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!

My Reality

Vincent Goetz

Subscriber Member
although I am very new to the game (I recently entered into it with a P40+), after reviewing the options and expenses of upgrading, I think any additional money spent right now is better spent on glass. Reading about what is coming down the line in the Schneider part of the world tells me that is where I am headed.

Just saying, bang for the buck?
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Jacks reports are killing me. Will see it tonight. Bottom line I want it all with my sugarless cake no less. GetDPI is hiring a shrink. LOL
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Guy, am I right that you before thought of moving sideways from P40+ to IQ140? Is the actual image quality superior or was it more of other bonuses, like focus confirmation, faster etc etc?
same sensor just all new tech that is very very nice. I'm not losing here and I am gaining convenience and easier shooting. Now there maybe some firmware , features benefits not sure. Have to see when they release the 140 what's in the tank.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Here is the other bottom line. Today and for the last year or so owning the P40+ i have never missed shots because the back did not give me the data I needed to start with. I have always nailed every situation and shoot. Its not like I absolutely need the tech at all, i'm to damn good a photographer to start with and no tech is REALLY going to help me. I say that in all honesty not modesty
Okay, been shooting the IQ180 a lot of today. Here's my take on the new tech: You're correct, we don't *need* it. But now that I've used it for a day, that's like saying we don't need a histogram -- I mean we both started in the days before histograms and did okay, but life would be different today without it... Seriously, the tech on this new back compared to the old one is like comparing your iPhone to a 12-button land-line desk phone!

And that's me helping :D
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
The reason is a bit of a jumble but...

2) My fine art print sales in limited editions have taken off and are at much higher prices than before, and it really doesn't matter to the buyers what they were shot on. 5dII, M9, Ricoh GRD, whatever...
May be a jumble, but that answers it ---- and CONGRATULATIONS!!!

:thumbs:
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Okay, been shooting the IQ180 a lot of today. Here's my take on the new tech: You're correct, we don't *need* it. But now that I've used it for a day, that's like saying we don't need a histogram -- I mean we both started in the days before histograms and did okay, but life would be different today without it... Seriously, the tech on this new back compared to the old one is like comparing your iPhone to a 12-button land-line desk phone!

And that's me helping :D
This comes under the category of "cruel & unnecessary suffering/punishment" ... :poke:
;)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
This comes under the category of "cruel & unnecessary suffering/punishment" ...
I know. But you were there in Grand Canyon with us when we both stated we really didn't need the new tech, but if we had tech cameras we'd definitely be going for it. The reality for me after just one day of having it on my DF camera is I can't go back :eek:
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Well, that's definitely a good sign. When you instantly know things are so much better it's normally a good sign. :thumbs:

The rest of us will have to just put up with living vicariously through you fortunate early IQ180 owners until our backs ripple through to production. I feel Guy's dilemma but I suspect that more hands on with an IQ will sort it out pretty quickly - I know how incredibly patient he is :D
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I know. But you were there in Grand Canyon with us when we both stated we really didn't need the new tech, but if we had tech cameras we'd definitely be going for it. The reality for me after just one day of having it on my DF camera is I can't go back :eek:
Your just a **** load of help. Okay looked at it and nothing like the prototype. My family maybe in trouble. LOl
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
Guy, you're a skilled pro, my friend—let me put the equation the other way around:

In what way does your present P40+ back stop you from doing what you need to do, photographically?

I'm probably not much help either, but (and I am echoing tashley here, but putting it a different way) which of your customers are asking for more MP?

Sorry! Cheers and look forward to hooking up later in the year. Cheers, Kit
 
why do you want to make your life more complicated with 80 mp ?
only for a good LCD and 2 or 3 unnecessaries options
 
Last edited:

vieri

Well-known member
The reason is a bit of a jumble but...

1) I've been in MF for a while now and very few of the shots I have taken have made it into my personal 'hall of fame' of shots I really like.
2) My fine art print sales in limited editions have taken off and are at much higher prices than before, and it really doesn't matter to the buyers what they were shot on. 5dII, M9, Ricoh GRD, whatever...
3) MF is such a hassle. I hate LCCs and all that. If there was reliable, zoomable, daylight live view with no LCCs I'd be more excited. Even then, I sigh when I hoik the bag up onto my shoulder and schlep off into the field with all that stuff. It weighs down my body and my mind and it makes my work too formal. I personally am passionately anti the traditional MF landscape look (graduated sky, foreground interest, lead in lines, blah blah blah) and increasingly favour a more fluid and purposely less 'technical' look.
4) I have too much gear and it's getting in the way of my photography. I really mean Waaaay too much gear.

Hmmmm..
Tim, thank you for your answer - all your points make sense of course, and except nr. 3 and partially nr. 2 they are all very personal to you and what your imagine-creating process is, so let me just play the devil's advocate for nr. 2 and 3.
Nr. 2: first of all, CONGRATS! I am very happy for you, well deserved. More into the point though, while is true that no customer really care about the gear you used, I am pretty sure that they all care about your images' IQ - so if you don't mind, I am very interested in a couple of more detailed points here, of course if you were willing to share this with us: first, what is the largest size you print your images at? Second, what kind of gear allows you to both feel free in your image-creating while at the same time providing you with the IQ you and your customers need? Or to put it differently, what gear are you instinctively reaching out to first when you go out?
Nr. 3: Agreed on the first part, I am pretty sure nobody loves LCC and we all would do without if at all possible - however, once you created your profiles for the different lenses that need them, it is a pretty straightforward process, just one more step in the digital workflow; as much as I don't like to hassle with them, to me personally LCC use wouldn't be enough of a reason to give up to the IQ that a tech cam with the P65+ and Rodenstock/Schneider lenses provides.
Gear size and weight, of course that is a major concern; while the Phase kit is definitely too big and heavy, a tech camera with 3 lenses and a back is way smaller and comparable in size & weight to a DSLR, or even lighter. It is not comparable of course to a compact camera, or to a m4/3-based or M9-based system, so am I right in assuming that these are the solutions you are thinking about to replace MF?
The last part of your Nr. 3 point is in fact the most interesting for me under a philosophical point of view, however IMO it is very difficult for me to define it as a "traditional MF landscape look": I'd rather describe it more generally as a "traditional landscape look", having seen it done by everyone with any kind of equipment. To me, what using a tech cam (or MF) does is forcing one to spend more time for each frame, more so for a tech cam of course; this is not related to achieving a particular look, 'cause obviously you can spend more time searching for all kinds of composition and looks: I'd see it more related to a spontaneous approach to shooting versus a more analytical one, if that makes sense, and of course here personal preferences and shooting styles are all that count.

Looking forward to hearing from you on the above, and thanks again for sharing your thoughts :D
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Hmm, been there, done that, this is MUCH less expensive!!! :D (not to say that fast cars don't have their appeal any more ;) )
Yes they are more expensive - but they depreciate less than MF digital backs do in percentage terms ...:D

My original thought on Guy's open letter was along the lines of " I wonder to what extent we witness a type of group psychosis in here regarding gear.."

Then I realized that for Guy this is his bread and butter and a serious decision as in his tools of trade..

As a silly hobbyist I am happy to have arrived at a point with gear probably closer to Tashley above- I have waaaaay too much gear and it is all mostly collecting dust....

So I am now justifying a stupid car by telling myself I will go on weekend drives and take some camera gear with me..:ROTFL: fortunately i am married to a low maintenance type wife who encourages me to buy whatever I feel like - cos she thinks it is all very funny boys toys stuff - her greatest fear is me becoming a boring middle aged grumpy too soon:eek:

Maybe I need to do some spring cleaning and get rid of all the gear I don't use...now that is a thought..
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Morning guys got to see the back last night and yes on a sex meter it is certainly a 10. No question and Don Libby are going out this morning to play with it with his Cambo and the DF just to see it in action. Than tonight with Daves request I hired a model for us to shoot.

But i wanted to clear up a few comments. First I am not after buying a IQ 180 as it is simply to much money going from a P40+. If you look at the promotions or upgrade paths about 90 percent of the upgrades to the IQ 180 are coming from current P65+ shooters as doing a cross grade to a IQ 160 for them is only a couple grand less so for a few thousand those folks are far better off just going for the IQ 180 80 mpx back plus it is the first back out as well. So in short it is a buy decision for them to just get the 180 as it is the better deal forget the amount of mpx that is not really what they after.

The simple fact for me is the difference between buying a used P65+ and a new IQ 140 is almost the same money and that is why my ears perked up on what to do.

Problem is i don't really even need 60 mpx be nice but not a NEED but I would like to have the bump in Sensor Plus going from 10 mpx to 15 mpx as that eliminates the 35m DSLR completely for me. So that is one reason I want the P65. The other is what i think many did not grasp in my opening comments was my man issue today with the crop sensor

"Full Frame viewing more than anything else. Having a crop sensor is not the problem it is the viewing on the DF"

This is and has been a bone of contention for me with the P40+ and would continue with a IQ 140 is the crop line in the finder that I have to deal with and I shoot many fast ongoing things and the crop causes more strain on me to STAY WITHIN THE LINES. LOL

This is why the P65+ is really on my radar screen not the mpx but my viewing and have to admit a lot of times I would rather shoot the full frame than the crop. I can deal with it as i have for quite a awhile but if I can switch for money that is pretty close it does become a serious option for a P65+ plus a few other things as well like more buying power later and such. So no i do Not need more than 40MPX but certainly would not kill me either.

What needs to be done is the New body whenever that comes is eliminate the crop in the finder with a device that you can set your sensor size and the finder ONLY shows you that size by means of magnifying it. I cant count on that being a feature on the new body coming. The crop sensor itself is meaningless to me it is the viewing that is something that is in my crawl space.

So my dilemma or real solution which solves everything is the IQ 160 as I get the tech and I get the Full Frame and I am basically done for a long time. I just cant pull that rabbit out of my hat but I can afford a IQ 140 upgrade or a used P65+. Hence my yo yo status
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Yes they are more expensive - but they depreciate less than MF digital backs do in percentage terms ...:D

My original thought on Guy's open letter was along the lines of " I wonder to what extent we witness a type of group psychosis in here regarding gear.."

Then I realized that for Guy this is his bread and butter and a serious decision as in his tools of trade..

As a silly hobbyist I am happy to have arrived at a point with gear probably closer to Tashley above- I have waaaaay too much gear and it is all mostly collecting dust....

So I am now justifying a stupid car by telling myself I will go on weekend drives and take some camera gear with me..:ROTFL: fortunately i am married to a low maintenance type wife who encourages me to buy whatever I feel like - cos she thinks it is all very funny boys toys stuff - her greatest fear is me becoming a boring middle aged grumpy too soon:eek:

Maybe I need to do some spring cleaning and get rid of all the gear I don't use...now that is a thought..
Yes and I can see that too but for the hobbyist I say why the hell not. If it is what you enjoy and can comfortable afford than go for it.

I said something last night to some friends . Go down to Miami and go to the harbor side and count the boats as far as your bloody eye can see than count the money from maybe 150 k to a couple Million per copy than whatever gear your buying is a freaking bargain. LOL

Seriously photography is a damn cheap hobby. Enjoy the time on earth with it.

For me it is a business so I need to make responsible business decisions or at least I am supposed to. So my struggles here are fun for you folks to laugh at but I know you do see them and relate but you folks don't have to follow my logic and just go have fun. Seriously when I am on these workshops and these folks have all the fun stuff i get a real kick out of seeing them have a blast with it. Believe me it brings me a lot of joy.
 

djonesii

Workshop Member
I spend some of my days helping folks that spend tons on compute systems and software to make those decisions. ROI/out sourcing vs in sourcing/how much power/ new AC?

Way way too much work for my hobby.

Now to Guys issues: These are business decisions: period! [full stop as they say on the other side of the pond]

Spent way to long having it beat into my head, the only way to make them correctly is to look at your return on investment. Will it give you a better product that you clients will BUY. If not, ROI sucks, don't do it. Did you loose X jobs to OTHER GUY because he had a P65+ and could deliver the goods where the P40 didn't, how many jobs? How much money lost? Will owning a tech camera open a new market to sell something? How will you market that, how much will that cost vs revenue over time. Does our tax regime have a weird loophole that makes this more viable than it seems at first blush? Is there some kind of efficiency gain that is going to let you squeak in three extra shoots a year?

Those types of questions are part of my day job. For my hobby, I just buy the wife an iThingy for her birthday and don't really go into how much I spend on my gear other than to point out it's less expensive than an Italian car, American motorcycle, and way cheaper than a Bass Boat!

JMHO/YMMV

Dave
 
Top