Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 16 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The end of medium format ?  (Read 22472 times)
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 412



WWW
« Reply #200 on: December 10, 2012, 09:02:52 AM »
ReplyReply

BC - if all cameras had a finder like the Leica S2 or the Nikon F5 the world would be a better place to work in.
This was and is the top of the optical mirror finder.
I donīt think it can be done any better.

But I believe we will have other finders in the future, like the Zeiss Cinemizer or the Sony counterpart, off the camera
no more forcing us to go down or step on ladders or hang off helicopters............ Smiley

The OLEDīs of the Sony HMZ T2 are already that good that they match or surpass a Pro Video finder like the Zacuto and this in 3D,
maybe your wife will then take a look as soon as you can "walk around" with your eyes.Once these finders will run around 4k res I think optical finders are dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMwsMaSxZDU

This is the next logical step and already visible - and working. Soon these will become much smaller, higher res and even more comfortable.
This will allow a full concentration to the subject and give you a 100% match of the stuff that is recorded with your actual vision-in 3 D

regards
Stefan
Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1113



WWW
« Reply #201 on: December 10, 2012, 10:20:16 AM »
ReplyReply

but you get focus confirmation* with all the focus points not just 1 in the middle of the frame plus a live view option that is usable and doesn't need a ND filter taking off and on.

*presuming focus confirmation will work the same as other manual focus lenses

You have the same functionality in the D4/ 1DX and you also have a larger finder...
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@leaf-photography.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #202 on: December 10, 2012, 11:28:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I played with the 55mm/1.4 on a D800E. It's a beast as expected and is very well made with a very smooth MF action. It is bigger and heavier than the Contax 645AF 55mm.

IMO if a high end 35mm camera now requires expensive MF lenses with no VR to get the most out of it then it makes the camera less flexible and maybe less attractive since manual focus is not so easy with the small viewfinder. I guess it'll work better on a D4 or a 1DX with their larger finders

As a general comment if a lens is designed to be a portrait lens (as most 50mm are) then there is no real point in testing and comparing edge sharpness

Yair

35mm does not require expensive medium format lenses. MF lenses have a much larger image circle than needed on a 35mm System and as such are not optimized for a
smaller sensor. MF lenses will not produce better results on a 24x36 sensor than a new Nikon or Canon lens designed specifically for the sensor size.

Also in that comparison an older Nikon lens was used, not the newer 50mm 1.4G.

Here is the difference:

Older Nikon 1.4D at 1.4center frame




New 50mm 1.4G at 1.4center frame



Corner difference:

D at 1.4 corner

G at 1.4 corner

As you can see there is a significant quality difference. Very close and probably matching the Zeiss 55mm.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 11:30:58 AM by FredBGG » Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2665


WWW
« Reply #203 on: December 10, 2012, 11:46:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Funny I could swear I can remember you (FredBGG) touting the excellent performance of his Fuji lenses (designed for 6x8 with movement) as used on a 35mm dSLR.

Anytime you read such categorical statements you can be assured they are not entirely correct.

In truth some medium format lenses hold up exceptionally well on a Nikon/canon.
Also some dSLR lenses hold up reasonably well on medium format (e.g. 24TS).

Also you really can't generalize about quality vs. price vs. image circle. What makes a lens perform better or worse or be more or less expensive is a very complicated equation.
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #204 on: December 10, 2012, 11:47:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I played with the 55mm/1.4 on a D800E.......

IMO if a high end 35mm camera now requires expensive MF lenses with no VR to get the most out of it then it makes the camera less flexible and maybe less attractive since manual focus is not so easy with the small viewfinder. I guess it'll work better on a D4 or a 1DX with their larger finders

Yair

I don't think there will be a huge difference on a 1DX vs a 5dIII
The difference in magnification is not large at all.


1DX    Approx. 0.76x (-1m-1 with 50mm lens at infinity) / 35.0° angle of view
5DIII   Approx. 0.71x / Angle of view 34.1° (with 50mm lens at infinity, -1 m-1 (dpt))

What you need to do is test manual focusing with a manual focusing optimized focusing screen. Both Nikon and Canon make special screens for manual focusing.

But if we are going to talk about manual focusing abilities there is no comparison between MFD and the D800.
There are so many more options that assist with manual focusing with the D800. Face recognition assisted manual focus live view ... just to mention one.
See my post on page 5 of this thread.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 07:59:16 PM by FredBGG » Logged
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1113



WWW
« Reply #205 on: December 10, 2012, 11:59:47 AM »
ReplyReply

35mm does not require expensive medium format lenses.
MF as in Manual Focus...
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@leaf-photography.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #206 on: December 10, 2012, 12:02:45 PM »
ReplyReply

MF as in Manual Focus...

Oh. OK. Wink

Most of my reason still stands. 35mm DSLR do not require manual focusing lenses, but if you do need or want to use manual focus the D800 offers
far more precise manual focus support then MFD.

As previously stated in this thread
Quote
As far as focus checking the implementation on the IQ backs is nice, but hardly state of the art as far as on camera image review goes.
On the D800 you can zoom in with one click using the center button of the multi controller on the back next to the screen
and in a beat navigate quickly to any point.
But there more to it than that. When the camera zooms in it automatically zooms into the area of the focus point that was used for the shoot.
And that is either a manually chosen point or the automatically chosen points.
What is also nice about it is that you still have the regular zoom in button that zooms into the center of the frame.
This is very nice for fashion work. Set you focus point on the face/eyes. Then review the photo. One button pops right to the face while the other to the waist.
Here is what I'm talking about.



With the focus point chosen being the one with the green dot when you zoom in with the multi function center button the display
automatically moves to the face. Using the regular magnify button is zooms into the center of the frame.

But there is more. If you are shooting fashion even with manual focus the camera will also zoom into faces using face recognition regardless of where the face is.
It will magnify the face choosing a crop that shows eyes and mouth regardless of the size of the face in the shot. You can then go even closer with one or two clicks.
And there is even more to it. If there are more than one model in the shot you can jump instantly through all the faces in the shot.
Not only is this useful for checking focus, but also useful for quickly checking for closed eyes etc in a large group. This face recognition in review (playback) mode
works without interfering with other review functions and it's invoked by the front wheel that normally controls aperture. It's a seamless thumb and index finger thing.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 12:13:18 PM by FredBGG » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5087


« Reply #207 on: December 10, 2012, 12:26:23 PM »
ReplyReply

... manual focus is not so easy with the small viewfinder. I guess it'll work better on a D4 or a 1DX with their larger finders
On the other hand, when manual focusing goes with having enough time to do it slowly and carefully, and maybe with a tripod, then the live view manual focus offered by modern CMOS sensors gives a vastly larger and more detailed image than any optical viewfinder. For example, using 10x magnification on a 3" diagonal, 800x600 rear screen is like viewing a portion of the full image as it would appear on a 30" diagonal, 8000x6000 screen, vastly exceeding the apparent image size and resolution of the secondary image from the ground glass in an OVF (which, it should be remembered, has far lower resolution that the lens or sensor provides). With a well-designed live view system (as on the Olympus E-M5, which is the only good example I have experience with) you can have touch screen selection of enlargement points allowing one to jump between full view and magnified views of various parts of the scene with a couple of screen taps and button presses.

In a peep-hole EVF, the apparent image size is ever greater --- almost like pressing your noise up against that imaginary 30" screen.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 12:29:18 PM by BJL » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #208 on: December 10, 2012, 12:26:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Funny I could swear I can remember you (FredBGG) touting the excellent performance of his Fuji lenses (designed for 6x8 with movement) as used on a 35mm dSLR.

I posted a comparison between a Fuji GX680 250mm f5.6 and a Canon 200mm 2.8
The point of that posting was quite clear and not what you are implying.
I posted that example to show the performance of Fuji GX680 lenses on 6 micron sensors to validate that the Fuji GX680 lenses
would preform very well on a MFDB.

Also Doug before you bend this out of proportion there are a few things to keep in mind.
The Fuji GX680 lenses may have a very large image circle, but they also have very large rear lens elements and the camera has a huge lens mount throat allowing for vast lens design freedom.

Also the comparison made was with an inexpensive Canon lens. ($ 700 today) vs a Fuji gx680 lens that that adjusted for inflation
would be a $ 6000 lens.

Then you need to consider that the aperture used was comparing the lenses at 5.6 thus the Canon has depth of field
abilities that the MF lens on the Canon would never be able to match.

The other point of using Fuji gx680 lenses on a DSLR is to get tilt shift ability on focal lengths such as 150mm and above.

I have never said that a Fuji gx680 lens would be better than a high end 35mm system lens.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #209 on: December 10, 2012, 12:31:23 PM »
ReplyReply

On the other hand, when manual focusing goes with having enough time to do it slowly and carefully, and maybe with a tripod, then live view manual focus gives a vastly larger and mote detailed image than any optical viewfinder. For example, using 10x magnification on a 3" diagonal, 800x600 rear screen is like viewing a portion of the full image as it would appear on a 30" diagonal, 8000x6000 screen, vastly exceeding the apparent image size and resolution of the secondary image from the ground glass in an OVF (which, it should be remembered, has far lower resolution that the lens or sensor provides). With a well-designed live view system (as on the Olympus E-M5 for example) you can have touch screen selection of enlargement points allowing one to jump between full view and magnified views of various parts of the scene with a couple of screen taps and button presses.

In a peep-hole EVF, the apparent image size is ever greater --- almost like pressing your noise up against that imaginary 30" screen.

And then there are these really nifty on camera HDMI monitors.





Even comes with a built in folding hood:


« Last Edit: December 10, 2012, 12:36:47 PM by FredBGG » Logged
gerald.d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 362


« Reply #210 on: December 10, 2012, 12:39:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry for the diversion...

Fred - are you saying the Fuji 250/5.6 would be $6K now if new (and adjusting for inflation)?

The same lens that can be picked up for not much more than 10% of that price second hand now?

I knew the 680 was a bargain, but never appreciated how much of a bargain!

Kind regards,

Gerald.
Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2665


WWW
« Reply #211 on: December 10, 2012, 12:45:15 PM »
ReplyReply

But what fascinates me is the number of MF users who particularly emphasize the advantage of the big, bright image in the optical viewfinder. What happens if and when EVFs get good enough in dynamic range and such to be a fully satisfactory alternative (or adjunct) to the OVF? Because there is no relationship beween the size/brightness of an EVF image and the size of the sensor: even a Micro Four Thirds camera could have an EVF with an image size as big as any ever seen on an SLR, if there were sufficient demand for that. And big, beautiful hot-shoe mounted EVF's could also be offered as accessories for many current SLR's, using HDMI out.

I'm very practical when it comes to technology both for my own personal use and for recommendations for clients. I don't care how it's done, just what the result is and what the experience is along the way to the result.

The day that an EVF produces a viewing/shooting experience on par with an OVF I think most MF shooters would be glad to use it. As of today that is not my experience in the situations in which I shoot or most of our clients shoot in. Though it is the case in some situations already (e.g. very low light an EVF can leverage the ISO of the sensor to show you an image with appropriate brightness rather than a dark OVF).

Right now I vastly prefer the experience of optically looking directly through a lens. However, it's not the method I care about, or the technology underlying it, only the resulting experience.

My gut says it will be several more years until EVFs can match the OVF in both technical and visceral-impact/visual-ergonomics/scene-feeling. But it could be a month from now. Who knows with technology.

But it ain't today IMO.
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #212 on: December 10, 2012, 12:47:06 PM »
ReplyReply


IMO if a high end 35mm camera now requires expensive MF lenses with no VR to get the most out of it then it makes the camera less flexible.

Yair

Interesting that you mention VR (image stabilization) and that it's needed to make the most out of a lens.
There is no VR or image stabilization with Phase/Mamiya cameras, Hasselblad, Lieca MF or nearly all MF Pentax.
Yet all the MF vendors tout 35mm DSLR handeling and hand held use. Interesting to hear that a MFD rep states that VR is required to
get the most out of a lens. Something I have been saying for quite some time when it comes to working off a tripod.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #213 on: December 10, 2012, 12:56:11 PM »
ReplyReply


The day that an EVF produces a viewing/shooting experience on par with an OVF I think most MF shooters would be glad to use it. As of today that is not my experience in the situations in which I shoot or most of our clients shoot in. Though it is the case in some situations already (e.g. very low light an EVF can leverage the ISO of the sensor to show you an image with appropriate brightness rather than a dark OVF).

Right now I vastly prefer the experience of optically looking directly through a lens. However, it's not the method I care about, or the technology underlying it, only the resulting experience.

