Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Some reflections on MFD after 9 months of use  (Read 9864 times)
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2427



WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2014, 07:08:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Erik,
I think the primary thing you've found for yourself is how individual the results can be and how much the operator can affect the outcome - regardless of which camera is used.   

In the end you are testing a system of components not just a digital back - if you go from capture to print - any place in the chain …. lens + camera +back + processing + printer + paper type ….  can become the weak link.  And of course I'm sorry to tell you that sometimes the operator can also be the weak link.  If you don't see a big difference in prints between your different cameras, then perhaps you should take a long step back think about why that is. What is your weak link? You may need to improve that before you see any different results.

I happen to prefer using my Hy6 for its ergonomics and big viewfinder more than my other cameras that the image quality isn't the the only factor anyhow.  Of course I do see a big difference between my MFDB images and my other cameras and that makes it even better for me.   I also see a difference between digital capture and film too, so I do shoot film sometimes as well. 

Logged

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

Posts: 7651


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2014, 07:40:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes,

Of course. The observer can also bee a weak link.

Some things can be measured, like resolution and MTF. Pretty much the same with colour rendition.

There are some indicators, for instance, colour moiré can only arise when the lens 'outresolves' the sensor. What I see in my experiments that it takes to stop down to f/16 to eliminate moiré, where diffraction acts as low pass filter. I see a lot of moiré and/or colour aliasing in my images.

I see a clear difference between the P45+ and the SLT 99 near the optical axis where I measure. Would be interesting to find out if it carries over to print. Regarding colour accuracy the SLT 99 I have is pretty accurate on colour charts, so it would be hard for the P45+ to be superior.

I don't have a lot of comparable images from outdoor shooting, as I normally shoot with either camera and not both simultaniously.

Best regards
Erik


Erik,
I think the primary thing you've found for yourself is how individual the results can be and how much the operator can affect the outcome - regardless of which camera is used.  

In the end you are testing a system of components not just a digital back - if you go from capture to print - any place in the chain …. lens + camera +back + processing + printer + paper type ….  can become the weak link.  And of course I'm sorry to tell you that sometimes the operator can also be the weak link.  If you don't see a big difference in prints between your different cameras, then perhaps you should take a long step back think about why that is. What is your weak link? You may need to improve that before you see any different results.

I happen to prefer using my Hy6 for its ergonomics and big viewfinder more than my other cameras that the image quality isn't the the only factor anyhow.  Of course I do see a big difference between my MFDB images and my other cameras and that makes it even better for me.   I also see a difference between digital capture and film too, so I do shoot film sometimes as well.  


« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 08:17:45 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

synn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510



WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2014, 07:46:06 PM »
ReplyReply

1) What did I buy?

Leaf Credo 40, Mamiya 645 DF+, Schneider 80mm LS lens, Mamiya 35mm, 150mm and 210mm FP lenses.

2) Why did I buy?

Because 35mm cameras do not render color in a satisfactory way for me. It took too much work for me to get skintones to look the way I wanted them to look; even then not completely perfect.

Also, I am not a fan of 3:2 for portraits and I wanted high speed flash sync for on location work.

3) Do I like the stuff?

Yes!

4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?

Better than the D800 for color rendition (Portraiture). I also like the tactile feel of my MF gear (Film and digital) better than 35mm cameras.

5) Is it better than my Sony Alpha equipment (Alpha 900, 77, and 99, and half a dozen lenses)?

I do not own any Sony gear, but the skintones from A99 files generally look better than Canon and Nikon.

6) Is DR better?

Maybe. I never shoot test charts and in real life, when using strobes, any camera made today has enough DR. The Credo does have smoother transitions between tones though.

7) Is colour rendition better?

For what I shoot, yes. 35mm files require a lot more work and localized edits to deliver somewhat satisfactory results.

8 ) Is aliasing an issue?

Does it exist? Yes.
Does it matter to me? No, not really. If it becomes that bothersome, I find the moire tool in C1P quite effective.

9) Do I use the stuff?

Yes! Real life shooting all the way. I don't do test shooting beyond the bare minimum.

10) If I do something important, will I use the Credo or resort to DSLR?

Everything I shoot is important to me. The Credo is my primary kit and the D800 the backup.
The D800 rarely comes out of the bag these days; unless I want a super wide perspective (with the 16-35) which is rather infrequent for portraiture.

11) What is the main advantage I see?

Color rendition, tonality, sharpness, overall "Fullness" of the image. Also, a very important and underrated factor: The actual user experience while shooting. The DSLRs feel like clackety toys to me now. The MF gear feels like a real camera. YMMV.

12) What are the main disadvantages I see?

- Cost. I wouldn't mind if the LS lenses were 20-30% cheaper.
- AF performance - Adequate for my style, but could of course be better.

13) Are the pictures using MF better?

I got my MF gear when I was fairly confident that my skills have evolved to a point where I can justify it. In general, I have been shooting higher quality work since I moved to MF.

14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?

Every shot gets processed, but the MFG images provide a better starting point. Of course, an understanding of Lighting and Composition s fundamental; no matter what one is shooting with.

15) Is the aspect ratio better?

Yes. 3:2 can jump off a cliff and never be seen again, for all I care.

16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?

Yes. More LS lenses when I have saved up enough.

17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?

I don't "Invest" in camera gear. I buy them to use them and enjoy the experience and of course, create art with it.
If I wanted to invest, I'd give my banker a call.

18) Do I enjoy it?

Yes! Every second that I work with it.

19) Much of my photography involves travel by air. How do I handle it?

When I travel, I take either my Bronica ETRSi or my Nikon V1 with me.
It's a welcome change from the usual work I do.

20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?

I don't go for workshops as I hardly find them worth my time. I prefer to experiment and learn.

21) Can I see differences in printed images?

For my use, I see differences at 12"x15".

22) Is MFD fun to use?

Yes.
I wouldn't have gone down that road if it wasn't fun.


Enough talk. Here's an image:

Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 496


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2014, 08:06:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I feel that I can not see any difference between my P45+ and my Sony SLT 99 in A2-size prints. A2 is my normal print size, but I still have few prints from my P45+. Larger sizes, like 70x100 cm there is probably an advantage.

Regarding colour rendition I have done some tests recently and I find my Sony SLT99 is more accurate (in technical terms) compared to my P45+, but that doesn't say a lot about visual impression of skin tones.

Some users have recently reported that Capture One has better skin tones on the D800 with the profiles for IQ-250 than with the C1 D800 profiles. I guess colour rendition may be more dependent on camera profiles than sensor, at least in some cases.

Best regards
Erik

Erik from what you have posted so far in many threads my take is that you got the wrong MF Digital system for your needs, wants and your demanding technical requirements in an image. You expected extremely high quality on par with the expense. The Hasselblad V system is just not great for precise focus and a lot of the lenses, while great for portraiture, are not great for demanding high res digital capture. Some are really good but some are not. I think you have mentioned this. The P45+ is a very nice back, albeit getting long in the tooth, and it is at its best during very long exposures (which you mentioned are not your thing) and in the studio with controlled light (which you also mentioned you do not do). The large sensor of the P45+ is also great for getting that MF "look" of shallow dof with lenses wide open, something you also do not do. But getting deep dof and precise focus in landscape shots with such a large sensor on a SLR camera is problematic but real easy on an Arca (or similar) tech camera so it is a really good back for landscape on a technical camera.

A more current sensor like the one in the P40+ would have suited you better along with a tech camera like a small Cambo or Arca with a schneider 24mm lens (discontinued) or 35mm and longer lenses as required. That was the most affordable setup I looked at when I started looking into MFDigital. The Dalsa sensor in the P40+ (credo 40), if it is indeed the same (just smaller) as the one in the P65+ and the IQ160 I have, has enough dynamic range to really NOT leave you longing for any DSLR. Color (depth and differentiation) is also superb. The files are just awesome to work with.
Logged
synn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 26, 2014, 08:15:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Erik from what you have posted so far in many threads my take is that you got the wrong MF Digital system for your needs, wants and your demanding technical requirements in an image. You expected extremely high quality on par with the expense. The Hasselblad V system is just not great for precise focus and a lot of the lenses, while great for portraiture, are not great for demanding high res digital capture. Some are really good but some are not. I think you have mentioned this. The P45+ is a very nice back, albeit getting long in the tooth, and it is at its best during very long exposures (which you mentioned are not your thing) and in the studio with controlled light (which you also mentioned you do not do). The large sensor of the P45+ is also great for getting that MF "look" of shallow dof with lenses wide open, something you also do not do. But getting deep dof and precise focus in landscape shots with such a large sensor on a SLR camera is problematic but real easy on an Arca (or similar) tech camera so it is a really good back for landscape on a technical camera.

A more current sensor like the one in the P40+ would have suited you better along with a tech camera like a small Cambo or Arca with a schneider 24mm lens (discontinued) or 35mm and longer lenses as required. That was the most affordable setup I looked at when I started looking into MFDigital. The Dalsa sensor in the P40+ (credo 40), if it is indeed the same (just smaller) as the one in the P65+ and the IQ160 I have, has enough dynamic range to really NOT leave you longing for any DSLR. Color (depth and differentiation) is also superb. The files are just awesome to work with.

+1

It also puzzles me how someone who is more into technical perfection than most of us would continue to use hardware and software that clearly won't deliver the best technical quality.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 08:24:01 PM by synn » Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7651


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 26, 2014, 09:09:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Thanks for your comments.

Yes and no. I am a technical kind of guy and for me it was a way to find out. Also it has been said that that even P25s are better than modern DSLRs. Many guys and gals buy these kind of stuff so I think it is adequate to share the experience.

Regarding the Zeiss lenses for the blad, it is quite obvious from the MTF data that they have limitations. What I see in my images corresponds pretty well to the MTF data, except that there are things not easily detectible in MTF charts like residual colour. There are some Hasselblad lenses like the 40/4 CFE IF and the Planar 100/3.5 that are a different class.

Yes, I am pretty sure that a more recent back on a technical camera would perform better, but that would be several times the expense. The other question is how large one needs to print for the difference to show up? I seldom print larger than A2 and at that size I can see much less difference in print than pixel peeping on screen.

When I pixel peep, I normally 'upres' the smaller image and I do see a lot of difference but it mostly disappears in print up to A2 size.

I have little doubts that more modern backs perform better than the P45+, but I had a hard look at a comparison between the A7r and the IQ 260 published here on LuLa recently and all what I could see was that the IQ 260 had some advantage in resolution, but it was actually lacking in DR/noise area.

The latest was Doug Peterson's test of the IQ-250 (the library shoots). The sensor on that camera is probably pretty similar to what I have in my SLT 99, a late generation Sony Exmor. The impression I got from the discussion was that most readers found the shadows cleaner on the IQ-250 than on the IQ-260 and the IQ-280, although the latter two have a much larger sensor. I analyzed the raws myself, of course, and that was what I saw. Doug did an excellent job on that test.

One nice thing with this thread is that other MFD users have responded and shared their experience. It is also interesting that several posters indicated that they don't fly with MF equipment. That is an important factor for me, for travel often means flying for me. And I don't leave home without a DSLR because I need 24-400 kit. I often add in super wide and I always carry an 1.4X extender. The stuff is heavy, but I normally don't walk more than a mile or so.

Regarding weight, it's a bit funny. I buy carbon fibre to save a few grams and than I add on some nice things like a levelling bowl and an Arca D4 head, so the tripod weights around 3 kg again. ;-)

I actually like the stuff, and it works as expected, really. But I did expect no miracles.

Best regards
Erik



Erik from what you have posted so far in many threads my take is that you got the wrong MF Digital system for your needs, wants and your demanding technical requirements in an image. You expected extremely high quality on par with the expense. The Hasselblad V system is just not great for precise focus and a lot of the lenses, while great for portraiture, are not great for demanding high res digital capture. Some are really good but some are not. I think you have mentioned this. The P45+ is a very nice back, albeit getting long in the tooth, and it is at its best during very long exposures (which you mentioned are not your thing) and in the studio with controlled light (which you also mentioned you do not do). The large sensor of the P45+ is also great for getting that MF "look" of shallow dof with lenses wide open, something you also do not do. But getting deep dof and precise focus in landscape shots with such a large sensor on a SLR camera is problematic but real easy on an Arca (or similar) tech camera so it is a really good back for landscape on a technical camera.

A more current sensor like the one in the P40+ would have suited you better along with a tech camera like a small Cambo or Arca with a schneider 24mm lens (discontinued) or 35mm and longer lenses as required. That was the most affordable setup I looked at when I started looking into MFDigital. The Dalsa sensor in the P40+ (credo 40), if it is indeed the same (just smaller) as the one in the P65+ and the IQ160 I have, has enough dynamic range to really NOT leave you longing for any DSLR. Color (depth and differentiation) is also superb. The files are just awesome to work with.
Logged

Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 496


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2014, 09:59:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Erik: I searched and the P40+ backs are actually sold (used) for much less than the P45+ backs (used). Huh

Also, "even P25's are better than modern dslr's" no way! They do offer something different, different look due to the larger sensor and different cameras they can be used in, color and tethering but no way they are better for general photography than some of the latest DSLRs but better for someone who wants needs the different things the P25 offers.

Again, in the A7R/IQ260 test the A7R had better shadow detail in a low light situation with extreme contrast range I am sure in other situations the IQ260 is much better than the A7R. (at least my IQ160 was when I compared it to the D800E).

I like that you started this thread. It shows a wide range of experiences from MF Digital adopters. Hope more keep posting!
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7651


WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2014, 10:25:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Thanks for feedback. Just to make my standpoint I am no MF hater, it is just that I am skeptical about MF having properties that cannot be explained by good science. This thread also induced quite a few responses, showing different aspects of MF.

Regarding the Images posted by Chris Barrett the thread is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84842.0

Doug Peterson's test of the IQ-250 is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87187.0

Doug's test images are a world apart from mine but I think it depends quite a bit on the Rodenstock HR lens he used.

Best regards
Erik

Erik: I searched and the P40+ backs are actually sold (used) for much less than the P45+ backs (used). Huh

Also, "even P25's are better than modern dslr's" no way! They do offer something different, different look due to the larger sensor and different cameras they can be used in, color and tethering but no way they are better for general photography than some of the latest DSLRs but better for someone who wants needs the different things the P25 offers.

Again, in the A7R/IQ260 test the A7R had better shadow detail in a low light situation with extreme contrast range I am sure in other situations the IQ260 is much better than the A7R. (at least my IQ160 was when I compared it to the D800E).

I like that you started this thread. It shows a wide range of experiences from MF Digital adopters. Hope more keep posting!
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 10:57:34 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7651


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2014, 10:45:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Eric,

The factor I see colour aliasing in many of my pictures indicates pretty good focus. Colour aliasing is only possible if a single point is focused on a single pixel. I can see some color aliasing in a large part of my pictures. You are most welcome to post raw images of your own that are superior to mine, but it could also be that the Schneider lenses you use are superior to the film generation Zeiss lenses I have. Doug Peterson says that Phase One lenses are better than the Zeiss lenses.

This posting may be an interesting insight: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84494.msg684173#msg684173 , it was suggested (by you) that the colour fringing discussed in the thread was caused by longitudional chromatic aberration, another reader suggested "spherochromatism". Both Ray "ondebanks" and Doug Peterson clearly said it was aliasing artifacts.

It would be interesting hear if other MFDB users can see difference in sharpness between DSLRs and MFDBs in A2 size prints. I am pretty sure there is difference if I go to 70x100 cm but I don't do a lot of that size of printing. I of course have tested crops and seen some difference.

Could you post some raw images of your own that demonstrate proper technique?

Best regards
Erik


Erik,
I think the primary thing you've found for yourself is how individual the results can be and how much the operator can affect the outcome - regardless of which camera is used.  

In the end you are testing a system of components not just a digital back - if you go from capture to print - any place in the chain …. lens + camera +back + processing + printer + paper type ….  can become the weak link.  And of course I'm sorry to tell you that sometimes the operator can also be the weak link.  If you don't see a big difference in prints between your different cameras, then perhaps you should take a long step back think about why that is. What is your weak link? You may need to improve that before you see any different results.

I happen to prefer using my Hy6 for its ergonomics and big viewfinder more than my other cameras that the image quality isn't the the only factor anyhow.  Of course I do see a big difference between my MFDB images and my other cameras and that makes it even better for me.   I also see a difference between digital capture and film too, so I do shoot film sometimes as well.  


« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 11:04:23 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7651


WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2014, 11:47:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I don't really think I would buy into MFD again. The gear I bought was around 15000 kUSD, and I cannot do that kind of expense often. I wouldn't buy the IQ-250, mainly because of the crop factor (and of course the price). The widest lens I have is 40 mm, and with 1.3 crop it would be more like a 35 mm on a FF DSLR.

If I had Hasselblad gear I would consider buying the P45+, or the P65+. The later generation Phase One sensor have DALSA sensors and have somewhat better DR and also are said to have better colour. But P45+ colour can be pretty OK. Tim Parkin has issues with yellowish greens, but I found that I can get greens I can live with using a few home made profiles. I routinely point out that my Sonys have better DR than the P45+, but I am seldom challenged by DR.

Would I buy new equipment, I would wait for the next generation Sony sensor (likely 54 MP) and possibly a more advanced A-series camera, let's say 'A9', an EVF camera not a DSLR. I always use LV magnified for focusing, with EVF there is no shake from mirror. Shutter vibrations can be a problem, as shown on the A7r, but I would expect full electronic shutter in 2015, or at least electronic first curtain. EVF also gives more options.

Right now I am quite happy with the Hasselblad & P45+. I also bought a used Flexbody, which gives me some T&S with all five lenses. I might trade up to a 40/4 CFE IF, but they come expensive.

If you can live with the crop factor I would say the IQ-250 would be a nice back. You can put it on a technical camera (Alpa FPS or Hartblei HCam), focus using live view and have a good life. Both the mentioned cameras can use Canon 17 and 24 T&S lenses which are to be said fully usable on MFD, so that would take care of the crop factor. You can use all V-series lenses on both Alpa FPS or Hartblei using a Mirex adapter that also gives tilt and shift.

My initial plan was to buy a Hartblei HCam, perhaps next year, but now I am a bit skeptical. Have to wait and see.

Right now, I don't know if MFD is good or bad for my picture taking. Is the slower way of working with MFD a benefit or just makes me miss more pictures? Do I miss compelling images because the smaller lens palette? So I am in a learning phase.

I really enjoy shooting with the Hasselblad, that is a good thing. The P45+ is also nice to work with.


Best regards
Erik




Eric,

Interesting report and thanks for posting.

I was not surprised on the DR, as the A99 was first shipped in 2103? I believe, whereas the P45+ in March 2008 (it did receive 2 major firmware updates about 1 year later that helped).  The A99 has the same sensor as the D610/D600, so no doubt the DR will be better.  I was curious though if you had the latest firmware on the P45+?  

You made the comment you would not buy MF again.  Based on what you are seeing from the IQ250 and it's DR, if the price was near to the same as what you paid for the P45+ (about 5 years after announcement of the P45+) would you reconsider?  The reason I ask, is you have excellent Hassi lenses and just can't see a 35mm solution working as well with 45 to 50MP due to the current resolving power of the 35mm lenses available.   Where as the Hassi glass you have should be just as good on a larger MF back, say 4 years from now.

Paul C.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 12:12:07 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

synn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510



WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 27, 2014, 12:20:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Erik,

Unless you had a soft spot for the V-series, I am not sure why you spent that sort of money which; as I understand was an experimental purchase.

H3D 39 kits, with 80mm lens go for a little over USD 6k. You don't seem to be using the long exposure capabilities of the P45+, so I doubt if you would miss that in the Hassy.
Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 27, 2014, 12:34:07 AM »
ReplyReply

1) What did I buy?

Leaf AFI II 7, Hy6 body

2) Why did I buy?

Because I really liked MF work with the Rollei 6003 I had since 1993, and loved its lenses. Had tried the P20 back on a 6008AF, and found the interface not so great.
The Leaf back seemed ideal, and the Hy6 offered better integration. Basically looking for 4x5 quality in handheld and portable gear.

3) Do I like the stuff?

Very much. The combination of lens quality, good ergonomics in the body, flexible configurations (for different uses) and a really good back is just about as good as it gets in a modular approach.  

4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?

Haven't compared against D800 but have done other current comparisons, and have found this system superior.

6) Is DR better?

In general, yes. There is a lot of flexibility in the Leaf profiles, and I can get large prints (the test) that are delightful. I've rented other gear (DSLR) and it just isn't the same.

8 ) Is aliasing an issue?

nope. Sometimes a little CA, but C1 does a good job of taking that out.

9) Do I use the stuff?

Yes, frequently. Main camera in the system, with a view camera to use the back for more deliberate and when movements are necessary. Yes! Real life shooting all the way. I don't do test shooting beyond the bare minimum.

10) If I do something important, will I use the Credo or resort to DSLR?

I don't own a current DSLR. Don't care for them. The whole "hold the camera up to the eye and shoot the subject" is both unattractive and not effective. Prefer the WLF, or the 45º prism. There is more portable gear in the stable, and it is used when lightness and compactness is critical. But the Hy6 /Leaf back travel most everywhere with me - to the Amazon, hiking in mountains, deserts, wherever.

11) What is the main advantage I see?

Just sheer quality. The combination of the killer lenses and the flexible back make images that were imagined possible. DSLRs left me with a cold feeling, here the clarity of the system is apparent. Full images, deep images, and generally lots of detail in all areas. Distortion readily controllable, if it exists. Wide exposure latitude.

12) What are the main disadvantages I see?

Size and weight. I wish the damn handle could come off the Hy6 (like the 6003) for travel and compactness. The weight is sometimes an issue, although for travel its usually lmited to the 60mm Curtagon and the 150 Tele-xenar. Sometimes the 80AF, with a 1.4TX (makes a nice 110) comes along. But to take more lenses just gets too heavy. Wouldn't mind more life out of the batteries, although he aftermarket double capacity ones do pretty well.

13) Are the pictures using MF better?
They just keep improving. So yes.

14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
Yes. They just are. Its probably something to do with operator taking more time to think about the shots, but however it happens, better work is the result.

The Hy6 is usable both as a handheld camera, or as a more studious tool, deliberate and controlled. The nice thing is that the transition from one extreme (flexible, fast) to the other (total control) is very transparent, so you can change your parameters and approach on the fly. You can also pick which things to control as you want…. so for example, shooting with a monopod on street walks, its easy to use MLU, and the leaf shutters have very little vibration, so you can take the 1/20th sec. shot into the dark shadows on the street with a CCD back. Not as easy as one might think.

15) Is the aspect ratio better?

Square is best, the Leaf's 4:3 is nice (5:4 maybe nicer), 2:3 not so much. Enjoy the sensor, especially with rotating, a real treat. Allows for optimizing, no hassle. When used on a sliding back  tech camera), can get some really interesting proportions.

16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?

Yes. I managed to get the back as a demo for a really good price so the idea of spending today's costs is a bit overwhelming. The 33mp back is plenty and a sweet spot, but not if one is doing a lot of cropping. I tend to shoot full frame and compose the shot and so cropping is minimal.

17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?

I suppose having a whole lot of lenses in a system of limited appeal isn't the smartest move of all times, but then again, having such wide range is such a treat… and most were bought over a 20 year period. The back and body simply make the use of those lenses (which some consider the finest MF lens lineup for both quality and its breadth…ever) possible. Hard to argue with quality.  

18) Do I enjoy it?

silly question. Of course. Of course, there is this "cheating" aspect of the system that I like a lot: the focus confirmation on the Hy6 allows for use of the older MF lenses, which are plentiful and about 1/3-1/2 price of the newer AF lenses. So if you are comfortable with MF, you can build up a quality stable for not so much money. For what people have in their (other) system, you can have 5-10 lenses, all lovely, and still be ahead of the game. Not so bad.

19) Travel by air. How do I handle it?

in a F-stop backpack. Yes, its a hassle, with tripod, sometimes monopod, heads, a couple of lenses. The idea of something smaller, lighter, is appealing, but its really hard to get the operational flexibility, system breadth, and results another way. It can be done, but it is a lot of work. I'd rather travel a bit inconveniently and come home, process the images simply enough, and spend the energy on the creative side.

21) Can I see differences in printed images?

Yes. Without doubt. For my use, I see differences at 17"x22". The MFD holds up crystal sharp. Has a presence.  

22) Is MFD fun to use?

Yes - its deliberate and flexible, like handhold-able portable 4x5. I have used this system for a wide range of uses, from copy work to field work. It isn't always easy, nor is it fast, and sometimes its just inconvenient, but itjust delivers the goods.

Important for field work is the discipline so that you get the best out of the gear… if only to be ready for the optimal shot that just appears at the end of the day, incidentally, or drifts into the realm of possibility. That just keeps emerging, and maybe its only one or two shots from a shoot, but without this gear, and this approach, I wouldn't have those images. And how do you measure that? Can't be done. Somethings are just important.
Logged

Geoff
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7651


WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 27, 2014, 12:49:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I was looking at H4-s, but lens costs are much higher than used Zeiss lenses. The P45+ has a decent crop factor and that played a role. I don't use AF so it mattered little to me.

A camera with 1.3X crop was never in my consideration.

Initially I started discussing a H2 with an Aptus, but I got some suggestions that the V series was more reliable than a well used H-series. Also folks recommended the P45+ over the Aptus. The seller could arrange a P45+ which was in good condition and a 555ELD in fine working order, so I went for it. No easy decision.

I would add, that Anders Torger had some issues with his Aptus that time and had a bad story of repairs, so I wanted reliable stuff.

Best regards
Erik


Erik,

Unless you had a soft spot for the V-series, I am not sure why you spent that sort of money which; as I understand was an experimental purchase.

H3D 39 kits, with 80mm lens go for a little over USD 6k. You don't seem to be using the long exposure capabilities of the P45+, so I doubt if you would miss that in the Hassy.
Logged

synn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510



WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 27, 2014, 12:55:17 AM »
ReplyReply

- H3D 39 has the same sensor as your P45+, without the long exposure magic.

- You could use V lenses on an H camera, thereby negating the lens expenses. Even adding the V-to-H adapter, the H3D 39 would have cost less than your P45+ alone.

- There are several very satisfied Aptus owners who have used these backs in a variety of conditions (Some posting in this thread too). One bad experience is not a big enough sample group.

Just saying that you could have purchased a much cheaper entry ticket to MF without losing anything you currently have (And gaining a few things).
Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1588


« Reply #34 on: February 27, 2014, 01:36:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Although I finally got a reliable Aptus back I think the P45+ is a better choice if you value reliability high. I've got two lemons in a row and also heard others having problems, and Leaf support is a bit tricky to get through, especially in Europe/Sweden, so I'd lie if I say an second hand Aptus is just as safe to get as a P45+.

If one doesn't see any advantages of an MF system based on a P45+, I don't think MF is something to go for. I don't agree with "you should have got a P40+ or IQ260 or whatever" instead, if you got to have the most recent back to be satisfied with the image quality you'd much better off following high end 135 developments. For most people that are used to DSLR imaging (and feel they make good results there) the MF advantage is only resolution, almost every other aspect of the system is worse.

I see some MF users chase for the most recent backs just to keep a distance from the high end 135. Still I see people claim advantages of the CCD sensors that simply is not there, as if their sensor must be better to make the system valuable to them.

To me one of the advantages of my MF system is that I don't really feel the need to buy new things all the time. I wanted to shoot large format view camera to slow down the pace and relax into photography, but film is just a too big obstacle to me (I'm new with photography so I have never shot film), and then a Linhof Techno with a digital back was just a perfect match. Still image quality is important to me, but it's about getting adequate quality for the prints I do. The reason I have a digital back is that I wanted to use a Linhof Techno. I have a friend that have a digital back because he likes to play around with nostalgic cameras like Hassy V. Sure Hassy H is a better work horse, but to many of us hobbyists it's just a big sluggish DSLR with no charm that we reserve for the studio professionals, while the Hassy V is nostalgic fun.

Quite many amateurs actually shoot large format film, and while they typically do talk about the look of 4x5" and film, I'm sure that it's the compositional workflow, the way of making images that is the main attraction. I think many tech camera users think the same way. Sure there are some that only look at the actual image quality produced and would actually rather use the convenience of a DSLR if it had the same resolution, but many of us simply like composing images with a technical camera.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you get into MF for the sensor and not for the camera, you're probably not in for the long term.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 01:46:03 AM by torger » Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2427



WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 27, 2014, 02:05:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Erik,
You bought a used system - used lenses, used body and used MFDB right?  It was your first such set-up right?  How do you even know everything was good? Do you know if your 20 year old lens you bought is a good copy? Are you sure you were focusing correctly? How do you know - did you shoot tethered or bracket? Did you calibrate your focusing screen to the lens?  What are the best lenses for your system? Are you using them? If not then why not?  Did you test several copies of each lens and take the best?  Doubt that.  Do you know your experience is truly representative of what a typical MFDB shooter would have?     Looking at your test images over the years, I say you don't.    

There is a fallacy of taking one to be many, and in your case, you have done some apparently flawed testing with your p45 and old camera and lenses and assumed that's the best that any p45 can do, or even going farther to suggest that its the best that any MFDB can do.  It's not clear that you are even aware of what other similar MFDB systems are capable of, because if you were then you'd know something was amiss in your test files.  

Instead of asking people to read your 'reports' and test analysis you should be asking people how come your images with the Hasselblad and p45 are not as sharp and nice as others who use MFDB systems.  You should be asking for feedback on how you can get more from your system not telling the world about the color aliasing you found.  There are way more people that care about getting good images here than care about measuring color aliasing.  


Logged

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

Posts: 510



WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 27, 2014, 02:14:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Erik,
You bought a used system - used lenses, used body and used MFDB right?  It was your first such set-up right?  How do you even know everything was good? Do you know if your 20 year old lens you bought is a good copy? Are you sure you were focusing correctly? How do you know - did you shoot tethered or bracket? Did you calibrate your focusing screen to the lens?  What are the best lenses for your system? Are you using them? If not then why not?  Did you test several copies of each lens and take the best?  Doubt that.  Do you know your experience is truly representative of what a typical MFDB shooter would have?     Looking at your test images over the years, I say you don't.    

There is a fallacy of taking one to be many, and in your case, you have done some apparently flawed testing with your p45 and old camera and lenses and assumed that's the best that any p45 can do, or even going farther to suggest that its the best that any MFDB can do.  It's not clear that you are even aware of what other similar MFDB systems are capable of, because if you were then you'd know something was amiss in your test files.  

Instead of asking people to read your 'reports' and test analysis you should be asking people how come your images with the Hasselblad and p45 are not as sharp and nice as others who use MFDB systems.  You should be asking for feedback on how you can get more from your system not telling the world about the color aliasing you found.  There are way more people that care about getting good images here than care about measuring color aliasing.  




+1

I have said this before, but here goes again:

http://bulbexposures.com/

Tonnes of stunning images with the P45+. Should we judge that particular back with the best it can produce or some unexceptional test images?

Also, can I please quote this a second time?

Quote
There are way more people that care about getting good images here than care about measuring color aliasing. 

It is worth the double quote.
Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1588


« Reply #37 on: February 27, 2014, 02:52:36 AM »
ReplyReply

You should be asking for feedback on how you can get more from your system not telling the world about the color aliasing you found.  There are way more people that care about getting good images here than care about measuring color aliasing.  

I do understand why Erik reports so fiercely on color aliasing. I've seen many applaud micro contrast and "the high quality of pixels" and how good it is to be without AA filter, nowadays DSLRs can be had without AA filter too, but previously it was one of those "why MF is better" arguments. And well, it's a load of b*ll. It comes at a cost which is color aliasing, and color aliasing can be a substantial issue, which you can see at a distance, unlike the micro contrast advantage which is only something you see up close. Still many have chosen to ignore this.

All technically interested people like I and Erik have our favourite design principles, how we think cameras should be made. Erik likes small pixels as it reduces aliasing artifacts. I like large angular response so I can use tech wides with low color cast and no crosstalk (unfortunately it's currently hard to combine the two). At some point I think I will present some experimental results on crosstalk as tech cam users seems to be largely unaware of this issue. I'm grateful for Erik making his detailed tests of color aliasing so I didn't have to do it. If you don't like to read tests, don't go into those threads. This is a technical forum after all. I might do some more color aliasing tests myself though, as I design raw processing algorithms I'm interested in how to minimize these issues.

I've seen tips of how Erik should get more out of his system, and the answer is -- buy a different system. When MF is too close to 135 in raw imaging performance, the answer seems to be buy a more recent MF system to keep the distance. My answer is, get a camera you enjoy shooting, if it's not MF don't use MF.

I find it interesting that a while ago the P45+ and V mount meant superior image quality, and DSLRs were crap. Nowadays when DSLRs have imaging performance similar and in some aspects exceeding that system, DSLRs are still crap but you need something like an IQ260 to enjoy the real advantages of MF.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 02:56:27 AM by torger » Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 27, 2014, 02:57:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I must admit I had misgivings when I heard that Erik was journeying into MFD on the back of a V series platform.
Logged

synn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510



WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 27, 2014, 03:09:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Ain't nothing wrong with creating art with a V series and a digital back. Plenty of artists create beautiful images with that combo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tia98LTwKrY

http://vimeo.com/49600447

Not the best choice for incessant test chart shooting though, probably.
Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad