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 8241 times)
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #60 on: March 04, 2014, 03:35:44 PM »
ReplyReply

For me it is mostly about accuracy and simplicity
The same for me.
And since accuracy is absolutely not an issue for me personally with my Kits (shooting off a tripod) live view is not very high on my list of "must haves".
As far as simplicity goes ... nothing beats a groundglass on a tech cam. This is most likely the most simple system ;-)

Logged
dchew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 560



WWW
« Reply #61 on: March 04, 2014, 03:56:13 PM »
ReplyReply

re EVF/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.

That is exactly how I focus. Live view would be valuable with tilt, but not so much when shooting on-plane.

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.

I wish I could agree with you, but I don't have a Contax to compare with Sad
Seriously, a medium format viewfinder is marvelous. I am comparing the a7r EVF vs. most of the current 135 format cameras with OVF's.

- 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).

Yes to all the above, but it doesn't bother me nearly as much. For me, the benefits of zooming and focus peaking on the a7r's EVF have tipped the scales in favor of EVF in this format.

Dave
Logged

tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #62 on: March 04, 2014, 04:13:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I wish I could agree with you, but I don't have a Contax to compare with Sad
Seriously, a medium format viewfinder is marvelous.
Actually, the finder of the Contax 645 is not the best. With Maxwell screens it's not as dim as reported by many Contax users. But the magnification of the prism finder is not that high. I use a Nikon 1.2x eye piece on the prism finder which works quite fine with my DBs (for full frame I'd remove it since the eye piece covers the corners of full frame a bit). On the other hand the WLF is really great and reliable for focusing.
Personally I think the Hy6 followed by the Hasselblad H finders are (by far) the best (above all I'd love to have a 45° finder for my Contax, too).
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 04:17:20 PM by tho_mas » Logged
dchew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 560



WWW
« Reply #63 on: March 04, 2014, 04:48:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Personally I think the Hy6 followed by the Hasselblad H finders are (by far) the best (above all I'd love to have a 45° finder for my Contax, too).

Yet another reason for me to look at a Hy6. I miss a WLF and 6x6 film.
Eric!!
Dave
Logged

sbernthal
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 166


« Reply #64 on: March 07, 2014, 01:10:31 PM »
ReplyReply

1) What did I buy?
I am now using Credo 80 on a 645DF+ with D lenses.
On 2010 I bought my first back , Aptus 22.

2) Why did I buy?
I was feeling limited by the glass that can be mounted on Canon bodies, and couldn't get the quality I wanted.
Having exhausted all the options for FF, I tried MFD.
Also I've had some client complaints about insufficient color reproduction.

3) Do I like the stuff?
Yes!

4) Is it better than D800E/Sony A7r or whatever?
As far as optical clarity and resolution - for sure.
For pictures taken in normal conditions, such as f/8-16, 2+ meters, such as portraits, downscaled to internet or printed, I think it is very difficult to tell the difference.
For pictures under extreme parameters testing the limits of the glass - the difference is very significant.

5) Is it better than my 5D3?
For studio work yes, for handheld walk around existing light - no.

6) Is DR better on Credo compared to Canon I have?
I don't think so, nor do I really care.

7) Is colour rendition better?
The color results from Leaf are very beautiful and clients love them.
For sure it's drastically different from Canon.
I don't like Nikon colors, and won't use it.

8) Is aliasing an issue?
With 9 micron backs sometime, with high resolution backs using C1 - never.

9) Do I use the stuff?
Every day.

10) If I do something important, will I use the MFD or resort to DSLR?
I will use MF for anything except walk around existing light.
The only reason I keep the Canon is that there are some walk around jobs that pay too well to ignore, so it doesn't make sense to throw it away - but I would chuck it in a heartbeat as I consider it junk. Officially the Canon is also my backup system for production work, but every time my MFD system broke down, I bent over backwards to get any sort of MF solution to carry me over, and never used the Canon for studio work once after I bought my first back. If I could afford a 1Dx as the camera I almost never use, I would like it a lot more than 5D3.

11) What is the main advantage I see?
Optical clarity on larger sensors - but even 44x33 are better than 36x24.
Better colors is either number one or number two advantage.
The extra resolution is also sometimes useful.
Good tethering.

12) What are the main disadvantages I see?
Handholding is very difficult, low light and auto focus performance are unsatisfactory, price is unreasonable.
The system is extremely unstable.
They eventually fix all the problems, but never admit they exist.

13) Are the pictures using MF better?
In studio yes.

14) Are the MF pictures better "out of camera"?
No.
 
15) Is the aspect ratio better?
I don't think this matters very much.

16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?
Yes.

17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?
The expenses are huge, and commercial photographers using Canon seem to be doing perfectly fine.
However I would be very very bored with Canon and doing the mundane jobs Canon is suited for.

18) Do I enjoy it?
Yes.

19) Much of my photography involves travel by air. How do I handle it?
I go only where my insurance allows me to go.

20) I will go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?
I would like to see you try getting me to a workshop.

21) Can I see differences in printed images?
I am not a printer.

22) Is MFD fun to use?
I think more for the technically inclined than the artistically inclined.
If you are busting with inspiration and just want a camera not to stand in your way, you can use your iPhone today to create a work that can be displayed in any museum.
If you are serving a demanding industrial company or agency, then MFD results will make them very happy.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2014, 03:35:07 PM by sbernthal » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7239


WWW
« Reply #65 on: March 07, 2014, 01:56:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Thanks for posting!

On the moiré/aliasing issue I would say that Capture One does a much better job than my favourite program LR5.3. This is one of the areas I feel C1 has a solid advantage over the Adobe product. The other may be handling of CA with complex lens designs, like Distagon.

Best regards
Erik
Logged

idillic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #66 on: March 07, 2014, 06:54:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting & entertaining thread...


1) What did I buy?

I bought a Pentax 645D + 5 lenses a few months ago.  I had been about to buy an 800E Nikon with a few lenses, but the barely used Pentax was available and much cheaper than the quote I had for the Nikon kit.

2) Why did I buy?

I was after better quality than the half frame Sigma SD1M I have.

3) Do I like the stuff?

Yes!

4) Is it better than ........ whatever?

I don't know. Under most circumstances it is much better than the SD1M.

7) Is colour rendition better?

Colour rendition is very good.

9) Do I use the stuff?

Yes!

11) What is the main advantage I see?

Image quality.

12) What are the main disadvantages I see?

- None

13) Are the pictures using MF better?

No, but as a former medium & large format film user, I feel like I have come home.

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

Definitely yes, when compared with the Sigma Merrill cameras I have.  They require a lot more work.

16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?

Used equipment, yes. 

17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?

Yes/no.  My wife said that at my age if I cannot have one irresponsible indulgence, life is not worth living!

18) Do I enjoy it?
22) Is MFD fun to use?

It is a joy to use.

The pictures I take are not better than those I take with the Sigma, or my older Ricoh GR digital.  But knowing how different the various cameras work and the image I am after, the Pentax MF adds more choice in what I am after in an image.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7239


WWW
« Reply #67 on: March 08, 2014, 09:51:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Thanks for asking…

No, I would buy an ALPA FPS with an IQ-250, if I could afford it. But, the Hasselblad kit was about what I was willing to pay for. I may prefer a Hartblei HCam as Stefan Steib who is making them seems to be a decent guy, but with LV on the IQ-180 no sliding back is needed.

The Hartblei is still on the shopping list, but I don't know if I need medium format. Questions to ask:

- I don't really make larger prints than A2, isn't 24 MP enough?
- With the DSLR I have pinpoint focus using live view, can I be without? (the IQ-250 solves it but at a significant cost)
- With the DSLR-s I have plenty of lens choices, including zoom-lenses from 12-400. Do the zooms give me liberty of composition or would MF primes serve me better? There are MF zooms, too.
- Will MF handle all my shooting or do I need to carry double gear?
- Am I making better images with MF than I would with a DSLR or am I just wasting opportunities?

Right now, I would say that I am still lacking answers to those questions. If I can, I carry both gears.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, after 9 months of use do you think a 500 series camera was the best choice as a platform for MFD? Did you consider other platforms? Given your time again would you make the same choice of digital platform?
« Last Edit: March 09, 2014, 10:24:49 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #68 on: March 08, 2014, 12:29:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Thanks for asking…

No, I would buy an ALPA FPS with an IQ-250, if I could afford it. But, the Hasselblad kit was about what I was willing to pay for. I may prefer a Hartblei HCam as Stefan Steib who is making them seems to be a decent guy, but with LV on the IQ-180 no sliding back is needed.

Best regards
Erik



Did you ever use a Hassy 500 Series as it was meant to be used, with film?

Rob C
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7239


WWW
« Reply #69 on: March 08, 2014, 02:30:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

No, but I was shooting Pentax 67 for quite a few years. I bought the 555ELD together with the back. Thinking about getting a film back, but I never felt scanning film was really fun.

Best regards
Erik



Did you ever use a Hassy 500 Series as it was meant to be used, with film?

Rob C
Logged

mstevensphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280


WWW
« Reply #70 on: March 17, 2014, 08:00:10 AM »
ReplyReply




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

It's different.  As a Canon shooter, I have lots of experience with the 1Ds II, 7D and 5D mk3,  and I get things from the Hass I can't from from my Canon gear.


Would you be so kind as to expand on this?  I'm on the edge of making the same switch and I'd love to know more about the things you feel you get from mf that don't come from the canon gear.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7239


WWW
« Reply #71 on: March 18, 2014, 02:36:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I cannot talk about Canon as I am a Sony shooter, but Canon images used look good to me.

What I see on my P45+ is that it gives me more pixels. Using an MFDB with proprietary software may have some advantages, like better demosaicing, but also possibly fine tuned colour response.

Synn has posted an interesting comparison here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87158.0

I have done something similar here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=83689.0

As a note, it had been suggested that I should have used use Capture One instead of LR5 as the latter is seen as inferior tool by a significant number of MFD users, but all raw images are available for download, so anyone can try their own processing. There has also been suggestions that I am using improper technique (focusing?), but anyway this is my experience.

The suggestion to arrange a demo or rental is a sound one.

Best regards
Erik






Would you be so kind as to expand on this?  I'm on the edge of making the same switch and I'd love to know more about the things you feel you get from mf that don't come from the canon gear.
Logged

JKevinScott
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #72 on: March 18, 2014, 06:15:48 PM »
ReplyReply

1) What did I buy?

IQ280, 645DF+, Alpa TC

2) Why did I buy?

I subjectively find MFD to be better for my studio portrait work and landscapes than my DSLR or mirrorless gear.  I don't know how to quantify that subjective feeling.  Color rendition?  Tonality?  More deliberative photographic process?  Not entirely sure, but it feels right.

3) Do I like the stuff?

Yes!

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

I don't have a D800E, but do have an A7r.  I've only shot portraiture with the A7r, and have limited experience from which to draw conclusions.  I'm not itching to ditch my IQ280 based on early results from the A7r, certainly not in the same way that my Fujifilm X-Pro1 has almost completely subsumed the position that my DSLR held in my camera hierarchy for the work that I do.

I have not tried the A7r for landscape work given that I don't really have the optics for it to give it a fair shake against the IQ280 / Alpa / Rodenstock trifecta.

5) Is it better than my 5D3?

For portraiture yes.  For landscapes yes.  Mostly.  (I still reach for the 5d3 when I want to do crazy HDR shots.)  For action photography, good god no.  For available light, candid photography, no.  For that, I actually prefer my X-Pro1 to either DSLR or MFD.

6) Is DR better on IQ280 compared to Canon I have?

Don't know.  Never thought to run an experiment to see.  Probably won't bother since it doesn't matter for how I use my gear.

7) Is colour rendition better?

I think so.

Cool Is aliasing an issue?

In theory yes.  In practice, not so much.

9) Do I use the stuff?

I use my IQ280 daily.

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

I use MFD for almost everything I shoot.

11) What is the main advantage I see?

Color rendition, can use the back on either a 645 body or technical camera, forces a more deliberative pace which I enjoy.  Overall a bunch of factors come together to yield a subjective quality to images that I personally prefer to captures I get from my DSLR.

12) What are the main disadvantages I see?

Autofocus, poor noise performance as ISO increases, 645DF+ plus back and MF lens is heavy, expensive, there are features that I miss from DSLR-land (like flexible exposure bracketing) that I have very little hope of ever making their way into the very slowly developing 645DF+ "platform"

13) Are the pictures using MF better?

For studio portraits and my landscape work, definitely.

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

No.
 
15) Is the aspect ratio better?

Yes, but that seems like a very significant matter of taste.

16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?

Yes.

17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?

I don't really consider it an investment, so no.

18) Do I enjoy it?

Yes.

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

I never check my MFD gear, and never will.

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

I've never attended a workshop.

21) Can I see differences in printed images?

Yes.  Even at A2.

22) Is MFD fun to use?

For me, yes.  Very much so.
Logged
Hywel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


WWW
« Reply #73 on: March 19, 2014, 05:36:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Reflections on MFD after 5 years of use...

1) What did I buy?

H3Dii-31 plus 50 mm, 80 mm and 120 mm Macro lenses

2) Why did I buy?

Frustrated with lack of critical sharpness with my then-workhorse dSLR (5D Mark I). In retrospect, this was primarily down to the lenses. I now have better lenses for my Canons, too.

3) Do I like the stuff?

Oh my, yes!

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

I don't know, but it is better in controlled light conditions than my fallback dSLR (7D) and the 5D Mark 2 I sometimes borrow. 
However, for available light shooting the 5D Mark 2 is better. The most critical thing with the Canons is finding the right lenses; the performance of the 50 mm f/1.4 and 85 mm f/1.8 is great, but the 24-70 F/2.8 sucks (even having sent a couple back). The Hasselblad lenses, by contrast, are fecking awesome.

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

Don't know. Both have adequate DR for my purposes.

7) Is colour rendition better?

I much prefer the Hasselblad/Phocus colour rendition to any other system I've tried. The Canons are OK. My GF1 micro four thirds is acceptable. I've never processed a Nikon shot I liked, colour wise. (I have some stuff shot on Nikons by workshop/tutorial attendees and I don't know how they can bear it; no amount
of fiddling in Aperture/LR/Phocus gives me a result I can stand. I don't have C1.)

8 ) Is aliasing an issue

Yes. Stockings, fine mesh lingerie, even sometimes silk gowns and satin bed sheets cause aliasing problems. Phocus' anti-Moire filter helps a little but nukes fine detail in eyelashes. If I was primarily shooting stocking-clad models, I'd go for a camera with an AA filter.

9) Do I use the stuff?

Yes. At least 90% of the time for my professional work. The only time I don't is when I decide to shoot in low available light, when I use the Canon.
I don't use the 'blad for snapshots (I use my iPhone) but even up in the mountains I'll take the big beast if I think the light will be nice.
The camera I don't use as much as I expected to is the GF1, despite its convenience and massive step up in image quality from the iPhone, it sits uncomfortably in between the "take it anywhere, shoot anything" appeal of the phone and the "quality above all" appeal of MFD. 

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

If there's any chance of shooting it at ISO 80, I'll use the Hasselblad. If there really isn't, I'll fall back to the 7D. At some stage I'll probably switch that for a full frame 35mm dSLR (I got the 7D for video originally).

11) What is the main advantage I see?

Colour richness, sharpness and resolution. And although I complained about the aliasing on stockings, I actually love the slight rainbow glitter effect it has on skin pore highlights, it makes the shots look magical.

Leaf shutters for balancing direct sunlight with flash on location.
Leaf shutters for freezing camera shake and subject motion (I really struggle with that at 1/125th).

12) What are the main disadvantages I see?

For what I actually use? That it is ISO 80 (claimed 100) and if you turn it up the image falls apart immediately.

I guess also that it can't be rigged out in the flexible way that you can rig a systems 35 mm dSLR into a great sports cam or low light cam or wedding cam or whatever.

It so happens that the Hasselblad falls very naturally into my way of shooting (central autofocus point, lock focus, recompose, press, compose next shot). It is a specialised tool for the shoots I do for a living whereas a 5D family are better all-rounders. The 7D is not as nice, but it suffices for now.

13) Are the pictures using MF better?

For me, absolutely yes.

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

There is no out of camera, but my default profile in Phocus gets me where I need to go very quickly and fine tuning from there takes much less time than the Canon files do.

15) Is the aspect ratio better?

I prefer it.

16) Would I buy the MFD equipment again?

Yes, although if I'd know how big a dip my market sector was heading for I might have had second thoughts. It was absolutely the right camera for me at the time, and remains my fave tool. I don't think I could afford to start investing in the whole system again today, but I'd definitely replace the camera with a second-hand one if it breaks.

17) Do I regard it as a bad investment?

Yes and no. In purely financial terms, I might have been able to make the same sales if I'd bought a 5D2 at the time instead.
In terms of my own artistic satisfaction, it was an absolutely stunning investment.
And in terms of making the most of extremely expensive multi-model location shoots, recorded for posterity in the absolute best quality I could afford, it is awesome. I'll probably NEVER get to shoot the same two brilliant models north of the Arctic circle in Norway again and I'm so glad I have the Hasselblad shots of that trip for posterity.

18) Do I enjoy it?

Oh yes. It feels like an extension of me now. And I've gotten VERY used to features like proper RAW summed channels histogram flashing on top display and greater than 100% viewfinder (because of the slight crop of the H3D31ii sensor- I don't know why but I find the little "look around" area very helpful in composing at a glance). 

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

It's great- the whole camera and lens kit, plus MacBookPro, go in my cabin baggage rucksack.

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

I usually take the Hasselblad and the 7D to every shoot. If the lighting allows, I'll use the Hasselblad. If not, the Canon is always there to fall back on and is capable of some very beautiful results, too. On the few workshops I've been to, I've taken the Canon for flexibility and so as not to seem like a dick showing off my expensive MFD. When I have run tutorials and workshops I can absolutely guarantee that the guy (always a guy) with the most expensive camera also has the very worst eye for a photo and I don't want to be that guy!

21) Can I see differences in printed images?

I don't make large prints, so not relevant to me. I can see the difference 1:1 pixel on the screen which is what counts for me.

22) Is MFD fun to use?

Broadly speaking, yes. But what's really fun is bringing the shots up in Phocus at the end of the shoot with everyone gathered around the laptop making "ooooh! ahhh! Wow! Did we do that?" noises. The most telling point of all is how rarely you get that from sets shot with the Canon. The Canon gets good shots, but the Hasselblad somehow makes the same shots just "zing" that little bit more. 

Cheers, Hywel.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2014, 05:42:55 PM by Hywel » Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 973


WWW
« Reply #74 on: June 19, 2014, 01:45:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Erik, please read my post at Gtdpi concerning my V glass.  Sad
Maybe that's why you don't see much difference to your dslr.
Best
Eduardo
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/588415-post96.html
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7239


WWW
« Reply #75 on: June 19, 2014, 02:20:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Eduardo,

Thanks for your observation. I share your experience, in a sense, on the other hand it is a bit more complex. Most of my Hasselblad lenses exceed my DSLR (I have only 24 MP at this time) in resolution, except on edges/corners on some lenses. I also feel that a part of the issue is field curvature, which sometimes is in my favour and sometimes not. Field curvatures often puts foreground in focus.

The best lens I have is the Sonnar 180/4 and it is slightly better than my 70-400/4-5.6 lens at 180 mm on absolute terms MTF at XXX lp/mm. But, even that lens has some longitudional chromatic aberration and some haziness. Don't know much about other lens makes, but mine are pretty consistent with factory MTF.

My main observations are:

- I don't see much difference in prints at A2 size.
- But the files have more detail
- I can see the difference with an 5X loupe on A2 size prints, but not with the naked eye
- The MF back has more noisy shadows

But:

I like shooting with the "Blad". I am also shooting APS-C and full frame 135m using lenses from 10 mm fisheye to 560 mm. So I am an all eater.

My best pictures I made with an 12 MP APS-C, shooting location and good light beats format.

Best regards
Erik


Erik, please read my post at Gtdpi concerning my V glass.  Sad
Maybe that's why you don't see much difference to your dslr.
Best
Eduardo
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/588415-post96.html
« Last Edit: June 20, 2014, 01:34:01 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

dchew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 560



WWW
« Reply #76 on: June 21, 2014, 08:30:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Since this topic was brought back to life, and since Question #20 was, “[If I] go on a workshop, what equipment will I take?” I will share my recent workshop story. It is also a shameful way to show some photos…

A few weeks ago I was part of the Silo City Workshop, organized by Mark Maio. It was the same workshop Michael and Kevin were on; hence the recent machine photos here on Lula. Fascinating place; if you have any interest in urban landscapes I suggest you look it up. Mark has another workshop scheduled for October at the same location. I brought both the a7r (Leica WATE, 35 f/2.8 FE, 55 f/1.8 FE, Leica 90 f/2) and the Alpa / IQ180 (40hr, 70hr, sk150). First thing Friday morning we shot silo’s across the river. I started with the Alpa but felt rushed because in my mind we were late for the light (plus I couldn’t find my LCC card).



After a few frustrating shots I switched to the a7r and things began to click. Then we went over to the primary buildings for an introductory “get acquainted with your surroundings” tour. I stuck with the a7r handheld for that tour so I could keep up with the group.





Around 9am we split up and went our separate ways. I switched back to MF and headed off with my wife to photograph on our own. By then I was comfortable with the surroundings, and the Alpa felt right.











The following morning I decided to try a Leica Monochrom (many thanks to Leica and Capture Integration for supplying equipment). Although it’s been probably 30 years since I used a rangefinder, I bonded almost immediately with that camera. Focusing was a delight, and I liked the no choice – B&W shooting.










That afternoon I used the Alpa when we went to the pumping station. I was again out of sorts. No mental focus, too much going on, sensory overload, my wife’s camera ran out of battery power, you get the picture. We were there all afternoon, but I didn’t get anything reasonable until after at least the first 2 hours.










Sunday morning back at Silo City was all Alpa.





So, after stumbling out of the gate, I’m very glad I had both camera systems. Although I’ve been shooting with the Alpa for three years, it still requires my complete attention and mental focus. Not to set it up or technically do things; that is second nature by now. But seeing takes more effort. I’m not sure if that is because it is so easy to experiment with the a7r vs. a technical camera, or if it because I tend to think of aligned perspectives with the Alpa since it can shift. Regardless, external stress or frustrations render that camera ineffective, at least in my hands. I’m generally pretty good with the a7r, but never great. With MF I feel either in the zone or in the weeds. Could also just be the difference between an amateur and a pro…

When I’m alone in the wilderness, the Alpa is by far my favorite tool. But at a workshop there is a lot going on: Schedules, people, and unfamiliar territory. If I had to do this workshop again with only one system, it would be MF, but it would not have been quite as much fun.

Dave
« Last Edit: June 21, 2014, 09:35:00 AM by dchew » Logged

jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 522


« Reply #77 on: June 21, 2014, 08:46:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Do you use the A7r (or Leica Monochrom) handheld or on a tripod like the Alpa?
Logged
dchew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 560



WWW
« Reply #78 on: June 21, 2014, 09:03:54 AM »
ReplyReply

I did use the a7r both on and off tripod but not the Monochrom. I used it only handheld.
Logged

jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 522


« Reply #79 on: June 21, 2014, 09:49:03 AM »
ReplyReply

So, maybe the difference in experience is rather "handheld" versus "tripod"? For me, this is indeed how it works: I find that I need more concentration with a tripod and the constraints that it imposes. But I do not use a technical camera and I can use my MF handheld (although I don't do that very often).
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad