Which back for architecture/interiors?

[AlexLF]

I looked at those galleries and couldn't find any pic that I really like. Yes, I spent little time there but where are beautiful and professionaly done images? Are they hidden?

I think those panos are just for scientific use... and for fun of those who made them.

 

[vieri]

Please look at the sky and tell me again that this is medium format quality. The pixel quality is also not great, nor is the lens qualities (look at that CA), they would need to downres by at least a factor of 2-4x before getting anywhere near the per-pixel quality of a good back. This is a straight stitch, there is nothing medium format about it other than high resolution.

My challenge stands. This is not about resolution, this is about the whole package: resolution, dynamic range, tonality, colour accuracy. If you cannot achieve those with a smaller camera, you are not competing.

I looked at those galleries and couldn't find any pic that I really like. Yes, I spent little time there but where are beautiful and professionaly done images? Are they hidden?

I think those panos are just for scientific use... and for fun of those who made them.

+1 on both counts

 

[Stefan Steib]

I think it is useless - no matter what I point you at, you do not want to see.

The sky is blown because the clouds were probably moving while the images were taken. But heck - who cares about the the Sky in this image ?
These images are made by amateurs, who have totally other interests , as Alex mentioned.

I have showed you links to beautiful stuff from XRez.com which you probably didn´t look at.

You remind me to the black night in the film the Holy Grail by the Monthy Pythons. Look Ma no hands.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690

but remember : There are no MF Backs made by Leica - so the red dot fraction can relax now. We are not talking about you guys.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan

 

[vieri]

I think it is useless - no matter what I point you at, you do not want to see.

...

I have showed you links to beautiful stuff from XRez.com which you probably didn´t look at.

You remind me to the black night in the film the Holy Grail by the Monthy Pythons. Look Ma no hands.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690

but remember : There are no MF Backs made by Leica - so the red dot fraction can relax now. We are not talking about you guys.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan

Stefan, just a word of advice: this attitude of yours is not very conducive to a fruitful exchange of opinions, and probably is not going to do your business much good either. While I am not a moderator or anything like that, from my experience I can say that looking down and patronizing is not taken favorably on GetDPI, where the atmosphere is generally very friendly and constructive.

Just my .02 of course.

 

[carstenw]

What are you talking about? I listed 4 items your "solution" needs to compete: resolution, dynamic range, tonality, colour accuracy. If the solution doesn't have these to the same extent as medium format digital, back or Leica, then it doesn't compete. The shot you linked to had just 1 of the 4.

I know it is possible to do it with smaller cameras. I do it with my D3. It is a load of work though, and I don't feel it is worth it.

 

[Stefan Steib]

Vieri

I know this is the MF forum part. We have exchanged opinions. Obviously with not much result. This is not going to be productive anymore. I apologize to have interrupted the medium format praise. Oh btw, we also sell these systems, but I thought it would be helpful to see where we stand.

Greetings from Munich
Stefan

 

[vieri]

Stefan,

to me, an important part of exchanging opinions is being ready to accept that your counterpart might not think like you, and might not change their ideas even after the opinion exchange. You seem, on the other hand, to label people who have a different opinion than yours as blind, narrow minded, brand fanboys, system fanboys and whatnot. More, you assume that the reason for them not to change their mind is not even having looked at the link you provided, thus labeling them as dishonest and not being in good faith in the debate.

I really think that this attitude of yours is not conducive to a good debate, and will more likely than not harm your point in the discussion rather than help it. That said, I agree with you that this discussion is not going anywhere - see, we agree on something in the least