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 9886 times)
torger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1588


« Reply #40 on: February 27, 2014, 03:51:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quite fun questions to go through, so I do the same exercise here:

1) What did I buy?

Linhof Techno, SK47, SK90, Rodenstock Sinoranar-digital 35, Aptus 75. Sold the 35 (too poor image quality for my taste), added SK35, SK72, SK120 and SK180.

2) Why did I buy?

I used tilt-shift all the time on my Canon and inspired by large format photography shooting style I wanted to explore that without having to mess with film. Linhof Techno was the dream camera, and when it appeared as a good second hand deal I went for it.

3) Do I like the stuff?

Yes! I use it for almost all of my landscape photography. Until I got a good copy of the Aptus 75 I still used the Canon in cold weather, but now I shoot with the Linhof even in -30C (if not windy).

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

Compositional possibilities with the camera and lenses are better (use shift all the time, tilt quite frequently), lens quality is generally a bit better. Sensor quality is a bit worse in some aspects useful to landscape photography, but not critically so. Compared to my Canon 5D mark II, or any other Canon for that matter, the base ISO performance is better, and resolution is higher.

7) Is colour rendition better?

I don't know, and I don't really care. I get good results, never had issues, that's all I need. (I shoot landscape, not skin tones).

Cool Is aliasing an issue?

Yes it's an issue seen in every picture when peeping and in some pictures in larger surfaces (waves on distant water typical in my landscape photography), but I can live with it, can't get a digital back with AA filter anyway.

9) Do I use the stuff?

Yes, all the time.

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

Important to me is landscape photography then I use the landscape gear, which is my Linhof Techno. When I do sports or family I use my Canon, the Techno would of course be unusable in such situations.

11) What is the main advantage I see?

Compositional freedom through tilt and shift, pleasing workflow.

12) What are the main disadvantages I see?

Cost of digital backs, uncertain future of technical wides and shutters, lack of DSLR-like live view. Limited availability of telephoto lenses, hard to shoot in awkward tripod positions (very low, very high, aiming in strange directions).

13) Are the pictures using MF better?

The Techno with it's possibilities and limitations makes me focus on a certain shooting style, and that shooting style fits my personality and ideals well. The same can be copied with a DSLR to some extent (availability of shift/tilt lenses is a bit limited), but I like having a system that suits so well with my idea of picture making. If we would still shoot film I would definitely be a 4x5" shooter.

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

I guess the question is if I need to mangle my MF files less to get good results than DSLR files? For my landscape photography I like to have detailed control from raw file to output, I'm technically advanced and don't like it when the commercial raw converters try to make a digital raw file look like it was shot on film, therefore I prefer RawTherapee. The price I pay for that is that I need hand-tuning on all files, regardless of camera. When I do bulk work with my Canon I use Lightroom. Capture One I use quite rarely, as I find the workflow in RawTherapee more rewarding from an artistic point of view. I do check it now and then to see what results I get there though.

15) Is the aspect ratio better?

Yes the 4:3 aspect ratio is ideal for my shooting style. If I would have different I'd prefer 5:4 rather than 3:2. But sure, you can always crop. I might get Aptus-II 10 due to its nice price/performance, and then I have to live with 3.1:2....

16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?

Yes, I still think Aptus 75 for the right price is a good starting back, but you need to take the reliability risk into account if you shoot in the cold like I do. The Linhof Techno especially with the new bright ground glass is a good large format drop in replacement.

17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?

The long-term value of technical lenses and cameras is lower now than it was before, as development of backs can steer lenses into becoming near-useless on modern backs, like the SK35. So I do expect a bad resell value in a few years. I don't see that as a big problem though, I limit the cost of the system (mostly by buying second hand) and only buy things I can afford to lose. Buying a new digital back is not an option, too expensive. Buying lenses and camera components new are more realistic, the unit price is lower and the value for money is better there.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 03:58:19 AM by torger » Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679



WWW
« Reply #41 on: February 27, 2014, 03:54:24 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.

Exactly my point.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #42 on: February 27, 2014, 11:38:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

No doubt that excellent stuff can be produced with a Hasselblad.

But this discussion is not about resolution and image quality that can be shown on Vimeo or YouTube. Also note, a lot of photographers have chimed in, offering different opinions that is a good thing.

Personally, I see an advantage in sharpness, which is visible on screen, but which I cannot see in A2 size prints.

What I feel is that this thread is good information. I really feel that anyone buying into MFD should build his/her our opinion based on her/his own testing, but the views presented here may put things in perspective. It is quite natural that views differ.

Best regards
Erik


Exactly my point.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 12:11:15 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 621


« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2014, 12:12:27 PM »
ReplyReply

If I may: I think that you are failing to understand the significance of these youtube videos, Erik.

You seem to be interested in two different aspects of the photographic process. One aspect is to understand how the camera actually work and what the effects some changes of parameters like sensor size have. I can relate to that, if only as an intellectual exercise.

The other aspect is about trying to get a representation of reality which is as accurate as possible. For this, one would need as much resolution as possible, immense dynamic range and perfect colour fidelity.

It is that last aspect which is addressed by these "youtube videos". They are here to show that successful photographers do not use MF cameras for some capacity they would have to represent reality more accurately than other cameras but, quite on the contrary, for the special "look" they give to their pictures. That "look" is remote from scientific accuracy but is still the reason why these artists chose these cameras.

You have a very nice camera with your MF system, Erik. Maybe you should try to use it to get something that is not an accurate representation of reality, at least once. Consider that an intellectual exercise if you wish.
Logged
Gigi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #44 on: February 27, 2014, 12:44:42 PM »
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.    

While Eric's post is a bit harsh, he is technically very disciplined and gets good results. The Hassy V may not be the best platform for the maximum precision Erik K may be looking for. 
Logged

Geoff
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1911


WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 27, 2014, 01:25:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok here goes:

1.  What did I purchase?

March 2008, P45+, various Mamiya lenses and 645 body (upgraded to a Phase One DF), late 2011 upgraded P45+ to IQ160 and moved to tech camera for all shooting, Mid 2013 upgraded IQ160 to IQ260

2.  Why did I purchase?

I was looking for the best resolution possible for larger prints (without needing interpolation).  In 2008 the best Canon was 21MP, the 1ds MK3, the best Nikon 12MP (full frame)

3.  Do I like the Stuff?

Yes, but the tech camera solution does create a much more involved workflow.  However I never found any Mamiya wide angle lenses that were able to give me a sharp image corner to corner (28mm, 35mm, 45mm).  I did not want to switch to Contax to Hassi. 

4.  Is it better than the D800e or Canon Cameras I owned or have owned?

In resolution yes, by far.  And with tech camera lenses what is captured is very sharp.  There is no way the DR of the 260 eclipses the D800e.  Shadow ranges of both cameras is much different.  The Nikon is safe to use up to iso 800 before you really start to see much image loss, where as the IQ260 is a iso 50, maybe iso 100 camera (I had hoped for more).

5.  Is it better than all my 35mm equipment?

No, I would never try to shoot wildlife with my IQ260 or really much macro work.  Where the 260 works for me is on landscapes.  With the tech camera it's the only solution I have found that allows for shifting to generate a larger image.  Nikon can't do it with their current line up TSE lenses (based on my use) and Canon doesn't have the resolution I am looking for or the DR. But the Nikon D800 and a 200 -400 is a dream to use on birds or wildlife. 

6.  Is the DR on my IQ260 better than my Nikon D800e

No,  I base this on the fact that at base iso of 100 on the Nikon I can easily get 2.5 stops to 2.75 stops of range before I loose image quality.  I have pretty much quit shooting in bracket when I use the Nikon as one frame 98% of the time will get there, as long as your at iso 100.  I had hoped to see more DR from the 260 than I have seen.  It also seems that it's pretty much where it's going to be and Phase will continue with a CMOS solution forward.  The 260 is much more forgiving with highlights than my P45+ was and has more reach into the shadows than the P45+.  However it's just not much more than I saw with the IQ160. 

7.  Is color retention better with the MFD?

In certain areas I find the end result from the MFD better.  I have noticed that blue skies can look much more inviting from the IQ260 (not needing a polarizer) and still having very nice blue hues.  The Nikon can produce good color, but it's hard to work with at times.  Greens also seem to reproduce a bit better with good light.  However all bets are off if I am working is poor light as here the Nikon will make the job easier.

8.  Is aliasing an issue?

No, I see it on many of my images from the various backs I have used, but it doesn't seem to show up in prints, at least enough to matter.  I was surprised to see in the DT tests of the IQ250 and IQ260, how much more aliasing the 260 had over the 250.

9.  Do I use the Stuff?

Yes, whenever I can.  I will always lead with MFD.  Even on days I am standing in a stream up to my knees.  I just think the end resutls are worth it.

10.  If I am off to shoot something important what do I lead with?

Whatever I feel is going to get the job done.  There are times I will lead with my Fuji X series cameras.  If it's a landscape trip I will always try to utilize the MFD.

11.  Main Advanatage?

Resolution, and in the final print this makes a big difference.  I have yet to find any interpolation process that comes close to using raw resolutoin of MFD, combined with the detail that the tech camera glass can achieve.

12.  Main Disadvantages?

Cost and the overall tech camera process.  I am not a big fan of LCC's and using them, but you have to and it does slow down a days shooting.  Since I am using a tech camera I only use Capture One for processing MFD, I have not found the LR tool for this very easy to use or intuitive. 

13.  Are pictures better out of the camera?

No. MFD takes more work to get the finished product. 

14.  Do I prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio?

No, I hate it.  Sorry I grew up with 35mm and I guess I will forever see things that way.  One reason I love the tech camera is I can get to 3:2 aspect ratio with just a slight stitch.

15.  Would I buy MFD digital again

Yes, I would.  But baed on what I am seeing from the IQ250, I am wondering what the next round of full frame Phase backs will be and if the upgrade process will be financially worth.  Once Phase releases a full frame MFD, (assuming it will allow for shifts better than the IQ250), the days of CCD backs are over.  I don't think Phase One or the dealers will want many of them back.

16.  Was MFD a bad investment?

No, until I upgraded to the IQ260.  That was probabaly a "bridge to far" for me.

17.  Do I enjoy it?

Simply yes.   

18.  Travel considerations?

If I am traveling by air the MFD and tech are with me.  I will never check it.  I would also never check a D800 and set of lenses.  Sure it's insured, but good luck getting your insurance to come through.  Airlines, could care less.  By car I carry the whole kit, and have a safe in my truck to keep gear secure. 

19.  Would I bring MFD to a workshop?

If the workshop was about landscape photography, yes I would.  I am over 50 and don't know how much longer I will be able hike around.  If I am able to get to somewhere worth a workshop, I want to bring the best gear.  If it was about wildlife shooting, I would not bring it.

20.  Do I see a difference in printed images?

Yes, I do, that's my reason for making the investment.  I print large 6' x 11' and larger.  Even MFD has to be worked up to get there, but it's easier to get there when you are starting with more.

21.  Is MFD fun?

Of course!


Paul C
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #46 on: February 27, 2014, 01:29:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I have some issues with Eric's postings actually. Some examples:

I have pointed to a clear case of colour aliasing, and he promptly suggested that it was longitudional chromatic aberration caused by defocusing. I even started a thread on it and it was clearly shown that the issue in that case was caused by colour aliasing.

We had a recent discussion on another thread where someone was shooting macro with MFD at small apertures, I don't recall if that was f/16 or f/22, Doug Peterson, Bart van der Wolf and I suggested that opening up and use focus stacking was the best option, but Eric suggested that using small apertures would be OK and also that the OP should back off and crop. Regarding that it was a macro shot extension can easily add another aperture of stopping down. The OP shot the subject at medium aperture at 0.8 mm intervals and was quite happy with the results. Yes, I do think he should have achieved better results, but I have not seen his exact setup nor raw files.

I also feel it is odd that he complains about my observations on colour aliasing, which only can arise with proper focusing in one moment and claim that I cannot focus in the next. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I feel it is OK to like some stuff and have a strong opinion, but the best way to make an argument is to show examples, and post them as raw images, which I mostly (but not always) do. If Eric wants to do this community a service he can post a series of raw images taken with different alternatives. He is a representant for Rollei, he probably has the resources?

Regarding the Hassy I am aware of it being quite old, my was made 2001 and the lenses are even older. Doug says modern lenses are much better and I don't doubt that. But there are a lot of Hasselblads around having lenses of similar age. BC, (James Russel) on the other hand claims the Zeiss lenses are magic, but his favourite professional tool now days is the Panasonic GH2. He also bought a Leica S2, which he seems to really like, and one of the attraction is to use the Zeiss lenses for the Contax.

Doug Peterson has posted some "library shots" with the Rodenstock HR's and the IQ-250 and they are clearly in a different league. But those are not the the stuff many MF entrants will buy.

Best regards
Erik




While Eric's post is a bit harsh, he is technically very disciplined and gets good results. The Hassy V may not be the best platform for the maximum precision Erik K may be looking for. 
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #47 on: February 27, 2014, 03:11:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Regarding the skin tones on your D800 there may be some rescue. If you use Capture One, it seems that the portrait profile for the IQ-250 does an adequate work. If you use Lightroom it seems that some posting on these forums develops a good portrait profile for the D800, check here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87646.0

If you own ColourChecker card you can generate a DCP profile for you camera using either ColorChecker Passport software or Adobe's DNG Profile Editor, the software is free. An option is QPCard, which uses a different set of patches, they have their own software. It may be possible that QPCard gives better skin tones.

I have no personal experience of either skin tones or the Nikon D800, I am just informing about the tools. Here are some samples I made, admittedly not very good but they may illustrate the differences: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/79-p45-colour-rendition?start=6

Best regards
Erik


I have very much enjoyed large format and medium format with film.  One of the issues that keeps me on the fence regarding moving to MFDB is that I don't have a need to
print large which is a frequently reported virtue of digital medium format.  Most of my prints are A3 and rarely A2.  Like some others I have experienced challenges with D800
color and skin tones.

For those who have seen significant differences in printed images from MFDB files,  at what print sizes do those differences emerge?  (I am in the process of arranging to rent an
H4D-40,  but I am trying to gather as much information as I can.) Also, for portrait work are there benefits in color rendition and skin tones from FF sensors like P65+ or Credo 60
compared to entry level cropped sensors like Credo 40 or H4D-40?  I have no need for wide angle lenses and do understand the differences in DOF.

Appreciate any thought or suggestions.

Richard
 
« Last Edit: February 27, 2014, 05:16:29 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #48 on: February 27, 2014, 04:32:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Sorry for mixing up the backs!

Best regards
Erik


- 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

ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 537



WWW
« Reply #49 on: February 27, 2014, 07:07:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, I'll play  Grin


1) What did I buy?

H4D-60, and 80-mm

2) Why did I buy?

Didn't.  Kind of on a long-term loan-to-buy.

3) Do I like the stuff?

Yes!

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

Yes. These are the first files that live up to what I thought a file could be.

5) Is it better than my [other cameras]?

Yes.

6) Is DR better on H4-60 compared to the Nikons I have?

Not totally certain, but the DR from deep down in the histogram on the Hassy is incredible.

7) Is colour rendition better?

Can't really say yet, given the nature of my work.  The files need a lot of post to make them sweet.

Cool Is aliasing an issue?

Nope.

9) Do I use the stuff?

Yes!

10) If I do something important, will I use the H4-60 or resort to DSLR?

Depends on the subject. 

11) What is the main advantage I see?

The files are incredible. I love the the feel of working with the big camera. I love the viewfinder. I love the aspect ratio.

12) What are the main disadvantages I see?

- size and weight
- slow processors


13) Are the pictures using MF better?

Mine are. My ratio of good shots is significantly higher with MF. Trying to figure out if this is because I only shoot things I care about more, bc of the effort involved, shoot more carefully, or what. Clearly, this is a user/machine interface outcome.


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

No, the files are terrible out of camera.  They needs lot of work in post. But you can do almost anything to them in LR and they hold up. This is the biggest difference.

 
15) Is the aspect ratio better?

yes.


16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?

Depends.

17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?

It's not an investment, it's an expense.

18) Do I enjoy it?

Yes.

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

-Everything carried on, in one of my Gura bags.

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

- The Hassy

21) Can I see differences in printed images?

- by 11x14 it shows a little, by 20x30 it shows a lot

22) Is MFD fun to use?

Part fun, part pain.


Cheers,

- N.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #50 on: February 28, 2014, 12:36:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Nick,

Thanks for posting. It seems quite a few readers of thread bought MF gear last year.

Best regards
Erik

« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 06:41:55 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Williamson Images
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


WWW
« Reply #51 on: February 28, 2014, 04:05:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, I'll play 


1) What did I buy?

Leaf Aptus II - 10 in 2009
Leaf Credo 80 in 2014
Cambo Wide RS
Contax 645 and Hassy h4X

2) Why did I buy?

File Size, Color, Tonal Range, Technical Camera Abilities

3) Do I like the stuff?

Yes - I like the visual and gear side of life with MF.

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

Yes - no contest.  Sold the D800e's and went back to Canon 1DX's and Fuji X when not shooting with the Leaf so I pick the best tool for the job - big or small hammer...

5) Is it better than my [other cameras]?

Yes - for any images to truly care about, I will head for the Leaf first.

6) Is DR better on Credo compared to the Nikons or Canon's I have?

Similar DR on the Nikon's, but I can never get that color clean and 'right'.  The Credo files when processed with P1 has amazing highlight recovery and good detail in shadows.  Credo has much better DR than all other comers in 35mm.

7) Is colour rendition better?

Yes.  Color is always great from the start using Capture 1.  I dont have to park myself in front of the computer working on one image for hours at a time.

 Is aliasing an issue?

I do not see this with the 80mp Credo.

9) Do I use the stuff?

Yes.  I shoot 200 days a year for my livelihood commercially.

10) If I do something important, will I use the Leaf Credo 80 or resort to DSLR?

I will only grab the 35mm cameras if a motor drive is needed or high ISO.

11) What is the main advantage I see?

File Sizes, panoramic stitching, the look is very clean.  Slows you down just enough to focus on the best image the first time.

12) What are the main disadvantages I see?

Cost for many individuals.  The cameras the backs attach to are way behind the abilities of modern 35mm rigs.

13) Are the pictures using MF better?

Most are if you bring your A-game.

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

I definitely spend less time in post and like the color profiles. 

15) Is the aspect ratio better?

Depends on your subject.  For portraits, yes.  Landscapes, no.

16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?

Yes. 

17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?

The money either goes to your gear or the tax man if you do this for a living.  So why not buy the best tools.

18) Do I enjoy it?

Yes.

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

Everything critical carried on in a think-tank roller and domke.

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

Cambo and Credo 80

21) Can I see differences in printed images?

Anything over 16x20.

22) Is MFD fun to use?

All good stuff.


Best.

Robb
Logged

-------------------------
Robb Williamson
www.williamsonimages.com
Rob Whitehead
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71



« Reply #52 on: March 02, 2014, 09:54:49 AM »
ReplyReply

2bits from me:

1) What did I buy?

P65, 2 DF's, Phase/mamiya 28/35/45/80/120/150 plus 75-150
Added a Cambo WRS, and now about to try out an Rm3di

2) Why did I buy?

I quite like shooting landscapes. Thought it was time to move up from 35mm

3) Do I like the stuff?

I still like to hold it...also good for shooting Smiley

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

Haven't tried those two. Was tossing up between a D800e and this (guess which system would have been cheaper...).

5) Is it better than my [other cameras]?

I don't really like looking at my 5DMk3 files any more...

6) Is DR better on H4-60 compared to the Nikons I have?

DR is OK, not great by modern standards.

7) Is colour rendition better?

Cool Is aliasing an issue?

I shoot landscapes.

9) Do I use the stuff?

Buying the P65 has made me inspired to shoot more. Yes, I love using this gear.

10) If I do something important, will I use the H4-60 or resort to DSLR?

I've been taking on more professional work to justify my investment in MF digital. Ironically, I end up shooting it all on the 5DMk3 because of the nature of the work.

11) What is the main advantage I see?

Resolution - and the small-scale detail is superb. Tech cams can produce some sensational images, though I like the Phase lenses more than some here do.

12) What are the main disadvantages I see?

I miss my Canon liveview so much!

13) Are the pictures using MF better?

Yes, far better when shooting landscapes.

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

Get good at post processing. I still need to upskill in this - I'm not that good (yet) at using C1.

15) Is the aspect ratio better?

Before the 1Ds got invented, I was using a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder as my main camera. Now that's a good aspect ratio.

16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?

Absolutely. The price hurts but it's something I've put off since the P25 came out. I always knew this is what I really needed to do the landscapes I was seeing justice. Has some good times over the year with MF film and 35mm digital - but there's no way I'd go back there.

17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?

Yes, financially - I could not justify it on financial grounds alone.

18) Do I enjoy it?

Absolutely.

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

Pelican wheeled case - no problems so far. Though I'm nornally doing outback travel in a 4WD - in which case multiple pelicans come along.

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

Never been on a workshop.

21) Can I see differences in printed images?

Not printing enough yet to comment.

22) Is MFD fun to use?

The tech camera is sort of fun. I love the optical viewfinder on the DF compared with my Canons. I'm going to say 'yes' to fun - but mainly because, after 14 years of digital shooting I'm in a retro mood (I tried to get the P65 to work with a c1900 Searoco camera the other day - same tech as my Rodenstock lenses).
Logged

Carpe lucem
zuitomedia
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #53 on: March 02, 2014, 11:54:57 PM »
ReplyReply



I bought a MFD equipment last summer. Here is a summary of my experience:

1) What did I buy?

P40+, Phase One DF+ and 80mm LS

2) Why did I buy?

Wanted to shoot MF, Figured it be cheaper than shooting MF film in the long run

3) Do I like the stuff?

Love it

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

Not sure, the Colors and DOF are better. DSLRs are more versatile

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

From D300/D700 I had yes not sure about newer cameras with more pixels

6) Is DR better on P45+ compared to the Sony's I have?

Yes

7) Is colour rendition better?

Yes

Cool Is aliasing an issue?

Somewhat but not a big deal for most of what i shoot

9) Do I use the stuff?

Yes but not as much as i would like due to ISO restrictions.

10) If I do something important, will I use the P40+ or resort to DSLR?

P40+ if the light and situation allow. DSLR otherwise

11) What is the main advantage I see?

DOF Color and look of the Pictures

12) What are the main disadvantages I see?

- Cost
- terrible LCD screen
- Harder to focus

13) Are the pictures using MF better?

Yes

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

Yes

15) Is the aspect ratio better?

I'm not as used to it

16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?

Yes

17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?

No but i don't know it was a good investment either. I'm happy about what I got for the price. Would like an IQ160 for the screen and the wide angle

18) Do I enjoy it?

Yes

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

Carry on luggage in an ONA Camps bay

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

Both DSLR and MFDB

21) Can I see differences in printed images?

Yes, Especially really large prints

22) Is MFD fun to use?

Yes. Esp Tethered
[/quote]
Logged
Daf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #54 on: March 04, 2014, 04:02:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Eric K,
-You think sony has better color, better DR than your mfdb...
-You don't like artefact and prefer AA filter...
-you don't need resolution...

The real questions are:
why is your mfdb not already sold?
why are you still using it?

I mean using a camera a couple of days is enough to know if it fit your need and style...or if it can bring you something new.

9month later, for sure it make something that your sony don't;)
Logged
dchew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574



WWW
« Reply #55 on: March 04, 2014, 06:56:30 AM »
ReplyReply

1) What did I buy?
Alpa STC, IQ180, Rodi 40hr, 70hr, 100hr, Schneider sk150

2) Why did I buy?
I was shooting a 5DII as if it was a MF/LF system. Tripod, manual lenses (Canon 24/90ts, Zeiss 21/35.  In 2011 I made the switch because 1) People were requesting larger prints, 2) I often crop to other ratios which cuts resolution, 4) 2-shot pano stitching would be simple 3) Canon seemed to be going nowhere, 4) I had a unique financial opportunity to jump onto the Phase train.

3) Do I like the stuff?
Very much. The technical camera fits my workflow well. I am not a big fan of setting up for multi-stitch shots. With this set up a 2-shot stitch is simple; no finding the nodal point, no rails, just slide and shoot, slide and shoot.

The only thing I miss is Canon’s fantastic live view.

4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
At base iso it is better than the a7r, especially wider than 35mm. The best wide angle I have for the a7r is the Zeiss 25 f/2 ZE. No comparison to the Rodi 40.

7) Is colour rendition better?
I have no idea.

Cool Is aliasing an issue?
I can see it in some images at 100% on screen, but I’ve never had to remove something in a print, so no issue.

9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes, all the time.

10) If I do something important, will I use the MF system or resort to DSLR?
I don’t use a DSLR for anything anymore. I want to get an IR conversion done on my 5DII; that will get me using it again. Here comes my controversial statement. I think the DSLR days are numbered. 20 years from now a DSLR will be viewed as a temporary solution to two technical problems; 1) how to accurately see what is on the sensor in a pleasing way, and 2) fast, accurate autofocus tracking.

The a7r has essentially solved the first problem. I swear I often forget I am looking through an EVF.

11) What is the main advantage I see?
I’ll simply copy Torger: “Compositional freedom through tilt and shift, pleasing workflow.” I’ve said this before and I’m sure it sounds backwards to many: The workflow in the field feels so “unchained.” No viewfinder, no focus, no meter. Nothing telling me what to do.  Smiley

12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
Cost and lack of live view.

13) Are the pictures using MF better?
I am convinced my images have improved artistically as well as technically. In an earlier post Eric said, “…except the fact I like shooting with the equipment.” Well gosh, I enjoy shooting with this equipment, and it shows in my images.

14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
This question implies on screen, not on paper since none of us print an OOC image. In some ways yes, in others no. I need to do an LCC for all the 40hr images, and some of the 70hr images. So from that standpoint the a7r images are better. At higher ISO the a7r images are better. However, at base ISO the IQ180 images obviously have more detail.

15) Is the aspect ratio better?
Yes I much prefer 4:3 even though I often crop to a different ratio. It just feels more versatile and useful.

16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Absolutely! When Phase/Leaf/Hassy/Leica comes out with a 54x40 (or larger!) sensor with good live view I will upgrade in a heartbeat.

17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
It's no more a financial investment than a car. It is an investment in my photography. There are many ways to accomplish some task. To produce large prints I could multi-stitch for more resolution. I could use my 5DII almost as if it was a technical camera, just don't look through the viewfinder, don't use metering, etc. But we have to decide individually what tool matches the way we like to shoot. It is hard to measure the value of a tool that works the way you want it to.

18) Do I enjoy it?
Hell yes. I don’t think this is a “nice to have” characteristic of camera systems. I think it is by far the most important because it shows in a photographer’s images. Even the best pros are affected by how they relate to their tools whether it is a hammer, camera or F1 race car.

19) Some of my photography involved travel by air. How do I handle it?
F-stop Loka holds everything. Alpa, back and lenses in the ICU. Above the ICU sits the a7r in an old Galen Rowell Photoflex chest pouch along with the Sony 35 f/2.8, Sony 55 f/1.8, Leica 90 f/2.

20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
Both.  I think that is the beauty of the tech camera plus a7r. I’ve got two systems that are very good at what they do, and in a pinch the a7r could be used as a backup with not much quality loss.

21) Can I see differences in printed images?
Yes in prints on paper 17x22 and larger.

22) Is MFD fun to use?
Yes, although so is the a7r for different reasons.

23) What bad habits have you picked up since shooting MFD?
I read forums too much and view prints too close.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 07:49:31 AM by dchew » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #56 on: March 04, 2014, 11:56:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I may not need resolution but I may like resolution. I mostly print at A2, and I have a lot of reason to see that most modern cameras are good enough for A2 size prints, but I do print larger occasionally.

There are a couple of reasons I keep the P45+/Hassy combo:

- I like working with it
- The 39 MP is an advantage over the Sony kit I have at 24MP, when I bought P45+ the A7r was not even a rumor.
- With the Flexbody it gives T&S on all five lenses I have.
- I normally carry both cameras Hasselblad with 5 lenses at Sony Alpha 99 with two lenses. I am using both.


Regarding colour, I have generated DCP-profiles for the P45+ I am happy with.

The aliasing is quite a bit frustrating, but it goes away at f/16, but so does quite a lot of sharpness.

It is quite true that I have not found out how I feel about the Hasselblad/P45+ combo. It is the camera I use mostly right now, but picking up the Sony I also enjoy. The Sony is a pretty efficient picture maker. The Hasselblad is a bit more deliberate.

Best regards
Erik



Eric K,
-You think sony has better color, better DR than your mfdb...
-You don't like artefact and prefer AA filter...
-you don't need resolution...

The real questions are:
why is your mfdb not already sold?
why are you still using it?

I mean using a camera a couple of days is enough to know if it fit your need and style...or if it can bring you something new.

9month later, for sure it make something that your sony don't;)

« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 12:05:39 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #57 on: March 04, 2014, 12:15:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Thanks for sharing your experience!

I noted your view on EVF and DSLR, and it is exactly how I feel.

Best regards
Erik


1) What did I buy?
Alpa STC, IQ180, Rodi 40hr, 70hr, 100hr, Schneider sk150

2) Why did I buy?
I was shooting a 5DII as if it was a MF/LF system. Tripod, manual lenses (Canon 24/90ts, Zeiss 21/35.  In 2011 I made the switch because 1) People were requesting larger prints, 2) I often crop to other ratios which cuts resolution, 4) 2-shot pano stitching would be simple 3) Canon seemed to be going nowhere, 4) I had a unique financial opportunity to jump onto the Phase train.

3) Do I like the stuff?
Very much. The technical camera fits my workflow well. I am not a big fan of setting up for multi-stitch shots. With this set up a 2-shot stitch is simple; no finding the nodal point, no rails, just slide and shoot, slide and shoot.

The only thing I miss is Canon’s fantastic live view.

4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
At base iso it is better than the a7r, especially wider than 35mm. The best wide angle I have for the a7r is the Zeiss 25 f/2 ZE. No comparison to the Rodi 40.

7) Is colour rendition better?
I have no idea.

Cool Is aliasing an issue?
I can see it in some images at 100% on screen, but I’ve never had to remove something in a print, so no issue.

9) Do I use the stuff?
Yes, all the time.

10) If I do something important, will I use the MF system or resort to DSLR?
I don’t use a DSLR for anything anymore. I want to get an IR conversion done on my 5DII; that will get me using it again. Here comes my controversial statement. I think the DSLR days are numbered. 20 years from now a DSLR will be viewed as a temporary solution to two technical problems; 1) how to accurately see what is on the sensor in a pleasing way, and 2) fast, accurate autofocus tracking.

The a7r has essentially solved the first problem. I swear I often forget I am looking through an EVF.

11) What is the main advantage I see?
I’ll simply copy Torger: “Compositional freedom through tilt and shift, pleasing workflow.” I’ve said this before and I’m sure it sounds backwards to many: The workflow in the field feels so “unchained.” No viewfinder, no focus, no meter. Nothing telling me what to do.  Smiley

12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
Cost and lack of live view.

13) Are the pictures using MF better?
I am convinced my images have improved artistically as well as technically. In an earlier post Eric said, “…except the fact I like shooting with the equipment.” Well gosh, I enjoy shooting with this equipment, and it shows in my images.

14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
This question implies on screen, not on paper since none of us print an OOC image. In some ways yes, in others no. I need to do an LCC for all the 40hr images, and some of the 70hr images. So from that standpoint the a7r images are better. At higher ISO the a7r images are better. However, at base ISO the IQ180 images obviously have more detail.

15) Is the aspect ratio better?
Yes I much prefer 4:3 even though I often crop to a different ratio. It just feels more versatile and useful.

16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Absolutely! When Phase/Leaf/Hassy/Leica comes out with a 54x40 (or larger!) sensor with good live view I will upgrade in a heartbeat.

17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
It's no more a financial investment than a car. It is an investment in my photography. There are many ways to accomplish some task. To produce large prints I could multi-stitch for more resolution. I could use my 5DII almost as if it was a technical camera, just don't look through the viewfinder, don't use metering, etc. But we have to decide individually what tool matches the way we like to shoot. It is hard to measure the value of a tool that works the way you want it to.

18) Do I enjoy it?
Hell yes. I don’t think this is a “nice to have” characteristic of camera systems. I think it is by far the most important because it shows in a photographer’s images. Even the best pros are affected by how they relate to their tools whether it is a hammer, camera or F1 race car.

19) Some of my photography involved travel by air. How do I handle it?
F-stop Loka holds everything. Alpa, back and lenses in the ICU. Above the ICU sits the a7r in an old Galen Rowell Photoflex chest pouch along with the Sony 35 f/2.8, Sony 55 f/1.8, Leica 90 f/2.

20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
Both.  I think that is the beauty of the tech camera plus a7r. I’ve got two systems that are very good at what they do, and in a pinch the a7r could be used as a backup with not much quality loss.

21) Can I see differences in printed images?
Yes in prints on paper 17x22 and larger.

22) Is MFD fun to use?
Yes, although so is the a7r for different reasons.

23) What bad habits have you picked up since shooting MFD?
I read forums too much and view prints too close.

Logged

tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #58 on: March 04, 2014, 02:53:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I noted your view on EVF and DSLR, and it is exactly how I feel.
re EVF/Live View...

personally I think it's somewhat overrated. I've been using a GH2 since it came out and it was my first camera with live view (well, actually it was a compact Ricoh... but I've been using AF on this all the time). I use the GH2 for video only... so I can't really comment the usefullness of Live View in this cam with regard to stills. I am now using a Sony A7R and while I am finding the live view very useful it is certainly not the holy grail of focusing.

A note about my MF and LF kits (in conjunction with a P45 & P21+)...:
Focusing with my Contax 645: 3 years ago or so I've ordered custom made shims from a precission mechanics company that are much thinner than the original Contax shims (the finest shim I've ordered is 0.05mm or 0.1mm ... i don't remember right now.... whereas the thinnest original Contax shim is 0.3mm AFAIK). With my custom made shims I could adjust my split image screens to match the sensor plane of my Contax DBs exactly (fortunately both the backs have the very same sensor registration).
With static subjects shooting off a tripod I have yet to miss critical focus (fastest lens is f2.0). The Bill Maxwell screens I am using are also really, really good to judge off-center sharpness (so when I can't use the split image). I've once tested an IQ180 (with much smaller pixel pitch) for a few days and focus was dead on also with this back. Shooting hand held, things get a bit more complex... however the point I am trying to make is critical focusing is doable with a SLR, even without live view.
Tech cam: now, the lenses are not that fast but even at f5.6 and f8 you can cleary see the focus plane in the image. I use Alpa HPF rings in conjunction with a laser disto and focusing is really an absolut non-issue. In fact this is the kind of focusing I personally like the best (basically it's only limited by the capabilities of the laser disto... and I do use a very basic model). Naturally it is also only really precise with static subjetcs and when shooting off a tripod. Since I also like composing on a groundglass this is my favorite style of shooting.

EVF/Live View:
- IMO it is also only really precise and useful when shooting off a tripod. Sure, to some extend it's also usable when shooting hand held... but in no way "better" or more precise than shooting with my Contax handheld.
- When you are in magnification mode and want to adjust the shutter speed (maybe because the point you want to focus on is too bright or too dark or for whatever reason) you first have to leave the maginfication mode, adjust exposure and then return into maginification mode. While this is of course doable, it is still somewhat cumbersome.
- Focusing far distant subjects in max. maginfication mode the camera may move a little bit when focusing. Due to the maginification the slightest movement gets extremely exaggerated and this is pretty stressful to the eyes (my eyes at least).
- When focusing in bad light the finder goes noisy... which may also be very stressful to the eyes.
- when the contrast of the motif exceeds the capabilities of the sensor (the finder respectively) you can't see differentiation in lights and/or shadows
- light/color of light/light nuances: the most important thing for me personally. The EVF looks cold, blunt and lifeless. An EVF is a super technical thing. Now, this is very personal, but every image I am seeing through an EVF is actually not worth considering to capture... it's simply too ugly. (most likely this will change in future models ahen the IQ of EVFs improve).

Now, there is a lot more to say... but these are the aspects that came to my mind when writing this ...

I appreciate live view. But it's certainly not the one MUST HAVE feature that would made me change my kit...

« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 02:58:18 PM by tho_mas » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #59 on: March 04, 2014, 03:27:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

For me it is mostly about accuracy and simplicity. No moving mirrors. An AF camera has two mirrors, the main mirror and the AF mirror, both need to be in near perfect register with sensor. To that comes the AF-sensor.

On the A7R the sensor is bolted to the back of the shutter and lens bayonet is mounted on the shutter with shims. It cannot be much simpler, and as engineer I appreciate simplicity. The A7 without the 'r' has also on sensor phase detection. So the only possible alignment problems are sensor and lens. Peaking seems to be helpful with tilt, even if I had made little use of it yet. I also appreciate things like virtual horizon and live histogram. So I feel it is a simple technology doing the job decently well. I think SLRs have been around for seventy years and "dchew" was talking about 20 years ahead.

Yes, there are absolutely issues with EVF, but I am pretty sure they will be better for each year, and I like them as they are.

Best regards
Erik

Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad