Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 16 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The end of medium format ?  (Read 33385 times)
Nick-T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 462


« Reply #100 on: December 05, 2012, 07:26:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for sharing Fred this is really useful stuff.

Nick-T
Logged

Ed Foster, Jr.
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #101 on: December 05, 2012, 07:29:35 PM »
ReplyReply

...It clearly demonstrates that I did not start out with a negative view of medium format digital. Wink Wink

To me, it demonstrates that you bashed Nikon in a public way before you had sufficient information to be reasonably objective. You added a lot of noise on a matter before you actually knew what you were publishing. That type of information does not benefit research or the forum in which you posted it on.

Regards,
Ed
Logged

Ed Foster, Jr.
www.edfoster.net
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #102 on: December 05, 2012, 08:28:58 PM »
ReplyReply

To me, it demonstrates that you bashed Nikon in a public way before you had sufficient information to be reasonably objective. You added a lot of noise on a matter before you actually knew what you were publishing. That type of information does not benefit research or the forum in which you posted it on.

Regards,
Ed


 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes It was a discussion based on Nikon claiming MF quality and this was the sample image that we were all seeing at the time.



Sorry if I made the mistake of discussing the issue based on Nikon's Official sample images.....
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #103 on: December 05, 2012, 08:33:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes It was a discussion based on Nikon claiming MF quality and this was the sample image that we were all seeing at the time.



Sorry if I made the mistake of discussing the issue based on Nikon's Official sample images.....

I've never understood why the samples from both Nikon and Canon are so poor. I saw the samples and initially passed on the D800.
Logged
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1158


WWW
« Reply #104 on: December 05, 2012, 08:51:21 PM »
ReplyReply

35mm does a lot of things medium format can't do (and may never). But medium format does not need to match all of those technologies. All medium format must do is continue to offer enough of a reason to buy it for those who want to. Regarding profits and improvement, in relative terms, the Credo and IQ products were a quantum leap forward for medium format compared to the prior generation. In fact, if you evaluate Phase One as a company over the recent years, on the contrary, they seem to be a thriving company. During the peak of the worldwide recession, they made acquisitions, acquiring a hardware company (Leaf Imaging), a software company (Expressions Media), and invested a controlling stake into a 3rd company (Mamiya), while posting profits throughout the period (indeed, record profits in 2011). They do not seem to reflect a company struggling with R&D funding.

I think both platforms have advanced quite significantly for their intended base. Medium format will always have the disadvantage (and advantages) of size, when it is compared to 35mm technology.

I spoke to a long time client today who shoots Canon and recently acquired a D800. Though an owner, he is not a fan of the D800, and continues to have interest in medium format. The D800 is an excellent product. It is not perfect, and it is not for everyone, but it is a no brainer for the general photographic market, in the same way the Canon 5D-MK II was when it launched.

There are enough photographers in the world who value something different, and does not necessarily have to do seemingly everything with ease the way a Nikon D800 can.

If someone is a fan and can indeed provide useful information about the Nikon D800, by all means share it. I don't understand any need to deter anyone's interest in medium format at the same time.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
MFDB: Phase One/Leaf-Mamiya/Hasselblad/Leica/Sinar
TechCam: Alpa/Cambo/Arca Swiss/Sinar
Direct: 404.543.8475
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8023


WWW
« Reply #105 on: December 05, 2012, 09:45:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Guy,

Just keep apart things please. Are you comparing CCD and CMOS or are you comparing MF and 135 or are you comparing Dalsa sensors with Nikon sensors.

What BJL and I am saying that there is little difference between CCD and CMOS as both are just converting photons to electrons and storing the electrons in small capacitors on the chip. The only difference between the two is really how the capacitor is read. In CCD you pop the charge from pixel to pixel while on CMOS you can read it directly. CMOS readout is non destructive which allows for correlated double sampling, a technique reducing noise.

Were you using the same raw converter on CMOS and CCD cameras, or were you using vendor's software?

Regarding the future of MF, it is very simple at least in the long term. The companies making MF equipment need to sell enough stuff at profitable prices. They need enough earnings to keep manufacture, development and their value added retailer chain going. As long as the companies earn money MF will be hanging around. If the companies would not earn enough money they may hang on anyway.

I would not be surprised if Phase or Leaf designed their own MF sensor.

I noted with some interest that Phase is going into industrial stuff, like repro equipment and aerial photography, thus expanding the market. Seems to me to be a very wise move.

Best regards
Erik




This is very true in the beginning , sounds like a epic movie or something but CMOS was really crap and you would have never wanted in a camera ever. Of course I shot digital well over 20 years ago and CCD was junk as well. But its market was for cameras and obviously they both have evolved to be much better and we are pretty damn lucky they did, it was really ugly back than. CMOS has completely turned it around to high end sensors and costs maybe only being huge quantities and small chips they still are probably cheaper but i would bet the same size as the MF CCD's than maybe the same costs. Something we really dont know since nothing is in the market at that size and on the sales racks. The issue I still have with CMOS as good as it has gotten and lets be honest the D800 E is pretty good but its not the same look as a CCD sensor. I keep going looking back in a circle and keep coming back to the same conclusion. I shot a ton of CCD sensors from Phase, Leaf,Leica's M8, M9, DMR to old Kodak 460's and even on occasion Hassy H backs and all of them seem to have better color, better tone and maybe the biggest thing a smoother looking film like palette . Now maybe scientifically that makes little sense and i wont argue the science of it all, you guys know that better than me. I go by what I see but even today the D800E does not look like my IQ 140 or IQ 160 backs I had. Its actually a pretty big gap in the area's I mentioned and I'll put my nose in here and say i am one hell of a great raw processing guru with C1 so it is not that, I can lets say for clarity work any file to look great. I want to make that clear its not the operator at fault here and all I'm saying about that end. The differences are there between CMOS and CCD and i cant seem to even convince myself they look the same. There is a term I use use and even lets say between my old P25 Plus compared to the 160 the P25 was ( My words) crunchier looking. But the CMOS is even behind that comparison in my view . It just is not as smoooooooooth looking. Not sure what it is but its there and it takes some work in processing to get it looking better. My final conclusions on that as good as the Nikons Vs the Phase and CCD company of backs the difference comes down to CMOS vs CCD . There are some other factors like size and such for sure. But I think there is a technical gap that CMOS cant cross over. Just my thoughts on it and end of day some scientific guy may say I'm dead wrong. Maybe so but there is something I am seeing that has no real answer for it except the different sensors.

want to make it clear i am only talking about the look of the file. You folks can argue till the cows come home about functionality and ergos. That is not what I care about its the output. BTW i still love the MF backs so even though I am short of not having one right now, I still miss the crap out of it because i believe it still is the better file.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8023


WWW
« Reply #106 on: December 05, 2012, 09:55:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

On the other hand I had some communication from a photographer who is in the process of selling of his IQ180, after he switched to Nikon D800/D800E. The reason he sells of the IQ180 is mainly because he found it was collecting dust.

I would also add that the person I communicated with is essentially furious with Nikon's lack of quality control, so he is not a Nikon fanboy. He also noted that he knows several photographers who are in a similar situation selling of P65+ and IQ160, he says they don't look back.

I guess that it is a question of equipment matching needs and needs being different.

Best regards
Erik

35mm does a lot of things medium format can't do (and may never). But medium format does not need to match all of those technologies. All medium format must do is continue to offer enough of a reason to buy it for those who want to. Regarding profits and improvement, in relative terms, the Credo and IQ products were a quantum leap forward for medium format compared to the prior generation. In fact, if you evaluate Phase One as a company over the recent years, on the contrary, they seem to be a thriving company. During the peak of the worldwide recession, they made acquisitions, acquiring a hardware company (Leaf Imaging), a software company (Expressions Media), and invested a controlling stake into a 3rd company (Mamiya), while posting profits throughout the period (indeed, record profits in 2011). They do not seem to reflect a company struggling with R&D funding.

I think both platforms have advanced quite significantly for their intended base. Medium format will always have the disadvantage (and advantages) of size, when it is compared to 35mm technology.

I spoke to a long time client today who shoots Canon and recently acquired a D800. Though an owner, he is not a fan of the D800, and continues to have interest in medium format. The D800 is an excellent product. It is not perfect, and it is not for everyone, but it is a no brainer for the general photographic market, in the same way the Canon 5D-MK II was when it launched.

There are enough photographers in the world who value something different, and does not necessarily have to do seemingly everything with ease the way a Nikon D800 can.

If someone is a fan and can indeed provide useful information about the Nikon D800, by all means share it. I don't understand any need to deter anyone's interest in medium format at the same time.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #107 on: December 05, 2012, 10:04:26 PM »
ReplyReply

35mm does a lot of things medium format can't do (and may never). But medium format does not need to match all of those technologies. All medium format must do is continue to offer enough of a reason to buy it for those who want to. Regarding profits and improvement, in relative terms, the Credo and IQ products were a quantum leap forward for medium format compared to the prior generation. In fact, if you evaluate Phase One as a company over the recent years, on the contrary, they seem to be a thriving company. During the peak of the worldwide recession, they made acquisitions, acquiring a hardware company (Leaf Imaging), a software company (Expressions Media), and invested a controlling stake into a 3rd company (Mamiya), while posting profits throughout the period (indeed, record profits in 2011). They do not seem to reflect a company struggling with R&D funding.

I think both platforms have advanced quite significantly for their intended base. Medium format will always have the disadvantage (and advantages) of size, when it is compared to 35mm technology.

I spoke to a long time client today who shoots Canon and recently acquired a D800. Though an owner, he is not a fan of the D800, and continues to have interest in medium format. The D800 is an excellent product. It is not perfect, and it is not for everyone, but it is a no brainer for the general photographic market, in the same way the Canon 5D-MK II was when it launched.

There are enough photographers in the world who value something different, and does not necessarily have to do seemingly everything with ease the way a Nikon D800 can.

If someone is a fan and can indeed provide useful information about the Nikon D800, by all means share it. I don't understand any need to deter anyone's interest in medium format at the same time.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

Bought a software company (expression media)? They bought the software... the company they bought it from was Microsoft. Microsoft dropped Expression from it's Suite in 2009.
Phase pretty much bought a moth-balled software....
I know a little bit about it because I had it at the time.
As far as the other investments go they are purchases of MF companies somewhat in difficulty.
Leaf brand and technology was acquired from the ailing Kodak creating Leaf Imaging.

Quote
while posting profits throughout the period (indeed, record profits in 2011).
Where are these number posted?

One would think they would be a bit more public about record profits due to the uncertainty surrounding MFD and many other technologies.
It would be reassuring to potential customers considering the investment required is a long term investment for most clients.
Logged
Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1158


WWW
« Reply #108 on: December 05, 2012, 10:51:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Bought a software company (expression media)? They bought the software... the company they bought it from was Microsoft. Microsoft dropped Expression from it's Suite in 2009.
Phase pretty much bought a moth-balled software....
I know a little bit about it because I had it at the time.
As far as the other investments go they are purchases of MF companies somewhat in difficulty.
Leaf brand and technology was acquired from the ailing Kodak creating Leaf Imaging.

Oh, you used Expressions Media, so you know a little bit about it. Oh...ok. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding Expressions Media and Leaf at the time, the acquisitions are still notable, especially in conjunction with the Mamiya investment and considering the worldwide economic conditions at the time.


Where are these number posted?


Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you had the profit numbers.

But things are not going well at all. profits are not high enough for development costs


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
MFDB: Phase One/Leaf-Mamiya/Hasselblad/Leica/Sinar
TechCam: Alpa/Cambo/Arca Swiss/Sinar
Direct: 404.543.8475
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451



WWW
« Reply #109 on: December 05, 2012, 11:04:26 PM »
ReplyReply

It would be great to see this section of the forum return to positive discussions regarding medium format rather constant “mine is better than yours” posts hijackings that are full of negativity and a showcase for constant reposting of the same images over and over. Earlier this year, FredBGG (using his real name) gushed over medium format and belittled DSLRs and Nikon’s D800 claims on another forum:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=823993

I cannot help but wonder how many people who read his comments on Model Mayhem opted for MFD because of the rantings of a self proclaimed star and mentor?

C’mon, Fred, give forum members a little credit for being intelligent enough to read, research and make our own decisions on the equipment we choose to employ. I really don’t believe we need a “savior” here.

A big thank you to guys like Doug, Yair, BC, Erik, Keith, Eric, Guy and so many others who put the information out that truly informs and helps.

Wow! Good Googling there Ed!    

It's amazing reading that thread... its like a tale of two Fred's... one that loves MFDB and one that hates it...
Reading a bit down... Fred states....

"While Nikon (with Sony's help) have crammed 36 MP into a fantastic mini supercomputer with outstanding build quality and the formidable reliability of Nikon and Canon the sensors don't have the true dynamic range and quantization of a MF  CCD sensor. "

Then he writes, "Look at how the shadows in the nikon file don't have deep solid details that still hold jet black like the p25 file does.

Look at how the skin tones become creepy right ways in the Nikon file. That is what dynamic range is really about. "
and

"Both the 5d mark III and the D800 are fine cameras, but we are not at MF CCD levels yet."


It's like Jeckl and Hyde but all we get here on LuLa from Fred is the Hyde.   Fred, You are so busted!    
Logged

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

Posts: 1651


« Reply #110 on: December 05, 2012, 11:20:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Wow! Good Googling there Ed!    

It's amazing reading that thread... its like a tale of two Fred's... one that loves MFDB and one that hates it...
Reading a bit down... Fred states....

"While Nikon (with Sony's help) have crammed 36 MP into a fantastic mini supercomputer with outstanding build quality and the formidable reliability of Nikon and Canon the sensors don't have the true dynamic range and quantization of a MF  CCD sensor. "

Then he writes, "Look at how the shadows in the nikon file don't have deep solid details that still hold jet black like the p25 file does.

Look at how the skin tones become creepy right ways in the Nikon file. That is what dynamic range is really about. "
and

"Both the 5d mark III and the D800 are fine cameras, but we are not at MF CCD levels yet."


It's like Jeckl and Hyde but all we get here on LuLa from Fred is the Hyde.   Fred, You are so busted!    


Busted?Huh

As I said before the camera was not shipping yet and that was based on the sample files that Nikon had made available.
As more information came out and I got my hands first on better files and then on the camera I stated what saw.
After trying a D800 once I sold all my Phase One gear.

Logged
Paul Ozzello
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205



WWW
« Reply #111 on: December 05, 2012, 11:40:31 PM »
ReplyReply


After trying a D800 once I sold all my Phase One gear.


No better reason to stop posting in the medium format forum.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8023


WWW
« Reply #112 on: December 05, 2012, 11:46:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I would say that it is a reasonable approach to change your mind, once you are proven wrong.

I got some "DR" samples using IQ180 and Nikon D800E from Marc McCalmont and Tim Ashley. In my view the D800E image had better shadow detail in both cases.

Check this two links for analysis of Tim's images:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=2
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=3

Another image I got from Marc McCalmont shows the resolution advantage of the IQ180 (paired with a best of breed lens):

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=5

Best regards
Erik

Busted?Huh

As I said before the camera was not shipping yet and that was based on the sample files that Nikon had made available.
As more information came out and I got my hands first on better files and then on the camera I stated what saw.
After trying a D800 once I sold all my Phase One gear.


Logged

gerald.d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 401


« Reply #113 on: December 06, 2012, 12:01:56 AM »
ReplyReply

*As opposed to e.g. the Canon 85/1.2 with fly-by-wire focusing and a dinky focus barrel
Just to clarify this, the 85/1.2 isn't an example from a wide number of Canon lenses with "fly-by-wire" (i.e. powered) focusing.

It's the only one that has such an arrangement.

Which is a shame, because it takes beautiful pictures when married to a MFDB through either the HCam or Alpa FPS!
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #114 on: December 06, 2012, 12:15:49 AM »
ReplyReply

No better reason to stop posting in the medium format forum.

Where does it say you have to still own a Phase One camera to post in this forum?
There is no rule making this some kind of exclusive club for current owners only Wink

I still own and shoot both Medium Format and large format.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 12:17:41 AM by FredBGG » Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451



WWW
« Reply #115 on: December 06, 2012, 12:32:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Fred,
You were doing the same analysis then as you do now... Downloading somebody else's images and making assumptions.  What's different?
Everything you wrote about the nikon d800 having bad skin color hasn't changed just cause you bought one.  That's one thing that you actually got right. 
Go ahead a post an D800 image you shot yourself where you think the skin tone in your d800 is better than one you shot with your own MFDB.  No points for linking to someone else's images.
Eric


Logged

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

Posts: 1651


« Reply #116 on: December 06, 2012, 01:47:51 AM »
ReplyReply


Go ahead a post an D800 image you shot yourself where you think the skin tone in your d800 is better than one you shot with your own MFDB.
Eric


I never said that skin tone with the D800 is better than with MFD. So please don't imply that I have.
We all know that skin tomes with MFD cameras is excellent, but I would put the d800 up their with them.
There is not much point posting most of that I do (celebrity portraits) as they are with quite a bit of makeup and
I don't let anything out that isn't retouched Wink

Here however is a snapshot of my friends that I think is an honest shot of skin... no makeup, no retouching, no supermodels, just the lovely Ola.... even Majieks sun burn from our kitesurfing session the previous day.
Waves were 10 foot so we stayed on the water as long as we could.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8487/8248472483_150bffb5f3_b.jpg

Natural looking delicate skin tones in very flat light.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #117 on: December 06, 2012, 01:48:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for sharing Fred this is really useful stuff.

Nick-T
Your welcome Nick Smiley
Logged
Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1126


WWW
« Reply #118 on: December 06, 2012, 01:52:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Guy,

Just keep apart things please. Are you comparing CCD and CMOS or are you comparing MF and 135 or are you comparing Dalsa sensors with Nikon sensors.

What BJL and I am saying that there is little difference between CCD and CMOS as both are just converting photons to electrons and storing the electrons in small capacitors on the chip. The only difference between the two is really how the capacitor is read. In CCD you pop the charge from pixel to pixel while on CMOS you can read it directly. CMOS readout is non destructive which allows for correlated double sampling, a technique reducing noise.

Were you using the same raw converter on CMOS and CCD cameras, or were you using vendor's software?

Regarding the future of MF, it is very simple at least in the long term. The companies making MF equipment need to sell enough stuff at profitable prices. They need enough earnings to keep manufacture, development and their value added retailer chain going. As long as the companies earn money MF will be hanging around. If the companies would not earn enough money they may hang on anyway.

I would not be surprised if Phase or Leaf designed their own MF sensor.

I noted with some interest that Phase is going into industrial stuff, like repro equipment and aerial photography, thus expanding the market. Seems to me to be a very wise move.

Best regards
Erik






Comparing Dalsa CCD vs Nikon CMOS. Phase 140 and 160 to be exact. Now even Kodak P25 vs Dalsa IQ 160 CCD there is still a crunchier difference but not nearly like the Nikon CMOS vs CCD Dalsa. Yes same raw converters C1 but even ACR and Nikon NX2 it just is not the same kind of file smoothness and look.
Logged

yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1150



WWW
« Reply #119 on: December 06, 2012, 03:09:25 AM »
ReplyReply


Comparing Dalsa CCD vs Nikon CMOS. Phase 140 and 160 to be exact. Now even Kodak P25 vs Dalsa IQ 160 CCD there is still a crunchier difference but not nearly like the Nikon CMOS vs CCD Dalsa. Yes same raw converters C1 but even ACR and Nikon NX2 it just is not the same kind of file smoothness and look.

Dalsa sensors are specifically designed with smaller gaps between pixels compared to other sensors. This improves sharpness and smoothness and it also reduces luminance falloff.
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@mamiyaleaf.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 16 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad