Interesting MF digital article over at LuLa from Mark Dubovoy

[GrahamWelland]

Worth a read: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/thoughts_on_medium_format_cameras.shtml

Mark's not shy about his views & preferences of the current market and I'm sure that it'll raise some discussion amongst not just MF but also 35mm DSLR shooters too.

 

[Terry]

I read it earlier this AM....my thoughts were:

a)his setup with a P65+ and then an S2 was completely unrealistic for 99% of photographers....that is a huge investment in gear
b)he was gushing a little too profusely about the S2 lenses...sounded like a bit of a fanboy after buying....mind you I loved using the S2
c)the precision on the focusing/shimming from the Alpa. I've watched the review that he and Michael did of the Arca and they never really used it or had any instruction on how it is used and only had it for a very short time. So unless he went back and did more testing on the Arca it is hard for me to take all his comments about Alpa as gospel. I'm not in any way bashing Alpa but his glowing statements as to it being the best and most precise are a bit over the top.

just my $0.02

 

[tjv]

I laugh how those guys always spout on about Hasselblad being inferior to Phase. In reality there's nothing in it. It makes you wonder why in every review they need to push the point. Good on him for being able to afford all that gear though. I'm certainly jealous.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Sorry but his review was about as 'dentist' as would be possible from an amatuer MFDB user. Some of his comments about the pro photography uses for 35mm (or lack of) were ridiculous.

 

[jonoslack]

I enjoyed it.
Sad to discover that all the pictures I've taken in the last ten years aren't really up to it (35mm sensor). But I'll struggle on manfully.

. . . . . yep, you got it, I'm jealous of the money to buy all that kit too :ROTFL:

 

[Jack]

I like Mark, but I have to admit it's tough to defend him when he writes public articles in his gregarious fashion. At least he added the disclaimer up front about his personal biases...

I am sure we'd all hope that an online gear reviewer would keep accolades on their preferred choices toned down to appear more balanced... Speaking from experience in writing reviews myself however, it is (unfortunately) very easy to fall into the trap of assuming everybody feels and thinks and sees everything just like you do, when the reality is we all have differing tastes, desires and goals.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I'm just going to not read it after reading Terrys first comment, it is that simple. I know when to stay out of a fryin pan and i know exactly how it was all written just from the comments, nope I want a happy week . Besides I'm trying to be really good and get my website back in business. Go Guy Go. LOL

 

[jonoslack]

I'm just going to not read it after reading Terrys first comment, it is that simple. I know when to stay out of a fryin pan and i know exactly how it was all written just from the comments, nope I want a happy week . Besides I'm trying to be really good and get my website back in business. Go Guy Go. LOL

:ROTFL::deadhorse:
Very sensible.
You can read my Why I'm not buying an S2 post for a bit of light relief! This article did have an effect . . . but not in the way intended!

 

[David Schneider]

Seems like an article written for a photographer who wants to take the ultimate photo by a photographer who wants to take the perfect photo. And as he say, "Nothing is perfect."

Those of us who make a living in one way or the other from photography aren't necessarily looking for the ultimate photo or camera. We're looking for a camera that fits how we photograph in our particular market; a camera that may give us increased quality, or increased efficiency, one that just plain makes us feel good when we use it. No need for his 8x10 view camera for a guy doing business headshots or weddings or seniors. No need for MF if you're doing sports and need 5 fps and ISO 5,000.

Article seems like a waste of cyber space to me.

However, I didn't know "The vast majority of DSLR lenses do not focus on a perfectly flat plane." As long as there's some contrast, I've never seen a problem.

 

[thomas]

...the reality is we all have differing tastes, desires and goals.

that's okay. That's very good in fact!
But why then talk about gear that you don't know? Or that you don't understand (Rm3D)? Or that you can't manage to use (Hassy... Phocus respectively)?

Totally pointless article.

 

[Wayne Fox]

I got to know Mark a little at a PODAS and enjoy his opinions, and will admit he greatly influenced my choice of an Alpa system, which I do not regret.

His overall premise that the photographer is the key was well stated and his examples were good. The idea that you must be familiar enough with your gear that it becomes an extension of yourself is also a valid point.

Even mentioning his personal choices with a little background would have been OK.

However, the section about the S2 to me belonged in a different article about the S2 itself, with a little more explanation. I'll admit I just skipped that section.

 

[jsf]

It didn't seem like such a bad article, enthusiastic, but not too obnoxious. It was funny though, his comment about the S2 being what he needed, but then earlier in the article and later in the article he needed the MF for what he does. When I was working it was a given that the job and the clients needs and budget shaped the tools that were used. Sometimes, 8x10, sometimes 4x5 sometimes medium format and sometimes 35mm. It just depended. It seems to me he is saying just that. I think his biggest complaint was that small sensor enthusiasts claim that the smaller information gathering devices can equal or exceed the larger information gathering devices. I have not found that to be true, size makes a difference when the reproduction is large enough to expose that difference. A one inch print on pretty much any camera system would probably all look the same, except perhaps for DOF. I suppose perspective control would also matter, but at 30 inches a small sensor wouldn't have the same look as a bigger sensor. I am pretty sure that was all he was saying, other than to gush over his systems. I know pros who who would disagree with what system is better. I would like to think that the Alpa was a really good camera. For that many dollars I would have a lot of expectations. He also brought up a really important point and it is one that I wrestle with. How sharp does the picture have to be? Obviously it depends on the subject matter, but if texture is an element in the composition, then it has to have enough texture to give the viewer that sense of texture. I have always been the more is better kind of photographer, if MF was more than adequate and the situation allowed it, I used a 4x5, etc. But really, now I am re-evaluating this prejudice of mine. I am wringing out my D700 and trying to get what I can from it. I'm no longer a working photographer, but I like the camera, it is a nice tool. But I can see that I will never get quite what I could easily get from MF and 4x5 and I think that is ok. It is sharp enough and that is an interesting conclusion coming from a former Agfa loupe junkie. Joe

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

Well, I really enjoyed Mark's article and I feel that those who didn't should read his disclaimer at the very beginning. His comments about using the right tool for the job - your job, your style, your needs - are right on.

I've never even held an S2, let alone used one, so I can't make any assertions about the camera. But I have shot with Mark on a number of occasions and regard him as an outstanding photographer. For that reason, I will tend to put great credence in his opinions. Yes, he does gush with enthusiasm a bit, but that's Mark.

Am I going out to buy an S2? Nope - (Much as I love my M9) my PhaseDF and P65+ are already much better tools than I am a photographer. When I feel the tool is holding me back then.....but no, my wife would then be holding me back at that point!

Bill

 

[jlm]

nice pictures accompanying the article though.

I fall into the camp of those who don't appreciate the accuracy of the alpa, shimming, etc.
The whole point of the tech camera is to depart from the centered, squared, etc. position as you see fit when taking the image. So what if it does not come back to a zero-zero position.

I see the bigger issue is how you can see well enough or measure accurately enough to set focus. Even with the superfine helicoid of the Arca, your focus accuracy is limited by how closely you can measure the subject distance (assuming you have pre-calibrated the lens scale).

 

[Terry]

nice pictures accompanying the article though.

I fall into the camp of those who don't appreciate the accuracy of the alpa, shimming, etc.
The whole point of the tech camera is to depart from the centered, squared, etc. position as you see fit when taking the image. So what if it does not come back to a zero-zero position.

I see the bigger issue is how you can see well enough or measure accurately enough to set focus. Even with the superfine helicoid of the Arca, your focus accuracy is limited by how closely you can measure the subject distance (assuming you have pre-calibrated the lens scale).

Yeah, that is sort of what I was getting at with my Arca/Alpa comment. If I look at the white sands shot I'm not sure even printed really large if having the back shimmed vs not would have made any difference to the viewer of the photo.

 

[Jay Emm]

I'd be interested to know how hard it is to shim and fine-tune? Are these shims small spacers you need to insert by trial and error, or is there some kind of screw thing you turn to fine-tune the alignment?

End of day though, as someone recently posted, whether Phase, Leica, Hasselblad, Alpa etc, no one except the photographer concerned is likely to know what camera was used when they drive by the billboard

 

[KurtKamka]

I say bravo for anyone that is excited about shooting whatever it is they like to shoot. My question is, why would you buy into a system that wouldn't bring out a little 'homerism'. I've read a lot of articles by gear owners of every brand with so much angst I wonder if they ever get any joy out of photography.

It's not a crime to tell me why you like shooting with your Hassy, Phase, tech camera, etc. In fact, it helps me understand why the camera works for you and how it might work for me.

At this point in time in the history of the internet, we're all very capable of reading between the lines when 'homersim' becomes 'boosterism'.

 

[Jack]

I'd be interested to know how hard it is to shim and fine-tune? Are these shims small spacers you need to insert by trial and error, or is there some kind of screw thing you turn to fine-tune the alignment?

It's a relatively simple process. Basically you set a target up at a known distance and set the lens to the same distance. Then you start adding the biggest shims to the back. From that you take the two best or closest together frames in sharpness; then add the thinner shims between them, repeating until you zero in on the perfect combo.

 

[GrahamWelland]

It's a relatively simple process. Basically you set a target up at a known distance and set the lens to the same distance. Then you start adding the biggest shims to the back. From that you take the two best or closest together frames in sharpness; then add the thinner shims between them, repeating until you zero in on the perfect combo.

The back plate is actually a pair of plates that are screwed together with the shims fitted inside. You add the shims gradually until critical focus is achieved. Typically you use a distant object (ideally infinity but distant antenna etc are ok) as a reference and use your longest lens to focus against it.

Now I am biased, but you can definitely see the difference between the out of box back plate shots and those dialed in via shimming against your own back. Now you're not really going to notice at 3ft but if you are shooting landscapes then you can see the difference at longer/infinity distances.

The shims are really really thin in increments of 0.01mm on upwards.

 

[thomas]

use your longest lens to focus against it

the longest? Misalignment is more critical on short lenses... AFAIK.

?