Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The end of medium format ?  (Read 21903 times)
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1615


« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2012, 03:47:56 AM »
ReplyReply

They're usually the same people that say a Hyundai is faster than a 5 year old Porsche for 1/2 the price.  That's true, but if they won the lottery tomorrow I doubt if they'd buy Hyundais.

Actually if everyone won the lottery tomorrow I doubt if Hyundai would exist.
Where I live, most seem to buy a Porsche to impress younger women when they hit the mid-life crisis. For all I know, it works.

In every profession that I have had, it has not been about having the fancy, mouth-watering equipment, but no-nonsense stuff that gets the work done while still maintaining a reasonable profit. Does MF fit with this description? Fine. Is it very much about "Ferrari editions", nostalgia and wealthy amateurs wanting to stand out? Fine.

If people are able to do their job using a D800 (or iPhone, for that matter), delivering the images that their customers expect, then I assume that those people will have a competitive advantage vs people with more expensive gear.

-h
Logged
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1071



« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2012, 04:27:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Of course, many did not understand what I mean. I still have the same MF. The fact is that over the last four years did not show a product that caused me to think about replacing my old equipment. So the market is counting on wealthy amateurs? Of course you can start selling mugs, umbrellas, lighters ... When it comes to museums, archives - how do you think that they exchange equipment every two years - you are very wrong. Nikon D800, of course, is not perfect - but when compared to H4D40 makes it hard to believe that it is 35mm .... MF market should be good to revise their plans. Today, times have change very quickly.
BTW
Who of you can identify which ads in Vogue were taken by Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad and PhaseOne? Film or digital? (Assuming that you are not the authors of these photos)
That's it
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1110



WWW
« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2012, 04:36:54 AM »
ReplyReply

But as I review some of these pointed threads and posts I've come to the conclusion that none of this negativity is meant to inform anyone.  

In fact i have the opinion that the only reason for these posts is to stick a black mark in the googlesphere towards certain brands.

What a waste of time.

I think you're right and I think what these time-wasting "this Vs that" posts/ threads really do is to drive people away from the forum as they find it more difficult, time consuming and annoying to wade through and to find the more useful and interesting information, specifically in the MF section which is supposed to cover MF/LF work and gear.

From a manufacturer standpoint we come on here to help and share our knowledge and experience with both existing and potential users and to (hopefully) help them make the right decision, and not to constantly battle the same small group of agenda driven naysayers (whatever their agenda might be on the day, only they know...).

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
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 847


WWW
« Reply #43 on: December 04, 2012, 04:57:59 AM »
ReplyReply



Regardless I think in the professional world, most cameras have a place, in all formats and though the Nikon pundits constantly sing their praises I think we all should note that Nikon or any digital camera maker is not without their issues and faults.

Anyway, I'm all for saving money, but I find no joy is hoping any company, especially wishing small professional camera companies lose their place in the market.

This week, we shot commerce for 5 days on a very compressed schedule and yes, due to time restraints and the creative brief I shot most of the images with NIkon and Canons, but when we could I used my Phase backs and just reviewing a few files tonight, I know the medium format files hold up better in post production.

I'm not looking at charts, or comparing frame rates but I am working real world images in a professional environment.

But as I review some of these pointed threads and posts I've come to the conclusion that none of this negativity is meant to inform anyone.  

In fact i have the opinion that the only reason for these posts is to stick a black mark in the googlesphere towards certain brands.

What a waste of time.

IMO

BC


One of the most realistic posts to have made its appearance here. Horses for courses at the end of the day but there is also the subjective joy in using a particular piece of equipment and if you are happy using it then better images will result I'm sure. All the charts, tables and diagrams cooked up by the manufacturers, their acolytes and the media is going to do little to alter that although good reviews will always reinforce satisfaction with a choice already made.

As for the Googlesphere then I do wonder at times if there is anything as bad as photography in generating such meaningless battles over brands, other than Apple/MS of course. Bikers for instance can happily accept another fellows choice of machine without whipping out vast acres of data and diagrams proving to the great court of public wisdom that a certain model is 0.562% more efficient in the first 10.7 metres of a drag away the lights than any other of a similar capacity. Life is just too short for that sort of BS and hopefully as the digital market matures we will hear less of it.

Still don't like Porsches though!  Cheesy


 
Logged

Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 847


WWW
« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2012, 05:07:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Of course, many did not understand what I mean. I still have the same MF. The fact is that over the last four years did not show a product that caused me to think about replacing my old equipment. So the market is counting on wealthy amateurs? Of course you can start selling mugs, umbrellas, lighters ... When it comes to museums, archives - how do you think that they exchange equipment every two years - you are very wrong. Nikon D800, of course, is not perfect - but when compared to H4D40 makes it hard to believe that it is 35mm .... MF market should be good to revise their plans. Today, times have change very quickly.
BTW
Who of you can identify which ads in Vogue were taken by Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad and PhaseOne? Film or digital? (Assuming that you are not the authors of these photos)
That's it

Funny you should say that as I have felt that there is a difference between the big two in colour rendition. Canon tend to be cooler than Nikon and I would only add fuel to a fire which I don't want to get involved in by suggesting their is a 'techie' style and a more thoughtful style which is often apparent as well, so I am attaching no labels to either. 
Logged

design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1071



« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2012, 05:30:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I think you're right and I think what these time-wasting "this Vs that" posts/ threads really do is to drive people away from the forum as they find it more difficult, time consuming and annoying to wade through and to find the more useful and interesting information, specifically in the MF section which is supposed to cover MF/LF work and gear.

From a manufacturer standpoint we come on here to help and share our knowledge and experience with both existing and potential users and to (hopefully) help them make the right decision, and not to constantly battle the same small group of agenda driven naysayers (whatever their agenda might be on the day, only they know...).

Yair

Yair,
When we can see a new camera? For the next Photokina?
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
OliverM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2012, 05:37:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Camera tests tend to focus on 2 objective criteria : definition and high iso performance.
Regarding these 2 points, that relate to sensor performance, dslr are closing the gap with MF or can be better.

Some remarks nevertheless :

- at the time of film, sensors were the same (velvia, provia, ...) but still the pictures were not the same with slr and MF. Not systematically obvious, but still a different look in many cases. So even if sensors become dientical in digital slr & MF, I continue to think that the look differences of the format remain. Those are more subjective and possibly more or less important upon the subject (I find major differences in portraits for example)

- high iso performance is great to have, but I choose a camera according to its best IQ potential, not upon the minimization of its defaults. The pictures that really impress me are always done in base iso with a great light (including low light on tripod).
That's just me, I can understand that it matters much more for many photography domains (wedding, street, ...). Also the subject really matters and for example some great street photographs were made with poor performing cameras.

- I still find a significant advantage for MF regarding color accuracy, nuances. On my calbrated NEC screen, I have much more pleasure looking at pictures from MF.

- When looking at pictures on the web, I often cannot tell which were made from MF or from DSLR. I am more often impressed by those made by MF, but it is mostly related to the photographer I think. Difficult also to see differences on papers.

- I prefer the use of the MF and the pleasure in using the camera does impact the results (but many photographers who use dslr do better pictures than mine).

- cost : a D800 +2 lenses is 5500 euros, a used contax 645+2 lenses + 1 used back is 7000 euros, an used alpa TC + 2 lenses + 1 used back is 10 k. (Then there are more expensive sets in MF) ... if I had 5500 euros to invest today, I would spare 1500 more and buy the contax. Or wait a bit more and buy the ALpa. (well I have them already). I dream I will buy a P65+ or IQ160, I do not dream of a D800.

Oliver
Logged
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1071



« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2012, 06:04:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Camera tests tend to focus on 2 objective criteria : definition and high iso performance.
Regarding these 2 points, that relate to sensor performance, dslr are closing the gap with MF or can be better.

Some remarks nevertheless :

- at the time of film, sensors were the same (velvia, provia, ...) but still the pictures were not the same with slr and MF. Not systematically obvious, but still a different look in many cases. So even if sensors become dientical in digital slr & MF, I continue to think that the look differences of the format remain. Those are more subjective and possibly more or less important upon the subject (I find major differences in portraits for example)

- high iso performance is great to have, but I choose a camera according to its best IQ potential, not upon the minimization of its defaults. The pictures that really impress me are always done in base iso with a great light (including low light on tripod).
That's just me, I can understand that it matters much more for many photography domains (wedding, street, ...). Also the subject really matters and for example some great street photographs were made with poor performing cameras.

- I still find a significant advantage for MF regarding color accuracy, nuances. On my calbrated NEC screen, I have much more pleasure looking at pictures from MF.

- When looking at pictures on the web, I often cannot tell which were made from MF or from DSLR. I am more often impressed by those made by MF, but it is mostly related to the photographer I think. Difficult also to see differences on papers.

- I prefer the use of the MF and the pleasure in using the camera does impact the results (but many photographers who use dslr do better pictures than mine).

- cost : a D800 +2 lenses is 5500 euros, a used contax 645+2 lenses + 1 used back is 7000 euros, an used alpa TC + 2 lenses + 1 used back is 10 k. (Then there are more expensive sets in MF) ... if I had 5500 euros to invest today, I would spare 1500 more and buy the contax. Or wait a bit more and buy the ALpa. (well I have them already). I dream I will buy a P65+ or IQ160, I do not dream of a D800.

Oliver

The privilege of the rich. But back to the topic: I say, "I love medium format." Using gives a lot of fun. But that's not the point. At some point you wrote: I would choose a "used" medium format. And I'm talkin 'about the new equipment that the manufacturer has to sell to function. And so you have to spend min 17 000 Euro to get something that is really not much different from what you get with this unfortunate Nikon D800. For real MF you have to spend 40,000 Euro. (60 or 80 megapixel). But what in case you already have 60mpix camera for a few years? Buy a new one - because you have a new cover, a different color or just because it's the same camera but with + in the name? Just here I see stagnation. A 35 mm continues to grow - really fast.
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1100


WWW
« Reply #48 on: December 04, 2012, 06:34:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I think you're right and I think what these time-wasting "this Vs that" posts/ threads really do is to drive people away from the forum as they find it more difficult, time consuming and annoying to wade through and to find the more useful and interesting information, specifically in the MF section which is supposed to cover MF/LF work and gear.

From a manufacturer standpoint we come on here to help and share our knowledge and experience with both existing and potential users and to (hopefully) help them make the right decision, and not to constantly battle the same small group of agenda driven naysayers (whatever their agenda might be on the day, only they know...).

Yair

+1

I bust my butt almost daily with PMs, emails about MF gear to help folks make smart purchases on gear. This stuff does not inform anyone of anything but just causes more confusion and than I have to unwind it all and get back to giving them more informed correct guidance. There is a lot of money on the line and no one wants to see people make a bad decision for there needs. I have a lot of respect for the reps that do this daily. Sure we all know end of day they would like people to buy BUT they at least give honest answers and advice. I know many of them personally and they are really good people with a desire to help. This vs that crap does not help anyone. I see it everywhere on here and our forum and all it does is either cause serious conflicts and  turn people off with other members or just get out of even bothering to participate. I won't put up with the negative agenda myself, just a waste of time. Every format has a place in photography from a IPhone to a 11x 14 view camera. Depends on what you do with it that counts. A famous line in this business , no one cares how you got there just that you did. That will never change. I'm off to a gig
Logged

OliverM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #49 on: December 04, 2012, 07:03:32 AM »
ReplyReply

a) ... And I'm talkin 'about the new equipment that the manufacturer has to sell to function.
b) ... that is really not much different from what you get with this unfortunate Nikon D800.
c) ... A 35 mm continues to grow - really fast.

a) I was not arguing, just giving my humble purely subjective point of view with the scenarios I can afford
b) in many objective aspects yes.
c) great ! I hope P65+ users will sell their back when a D900 offers 60 Mpix. I will buy one at a lower price then.

Again, not arguing, it is just great that we have choice, it is so great to have a large variety of photographers.
Logged
Kevin Sink
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


WWW
« Reply #50 on: December 04, 2012, 07:29:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I think the ideal setup would be a tech cam with a IQ160 or better back, with a Nikon D800E as a backup or to use when need to shoot fast.  Best of both worlds. 

Question:  I use an ARCA Swiss Rm3di with a Phase P65, and am convinced by thousands of shots of the need for VERY precise focusing with these small pixel pitch sensors.  (I make very large prints, and focus has to be razor tight.)   To get the best out of the lenses, you need to shoot at f8 to 11, making the dof narrower and the need for precise focusing even greater.  I tested the Nikon D800E and was very impressed and would have bought one but for one reason.  I found Live View for focusing on the D800E to be sorely lacking at best, especially in dim light.  I'd be interested to hear the D800 proponents tell how they get around this when focus is critical.  Maybe I missed something obvious in the brief testing time I had with the camera.  Everything else about the camera was terrific.  When I put the camera in live view mode at max magnification, the image was so pixelated so as to be nearly useless.  Any suggestions?
Logged

Kevin

Kevin Sink Photography
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1100


WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 04, 2012, 07:51:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I think the ideal setup would be a tech cam with a IQ160 or better back, with a Nikon D800E as a backup or to use when need to shoot fast.  Best of both worlds.  

Question:  I use an ARCA Swiss Rm3di with a Phase P65, and am convinced by thousands of shots of the need for VERY precise focusing with these small pixel pitch sensors.  (I make very large prints, and focus has to be razor tight.)   To get the best out of the lenses, you need to shoot at f8 to 11, making the dof narrower and the need for precise focusing even greater.  I tested the Nikon D800E and was very impressed and would have bought one but for one reason.  I found Live View for focusing on the D800E to be sorely lacking at best, especially in dim light.  I'd be interested to hear the D800 proponents tell how they get around this when focus is critical.  Maybe I missed something obvious in the brief testing time I had with the camera.  Everything else about the camera was terrific.  When I put the camera in live view mode at max magnification, the image was so pixelated so as to be nearly useless.  Any suggestions?

Go to medium magnifaction as that is 100 percent view large is 200 percent and ugly. Also Kevin go to manual mode and just drop down shutter speed to where live view brightens up more for viewing than go back for exposure. Obviously you can only take that so far but it does have decent range.

I agree tech cam and Nikon which I had and loved the combo as it did everything for me. At some point I will get back to that setup. Maybe next year
« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 07:52:56 AM by Guy Mancuso » Logged

torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1269


« Reply #52 on: December 04, 2012, 08:23:35 AM »
ReplyReply

In the DSLR world the best live view has not yet been combined with the best high res sensor. Canon has been strong on live view but weak on base ISO image quality, and Nikon recently strong on base ISO image quality but not as good live view.

To me personally the ideal setup would be a 50 megapixel 48x36mm back at a good price for use with my tech camera, combined with a DSLR for hand-held stuff (and I don't need many pixels for that). For tripod-based shooting of still life / landscape a tech camera is still most attractive to me. I think the back options are a bit limited though, either too much crop or low pixel count or too high end. As I've mentioned before I'd love to see someone make a "enthusiast" back out of the Dalsa FTF6080C, perhaps drop tethering function to make it "less professional" (to avoid cannibalizing on own more high end products), and price it ~$6K - which I think would be possible (basically an Aptus-II 5 with an other off-the-shelf sensor). I think there would be a lot more enthusiasts if you could get a complete (tech cam) system that felt like a solid performer for say $15K. That would have been so much cooler than seeing a Hasselblad Lunar...
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5071


« Reply #53 on: December 04, 2012, 09:04:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I guess that MF will be around as long as Dalsa and Truesense are around. Perhaps we see another MF sensor manufacturer in the future?
I share this "trickle down" optimism: there will continue to be a market for sensors larger than 36x24mm for "non-artistic" uses (scientific, medical, industrial, aerial) and making versions of these sensors with CFA's and such for "artistic photography" cameras should continue to be viable. And new players might be coming --- like CMOSIS, designer of the sensor for the new Leica M. With Teledyne-Dalsa and TrueSense (ne Kodak) now working on CMOS sensors as well as CCDs, and CMOSIS designing CMOS sensors for relatively small production volumes, MF systems might even get access to some good CMOS sensors within a decade or so!
Logged
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1405


WWW
« Reply #54 on: December 04, 2012, 09:06:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Kevin:

Kevin:

I agree that the live view on the D800 (and now D600) can be a bit tricky, especially if you have used Canon's implementation.  I have found that in low light it's still best to just open the lens up all the way, I realize you might get some focus shifting but I have yet to really see much.  I will always take the live view to 100% then back off three steps.  I think this gives you a 100% view.  Nikon is what you see is what you get, Canon gives you what the camera feels is the best balance, but also shows you a meter at the bottom of the screen where you can judge the real exposure.  Here I like Nikon's setup better, and when you get around what zoom setup to use, it gets much easier to use.

In low light Canon has a better noise dampening setup for sure.  With Nikon you see all the noise in low light and it makes it very hard to focus.  Canon seems to have figured out a way to buffer out this effect, which allows you to gain a much faster focus.  However once you start working with the Nikon live view it's get better.  I have found that I tend to check most of my shots via live view now.  I have tried working with the D800 at night but it's not as well suited for my style of shooting, and I really don't need that large a raw file. 

BTW I feel that Live view on the IQ cameras is much harder to work with, but it can be used.  As many have pointed out, you need a strong ND filter over the lens and or be working in waning light.  My main issue with Live View on the IQ is that to my eye it's much harder to get a good focus on distant objects as there is very little contrast on the screen.  I have used it to gain sharp focus on closer in objects, say 5 feet to 30 feet.  I am also using the rm3di. 

Paul
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #55 on: December 04, 2012, 09:14:47 AM »
ReplyReply

The real issues with medium format are the cameras not the backs.  The new generation of backs and software produce a great file usable in any environment where you might find MF useful.  The main thing is, to me any way, the finder.  The bigger the better.  Of currently produced cameras, the H is pretty good.  The Hy6 is good.  Not sure about the Pentax, but i've heard good things.  I don't count the Leica because, in my mind anyay, it is a hopped up D3x.  Good finder, great lenses, but it really feels like a 35mm camera, and in my experience Leica service is an insulting joke.

The D800 is a good, make that great, alternative, but it is in the end a 35mm format slr camera, which is great and limiting, depending on how you work.  Because people work differently, MFDB will be around, assuming they can get sensors.  For instance, I would shoot beauty with a back, but might shoot products with a D800.  I would shoot portraits with either, depending on the brief.  Not much time with the subject or spontenaity life style stuff, I'd use a D800 or M9.  For more traditional portraits, a back would work.  I think that shooting stills along with motion could be done with the newer crop of backs as they can shoot higher ISO and the software has greatly improved since I gave up on my P30+ in 2008.  I don't shoot landscap so I can't comment on that genre.

The D800 has issues, which are solvable. The color needs tweaking, you really need LR4 (havent tried C1 7), the Live View is not intuitive. Manual focusing is hard, the viewfinder is not great, not bad either.  No product is without issues. But the potential of the camera is fantastic.  The AF, face detection, HDMI out, etc etc combined with the sensor is eye opening.  I'm still getting into it and I've had one since August.

About the race to the bottom, its one reason I left the industry.  I grew tired of the fight.  Recently, a friend who is the editor of a magazine was over for dinner.  He liked the tintypes I had up of my daughter.  He asked me to shoot tintypes of actors in modern dress who had appeared in the Lincoln movie for a feature he was writing.  I met with the photo editor and gave a budget of around $2k for expenses. I said I could shoot it on 8x10 film to save money and time, which would get the look they were after.  They said that was too much money, and asked about digital.  I said it couldn't be done with digital because of the sensor size.  They ended up using someone else who used canon tilt/shift lenses with digital effects attempting to mimic the tintype look.  The photos looked like shit but they were happy with them.  Such is life.  I'm glad I don't depend on editorial work for my living.

Once Phase gets a camera that is up to snuff, minds might change.  In the end, just use the best tool for you and the job, be it film, a D800 or a Credo 80mp back.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608



WWW
« Reply #56 on: December 04, 2012, 10:09:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I've got an ever increasing pot. Not pot-belly, you understand, it's still relatively flat, but a pot of funds for camera purchase. The sad fact is, for the moment at least, there's not a single camera or system out there of any format that inspires me enough to part with my pot.

I doubt I'm alone.
Logged

EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2304



WWW
« Reply #57 on: December 04, 2012, 10:41:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: KLaban link=topic=72919.msg579515#msg579515 date=1354637393

I doubt I'm alone.

[/quote

You're not.  I could have bought a D800E, but instead I bought several film cameras.  13x18 and 4x5 Technikas, and a Fuji gx680iii.  Of course I had already the AFi-ii 12 but still the new dollars went to old stuff not new stuff. 
Logged

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

Posts: 1651


« Reply #58 on: December 04, 2012, 11:59:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I think you're right and I think what these time-wasting "this Vs that" posts/ threads really do is to drive people away from the forum as they find it more difficult, time consuming and annoying to wade through and to find the more useful and interesting information, specifically in the MF section which is supposed to cover MF/LF work and gear.

Yair

1487 views in one day would indicate a lot of interest.

I think that people look for comparisons. Just look at any field... cars, motorbikes, kites for kitesurfing. This vs that is part of the decision making process.
With photography the image speaks clearly. Putting the images side by side makes it a lot easier to make a choice. Functionality is harder to grasp and that is where
the opinion of others helps.

There is a strong presence of dealers and manufacturers reps on this forum that want to and need to make sales. The discussion has a balancing effect.
Experienced photographer compared to dealers and manufacture reps that have a strong monetary interest to promote their product.
Please not that I said compared, non vs.

One thing I have learnt in the business of photography is that it has been far more fruitful to listen carefully to  the art directors that have been critical
of my work and portfolio than wade in the (still much appreciated) praise of others.

When I buy something I look around and go head first for what inspires me or what I desire. In today's world what you tend to fall for has more to
do with marketing, image and constructed reputation. Once I'm all pumped up about what I want I then become my own devil's advocate and
it becomes about why I should not buy it. I go from want to ... do I need it... is there something as good... maybe better... how will this impact getting other things I need.

I also think that it is of great relevance that other formats be discussed in conjunction with MF if the images that these format produce are
of a quality that puts them in the league of even just some of the current MF offerings.

The final product is not the camera (unless you are an equipment collector) it's the image. The starting point should be there. I think that the this vs that
on this forum along with high res downloads does this very well.

This is a Discussion Forum. But it is also simply text. It's not loud, it does not interrupt one's dinner. No one has to read anything.

While you say this turns people away the number show the opposite.

Phase One High Speed flash sync. 1/1600                             3074 reads.
Phase One Schneider lenses (origin)                                     1223 reads despite being closed within a day
Nikon D800E v.s Hasselblad H4D40: my in-studio test-review    6498 reads
About the Phase One / Hasselblad focusing                           2287 reads
People who ask about the D800 have never experienced medium format      13628 reads

(I only started 2 of those threads... so the credit is not mine  Wink
« Last Edit: December 04, 2012, 12:14:12 PM by FredBGG » Logged
Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 782


« Reply #59 on: December 04, 2012, 12:10:33 PM »
ReplyReply

1487 views in one day would indicate a lot of interest.


And lots of people turn and look at auto accidents when driving by, because they want to see the carnage.

Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad