Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Downgrading my MF  (Read 13659 times)
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3979



WWW
« Reply #120 on: October 21, 2013, 07:15:42 AM »
ReplyReply

All you say is true; but most Phase and Hassy shooters will be using the dSLR - style solutions and lenses, which are going to be around for some time, it seems because any change would require complete retooling.

On the other side, Zeiss and even Nikon can push out high-rez lenses in a matter of months if they choose to, in fact I would bet the prototypes are already sitting in a drawer waiting for next year's Photokina and the 40MP+ hi-rez Canon and Nikon updates.

Incidentally, I would bet that Zeiss, and even Nikon and Canon are salivating at the idea of selling large numbers of $4K lenses to complement $4K bodies. This will happen, the economics are there.

Edmund

Hi,

Low end MFD is 25-50 MP but the top ones is more like 80MP. Add to that precision designed technical cameras and high resolution lenses from Rodenstock. I guess the resolution advantage will be there, albeit at a very high cost.

Zeiss is developing a series of new lenses, and so does Sigma at a much more affordable price. It has been said that Nikon has quite a few QC issues. With high resolution sensors things like alignment, tolerances and play have a more important role than in cameras of yore.

Best regards
Erik


Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


WWW
« Reply #121 on: October 21, 2013, 11:13:29 AM »
ReplyReply

No doubt bigger sensors will always keep an edge in quality over smaller ones. Zeiss Otus is a game changer for some but not massively like the A7's. Nevertheless, it will be more real and stronger competition to DMF at the time of producing the credit card. Nikon seems to have responded to Zeiss with the new 58mm but we have to wait. If this is true, most likely Canon will follow. Then I and many others will follow too.

At first I was excited about Zeiss Otus in order to get MF quality without breaking my "world order". But then I realized that buying a full set of 3 Otus lenses, WA, Normal and Tele would probably cost $12K (mucho money). Besides for this kind of money I could find a nice used P45+ back for my V camera system. (still holding on to it, lol!)

If Canon (my system) has an answer to Zeiiss Otus, I will most likely get these super L glass. Translation: "I'll never have enough money saved in order to get into digital medium format.

Have a nice week.
Eduardo





Hi,

Low end MFD is 25-50 MP but the top ones is more like 80MP. Add to that precision designed technical cameras and high resolution lenses from Rodenstock. I guess the resolution advantage will be there, albeit at a very high cost.

Zeiss is developing a series of new lenses, and so does Sigma at a much more affordable price. It has been said that Nikon has quite a few QC issues. With high resolution sensors things like alignment, tolerances and play have a more important role than in cameras of yore.

Best regards
Erik


Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3979



WWW
« Reply #122 on: October 21, 2013, 01:28:29 PM »
ReplyReply


If Canon (my system) has an answer to Zeiiss Otus, I will most likely get these super L glass. Translation: "I'll never have enough money saved in order to get into digital medium format.

Have a nice week.
Eduardo


Eduardo, really I don't know which is worse - using 35mm and being frustrated with the images, or using MF and being angry with the camera while using it. Smiley

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #123 on: October 21, 2013, 02:05:45 PM »
ReplyReply

This is why I shoot the M9 now.  It just works intuitively and the only disapointment in the images comes from my negligence or trying to push the camera past its limits, which generally means really high iso. 

Eduardo, really I don't know which is worse - using 35mm and being frustrated with the images, or using MF and being angry with the camera while using it. Smiley

Edmund
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #124 on: October 21, 2013, 02:41:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have bought some Hasselblad stuff and a P45+ second hand. Works well, better than I expected. I guess that prices on backs may go down.

Regarding the A7s, I don't know. I have Alpha 900, 77 and 99. I feel the lenses I have are OK, but they are far from perfect. Lenses for the NEX were weak, mostly, I hope Sony makes some good lenses for the Alpha 7. I am no prospective buyer right now, spent a bit to much on MFD.

Honestly, the Sony gives images that are good enough. Why I have three of them? I bought the Alpha 77 because it had live view. Same goes for the Alpha 99. The Alpha 99 has some advantages. It has three presets selectable on the control wheel. Antishake and AF can be part of a preset. I use the Alpha 77 for telephoto and walk around. The Alpha 900 works like a senior adviser, makes not much but is nice to have around.

One lens I have that impresses me is the Samyang 14/2.8. It is actually almost usable at f/2.8 and really good stopped down regarding sharpness. Downside is strong moustache type distortion

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Samples/Samyang/


Best regards
Erik


No doubt bigger sensors will always keep an edge in quality over smaller ones. Zeiss Otus is a game changer for some but not massively like the A7's. Nevertheless, it will be more real and stronger competition to DMF at the time of producing the credit card. Nikon seems to have responded to Zeiss with the new 58mm but we have to wait. If this is true, most likely Canon will follow. Then I and many others will follow too.

At first I was excited about Zeiss Otus in order to get MF quality without breaking my "world order". But then I realized that buying a full set of 3 Otus lenses, WA, Normal and Tele would probably cost $12K (mucho money). Besides for this kind of money I could find a nice used P45+ back for my V camera system. (still holding on to it, lol!)

If Canon (my system) has an answer to Zeiiss Otus, I will most likely get these super L glass. Translation: "I'll never have enough money saved in order to get into digital medium format.

Have a nice week.
Eduardo





« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 04:04:29 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #125 on: October 21, 2013, 03:19:33 PM »
ReplyReply

My feeling is, the deeper I go into photography, the more I want a light and fast camera for quick street-style shooting and a big camera for ultimate image quality.

For the first -fast- style the latest bit of IQ is simply not important, since its not the defining parameter but the situation is.
For the second style -slow and deliberate 4x5" style shooting- I'd not be happy with FF, since I want to have the chance to print this kind of stuff large - really large and retain detail.

Sensor/film real estate can only be replaced by even more real estate.
And the new Zeiss Otus lenses (which have awesome - really even more awesome- IQ - see the Zeiss samples) will cost you a small fortune (Zeiss talking of a price range around 3000 Euro for an Otus lens) you can otherwise spend in sensor real estate and AutoFocus lenses - Otuses (Otusi?) will be manual.

So what I'd do is keep the MF Camera and get an additional smaller one and decide before the shoot whats going to be the appropriate tool.

After all you should be able to love your tools, sleep with them in bed and be happy every day when you see them waiting for the next photographs to take for you ...  Wink

Just my € 0.02 ..

Cheers
~Chris
Logged

jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 423


« Reply #126 on: October 21, 2013, 03:42:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Edmund,

You know more of the science than I, but your right, white translucent skin types are very hard to photograph in the standard sense.  My MFD backs pick up a slight red/magenta, or with Nikon's and the Canon 1dx tend to go orange.  

C-1 is probably the best raw processor for this, but other ways work, like always using a quality uv filter.  Soft 3/4 lighting works better, Harsh full frontal light is the worst.   Tungsten seems the best solution, though rarely can you change a complete lighting style for one subject, if your shooting multiple subjects.

Other options are black net filters, though used minimally and with care.

We sometimes have forgotten about filters in the digital age, thinking we can do any look in post, though a well balanced camera and the appropriate filters, combined with testing will produce a easier to work image.

The upside of mfd, is how specific the colors are reproduced.   Not always pretty, but if the data is there and the color is less global then getting to a final result is usually better, though I agree, the only real downside to mfd is the cameras.   They are really getting long in the tooth compared to modern smaller formats, especially all the innovation we see in mirrorless.

IMO

BC

Hello BC, Hello Edmund,

skin is a 3 dimensional structure not a surface. Light of different wavelength reaches different depths of the skin and reflects from there. Consequently it shows different "images". The shorter the wavelength the deeper it goes. Natural dark skin is usually a bit thicker than not so dark skin. Makeup adds another layer to the skin. This is a rudimentary explanation. Details are more complicated. The human visual system is very sensitive for skin tones.

Deep red and near infrared are important for a nice looking skin – therefore they use red light in the red light district, so that everyone looks better than in reality. In photography we need light spectra with more red / near infrared than other parts of the spectrum to render good skin tones too. The solution is tungsten which contains much red and infrared.

The next step is film and sensors. They only can pick up, what is there. Films and sensors have their own problems. I struggle all the time with skin tones. So, Roxanne put on the red light ...*

Best,
Johannes


* The Police: Outlandos d’Amour – Roxanne, A&M Records, 1978 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnsNBGXsUlQ)
« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 03:43:50 PM by jsch » Logged
pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #127 on: October 23, 2013, 07:36:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone know of some good Nikon D800e samples to download? What I'm finding doesn't seem to be very representative of what people are saying so far.

I'm considering getting a tilt/shift lens if I get a DSLR but they are quite expensive. How useful are the extra movements on these lenses for landscape photography?
Logged
Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 450


WWW
« Reply #128 on: October 23, 2013, 08:02:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone know of some good Nikon D800e samples to download? What I'm finding doesn't seem to be very representative of what people are saying so far.

I'm considering getting a tilt/shift lens if I get a DSLR but they are quite expensive. How useful are the extra movements on these lenses for landscape photography?

Hi, the tilt is somewhat useful but generally due to the large dof of the 35mm sensors it is not required but it does allow you to control near-far plane focus (dof) while using optimum apertures which in the case of a D800/E might be f5.6 or f8 instead of needing to go to diffraction laden f11/16/22 for adequate dof for some situations.

The shift is great in that it allows you to compose the image in camera without the need for keystone corrections later in software which reduce detail a bit whenever you want to keep vertical lines vertical and parallel but want to shift the horizon up or down the frame for composition purposes. So you maximize the utilization of the pixels of the sensor. Usually tilt/shift lenses also have low distortions further minimizing the need for corrections.

I have used the Nikon 24mm PC-E on a D800E and it works very well. It's a good lens. The Canon 24mm TS-E is a touch better but to get an equal or better result than the 24PC-E/D800E combination you need to mount it on a Sony A7R or use a Digital Back via an ALPA FPS or Hartblei camera. Of course when you use a tech camera with a medium format digital back in the 60/80mp range you will get a much better result. It is not close.
Logged
pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #129 on: October 23, 2013, 05:08:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi, the tilt is somewhat useful but generally due to the large dof of the 35mm sensors it is not required but it does allow you to control near-far plane focus (dof) while using optimum apertures which in the case of a D800/E might be f5.6 or f8 instead of needing to go to diffraction laden f11/16/22 for adequate dof for some situations.

That's a good point actually. I'm used to the DOF of the P25+ and wasn't really considering the smaller sensor as much as I should.

Quote
The shift is great in that it allows you to compose the image in camera without the need for keystone corrections later in software which reduce detail a bit whenever you want to keep vertical lines vertical and parallel but want to shift the horizon up or down the frame for composition purposes. So you maximize the utilization of the pixels of the sensor. Usually tilt/shift lenses also have low distortions further minimizing the need for corrections.

This is where I would find it more useful. I quite like the very exact look in a landscape when all the verticals run straight.

Quote
I have used the Nikon 24mm PC-E on a D800E and it works very well. It's a good lens. The Canon 24mm TS-E is a touch better but to get an equal or better result than the 24PC-E/D800E combination you need to mount it on a Sony A7R or use a Digital Back via an ALPA FPS or Hartblei camera. Of course when you use a tech camera with a medium format digital back in the 60/80mp range you will get a much better result. It is not close.

Actually I made the horrible mistake of looking at some shots taken with an Alpa SWA. They really are something else! It put's expensive thoughts in my head.
Logged
pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #130 on: November 01, 2013, 02:58:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Having seen some sample images from the Sony a7R now, they look quite incredible. A 150x100cm (60x40") print looks entirely possible. There is no way my P25+ would print this large, it runs out at around a 100x75cm (40x30") print.

Is there any good reason not to get the a7R for landscape? Having the 35mm, 55mm and 70-200mm lenses seems like a nice setup.

I'm not sure what to think of the medium format 'look'. It's the one thing that holds me back on moving to a smaller system. The Mamiya is a kludgy camera and Capture One has awful usability in my opinion.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #131 on: November 01, 2013, 03:29:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I am just in the process of posting some images I shot previous weekend. The images are processed, pretty much to my liking. They are shown as high quality JPEGs, downscaled to fit 4000x4000. Some are Sony Alpha 99 and some are Hasselblad V + P45+. These images are comparison images, I was just shooting with both cameras. White balance may differ.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/index.html
Questions:

Do you see the MFD look?
Can you say which is which?

Answers: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/Answers.html


Regarding the A7r, it needs good lenses. I guess that with lenses good enough it can match a P45+, I don't know if the lenses available are good enough for that. A technical camera with the best lenses available and a high resolution MF sensor is something else. I may be a potential A7r buyer, but I wait for the lenses. Or possibly an 36 MP A-mount camera.

Best regards
Erik

Having seen some sample images from the Sony a7R now, they look quite incredible. A 150x100cm (60x40") print looks entirely possible. There is no way my P25+ would print this large, it runs out at around a 100x75cm (40x30") print.

Is there any good reason not to get the a7R for landscape? Having the 35mm, 55mm and 70-200mm lenses seems like a nice setup.

I'm not sure what to think of the medium format 'look'. It's the one thing that holds me back on moving to a smaller system. The Mamiya is a kludgy camera and Capture One has awful usability in my opinion.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2013, 03:50:15 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #132 on: November 01, 2013, 03:59:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Well that was some fun! Thanks for putting it up Erik.

Out of this completely blind test I managed 5/9 correctly. Not any better than chance really. What's funny though is after looking at the answers, then going back and inspecting, I noticed the differences more. Talk about Placebo???

However when writing down my answers I noted that a particular image has a nice look. Which turned out to be the MF.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2013, 07:59:36 AM by pjtn » Logged
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 533


« Reply #133 on: November 01, 2013, 07:53:13 AM »
ReplyReply

I am just in the process of posting some images I shot previous weekend. The images are processed, pretty much to my liking. They are shown as high quality JPEGs, downscaled to fit 4000x4000. Some are Sony Alpha 99 and some are Hasselblad V + P45+. These images are comparison images, I was just shooting with both cameras. White balance may differ.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/index.html
Questions:

Do you see the MFD look?
Can you say which is which?

Very nice exercise, we should do it more often. I was wrong about 2, 3 and 7. I don't count 5, since I read what it was in pjtn post before doing the test, so I managed 5 out of 8, which is not statistically significant.

I would like to know what lens was used for 2 and what iso was used for 7.
Logged
pjtn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 190


« Reply #134 on: November 01, 2013, 08:00:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Oops, sorry about that. I will remove the spoiler from my post.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #135 on: November 01, 2013, 08:13:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Nice to hear you liked the posting:-)

Image 2: Sony 70-400/4-5.6G at f/16, ISO : 50, 3.2 s

Image 7: No EXIF recorded info recorded from lens, ISO was 50.


Best regards
Erik


Very nice exercise, we should do it more often. I was wrong about 2, 3 and 7. I don't count 5, since I read what it was in pjtn post before doing the test, so I managed 5 out of 8, which is not statistically significant.

I would like to know what lens was used for 2 and what iso was used for 7.
Logged

Chris Livsey
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 262



« Reply #136 on: November 01, 2013, 11:17:53 AM »
ReplyReply

3/9 wrong, whose maths is up to saying at what point it is significant???

I called 3,4,5 wrong FYI
I did view all at enlarged size, interesting exercise.
Thanks for the post.
Logged

ATB
Chris Livsey
http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/

Photographer- not a job description, a diagnosis.
CptZar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105



WWW
« Reply #137 on: November 01, 2013, 01:51:25 PM »
ReplyReply



Regarding the A7r, it needs good lenses. I guess that with lenses good enough it can match a P45+, I don't know if the lenses available are good enough for that. A technical camera with the best lenses available and a high resolution MF sensor is something else. I may be a potential A7r buyer, but I wait for the lenses. Or possibly an 36 MP A-mount camera.

Best regards
Erik


What about the Zeiss-Hartblei lenses, the Canon 24TS and 17TS?  With the A7r you got your technical camera. Which technical camera will be better? A MF back with no real live view and lesser DR? With the A-Mount you will have to sacrifice anything wider than 40mm.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #138 on: November 01, 2013, 02:54:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Regarding the Zeiss-Hartblei lenses I would say that the 120/4 and the 80/2.8 is using the same lens groups my 120/4 and 80/2.8 have, with some improvements like better control of flare and circular aperture.

The Hartblei 40/40 is based on FLE IF, that is a new construction much better than my 40/4 FLE.

The points you mention on technical cameras is interesting. The best option on technical cameras is calibrated focusing scale and lenses like Rodenstock HR, calculated for a large image circle. Precision focusing ring and a laser distance meter can handle focusing and the lenses are really good.

Regarding focusing on MF DSLR, this image shows three options:


It shows what I can resolve visually, red frame is waist level viewfinder with loupe, blue frame is Hartblei 4X focusing hood, yellow frame is PM5 with the Zeiss 3X monocular I normally use for focusing (9X in total). You can see that the sensor resolves at least four groups more than the best I can do on the focusing screen.

Using a 15X peak loupe is still not good enough to match focusing by actual pixels in live view, what I have seen.

Best regards
Erik


What about the Zeiss-Hartblei lenses, the Canon 24TS and 17TS?  With the A7r you got your technical camera. Which technical camera will be better? A MF back with no real live view and lesser DR? With the A-Mount you will have to sacrifice anything wider than 40mm.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2013, 03:06:26 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #139 on: November 01, 2013, 03:00:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Don't forget, the enlarged size is still downscaled. Some differences would be more obvious in full size. 3/9 wrong means 6/9 right, correct?

Thanks for responding.

Best regards
Erik

3/9 wrong, whose maths is up to saying at what point it is significant???

I called 3,4,5 wrong FYI
I did view all at enlarged size, interesting exercise.
Thanks for the post.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad