Which choice for simple landscape mostly?

[arionelli]

I am still deliberating the move from med form film to digital and the choice of which camera / back / 3-4 lens combo, mostly for simple landscape photography. I may need to look at used backs.

These are my most likely options (not in order):
PhaseOne or Leaf back for my Contax 645 with 35, 55, 120, 250SA on adaptor
CFV50 back for my 501CM and CFi lenses
PhaseOne DF with P40+/45+ (lenses?) or Leaf equivalent
H4D40 with 28or35, 100, 210 or with CF adaptor and my CFi 50, 100, 120, 250SA (may need to replace 50 with 40)

Is there a standout? I mean, can I stop obsessing about image quality now and just pick one of these setups according to my personal likes/dislikes, useage and serviceability, because at this level they all so good?

Many thanks for helpful replies. Particularly helpful would be your experiences, ie "I used to use....but now I am using.....because of improvements in.........", or whatever reasons you have found to exclude/prefer one over the others.

 

[yaya]

Looks like the most obvious/ practical (and probably economical) choice is your Contax with all the lenses you've already got.

 

[arionelli]

I'm sorry, I probably wasn't clear in my statement. I currently own both the Contax and the 501CM with their respective lenses as above (not H), and will need to flog off one or the other to help finance the back.

Although I have drawn some conclusions about these systems from my experienes with film, I understand that there will be more stringent demands on them from these higher density digital backs, and would like to know if any shortcomings are practically evident.

Martin

 

[jlm]

V system is very nice, until you put on a rectangular sensor. that body is not happy sideways. If it can work with the Leaf rotating back, I would go that way. you have the advantage of the waist level finder. has a traditional analog feel, which I loved. When i put on the CV39, rectangular, is just lost some of it's appeal. nice image quality, even with the CV16


next option is the contax, imo

 

[Don Libby]

My only current suggestion is regardless of which back you choose you might want to think to the future. Can you place it on a tech cam at some later date?

Don

 

[dougpeterson]

V system is very nice, until you put on a rectangular sensor. that body is not happy sideways. If it can work with the Leaf rotating back, I would go that way. you have the advantage of the waist level finder. has a traditional analog feel, which I loved. When i put on the CV39, rectangular, is just lost some of it's appeal. nice image quality, even with the CV16

Just a quick note, in addition to the Leaf rotating backs the Phase One V mount backs can all be used vertically or horizontally (just remove the back, turn it, and put it back on).


Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Mamiya Leaf, Leica, Arca Swiss, Cambo, Profoto, LaCie, Canon, TTI, Broncolor & More

National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

 

[Jack]

I am still deliberating the move from med form film to digital and the choice of which camera / back / 3-4 lens combo, mostly for simple landscape photography. I may need to look at used backs.

These are my most likely options (not in order):
PhaseOne or Leaf back for my Contax 645 with 35, 55, 120, 250SA on adaptor
CFV50 back for my 501CM and CFi lenses
PhaseOne DF with P40+/45+ (lenses?) or Leaf equivalent
H4D40 with 28or35, 100, 210 or with CF adaptor and my CFi 50, 100, 120, 250SA (may need to replace 50 with 40)

Is there a standout? I mean, can I stop obsessing about image quality now and just pick one of these setups according to my personal likes/dislikes, useage and serviceability, because at this level they all so good?

Many thanks for helpful replies. Particularly helpful would be your experiences, ie "I used to use....but now I am using.....because of improvements in.........", or whatever reasons you have found to exclude/prefer one over the others.

All of your stated options are good ones. I would probably lean towards your existing Contax over the Hassy V simply because you already own it and glass. I would however view the move to the basic Phase DF or Hassy H kits as a step up, as either allows a lot more potential for growth and expansion.

 

[Steve C]

Realize that this is a slippery slope where you will likely continue to evolve, invest, and wish you had something else. Since the back is the most expensive part, I would recommend buying a back that can be used on many different systems. Choosing a Phase or Leaf back would allow you to use either your Contax or Hasselblad, then migrate to a Mamiya if autofocus becomes important, or a tech camera if movements are desired. If you use your 501, there is much to be said for a back that can rotate. Using the Hasselblad sideways is a pain and manually focussing with a prism finder is a challenge. I started with a H3 using CF lenses and an adapter. As soon as I could rationalize it, I bought the auto-focus H lenses to simplify use in the field. After several years, I abandoned the Hasselblad in favor of a DF which has served me well. Of course, I now lust for a tech camera, but at least I will be able to transfer the back and continue buying more lenses! Abandon all hope...

 

[dick]

All of your stated options are good ones. I would probably lean towards your existing Contax over the Hassy V simply because you already own it and glass. I would however view the move to the basic Phase DF or Hassy H kits as a step up, as either allows a lot more potential for growth and expansion.

He already has the Hasselblad and lenses, and the V sys would give the option of using a Flexbody Hasselblad bellows camera for movements with the lenses he has.

Is anyone using a Flexbody with MFD? I have MFD (H) and a Flexbody, and hope to pick up a V compatible back sometime.

 

[Audii-Dudii]

Is anyone using a Flexbody with MFD? I have MFD (H) and a Flexbody, and hope to pick up a V compatible back sometime.

Not yet, but I bought a Flexbody last fall and one of these days, I will get around to modifying it to accept my Contax mount P30+ back. I've just been too busy working to find the time to tackle a new project...

 

[arionelli]

My goodness, there is still a good deal of support for the C645 and Hassy V...that's very nice to see.
Don, I take your point, but what I meant by simple landscape is that for my needs a decent slr, few lenses, shade, coupla tubes and solid tripod would do it, so I'm not very interested in multiple cameras or view cams. Simple also does not mean being restricted to the least expensive range of backs.
Jack, I think your comment has some worth wrt future-proofing my gear, and it may be that I will look at the H or DF a little more closely.
Interestingly, I was reading an article by Hasselblad on the merits of Fuji over Zeiss lenses for the H system. Specifically, they compared the F 100/2.2 and 210 against the Z 100 and 250SA. Whilst Zeiss optimises for infinity (and why wouldn't they with NASA influencing their design specs?), Fuji's are for much nearer distances. Accompanying mtf charts show the Fuji's superiority at near distances, but the Zeiss both still retain better infinity performance, which does somewhat favour landscape shooting...sigh...another one of the many variables to consider...
Also, Jack, I was intrigued by your post script "mantra" and searched a little for its context...didn't find much, but found another quote by that famous artist which helps as a reality check for me...

"Go and see what others have produced, but never copy anything except nature. You would be trying to enter into a temperament that is not yours and nothing that you would do would have any character." (Pierre-Auguste Renoir)"

 

[arionelli]

I wanted to resurrect this old thread to see if the users' opinions have significantly changed in the past 2 yrs, as in the interim I needed to sell off most of my mf gear for other financial needs. I ended up with a d800e, which I find doesn't suit me much at all (too many years with simplistic mf and 35mm film cameras) but now it's out with 2013 and I'm interested again in a relatively simple mfd camera.

What I'd like to know, to narrow down my options, is if there is any real difference in image quality from a locked down, mirror up, lens/leaf shutter system over one with a focal plane shutter (I don't need leaf lenses for high speed flash sync). This theoretic reduction in vibration from leaf shutters has been touted by makers and users and it seems to me that this issue should be even more significant with digital's greater accuracy needs, but apart from quoting theoretics, I haven't seen anything substantial.

Has anyone validated this to their satisfaction with observations or tests and determined that, yes, one can indeed see an improvement in the leaf shutter image, or is this just a hair-splitting issue? I know there are also other needs that determine which system I should take, but this could be something significant I need to consider.

 

[dougpeterson]

Has anyone validated this to their satisfaction with observations or tests and determined that, yes, one can indeed see an improvement in the leaf shutter image, or is this just a hair-splitting issue? I know there are also other needs that determine which system I should take, but this could be a significant one for me to take into account.

Yes. Thoroughly tested.

Unfortunately the answer is "it depends".

Worst case scenario is a [focal plane only] system with a longer lens at around 1/8th of a sec (exact worst point varies based on system and support). In such a worst-case the difference is very large.

Best to have some hands on time to choose between.

 

[steve_cor]

What Doug said about the 1/8 sec. applies for sure to the Mamiya AF 300mm f/4.5 IF APO and the Mamiya AF 105-210mm f/4.5 ULD lenses.

But I don't know if it also applies to the Schneider Kreuznach AF 110mm f/2.8 Leaf Shutter lens.

I went and tried this with my Schneider Kreuznach AF 110mm f/2.8 Leaf Shutter lens. I shot pictures of a statue in pairs, with each shutter. For both pictures, I had the 645DF+ on a tripod, with mirror lock-up, self timer, and cable release. I tried 1/8 sec., 1/4 sec., and 1/30 sec. with the focal plane shutter and the leaf shutter.





At the 3 tested shutter speeds, frames with the leaf shutter and focal plane shutter came out with the same sharpness. With the sharpening turned down to 0, I could see a little softness. The default sharpening of 25 in Lightroom made them both look good. The shutters didn't seem to make any difference.

The crop below is 1/8 sec. at f/8, leaf shutter, default sharpening of 25.





The crop below is 1/8 sec. at f/8, focal plane shutter, default sharpening of 25.







My conclusion so far is, you're better off choosing sharper lenses than worrying about what shutters they have.


--Steve.

 

[arionelli]

Yes. Thoroughly tested.
Worst case scenario is a [focal plane only] system with a longer lens at around 1/8th of a sec (exact worst point varies based on system and support). In such a worst-case the difference is very large.

Doug, thanks a lot...this info is really helpful as I like nature details and use 120-250mm at least as much as the wides.

 

[arionelli]

What Doug said about the 1/8 sec. applies for sure to the Mamiya AF 300mm f/4.5 IF APO and the Mamiya AF 105-210mm f/4.5 ULD lenses.

But I don't know if it also applies to the Schneider Kreuznach AF 110mm f/2.8 Leaf Shutter lens.

I went and tried this with my Schneider Kreuznach AF 110mm f/2.8 Leaf Shutter lens. I shot pictures of a statue in pairs, with each shutter. For both pictures, I had the 645DF+ on a tripod, with mirror lock-up, self timer, and cable release. I tried 1/8 sec., 1/4 sec., and 1/30 sec. with the focal plane shutter and the leaf shutter.

At the 3 tested shutter speeds, frames with the leaf shutter and focal plane shutter came out with the same sharpness. With the sharpening turned down to 0, I could see a little softness. The default sharpening of 25 in Lightroom made them both look good. The shutters didn't seem to make any difference.

My conclusion so far is, you're better off choosing sharper lenses than worrying about what shutters they have.


--Steve.

Steve, thanks for this direct comparison...and it is reassuring to read your conclusion.

As usual, it probably pays most to do one's own testing whenever possible with the actual tools in mind, as not all focal plane shutters are likely to be created equal.

 

[hcubell]

Steve, thanks for this direct comparison...and it is reassuring to read your conclusion.

As usual, it probably pays most to do one's own testing whenever possible with the actual tools in mind, as not all focal plane shutters are likely to be created equal.

If your shooting style for landscapes involves frequent usage of lenses in the 200-300mm range (medium format lenses), I would strongly suggest that you arrange to take a series of frames with a DF+ and a Hasselblad H using those lenses at a range of shutter speeds from say 1 second to 1/60 using the same digital back. I could be wrong, but I think Doug's tests just compare the Mamiya lenses against themselves. That tells you that say 1/8 second is really bad compared to 1/60, but it doesn't tell you whether all of the slower shutter speeds are significantly compromised compared to a equivalent H lens. BTW, Doug can explain better than I, but even when you use the Mamiya leaf lenses, the focal plane shutter still fires.

 

[Ken_R]

I am still deliberating the move from med form film to digital and the choice of which camera / back / 3-4 lens combo, mostly for simple landscape photography. I may need to look at used backs.

These are my most likely options (not in order):
PhaseOne or Leaf back for my Contax 645 with 35, 55, 120, 250SA on adaptor
CFV50 back for my 501CM and CFi lenses
PhaseOne DF with P40+/45+ (lenses?) or Leaf equivalent
H4D40 with 28or35, 100, 210 or with CF adaptor and my CFi 50, 100, 120, 250SA (may need to replace 50 with 40)

Is there a standout? I mean, can I stop obsessing about image quality now and just pick one of these setups according to my personal likes/dislikes, useage and serviceability, because at this level they all so good?

Many thanks for helpful replies. Particularly helpful would be your experiences, ie "I used to use....but now I am using.....because of improvements in.........", or whatever reasons you have found to exclude/prefer one over the others.

Hi, for Landscape the best solution is a tech camera. Wide angles for medium format are not that great for digital and generally very wide angle of views are not available in some SLR systems like the Hasselblad V and corner to corner performance is not that great with the available wide angle lenses (wide angle of view is even bigger issue with crop sensor backs) and on top of that most are large and heavy.

Tech camera lenses will be much smaller and lighter and much better corner to corner. Also tech cameras offer great compositional and focus control with shift and tilt available in most camera systems.

Quick summary of the SLR systems:

The Leica S2 system offers a great range of lenses and all can be filtered, even the 24mm, but resolution is not that much better than a D800E although color, lens performance and overall quality is, but it is not really a good value, very expensive.

The Hasselblad H system is very complete with good 24, 28, 35 and 50mm lenses available. Again, all lenses can be filtered easily and the lens range starts at 24mm which is also nice. Lenses are not cheap though.

The PhaseOne DF+ is also a nice camera and the lens range starts at 28mm (the lens can be filtered but not that easily, adapters are available to allow it though),35mm and 45mm are available but not regarded as great lenses. But, lot's of lenses are available for this mount, new and used, and at good prices since it is based on a mamiya 645 (if you do not require leaf shutters in all of them).

Of these three systems the Leica is the most compact and weather sealed. The Hasselblad and the DF+ are a bit clunky.

The Hasselbad V system is probably the worst choice for landscape. The body was made for 6x6 film and it is an old and clunky camera. Great for handled / portrait work (legendary) but not great for wide angle landscape work with a smaller than 6x6 digital sensor.

The Contax 645 is a really good camera system. I am not sure I would invest in it for digital but since you already have it, it might work for you depending on your budget. If you have the money for a tech camera or any of the other systems that would be best.

Again, all these comments are for Landscape use and specially with lenses wider than 80mm.

 

[Shashin]

You should also look at the Pentax 645D. It has a very well dampened mirror/shutter plus MLU if you want it. Lots of examples of landscape work on GetDPI with the 645D. Still probably the most advanced MFD camera on the market today.

 

[Ken_R]

You should also look at the Pentax 645D. It has a very well dampened mirror/shutter plus MLU if you want it. Lots of examples of landscape work on GetDPI with the 645D. Still probably the most advanced MFD camera on the market today.

I had one and sold it. Great camera but the warranty/support is really not there (certainly not what you would want for such an expensive piece of kit) and the lens quality is not great. The 25mm is good but way too expensive. The 55 is good. I found a really nice 35mm A. But generally the lenses are ok not really great.