My gut says it will be several more years until EVFs can match the OVF in both technical and visceral-impact/visual-ergonomics/scene-feeling. But it could be a month from now. Who knows with technology.

But it ain't today IMO.

Yes but today you can have both a very good OVF and electronic viewfinders, HDMI... both on camera and off camera.
I sometimes will step away from the camera with a hand held HDMI screen that comes with me and direct the model or portrait
subject when I want them looking off camera and they can see my visual instructions. I can walk upto them make an adjustment
to something... step back and shoot wirelessly while the camera keeps AF focus with face recognition....... it's like having a virtual
camera man when you want to direct more.
Logged
JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 641



« Reply #214 on: December 10, 2012, 02:26:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Speaking of manual focus, what the hell happened to split and cross prisms on the ground glass in cameras.  I would really like it if they brought them back.  I had to have a custom one made for my canon. 
Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
"Try not to be just better than your rivals and contemporaries, try to be better than yourself."  William Faulkner
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1113



WWW
« Reply #215 on: December 10, 2012, 02:39:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting that you mention VR (image stabilization) and that it's needed to make the most out of a lens.
There is no VR or image stabilization with Phase/Mamiya cameras, Hasselblad, Lieca MF or nearly all MF Pentax.
Yet all the MF vendors tout 35mm DSLR handeling and hand held use. Interesting to hear that a MFD rep states that VR is required to
get the most out of a lens. Something I have been saying for quite some time when it comes to working off a tripod.

I am not stating anything I'm expressing an opinion and am questioning the benefit of using such a lens on a high MP 35mm body. For me using a DSLR is about flexibility and speed. I want good zooms and good AF and good high iso and combining these will often require VR. I did not say that you need VR to get the most out of the lens...rather out of the body...

If I need to focus manually I want to be able to SEE it through the finder. If I need to change the focusing screen every time I change a lens then I'm loosing another benefit of DSLR, but that's just me I guess...

As a friendly comment Fred If you want to be taken seriously you should read others' posts before you fill up the page with yours...
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@leaf-photography.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #216 on: December 10, 2012, 02:48:02 PM »
ReplyReply

If I need to change the focusing screen every time I change a lens then I'm loosing another benefit of DSLR, but that's just me I guess...

No need to change the focusing screen every time you change the lens. The AF system is no affected by the manual focus optimized focusing screen,
The AF sensors are below the focusing screen and the Live view focusing excludes the OVF.
Also cropping lines and other in viewfinder features are above the focusing screen.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #217 on: December 10, 2012, 02:59:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I am not stating anything I'm expressing an opinion and am questioning the benefit of using such a lens on a high MP 35mm body. For me using a DSLR is about flexibility and speed. I want good zooms and good AF and good high iso and combining these will often require VR. I did not say that you need VR to get the most out of the lens...rather out of the body...

If I need to focus manually I want to be able to SEE it through the finder. If I need to change the focusing screen every time I change a lens then I'm loosing another benefit of DSLR, but that's just me I guess...

As a friendly comment Fred If you want to be taken seriously you should read others' posts before you fill up the page with yours...

"I did not say that you need VR to get the most out of the lens...rather out of the body..." regardless of how you put it or call it the image stabalization is in the lens and the lens and body work together. image stabalization
reduces camera shake thus making the sharp image the lens produces recordable. While at low shutter speeds this has a dramatic effect that is even visable from far away at higher speeds like 1/60th or so
the effect will be less dramatic but will significantly help keep lens sharpness so it can be recorded. With the high resolution of cameras today image stabalization is a significant advantage for just about any hand held work.
Even the steadiest hand will have some movement... maybe not enough to smear the image, but enough of reduce some sharpness.

As a friendly comment Fred If you want to be taken seriously you should read others' posts before you fill up the page with yours...

And regarding this .... "friendly comment" I do read your posts well and I also remember them well.

When the Zeiss 55mm 1.4 was first discussed you wrote this about the lens.....

Or

It's the same lens as the 55mm/f3.5 Distagon they made for the 645AF...

But with a larger aperture since 35mm sensors only use the centre of the lens so won't bring up issues of CA, vignetting and softness towards the edges at full aperture
......


Implying that Zeiss rather than designing a whole new range of lenses for 35mm DSLRs it was just recycling an old design..... that happens to be from the 80s if I'm not mistaken.

But that's not all.

Another forum member added a comment that you can't just magically turn a 3.5 lens into a 1.4 lens....

It's a new design, "opening up" an existing design by 2.5 stops is not possible...

I hope that they finally got some common sense and produce this lens themselves - compromising another design by mediocre mechanical quality or sample variation for a so-called reference line-up makes little sense, since the target audience already accepts bigger, heavier and expensive lenses - no need for compromises...

Your response to that was.....

Unless the original design was already capable (mechanically & optically) of going to f1.2 but was physically limited to f3.5 due to vignetting/ CA/ soft edges...which won't be so much of a problem with the 35mm chips...

The 45mm, for example, was an f2.8 lens and it used the same basic barrel as the 55mm/f3.5...

So you were saying that the lens Carl Zeiss designed was capable of f1.2 but was physically limited to f3.5.....

..... If Carl Zeiss had some how magically figured out how to make a 55mm 1.2 that was so compact i'm pretty sure they would have
put it on the market even if it were soft at the edges stopping down would have done the same as your suggested "physical limiting",
but at the same time it would have has the magic of a super shallow depth of field lens for artsy purposes. Maybe they would have added some special indication
to the apertures above 3.5 as "special purpose" or something.... Would have been an incredible environmental portrait lens
would not matter if it's soft at the edges right... aren't you the one that said this to.....


As a general comment if a lens is designed to be a portrait lens (as most 50mm are) then there is no real point in testing and comparing edge sharpness

Yair
« Last Edit: December 11, 2012, 11:56:04 AM by FredBGG » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #218 on: December 10, 2012, 03:19:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry for the diversion...

Fred - are you saying the Fuji 250/5.6 would be $6K now if new (and adjusting for inflation)?

The same lens that can be picked up for not much more than 10% of that price second hand now?

I knew the 680 was a bargain, but never appreciated how much of a bargain!

Kind regards,

Gerald.


Yes the going price for Fuji gx680 lenses is really good and an excellent deal for a studio side kick to a MFDB system for someone that wants
a nice spread of Tilt Shift lenses and 6x8cm film SLR.

For the price of one tilt shift MF lens you can get a whole GX680 system.. a good spread of lenses and an adapter for your digital back
from Kapture group.

On top of that you can have many viewfinder options that make using tilt shift much easier.

There is even a stitch back made by kapture group that can give you a virtual sensor twice the size of the biggest MF backs
which is great for still lifes and landscapes and all in an SLR... though rather big.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6926


WWW
« Reply #219 on: December 10, 2012, 11:46:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I guess it's quite possible to adopt a DSLR to the shooting style needed. You can use it with image stabilization and zooms, when appropriate and with high end primes when needed. In my view you probably need tripod, MLU,  and live view focusing to extract best quality from DSLRs and that essentially precludes speedy work.

Regarding viewfinders, an MF camera has a potential to collect more photons, as the senor is larger. So an MF camera with a f/2.8 lens will collect more photons than a DSLR with f/2.8 lens, it takes the DSLR an f/1.4 lens to collect as many photons.

The focusing screens of todays DSLR are intended to be used with AF. They can be changed, but it is possible that they may loose registration.

Large aperture lenses generally have some focus shift, so optimum focus at f/1.4 is different from say optimal focus at f/2.8.

The way I see it, a DSLR can be used for almost any kind of shooting, so it is a very flexible device.

If you consider economy, something that matters to a lot of people, you can have two DSLR bodies, and dual sets of lenses (like 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 ) and a bunch of Zeiss primes for the cost of a single medium format kit.

On the other hand the medium format kit may be a good long time investment.


Best regards
Erik



I am not stating anything I'm expressing an opinion and am questioning the benefit of using such a lens on a high MP 35mm body. For me using a DSLR is about flexibility and speed. I want good zooms and good AF and good high iso and combining these will often require VR. I did not say that you need VR to get the most out of the lens...rather out of the body...

If I need to focus manually I want to be able to SEE it through the finder. If I need to change the focusing screen every time I change a lens then I'm loosing another benefit of DSLR, but that's just me I guess...

As a friendly comment Fred If you want to be taken seriously you should read others' posts before you fill up the page with yours...
« Last Edit: December 11, 2012, 03:13:45 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 16 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad