looks quite cheap.

Concerning reliability I would expect higher amount of failures from DSLR bodies because they are used in tough conditions, while I would guess many, possibly even most MFD systems don't even see outdoor conditions at all. Some surely do, but the statistics would be skewed because so many are nicely treated. The older backs with open fan vents and external batteries are quite obviously not designed for tough conditions, but this seems to be better with the latest backs. I also think it is a factor that people tend to become very careful when holding a 30K system, while they are willing to take some more risks with a 4K system. When I do documentary photo with my DSLR and it starts raining, I just continue shooting. When it starts raining with on my MFDB I cover it up. The expectations on what the systems can handle is different.

I would expect reliability to be "good enough" for both systems, but you'll have to be prepared to pay.
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1648



WWW
« Reply #70 on: October 11, 2012, 02:20:49 AM »
ReplyReply

One thing that strikes me as odd is that the IQ180 owners aren't frothing at the mouth, nor are the Blad and Leica S people.   Am I missing something?  

They're far too busy making images and earning a living to wallow in this shite.
Logged

MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 811



WWW
« Reply #71 on: October 11, 2012, 02:26:01 AM »
ReplyReply

2, no 3 or 4 bald men arguing over a comb.

Never seen magenta snow before? I blame global warming.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7725



WWW
« Reply #72 on: October 11, 2012, 02:49:46 AM »
ReplyReply

2, no 3 or 4 bald men arguing over a comb.

Exactly, who better than a bald man can explain another bald man that he may not need a comb?  Wink

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 1651


« Reply #73 on: October 11, 2012, 03:19:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Anders - I like that 2nd shot! Nice!

Fred,
He means digital not film since that is what we are talking about.  

Nope his words were "his claimed to have shot film 6x8 cm images?" He is referring to film....
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #74 on: October 11, 2012, 03:42:22 AM »
ReplyReply



But here's one of my landscape shots from last year using my AFi-ii 12  (80mp) - the light was changing so fast then, I don't think I could have stitched this but no doubt the forum pundits here would tell me otherwise and how I could have done better.  Still I can print this single frame quite large.  







Nice image. Nice delicate post work. No exaggerated contrast or colors, very natural feel. The pale colors of the sky make one feel the chill after sunset in the desert.
To much stuff out there that looks too doctored up, over filtered or punched up for more "pop".

You are also right that fast changing light can be tricky with stitching. I would not go beyond a 6 or 8 frame stitch. My Gigapan can do that in about 12 seconds on the fast setting. It controls the camera and shoots with a delay that can be adjusted.
Doing horizontal sweeps would handle it OK avoiding color changes. However certainly easier and more relaxing in one shot and in one shot either an 80 MP back or 8x10 film is the best you'll get.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 03:47:33 AM by FredBGG » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #75 on: October 11, 2012, 04:00:00 AM »
ReplyReply


Just in case someone thinks I don't take pictures: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/

Best regards
Erik



Nice pictures...

The photos of the Dali museum made me nostalgic.

I used to have a house in Cadaques and I would go to the cafe and bump into Salvador Dali who had a house not far away.

IF any of you get the chance to go to Cadaques it's an incredibly beautiful place to shoot. Skys can be simply amazing due to the weather patterns with the Pyrenees so near by.

Boy the Malibu Hills are a dump compared to Cadaques. If I wasn't so hooked on big wave kitesurfing I'd move back.
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #76 on: October 11, 2012, 04:01:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I have just pointed at recent reports from people having shot both with opposite views. Reason would indicate that they are pretty close.

They are different, though as I stated some tend to illusion that their DSLR is same, it is not. A number of posters using both D800 and MFDB (not even 80MP) was interesting read and stated they do so for different reasons; http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70759.0

In end it is mere choice, and whatever gear makes happy to make images, so who cares in end?

My offer stands to do a real world comparison. I'll be in Shanghai next week, want to do a test Tuesday 6AM on the bund?

Frankly, for one I do not like comparison shots but to focus on my making of image. I am current also far from Shanghai...


So now you are accusing me of not having taken the 6x8cm film images that I have posted on the forum?

Sorry, perhaps I should have phrased that it would be interesting to view a quality shot made with your MFDB ?




Eric, Nice! I like the color shades of the rocks and transition in the sky. Really shows the fine gradations of colors the back picks up. How much processing?

I tend to get amused when some posters, including - again - Anders, refuse to acknowledge the value of stitching, seemingly only to protect their dear feeling that the camera they own is the device delivering the best image quality in the world.  Wink

Nope and absolute not, my own camera is only a tool and not my love affair. It helps me making images. The photographer makes the image. Thus way you describe me is complete incorrect.

I do value stitched images, but flat stitching which is simpler - and better. Same, that is also a tool. Yet the OP asked of MFDB and has received a long discussion on what was not that question... including numerous posts arguing rotation stitching... and dslr instead... Notably that seem not what was asked...

Regarding pixel quality, I actually think pixels are created equal. I would not be able to tell a single pixel shot with an early model canon Ixus from a IQ180 pixel. A pixel is just a number.

Ehh... so an iPhone pixel collects same info as other pixels on sensors ? Obvious no.

The enclosed image is an example of that. Field of view here is around 180 degrees, horizontally.

I would argue is an example of curvature of landscape in image which to my eye is disturbing...


Replacing a sensor glass costs about 1000+VAT, a little variation depending on how much the middle-man (dealer) wants.

Per what I was told replacing ALL except the sensor costs little more. The sensor is the most expensive part. The disadvantage with Phase One backs compared to Leaf is that Phase One backs need to go back to factory... many repairs can be made by a qualified agent to a Leaf back which makes them cheaper to repair.  Wink Hassy I do not know.

... I would guess many, possibly even most MFD systems don't even see outdoor conditions at all. Some surely do, but the statistics would be skewed because so many are nicely treated. The older backs with open fan vents and external batteries are quite obviously not designed for tough conditions, but this seems to be better with the latest backs.

You would benefit to search the forums for durability of Leaf backs with vents and external batteries. Your assumption is complete wrong. They are extremely durable, but no... Leaf did not make YouTube videos of freezing them, baking them, parking car on them, dropping from balloon or having elephant stamp on them. After all... I believe few photographers use their gear in such ways...

For what it is worth, I travel extensive with my gear, across Asia and to Europe... if I had any doubts to durability of Leaf back I would not use it. My first travel with brand new Leaf back was to dusty India.

 Grin



« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 04:20:03 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #77 on: October 11, 2012, 04:16:30 AM »
ReplyReply



Great photograph. I like the contrast of the Taj Mahal in the haze/mist and the trash and random cement block on the river bank.
At first glance I did not like the heavy contrast in the foreground, but seeing the trash it works in an uncanny way. The harsh contrast and reality of trash and cement against the the fairy tale Taj Mahal in the distance. The colors and pastel soft contrast of the Taj Mahal almost resemble the quality of those glorious matte painting of the Hollywood colossal epics.

Did you shoot any lower to the water with the trash even more in the foreground? Could be even more dramatic. Rather sad to see the trash on the river bank so close to one of the wonders of the world.

The Taj Mahal also projects the most amazing light. Anyone shooting there should take some portraits using the Taj Mahal as the wolds most amazing reflector.  Wink
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #78 on: October 11, 2012, 04:26:07 AM »
ReplyReply

The colors and pastel soft contrast of the Taj Mahal almost resemble the quality of those glorious matte painting of the Hollywood colossal epics.

Thanks and very much appreciated. Actually, I read up on some painting books the other year in attempt to learn from painters how they attempt to lead the eye in an image and create a sensation of light and landscape. Not that I paint any whatsoever at all, but because I viewed it could help me in processing of a RAW file. All done in Capture One Pro. No photoshop.

The original was of course in quality light. Light is everything and is a fact that has not changed since film or glass plates.  Wink

Best regards,
Anders
« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 04:28:09 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
gerald.d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 382


« Reply #79 on: October 11, 2012, 04:38:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm doing scientific imaging, art repro and my own artwork which isn't landscape either but I do take some on occasion.   Mostly with either LF film or my 80mp AFi-ii 12.   Stitching doesn't work for my subject matter at all.  

Just out of interest, what kind of art repro? From what I hear, there are many people out there who stitch for this.

Regards,

Gerald.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 12 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad