The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Why do you use MF? or: I am in the MF crisis...

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
That sounds more like the Schneider than the Rodenstock? The Rodenstock is black with a red string.
Well, doh - you made me go check and yes it's a Schneider. :eek: I wonder why my brain remembered it as a Rodenstock... I guess I don't pay attention while using it. Anyway, it's excellent with the only drawback being that it's somewhat wide, but that goes with the wide field.
 

carstenw

Active member
The Rodenstock 6x loupe is kinda neat in that the skirt is reversible, and one half of the skirt is transparent, for looking at negs, and the other half is opaque, for focusing on the GG. The Schneider seems to have two skirts, i.e. there is the risk of losing one... They are about the same price.

Thomas, do you recommend the 6x for GG focusing on a 4x5? I was wondering if 4x was enough...
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Kurt, thank you for posting here specially since you are someone who choose a different path than most other answers.

The more I think about it the more 2 systems seem to support my creativity - one is the Leica M system since (for some reason) it just feels very intuitive to me, I dont have to think much, it just works, I know the system very well (using it for 20 years), I know how an image looks when I take it with the 35mm , or how it looks when I take it with 90 or with 21mm.
Its the system which lets me just photograph what I see and feel.

The 2nd system is MF.. it is not that simple (for me) but it forces and encourages me to take more time, to think about compostion etc. The images are more tecnical and less intuitive but again- it forces me to take time.

The third system I own (Nikon DSLR) just works-fast and reliable, but I feel neither as free as I do with the Leica M nor as creative when I use MF.

Its less emotional than shooting with the Leica M or the MF gear. The DSLR is very reliable though. I shot the wedding of my best friend and the Nikon felt like a life insurance when I used it. At no moment I had doubts to not get good images.

Personally I have figured out several different kinds of photography which interest me..
1) today life is fast and a lot of change.. photography allows me to catch moments of my life and bring them back to my mind. Looking at a smile of my daughter on an image allows me to remember the moment in the past and bringing it back to the presence and making me happy for a second time.
2) I realized that people enjoy to get images showing them or images from their friends/family. Example: go to a restaurant, have fun with the waiter, take some images. I bring them a print next day and I get a smile (and maybe a free beer) ...so dont document the momentd just for myself but also for others
3) photography allows to share beautifull or intersting sights/light/places with other people. They say 1 image can tell more than 1000 words and it allows to share with other people what you have seen
4) Photography forces me to feel and see my surrounding and environment more active and intensive.
5) besides all that - as a mechanical engineer I am also having fun with the equipment/technical side of photography.

Now I dont remember why I wrote all this but I will post it anyways...
Good Night, Tom
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
This thread has turned into my favorite for this year; thoughtful questions and very thoughtful responses.

Don
 

carstenw

Active member
I also like the thread a lot, but I think it is a little early to decide which thread is the best of the year :)
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I find it somewhat ironic that an interesting thread because it dealt with the people's preferences, experiences and feelings - is now turning into a competition...about what is the 'best' thread - trully funny.

Cameras arent complicated - people are.

Add the reality of limitations regarding money, time, subject matter preferences and energy and we end up with our individual choices. The more experience one has with photography, the better able to pare down or up to whatever works for the individual.

I t is as simple and complicated as that - philosophy it isnt.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
I feel I need to clarify my earlier statement.

It’s now the 28th day of the year and so far this thread has offered the most simple enjoyment and education in terms of what has been said and how. I totally agree with Carsten that while it’s a little early in the year it has nevertheless has turned in my personal favorite. The month is almost over and new things are being written on the horizon that may or may not surpass this thread only time can tell.

Guy – no poll needed nor suggested.

Peter – I agree very interesting thread and there’s no need to turn this into anything other than what it is.

As a side note – as I was writing this I began to wonder if we’ve run the course on this thus the side tracking….

Cheers

Don
 

thomas

New member
Thomas, do you recommend the 6x for GG focusing on a 4x5? I was wondering if 4x was enough...
I don't want to give misleading or wrong advice - you have to try it for yourself because this is very subjective, I think.
Maybe on a regular (i.e. non fresnel) GG 4x is good or even better to check focus and at the same time DOF and/or tilt effect (at least an idea of DOF as you can never judge about that on the GG in consequence). My feeling with regard to my fresnel GG is that the 6x is better to check focus at the absolut focus spot.
First I thought the 6x shows only more grain of the GG itself than the 4x loupe. But after carefull comparision I found the 6x in fact is better to judge about focussing. But again: I think this is very individual. All I can say is that I feel safe with the 6x Rodenstock and my fresnel GG on the WRS in conjunction with a P45 back, i.e. I can hit the focus very acurate.
The most difficult motif/focus distance is near but not quite infinity. So with the 47XL distances from about 12 meters to 16 meters or so - even shooting at f11! Here I prefer to use a Laser distometer and meanwhile I know how to adjust the lens. But it's really impossible to judge about focussing these near to infinity distances on the GG... either way which loupe I use. But I guess with film (and at f22 / f32) that's not really an issue.

My advice to you: if you get the camera just try out one of these inexpensive Kodak loupes to eye up slides (around €5,- or so). Cover it with tape so that it is not translucent anymore. If this works quite okay than try a 4x loupe with aspherical glass (the Schneider is brilliant!). If that's okay, buy it. If not not, try the 6x.
Anyways... don't buy an expensive loupe prior to having an idea what kind of loupe you will need.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
18MP are enough for allmost all of my prints.
The key word for me is "almost". Are you willing to give it up for the exceptions?

I believe most MF shooters use multiple formats ... personally I have been using a Lumix GF-1 quite a bit lately, and I know many are using an M9. But when I'm doing a serious landscape shoot, I don't want to be limited as to my final size by the camera I'm using. My goal is always large, currently my standard size is 24x30. I actually stitch MF on occasion, especially when doing pano's because even 39mp isn't enough. Now my 59mp back may be better but still not sure on panos.

I also find it much easier to compose and visualize on the ground glass of my PhaseOne system. I would have a very difficult time using an M9 as my main system, due to limitations in focal length and the viewfinder system. It would be great for a secondary camera.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
I would have a very difficult time using an M9 as my main system, due to limitations in focal length and the viewfinder system. It would be great for a secondary camera.


Exactly the same way I see it. I see the M9 as a “complementary” camera. In other words a system that will give offers great IQ but doesn’t weigh as much as a small tank. Something I can take with me to places I haven’t yet explored and still an image I can use; at the same time if I find an area that shouts for MF then I can return with the tank. I stopped counting the number of times I’ve gone out to an area I had never been before and while I got a couple decent captures with the WRS I could have just as well been there with something lighter.

Don
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Thomas, do you recommend the 6x for GG focusing on a 4x5? I was wondering if 4x was enough...
I'm not Thomas, but wanted to add my .02 for the record: IMO 4x isn't enough, and 6x is marginal. My most accurate focuses were derived with either my 8x or 10x Schneider loupes. I used the 8x with GG-fresnel combinations --- a fresnel adds a lot of "gook" to your focusing screen and it interferes with seeing precise detail as magnifications go up, similar to what Thomas mentioned regarding GG grain --- and I preferred 10X with straight GG's. On par, if I had to suggest one, I'd say get an 8, but you do need to learn to interpret the GG grain pattern and separate it from the image you're trying to focus.

My .02,
 

PSon

Active member
Tom,
I will respond to your question later time since it involves more work and writing.
Son
 

Paratom

Well-known member
While my MF back has "only" 33MP I agree that here and then the 33MP are a benefit over the 18MP.

The key word for me is "almost". Are you willing to give it up for the exceptions?

I believe most MF shooters use multiple formats ... personally I have been using a Lumix GF-1 quite a bit lately, and I know many are using an M9. But when I'm doing a serious landscape shoot, I don't want to be limited as to my final size by the camera I'm using. My goal is always large, currently my standard size is 24x30. I actually stitch MF on occasion, especially when doing pano's because even 39mp isn't enough. Now my 59mp back may be better but still not sure on panos.

I also find it much easier to compose and visualize on the ground glass of my PhaseOne system. I would have a very difficult time using an M9 as my main system, due to limitations in focal length and the viewfinder system. It would be great for a secondary camera.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
for me the keyword in the quote is "my" ("my prints" ...)
Well, I can only talk about myself and what I do, I think it is obvious that MF and more MP are an advantage for those who print big big.

Even though I have also printed nice 50x70cm prints from the M8. Depends a lot of the subject though too and I guess also on posprocessing and upsizing skills (Postprocessing is another area where I could need some improvement by the way).
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Part of the issue with enough MPX at least on the client side of life is I have been burned before badly when a client takes a M8 file and goes much BIGGER than expected or originally thought at the time of shooting. This has hurt my relationships with them in some way. You go out and charge a nice healthy day rate or creative fee and the intended image was within your gear range and you knew that going in otherwise you would rent. But it is those after the fact situations when you walk in there door and they have prints the size of a 18 wheel truck on the wall and your heart sinks to the floorboards. It's happened to me on a few occasions and I need to end that . How to end it is impossible , you can't tell your client to stop it. So for me it is to over due it with MF and simply cover my arch at all times. Now the client knows even though I gave them a smaller file there is a 40 mpx raw sitting here in my Drobo and call me and i can reprocess to the sizing they need. I tell every client this fact you need big call me FIRST.

Now does this come up enough to warrant it for some maybe but here is the point why get yourself in the jam to start with. Not worth the embarrassment that as hard and as good as the image is for the client it falls short on sizing. For me I can't handle that and maybe that is part of being the perfectionist that I am when I deliver to clients but I want to avoid those situations to start with. Just knowing I can do anything I want or the client wants to my files gives me peace of mind and adds value to my business. Now obviously we are all not in this situation but even as a hobbyist you nail one one day that is just killer and it does come up when someone may want to buy a print and they want it big. Obviously there is genuine factals and techniques to get there but having that file on hand is very satisfying as a shooter be it a Pro or not.

The bottom line for me is this if I can see the quality difference in even in a small print size than that is enough for me to shoot MF all the time. There is a certain pride I carry regardless of client needs that I need to fill personally with my work. You have to make yourself happy before you ever make the client happy . My one liner that I have used in my signature still holds very true here. I pretty much live and die by this rule

"It's not always about what the client will accept but about what you want to deliver to your client."


On a very personal note I have not been happier in my whole career and it is a long one until I moved to MF digital.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Good morning ? Guy
the problem is I am my own client and I am picky sometimes.
I can fully see your reasons to use MF (plus I can see that its much easier to justify such gear if you make money with it)
And I agree that even if you do not intent to shoot something for a big print it is good to have the option to print big if you get a real keeper image.

On the other side I wouldnt underrate the M9. There are situations where I believe I can take the better image with the M9, specially if you do not have that much light and if you shoot people etc.
A slight focus inaccurany, slight shake vibration, cranked up ISO etc. will destroy big part of the MF advantage.
Plus the M9 comes out of the back, switched on, focused etc faster than my MF gear - so sometimes you catch a moment with the M9 which woiuld have gone once my MF gear would be ready to shoot.
Same for situations where you could shoot handheld with the M9 but would need a tripod when shotting MF.

One thing I am kind of surprized is that you guys do use 4/3 as a secondary system but not Leica M. IMO the difference in IQ between 4/3 and M9 is there and visible.


Part of the issue with enough MPX at least on the client side of life is I have been burned before badly when a client takes a M8 file and goes much BIGGER than expected or originally thought at the time of shooting. This has hurt my relationships with them in some way. You go out and charge a nice healthy day rate or creative fee and the intended image was within your gear range and you knew that going in otherwise you would rent. But it is those after the fact situations when you walk in there door and they have prints the size of a 18 wheel truck on the wall and your heart sinks to the floorboards. It's happened to me on a few occasions and I need to end that . How to end it is impossible , you can't tell your client to stop it. So for me it is to over due it with MF and simply cover my arch at all times. Now the client knows even though I gave them a smaller file there is a 40 mpx raw sitting here in my Drobo and call me and i can reprocess to the sizing they need. I tell every client this fact you need big call me FIRST.

Now does this come up enough to warrant it for some maybe but here is the point why get yourself in the jam to start with. Not worth the embarrassment that as hard and as good as the image is for the client it falls short on sizing. For me I can't handle that and maybe that is part of being the perfectionist that I am when I deliver to clients but I want to avoid those situations to start with. Just knowing I can do anything I want or the client wants to my files gives me peace of mind and adds value to my business. Now obviously we are all not in this situation but even as a hobbyist you nail one one day that is just killer and it does come up when someone may want to buy a print and they want it big. Obviously there is genuine factals and techniques to get there but having that file on hand is very satisfying as a shooter be it a Pro or not.

The bottom line for me is this if I can see the quality difference in even in a small print size than that is enough for me to shoot MF all the time. There is a certain pride I carry regardless of client needs that I need to fill personally with my work. You have to make yourself happy before you ever make the client happy . My one liner that I have used in my signature still holds very true here. I pretty much live and die by this rule

"It's not always about what the client will accept but about what you want to deliver to your client."
 

thomas

New member
Well, I can only talk about myself and what I do ...
Depends a lot of the subject
yes, that's what I wanted to emphasize: it really depends on what you shoot and the way (and size) you print.
I have even a 90x60cm print from a 10MP DSLR and it's really very nice. However this only applies to that special motif and I would never say with 10MP you can always print 90x60.
Finally, and that's probably the most important point, it depends on the look you prefer; an uber sharp look is not everyones taste. This depends on the printing technique and the papers you use as well. Me personally I love the look of an LED printer on FUJI papers. No inkjet printer produces that photographic look nor does a lambda (laser) printer produces that look. Than again when I intend to produce a somewhat artificial pushy look I prefer inkjet prints (and the required post processing, of course).

Your M9's 18MP are huge! You can do many, many things with 18MP.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Good morning ? Guy
the problem is I am my own client and I am picky sometimes.
I can fully see your reasons to use MF (plus I can see that its much easier to justify such gear if you make money with it)
And I agree that even if you do not intent to shoot something for a big print it is good to have the option to print big if you get a real keeper image.

On the other side I wouldnt underrate the M9. There are situations where I believe I can take the better image with the M9, specially if you do not have that much light and if you shoot people etc.
A slight focus inaccurany, slight shake vibration, cranked up ISO etc. will destroy big part of the MF advantage.
Plus the M9 comes out of the back, switched on, focused etc faster than my MF gear - so sometimes you catch a moment with the M9 which woiuld have gone once my MF gear would be ready to shoot.
Same for situations where you could shoot handheld with the M9 but would need a tripod when shotting MF.

One thing I am kind of surprized is that you guys do use 4/3 as a secondary system but not Leica M. IMO the difference in IQ between 4/3 and M9 is there and visible.
Well I had the M8 and it was not enough . The M9 would be a lot better for sure. Problem with it is cost and it's a 12k investment to a backup system or secondary system. Hard to do both , the 4/3 rds is truly the fun camera and run out the door type. My primary is full res MF my secondary is sensor plus although same system. But to me your right I would love to have the M9 as the secondary system the issue is cost and also the limitations . You adding another system in that can't do certain things. Like walking with two bum knees's instead of 1.

I thought seriously about another M8 but I don't want to go backwards either but if I could get a M9 system for cheap than i will replace the 4/3rds with it. This is going to take some time and a better economy to get one
 
Top