Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Can the war beween D800 users and MF users resist to Scheimpflung ?  (Read 11021 times)
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 522


« Reply #40 on: January 24, 2013, 08:23:52 AM »
ReplyReply

You know that photographer ?

I had the pleasure to visit his current exhibition in Munich. Very impressive technique.

The exhibition plays till the end of february.
Logged
langier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 629



WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 24, 2013, 01:25:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I love the control of my 4x5 but can't keep it fed with the film it expects, so for several years, I've been using my PC lenses on my Nikon digital bodies and now on the D800 as needed.

Is it as easy and full of control as the 4x5? No this is a PIA to use compared to even my Tachahara and any lens I would put on it. However, it doesn't cost me a couple of Polaroids, and a couple sheets of film for each image.

For the most part, using the 24 PCE and the 85 PC within the limitations of the focal lengths and using a modified TC-14e, combined with the crop features of the D800 and I'm happy, especially since I can now shoot more quickly in the field and see the results as I shoot.

Sure, there are limitations such as not being able to shift other than parallel or perpendicular depending upon how the lens is set up, but being able to not have to pack all the bulk of the larger format, having to get the film processed and today, getting it scanned on top of it all, and despite the limitations on geometry control, I'm still quite happy with the results I get and simply work within the limitations.

Geometry control using the PC lenses on a D800 can be done and it works fine for most situations. There are times that these limitations do get in the way but with some forethought and mastery of the craft gets me by and my clients are none the wiser. It's still the final image that counts and being able to fine-tune in Photoshop lessens the physical limitations the tools.

Is it worthwhile for one to go to a MFD back and specialized bodies and lenses to regain total control? If you've got the money, time and patience, go for it. If you need to get the job done and not have your time and money dumped into the most expensive moving target, than a D800 and PCE lenses will do the job.
Logged

Larry Angier
ASMP, NAPP, ACT, and many more!

Webmaster, RANGE magazine
Editor emeritus, NorCal Quarterly

web--http://www.angier-fox.photoshelter.com
facebook--larry.angier
twitter--#larryangier
google+LarryAngier
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7308


WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 24, 2013, 01:53:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I would add that a great advantage with DSLRs may be live view. I write "may" because I don't know how well live view works on the latest MFDBs. Using LV and best magnification it is easy to pinpoint focus.

Best regards
Erik

I love the control of my 4x5 but can't keep it fed with the film it expects, so for several years, I've been using my PC lenses on my Nikon digital bodies and now on the D800 as needed.

Is it as easy and full of control as the 4x5? No this is a PIA to use compared to even my Tachahara and any lens I would put on it. However, it doesn't cost me a couple of Polaroids, and a couple sheets of film for each image.

For the most part, using the 24 PCE and the 85 PC within the limitations of the focal lengths and using a modified TC-14e, combined with the crop features of the D800 and I'm happy, especially since I can now shoot more quickly in the field and see the results as I shoot.

Sure, there are limitations such as not being able to shift other than parallel or perpendicular depending upon how the lens is set up, but being able to not have to pack all the bulk of the larger format, having to get the film processed and today, getting it scanned on top of it all, and despite the limitations on geometry control, I'm still quite happy with the results I get and simply work within the limitations.

Geometry control using the PC lenses on a D800 can be done and it works fine for most situations. There are times that these limitations do get in the way but with some forethought and mastery of the craft gets me by and my clients are none the wiser. It's still the final image that counts and being able to fine-tune in Photoshop lessens the physical limitations the tools.

Is it worthwhile for one to go to a MFD back and specialized bodies and lenses to regain total control? If you've got the money, time and patience, go for it. If you need to get the job done and not have your time and money dumped into the most expensive moving target, than a D800 and PCE lenses will do the job.
Logged

esox
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #43 on: January 24, 2013, 02:50:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that, from what I saw, the gape between dslr and mfdb isn't filled by the D800, depends on what makes a good picture for the one who looks at it.
Logged
erstwhile
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #44 on: January 27, 2013, 04:23:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I see many posts about the fact that D800 killed MFDB. But... As far as I know (I may be wrong) you can't do tilt/shift with a D800 as you do with a view camera. Because of micro lenses used on the D800. Right or wrong ? The Nikon 24mm Tilt/Shift lense doesn't do it the you do it with a view camera. Only digital backs can do it no ? Doing a nice Scheimpflung with a D800 seems to be not possible.
First, you're wrong.

Second, have you ever tried "doing a nice Scheimpflung [sic]" of a scene with tall mangroves in the foreground straddling the waterway receding into the background? No? Because you CAN'T, since DOF along the adjusted plane of focus expands outward as a WEDGE. But focus stacking CAN capture both the vertical foreground flora AND the horizontal background. Oh, but focus stacking can be done with ANY digital sensor. So let's not bring that up.

Lately it seems there's a ton of posters coming out of the woodwork trying to use more and more contrived situtations to justify to themselves why MFDB is better than 35mm DSLRS. And how has D800 killed MFDB? My IQ140 still works, even after I got a couple of D800 bodies. Sure, I hardly use the back anymore, but so what? When I want to use it I can still use it.


Also when one needs to do big enlargements (2m or more) then the DB still is the king in its realm no ?
One of the things I use backs for is large prints, yes. But for REAL large prints, I'm still using 8x10. So, no. It's not the king of its realm.


So why comparing the two systems ?
As far as I can tell, it's only the amateur MFDB users comparing the two systems. Folks who are using the d800 more or exlusively now are just using it. Folks who are still using their backs are still using them. It seems to me only the people who overreached in the first place are now trying to justify to themselves why their low ROI purchase is still "superior" to newer sensor tech.


Is a Honda supercar better than a Ferrari ? It's as fast, as safe (or as unsafe...). But... And it's not olny a cosmetic subject. For sure using a Hassy H or a Phase one system to shoot sport is not the easiest choise. Bit some do it and it's just beautiful.
Honda doesn't have a supercar. But I'll take the Toyota LFA over a Ferrari anyday. I have a friend who brought along his 645d (with the 400mm AF) for a superbike race. He let me try it out, and I politely handed it back to him and went back to my 1DX and 600mm. Don't get me wrong, the pentax's autofocus seemed better than my Mamiya AFD III, and the shutter lag was comparable. But let's be honest, that's like doing a mythbusters test between a snail on concrete vs a snail on sheet metal to see which one goes faster.


Why do all the images I love and that the aspect nails me on the wall are all coming from MFDB ? Question of precision/sharpness allied to smooth transitions. A bit like the difference between my beloved Hassy V lenses compared to the Mamyia RZ lenses. Both are wonderful, but different. I highly prefer the presision and smouthness (sorry I'm not english, so I may not use the correct words, I hope you will understand my thought).
You THINK you do. Do you really? Can you REALLY tell the difference without knowing what sensor/system was used to capture which image a priori? Straight out of camera? What about after just the slightest hint of post?
If you have some time, I suggest looking up the Kuleshov Effect on wiki.

Also, there's this new philosophy going around where if you cannot measure something quantitatively, consistently, and repeatably, then "it" might be only as good as ether. I think the new kids call this philosophy "science" or something like that.


A question : if you can have a Hassy H or phase one system or Alpa system for the price of a D800 system, wich one will you choose ?
Even Doug answers this question realistically, and HE'S A DEALER.

Come on, really? Do you really think price is the ONLY issue? Or even anywhere CLOSE to the main issue? Live view, low light, long macro, autofocus, frame rate, video, long exposure, blah blah blah. Medium format systems are good for some niche things. For those areas, they are quite good, but they do NOT do things that 35mm systems can't (albeit with some more effort). On the otherhand, what 35mm systems are good at, is impractical or impossible for MFDB.

Plus, it seems like one of the main reasons that amateurs and some, uh, "professionals" get MFDB is for the exclusivity. In English it's called "outgunning the client": meaning to have more expensive equipment than the client in order to APPEAR more professional. But, if medium format systems cost the same, wouldn't that then eliminate the MAIN PURPOSE of buying medium format systems (for some people at least)Huh


Another concern : I very often shoot sunsets with the sun right in the middle of the lense. No issue with my Hassy V with T* lenses. But with my dslr (oly) it´s a nightmare, no way to have a sharp sun with color into it, it´s a wite circle and the light kind of overflaw the photosites. It seems to be problem with small photosites. I also had the issue on a canon dslr ( dont remember wich one). I.m afraid the D800 has lts of chances to have the same issue. Didnt have that issue with a H4D50.

Here is what I want to do concerning the sun: http://jeanmabar.fr/route-des-cretes-et-pointe-rouge/ specialy the images where the sun is still yellow.
Trying not to be too rude here, but: have you considered using acrylics? Or maybe oils? I won't comment on what I think about these images subjectively, but objectively from an information entropy point of view there's not much content in those images. You really don't even need a camera to convey whatever message/feeling you're trying to convey with those.


Here is what I want to avoid, it is really underexposed, but still no texture in the sun. With Hassy and a provia ou ekta, I wouldn't have such problem.

Yes, in that picture you see the sun is yellow. Done with Hassy 503CX, Tessar 8/500 and provia 100F. f22.
Except you shot at F22 (or so you claim) for the film, and only f16 for the digital. And there's bracketing. It might take some sleight-of-hand for something moving as fast as the sun, but it can be done with some practice. That's sarcasm by the way.


I think that, from what I saw, the gape between dslr and mfdb isn't filled by the D800, depends on what makes a good picture for the one who looks at it.
Why should the d800 fill the gap? That'd be going backwards.





OH SNAP!
Logged
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 846



WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 28, 2013, 04:27:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Trying not to be too rude here, but: have you considered using acrylics? Or maybe oils? I won't comment on what I think about these images subjectively, but objectively from an information entropy point of view there's not much content in those images. You really don't even need a camera to convey whatever message/feeling you're trying to convey with those

I did suggest generating them in photoshop, if you don't have the skills it doesn't take long to acquire them with practice.
Logged
Jeffery Salter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68



WWW
« Reply #46 on: January 28, 2013, 07:41:42 AM »
ReplyReply


Plus, it seems like one of the main reasons that amateurs and some, uh, "professionals" get MFDB is for the exclusivity. In English it's called "outgunning the client": meaning to have more expensive equipment than the client in order to APPEAR more professional. But, if medium format systems cost the same, wouldn't that then eliminate the MAIN PURPOSE of buying medium format systems (for some people at least)Huh


Are you kidding me? With all due respect. This is very board generalization.  Unless you have some sort of Jedi mind reading ability, how could you possibly know the reasons "uh, "professionals" get MFDB?  I don't know your client base since you didn't include a link to your professional website, but I can say that since I have switched over to MF in 1990, then MFDB in 2006 my revenues have increased.  

And by the way. You can bill for MFDB.  Not every client of course.

I apologize to the OP for going off topic.  I'm a hybrid who has both 35 Digital and MFDB.  I like both palettes and carry BOTH on assignments.  

Have a good shoot,
Jeffery
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 08:00:10 AM by Jeffery Salter » Logged

Jeffery Salter
___________________________________________________________________________________
www.jefferysalter.com

Loving life one frame at a time.
esox
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #47 on: January 28, 2013, 11:27:02 AM »
ReplyReply

erstwhile, are you happy in your life ? You should read Confucius and watch the moon.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #48 on: January 28, 2013, 11:32:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Watching the Moon doesn't pay dividends: the finest minds in the world contemplated it, supposedly went there, and eventually decided it was better wasting more money thinking about Mars.

The good thing about Mars, since nobody will ever get there, is that any old crap can be written about it without fear of informed contradiction! How's that for the perfect, positive spin on Catch 22?

Far better than attempting to fix this world today.

Rob C
Logged

esox
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #49 on: January 28, 2013, 11:56:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The good thing about Mars, since nobody will ever get there, is that any old crap can be written about it without fear of informed contradiction!

Don't tell me you do not belive in aliens !!! You don't think Star Wars is a true story ?

 Shocked

Quote
How's that for the perfect, positive spin on Catch 22?

Sorry, my english is too poor to enderstand that one, could you explain ?

Quote
Far better than attempting to fix this world today.

And tomorrow ?

Next week ?  Grin
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 12:00:20 PM by esox » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #50 on: January 28, 2013, 01:01:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't tell me you do not belive in aliens !!! You don't think Star Wars is a true story ?

 Shocked

Sorry, my english is too poor to enderstand that one, could you explain ?

And tomorrow ?

Next week ?  Grin


Catch 22.

From the book of that tiltle by Joseph Heller. In effect, it’s when something must happen before another thing can but because the first won’t happen, then neither can the second.

As I vaguely remember from the book, a character wants to get the hell out of the Air Force and the war, but the only grounds for getting out are madness. So, since he wants to get out he obviously can’t be mad, so he has to remain.

Rob C
« Last Edit: January 29, 2013, 02:49:06 AM by Rob C » Logged

esox
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #51 on: January 28, 2013, 01:29:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the explanation.

But one can see that from another angle : it is because some people watched a the moon since man exist that you can have frying pan that don't burn your eggs.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7855



WWW
« Reply #52 on: January 28, 2013, 02:13:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Although T/S lenses do work well on DSLRs, automated DoF stacking is the best strategic answer.

There are more and more smart phone based solutions showing up to control DSLRs through local wifi, it is only a matter of months till something perfect shows up.

All the classic "rocky" South West kind of landscape are a done deal to start with. Nothing can come even close in absolute image quality to a stitched DSLR with DoF stacking if front to back sharpness is what you are looking for (that includes of course 8x10). Perfect quality down to the very corners, zero light fall off,... I am wondering why the question is even asked.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
esox
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #53 on: January 28, 2013, 02:35:39 PM »
ReplyReply

You are perfectly right if it is possible to make the picture in several shots.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #54 on: January 28, 2013, 03:33:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Plus, it seems like one of the main reasons that amateurs and some, uh, "professionals" get MFDB is for the exclusivity. In English it's called "outgunning the client": meaning to have more expensive equipment than the client in order to APPEAR more professional. But, if medium format systems cost the same, wouldn't that then eliminate the MAIN PURPOSE of buying medium format systems (for some people at least)


While most photographers base their choice more on IQ, images look and economics MF vendors do push the whole out gun the competition
angle in their marketing and there are a lot of photographers that do feel they need to outgun their client.

From the Hasselblad marketing on the H5D:

Quote
There is never any time like the present to start building for the future.
And if you think 35mm is good enough for this stage of your career,
then you’d better hope that your clients are also willing to settle for “good enough”.
The best clients, however, are almost never willing to settle for “good enough”. And why should they, when there are photographers out there who can provide the best?
And providing the best is what Hasselblad and the new H5D are all about.

Video from the Hasselblad website.
http://htv.hasselblad.com/video/karl-taylor-shooting-with-a-hasselblad?current-channel=all-channels&page=4

And you'll see a lot of this going on.

http://youtu.be/9UBTE4xpvpk?t=15m46s

The truth is that the quality difference between these systems is such that it is more about personal preference.
As this difference gets smaller and smaller and especially less relevant when both systems exceed most
publication formats it is really the rest that counts. Photographer, casting, makeup. services etc etc.
It is a democratization of professional photography.


« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 03:36:18 PM by FredBGG » Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7855



WWW
« Reply #55 on: January 28, 2013, 03:38:13 PM »
ReplyReply

You are perfectly right if it is possible to make the picture in several shots.

Yes, which is in fact very often the case.

Besides, larger formats also don't like movement much...

I would argue that as soon as something moves in your image, well the hope to achieve super high resolutions where a small difference could potentially be seen between a DSLR and the best MFDB... pretty much disappears. Yes, there are cases when this is not true, but do you want to size your equipement to get a few extra % for super niche applications? If you can afford to, by all means go for it. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 03:41:09 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
esox
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #56 on: January 28, 2013, 04:23:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, you are right, usually when you need a scheimpflung that means you have time in front of you.

The problem is not really the price. It depens how much you buy it.  Of course at the price for a new equipment MFDB 60mpix, it is not affordable. But I just found a phase one 645df+/80mm LS/P65+ for around 8.000 euros, 6000 shots for the back, body + 80mm new. And with warranty. So of course it is more expensive than a D800, but the first thing is that I'm used to MF (film) since a long time and or 4x5 (since a shorter time), I don't like to shoot with a DSLR (I'm not confortable with  the view finder and the small size of the body), I prefer bigger equipment.

What I don't understand in that discussion is that I started it to have a objective viewpoint and I almost always have answers about the price. It's like if you speak about super cars possibilities and the answer is always : Toyota is cheaper and is also a fast car. That is not the subject.

The advantage of a DB is that it can be mounted on a various type of equipement. I'm used to work at iso 100 on my HAsselblad. I don't need high iso.

For me shooting landscape with a DSLR is a non sense, not because of the resolution only (right the D800 can do a lot), I didn't see any review or test that shows a equal IQ in similar conditions between D800 and DB. Not even one. I can see a very good resolution, good shadows, in fact good and quite equivalent technical specification regarding the output file. But not the same IQ, far from that. The IQ isn't only a comparison between numbers. For me if one limits his appreciation of the IQ to numbers, that means the person don't look at the right things in the picture. It is only my humble viewpoint. And the difference between many people writing in this topic is that I consider that my viewpoint is my viewpoint it has no absolute value. It is my truth, a viewpoint. Not THE truth.

It's a little bit like the difference between using a 50-100 iso film on a MF instead of a 400 iso film, for small prints. You do not see the grain in both cases. But it is not the same result. None is better than the other one, it is just different. Or it is like sayin that a 4x5 negative is better that a 6x6 MF negative only because it has more grain for the same part of the scenery. That's stupid. Not the same lenses, not demanding the salme thing to the lebnse, not the same way to work with, etc. Considering a picture is good because it sharp and has lots of details and another one is bad only because it has only few details is a very very narrow viewpoint.

Anyway I bought the phase one and am very happy with it ! And prefere a lot to shoot with it than with my DSLR.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 04:43:24 PM by esox » Logged
Jeffery Salter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 68



WWW
« Reply #57 on: January 28, 2013, 04:48:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Esox,

Now go out and shoot some great images!!! Let your big heart and eye crash together create something with that blackbox.  Don't come back to this forum until you are ready to invite us your photo exhibition.

Thank you,
Jeffery
Logged

Jeffery Salter
___________________________________________________________________________________
www.jefferysalter.com

Loving life one frame at a time.
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7308


WWW
« Reply #58 on: January 28, 2013, 05:10:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I shot a lot of slide film in my days and I felt anything above 100 ISO was worthless. I was shooting Pentax 67 and mainly projected slides on Götschman 67, so I seldom have seen small prints. The problems I had with fast films were:

1) Lack of density
2) Lack of color
3) Grain
4) Bad sharpness

Getting back to the MFD/D800 issue, I would say that DSLRs have a few advantages:

- If we discuss Scheimpflug, DSLRs can use MF lenses with tilt and shift. Live view makes it reasonable easy to get focus points right.
- Using LV on tripod is quite comfortable, I use the viewfinder to set up but then I work mostly with LCD
- For me, LV is one of the most important aspects. I'm not a strong believer in AF and I am not good at manual focus.

Regarding those car analogies, most people buy normal cars.

There used to be a very decent poster on this forums, airline pilot and former loudspeaker designer. He is a proud owner of an IQ180 on Alpa and of a D800 with a set of Leica lenses and a Pentax K5. He drives a ten year old Ford Bronco (if I recall it right).

By the way, cars don't make images. Cameras don't make images, either, photographers do. And that Ferrari of yours would not take you to a great spot in the wild, but Marc's Bronco may do.

Best regards
Erik


Well, you are right, usually when you need a scheimpflung that means you have time in front of you.

The problem is not really the price. It depens how much you buy it.  Of course at the price for a new equipment MFDB 60mpix, it is not affordable. But I just found a phase one 645df+/80mm LS/P65+ for around 8.000 euros, 6000 shots for the back, body + 80mm new. And with warranty. So of course it is more expensive than a D800, but the first thing is that I'm used to MF (film) since a long time and or 4x5 (since a shorter time), I don't like to shoot with a DSLR (I'm not confortable with  the view finder and the small size of the body), I prefer bigger equipment.

What I don't understand in that discussion is that I started it to have a objective viewpoint and I almost always have answers about the price. It's like if you speak about super cars possibilities and the answer is always : Toyota is cheaper and is also a fast car. That is not the subject.

The advantage of a DB is that it can be mounted on a various type of equipement. I'm used to work at iso 100 on my HAsselblad. I don't need high iso.

For me shooting landscape with a DSLR is a non sense, not because of the resolution only (right the D800 can do a lot), I didn't see any review or test that shows a equal IQ in similar conditions between D800 and DB. Not even one. I can see a very good resolution, good shadows, in fact good and quite equivalent technical specification regarding the output file. But not the same IQ, far from that. The IQ isn't only a comparison between numbers. For me if one limits his appreciation of the IQ to numbers, that means the person don't look at the right things in the picture. It is only my humble viewpoint. And the difference between many people writing in this topic is that I consider that my viewpoint is my viewpoint it has no absolute value. It is my truth, a viewpoint. Not THE truth.

It's a little bit like the difference between using a 50-100 iso film on a MF instead of a 400 iso film, for small prints. You do not see the grain in both cases. But it is not the same result. None is better than the other one, it is just different. Or it is like sayin that a 4x5 negative is better that a 6x6 MF negative only because it has more grain for the same part of the scenery. That's stupid. Not the same lenses, not demanding the salme thing to the lebnse, not the same way to work with, etc. Considering a picture is good because it sharp and has lots of details and another one is bad only because it has only few details is a very very narrow viewpoint.

Anyway I bought the phase one and am very happy with it ! And prefere a lot to shoot with it than with my DSLR.
Logged

esox
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #59 on: January 28, 2013, 07:37:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I did suggest generating them in photoshop, if you don't have the skills it doesn't take long to acquire them with practice.

I'm curious to see that, couls you please show me the result ?
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad