Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The future of medium format  (Read 19372 times)
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4893



« Reply #140 on: December 17, 2012, 09:51:20 PM »
ReplyReply

It's well known in the industry that Fujifilm does the manufacturing for Hasselblad camera bodies. No secret, just not something that is discussed publicly or widely. They sell the same camera (though not backs) in Japan under their own brand.

Same thing with the late lamented XPan. It was designed and built by Fuji, as were the lenses, and sold everywhere except Japan under the Hasselblad brand. The H series camera were (are) designed by Hasselblad though.

I was at the New York product launch in 2002, met with the engineers, and at the time the joint development program with Fuji was openly discussed with journalists. Indeed mentioned in my preview article. That openness changed over time to the point that many people are unaware of it, and it's a totally understandable position for both companies. OEM manufacturing deals are rarely if ever discussed publicly.

In any event, most people would be amazed if they know who really manufactures what for whom in this business. Simply amazed.

Michael
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 09:54:43 PM by michael » Logged
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1249



WWW
« Reply #141 on: December 17, 2012, 10:01:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

I was told by a Rollei rep in Brisbane Australia back in the mid 80’s when the Rollie 6006 came out the the cheaper Rollei branded lenses which manufactured under licence by Tokina.

Cheers

Simon
Logged

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

Auckland, New Zealand
gerald.d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 388


« Reply #142 on: December 17, 2012, 10:24:28 PM »
ReplyReply


In any event, most people would be amazed if they know who really manufactures what for whom in this business. Simply amazed.

Michael

Well obviously its common knowledge that Seitz manufacture Alpa.

What other examples are there?
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2427



WWW
« Reply #143 on: December 17, 2012, 10:30:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

I was told by a Rollei rep in Brisbane Australia back in the mid 80’s when the Rollie 6006 came out the the cheaper Rollei branded lenses which manufactured under licence by Tokina.

Cheers

Simon

Never heard that, but I guess anything is possible.  Rollei had a cheaper EL line of lenses for a little while and also some named Rolleigon's ... maybe those?

I suppose it really doesn't matter where they or the H bodies are made so long as they perform well.   Maybe phase/mamiya should think to get their DF body built by Fuji?   Just kidding!


 
Logged

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

Posts: 7642


WWW
« Reply #144 on: December 17, 2012, 11:18:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Zeiss lenses for Nikon and Canon are mostly produced at Cosina in Japan. The assembly lines are set up in cooperation with Zeiss and Zeiss has quality control personnel.

I have two Zeiss labeled lenses from Sony, and they are definitively made in Japan. The two lenses I had came with a small Zeiss QC certificate signed by a japanese employee of Zeiss.

Best regards
Erik


Never heard that, but I guess anything is possible.  Rollei had a cheaper EL line of lenses for a little while and also some named Rolleigon's ... maybe those?

I suppose it really doesn't matter where they or the H bodies are made so long as they perform well.   Maybe phase/mamiya should think to get their DF body built by Fuji?   Just kidding!


 
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #145 on: December 17, 2012, 11:42:27 PM »
ReplyReply

It's well known in the industry that Fujifilm does the manufacturing for Hasselblad camera bodies. No secret, just not something that is discussed publicly or widely. They sell the same camera (though not backs) in Japan under their own brand.

Same thing with the late lamented XPan. It was designed and built by Fuji, as were the lenses, and sold everywhere except Japan under the Hasselblad brand. The H series camera were (are) designed by Hasselblad though.

I was at the New York product launch in 2002, met with the engineers, and at the time the joint development program with Fuji was openly discussed with journalists. Indeed mentioned in my preview article. That openness changed over time to the point that many people are unaware of it, and it's a totally understandable position for both companies. OEM manufacturing deals are rarely if ever discussed publicly.

In any event, most people would be amazed if they know who really manufactures what for whom in this business. Simply amazed.

Michael

I was shown a Fuji 645 prototype or sample before the Hasselblad H was ever announced. I had been shooting with the GX680 and was rather popular with Fuji having got their camera on national television twice.
I was also the first to buy a gx680 in Italy. From what they told me Hasselblad was having a terrible time making the transition to more electronic cameras and approached Fuji about marketing the new 645 under the
Hasselblad brand and through the vast Hasselblad pro network. I think that a clear give away is the format. Fuji had no square format cameras. Hasselblad had always made 6x6 cameras.
I remember Fuji asking me if I would miss the square format.. My answer was "Do you know any square magazines?"

Some have said that some body assembly was done in Sweeden just so that they said it was made in Sweeden. Personally I think some assembly/manufacturing was done in Sweeden more for Hasselblad's loyalty to it's workers.
The lack of transparency regarding manufacturing was more about the marketing crowd...

Fuji had even developed it's own digital back that ended up never going onto the 645 due to Hasselblad buying Imacon, but if you look at the Fuji digital back that was sold for the Fuji gx680 it clearly
looks like a 645 back modified to fit on the GX680.



Fuji recently decided to not sell anymore of it's new high end cameras under other brands and wanted to keep them under their own brand to drive sales and reputation of their consumer cameras.
Fuji decided that the x1-pro would only be branded Fuji and would not be the next xpan. This resulted in Hasselblad's scramble to find an alternative and we all know how that went....
The Lunar ... a pimped out Sony Nex.

Who knows what Fuji's next moves will be. They have made it known that they want to be the No 3 camera maker. They are a huge corporation with deep pockets.
I think that they will be very cautious of going into MF Digital and they have shown that they can achieve very high quality with smaller sensors of their own design.

Just imagine the image quality of the X1-pro scaled up to 24x36 or maybe 33x44mm. Their own camera, their own sensors and their own lenses.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 12:34:37 AM by FredBGG » Logged
Gel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


Excuse me while I bust a cap


« Reply #146 on: December 18, 2012, 02:04:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I certainly agree Fuji are the ones to watch.

The X1-pro couldn't of been an Xpan as it isn't a panoramic. I fully expect Sony to take over Sensor development in the next year or two.

A Fuji equivalent of the S2 would be nice to see but I would have to be able to remove the back to clear the damn sensor though.

A digital XPAN would be awesome.
Logged

Chris Giles Photography
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #147 on: December 18, 2012, 02:33:30 AM »
ReplyReply

I certainly agree Fuji are the ones to watch.

The X1-pro couldn't of been an Xpan as it isn't a panoramic.

I wasn't referring to the format, but the type of relationship.
Logged
Nick-T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 462


« Reply #148 on: December 18, 2012, 03:49:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred Strikes again..
Fred I get that you have issues with medium format, I think you are trolling but it's not my forum..

I must however correct you for what you state as facts are in fact not.

The H system was designed, developed, and prototyped by Hasselblad IN SWEDEN (I know the product manager well) the Fuji 645 is a licensed version of the H to be sold in Japan only.

Kodak and Phase one both consulted in the back interface IN SWEDEN

The H cameras are MADE IN SWEDEN it even says so on the camera.

The digital components are MADE IN DENMARK/SWEDEN

The H lenses are designed by Hasselblad MADE IN JAPAN but with a shutter that is MADE IN SWEDEN

The X-Pan was MADE IN JAPAN

Please stop spreading misinformation.

Nick-T


Logged

tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #149 on: December 18, 2012, 05:31:03 PM »
ReplyReply

__________________


OFF TOPIC (sorry)

You also seem to have some idea that you cannot analyze an image that you didn't shoot your self. Can you perhaps explain why?

Yes. I think you have to have some experience with the gear used for testing. Only if you know what the gear is actually capable of you can judge about whether or not a respective capture is representative for the gear at all.

For instance in the D800e-IQ180-comparision (T. Ashley's shots you've referred to in your arcticle: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=2 ) the focus plane of the 2 captures is very different. This makes a comparision almost impossible especially when it comes to comparing noise. Of course you can look at OOF areas and say the IQ180 shows more noise. It does, that's not the point. But it also shows a lot more details where the D800e looks a bit washed out and dull when pushed in post. The latter is only apparent when you look at image ares that are correctly focussed… and I have only found one spot in the images where a comparision could make sense. The D800e vs IQ180 comparision has been made for personal purposes (on behalf of T. Ashley) and that's perfectly okay. But I think it's absolutely inappropriate to draw generalizing conclusions from such a (sloppy) comparision.

Another example (from your article) is the comparision made by Tim Parkin. In general it's a great comparision and I assume care has been taken to make the comparision as solid as possible. I do use a P45 which is also in the list of the cameras/films/backs compared. So I know pretty good how captures from a P45 can look like (with good lenses as well as with mediocore lenses). There's also a Sony A900 in the list which I also know a little. The A900 seems to outperform the P45 in terms of resolution. Now, I've made exactly this comparision (A900 & P45 & also P21+) myself 3 years or so ago and the result was very different (the A900 had a hard time to show the same amount of details than the P21+ … at low ISO). So I can tell you either T. Parkin's copy of the P45 had a faulty or miscalibrated sensor, an extremely bad lens, a bad color profile (the greens show almost no differentiation… which is in fact a weak point of the P45 but the samples in that comparision look really horrible) or he screwed up the post processing (looks like a lot of Luminance NR) or whatever.
Who cares. I mean … it's just a comparision made by someone. But, again, it's inappropriate to draw generalized conclusions from it (well, at least as far as the P45 is concerned… but since I have noted post processing … who knows how he did the processing of the IQ180 files…??).

So you've made a whole essay titled "MF Digital, myths or facts?" and it is based on 2 or 3 shootings made by someone else. That's amazing. Really amazing!
Don't get me wrong … it's fine when you have fun in analyzing technical things. But the "facts" your findings are based on are, well… questionable. IMHO.
My point is: if you would use MFD you also would have a better idea whether or not certain samples published somewhere are meaningful. So, yes, I think it's important that "testers" know the stuff they are testing (at least to some degree).

__________________


some folks need live view, mostly those who want to use MFD on technical cameras
I do use a tech cam and although I don't have Live View I get sharp images. For wide shots the lens is set to infinity. As long as the infinity setting of the lens is adjusted to exactly match the sensor plane (which is easy to achive) infinity is "save ground". You can also use a laser distometer and for instance Alpa's HPF focus rings (I don't use them and still get good results using a laser disto and some additional markings on the focus ring of my lenses). Close distances are relatively easy to focus on the groundglass. And finally a 11'' Macbook Air provides a decent screen to check focussing while not being much larger than an iPad... so it's also usable in the field for tethered shooting. I have not yet used an IQ or Credo back but from what I have heard the LCDs are good enough to reliably check focus. Of course only after the capture ...
Now, all that is a bit cumbersome and inconvenient. You can just as well say it's a PITA. This is why live view would be a great and very helpful feature - no question about it! But MFD is not unusable today only because LV is not there yet. Focussing is doable ...
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 06:20:43 PM by tho_mas » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #150 on: December 18, 2012, 06:08:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred Strikes again..
Fred I get that you have issues with medium format, I think you are trolling but it's not my forum..

I must however correct you for what you state as facts are in fact not.

The H system was designed, developed, and prototyped by Hasselblad IN SWEDEN (I know the product manager well) the Fuji 645 is a licensed version of the H to be sold in Japan only.

Kodak and Phase one both consulted in the back interface IN SWEDEN

The H cameras are MADE IN SWEDEN it even says so on the camera.

The digital components are MADE IN DENMARK/SWEDEN

The H lenses are designed by Hasselblad MADE IN JAPAN but with a shutter that is MADE IN SWEDEN

The X-Pan was MADE IN JAPAN

Please stop spreading misinformation.

Nick-T




It's well known in the industry that Fujifilm does the manufacturing for Hasselblad camera bodies. No secret, just not something that is discussed publicly or widely. They sell the same camera (though not backs) in Japan under their own brand.

Same thing with the late lamented XPan. It was designed and built by Fuji, as were the lenses, and sold everywhere except Japan under the Hasselblad brand. The H series camera were (are) designed by Hasselblad though.

I was at the New York product launch in 2002, met with the engineers, and at the time the joint development program with Fuji was openly discussed with journalists. Indeed mentioned in my preview article. That openness changed over time to the point that many people are unaware of it, and it's a totally understandable position for both companies. OEM manufacturing deals are rarely if ever discussed publicly.

In any event, most people would be amazed if they know who really manufactures what for whom in this business. Simply amazed.

Michael

Michael runs this forum and was at the launch....

Maybe you can explain why I have never heard the same story from various Hasselblad staff when ever I asked about the manufacturing of H system even years ago.

Nick it seems you can't get your story straight either:

Quote
Nicktnz wrote:
This is wrong.
The camera is made in Sweden as are the shutters. The lens elements are made by Fuji and assembled in Sweden. The backs are
made in Denmark.
Nick-T

Quote
Nicktnz wrote:
Hassie bodies are made in Gothenburg Sweden. Hasselblad lenses are made by
Fujinon to Hasselblad designs with Swedish made shutter assemblies. Hasselblad
choose Fujinon to partner with in making the HC and HCD lenses because they had
the best fab facilities on offer.

Quote
Nicktnz wrote:
I have visited the Danes often and worked closely with them so I have
a fair idea of what I'm talking about. hasselblad went to Fuji for glass because at the time Zeiss did not have a compelling
offering in terms of technology (clean rooms). Fuji do have the rights to manufacture the "Fuji 645" under licence but that
does not mean they make Hasselblads, I stand by my statements.


Zeiss doesn't have clean rooms?Huh

Really Nick?. Zeiss manufactures 13.5 nanometer lithography systems for micro electronics
manufacturing.



Just to give people here an idea of what we are talking about here is that Hasselblad sensors have 9 to 6 micron photosites..... that's 6,500 nanometers.


Zeiss Clean Room
« Last Edit: December 19, 2012, 02:23:16 AM by FredBGG » Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2427



WWW
« Reply #151 on: December 18, 2012, 06:16:11 PM »
ReplyReply

tho_mas   +1    
Beautiful!  


Logged

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

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #152 on: December 18, 2012, 07:05:19 PM »
ReplyReply

tho_mas   +1    
Beautiful!  




I have to jump in and ad a plus to Thomas post as well. I find it pretty peculiar that people keep using others test results constantly in there own posts to make a point. My belief as I test myself is if your not willing to buy, rent , borrow the gear you want to talk about than your really doing a injustice not to mention infringing on someone's copyrights. These type of posts bring no legitimacy for anyone since we have no idea if tests done are correct to begin with. Only the tester knows what he did and on top of that most of these tests are not done properly. Just a reminder you are infringing on someone's copyright reposting there images. Legally you are liable for posting them. It's something we fight very hard as working Pros is our copyright. It's something you should be aware of regardless if no one pushes the issue the fact is they can.
Logged

JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 641


« Reply #153 on: December 18, 2012, 07:16:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe you can explain whey I have never heard the same story from various Hasselblad staff when ever I asked about the manufacturing of H system.

Well, this Hasselblad employee is certainly telling the same story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmow2-PMq5g&feature=youtu.be
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7642


WWW
« Reply #154 on: December 18, 2012, 08:09:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Tho_mas and Guy,

Just to make a few issues clear. I don't infringe on the copyright of the pictures as I have obtained permission from each photographer. I would gladly have used more images, but those are not easily find.

Another point you miss entirely that I never state that MF is not superior to DSLRs in some areas, what I discuss is pretty much the theoretical background.

Another point you miss entirely in the article is that image by Tim Ashley is only used to check out dynamic range or really the dark noise. It is not used at all for comparing sharpness. The area I have choosen was intended to show shadow noise. Tim was very specific about where focus was in the images, and the place I looked at was different from that area, but noise is not dependent on focus and probably more visible in out of focus details then parts showing more texture. http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=2

Another comparison is done for sharpness, here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=5 and in that case the IQ 180 clearly wins. That comparison is based on Marc McCalmont's images and used with his permission. There is also a comparison of OLP filtering based on Tim Parkins images clearly showing sharpness advantage of MF here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=6

Regarding color rendition I conclude that chapter with: "I have no first hand experience with MF, what I write is a drill down based on reading and looking at files available on the net. Still I have seen a couple of direct comparisons of Digital MF and DSLRs and got the impression that Digital MF camera had better color. This thread on LuLa forums is a good example." On the other hand I refer to Tim Parkins article and also use some of his images. Tim seems to dislike the P45, it is possible that the copy he had is substandard. What I found interesting in Tim's article is that he claims color rendition is different. I don't really agree with Tim's observation on Metameric Rendition Index, but I didn't feel necessary to comment on that. Tim may know a couple things I don't.

If you have issues with my posting about testing why are you discussing it on the thread called "The future of MF"? Why don't you discuss on the original thread.

Getting back original thread and live view. It is quite obvious that many posters regard live view important. If you look at the Alpa FPE it's not really intended to be used with ground glass. Also I probably would be a bit nervous switching back and forth between a viewfinder and a digital back, specially in a cold morning with numb fingers.



__________________


OFF TOPIC (sorry)

Yes. I think you have to have some experience with the gear used for testing. Only if you know what the gear is actually capable of you can judge about whether or not a respective capture is representative for the gear at all.

For instance in the D800e-IQ180-comparision (T. Ashley's shots you've referred to in your arcticle: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=2 ) the focus plane of the 2 captures is very different. This makes a comparision almost impossible especially when it comes to comparing noise. Of course you can look at OOF areas and say the IQ180 shows more noise. It does, that's not the point. But it also shows a lot more details where the D800e looks a bit washed out and dull when pushed in post. The latter is only apparent when you look at image ares that are correctly focussed… and I have only found one spot in the images where a comparision could make sense. The D800e vs IQ180 comparision has been made for personal purposes (on behalf of T. Ashley) and that's perfectly okay. But I think it's absolutely inappropriate to draw generalizing conclusions from such a (sloppy) comparision.

Another example (from your article) is the comparision made by Tim Parkin. In general it's a great comparision and I assume care has been taken to make the comparision as solid as possible. I do use a P45 which is also in the list of the cameras/films/backs compared. So I know pretty good how captures from a P45 can look like (with good lenses as well as with mediocore lenses). There's also a Sony A900 in the list which I also know a little. The A900 seems to outperform the P45 in terms of resolution. Now, I've made exactly this comparision (A900 & P45 & also P21+) myself 3 years or so ago and the result was very different (the A900 had a hard time to show the same amount of details than the P21+ … at low ISO). So I can tell you either T. Parkin's copy of the P45 had a faulty or miscalibrated sensor, an extremely bad lens, a bad color profile (the greens show almost no differentiation… which is in fact a weak point of the P45 but the samples in that comparision look really horrible) or he screwed up the post processing (looks like a lot of Luminance NR) or whatever.
Who cares. I mean … it's just a comparision made by someone. But, again, it's inappropriate to draw generalized conclusions from it (well, at least as far as the P45 is concerned… but since I have noted post processing … who knows how he did the processing of the IQ180 files…??).

So you've made a whole essay titled "MF Digital, myths or facts?" and it is based on 2 or 3 shootings made by someone else. That's amazing. Really amazing!
Don't get me wrong … it's fine when you have fun in analyzing technical things. But the "facts" your findings are based on are, well… questionable. IMHO.
My point is: if you would use MFD you also would have a better idea whether or not certain samples published somewhere are meaningful. So, yes, I think it's important that "testers" know the stuff they are testing (at least to some degree).

__________________

 I do use a tech cam and although I don't have Live View I get sharp images. For wide shots the lens is set to infinity. As long as the infinity setting of the lens is adjusted to exactly match the sensor plane (which is easy to achive) infinity is "save ground". You can also use a laser distometer and for instance Alpa's HPF focus rings (I don't use them and still get good results using a laser disto and some additional markings on the focus ring of my lenses). Close distances are relatively easy to focus on the groundglass. And finally a 11'' Macbook Air provides a decent screen to check focussing while not being much larger than an iPad... so it's also usable in the field for tethered shooting. I have not yet used an IQ or Credo back but from what I have heard the LCDs are good enough to reliably check focus. Of course only after the capture ...
Now, all that is a bit cumbersome and inconvenient. You can just as well say it's a PITA. This is why live view would be a great and very helpful feature - no question about it! But MFD is not unusable today only because LV is not there yet. Focussing is doable ...
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7642


WWW
« Reply #155 on: December 18, 2012, 08:27:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Guy,

Regarding the copyright issue I just want to point out that all images used in the article Tho_mas is discussing have been used with the kind and explicit permisson of the authors. Where images are linked, those images were also linked with the proper permisson of the authors. The authors of those images have read and to some extent contributed to the images.

I used a few additional images from Imaging Resource and Alex Koloskov without explicit permission but those images were only used to generate data (MTF graphs color rendering measurements).

I would also add, that the images themselves care very little about the photographer. A shot of a color checker is a shot of a color checker weather made by myself or at Imaging Resource.

The posting discussed is the initial the thread here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=73323.0 , the intention was to start a discussion on testing but on that thread and a not a thread discussing the future of MF.

Best regards
Erik


I have to jump in and ad a plus to Thomas post as well. I find it pretty peculiar that people keep using others test results constantly in there own posts to make a point. My belief as I test myself is if your not willing to buy, rent , borrow the gear you want to talk about than your really doing a injustice not to mention infringing on someone's copyrights. These type of posts bring no legitimacy for anyone since we have no idea if tests done are correct to begin with. Only the tester knows what he did and on top of that most of these tests are not done properly. Just a reminder you are infringing on someone's copyright reposting there images. Legally you are liable for posting them. It's something we fight very hard as working Pros is our copyright. It's something you should be aware of regardless if no one pushes the issue the fact is they can.
Logged

tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #156 on: December 18, 2012, 08:29:08 PM »
ReplyReply

If you look at the Alpa FPE it's not really intended to be used with ground glass.
who cares? This is one of the reasons why I would favour the original H-Cam over the Apla FPS anytime. A groundglass is not only a "focus-aid". It's also a way to compose an image (as opposed to catch an acurrately focused capture).
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 08:33:12 PM by tho_mas » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7642


WWW
« Reply #157 on: December 18, 2012, 08:43:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Stefan Steib, the man behind the original H-Cam cares and so does Wayne Fox: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=73210.msg581777#msg581777


Best regards
Erik

who cares? This is one of the reasons why I would favour the original H-Cam over the Apla FPS anytime. A groundglass is not only a "focus-aid". It's also a way to compose an image (as opposed to catch an acurrately focused capture).

« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 08:46:46 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Guy Mancuso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1116


WWW
« Reply #158 on: December 18, 2012, 08:45:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Erik appreciate your reply and honestly was just making a point on copyright and not accusing you of anything. Others do a fine job of that. LOL

More my point was a lot of these tests have a lot of variables in them that you really have to watch how carefully things are done. Testing is very hard when your dealing with apples and oranges. I have done these tests and a lot of them I simply did not post because its just not worth my time or energy a lot of the times plus people use them in negative ways to either system. I have compared all three Phase backs against a D800 and D800e. I know what I need to know between them and end of day all I care about so I do ignore many of these comparisons just simply too much going on about it. I really have no agenda either way. I like both systems and when the time is right I will jump back in to MF. Regardless of all the millions of posts between them I mostly ignore a lot of them simply because we pick features, functions, ergos and image quality for each individual needs. My needs are very different than others and as it should be. Anyway testing is great for a lot folks to see specific details that one wants to know but the results are always going to face certain variables that are hard to overcome correctly especially between systems. Again my point carefully analyze what's being done that's my only point. Honestly if you want to get into MF or not but want to know than get with a dealer test it yourself and make a call for yourself. DT and CI would be happy to rent you a system. If you need help there let me know be glad to help.
Logged

tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #159 on: December 18, 2012, 08:50:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Stefan Steib, the man behind the original H-Cam cares.
I know. Live View, however, will not replace a groundglass. When Stefan will remove the sliding back and groundglass only because future DBs provide Live View ... well, then I'll neither buy a H-Cam nor an Alpa FPS ;-)

edit:
... and so does Wayne Fox
another one?! Who would have thought...
Erik, you can add me to that list - again (proclamation): Live View would be really useful.
But I also love optical viewfinders (for several, totally personal/subjectiv reasons). Photography is not only about getting something in focus or to catch an accidential moment. First and foremost photography is a creative, artstic process. Therefore we all have different "needs"...

« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 09:07:01 PM by tho_mas » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad