MF resources

[PaulD]

Just three quick points..
....
My CFV11 is a 16 megapixel back- but in fat light conditions and good processing will smoke any 35mm camera including the M9 for what I care about - tonality (

You give me hope.
My command of the queen's English is not all that bad, but enlighten me on what "fat light" is. A weight watcher's thing maybe? I did do some plus-models recently.

Is "fat light" = enough light, like studio condtions, because that is exactly what I want.

Update: It would seem that Calumet people are always a tad friendlier that the rest of the vendors, so a lady is coming into my studio to demo some equipment like Phase One or Mamiya. For Free. Next question, what should I put up to photograph, a martini rosso-bottle like in DPreview?

Paul

 

[PeterA]

I am guessing you know what fat light is...it s the stuff that the little bottles on the digi chip on your camera "drink" before a bunch of fancy applied maths is applied to invent colour and deliver an image.

If you want to shoot a bottle because you do product then do so..

If you want to make a photograph of a person/model - then do so..but be aware that the resolution of these things will bring out every blemish and every wrinkle etc etc..and since you are going to be testing a CCD chip with no anti aliasing filter and (relatively) little intervention on the part of the coders regarding smoothing and de-noising in the box so to say ...be ready for butt ugly reality in all its glory!:ROTFL:

none of these MFD cameras are going to be as user friendly as a CaNikon.

but many blokes prefer to use Japanese chisels when they hand cut their dovetails -

a typical tradie wont cut a dovetail and will spend 5 bucks on a cheap throwaway chisel made in some place that hasn't figured out that you need a certain amount of nickel and zinc added to the iron ore in the right way at the right time - in order to make steel that will last a few lifetimes.

on a pure utilitarian basis - a Canon 20D made ten years ago will do the job of most so called pro shooters.


you choose.
but it is hard to describe music to a deaf person if you get my drift.

 

[thomas]

However, if you actually listen to the advice YOU ASKED FOR, and use the dedicated converters PROPERLY (which will take a few weeks of working with it on your own, or a few hours of 1-on-1 with somebody who knows the software), then I can virtually guarantee you WILL see obvious advantages to the 22MP back over your Nikon.

if this would be true I would never recommend to use Capture One to someone. Everyone who knows how to work with decent imaging software should be able to work also with C1 from the start.
Too, if a lot of sophisticated editing is required to show the potential of a P25+ file, than there is something wrong. C1's defaults should display the file in a fairly pleasant way - the only thing to check is maybe noise reduction as it is actually too high at defaults and to set the correct input profile.
Of course it takes some time to get used to the workflow in C1 and to learn how to squeeze out the best out of the captures of a certain camera... however, again, even at defaults a P25+ file should look good enough to show the difference to the Nikon file ... assumed both captures are technically okay (i.e accurate focus, no motion blur due to camera shake etc.).
There is nothing magic about MF files - normally they smoke any DSLR capture right from the start.

 

[David K]

Now let me think, if I'm not buying an MF system, what else could I...

High end lighting gear... and I'm only partially kidding when I say so. I think you mentioned in your original post that all you need is a good portrait lens. Have you thought about shooting, say, the Hasselblad 110/2 via adapter on your existing kit or maybe converting one of the Leica R lenses like the 80 lux for use on your DSLR. Back in the day a lot of us here got started down the slippery slope using alternative lenses on our DSLR's. That was more years and more money ago than I like to remember but there's still, IMHO, some merit to that approach. I'm also in the camp that thinks the single most significant gear change that will enable you to produce an image that differentiates you from the competition is top notch lighting. YMMV.

 

[fotografz]

High end lighting gear... and I'm only partially kidding when I say so. I think you mentioned in your original post that all you need is a good portrait lens. Have you thought about shooting, say, the Hasselblad 110/2 via adapter on your existing kit or maybe converting one of the Leica R lenses like the 80 lux for use on your DSLR. Back in the day a lot of us here got started down the slippery slope using alternative lenses on our DSLR's. That was more years and more money ago than I like to remember but there's still, IMHO, some merit to that approach. I'm also in the camp that thinks the single most significant gear change that will enable you to produce an image that differentiates you from the competition is top notch lighting. YMMV.

:thumbs:

And the patience to learn how to use it ... oh wait, that's the same as with MFD :ROTFL:

 

[Jack]

Of course it takes some time to get used to the workflow in C1 and to learn how to squeeze out the best out of the captures

Exactly -- and which can take several days of dorking around with it by yourself or a few hours with somebody who can show you how to use it.

 

[thomas]

Exactly -- and which can take several days of dorking around with it by yourself or a few hours with somebody who can show you how to use it.

again: is C1 really that difficult to use and is sophisticated editing required to get a good idea about a P25+ file?
If so, we should talk to Phase One seriously about a radical re-design of the application.

 

[Valentin]

again: is C1 really that difficult to use and is sophisticated editing required to get a good idea about a P25+ file?
If so, we should talk to Phase One seriously about a radical re-design of the application.

I was a long time user of C1 (from the beginning). When they moved to v4 they did a complete redesign. Before that, it was a breeze to use. So, there is no chance they will change (it took them over a version to put back the keyboard shortcuts).

 

[thomas]

I was a long time user of C1 (from the beginning). When they moved to v4 they did a complete redesign. Before that, it was a breeze to use. So, there is no chance they will change (it took them over a version to put back the keyboard shortcuts).

as far as I am concerned there is no redesign required (I am just missing some features) ... as it is basically easy to use. I mean... white balance is white balance, levels are levels, curves are curves... and so on. There is nothing particularily complicated for basic image editing. Vice versa I have absolutely no trouble to use RAW Developer or Phocus ... I am just not that fast working with these softwares as I am not used to the workflow...
So the only thing that needs some pratice in C1 is a fast and fluent workflow. But this also goes for any other software.
Finally if you discover for instance the power of C1's Color Editor this will take you one step further. But that doesn't neccessarily mean that it is required to use the full potential of the Color Editor to get a decent image out of a P25+ file...

 

[Jack]

Thomas, you obviously have your point of view and that's fine.

However my opinion differs and is based on my experience from TEACHING C1 to a range of experienced through inexperienced folks at photo editing, where I find that MOST folks have difficulty with C1 out of the gate. This ranges from issues with finding optimal sharpening and NR settings to being confused by the film curve and camera profile selection options. Finally you have the menu layout itself, which can be daunting to even the most editing proficient photographers out there. To wit, I once spent an hour on the phone with a friend -- who happens to be a very well known color science guru and excellent photographer in his own right -- just explaining where the different adjustments were located! As a result, I never ASSUME a newbie will get "great" (or even good) results out of the gate with any converter.

Cheers,

 

[Geoff]

taking a bit from both positions, I'd like to suggest that C1 has a kind of staggered learning curve: basic stuff isn't too hard, but then its a long haul to get the optimal. I was able to get simple decent images, little tweaking req'd, pretty soon. To get the best out of it - I'd happily sign up for a lesson.

Of course that would also mean some serious calibration work to be done, which seems elusive! Always more to do.

Best,

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Ditto.

 

[thomas]

taking a bit from both positions, I'd like to suggest that C1 has a kind of staggered learning curve: basic stuff isn't too hard, but then its a long haul to get the optimal.

I agree.
With regard to the topic of this thread I think basic stuff should do to show significant differences of a P25+ file and a D3x file. If not... so if high end editing is required... well, than MFD is really not worth the money.

 

[GrahamWelland]

One thing I found is that you need to pick the right tool for the job. C1 Pro does a great job on my Leica & Leaf files and a pretty decent job on Nikon files also. However, Nikon Capture NX2 always produces better individual Nikon files from my D3x or D3. That's not a slight on C1 Pro but more of a recognition that Nikon (Nik actually) do a better job getting the n'th degree from Nikon files.

I absolutely agree about the levels of competency with the tools though - 80% of the results can be achieved very easily but to get to optimal use requires a lot more experience and work.

 

[PaulD]

Hi guys,

Today is the day. The Calumet Lady has promised to come by and bring along some MF stuff for testing (Mamiya-PH1 30 mp back). I shall give you a minute to minute account of what we did.

Don't expect me to show pixel-peeping 100% crops here. There is no point to that, I have other plans...

About the few previous posts.

I agree that to get the maximum out of a negative, advanced C1....etc. skills are required, + calibration etc.

But I also agree that if advanced skills prove necessary to make an MF pic look significantly better than a FF one, it is not worth the money. (to me)

Paul

 

[fotografz]

Hi guys,

Today is the day. The Calumet Lady has promised to come by and bring along some MF stuff for testing (Mamiya-PH1 30 mp back). I shall give you a minute to minute account of what we did.

Don't expect me to show pixel-peeping 100% crops here. There is no point to that, I have other plans...

About the few previous posts.

I agree that to get the maximum out of a negative, advanced C1....etc. skills are required, + calibration etc.

But I also agree that if advanced skills prove necessary to make an MF pic look significantly better than a FF one, it is not worth the money. (to me)

Paul

Hands on really is the only way to determine if gear meets your personal needs and end use. Personally, my criteria was at least 17"X22" prints from a cropped file, not internet uploads.

"Look significantly better" is all in the eye of the beholder ... and can be influenced by lenses as much as which form of capture media one uses for example. It is the whole imaging chain that makes up a "look". Subjectively, I tried the Leica S2 and simply did not like the LOOK ... don't care how cool the camera is, or what the MFT charts say ... didn't like the feel or look of the end result. Still haven't seen anything to change my mind.

Admittedly, Medium Format Digital initially is not a particularly convenient form compared to more prolific 35mm DSLRs. Look at Adobe LR3 ... it has a laundry list of profile choices for Canon where there is only one for ALL Hasselblad digital cameras: "embedded". Many popular 35mm lenses are listed in LR3's Auto Lens Correction choices ... none for Hasselblad H lenses ... you have to do it manually. Where highly tuned Auto Lens Corrections (DAC) for every H lens, and most every Zeiss V lenses are in Phocus.

One thought I'll share with you is that I do not use Hasselblad's software for ALL of my MFD shots. LR3 is fine for a lot of less demanding imaging while STILL providing an edge over the best 35mm DSLRs. The workflow of LR3 is far faster and more convenient for processing huge amounts of images IMO ... like for a wedding shoot. However, I do select certain images to be processed in Phocus (or C1 for other cameras) ... plus, all critical shooting, and all tethered work in the studio, goes through Phocus. It's there for when I choose to take it to the next level. Keep that in mind.

IMO, not evaluating the best end result from any digital system is like buying a computer and inkjet printer, plugging it all in and making a print to evaluate without first setting it up and maximizing the output. But that's just me.

Happy hunting,

-Marc

 

[Jack]

"Look significantly better" is all in the eye of the beholder ...

>SNIP<

It is the whole imaging chain that makes up a "look".

Exactly. And in addition to sensor and lenses, that includes onboard ADC, raw conversion, local edits and paper and printer choices. IMO it takes time to get proficient enough with that chain from any new camera to get optimal results, and if you're not willing to put in the time to get there, you should probably stick with something simpler. I respect that some folks want the easiest-fastest-best results possible. But like most things in life, you can usually only choose two of those three priorities until you gain experience with the toolset...

My .02,

 

[dougpeterson]

But I also agree that if advanced skills prove necessary to make an MF pic look significantly better than a FF one, it is not worth the money. (to me)

Then MFD is probably not right for you.

Just like 4x5 vs. 35mm film or a stick shift sports car vs. an automatic...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well simply said on my end of the world is I work for clients and if I am not going to go the distance than I will not have that client again. I love MF and there is no going back to 35mm as primary but if your not willing to learn and put the extra effort in on ALL fronts than MF is not for you. One can argue all kinds of points about this being better than that and end of day just like film BIGGER IS BETTER and that did NOT change going to digital.

 

[PaulD]

One can argue all kinds of points about this being better than that and end of day just like film BIGGER IS BETTER and that did NOT change going to digital.

Hi,

The deed is done. I received the visit of a charming Calumet Lady, who was very patient and answered all my questions. We took pics side by side (5Dmkii, Mamiya 30 mp leaf back) with 80 mm lenses. We discussed the pics using C1 on her apple laptop, and then I printed them.

Where to begin? "Bigger is Better" it says in the quote.
Yes but, whereas "bigger" can be easily quantified, "better" is another thing.

As you go from P&S to bridge, to crop, to FF, to MF, to....
The visible IQ gets "better", but following a logistic curve. You have to throw in more and more money for a smaller extra quality step.
So quality is logistic, price is exponential. That in itself is not a problem, people do buy Bugatti Veyrons, and it helps the economy.

But as you calculate the Return on Investment, one has to consider all the variables (as it has been said in various posts).

Remenber this as Paul's formula (my small contribution) :

IQ= SensorQ x GearQ (lenses ..) x PP Q x Print Q
PQ = IQ + Creativity !(not "x" but "+")

Indeed the IQ using the best back, best lenses, best Printer, but sub-par PP skills, is not what you might expect.
But PQ (Picture Quality) is another thing. Your IQ may be low , the content may save the day for you, that is sometimes forgotten when discussing gear.

As said I have no intention of becoming a PP expert, I'd rather be out there taking pics. (And I suspect most people here are like that).

So what did I see on my test prints? As expected I saw more detail in the MF one. In the dark bits, it is visible from a distance, in the light parts, from closeby. Not enough to make me decide to buy now. (Taking all the variables into account)

Technology evolves at such a rate that Moore's law will force me to take up the issue again in 18 months time. Today is my birthday, the gift will be in a smaller package, but with a higher added value to me.
Paul