Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?  (Read 35659 times)
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1252



WWW
« Reply #160 on: September 28, 2012, 01:39:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

That Sigma is pretty sharp for a $999.00 camera.

That's want I call a lot of bang for your buck.

Cheers

Simon
Logged

Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2439



WWW
« Reply #161 on: September 28, 2012, 01:46:37 AM »
ReplyReply


I think the Sigma is pretty amazing too for the price.
Dang!
Maybe we should change the title of the thread?
Logged

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

Posts: 506



WWW
« Reply #162 on: September 28, 2012, 01:50:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Are those crops from the same shot?

Yes Fred, it is. I have far more impressive examples though. I can't wait the Full Frame 24x36 Foveon Sensor... what a terrible sensor it will be !! Usability is the Key. The DP is less "versatile" than a D800 but more usable than a MFDB, on field.

The key will be the futures DP. If they go FF they really need to do more than 3 lens focal. Fixed lens is mandatory but we lack something really designed for portrait, more luminous, like a 90 mm f 1.4/1.8 on a FF foveon. 
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 01:55:27 AM by Hulyss » Logged

Kind Regards - www.hulyssbowman.com
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #163 on: September 28, 2012, 01:55:26 AM »
ReplyReply

That's a possibility, but probably only cause the mamiya DF body and mirror shake issues or the 80mm lens. Oh yeah and the diffraction at f/16 - not sure if you can see the EXIF, but clearly the Sigma was shot at a wider aperture.  The aptus 12 is sharpest at f/8.   Wait until I post something with AFi and Rollei schneider 90mm. I just wanted to post something with finger prints  Wink     Still I think the detail the Aptus 12 can capture is incredible!  


It might just have something to do with each photosite being RBG and no bayer array.... Wink
Logged
Hulyss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506



WWW
« Reply #164 on: September 28, 2012, 01:58:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Always fun going back to some old posts...

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256248-post36.html

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256429-post43.html

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256512-post45.html

(sorry for not posting comparison shots...couldn't find any...)

yaya fear the foveon power and came saving Mamiya products and reputation  Grin
Logged

Kind Regards - www.hulyssbowman.com
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2439



WWW
« Reply #165 on: September 28, 2012, 02:19:13 AM »
ReplyReply

It might just have something to do with each photosite being RBG and no bayer array.... Wink

Yeah well the diffraction and that. Nothing is ever that easy!  But the dp2 file looks a lot like a multishot back file to me which makes sense since they are similar, but the foveon color doesn't seem to be as good.  Maybe Hulyss or someone with a camera can talk about that?

If foveon could put a bigger sensor together, they might really have something.

« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 02:21:49 AM by EricWHiss » Logged

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

Posts: 506



WWW
« Reply #166 on: September 28, 2012, 02:24:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah well the diffraction and that. Nothing is ever that easy!  But the dp2 file looks a lot like a multishot back file to me which makes sense since they are similar, but the foveon color doesn't seem to be as good.  Maybe Hulyss or someone with a camera can talk about that?

If foveon could put a bigger sensor together, they might really have something.


The colours are good ... when you find it in your RAW. The capture is very accurate in landscapes and all. But when shooting humans you need some PP to balance all the colours.
Logged

Kind Regards - www.hulyssbowman.com
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #167 on: September 28, 2012, 05:15:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I think the Sigma is pretty amazing too for the price.
Dang!
Maybe we should change the title of the thread?

The DP2M really seem capable of high image quality, though in a quirky package. I had the DP1 some years back but gave it up because I did not like the colors or camera. They really should put the sensor and lens from DP2M into a much better camera.

Leica X2 also seem really sweet and capable of high image quality. X2 may complement a MFDB better, on pair with DSLR in mini format and without multitude of buttons to confuse... Has to do with lens and correctness/pleasing colors???

Always fun going back to some old posts...

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256248-post36.html

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256429-post43.html

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256512-post45.html

(sorry for not posting comparison shots...couldn't find any...)

Yair, what took you so long???  Grin
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 05:26:01 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #168 on: September 29, 2012, 11:27:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Always fun going back to some old posts...

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256248-post36.html

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256429-post43.html

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/256512-post45.html

(sorry for not posting comparison shots...couldn't find any...)

These frames show very nice un-retouched skin, including the texture of the makeup.  Very viceral feel, chaulky almost, like TMax with a 70's era Leica M lens.  Detail is sharp but natural.  This is down to the lenses combined with the high resolving power of the back.  It has a smoothness to it that the DP2m lacks, but then again, the Leaf set up is a bit more costly than the Sigma.  The Leaf frames show what a talented photographer can do with a high quality tool, which is why the back makers should have more samples like this.
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #169 on: September 29, 2012, 04:32:40 PM »
ReplyReply


Yair, what took you so long???  Grin


This silly conversation goes on every time some company introduces something new.

The dealers/reps go nuts trying to prove their medium format backs are worth the money, the naysayers that just bought a Nikon or Canon or Sony go nuts trying to prove they perform as good.

It doesn't matter.

Personally, I don't and never will believe it's a one camera world.   I also don't believe that it matters what another photographer uses.   Guy Bourdin used old nikons and the lens rattled, but he shot like God's own and he'd never have this conversation.

I do think that Guy would probably choke is someone told him the film holder of a still camera costs $30,000, or in his case 150,000 francs.

Then again somebody that must have a trillion pixels of detail will swear they need it.

Any photographer that's looking for a deal with a camera maker will swear that brand is the best.  It's all personal or has personal reasons.

As far as skin tones, detail, look, I find as much in post processing as I do in actual sensor capture whether it's film or digital.

What isn't ever addressed is why some people use some cameras and most of the answer today is . . . because they like them.

I like most of the cameras I own and if I didn't work with a room full of clients I'd probably never think about tethering, Ipad transfer, high  iso, articulating lcd's or any of that other stuff that has very little to do with a beautiful photograph.

That's really the issue in most of these discussions . . . price and what do you can afford to use.

There is no one answer to any available product.

If there was we'd all be driving Toyotas and all living in the same cinder blocked houses, wearing the same grey jumpsuits.

People should buy what they want, buy what makes them happy and not worry about it because there is more to life than ultimate efficiency. 

There is also fun.

IMO

BC


Logged
MichaelEzra
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 659



WWW
« Reply #170 on: September 29, 2012, 05:53:47 PM »
ReplyReply

+1,000,000!!!!:)!
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3864


« Reply #171 on: September 29, 2012, 06:40:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes Fred, it is. I have far more impressive examples though. I can't wait the Full Frame 24x36 Foveon Sensor... what a terrible sensor it will be !! Usability is the Key. The DP is less "versatile" than a D800 but more usable than a MFDB, on field.

The key will be the futures DP. If they go FF they really need to do more than 3 lens focal. Fixed lens is mandatory but we lack something really designed for portrait, more luminous, like a 90 mm f 1.4/1.8 on a FF foveon. 

Hi,

Since the Foveon sensor depends on penetration depth to separate colors, that will become an issue on larger sensor arrays, because the more oblique corner rays behave quite different (longer travel distance through silicon and structures). In addition to that, it would produce a massive amount of data, 3x as much as a Bayer CFA camera with the same pixel count would, for only a better resolution in Red and Blue (which are of lesser importance for luminance resolution, chroma resolution is relatively low spatial frequency info, just check the a and b channels in Lab colorspace).

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #172 on: September 30, 2012, 12:03:13 AM »
ReplyReply


This silly conversation goes on every time some company introduces something new.

The dealers/reps go nuts trying to prove their medium format backs are worth the money, the naysayers that just bought a Nikon or Canon or Sony go nuts trying to prove they perform as good.

It doesn't matter.

Personally, I don't and never will believe it's a one camera world.   I also don't believe that it matters what another photographer uses.   Guy Bourdin used old nikons and the lens rattled, but he shot like God's own and he'd never have this conversation.

I do think that Guy would probably choke is someone told him the film holder of a still camera costs $30,000, or in his case 150,000 francs.

Then again somebody that must have a trillion pixels of detail will swear they need it.

Any photographer that's looking for a deal with a camera maker will swear that brand is the best.  It's all personal or has personal reasons.

As far as skin tones, detail, look, I find as much in post processing as I do in actual sensor capture whether it's film or digital.

What isn't ever addressed is why some people use some cameras and most of the answer today is . . . because they like them.

I like most of the cameras I own and if I didn't work with a room full of clients I'd probably never think about tethering, Ipad transfer, high  iso, articulating lcd's or any of that other stuff that has very little to do with a beautiful photograph.

That's really the issue in most of these discussions . . . price and what do you can afford to use.

There is no one answer to any available product.

If there was we'd all be driving Toyotas and all living in the same cinder blocked houses, wearing the same grey jumpsuits.

People should buy what they want, buy what makes them happy and not worry about it because there is more to life than ultimate efficiency.  

There is also fun.

IMO

BC




Really good post. Exact and 500%.

Though correct is that this conversation go on each time a new DSLR is on market. Somehow it seems many are sold on that an image is not more than number of pixels.

The regrettable with digital is that we need to say good bye to a larger money for a product in order to achieve our goal in photography. For a pro who shoots high number of frames that may not be an issue. For advanced amatures it is an issue. Going digital certainly has been very significant more costly than if I would have stayed film.

Best regards,
Anders
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 12:07:19 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7887


WWW
« Reply #173 on: September 30, 2012, 12:55:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Anders,

Just thinking about film. I invested about 80000 SEK in two generation of CCD scanners and also a 6x7 slide projector from Götschman. To that came the Pentax 67 with five or six lenses, but I bought those at low US-prices.

Now, as yourself has pointed out, you really need to drum scan to get the best results. I have for my tests scanned two frames at Highend Scans in Germany. I paid little, as this was a test and the owner was interested in the results, but the commercial price would be about 168€ per frame, see their price list: http://www.high-end-scans.de/pdf/high-end-scans_prices.pdf

I recently made a travel to Yellowstone and Grand Teton NP, and came home with about 2400 frames, but most of that is nothing I would hang on the wall. Let's say that a photographer like you would produce just for four first class exposures each day, making 28 pictures worth scanning. The cost would thus be 4700€.

I presume that you have found a much more affordable scanning solution or even possibly bought an own drum scanner? Or you worked with an Imacon (or Hasselblad) CCD scanner?

I found that the drum scans from Highend Scans did have an edge over my CCD scanner. Now, if the difference was worth the price is something that can be discussed. Absolutely for one picture of a lifetime but probably not for 28 pictures shot under one week, in my humble opinion.

Best regards
Erik

Ps. Just noted that James Russell (bcooter) wrote that he will shoot film again, and that handling the digital images has a horrendous price tag. Interesting... Of course, the way I see it, the final image is still a scanned digital image, so processing and storage still apply.


...
The regrettable with digital is that we need to say good bye to a larger money for a product in order to achieve our goal in photography. For a pro who shoots high number of frames that may not be an issue. For advanced amatures it is an issue. Going digital certainly has been very significant more costly than if I would have stayed film.

Best regards,
Anders
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 05:04:52 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

bcooter
Guest
« Reply #174 on: September 30, 2012, 03:44:25 AM »
ReplyReply

.......snip........ For a pro who shoots high number of frames that may not be an issue. For advanced amatures it is an issue. Going digital certainly has been very significant more costly than if I would have stayed film.

Best regards,
Anders


For the working advertising and editorial photographer, there is no savings in film vs. digital.

I've told this story before but the only thing an assistant ever said to me that really made sense was early on with digital capture as he stood in front of his desk with two pucks around his neck, trying to calibrate two different monitors to match, he held up a roll of film and said "someday we're going to look at a single frame and say "I remember when it only cost 2 bucks to shoot this frame and process it.  

When we started digital capture, learning how to profile, dam systems, work the various tethering and processing software, plus the added element of photoshop for look, retouching and effects was monumental, though every year the requirements go up, not down.

Beyond the cost of drives and all the mentioned above, (not including cameras) you have the time suck of being the asset manager, contact sheet / web gallery master, retoucher or retouch supervisor, colorist, and pre press house.

Maybe for the guys/girls that shoot retail and toss over the raws there is a savings, but for us, it grows every day and for every shoot day we have at least 3 work days of post.  (at minimum).  Add in motion capture and multiply that by 5.

This year alone we have about 40 terabytes shot and stored (double that with backups) and it's not just the photographers or production companies with more workload, this weekend I've had conversations and e-mails back and forth with three different clients.

Prior to the great recession, I rarely spoke to a client on a weekend and now they're pulling the same hours as us, so it's not just digital, it's the world.

Now recently we pulled our film cameras out of storage and it may be a novelty, it may be for some projects we will shoot film, which is still cost effective given the cameras last forever and labs like the Icon will batch scan for nominal fees for galleries and high rez drum scans are not that expensive given that film already has 1/2 the look baked in.  With digital it's a roll your own world.

I know we won't shoot film on a multi city/country tour because I can't imagine trying to transport a large trunk of film through security anymore.  It's just too much to worry about.  I also don't worry about the cameras the way I use to.  We carry so many, especially with the RED's and lens cases that they have to be checked.  I'm not doing the trick of putting digital backs in briefcases, and splitting up equipment for every crew member before we board a plane.  

Anyway, things are what they are and at least for me digital has hit a plateau where every new generation really doesn't change anything that much.  I might buy a still camera this year (I doubt it), but even if I changed everything I own for the newest available, it wouldn't change the look of what I shot 10% . . . if that.

IMO

BC
P.S.  Tax savings are negligible.   Unless you lease from an approved financial institution which has much higher rates, you have to amortize the purchase over a number of years.

For a lot of us, living on a coastal City, adding in state income tax, 10% sales tax, it takes a huge purchase to see it on your tax statement.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 04:07:18 AM by bcooter » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #175 on: September 30, 2012, 09:10:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Cooter, underneath all the youth and contemporary style, you are still a romantic at heart. Thank goodness! I wish you well.


Rob C
Logged

Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #176 on: September 30, 2012, 01:35:04 PM »
ReplyReply

168€ per frame

came home with about 2400 frames

168€ per frame - sounds insane! Per memory, in Hong Kong / Shanghai is ALOT cheaper, I mean ALOT... but... I am all digital now. Pricing and availability are some issue that makes film use difficult in many places, regrettably. Also finding a quality lab and that Fuji announced to drop Velvia 50 in 4x5 completely.

2400 frames. The advantage of MFDB is that it encourages a slower and more deliberate shooting.  Wink - Seriously, that is one thing I do very much like with MFDB, also because I have less to review and process after a shoot!

 
This year alone we have about 40 terabytes shot and stored (double that with backups)

Oh my...  Shocked
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7887


WWW
« Reply #177 on: October 01, 2012, 11:57:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Anders,

Yes 168€ according to price list (at 6096 PPI).

The 2400 frames include a lot of video. Mostly I shot from tripod taking just one or two exposure of each composition, but in Yellowstone there is a lot of animal life where you take many shots. A few times I even engaged motor drive.

Another factor was that I shot moving water with variable ND, rotational panoramas and that I was shooting from early morning until late evening, all day.

Best regards
Erik

168€ per frame - sounds insane! Per memory, in Hong Kong / Shanghai is ALOT cheaper, I mean ALOT... but... I am all digital now. Pricing and availability are some issue that makes film use difficult in many places, regrettably. Also finding a quality lab and that Fuji announced to drop Velvia 50 in 4x5 completely.

2400 frames. The advantage of MFDB is that it encourages a slower and more deliberate shooting.  Wink - Seriously, that is one thing I do very much like with MFDB, also because I have less to review and process after a shoot!

 
Oh my...  Shocked
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad