Review of XF and IQ3 100

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

This may be old news - a review by my friend Mark Dubovoy. Like him, I've been using the XF since August 2015 and the 100 mpx back since February last year. I agree with all he says except he didn't mention the tendency of the prism to come off too easily!

Mark Dubovoy - Photo Aesthetics - Photo Aesthetics

 

[B in Toronto]

Mark Dubovoy - Photo Aesthetics - Photo Aesthetics

Interesting if a tad dispiriting.

 

[Craig Stocks]

Thanks for sharing. I agree with everything Mark said.

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Interesting if a tad dispiriting.

I don't understand - why dispiriting?

 

[Erik Lundqvist]

Thanks for posting. Interesting read with fantastic photos. Maybe I should go to New Zealand?

 

[f8orbust]

I don't understand - why dispiriting?

Maybe because unless you shoot covers for Vogue, or happen to be a retired hedge fund manager (or dentist) this kit is beyond 99.9% of photographers out there.

Personally that doesn't dispirit me at all - I mean, I can't afford an Aston Martin DB5, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying driving (plus, I'd hazard a guess that >99.9% of the greatest images in the history of the medium were taken on ... film).

I do though find MD's oft stated mantra that he's on a 'quest for the ultimate image quality' a tad wearisome. Someone should show him a 20x24 polaroid or a 16x20 contact print and he'll realize his journey could (and should) end now.

 

[kscott]

Maybe because unless you shoot covers for Vogue, or happen to be a retired hedge fund manager (or dentist) this kit is beyond 99.9% of photographers out there.

Personally that doesn't dispirit me at all - I mean, I can't afford an Aston Martin DB5, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying driving (plus, I'd hazard a guess that >99.9% of the greatest images in the history of the medium were taken on ... film).

I do though find MD's oft stated mantra that he's on a 'quest for the ultimate image quality' a tad wearisome. Someone should show him a 20x24 polaroid or a 16x20 contact print and he'll realize his journey could (and should) end now.

Even if you are a famous portrait or fashion photographer shooting expensive assignments, you are not necessarily shooting with an expensive, top-of-market MFD camera. Peter Lindbergh shoots mostly with Nikons, including this year's Pirelli calendar. Platon has mostly shot with a Hasselblad 500 film camera. Annie Liebovitz shoots with a crazy range of gear: Mamiyas, Canons, Nikons, Fujifilm, Hasselblad MFD, etc. Mark Seliger shoots with Phase One. Martin Schoeller shoots film with a Mamiya RZ67, and has at least on a few recent shoots used a Phase One. Marco Grob shoots Hasselblad MFD. David LaChapelle shoots Phase One MFD. Mario Testino shoots with a Hasselblad MFD camera, but, almost always has a small camera in his hands, more often than not a Contax. Joey L shoots with Phase One MFD. Miles Aldridge shoots film with a Rolleiflex and Leica M5. Patrick Demarchelier shoots with a mix of Canons and Hasselblad MFD. Bruce Weber shoots with everything from Rolleiflex to RED. Etc., etc.

I think the moral of the story is that you can make great images with a wide range of gear, and that not every pro uses the top-of-market MFD option, even when they could afford to do so. I'm guessing that for each of the folks I mentioned above, that they have a look that they're going for in their images, and that they use equipment that helps them to achieve that look. I suspect that they're going for uniqueness more than they are for "best possible technical image quality". Which is not to say that if you are going for the absolute best image quality that you shouldn't be able to pursue that as well. To each their own.

 

[GrahamWelland]

MD is a technology guy who strives for the ultimate in image quality and can afford to shoot with whatever he wants. There's nothing new about that and he has written a number of articles on LuLa before starting up his own tome along with Jim Taskett of Bear Images. He may prattle on about 'fine art' photography somewhat but you can't fault him for wanting to use the best possible tools he can to remove any technical limitation in his pursuit for perfection. For him, that's obviously very important.

I thought that the review was well written and for the most part objective. It wasn't a comparative review and reflected his personal bias towards Phase One and Alpa / Rodenstock (which coincidentally Jim Taskett sells), but then again there are many of us that have a similar bias (yup, guilty as charged).

Now whether you NEED this level of gear to produce 'fine art' is a completely different discussion, as is what exactly is 'fine art'? In my experience truly talented artists can and do produce great work with just about anything from a pinhole camera, cellphone, leaky film cameras with pebble lenses, point & shoots, and perhaps if they have the means, $100k 100mp XF outfits ...