Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format  (Read 29265 times)
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #80 on: October 03, 2012, 04:44:22 AM »
ReplyReply

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:

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.



OMG, it is about learning and working within the limitations of the gear. If not one type works for you, then move on, stop fussing and enjoy working with the tool you prefer to use. Simply many others may find e.g. True focus or one focus point on medium format cams much more prefferred.

Is this the behind of this personal "hidden agenda crusade against all mfdb" ?? Smiley
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 04:47:14 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2349


« Reply #81 on: October 03, 2012, 04:47:42 AM »
ReplyReply

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.


I actually work almost daily with the HB and know about what it cannot do. Using the focus on live view on my D800 (which I also use) I personally find a pain in the ass certainly when working handheld.

I can tell you from first hand experience that using TF with for instance a heavy lens like the 50-110 while hand holding the camera works like a charm. Naturally this applies when you know how to use it and know what its weaknesses are but doesn't that apply for everything? Recomposing is no problem as long as you keep in mind how to do it and really when you use it a lot it becomes more natural and easier. For me up to a point I often prefer it over the Nikon AF and don't get me started about live view which is nice on a tripod but useless handheld.

All IMO naturally.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #82 on: October 03, 2012, 12:37:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I can tell you from first hand experience that using TF with for instance a heavy lens like the 50-110 while hand holding the camera works like a charm. Naturally this applies when you know how to use it and know what its weaknesses are but doesn't that apply for everything?

The 50-110mm at 4.5 has 4 times the depth of field of the 100mm 2.2. This will make True Focus performance less critical and will most likely get you close enough.

With the zoom at 50mm you are in the more useful focal length range where focus and recompose will work better.

True Focus could be much better. A few more focusing points would reduce the correction required and reduce the wiggling infront of the model for focusing.
Forward and backwards movement needs to be added to it, but it was not added in the H5D update.

Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #83 on: October 03, 2012, 12:49:36 PM »
ReplyReply

OMG, it is about learning and working within the limitations of the gear. If not one type works for you, then move on, stop fussing and enjoy working with the tool you prefer to use. Simply many others may find e.g. True focus or one focus point on medium format cams much more prefferred.

Is this the behind of this personal "hidden agenda crusade against all mfdb" ?? Smiley

Why do you get your pants in a twist if I simply point out the limitations of True Focus AS DOCUMENTED BY HASSELBLAD THEMSELVES
I think that pointing this out is useful for anyone either thinking of renting or buying a Hasselblad.

I also think it's relevant that if someone prefers a single focus point one can set a 35mm DSLR to single point too.

More modern focusing systems like that in the Pentax 645D offer both multiple and single focus points.

Quote
it is about learning and working within the limitations of the gear.
Exactly why I point out the limitations.
For many it is also about knowing all the pros and cons and then deciding what to work with. The more one knows the better.

I also happen to use cameras with no autofocus, but I choose to do so with cameras that have high magnification viewfinders.
Logged
JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 509


« Reply #84 on: October 03, 2012, 01:26:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Exactly why I point out the limitations.

Fred, no matter what the circumstances may be, luckily we can always count on you to point out the limitations of Hasselblad,
an average of 5 times a day, 7 days a week...
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 02:13:12 PM by JV » Logged
Nick-T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 462


« Reply #85 on: October 03, 2012, 01:41:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I use true focus on the 100 2.2 all the time and can state with absolute certainty that it works. I was also one of the original beta testers for the feature and had to test and document my findings. Of course this is only my opinion based on what I have seen over the past  three years.

I can only assume that Fred has a great deal more experience with true focus than I....
Logged

Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2349


« Reply #86 on: October 03, 2012, 01:44:17 PM »
ReplyReply

The 50-110mm at 4.5 has 4 times the depth of field of the 100mm 2.2. This will make True Focus performance less critical and will most likely get you close enough.

With the zoom at 50mm you are in the more useful focal length range where focus and recompose will work better.

True Focus could be much better. A few more focusing points would reduce the correction required and reduce the wiggling infront of the model for focusing.
Forward and backwards movement needs to be added to it, but it was not added in the H5D update.



Geez.... Fred. I gave the example of the zoom because it was YOU that mentioned TF would be difficult with a heavy setup... Now, as for the 100/2.2. This lens is almost glued to my body (camerabody that is) and yes wide-open it works too.

Now, what other example would you like to mention now? It seems you are determined to convince me TF does not work which makes me wonder why? I use TF almost daily for the last 2 years and it has made focussing a non-issue for me. I get focus where I want at whatever aperture and it works with every H lens I use.

No, I would most certainly not want more focusing points! It would mean I have to select points and mean a system that is now working very well would become more complicated to use. I like TF as it is, I just wish it would acquire a little bit faster. Oh wait! That is added in the H5!....
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 01:50:26 PM by Dustbak » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #87 on: October 03, 2012, 02:39:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred, no matter what the circumstances may be, luckily we can always count on you to point out the limitations of Hasselblad,
an average of 5 times a day, 7 days a week...

Interesting that you attack me for pointing out the limitations of True focus as documented by Hasselblad:

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

I also find it interesting that users here claim it is better than Hasselblad claims in their own article.

You are right that I point out the limitations... many actually appreciate it especially when it is documented by the manufacturers themselves.

As far as I know a discussion forum is not supposed to be "a place of worship".
Logged
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1191



WWW
« Reply #88 on: October 03, 2012, 02:39:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

I would just like to say that the you Hasselblad guys have made me convinced that True Focus does what it was designed to do and do well and I donít even own a Hasselblad. Our friend Fred seems the sort of person who will not concede when he is miss informed and should respectfully back off. Alas I donít think that is going to happen.

Well Iím off to my studio to make images.

Cheers

Simon
Logged

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

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

Posts: 1651


« Reply #89 on: October 03, 2012, 02:44:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

I would just like to say that the you Hasselblad guys have made me convinced that True Focus does what it was designed to do and do well and I donít even own a Hasselblad. Our friend Fred seems the sort of person who will not concede when he is miss informed and should respectfully back off. Alas I donít think that is going to happen.

Well Iím off to my studio to make images.

Cheers

Simon

Simon... I'm not inventing or making up anything here... and if you say I am miss informed... well I guess I was miss informed by Hasselblad then

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/2234814/when%20true%20focus%20makes%20a%20difference.pdf
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6891


WWW
« Reply #90 on: October 03, 2012, 02:50:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

For what it is worth, Diglloyd has tested the Hasselblad H4D50 and was not complaining about AF accuracy, but he complained a lot about both Leica S2 and Pentax 645D regarding AF. On the other hand he found both lenses he tested on the blad pretty bad.

In his limited test the Nikon D800 with Zeiss Macro Planar 100/2 outperformed the Leica S2 with Summicron 120/2.2. Nikon was focused using live view and Leica S2 with focus bracketing. The area the Leica lost out was corner performance. The advantage the Nikon/Zeiss combo had was very visible in actual pixel crops.


Best regards
Erik




Hello,

I would just like to say that the you Hasselblad guys have made me convinced that True Focus does what it was designed to do and do well and I donít even own a Hasselblad. Our friend Fred seems the sort of person who will not concede when he is miss informed and should respectfully back off. Alas I donít think that is going to happen.

Well Iím off to my studio to make images.

Cheers

Simon
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 03:49:32 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Nick-T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 462


« Reply #91 on: October 03, 2012, 03:10:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not inventing or making up anything here...

Fred I'm not suggesting that. You are clearly a talented photographer but perhaps not one who has used Hasselblad digital extensively..
Logged

Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2349


« Reply #92 on: October 03, 2012, 03:15:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting that you attack me for pointing out the limitations of True focus as documented by Hasselblad:

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

I also find it interesting that users here claim it is better than Hasselblad claims in their own article.

You are right that I point out the limitations... many actually appreciate it especially when it is documented by the manufacturers themselves.

As far as I know a discussion forum is not supposed to be "a place of worship".

Sure, I don't mind discussion but what am I discussing with you? You quote a document selectively and make it appear whether that is the absolute truth. Yes, TF does make a difference in that example but it does so in other examples too, like with the 100 or 150 wide open. I can only state what I have seen in 2 years of usage. TF works and works well if you know how to use it. No, it does not like lateral movement of either you or the model and no it does not work well on a tripod. It is great hand-held if you know how to work with your wrists. No mentioning of it working better than HB mentions, count to think of it HB doesn't give qualifications on how well it works so there is not much to compare with.

I kind of resent the remark about 'place of worship', I do not worship HB. It is a tool that does what I need it to do in most cases and there is a number of things that I would like to have improved.

I also resent that you only point out the limitations and easily dismiss the possibilities or even ignore them. I think this is the part people 'attack' you on. I actually use the stuff and completely agree on the limitations of that system but despite its shortcomings I find it extremely useful. BTW, I don't particularly feel I am attacking you. I simply feel that you are showing a severe form of tunnel vision for whatever reason.


« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 03:18:52 PM by Dustbak » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #93 on: October 03, 2012, 03:24:05 PM »
ReplyReply

You quote a document selectively and make it appear whether that is the absolute truth.

I quoted a part that is relevant to the discussion AND LINKED TO THE WHOLE ARTICLE.
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #94 on: October 03, 2012, 03:38:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred, no matter what the circumstances may be, luckily we can always count on you to point out the limitations of Hasselblad,
an average of 5 times a day, 7 days a week...


Exact, not only Hassy, it is like attack all on medium format digital wize. Whats up with such an agenda?? And no posts of any good images shot even though asked to. Seems the gent is on revenge rampage on industry or something...

Reading, sure makes me want TF for my Hy6 as well. I sure do not need more focus points. At least with DHW my contact is with CEO. Now how is that compared for support? Perhaps they can at for the Mod 3 upgrade... Wink
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2349


« Reply #95 on: October 03, 2012, 03:39:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from the article:

"The effect of focus shift as a function of camera movement is more apparent with short focal length lenses at close distances. E.g. a HCD28 used at 1m will show a much larger focus shift than a HC150 used at 15m."

and

"When the camera is tilted for composition, the point of maxi- mum 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.
"

Which is something different from:

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

The comment on the 80mm from 1mtr basically says, do not move forward or backward and neither should your model. This is a shortcoming that you do need to learn to work with. I did...

The gist of the article is that the effect most noticable at wider angles which does not mean it does not work with longer focal lengths. It actually works well, again. It does not say anywhere that it is of no help at all with longer focal lengths than normal. Maybe you should have put a little more effort in learning how to use it than just a couple of hours! I have seen people start using TF but it took them a bit longer to learn how to most effectively use it. A couple of hours might not have been enough. Sure it might be the case that TF is simply not for you. Nobody is saying it is an end-all solution.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 03:47:03 PM by Dustbak » Logged
ripgriffith
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114


« Reply #96 on: October 03, 2012, 03:45:28 PM »
ReplyReply

My first experience of Medium format was a fuji 6x4.5 and, compared to film, Digital backs are just epic jokes. I sold my S2 because of that. After realising it was just a plastic tool, with a tiny sensor and that a real MF, a good MF film, do far better in global rendering at an artistic level.

The S2 is just a toy for rich in our actual world. The real soul is in film. Leica are just arrogant marketers, nothing more, aiming ppl who drive Hybrid cars and smoke up their a**.

Those are my first MF shoots ever.
The real soul is in the photographer, not in the medium, not in the tools.  If you want to see real arrogance, take a look in the mirror.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6891


WWW
« Reply #97 on: October 03, 2012, 04:12:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

As a general comment to the whole discussion I would say that:

The best cameras today are probably good enough if you put a decent lens on the body, use tripod, minimum ISO, mirror lockup, cable release  or self timer and focus using live view or a 30X loupe on ground glass shimmed into alignment with the sensor. If you don't do that, why care?

If you do all of the above you may find the best lenses. You can buy a Nikon D800E and a bunch of Zeiss lenses for 6-7000$ and feel assured you have about the best of stuff in the DSLR market.

You can choose to spend 3-5 times the amount on MFD equipment and achieve some real or perceived benefits. Obviously there are couple of benefits of a larger sensor. It will probably collect more photons, unless the vendor of the smaller sensor makes some magic with full well capacity (FWC). A larger format makes also less demand on the lens.

Now, Nikon and Sony developers do some magic with FWC. Check http://www.sensorgen.info/

Nikon D4: FWC=117813
Nikon D800: FWC=44972
Hasselblad H3DII50: FWC=38463
PhaseOne P65Plus: FWC=53019

So although the Nikon D800 has small pixels, FWC is similar to some relatively recent digital back. This may mean, if sensorgen information is correct, that the latest generation of Nikons are very good at collecting photons.

But any way,it is your money, and as long you are happy with the results you have, it is just fine.

Best regards
Erik






Logged

Kagetsu
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


WWW
« Reply #98 on: October 04, 2012, 12:18:23 AM »
ReplyReply

So pretty much what everybody is saying so far, is it comes down to the lens, and the camera itself is smallest part of the equation.
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2303



WWW
« Reply #99 on: October 04, 2012, 12:29:07 AM »
ReplyReply

So pretty much what everybody is saying so far, is it comes down to the lens, and the camera itself is smallest part of the equation.

Not me!   I'm saying I prefer the big bright viewfinder of my Rollei AFi, the higher flash sync speed, the leaf shutter lenses which allow me to shoot hand held at lower shutter speeds and well a whole lot of other things.   I've tested the d800 side by side and the MF glass produces a different look and the digital backs have superior color.  I prefer the MF crop over the 3::2 ratio of DSLR's as well.   I just find composing much more fluid with the better finders.    Lenses - the way I look at is this - since you can find great lenses for either platform in a way the lenses don't matter, what's left is the usability. Usability depends a lot on the individual and what they are shooting.   btw - I have a nikon F4 camera that I would prefer to the DSLR's they make today because of the viewfinder and viewfinder options.  It's too bad Nikon didn't bring some of that back.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad