gogopix
Subscriber
Sounds clumsy compared to using the Phase with contax. THAT combination is unbelievably small and compact on the Alpa 12 TC
Last edited:
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!
Strengths and Weaknesses of Various Backs
- Thread starter Mitchell
- Start date
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
It can be. But for those who want an H3DII, and also want to utilize the digital magazine of the H3DII and its 3" best in class LCD screen on the Alpa, it may be worth the bit of clumsiness. Remember, the 100GB ImageBank can fit in your pocket and will record over 1000 images non-stop.
Otherwise, Hasselblad makes the CF digital backs, which now have a 2.5" TFT screen, and come with their own battery, so they don't require the ImageBank for power.
Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
It draws power from the camera grip, so when removed from the H3D-II camera it needs to be hooked up to the Image bank that supplies power.
The better Hasselblad choice is a 2HF with a CF back that has it's own battery and can be used on any number of cameras.
However, I think on an ALPA, a compact BLACK back with a self-contained battery such as the Phase One P39+ is the way to go. I like how the Phase battery snugs flush inside the body, yet the whole thing remains quite small.
T
thsinar
Guest
I have avoided to jump in until now, but have a look at a high ISO (800) sample out of a Sinarback eMotion 75 here:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683&page=6
Does it not make your statement and this belief below becoming "relative"?
Best regards,
Thierry
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1683&page=6
Does it not make your statement and this belief below becoming "relative"?
Best regards,
Thierry
gogopix
Subscriber
From what I can see the ISO advantage today goes to Sinar 75LV with the new board. Whatever it does, it seems to provide virtually noiseless files at 800 that can be 'pushes' in post 3 stops. Two of us did it.
To be verified, as it was only one file. However, I can say that the P45+ is several stops slower (for comparable noise). I want to see a raw P30+ file. It goes to 1600, but pushing has not been tested.
Tom, you have a P30+. Would you be willing to share a slightlyt underexposed file?
Or Lance?
Regards
Victor
PS If the P30+ gets close, remember is is considerably cheaper. But I am not sure it DOES get close. For me the speed is where it's at now.
PPS Yes, the Phase has great long exposure capability, but that presumes you have a stable target.
To be verified, as it was only one file. However, I can say that the P45+ is several stops slower (for comparable noise). I want to see a raw P30+ file. It goes to 1600, but pushing has not been tested.
Tom, you have a P30+. Would you be willing to share a slightlyt underexposed file?
Or Lance?
Regards
Victor
PS If the P30+ gets close, remember is is considerably cheaper. But I am not sure it DOES get close. For me the speed is where it's at now.
PPS Yes, the Phase has great long exposure capability, but that presumes you have a stable target.
lance_schad
Workshop Member
Will work on getting you file in PR.
Lance
Lance
Dale Allyn
New member
Great information in this thread. Thank you.
So here's a question for those of you with experience with MFDBs: If you were to purchase a body and back with the idea that you were looking for an improvement over full-frame 135 format for field work (i.e. not commercial, studio, product, etc.), which would you choose? When I say "an improvement" I mean without moving to a view camera and 4x5 film, but for making fine prints of about 24x36" or 30x40", etc.
I don't mind if reps are biased in their responses – we're all grown-ups (sort of) and we'll work through it. In fact it would be very helpful for reps to point us in the correct direction within their own lines if they feel their product is well suited to the usage I've described.
In my case, I'd like to find a combination that would make sense for short hiking trips, road trips, national parks, local outdoor stuff (you know, all the stuff that makes the uber-pros gag
). I don't do many portraits, but those that I do make are of the travel type mostly. Most of my work is not cropped at all so I will have to change my practice at times since I find the more square formats less desirable at times (personal taste and a phobia for throwing out pixels ). Many years ago I worked in a photo equipment shop and pro lab so I have handled or used many of the predecessors to what we currently have available (in terms of ergonomics and such). I love what I'm seeing in the Sinar ISO 800 thread that Thierry posted, but I doubt that I'd jump in with a 75s right off (unless that's the appropriate tier for this purpose), so info on the 54xx line would be great.
So if you don't want to shoot tethered, don't do fashion or commercial product or portraits, which components would YOU choose? We're talking working from a pack, outdoor light on the LCD, etc.
Thank you very much for any guidance.
Dale
So here's a question for those of you with experience with MFDBs: If you were to purchase a body and back with the idea that you were looking for an improvement over full-frame 135 format for field work (i.e. not commercial, studio, product, etc.), which would you choose? When I say "an improvement" I mean without moving to a view camera and 4x5 film, but for making fine prints of about 24x36" or 30x40", etc.
I don't mind if reps are biased in their responses – we're all grown-ups (sort of) and we'll work through it. In fact it would be very helpful for reps to point us in the correct direction within their own lines if they feel their product is well suited to the usage I've described.
In my case, I'd like to find a combination that would make sense for short hiking trips, road trips, national parks, local outdoor stuff (you know, all the stuff that makes the uber-pros gag
). I don't do many portraits, but those that I do make are of the travel type mostly. Most of my work is not cropped at all so I will have to change my practice at times since I find the more square formats less desirable at times (personal taste and a phobia for throwing out pixels ). Many years ago I worked in a photo equipment shop and pro lab so I have handled or used many of the predecessors to what we currently have available (in terms of ergonomics and such). I love what I'm seeing in the Sinar ISO 800 thread that Thierry posted, but I doubt that I'd jump in with a 75s right off (unless that's the appropriate tier for this purpose), so info on the 54xx line would be great. So if you don't want to shoot tethered, don't do fashion or commercial product or portraits, which components would YOU choose? We're talking working from a pack, outdoor light on the LCD, etc.
Thank you very much for any guidance.
Dale
Last edited:
PeterA
Well-known member
"In my case, I'd like to find a combination that would make sense for short hiking trips, road trips, national parks, local outdoor stuff (you know, all the stuff that makes the uber-pros gag )"
I like those disposable water proof cameras which you buy and have processing included.
I like those disposable water proof cameras which you buy and have processing included.
Last edited:
Dale Allyn
New member
Peter,
Thanks, but I was thinking of something with a bit more panache. I appreciate the thought though.
(BTW: In my post I was making fun of myself for being an amateur, not making fun of pros – hence the grin.)
Thanks, but I was thinking of something with a bit more panache. I appreciate the thought though.
(BTW: In my post I was making fun of myself for being an amateur, not making fun of pros – hence the grin.)
For that specific application I'd select one of the portable cameras sporting digital APO view camera lenses ... top of the line being the uber expensive ALPA, but certainly not the only choice. I'd select a 39 meg PhaseOne P45+ for it's compactness and versatility. Discounting long exposure ability as being for motionless subjects is dismissing a whole category of photography some people engage in. So, it depends on application.Great information in this thread. Thank you.
So here's a question for those of you with experience with MFDBs: If you were to purchase a body and back with the idea that you were looking for an improvement over full-frame 135 format for field work (i.e. not commercial, studio, product, etc.), which would you choose? When I say "an improvement" I mean without moving to a view camera and 4x5 film, but for making fine prints of about 24x36" or 30x40", etc.
I don't mind if reps are biased in their responses – we're all grown-ups (sort of) and we'll work through it. In fact it would be very helpful for reps to point us in the correct direction within their own lines if they feel their product is well suited to the usage I've described.
In my case, I'd like to find a combination that would make sense for short hiking trips, road trips, national parks, local outdoor stuff (you know, all the stuff that makes the uber-pros gag
So if you don't want to shoot tethered, don't do fashion or commercial product or portraits, which components would YOU choose? We're talking working from a pack, outdoor light on the LCD, etc.
Thank you very much for any guidance.
Dale
NONE of the MF lens selections compare in IQ to the digital APO view camera lenses now available. If the P45+ is to rich for a start, then a P25+ and upgrade later... or a refurb P45 which is LOT less costly. With such lenses you will realize the true potential of the higher meg backs.
Since discriminatory bias is now permitted, I will say I do NOT like the IQ of the ISO 800 files from the Sinar that were posted ... and it served to sell me off the back for now... they are just to plastic looking for my tastes. Perfect for pixel peepers, but to my eye it feels like it sucks the dimensional character out of the image.
The 800 files I've seen (and made) from the Aptus 75s are more to my liking. And I can subjectively say for sure that I agree with Mark K that the Hasselblad 800 files are better than both, and the camera has the best LCD.
However, for the application you mention, and use on a small portable view camera, I still think a Phase One is the best all-around choice.
It's all so subjective. Unfortunately, one needs to live with these different solutions in order to realize their full potential. So anything concerning the Sinar application IQ is based on hearsay either way. I just think it is a big back compared to other portable solutions with just as good IQ ... or better depending on your personal tastes.
Dale Allyn
New member
Thank you for the reply. It's very helpful.
Funny, I studied the Sinar 800 ISO prints with an eye to noise only. I'll look again at other characteristics. I think ideally I'll need to capture and process my own images to draw conclusions with regard to other aspects. I'm not looking for a back for the sole purpose of shooting at ISO 800, but it would be nice to not be locked to ISO 50 or 100 for certain projects. And long exposures are important to me.
I've been looking at the Phase backs and I just wasn't sure I was ready to bite off the whole piece of the P45+, but it sure is appealing. But so are the other backs in that class.
I'm still not certain which camera body would be the best approach (not referring to a view camera). I've always liked Contax and I'm thinking that may be the right choice; I don't know much about the Hy6; and Mamiya gets lots of options and is affordable. I can't justify top-shelf just now and hope to find a good intro into MF digital for the sort of photography I enjoy so that I can get my feet wet before getting in over my head.
Cheers,
Dale
Dale, the difference is between a Focal Plane shutter camera and a Leaf Shutter camera. ContaxAF & MamiyaAFD are 645 focal plane shutter cameras with a low flash sync speed, but a high top shutter speed. The Hy6 and Hasselblad H1/2/3 are Leaf Shutter cameras with flash sync at all shutter speeds, but top out at 1/800th/1/1000th.
Your applications can help decide which is better for you. For example, a high flash sync speed is important for my applications because I shoot with strobes or fill flash 90% of the time when using a MF camera... so I selected Hasselbald. But not everyone needs that.
Take a look at Irakly Shandize's work with a Contax 645 and P25 back. His entire digital MF system (camera, finder, multiple lenses and digital back, cost less than some of these backs alone. Doesn't seem to hurt his images
T
thsinar
Guest
Dear Marc,
Thanks and best regards,
Thierry
Since when?
Quite a puzzling comment: can you define the word "plastic"? I could (or anybody else) easily make it look different and more tastable for your eye, but the purpose was not that, but to give an idea what ISO 800 looks like with an eMotion 75.
It would be nice to see such ISO files taken with other backs: can you please share for our own judgement?
Thanks and best regards,
Thierry
Since when? LOL.
Plastic looking, waxy. As in made of Plastic. It's stricty a subjective POV. Subjective, as in my opinion. Others may love it, strive for it. Live for it ... I do not ... and I do not care if I am dead alone in this opinion.
Sorry, when it comes to my work I don't care about your judgement, or any one else's for that matter ... except those who pay me for it
No need to worry about me, or my opinion. There are plenty of avocates and supporters here. You can't win over everyone ... it's the nature of art.
gogopix
Subscriber
Marc
Your comment goes right to the heart of what I mean when I request the raw image. The noise is there; in film is was really bad compared to digital. But to me, IQ has much more to do with what you (and I in the past) have called dimensionality.
We lack the vocabulary (as audio people did) for these qualitative aspects that are judgments. But we don't buy low noise any more than we buy low harmonic distortion as the sole criterion. Whether 'presence' or 3-D, or dimensionality (and I could give a slightly different connotation to each) it come down to this; is the image 'alive' in some sense.
Cartier-Bresson didnt worry, Avedon didnt woryy (and half his stuff is really OOF!) what I look for to appreciate in art and in photopgraphy is that communication of a point in time that is so great to see. In pedestrian images, it sometimes means even OOF or ill lit, but it is still interesting.
What the backs do would NOT seem to contribute; glass, processing, yes. SO in looking at backs and saying 'plasticky' (Oh, I know what you mean, and it is usually over-noise reduced low level posterizing) THAT is what must be broken down here; is the 75LV got the goods, that is, low noise, without killing the dimensionality, or is there some hidden conversion.
If NOT then it is a clear winner (pending my look at the P30+)
If it is, then Phase is for me! and I will live with the noise (or more likely, find a way to add light)
or, go back and look at the Leaf (the images I saw actually looked a little plasticky, but that may have been the glass or processing)
(I have recently added a few Profoto monos to my arsenal and yet, trekking to some church village in the basgue region is not in the cards! Noise lowering is still an issue for me)
I would like to see more comments, esp by professionals and semi-pros (say, how much money do you have to make before you can migrate from serious amateur to semi-pro?) of the QUALITATIVE aspects of images. I think we understand the noise - and the synch speeds and the whatever measurable stuff. We need to judge the 'life' of an image.
Why, at the end of the day do we reach for certain lenses and cameras? (for me Zeiss and Leica) and for all the hoopla, we get tired of the Canikon glass pretty fast.
Yes some of the D3, 105 shots were good, but.. [oops that's for another forrum
Anyway, Thanks, Marc, and I hope others with a good eye pipe in
regards
Victor
Your comment goes right to the heart of what I mean when I request the raw image. The noise is there; in film is was really bad compared to digital. But to me, IQ has much more to do with what you (and I in the past) have called dimensionality.
We lack the vocabulary (as audio people did) for these qualitative aspects that are judgments. But we don't buy low noise any more than we buy low harmonic distortion as the sole criterion. Whether 'presence' or 3-D, or dimensionality (and I could give a slightly different connotation to each) it come down to this; is the image 'alive' in some sense.
Cartier-Bresson didnt worry, Avedon didnt woryy (and half his stuff is really OOF!) what I look for to appreciate in art and in photopgraphy is that communication of a point in time that is so great to see. In pedestrian images, it sometimes means even OOF or ill lit, but it is still interesting.
What the backs do would NOT seem to contribute; glass, processing, yes. SO in looking at backs and saying 'plasticky' (Oh, I know what you mean, and it is usually over-noise reduced low level posterizing) THAT is what must be broken down here; is the 75LV got the goods, that is, low noise, without killing the dimensionality, or is there some hidden conversion.
If NOT then it is a clear winner (pending my look at the P30+)
If it is, then Phase is for me! and I will live with the noise (or more likely, find a way to add light)
or, go back and look at the Leaf (the images I saw actually looked a little plasticky, but that may have been the glass or processing)
(I have recently added a few Profoto monos to my arsenal and yet, trekking to some church village in the basgue region is not in the cards! Noise lowering is still an issue for me)
I would like to see more comments, esp by professionals and semi-pros (say, how much money do you have to make before you can migrate from serious amateur to semi-pro?) of the QUALITATIVE aspects of images. I think we understand the noise - and the synch speeds and the whatever measurable stuff. We need to judge the 'life' of an image.
Why, at the end of the day do we reach for certain lenses and cameras? (for me Zeiss and Leica) and for all the hoopla, we get tired of the Canikon glass pretty fast.
Yes some of the D3, 105 shots were good, but.. [oops that's for another forrum
Anyway, Thanks, Marc, and I hope others with a good eye pipe in
regards
Victor
lance_schad
Workshop Member
Victor,
You may just want to maybe rent a P30+ for a bit and put it through its paces using your own shooting style. I think you will be very satisfied with its high iso performance. There have also been improvements in the processing of the RAW files in CaptureOne Pro 4.x .
I will try to get a file up when I get down to the workshop to hold you over.
L
Lance Schad
Capture Integration - Miami/Atlanta
305-394-3196 cell | 305-534-5702 office
Capture Integration
My Blog
[email protected]
You may just want to maybe rent a P30+ for a bit and put it through its paces using your own shooting style. I think you will be very satisfied with its high iso performance. There have also been improvements in the processing of the RAW files in CaptureOne Pro 4.x .
I will try to get a file up when I get down to the workshop to hold you over.
L
Lance Schad
Capture Integration - Miami/Atlanta
305-394-3196 cell | 305-534-5702 office
Capture Integration
My Blog
[email protected]
T
thsinar
Guest
it's not about winning anything here, Marc.
I was simply wondering how you can judge a file/image to be "plastic", or this or that, when you have not been there to see and compare with the scene itself: that seems a bit difficult for me to do.
But I respect your judgement and didn't mean to contradict you.
Best regards,
Thierry
I was simply wondering how you can judge a file/image to be "plastic", or this or that, when you have not been there to see and compare with the scene itself: that seems a bit difficult for me to do.
But I respect your judgement and didn't mean to contradict you.
Best regards,
Thierry
Since when? LOL.
Plastic looking, waxy. As in made of Plastic. It's stricty a subjective POV. Subjective, as in my opinion. Others may love it, strive for it. Live for it ... I do not ... and I do not care if I am dead alone in this opinion.
Sorry, when it comes to my work I don't care about your judgement, or any one else's for that matter ... except those who pay me for it
No need to worry about me, or my opinion. There are plenty of avocates and supporters here. You can't win over everyone ... it's the nature of art.
PeterA
Well-known member
I was only half joking about the utility and potential in the one use disposables..
anyway Victor I dont have a good eye - I have a great eye..so here is a great eyes opinion about ALL things photographic..ready?
man photography is ALWAYS about the LIGHT baby...
the 2 great opposing forces in photography boil down to how much light do I have and how fast/slow can I shoot given this desired content/subject mater /treatment/purpose/aim/objective etc etc..???:banghead::banghead:
the content you show in your shot is an outcome of the photographers choice in equipment and technique - which has to balance how much light against the limitations of any capture device
MFD backs require a LOT of LIGHT to deliver what their DESIGN intent is..HIGH IQ.<...thats a full stop. Sure they are improving higher ISO capabilities but each step UP in ISO is a STEP AWAY from OPTIMAL ISO for highest quality - you are over revving the MFD engine stretching it into something OTHER CAMERAS can do BETTER.
silly high ISO experiments ( no offence to anyone please) - are poor imitators of what 35mm ALREADY delivers - and the worst reason to buy ANY MFD back.
So i asked in a different thread that people SPECIFY what their needs are so that responses can be matched to needs.. eg
your hand held church interior shots interest is NOT the intent or purpose of a MFD back - any one of them. none of them ..nada ..the fact that one can MAKE an ok shot using hand held higher ISO is NOT the same as a QUALITY WELL LIT properly executed architectural shot or capture..LOL
sorry am I being too didactic?:lecture::lecture::lecture:
You already have a great walk around system - probably the best high quality pure photographer device money can buy - an Alpa with a Phase One back on it.
why a Phase One? well both Leaf and Hasselblad require external batteries hanging off bottom ( Leaf or via hardrive Hasselblad.)
yes Thierry I can hear you from here !! ( SINAR has battery INside camera body too) :salute:
Victor I keep telling you -you already own the best system for YOUR uses LOL
congratulations!:thumbs:
Petey.
anyway Victor I dont have a good eye - I have a great eye..so here is a great eyes opinion about ALL things photographic..ready?
man photography is ALWAYS about the LIGHT baby...
the 2 great opposing forces in photography boil down to how much light do I have and how fast/slow can I shoot given this desired content/subject mater /treatment/purpose/aim/objective etc etc..???:banghead::banghead:
the content you show in your shot is an outcome of the photographers choice in equipment and technique - which has to balance how much light against the limitations of any capture device
MFD backs require a LOT of LIGHT to deliver what their DESIGN intent is..HIGH IQ.<...thats a full stop. Sure they are improving higher ISO capabilities but each step UP in ISO is a STEP AWAY from OPTIMAL ISO for highest quality - you are over revving the MFD engine stretching it into something OTHER CAMERAS can do BETTER.
silly high ISO experiments ( no offence to anyone please) - are poor imitators of what 35mm ALREADY delivers - and the worst reason to buy ANY MFD back.
So i asked in a different thread that people SPECIFY what their needs are so that responses can be matched to needs.. eg
your hand held church interior shots interest is NOT the intent or purpose of a MFD back - any one of them. none of them ..nada ..the fact that one can MAKE an ok shot using hand held higher ISO is NOT the same as a QUALITY WELL LIT properly executed architectural shot or capture..LOL
sorry am I being too didactic?:lecture::lecture::lecture:
You already have a great walk around system - probably the best high quality pure photographer device money can buy - an Alpa with a Phase One back on it.
why a Phase One? well both Leaf and Hasselblad require external batteries hanging off bottom ( Leaf or via hardrive Hasselblad.)
yes Thierry I can hear you from here !! ( SINAR has battery INside camera body too)
:salute:Victor I keep telling you -you already own the best system for YOUR uses LOL
congratulations!:thumbs:
Petey.
T
thsinar
Guest
Victor,
I can assure you that there is NOTHING happening in the conversion to DNG then a normal conversion, NO noise reduction at all. that simply does not happen in the Sinar file at this stage, believe it or not.
What happens during DNG conversion, like with any other digital back (I suppose), is that the "Ref. File" to the particular back is applied (called it also Blemish files, etc ...), this to correct the "un-eveness" or particularity of each single sensor in each back.
The NR applied was done in ACR, as I had mentioned it already, with a "25" setting of the "Color Noise", not more and not less. I don't think this adds to "plasticity" or whatever it is called.
Actually you could check it out by yourself, if you have downloaded the sample DNG from my ftp.
Best regards,
Thierry
I can assure you that there is NOTHING happening in the conversion to DNG then a normal conversion, NO noise reduction at all. that simply does not happen in the Sinar file at this stage, believe it or not.
What happens during DNG conversion, like with any other digital back (I suppose), is that the "Ref. File" to the particular back is applied (called it also Blemish files, etc ...), this to correct the "un-eveness" or particularity of each single sensor in each back.
The NR applied was done in ACR, as I had mentioned it already, with a "25" setting of the "Color Noise", not more and not less. I don't think this adds to "plasticity" or whatever it is called.
Actually you could check it out by yourself, if you have downloaded the sample DNG from my ftp.
Best regards,
Thierry