Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 17 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DIGITAL Medium Format photography is almost as moribund???  (Read 39046 times)
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1358


« Reply #140 on: March 05, 2013, 10:02:30 AM »
ReplyReply

For amateur photographers, cameras are not an investment. Nor are they an investment if you think of resale value. If you have this economic model, you are working in the wrong field. If you want to invest, stocks, bonds, and real estate are better options.

It depends on how you use the word "investment". If you mean "investment" in terms of selling it later for a larger amount of money than you bought it for it is as you say. However, in daily speak one can say "investment" about pretty much anything that costs a lot of money is important to your profession, hobby or lifestyle and is intended to be used for many years to come.

In that sense a "good investment" is a system you can have for many years while affording to maintain and to upgrade at reasonable costs to keep it up to date compared to alternate offers in the market.

How MFD systems fit into this today depends on who you ask...
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #141 on: March 05, 2013, 10:12:54 AM »
ReplyReply

For amateur photographers, cameras are not an investment. Nor are they an investment if you think of resale value. If you have this economic model, you are working in the wrong field. If you want to invest, stocks, bonds, and real estate are better options.




You're having a friggin' laff, aren't you?

You buy rather old Leica M filmies and Nikon rangefinder cameras if you want to invest.

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #142 on: March 05, 2013, 10:19:39 AM »
ReplyReply

It depends on how you use the word "investment". If you mean "investment" in terms of selling it later for a larger amount of money than you bought it for it is as you say. However, in daily speak one can say "investment" about pretty much anything that costs a lot of money is important to your profession, hobby or lifestyle and is intended to be used for many years to come.

In that sense a "good investment" is a system you can have for many years while affording to maintain and to upgrade at reasonable costs to keep it up to date compared to alternate offers in the market.

How MFD systems fit into this today depends on who you ask...


How any digital camera fits the formula of 'investment' is in doubt! Lenses may just have a slim possibility of being investments but cameras  - never!

How different to the Hasselblads of the 500 Series, the Nkons of the F range... those were indeed investments that could carry you through much of a career and were replaceable at reasonable cost, inflation notwithstanding.

Rob C
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7239


WWW
« Reply #143 on: March 05, 2013, 10:32:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Guy,

Thanks for putting me right.

Anyway, the issue I had was that I felt that the church image Jerome has posted with the Nikon 14-24/2.8 is probably not typical. It is not sharp and it doesn't respond to sharpening at it also has some halos from JPEG processing.

I do not have Nikon D800 or D800 and have not used neither the 14-24 nor the 25/2.8 Zeiss. I have seen, and analyzed, samples from  25/8 on both D800 and the D800E and those were very sharp. The MTF curves that Zeiss publishes indicate that extreme corners loose sharpness, the samples I have seen did not have good enough corner detail for me to judge.

The original posting talked about the demise of MFD. Personally, I think that MFD is around for good reasons. It is nice to hear that Phase is doing good business.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "The reports of the demise of MF digital are greatly exaggerated".

Best regards
Erik

Sure you don't mean a Zeiss 25mm F 2 for Nikon. I have it , very nice sharp lens and corners look very good too. Maybe the best lens in this focal length for Nikon.
Logged

Chris Barrett
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #144 on: March 05, 2013, 10:34:51 AM »
ReplyReply

It also depends greatly upon your particular business model.  As in investment in my business, my P65+ has been highly lucrative.  Here's how I look at it...  I charge $100/image capture fee.  I deliver on average 500 images a year (625 in 2012).  In the 5 years I've owned my P65+, that's $250,000 in capture fees. So... about $217,000 profit on that particular investment.  Yesterday I ordered an IQ260.  I have little doubt that investing in medium format will continue to prove particularly profitable... for me.

CB
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 10:50:06 AM by Chris Barrett » Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #145 on: March 05, 2013, 10:47:23 AM »
ReplyReply

It depends on how you use the word "investment". If you mean "investment" in terms of selling it later for a larger amount of money than you bought it for it is as you say. However, in daily speak one can say "investment" about pretty much anything that costs a lot of money is important to your profession, hobby or lifestyle and is intended to be used for many years to come.

In that sense a "good investment" is a system you can have for many years while affording to maintain and to upgrade at reasonable costs to keep it up to date compared to alternate offers in the market.

How MFD systems fit into this today depends on who you ask...

I call that just buying the right camera. Wink

I also think the "upgrade" idea is wrong. No matter what camera is released, my 645D will continue to produce wonderful images. Those images are not diminished because something else has better noise or high ISO or a nicer finish. THE most important factor in the quality of my work is me. If my work is only valued because of the number of pixels, I should start looking for another career.
Logged
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 522


« Reply #146 on: March 05, 2013, 11:16:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Anyway, the issue I had was that I felt that the church image Jerome has posted with the Nikon 14-24/2.8 is probably not typical. It is not sharp and it doesn't respond to sharpening at it also has some halos from JPEG processing.

