Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Who of you use both MFDB and D800?  (Read 30598 times)
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #40 on: September 21, 2012, 08:47:51 AM »
ReplyReply

. . .  it seems to me that with the modern 645 digital systems some of this is lost, because the strive for ultra-high resolution (i e 80 megapixels) has caused the need for highly corrected lenses also for medium format. A digital back on a Mamiya RZ or similar may be better. Not sure how much truth that lies within this, but it would be interesting to investigate.

I agree with this completely, and I think it may be true with the new 35mm lenses as well.  
Logged
Isak Bergwall
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #41 on: September 21, 2012, 09:09:57 AM »
ReplyReply

the top nikon lenses got nothing on my Rodenstock TV-Heligon 50/0.75 in terms of short DOF!  Roll Eyes





Hedgehog details



A lazy bumblebee

just sayin..
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #42 on: September 21, 2012, 09:31:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I think either just a D800 or a D800 plus a MFDB on a technical camera is the way to go, here is my logic
1. A DSLR is needed as a general purpose camera anyways
2. High Image quality is dependent on excellent lenses
3. The D800E other than resolution has an exceptional sensor
4. Anything you can shoot with a MFDB you can with a DSLR but everything you shoot with a DSLR you cannot with a MFDB
So I separated my landscape kit by field of view; wide MFDB, Narrow D800E (you can't practically shoot narrow FOV with MFDB, weight size etc.)
To optimize the IQ and lenses I chose Leica R's on the D800E (for general purpose and handheld work I ended up with the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 OS and the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRII) and Rodenstock HR's on the Tech camera with an IQ180
I can do anything with the D800E and when I want maximum file size or need shifts/swings/tilt I have the MFDB+tech camera.
I no longer use the Mamiya AFD II or Phase one DF as the D800E is more versatile.
I would never sell the IQ180/Rodenstocks in favor of the D800E because the IQ is so good and the shooting style is just more fun.
In summary on a budget the D800E and a Leica R zoom would satisfy most needs. If Ultimate IQ is the goal then go all the way with a MFDB/tech camera/Rodenstock or Schneider digital lenses.
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
mac_paolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 419


« Reply #43 on: September 21, 2012, 09:41:07 AM »
ReplyReply

LOL Eric; I have a series that is very similar.  654D, 200mm FA @ f/6.7 BTW
Honestly Tom, that could be even a good photo but it's not smooth at all.
Depth of field alone is not enough to achieve good smoothness.
I find the bokeh to be very nervous, IMHO.
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370



WWW
« Reply #44 on: September 21, 2012, 10:11:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Generating silky smooth bokeh on short tele lenses is not that challenging, the 85mm f1.4 AF-S is indeed great but so are many MF lenses.

What is more impressive to my eyes is the bokeh of the nikkor 24mm f1.4. That is something I don't believe can be achieved in the MF world.



I would of course have no problem to be proven wrong.  Smiley

Cheers,
Bernard


Bernard,
Nice shot but it's super easy to shoot something directly in the foreground and get background blur. It's almost macro work there.   Try putting that shoe in the middle ground at 3 to 5 meters distance or so and shoot again.  That's what I was showing in my Calistoga mustard grass pic.  Blur in foreground and background.    I'll try to shoot something with my wide lenses over the weekend to see how they compare in the wide end for curiosity.
Eric

ps. I'm adding a shot of my son here that I took last week with the 80/2.8 planar at f/2.8 where he is in the foreground.  The 80 is a normal focal length for the Hy6 with AFi-ii 12.  The zeiss planar is a pretty nice lens, but the schneider is even smoother.  Still see how the back ground blur is easy when you focus in the foreground with a normal lens.  Telephoto is no trick at all. I'll see about wides.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 11:01:51 AM by EricWHiss » Logged

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

Posts: 2370



WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 21, 2012, 10:34:04 AM »
ReplyReply



LOL Eric; I have a series that is very similar.  654D, 200mm FA @ f/6.7 BTW

Tom

Tom,
It's beautiful out there isn't it!   These I shot just handheld as I was passing through. Here's one where I focused in the foreground wide open at f/4 with the 300.
Eric

Logged

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

Posts: 1651


« Reply #46 on: September 21, 2012, 11:16:22 AM »
ReplyReply

We actually shot the d800E with the 200/2 in the studio... its a nice lens but again, Fred, you are wrong about it having no match in MF land.  Since you rely on google and other people's images go search flicker for schneider 300/4 or 180/2.8 or some of the mamiya fast teles.  Actually there are plenty of MF glass out there that you apparently never used and don't know much about.

Actually I have owned several Fast MF lenses.

Seeing you accuse me of lying here are the photo I took of them in order to sell them....

Carl Zeiss Jena 180mm 2.8.


Mamiya 200mm 2.8 APO



Hasselblad 110mm f2



I also borrowed a Mamiya 300mm 2.8 APO

Rented a few others

Now can you please stop making assumptions and accusations... it's getting boring


« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 11:19:12 AM by FredBGG » Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370



WWW
« Reply #47 on: September 21, 2012, 11:24:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Isak,
Love the lazy bumble bee shot! I've got a pile of those Rodenstock Heligons in the studio and some of the Kowa's too. Problem for me with those is they focus too close even on a dlsr and are quite heavy as you know.  I also use a schneider +9 diopter by itself and a zork close up lens by itself both fitted to a zork MFS tilt. I also use the front element of some older anistigmat lenses.
Eric

attached are some shots with the +9 ...  very soft, lots of blur
Logged

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

Posts: 2370



WWW
« Reply #48 on: September 21, 2012, 11:42:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Dang Fred,
I'm so sorry! I hoped they had come to pick you up already!   Cheesy

I just wish you'd post more about working with the Fuji 680 + film or shooting celebs for the Kimmel show or something that you really have experience in.  I do think your photowork is great!  And I'm just messing with you, man, not trying to throw you.   Don't worry!  Smiley
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 11:50:52 AM by EricWHiss » Logged

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

Posts: 521


« Reply #49 on: September 21, 2012, 12:14:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Isak,
Love the lazy bumble bee shot! I've got a pile of those Rodenstock Heligons in the studio and some of the Kowa's too. Problem for me with those is they focus too close even on a dlsr and are quite heavy as you know.  I also use a schneider +9 diopter by itself and a zork close up lens by itself both fitted to a zork MFS tilt. I also use the front element of some older anistigmat lenses.
Eric

attached are some shots with the +9 ...  very soft, lots of blur

Along the same lines:  Pentax 67 90mm @/2.8 on the 645D
Logged
tsjanik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 521


« Reply #50 on: September 21, 2012, 12:33:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Honestly Tom, that could be even a good photo but it's not smooth at all.
Depth of field alone is not enough to achieve good smoothness.
I find the bokeh to be very nervous, IMHO.

Hi:

I didn’t post because I thought it was a great shot; I was disappointed with the whole series – potential, but not achieved.  I posted because of the remarkable similarity with Eric’s and after his last post I think he and I could just swap portfolios.   Cheesy

I understand pleasant and unpleasant bokeh, but I never understood what “nervous bokeh” means.

Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370



WWW
« Reply #51 on: September 21, 2012, 01:11:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I think this image is a good indication of what I am talking about.
Just look at all the texture or blobbyness that is still there in the distance very far behind the area in focus.

I find the background of the images shot with the Nikon and certain lenses to be smoother and there is a more natural focus falloff.



Fred,
Getting back to the discussion .... The image you used here isn't comparable since the subject is in the foreground. When one focuses close, the background is more blurred naturally.  I'd rather you use your own images than take someone else's, however since you already posted the image with the car, it is probably more suited to a comparison since it has both foreground and background blur.  It looks pretty blobby in both the background and foreground to me. I think the 200/2 is a great lens and the d800 a great DSLR, so what we are really differing on is whether MF can achieve shallower DOF or not.

Besides the issue of rights and permissions when using someone else's images, there's also the question about how much was done in post.   I don't shoot a lot wide open and can't post a lot of what I do shoot but I will look for more examples to share.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 01:19:32 PM by EricWHiss » Logged

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

Posts: 419


« Reply #52 on: September 21, 2012, 02:06:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I understand pleasant and unpleasant bokeh, but I never understood what “nervous bokeh” means.
Bokeh should me smooth, and circular if possible (I know, it depends on the shape of the blades, I'm talking about taste).
That particular photo you posted before showed lots of detail, grunginess if you forgive the term, within the bokeh.
That's what I call nervous bokeh Smiley
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370



WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 21, 2012, 04:24:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Tom,
I like the bokeh in the last shot with the 90.  Very smooth.
E
Logged

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

Posts: 521


« Reply #54 on: September 21, 2012, 04:53:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Bokeh should me smooth, and circular if possible (I know, it depends on the shape of the blades, I'm talking about taste).
That particular photo you posted before showed lots of detail, grunginess if you forgive the term, within the bokeh.
That's what I call nervous bokeh Smiley

I assume the part  you find objectionable is the bokeh around the vines themselves.  You can blame the photographer and not the lens.  I wanted backlight for the mustard, but the light is also striking the shiny vines, making for very bright, irregular splotches.



Tom,
I like the bokeh in the last shot with the 90.  Very smooth.
E
Thanks Eric
Logged
skimasks
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73


WWW
« Reply #55 on: September 22, 2012, 07:09:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I use a p25+ and  D800. The D800 is a nice addition to the family. I felt like I was doing some of my clients a diservice when I had to use 35mm in the past. They feel more on par now. I'm comfortable showing the files together. The D800 still shows massive amounts of CA with wide lenses...and this is where the p25+, cambo wrs combo really shines. Shooting a serious interior/exterior? Phase One on Cambo WRS. Shooting a plate for a heavy composite shot? D800. Shooting an event? D7000. Shooting something that will need heavy movements like a book lying down or a plate of food? Phase One on Sinar X.
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #56 on: September 22, 2012, 09:57:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I use a p25+ and  D800. The D800 is a nice addition to the family. I felt like I was doing some of my clients a diservice when I had to use 35mm in the past. They feel more on par now. I'm comfortable showing the files together. The D800 still shows massive amounts of CA with wide lenses...and this is where the p25+, cambo wrs combo really shines. Shooting a serious interior/exterior? Phase One on Cambo WRS. Shooting a plate for a heavy composite shot? D800. Shooting an event? D7000. Shooting something that will need heavy movements like a book lying down or a plate of food? Phase One on Sinar X.


That sums it up well.
Logged
free1000
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


WWW
« Reply #57 on: September 23, 2012, 05:29:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm using the Aptus 75 on Cambo and Mamiya and the D800E.

So I thought once I bought the D800E I might get rid of the Mamiya equipment.  However,  I'm still finding that the AFD2 with the straight 80 f2.8 (Not even the D version) trumps the D800E with a standard lens. I think the DxO reports are fine on paper, but I see more shadow detail in my Aptus 75 shots at ISO 50. Yes its an old back now, but a good one.

I have a series I am shooting that needs a short tele.  I have tested the Zeiss 100 f2 on the D800E and it is a great lens.  However the shots just don't finally have that MF/LF look I want for this series. So the search continues,  I will be testing the DF+ body and 150 lenses to see if I get what I want.  If I don't I will have to consider the inconvenience of a 150 lens on a tech camera. But I would like the option of going longer, up to a 240, and thats not possible on a tech camera.

I now can't sell the D800E, it is too great a camera. Its my goto portable camera,  with the inexpensive 35 f2,  perfect for street photography and a bit of travel etc. Fantastic look to the images, and far more practical than MF.  Of course, anything in low light,  long exposure it will be D800E all the way.

For the serious stuff I think it will remain tech cam and Mamiya and maybe the expense of newer lenses for the Mamiya.
Logged

@foliobook
Foliobook professional photography folio for iPad
www.foliobook.mobi
Hulyss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 487



WWW
« Reply #58 on: September 23, 2012, 05:31:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I read the whole topic and came to the conclusion that most of us never used the whole panel of possibility given by the photo industry. I try myself using all I can use. Leica S2, SIGMA Foveon gears, Nikon FX dslr, pentax things, Zeiss glass ... rented some MF backs ...

Over years, the only device who impressed me (and my clients) is the SIGMA DP2m. I starting to be fanatic about this thing because it let me foresee where SIGMA is going, compared to other brands. Also I sold my S2 because, at comparing the files, the DP2m give me better satisfaction thus better results for big files (and the S2 is plastic panasonic like, not that serious after all).

I hear from here some ppl screaming " This is madness !!Grin But I'm not mad... at all. I also sold all my Nikon FX ED zooms and all my autofocus glass. I want to buy gear who last me lifelong, like in the old days (I'm 33 but learned the hard-way of film from 8 to 25). Digital is a wast of money, so better time to trick the marketing pony. So I train myself with my team to be as reactive as AF with manual lenses in every possible situations (children, races, weeding ...). In this case, I went full Zeiss and, if I'm careful with, I'm sure those glass will be in my bag in 10 to 20 years at least because perfect mechanic, no motor, and aperture ring (like real MF, LF lenses at the end ...).

The other problem to solve is the imagery device. I want something who can last a looonnnnnggggg time and give very good results, flexibility, reliability and versatility. Nikon FX dslr are here for that (not the D600 Wink ). So I keep the excellent D700 and will certainly take a D800e next year. Zeiss glass kick the hell out of megapixels even on D800e (mabe the 50 1.4 is a little bit soft but rendering is ok). D700 in studio is excellent, skin tones are excellent (I never understood why ppl say Nikon in salmon) and If I want to freeze action at very high speed ... I only take my beautiful DP2 Merrill Wink If I want perfect architecture shoots I take also my DP2 Merrill, stitch and flatten lines in software. I did and sold works done this way with his ancestor (who have probably 70k actuations), the DP2s.

If I want macro work, Zeiss macro on D700 or D800 give first class imagery. But the DP2 Merrill can be surprising to, even in macro (with accessory) Wink Here is a file I did on the corner of my table, quickly :

www.hulyssbowman.com/DP2m/BIG1.tif

Do I envy what Isak Bergwall showed in his post ?? Hell no !!! Wink

That bring me to the essential : DOF.

MF give superb transitions, creamy bokeh, ethereal softness ... as some lenses can do on 24x36mm digital format !! We even have some shooting techniques where you shoot a frame in focus and stitch other OOF frames around to obtain a superb effect (don't remember the name ...).
MF give superb sharpness and definition of skins and fabrics (!). The D800e too, with good glass, and the Foveon too ... even more !!

For me MFDB's are even more specialised today than in the old days and, if my crystal ball is right, are going to die. The first step in this lethal descent is Nikon with the D800 and the future Zeiss Glass (not here for decorating). The second step in this programmed death is SIGMA (yes you heard right). If SIGMA develop a 24x36 foveon, I think photo industries will have hard times, very very hard times to justifies anything, IQ wise, against a 24x36 foveon file, period (maybe ISO Wink ).

The last and final step is the clients. I come with high (very high) quality files and low prices. I do not have any bills or mortgages or credits to fill, extremely ridiculous ROI and a lot of spare money to be even more creative, without any stress. The client will choose me that's the life.

It is harsh, it sound unreal. But when I see what can produce a 900$ camera ... the reality check is made quickly.

Once Nikon, SIGMA and Zeiss will release there new glass to out-resolve the D800e ...
Logged

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

Posts: 2370



WWW
« Reply #59 on: September 23, 2012, 02:51:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Hulyss,
That DP2 Merrill does some amazing things for sure and a very good value at that.  I may add one for carry around use.  But compare your table top shot to some shots I took with my AFi-ii 12.  What I saw in the DP2 is great color detail and sharpness.    One advantage the DP2 has is broader DOF for macro shots thanks to the wider FOV lens and the smaller sensor size.  That's one big advantage of the DSLR's over MFDB - broader DOF.

Anyhow check out the full size images (these are big files - 20-30mb jpgs). These were just test shots that I took with my AFi when I got it that I felt were similar to your table set up.

This was part of a lily that got old and fell onto the kitchen counter.  Check out the pollen grains on the staymen top left corner and under the petals. Also see the color changes in the petals and individual cells. This was hand held but with a camera mounted flash. The back was set to take a square image using the sensorflex.
http://www.archive.eh21.com/Forum/L_000517.jpg

Here's a table top set-up I used to compare two copies of a 150mm lens I had and find what f/stop was the best compromise between DOF and sharpness when I bought the AFi-ii 12.
Check out the bottom of the medallion and 'states' in the bill and green beaded coaster.  
http://www.archive.eh21.com/Forum/Tests%200163.jpg
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 02:46:42 PM by EricWHiss » Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad