Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format  (Read 35317 times)
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1407


« Reply #60 on: October 01, 2012, 12:36:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Not sure why so many stress over this stuff, it is what it is just go shoot some great art.

I have my personal reasons :-). I want MF to become cheaper. I want it to be possible for more people to shoot with a tech camera, and I want it to be possible for myself to continue do it also in the future. As I see it it is the MFDB cost that is the big obstacle here, not the cameras and lenses themselves. The Schneider Digitars is really quite good bang for the buck, especially if one like me go the view camera way so the lens mount is cheap.

Therefore I think it's great with the pressure coming from DSLRs, and great to show how small the difference is, and great that people start to question how much one can really charge for these systems. However, the effect may become exactly opposite, maybe it really is impossible to make cheaper products, or maybe the companies are just too financially weak to take risks with a broader product or just unwilling, and then MF will turn even more niched and even more expensive. Maybe the future of MF is to be in an extremely narrow niche like scanning backs have today. That woud be sad, because I like diversity.
Logged
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 504



WWW
« Reply #61 on: October 01, 2012, 01:55:08 PM »
ReplyReply


I'm not sure where the idea of these being 'old' designs comes from, but I'm positive these are new lenses. Their size, and the design brief, clearly suggest that their image circle is much larger than traditional 35mm.

These will be very interesting. Schnieder's new lenses, on the other hand, seem to be much more traditional 35mm glass, and I'm not at all sure they will be worth their price. Time will tell.

- N.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 499


« Reply #62 on: October 01, 2012, 02:19:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Their size, and the design brief, clearly suggest that their image circle is much larger than traditional 35mm.

That is not good, as the extra image circle is just going to cause more reflections inside the camera. The optimum image circle just barely covers the sensor/frame without vignetting.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7327


WWW
« Reply #63 on: October 01, 2012, 02:28:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Nick,

Sorry I thought that you meant these would be rebadged MF lenses of old designs.

Another point is that whatever stellar lens we have, we still need to get MTF to the sensor. That means correct focus and optimum aperture. Adding to that, we need any vibration, due camera shake, wind, mirror movement or shutter vibration.

Best regards
Erik


I'm not sure where the idea of these being 'old' designs comes from, but I'm positive these are new lenses. Their size, and the design brief, clearly suggest that their image circle is much larger than traditional 35mm.

These will be very interesting. Schnieder's new lenses, on the other hand, seem to be much more traditional 35mm glass, and I'm not at all sure they will be worth their price. Time will tell.

- N.
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #64 on: October 01, 2012, 03:27:40 PM »
ReplyReply

To each their own I guess but as a Nikon user I see it more like a Ford Mondeo 2.0 diesel automatic: plenty of space and comfort, plenty of power, great handling and economy.

Both the M3 and the WRX have something which the Ford & Nikon lack, IMO...

But when they need to photograph an M3 or WRX racing they use either a Nikon or Canon at 10 fps and lenses MF don't come close to having.
If  one makes a sports car analogy I would say that sport performance wise Nikon and Canon smoke anything offered in MF formats.
Canon 216 MP/s
Phase One not quite 56 MP/s (80 x 0.7)

 
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #65 on: October 01, 2012, 04:13:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Nick Devlin said
Their size, and the design brief, clearly suggest that their image circle is much larger than traditional 35mm.
to which Petrus replied
That is not good, as the extra image circle is just going to cause more reflections inside the camera. The optimum image circle just barely covers the sensor/frame without vignetting.
I think that the truth is somewhere in between. It is not possible for the image delivered by the lens elements themselves to have a "brick-wall" at the edge of the image circle, with no significant fall-off of illumination inside and no light transmitted outside. There has to be a "shoulder", and so it is probably best for the total image circle to extend somewhat beyond the frame. But additional flare is then a problem, with the worst case scenario being photographing a scene with a bright light source just out of the frame, but within the over-sized image circle. So it is good to add flae-control baffles so that light from outside the desired image region is blocked as early as possible. Ideally, the baffles cut the image down to the desired rectangle, not just to the smallest circle containing that rectangle.

By the way, this risk of additional flare is one reason why I disagree with idea of some forum participants that the best lenses for a format like DX or EF-S are ones designed for the larger 35mm format. Another problem with over-sized image circles is that aberration control in lens design can involve trade-offs of center vs edge/corner performance, so that the design choices needed to get good IQ out to beyond the corners of the frame can involve sacrifices in IQ closer to the center, within the frame.

All-in-all, a competent optical designer (working with given constraints on cost, size,and weight) will do the best job by optimizing for the actual usage (frame size), not by designing for a different, larger frame size. People who argue otherwise seem to assume that lens designers are so stupid that they are unaware of problems like light fall-off near the edge of the image circle and so design lenses with image circle that fading to black immediately beyond the corners of the frame --- and so need to be tricked into avoiding this mistake by being lied to about the image format for which the lens will be used.

But as I said, that optimal design might well include the combination of (a) lens elements that would on their own deliver an over-sized image circle with (b) baffles and such that cut the image down to the size and shape needed.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #66 on: October 01, 2012, 04:23:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Agree . MF still has a better file so I will always give it that advantage. It's just smoother looking and we still can't get around the tech cams as being the best there is both in its abilities for T/S and the great lenses from SK and Rodie. But with the new Zeiss glass coming the gap will close even further and that's a good thing. If I was able to maintain the MF gear financially. I would have never sold it as the tech cam was killer good. But being a Pro in business we just have to watch our money outlay so I feel I took a small step backwards but also a step forward in usability .really end of day sometimes the usability will win the day. Not sure why so many stress over this stuff, it is what it is just go shoot some great art.

You touch on several interesting points.

I think you are right in saying that the usability sometimes wins the day.
I would add that IMO usability very often has an effect on quality.
While going from top of the lines MFD is as far as ultimate quality a small step back one has to consider the effect of usability on quality.
IMO with the accuracy of both manual focusing with better live view and far more advanced autofocusing, image stabilization and many other functions
one is getting the very best out of a 35mm DSLR with more consistency and higher hit rate than with MFD.

Now that said MFD small quality edge has it's place and is worth it to some, but it's really not that strikingly different from today's top of the line DSLRs.

What is also important to point out is that Nikon with the D800  has really put a very high quality level into the hands of photographers that need it
and have done so at a very very good price really providing for the pro that has to primarily make money and watch the bottom line.
Lower camera costs also let you spend the clients budget in more creative ways... can make a large difference on jobs with smaller budgets.
Any realistic business has to factor in the ownership and service costs of gear unless one's day rate is such to make it irrelevant.
Even just having two extra production assistants on set to pamper the client make a difference that will be remembered by the client more than what camera you used.
Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #67 on: October 01, 2012, 05:00:42 PM »
ReplyReply

The one hiccup in all this and I have done the tests is the tech cam 40 mpx just smokes the Nikon in micro detail. Now that is with a 6k lens SK 60mm against a Nikon but with these new Zeiss lenses that difference may get even smaller. End of the day it's the glass. Bigger sensors don't hurt either but that will always be the case but this all goes back to what you shoot. For some MF is the answer for them , for more mobile needs than Nikons will be. End of day nothing has changed at all from our glorious film days with a Hassy in one hand and a Nikon in the other. 20 years later and it's still the same argument . Bigger is better but given the technology smaller has gotten much better. Looking back at the last 20 years of shooting digital only finally Nikon stood up over the bed of roses. The D800 is very good, I shoot the E and we can all give it credit for finally giving us a real file. I'm not saying its MF but MF needs to change as well and get inline to its price versus output.

 I really like both systems but only after Nikon hit us with the D800 before that I was forced more to shoot 35mm than actually like it. The D800 has actually helped me in that regards.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 05:06:22 PM by Guy Mancuso » Logged

LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 798


« Reply #68 on: October 01, 2012, 05:37:37 PM »
ReplyReply

...in the history of my digital life since the 20D, each jump when shooting raw between the generations has been significantly less then what has been suggested or reviewed. Sure better etc, but it's never been more then a baby step over the last generation.

This is true of Canon especially.  The newer Exmor designs have increased dynamic range at base ISO by 2 stops, and the D4 sensor increases about 1 stop over the D3s, while the Canon sensors are still yielding about the same as the last generation.  Only in the 1DX did they improve the pattern noise.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7327


WWW
« Reply #69 on: October 01, 2012, 09:52:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

That depends on Sony (and obviously to lesser extent Nikon) developing noise free readout. The Canon sensor itself is said to be pretty good, having a DR of about 14 steps, but Canon cannot get a clean signal out of the sensor into and trough the ADC. That is the reason they are that good at high ISO. With high ISO they preamplify the signal going into the ADC, so they loose little DR going up ISO bud DR is bad to start with.

Best regards
Erik


This is true of Canon especially.  The newer Exmor designs have increased dynamic range at base ISO by 2 stops, and the D4 sensor increases about 1 stop over the D3s, while the Canon sensors are still yielding about the same as the last generation.  Only in the 1DX did they improve the pattern noise.
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #70 on: October 02, 2012, 12:07:51 AM »
ReplyReply

The one hiccup in all this and I have done the tests is the tech cam 40 mpx just smokes the Nikon in micro detail. Now that is with a 6k lens SK 60mm against a Nikon but with these new Zeiss lenses that difference may get even smaller.....

When you say smokes the Nikon what sort of enlargement of magnification are you comparing? I would imaging that with $ 6,000 SK technical lens you will get better results, but is it a difference that is apparent
in most commercial work?
Out of curiosity what Nikon lens did you use in the comparison?
Did you try using the SK 60 on the Nikon? That would be interesting to see. Some SK lenses are exceptional. I have the 8x10 480mm and it's just marvelous.

Not to doubt your test, but these fellows were stunned by how close the D800 was to the IQ180 that has twice the MP count of the IQ140. They actually found
some characteristics to be better with the D800.

http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/

Like you I am eager to see what the new Zeiss lenses bring to the game.

I think that another very interesting development is Fuji's intention to make a FF interchangable lens mirror-less system.
Scaling up the X1-pro for full frame will be very interesting. One aspect of this is how the body could be used in a new technical camera setup.
Due to the shallow design of the body, with the sensor not deep in the body behind a mirror box, the body would in effect be quite similar to a digital back.
I could see cambo or Fuji themselves making a mini tech camera for this body. A scaled up x1-pro sensor would be 33 MP without changing the pixel pitch.
Would be a little gem for long landscape hikes Wink
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 12:27:03 AM by FredBGG » Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1109


WWW
« Reply #71 on: October 02, 2012, 07:19:06 AM »
ReplyReply

The SK 60 is arguable the best tech lens around . I owned the lens they shot with the 35xl and its a good lens but on a 180 maybe not the best since it is of a older design for bigger micron sensors. Anyway at 100 percent it was pretty evident but still damn close and in print maybe never really see it with the naked eye. I used a Nikon 35 1.4 and I did have a very good copy of it. I m not doubting there tests its just these tech lenses are extremely good especially that 60mm. Best one I shot and I tried a bunch of them. In the end it don't matter since they are radically diffrent cams for completely diffrent types of shooting. If I had things my way I would have a tech cam and the Nikons which would cover just about everything I do. Bottom line the Nikon is great and it is great to shoot with and very good on many levels. But I still know MF is better in some regards for some gigs. Shooting interiors for instance you just can't touch a tech cam. Best tool for the job. We all know everything in photography is a compromise on some level, just need to pick the least amount of poison to work with and go from there. LOL
Logged

Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #72 on: October 02, 2012, 04:55:32 PM »
ReplyReply

But when they need to photograph an M3 or WRX racing they use either a Nikon or Canon at 10 fps and lenses MF don't come close to having.
If  one makes a sports car analogy I would say that sport performance wise Nikon and Canon smoke anything offered in MF formats.
Canon 216 MP/s
Phase One not quite 56 MP/s (80 x 0.7)

? ? ?

Zagato is close enough to M3 ?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2TeNsxqScM  Grin


IMO with the accuracy of both manual focusing with better live view and far more advanced autofocusing, image stabilization and many other functions
one is getting the very best out of a 35mm DSLR with more consistency and higher hit rate than with MFD.

Hy6; one focus point and very very precise, dslr so many with complexity to know quite what is focused... (auto focus on nearest... but eye is not nearest, nose is)

Hit rate? MFDB slows you down, yielding higher hit rate and better images...

Now that said MFD small quality edge has it's place and is worth it to some, but it's really not that strikingly different from today's top of the line DSLRs.

Ehh... are we repeating???

Sounds those who really shoot both in repeat repeat say suffice significant difference. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70759.0

Any chance you could post us some of your good images with MFDB ? I believe I and others asked before...

===================================================

Disclaimer: These sort of threads are tiring when get into incorrect of difference between dslr and mfdb.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2012, 05:13:42 PM by Anders_HK » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7327


WWW
« Reply #73 on: October 02, 2012, 05:32:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I sort of think of MFDB as Hummer, not the H2 but the original drab green colored stuff ;-)

Regarding focusing, the best way to focus is probably by contrast sensing AF, or manual focusing at actual pixels in Live View, it's my understanding that it corresponds to perhaps 30x magnifier on ground glass, except that you are using the sensor itself. So, there are no registration problems between ground glass and sensor. So Live View is an ideal solution that cannot really be improved on. And you can focus exactly at any point, without camera motion. Great isn't it?

Hasselblad has something nifty called "True Focus" accelerometers and gyros detect camera motion and compensate focus. It may even work!

Alpa has a real invention with calibrated precision helical focusing. You measure distance with a laser distance meter (usually accurate within 2 mm) and use scale focusing. You can shim the back to 0.01 mm tolerance, thats within thermal expansion limits a sunny day :-)

I'm not sure MFD slows down. The way I shoot when using a tripod is that I use MF, and activate central AF point for distance measurement. Often I unmount the camera from tripod when measuring distance, so I don't change composition. Can I use Live View AF it will be used. The technique doesn't work with things that move. I also use MLU and 2s delay. Often I have another camera around for handheld shooting. Camera can shoot ten frames a second but I seldom use it.

Would I work slower with an MFDB? I don't think so. Would I work slower with a view camera? Certainly.

Once I shot 1 full roll of 120 film on a single subject in a single setting? Why, light was changing so fast. I used a spotmeter to evaluate halv a dozen points, and in the 30 seconds it took light has changed. So did I get the perfect exposure? Yes, ten times. Did I get the perfect picture, nay, subject was not that good ;-)

Regarding focusing, I know that Michael Reichmann uses a laser distance meter on the IQ180, while Mark Dubovoy uses live view, although LV on the IQ180 often needs a dark ND filter. So you need ND filter to help you focus, odd.

What I see for the future is using either a retina display (or similar) instead of ground glass or an electronic viewfinder.

Best regards
Erik

? ? ?

Zagato is close enough to M3 ?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2TeNsxqScM  Grin


Hy6; one focus point and very very precise, dslr so many with complexity to know quite what is focused... (auto focus on nearest... but eye is not nearest, nose is)

Hit rate? MFDB slows you down, yielding higher hit rate and better images...

Ehh... are we repeating???

Sounds those who really shoot both in repeat repeat say suffice significant difference. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70759.0

Did you make any very good images with MFDB ? Perhaps you can show us???
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #74 on: October 02, 2012, 05:45:53 PM »
ReplyReply


Hy6; one focus point and very very precise, dslr so many with complexity to know quite what is focused... (auto focus on nearest... but eye is not nearest, nose is)

.......

Disclaimer: These sort of threads are tiring when get into incorrect of difference between dslr and mfdb.


With a a 35mm DSLR (D800) for example you can choose a single focus point and choose anyone out of all the focus points.
Very handy when your subject isn't bang in the center of the frame. In live view you can move your focus point to anywhere on the screen.
When using automatic focus point selection the camera indicated which points are used.
When using a single point the camera can also track the feature you initiated focus on and follow it.

That said manual focusing on the Hy6 is the best of all MFD SLRs. Nice waist level finder with good magnification. Vertical and horizontal back rotation so you can use the waist level finder
for both. It really is the nicest MFD camera, not to mention film support. I would like to see it return to solid distribution in the US.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #75 on: October 02, 2012, 05:57:47 PM »
ReplyReply


Hit rate? MFDB slows you down, yielding higher hit rate and better images...


I was responding to a sports car analogy and shooting motor sports

Having a camera that slows you down does not really help when photographing high speed cars.

Also this whole thing about MF slowing one down so that one gets better images is a concept that does not hold water.
One can easily slow down with a faster camera.

While one is somewhat forced to slow down a bit more with MFD it does not mean that one cannot slow down with everything else.

 
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7885



WWW
« Reply #76 on: October 02, 2012, 10:01:01 PM »
ReplyReply

complexity

Hey Anders,

I see you write a lot recently about complexity, confusion,... when speaking about cameras that tens of millions of photographers use on a daily basis without any issue.

Assuming that you are too smart to mention those things simply out of a childish refusal to acknowledge the value of cameras differing from the one you like, perhaps you need to do real simple. Have you considered shooting with a pin hole camera?  Wink

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2363


« Reply #77 on: October 03, 2012, 01:48:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Hasselblad has something nifty called "True Focus" accelerometers and gyros detect camera motion and compensate focus. It may even work!

I can assure you it really works, when you get the hang of it you can actually have the focus anywhere you want in the frame. Even wide open. I prefer it often over the AF of my Nikon (have you ever felt none of the AF brackets is at the place where you actually want it??)

To get back at the topic of the thread. I don't know about that. I just work with all sorts of formats and prefer using MF when I can. Sure great quality but most of all I just like working with it. It is already hard work to make a living from photography but can I at least use what I like? Wink
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #78 on: October 03, 2012, 04:27:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I can assure you it really works, when you get the hang of it you can actually have the focus anywhere you want in the frame. Even wide open. I prefer it often over the AF of my Nikon (have you ever felt none of the AF brackets is at the place where you actually want it??)

To get back at the topic of the thread. I don't know about that. I just work with all sorts of formats and prefer using MF when I can. Sure great quality but most of all I just like working with it. It is already hard work to make a living from photography but can I at least use what I like? Wink

Live view on the D800 lets you focus right upto the instant you shoot, right off the sensor and anywhere in the frame.

While True Focus does have it's merits it has it's limitations too. It requires focus and recompose... that alone can be annoying and distracting for the subject and a real pain when on a tripod.

Also true focus DOES NOT account for any camera movements other than the angle of the lens. It cannot detect if the camera moves forward or backwards. Recomposing hand held with a heavy camera will almost always result in camera movement other than lens angle.

On a tripod unless you have a lens centered panoramic head there will always be some forward or backwards movement due to the point of rotation of the head.

The description of true focus with the catch phrase "absolute position lock" is a bit misleading.

All of this is covered in a white paper by Hasselblad:

For example with the 80mm at 1m from the subject they say this:

Quote
When the camera is tilted for composition, the point of maximum
sharpness falls just behind the eyes. However, the DOF
is almost large enough to render the eye sharp making the
difference hard to see. A camera movement closer or further
away from the camera even as small as 1 cm will change the
result and True Focus might not fully correct the focus.

The gist of the article is that True Focus is effective with wider angle lenses and marginal with normal lenses.
With longer than normal lenses it's of little or no help at all.
Totally unusable with tilt shift.

Here is the link to the full article:

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2234814/when%20true%20focus%20makes%20a%20difference.pdf

I have shot all formats including beauty campaigns with 8x10 and at wide apertures. I have learned that to keep thing in focus there are all sorts of tricks, with 8x10 for example it is important to pose the model very still and to both focus and shoot at the same point of the models breathing cycle.

Being that I like shooting wide open I was enthusiastic about true focus, but found it was not all it was made out to be by marketing and some of the "fanbase".
I tested it for a good few hours in a row but found it not as effective as I was lead to believe it was.
Very unfortunate because I loved the look of the 100mm 2.2
Obviously the marketing brochures were not written by the same guys at Hasselblad that wrote the article "WHEN TRUE FOCUS MAKES A DIFFERENCE".

I do not shoot much with wide angles, mainly normal to twice normal focal length.

In those ranges I found the GX680 with the moving loup high magnification finder and manual focusing gave me better results with both film and digital.
Same goes for 35mm DSLR with live view or regular focus. With regular focus even composition that are off center still place focus points close enough.
With live view focus no problems at all.

Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #79 on: October 03, 2012, 04:36:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I can assure you it really works, when you get the hang of it you can actually have the focus anywhere you want in the frame. Even wide open. I prefer it often over the AF of my Nikon (have you ever felt none of the AF brackets is at the place where you actually want it??)

To get back at the topic of the thread. I don't know about that. I just work with all sorts of formats and prefer using MF when I can. Sure great quality but most of all I just like working with it. It is already hard work to make a living from photography but can I at least use what I like? Wink

+888 same as I feel as not making money on photography.

I settled on mfdb for that I find image quality superior and because fit as best tool for my shooting. The tool also influence the image. True focus sounds great, but even without it is so simple with mere one focus point and recompose.
 Wink

@ Bernard, pinhole? I would grab that fussy idea if I was looking for a fussy image!
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 11 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad