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!

MF digital newbies, so what have you learned

BradleyGibson

New member
I've learned that it is next to impossible to use telephoto lenses from around 200-250mm and up on focal plane shutter medium format systems in available light and achieve a critical, top quality result.

The shutter vibrations (not mirror slap), even at 1/focal length rule, cause substantial blur and often we don't even have *that* much light...
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Only a few weeks' experience here, but I've found a few things that have struck me...

For one, focusing is INDEED a task that takes great care. In 35mm, I shot fast primes exclusively (1.4 and faster)... and I'll admit my keeper rate isn't much different with MF. The difference is that I shoot about a 10th the number of frames. I've been looking through a session from pre-christmas that was shot with my 5Dii. Slight OoF was everywhere....

With my MF gear, I find that I generally set composition, then manual focus, then shoot. Manual focusing is really pretty easy if you take your time. It's had two very positive effects: 1) I don't cull as much due to bad composition and 2) It's slowed down my shooting immensely and consequently the quality from shot-to-shot is MUCH higher.

A monopod is now my best friend :D. The need for higher shutter speeds in tandem with the lower ISO and "Slower" glass can be a real whammy for handholding.

This next one may seem silly... but the tripod socket on the afdIII takes a larger thread, and my passable (but heavy) tripod has a non-removable head with a smaller thread size. I can't currently use my tripod! I can buy an inexpensive thread adapter, but I can already see that what worked for my light-ish 5d isn't going to pass for the mamiya/leaf... so, add one more expense to dante's account as I now begin shopping for a better tripod/head arrangement.

Shutter lag. TBH, I can't tell what is "lag" and what is just design differences... but even at 1/1000th the huge shutter/mirror assembly just sounds slow. This really takes some getting used to. Even at VERY high shutter speeds, the camera doesn't have the reassuringly compact "chick, chick" of a smaller camera. More like a howitzer. :ROTFL:

Finally... the aspect ratio is much more in line with the aesthetic that I prefer. I don't crop the edges off of frames much at all... daddy like!
 

Frits

Member
Hey, following years of shooting with a DSLR I am happy to be a "Newbie" again :D.

I have been a Nikon DSLR shooter since years, my latest being the D700 - truly the best DSLR I ever owned and an awesome performer.

A little over a year ago I gave in to a long time craving and got myself a Hasselblad 500 C/M, just for nostalgia sake. After only a short while I got a digital back for it (Phase One P21) and I have been in love with MF ever since.
So much so, that I have stepped up to a Hasselblad H1 / Phase One P25+.
The step up in IQ is awesome. I print a fair bit at 13 X 19 and the increase in especially DR is great. The inherent (shallow) DOF of the format makes for very pretty renditions also.
I mostly like to shoot people and landscape (travel also) and there is no turning back here.
I will hang on to my Nikon gear for a while, but I may well let it go altogether (I have a nifty Olympus E-PL1 M 3/4 for easy walkabout backup).
 

dchew

Well-known member
Another thing I'm learning and I haven't even made the switch yet: The value of a good dealer. For years I've just been buying stuff at B&H. I think that works for 35mm equipment. But for this stuff, the dealer is a critical. Knowledge, testing, rentals, and just kicking around options.

Invaluable.

Dave
 

mvirtue

New member
I too started off the hard way searching the internet. Most searches lead me here. Compared to the DSLR world where every accessory is listed, but maybe not described, you cannot find what is available. So figuring out what adapter plate one needs is an exercise in futility. Again to beat that dead horse:

1. Get a good dealer
2. Get a good dealer
3. Understand what you want to do with the gear
4. The equipment is not a jack of all trades
5. You most likely will have more than 1 system, be it a uber compact, M9, or a DSLR
6. Dante is now your best friend
7. You will cringe every time you see an image from your other system and wonder how you could use your MF gear to cover that use case

On the technical end:
1) DOF is still narrow
2) Manual focusing is still as hard as it was 30 years ago but our eye sight has gotten worse
3) Modern technology will really tell us when we messed up #2. Looking at the negs from when I owned a 500C/M, only for a year, my focusing with my RZ is about the same. When you nail the focus, OMG the images are delicious and addictive.
4) Expect to re-learn your work flow.
 
G

GASC

Guest
Thanks for that interesting thread Guy, just saw it late. Finally a MF topic without a versus or an against.

Working (assisting) in high-end commercial, I'm working with Canons and Blads. Strictly talking about MF, focussing models is a sort of "unsecure" experience compared to the Canons at first but I learned to take some marks on the ground. With experienced models focussing is not an issue at all (because an experienced model hardly move), I must say that my rate of keepers increased with practise even on faster actions.

On the plateau, I must admit that like my boss, I hate tether. Don't get me wrong. It's not that tether is bad, is that it is very distracting. Actually we don't tether with the Canon because of that but shoot on cards. It is horrible to hear the third assistant screaming "you're spot-on", "you're too far" etc...but the most distracting is that stylists and make-up artists are not watching the talent but the computers. The Apple gadgets, although usefull have multiplied the distracting. I'm fed-up to see everybody talking about the new iphone gadget in the pauses and bringing back them to work while they should be concentrated on the plateau is a real task. Since that, I don't count the number of times people stepping on cables, not noticing a reflect or a tear on the eyes because of the lightning etc...that never happens in a non tether session.

I'm not a Phase users and can't comment on that, but I find the Hasselblad files extremely solid, they really handle severe post-prod without problems.

Commercialy, in the kind of photography I'm immerged, MF is not sailable or necessary to clients. So the choice of shooting MF has more to do with looking for a certain render or simply a personal pleasure towards quality. The cost of the equipment is what is, I don't find it expensive or cheap in the context of a professional activity but the coast is in way a "lost cost", I rarelly saw an example where MF was the deal. If I was in arquitecture it would be completly different.

Having said that, the results in terms of IQ is no way comparable to what dslrs can give, and I will never end to be surprised and fed-up with those silly thread over the internet trying to compare dslrs with MF or trying to discredit MF users with stupid arguments.
 

Frits

Member
Having said that, the results in terms of IQ is no way comparable to what dslrs can give, and I will never end to be surprised and fed-up with those silly thread over the internet trying to compare dslrs with MF or trying to discredit MF users with stupid arguments.
Completely agree!
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Having said that, the results in terms of IQ is no way comparable to what dslrs can give, and I will never end to be surprised and fed-up with those silly thread over the internet trying to compare dslrs with MF or trying to discredit MF users with stupid arguments.

You won my member of the week award. Well said
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Actually this is a older thread , glad to see it back to life and a good time for it as well. Some great reading material here.
 

David Schneider

New member
Guy,

I was surprised I miss this thread when I was doing my homework so thought it would good to kick it up to the top. Maybe down the road in another 6 months or a year someone else will find it and do the same.
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
I missed it too - good thread - lots of interesting ideas and information. Soon I may be the only person still shooting 35mm!
Well... if there is a 35mm camera out there that competes with MF on image quality, it's the M9. It's like taking all the good things of MF and compacting them for the M user... and those lenses, oh those lenses.

I say stay with Leica, Jono... you really, really make it sing in your "in the moment" kind of way (and I mean that as a high compliment). We've talked about working style, and you've mentioned that your best work tends to be spontaneous and reactive... as an MF newbie, I think you'd lose that quality in your work were you to go MF. If anything, it has made my working method slower and more deliberate.
 
Last edited:

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Well... if there is a 35mm camera out there that competes with MF on image quality, it's the M9. It's like taking all the good things of MF and compacting them for the M user...
I completely agree. I'm sure part of that is due the fact that the M9 essentially has a MF sensor in it too. I find it a perfect complement to medium format, and based on the number of M9 shooters at the last GetDPI workshop I noted that ~50% choose the Leica and the remainder chose the Panasonic m4/3rds systems for their secondary camera choice. I'm sure that this is no accident!

Jono: if it's not broken, don't fix it. You seem to be doing just fine with your M's ... :thumbs:

mvirtue said:
I too started off the hard way searching the internet. Most searches lead me here. Compared to the DSLR world where every accessory is listed, but maybe not described, you cannot find what is available. So figuring out what adapter plate one needs is an exercise in futility. Again to beat that dead horse:

1. Get a good dealer
2. Get a good dealer
3. Understand what you want to do with the gear
4. The equipment is not a jack of all trades
5. You most likely will have more than 1 system, be it a uber compact, M9, or a DSLR
6. Dante is now your best friend
7. You will cringe every time you see an image from your other system and wonder how you could use your MF gear to cover that use case

On the technical end:
1) DOF is still narrow
2) Manual focusing is still as hard as it was 30 years ago but our eye sight has gotten worse
3) Modern technology will really tell us when we messed up #2. Looking at the negs from when I owned a 500C/M, only for a year, my focusing with my RZ is about the same. When you nail the focus, OMG the images are delicious and addictive.
All very true with the exception of (7), depending upon what your other system is of course. The DoF difference is still the one that bites me when I return to MF. I go from oodles of DoF when shooting 35mm to narrow DoF with MF and kick myself when I forget to compensate or focus stack when shooting landscapes.

The exquisite look of the files is intoxicating though, especially in print.
 

MaxKißler

New member
Well being a newbie to photography and MFD, I guess it's about time to contribute to this thread...

First of all, I'm constantly learning something new. Of course I know the basics but whenever I go out and shoot I discover some way to improve my capturing. It's just amazing and later I'm getting more skilled in PP. At least I hope so! ;) It's an interesting process I'm in, in which I'm developing my "view". Processing that "correct" WB and how to compose appealingly etc. is also part of that process...

Now the main reasons (not in order of priority) for me to abandon my 35mm gear and go MF were:
-Narrower DoF - which I find very very beautiful.
-12 stops of DR to get that 3D-look (true DR, not what the poeple of "dxomark" think... :loco: )
-Sharper images
-Better IQ
-The opportunity to use film

I find it much more challenging to work with medium format. Focussing especially with an open aperture often results in really beautiful images when I'm doing portraits and it reminds me to think of what I'm doing and not just point and shoot.

I guess I just prefer working slower to get better results. A friend of mine uses a 35mm dslr and takes 10 times as much images as I do but in the end we both have about the same keeper rate...
 
G

GASC

Guest
Well being a newbie to photography and MFD, I -12 stops of DR to get that 3D-look (true DR, not what the poeple of "dxomark" think... :loco: )

I guess I just prefer working slower to get better results. A friend of mine uses a 35mm dslr and takes 10 times as much images as I do but in the end we both have about the same keeper rate...
Oh yes, those DxO...I think that the day they invented that (on an inocent attempt) they did not realise they just dropped an hydrogen bomb on the photography forums.

It has became a reference for discrediting MF gear, a sort of scientific proof for the week-end engineers and alimentates the hot and useless debates like "my gear is better than yours".

With DxO, now the pentax K7 matches the P65+ . We are living on a nice imaginary disneyland planet.

There is a thread on the Luminous Landscape that's worth to mention, in the very line of the DxOers. It's called 645D vs D3x (you knew there was a versus didn't you). This never ending topic full of graphics, "proofs" of all kind has reached so far 150 repplies from members and the incredible number of 7153 views at the time I write this...and it keeps going.

If you have the time to read it...:sleep006:

As you see, a lot to do with photography, sorry, doxography.
 

MaxKißler

New member
An interesting thing I forgot to mention: The longer I use my gear, the better it gets. Sounds weird, but somehow that's how it is. My ZD Back for instance. I was told that exposures longer than 3 seconds were extremely noisy. I experiance that I could expose up to 15 seconds without visible noise and even 30 seconds are quite usable. Then my 45mm Mamiya lens, it used to show greenish CAs if if not stopped down. Now they're gone, when it's used wide open.
 

MaxKißler

New member
Oh yes, those DxO...I think that the day they invented that (on an inocent attempt) they did not realise they just dropped an hydrogen bomb on the photography forums.

It has became a reference for discrediting MF gear, a sort of scientific proof for the week-end engineers and alimentates the hot and useless debates like "my gear is better than yours".

With DxO, now the pentax K7 matches the P65+ . We are living on a nice imaginary disneyland planet.

There is a thread on the Luminous Landscape that's worth to mention, in the very line of the DxOers. It's called 645D vs D3x (you knew there was a versus didn't you). This never ending topic full of graphics, "proofs" of all kind has reached so far 150 repplies from members and the incredible number of 7153 views at the time I write this...and it keeps going.

If you have the time to read it...:sleep006:

As you see, a lot to do with photography, sorry, doxography.
Hahaha you are right, a disneyland it is (or was it dxoland?)! Thanks for the info, I'll check it out. This whole dxo-nonsense thaught me one thing and that is: compare the results of whatever you want to compare with your own eyes without knowing which is which. This way you are more likely to find what is most appealing to you.

Ohh wait, I guess it thaught me one more thing: Just don't compare apples with oranges...
 

D&A

Well-known member
Well the one thing I am learning with MFD, is one can go broke...LOL! A slippery slope it most definitely is! Although I had dabbled with MFD for a brief time when the H2D was first released (having shot with the Pentax 67 for years). I've recently been working with a Pentax 645D camera/lenses to see what it's capable of vis-a-vis, its strengths and weaknesses for a variety of applications.

Graham wrote--->>> "I completely agree. I'm sure part of that is due the fact that the M9 essentially has a MF sensor in it too. I find it a perfect complement to medium format, and based on the number of M9 shooters at the last GetDPI workshop I noted that ~50% choose the Leica and the remainder chose the Panasonic m4/3rds systems for their secondary camera choice. I'm sure that this is no accident!

The exquisite look of the files is intoxicating though, especially in print."<<<

Agree to both these points. The M9 seems to be a perfect complement to MFD, occasionally as a travel companion to the MFD system, but more often as a alternative when the M9 is a more appropriate camera to work with under certain shooting situations. The quality of the files is sufficiently high enough that the regret of not having the MFD on hand is often molified. Prints from both are extremely satisfying and that is ultimately the goal for my particular shoots. Whther the MFD/rangefinder combo can completely suplant the DSLR...thats been a difficult question for me to personally answer at this point...but it doesn't seem to be the case.

GASC Wrote--->>>"There is a thread on the Luminous Landscape that's worth to mention, in the very line of the DxOers. It's called 645D vs D3x (you knew there was a versus didn't you). This never ending topic full of graphics, "proofs" of all kind has reached so far 150 replies from members and the incredible number of 7153 views at the time I write this...and it keeps going.

If you have the time to read it"<<<

I recently read that entire thread. No doubt there is some ligitimacy in some of whats posted. For myself personally (and I'm sure for some others), the quility of output to large format prints is the taletale differences that I look for when shooting different systems. As good as the D3x camera is, I personally have found the the Penatx 645D can most definitely surpass it in a good number of ways when the print size itself is sufficiently large. This of course were comparisons made with some of Nikon's and Pentax's finest lenses. I believe it was Graham who suggested in one of the postings on that LL thread, that it might be interesting to compare a Max Max converted D3x with lenses such as Nikon's 24 T/S and others. I agree, it would make things very interesting.

One aspect that I find is acutely evident, is selection of good performing lenses seems on the whole more of a crap shoot when it comes to comparing the Pentax 645D MFD system to say the rangefinder or even the DSLR. This may be more of a consequence of the offerings of Pentax legacy AF 645 lenses on the 645D, which were all (except for one) designed in the film era. Performance varies tremendously for most, even among samples of the same lens. This same sort of situation evolved when Pentax released it's very first DSLR (which was at a time that put it years behind the curve). They had some incredibly expensive "high end" performing pro SLR lenses that when interfaced with Pentax's DSLR's (for the 1st few generations), performed poorly in a great many situations and were reduced in performance to being no better than low end consumer lenses. In some respects, although not all, there is sort of a repeat of history...having a good body ready without the testing and support of some basic but important lenses in the most often used focal lengths. Pentax is well aware of the situation, but the solution requires major $$ investment fro them.

Each system (MFD, rangefinder, DSLR, 4/3ths etc.) will always have its strengths, whether strictly for file size/quality, shallow depth of field, stealth/portability, or for applications (sports, wildlife) where particular attributes make it a natural for tackling the job. As is often said, picking the right tool for the job is what's important.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:
Top