If you want different samples, there is another one on my flickr account...

Why do you dismiss the sample from the D800 as "not typical", but accept a sample from a 7 years old Hasselblad camera with a resolution too low to be offered today? "Typical" for an Hasselblad would be a H4D-50...
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1648



WWW
« Reply #147 on: March 05, 2013, 11:26:28 AM »
ReplyReply

THE most important factor in the quality of my work is me.

Steady on now, remember where you are.
Logged

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

Posts: 382


« Reply #148 on: March 05, 2013, 11:41:51 AM »
ReplyReply

It also depends greatly upon your particular business model.  As in investment in my business, my P65+ has been highly lucrative.  Here's how I look at it...  I charge $100/image capture fee.  I deliver on average 500 images a year (625 in 2012).  In the 5 years I've owned my P65+, that's $250,000 in capture fees. So... about $217,000 profit on that particular investment.  Yesterday I ordered an IQ260.  I have little doubt that investing in medium format will continue to prove particularly profitable... for me.

CB

How do you manage to capture an image with just a digital back?

Or do you bill for lenses, cameras, software, computing time, etc etc under separate accounts?
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7239


WWW
« Reply #149 on: March 05, 2013, 11:56:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

It is about pixels being sharp. If you look at an image at actual pixels the pixels should look sharp, that is sensor resolution would limit sharpness and not the lens. An OLP filtered image would be slightly fuzzy, but would respond well to sharpening.

Here are some images I got from Tim Parkin with different sharpening. Just to make clear, all these images were processed by me, using LR 4.3. I used my standard sharpening EKRNES which uses deconvolution at a small radius and another setting I call Tim Parkin which is a bit wider radius, higher amount and halo supression.

D800 - no sharpening

D800 - EKRNES (LR, 45,0.7,100, 17, 20)

D800 - TimParkin (LR, 100, 1, 0, 0)

The images below are from Tim's test image with the same sharpening settings as above




This is your image as from camera JPEG (which also has some sharpening)

And this is your image with my sharpening


You may note that the unsharpened IQ180 image is a bit soft, this depends on the pixels being small so the lens transfers little contrast at the pixel level. The higher the resolution the worse the pixels look. But the IQ180 has a lot of pixels.

I hope I have Tim's permission to use the images. He permitted me to use them in this article:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts

Tim Parkin is the editor of On Landscape: http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/

Best regards
Erik

If you want different samples, there is another one on my flickr account...

Why do you dismiss the sample from the D800 as "not typical", but accept a sample from a 7 years old Hasselblad camera with a resolution too low to be offered today? "Typical" for an Hasselblad would be a H4D-50...
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 02:31:14 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Chris Barrett
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #150 on: March 05, 2013, 11:56:53 AM »
ReplyReply

How do you manage to capture an image with just a digital back?

Or do you bill for lenses, cameras, software, computing time, etc etc under separate accounts?

I only mentioned the capture fee.  That is specifically relevant to the digital back and is what used to be our film, processing and polaroid part of the budget.  Retouching, licensing and DayRate are all separate from this of course.  I don't charge rental fees on my camera gear, that is more common in the motion industry.
Logged
gerald.d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 382


« Reply #151 on: March 05, 2013, 12:07:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I only mentioned the capture fee.  That is specifically relevant to the digital back and is what used to be our film, processing and polaroid part of the budget.  Retouching, licensing and DayRate are all separate from this of course.  I don't charge rental fees on my camera gear, that is more common in the motion industry.

Thanks for the explanation - I know nothing of the professional side of things, and it initially seemed odd that you'd consider the ROI on just the back, without taking into account the cost of lenses, cameras, and other kit (personally, I have considerably more value in my cameras and lenses than I do my back).
Logged
pixjohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 667


« Reply #152 on: March 05, 2013, 02:02:05 PM »
ReplyReply

TOO MANY TROLLS Huh

Why do you even bother responding to them.
Logged
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1236



WWW
« Reply #153 on: March 05, 2013, 02:13:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello Pixjohn,

Sorry but I have to disagree with your comment “TOO MANY TROLLS”

This is a open forum where people can freely write there opinions on the subject at hand.

You don’t have to agree with them but calling them trolls just make you look like a bigot.

I for one have personally decided to keep out of this discussion as its my business and no one else's what equipment I think is better for my work.

Cheers

Simon
Logged

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

Auckland, New Zealand
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 522


« Reply #154 on: March 05, 2013, 05:05:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

It is about pixels being sharp. If you look at an image at actual pixels the pixels should look sharp, that is sensor resolution would limit sharpness and not the lens. An OLP filtered image would be slightly fuzzy, but would respond well to sharpening.

Here are some images I got from Tim Parkin with different sharpening. Just to make clear, all these images were processed by me, using LR 4.3. I used my standard sharpening EKRNES which uses deconvolution at a small radius and another setting I call Tim Parkin which is a bit wider radius, higher amount and halo supression.

D800 - no sharpening

D800 - EKRNES (LR, 45,0.7,100, 17, 20)

D800 - TimParkin (LR, 100, 1, 0, 0)

The images below are from Tim's test image with the same sharpening settings as above




This is your image as from camera JPEG (which also has some sharpening)

And this is your image with my sharpening


You may note that the unsharpened IQ180 image is a bit soft, this depends on the pixels being small so the lens transfers little contrast at the pixel level. The higher the resolution the worse the pixels look. But the IQ180 has a lot of pixels.

I hope I have Tim's permission to use the images. He permitted me to use them in this article:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts

Tim Parkin is the editor of On Landscape: http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/

Best regards
Erik


I don't understand what you are asking from me. Do you want the raw files to try your own sharpening on it?
Logged
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 522


« Reply #155 on: March 05, 2013, 05:07:56 PM »
ReplyReply

TOO MANY TROLLS Huh

Do you mean me?
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7239


WWW
« Reply #156 on: March 05, 2013, 10:27:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I'm not asking. Just try to explain why I'm skeptical about that image. Very clearly, a D800 image would need much more sharpening than a MFD image as it has an optical low pass filter which the MFD has not.

I presume that the MFD image is not a in camera JPEG but a raw image converted by Phocus, Capture One, LR, ACR or some other converter. All those converters apply (or may apply) significant sharpening. Having raw images for comparison may help.

In general I would a good lens stopped down to f/8 (or f/5.6) on an MFD produce better sharpness than a good lens at similar aperture on a smaller frame. This is described here: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/Travel/Stuff/i-465SpQG/0/O/20121112-_DSC0235.jpg (using an APS-C to MF comparison).

Best regards
Erik

I don't understand what you are asking from me. Do you want the raw files to try your own sharpening on it?
Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #157 on: March 05, 2013, 11:41:20 PM »
ReplyReply

If you want different samples, there is another one on my flickr account...

Why do you dismiss the sample from the D800 as "not typical", but accept a sample from a 7 years old Hasselblad camera with a resolution too low to be offered today? "Typical" for an Hasselblad would be a H4D-50...

Jerome

I took a look at some of the other samples you have on flickr and compared these two:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8517989977/sizes/o/in/set-72157632871812709/

and

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8517975831/sizes/o/in/set-72157632871812709/

I found that there was not the difference that was visible in the previous comparison you showed.

While it is remarkable what the Hasselblad can do considering it is 7 years old, however it is remarkable that Nikon
can achieve this quality at a fraction of the price and with the significantly more flexible option
of an ultra wide zoom compared to a fixed focal length, not to mention the much wider angle the Nikon zoom is capable of.

Add to that that Nikon also makes a TS 24mm. The 14-24mm plus the 24mm TSE would be $ 4,000 while the Hasselblad 28mm only is $ 5,300.

It is also worth noting that the D800 is not quite as fine detailed as the D800E for this sort of thing

« Last Edit: March 06, 2013, 12:40:34 AM by FredBGG » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7239


WWW
« Reply #158 on: March 05, 2013, 11:47:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Fred,

And what did you find? Much interested about your findings.

Best regards
Erik



Jerome

I took a look at some of the other samples you have on flickr and compared these two:
Logged

jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 522


« Reply #159 on: March 06, 2013, 01:02:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Jerome

I took a look at some of the other samples you have on flickr and compared these two:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8517989977/sizes/o/in/set-72157632871812709/

and

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerome_munich/8517975831/sizes/o/in/set-72157632871812709/

I found that there was not the difference that was visible in the previous comparison you showed.

You are now comparing a H3D sample to a D800 sample treated from a NEF (raw) file. The D800 in camera jpeg is here.

But you chose a comparison taken at ISO 800. I took the same pictures at iso 100 (and 200, 400, 1600) and they are here (H3D) and here (D800 from RAW) or here (D800 from jpeg).

The whole set of pictures can be seen here.

This is what the whole picture looks like:


And this is a crop showing the two cameras side by side at ISO 100 when the colour balances are matched (click for pixel level detail):



In these pictures, I was not particularly interested in comparing sharpness, but rather to find about dynamic range, colour and noise of the H3D-31 in a low-light situation.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2013, 01:08:26 AM by jerome_m » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 17 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad