Getting back to the reasons for Medium Format ...

[6x6]

Auto exposure, shutter, or aperture priority are all available with whatever viewing mode (WLF, loupe, prism, whatever). You choose. Its pretty much current. When shooting with the digital back, a small image of the histogram shows up on the handle by the WLF, so you don't have to look at the back.

Consider me impressed! Now it would be great to know at least some detail as to the future of this system. Unfortunately I cannot go out on a limb with a product that looks like it is being pushed aside by Phase One ... even though it is what I want and potentially what others do too. However it is really very tempting as the ergonomics and practicality for me are important issues - most of my portrait work is done outside of a studio and I need my kit to be flexible.

 

[JorisV]

This Leaf AFi is really good! Does anyone have any idea where to purchase this beauty except Germany? Also, is it possible to change a Mamiya mount back to AFi mount?

B&H carries the body (and the Leaf Aptus-II 10R and 12R backs). There is a fairly extensive dealer network in Hong Kong and China. Most of them also sell on eBay. The prices are high though. Best is to deal with DHW directly. Or you can try a local Leaf dealer and ask whether they still have a deadstock of Leaf bodies which they used to have.

 

[FredBGG]

It's the most important part of this thread I think together with the "Its all about the lens" topic. I have made this bokeh test with the Phase DF and RZ lenses. I'm using the RZ most of the time, that image is what I'm looking for as a photographer. Why do we need 80mpx when the lens has only 5 blades and ugly bokeh?
View attachment 59454

I could not agree more.

There is all this talk about the look, but if you take a really close look the newer gear does not look as good as the old gear.

The bokeh of the 80mm LS phase lens is to say the least a bit embarrassing if the whole "look of MF" thing is to hold up.
A 5 blade iris on a $ 2,500 dollar leans... really????? You'd think that would be a special edition lens for the Pentagon.

Boken on the Nikon 85mm 1.4G is way better thanks to a 9 blade rounded iris and it's particular internal focus system that moves the iris with the internally moving elements.

That said the Mamiya 150mm f2.8 IF is really quite nice if the vignetting wide open is not an issue for you.

 

[tsjanik]

I have been reading some reports of corner softness with D800,e.g.,

Nikon D800E - Amazing Resolution ...but "Houston, We Have A Problem!" « General Blog « AustralianLight Landscape Photography Fine Art Framed Prints & Canvas

One advantage cropped sensor MF cameras still have is not using the corners of the image circle.
Here is an example using the 645D with a 35mm A lens, which is available for $600-900:
The shot is part of a panorama of a yard, the crop is from the lower left corner, upscaled by a factor of 2 (nearest neighbor) and no sharpening.

Tom

 

[rzuser]

To do that I offer my suggestions for a great medium format future:

Standardise on 60MP / 80MP.
The MF companies will eventually lose if the focus is entirely on sensor and megapixels. Sensors are controlled by the people with the biggest R&D depts. This will never be the MF guys. Keep R&D costs down by standardising.

Make the sensor BIGGER. 6x7 would be ideal.
The 40MP sensor size is just too close to 35mm and the 60MP / 80MP not big enough! Pull away from 35mm in physical size NOT megapixels. I would actually be comfortable if 35mm had more megapixels, as long as the sensor in my MF camera was much bigger. So much of the MF look depends on physical size, so much.

Are there any medium format platform manufacturers that fab their own sensors? I thought they all bought from Dalsa/Kodak. I'm not sure what is meant here by "standardising", or how it would cut costs. As for a 6x7 sensor, again that depends on the sensor maker. I am only guessing, but MF still cameras might not be a large chunk of the sensor makers' customer demographics. So they're probably going to just create whatever products their main line customers (military? scientific?) need.

As for "the look", perhaps it is possible to get similar DOF and bokeh characteristics via lens design (bigger aperture, curved/more blades, defocus control, etc)?

Allow the photographer to choose a format.
From this big sensor allow the photographer to choose a format and adjust the viewfinder automatically. Allow me to choose 6x6, 3x4, 4x5, 6x7 on the camera and when I look through the viewfinder it is automatically masked off. MF companies should take much more marketing advantage from this. I dislike the 35mm format and it is a reason I use MF. So make it even more of an advantage to me by allowing me to use all the formats I love.

Not sure what is meant here? Assuming a 6x7 sensor, aren't 3x4 and 4x5 formats larger, and hence can't be masked off? Perhaps this refers to aspect ratio. I can imagine a user claiming that having the masks somehow helps with "artistic vision". But if the whole frame is captured anyway, why not just crop in post? Or use a cardboard viewfinder? Or is the idea here some kind of sci-fi malleable sensor that magically changes physical shape and connections to become a different aspect ratio?

Waist level viewfinder.
Bring back the god damn waist level viewfinder (removing this was a crazy idea, a classic example of making a medium format camera behave like a 35mm one). Stop doing this! Maybe even enhance it with auto exposure & focus. The waist level finder allows for a different perspective; the photographer / subject dynamic changes considerably and it allows for a more compact setup for hand held use. A photographer with a MF camera held to their eye is considerably more threatening than one looking down at a waist level finder. Plus the company makes money on the sales of waist level finders!

Waist level viewfinders are great. But only because it's like a mini ground glass, IF you use a hand-held loupe with a surrounding shade (similar to Klinko's setup). A fixed pop-up magnifier does not let you check focus in the corners. But with magnified live-view/focus peaking, what's the point other than ergonomic fetish? I don't buy "less threatening when used hand-held." The photographer's interaction skill trumps camera size as far as subject anxiety goes.

Its all about the lens.
Make us drool about lenses again. Its not just about sharpness. In fact in my portrait work, I take sharpness out! Concentrate on how the lens draws. Leica has been doing this for years and look at how their lenses sell. I would be happy to own 2 x 110mm lenses. One called the 110mm P (for portrait) and another 110mm L (for landscape). Glass is just so important to the overall photographic look of an image. It is no coincidence that the Hassy 110mm f/2 FE still commands such high prices. Maybe license some designs. Imagine the Zeiss 38mm Biogon or Mamiya 7 43mm lens design on a Phase DF. I'd buy them in a heart beat.

I like lenses too! What would also be nice is some kind of standardized system for defining how a lens "draws". DOF is obviously insufficient. Perhaps a series of 2d distribution functions for characterizing the "bokeh" of a single point source as it falls aways from the focal plane. Maybe something like that already exists, I'm no optical designer. But the more we can objectively characterize behavior, the more we can disassociate actual quality from brand-centric hand-wavery.

Shutter.
I use the 645DF and the shutter is just so loud! You can hear it go off at 100 paces. It must be easy enough to quieten down.

I'm not sure why this matters at all? I don't have the DF, but have an older AFD. Unless the DF is significantly louder, it's perfectly fine to me. Is the intent to shoot during quiet events (which would probably be indoors, in low light, in which case...)? Or to take sneak in some waist level no-look street photos? Plus how many dBs of attenuation makes it quiet "enough"?

Portrait to Landscape.
Allow the sensor to be rotated in relation to the body. Its a really useful feature when doing portrait work. Really useful.

Rotating backs are great. High five.

We don't need Live View
We need "Focus View". I've thought about this a lot. So hear me out. I use the viewfinder for composition, so I don't need the actual image on the digital back too. Thats just doubling up. I do need to know about focus, with the option of histogram too. So I would like a 'Live Focus Mask'. Plus I don't want it on the back. I want the green focus mask subtly superimposed in the viewfinder, with a button to turn it on and off again. I'm not sure it is possible, but it would be an amazing feature.

No, we don't need Live View. Only if you want "focus view". Because pulling data from the sensor, decoding it, and performing contrast detect is the main burden of the work. Sending the output to the display is straight forward.

The idea of a live focus mask superimposed on the viewfinder is kinda cool, similar to 4th gen HUD tech. But then you'd have to shrink it to fit on a camera. And it'll be even more expensive. And have even less functionality than live view, since you can't magnify it to get better resolution. So I don't see the point.

Image Previews
If I had a black screen with the areas of focus masked off in green with a small histogram as an alternative to a full image preview, I would use it much more often. Plus it would probably save on battery life.

I'm curious about your statement. Do you find that the image detracts from the focus peaking? If there's no image there, how to you correlate the focus peaking marks with what's in the frame? I'm sure most of the time you can guess, but why not just have the image there? You're already looking at the screen...

Keep it simple
Modern day 35mm cameras are swiss army knives to me. They have too many options, too many features and its possible to take too many pictures. So a swiss army knife merged with a machine gun. For me the beauty of MF is the lack of options and the concentration on simplicity. I can't use a 35mm camera for this reason. My thought process is sped up and I stop thinking about the end product. But thats just me. However the important point is stay focussed on simplicity. It works well.

Complexity is an issue only if it precludes simplicity in operation. If a device offers some set of features, and allows the user to use only a subset of those features with no interference, what's the big deal? On the other hand, if the device prevents the user from doing something fundamental (or makes it awkward to do so), then I agree that is a design issue. But DSLRs? Really?
All of them can function just like an old spotmatic. Set it ONCE to average metering, Manual exposure, fixed ISO, manual focus, and single shot. Then forget about your settings, and just capture. I believe the user should take responsibility for his/her actions, NOT rely on a device to artificially limit what can be done.

Ok my essay is over. Sorry for the length.

If you have reached the end of this, congratulations! My question to you is what other MF features are needed to bring back the differentiation between the formats that made MF so popular in the film days? What would you add? What do you disagree with?

But please please please, no Dx0 orientated pixel peeping nonsense.

I don't know what made MF popular in the film days. I know I like using my RZ with ektar. It's just as quick to setup as a 35mm, but then again I shoot small format film (well, everything really) like I do MF. I love my 4x5, except when I take it out. Then I curse it. Then I love it again when I see the tranny. I'm guessing MF was a balance of "sensor" quality and deployability back in the day. So not so much a "differentiation", as an "acceptable mix of both worlds".

Assuming the above sentence has any merit, then as others have said the modern DSLR is already the functional equivalent of film MF. Modern MFDB is more analogous to film large format.

 

[Shashin]

I also wanted to point out that this thread has been view more than 1,000 times in less than 24 hours. We might not all agree exactly, which is a good thing, but it does indicate that there is plenty of pent up frustration out there for MF to start moving in a direction that differentiates it from 35mm.

How do you even draw that conclusion from views? I look at a number of threads on the D800 and have no desire to buy that camera. I look at stuff on the X-Pro1 and have no interest in purchasing one. Surfing a thread in one way is an acceptance or denial of the point of view on a thread.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

We just have a nice busy forum is the answer to that one. Lol

 

[Shashin]

Guy, is right. The reason to get back to medium-format is to be able to post here and enjoy the company...

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Outside the traffic and I do mean this we have some very passionate folks that enjoy and want to play in the MF world. No other type of system will take that passion away , it may change the dynamics of it and honestly reading a thread such as this does call for some change. Change is good no question. Some of this makes some sense and Unfortunatly some of this also will not change as well. MF is at a tipping point the OEMs need a business case to do anything but the industry is also trendy for the latest gizmo to come along which is not a bad thing and it can't stand still either or it will get buried. Not sure more specialized is the answer or more a generalist type of system is going to make it grow. I can see both sides of the argument on that. I will say though new technology makes sales we can't ignore that one either. Just look at our upgrade paths most of us had made through time , hell I'm on my 5th back , make that 6th. I'm freaking nuts but I know I have company here as well. LOL

Anyway I think Photokinia will tell some tales on its future. I do agree most of the frustrations are in the camera itself and from all the OEMs. Some worse than others but none of them I would call the easiest things to shoot be it the AF , bulk, mirrors something will bug someone on every system. Hopefully things will get addressed and also see some new tech that actually makes some sense to us the shooter. BTW let's leave out the defend your brand here. There's no need we all heard it before. They all need some type of improvement .

 

[6x6]

How do you even draw that conclusion from views? I look at a number of threads on the D800 and have no desire to buy that camera. I look at stuff on the X-Pro1 and have no interest in purchasing one. Surfing a thread in one way is an acceptance or denial of the point of view on a thread.

You are correct. I made an assumption too far with my statement. Consider me corrected.

 

[FredBGG]

Waist level viewfinders are great. But only because it's like a mini ground glass, IF you use a hand-held loupe with a surrounding shade (similar to Klinko's setup). A fixed pop-up magnifier does not let you check focus in the corners.

Or the one Fuji made 10 years earlier:

This one is light tight and can be moved around. I made my own custom one starting with this that has two magnifications. 4x and 8x.

 

[6x6]

Are there any medium format platform manufacturers that fab their own sensors? I thought they all bought from Dalsa/Kodak.

I never said that the MF makers fabricate their own sensors. Although effectively they do because they have to use a sensor makers 'custom process' to get the sensors they need. If we take Phase One and Dalsa as an example. I believe that Dalsa custom made the IQ160 and IQ180 sensors. This is an expensive process. The process would be cheaper if the MF companies utilised the same custom sensor. I was suggesting that the MF makers reduce their costs in the most expensive area of making a DB and compete elsewhere.

Not sure what is meant here? Assuming a 6x7 sensor, aren't 3x4 and 4x5 formats larger, and hence can't be masked off?

I am referring to aspect ratio and not physical sizing. When I look through my viewfinder I have a black rectangular border defining the capture area. I was simply referring to the ability to change this border to aid the composition. In no way did I even suggest that the sensor be magically transformed.

Waist level viewfinders are great. But only because it's like a mini ground glass, IF you use a hand-held loupe with a surrounding shade (similar to Klinko's setup). A fixed pop-up magnifier does not let you check focus in the corners. But with magnified live-view/focus peaking, what's the point other than ergonomic fetish? I don't buy "less threatening when used hand-held." The photographer's interaction skill trumps camera size as far as subject anxiety goes.

From a portrait perspective a WLF would of great practical help, to me. It may not be to you, but don't assume it must be some ergonomic fetish. It has real world practical uses. I can only comment on my working situation and what I would want. I don't want a WLF for corner focus checking. I want it primarily so I can have my eye away from the camera with a focus on composition and interaction with the subject.

I'm not sure why this matters at all? I don't have the DF, but have an older AFD. Unless the DF is significantly louder, it's perfectly fine to me. Is the intent to shoot during quiet events (which would probably be indoors, in low light, in which case...)? Or to take sneak in some waist level no-look street photos? Plus how many dBs of attenuation makes it quiet "enough"?

It matters. Here is a use case. I was recently on assignment with UNICEF working alongside some videographers. We were in a tight physical location. They were interviewing some health workers and I was doing some portraits. We had to double up as we had limited time. We were about 30ft apart and the sound of my mirror kept being picked up on their sound equipement. This is a problem.

No, we don't need Live View. Only if you want "focus view". Because pulling data from the sensor, decoding it, and performing contrast detect is the main burden of the work. Sending the output to the display is straight forward.

I don't know the technical limitations of whether something can be achieved or not. All I can say is what I would like. I don't expect everything to get in there, I just think of ideas for how my practical day to day life would be made easier, and if the MF guys want to run with it, great!

I'm curious about your statement. Do you find that the image detracts from the focus peaking? If there's no image there, how to you correlate the focus peaking marks with what's in the frame? I'm sure most of the time you can guess, but why not just have the image there? You're already looking at the screen...

I suppose I'm trying to help with battery life to be honest. I am assuming that displaying a full image on an LCD is the most power hungry aspect of powering the back. I was just trying to work out how we could reduce this consumption in some way. Another use case - I carry about 8-10 DB batteries in my bag when on location. I need about 4 batteries in my pocket fully charged when shooting. I will be shooting portraits and know the composition, because I have just been looking at it through the viewfinder. I don't want to see the image preview on the back, I just want 100% assurance that I have nailed focus. I trust my composition, but need technical assurance that focus is nailed. Also zooming in doesn't work either - otherwise the subject is standing there waiting. I can't say "hold on a minute I'm just zooming in to 100%". This is my perspective, I would not dream of trying to understand others perspective, there would be too many assumptions.

Complexity is an issue only if it precludes simplicity in operation.

I can only offer my opinion. This opinion is to encourage the MF makers to keep the designs of their future cameras simple and elegant. To me the more than 20 buttons / switches on a D800 are a distraction. I find the presence of multiple buttons, many of which I have no need for a problem. Sorry.

 

[aboudd]

6X6 makes a number of wonderful points in his essay. I wonder if some of the engineering changes he would like, a rotating back for instance would make the camera more cumbersome and complex to manufacture when an L bracket pretty much accomplishes the same thing. I for one, use live view a lot to preview when shooting architecture with the Nikon and PC lenses, it is a time saver and enables me to check focus live on a magnified area, but that is my need for it, not his. I think live view coupled with an articulating, or at least a drop down LCD would accomplish the same thing as a waist level viewfinder.

I have owned 1/2 dozen film and digital MF cameras over the years, to my taste, the S2 (it is not a scaled up M9, if anything it is a scaled up R9.) is the best of them for ergonomics, simplicity, Leica glass and wonderful files. To me, given the resolution and color rendering the sensor matched to the lenses, it is workable size, both in studio and in the field. There is no one perfect camera for all situations, but for me, in MF digital, this one gets close.

 

[PeterA]

I think this is a funny thread.:chug: goo dto see peopel enjoying a mutual hug :chug::chug::chug:

Sweet spot pixels @ 40? - yeah decided that was the case a few years ago..

Medium format?

Waist level finders? - sure no problem! Hy6 or RZ or Haselblad - use a Sinar back with adaptors and you can own and shoot all three systems - I do.

Portrait and Landscape in same sensor? - sure Sinar and Leaf have one for you - I got 'em - and they are really cheap now on E**y

Manual focusing? Every MF system I own lets you choose manual or auto focus..

Movements?

Sure get an Alpa or an artec and have no focus at all - who needs it @ F11 anyway - except the pixel peepers who dominate intenet forums? Or an RZ with a tit shift adaptor ...

Dont understand what the hoo haa is about in this thread- except the dreaded fear of the inevitability of megapixel race/ $ spend being won well and truly by 35mm cameras - get over it - it has alrady happened

Utility?

any sensor with more than 12 megapixels on it is ging to give you better results on a tripod - unless you are hooting with strobes - and even then a tripos will do better. For hand held I use a Leica M or a nIkon or a Sony - for MF - your tripod is your best friend - and the camera form factor is the box you decided to buy before you got buyer regret a few weeks later..:banghead:

Happy shooting - good to see the dinasaurs hanging out and havin fun and good old yarn!:salute:

 

[Uaiomex]

I'm very glad to express that I agree with Marc on this post a cool 500%.
Eduardo

Here we go again ... "The sky is falling, the sky is falling". This thread was supposed to give that mantra a rest ... if even for just a brief moment. There are those still very interested in MF even if you aren't Fred.

Yair, when you say bigger sensor means redoing everything, did you mean bigger than 6X6? While I know some existing 645 lenses won't cover a whole 6X6 frame, that's true for 645 now ... the HCD lenses for example ... but we still use them with a bit of a crop. There aren't that many of those crop frame type optics compared to the lenses that will cover 6X6.

So my vote is for a 6X6 camera that takes all the lenses we already invested in ... and allows full use of some terrific older 6X6 lenses from Zeiss and Rollei.

Heck, Hasselblad could do a 60 meg 6X6 CFV Back, dust off the 203FE with added focus confirmation, and I'd be happy. Maybe my favorite camera system of all time.

-Marc

 

[Uaiomex]

I believe that the style of the incredibly good street photography of Vivian Maier was partly due to the twin lens reflex camera she vastly used. For some reason subjects and posers feel more at ease when the photographer is with the head down instead of straight up in the same vector to the "victim". The comfort of the WLF allows for more pictures taken at the middle of the height of any person for less distorted bodies unlike the typical paparazzo image (hideous).
Eduardo

They look terrible!
http://www.instyle.co.uk/parties/best-dresses-at-met-ball-2012#18

vivian maier - Google Search

Finally, this is a humble photo of yours truly, taken at near waist level framed from the comfort of my new Canon G1X swivel LCD. No distortion. Well, not that kind. :ROTFL:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/424192-post19.html

Yesterday, when I used it for a low angle shot, rather than laying on the freaking ground ... and the week prior when the camera was on a camera stand pointed straight down and up almost to the ceiling of my studio.

Ever notice the difference in images shot with classic Rollie TLRs and the ubiquitous Hassey Vs verses eye level perspective? Yes, the photographer can squat down or bend over with a 90º eye level finder, but most usually don't ... and their back probably thanks them for that

They fell out of favor when 645s became the digital platform because they don't work in Portrait orientation. However, when doing portraits with a 60 or 80 meg back, a vertical crop is a no brainer. Heck, once 35mm DSLRs got to 20 meg, a lot of wedding and portrait shooters never turned the camera on its side ... including Dennis Reggie.

If Hasselblad made a folding WLF with a pop-up mag for the H camera, I'd jump on it ... among other things, the camera would be so much easier to travel with. In short, it just adds diversity and differentiation with very little added expense.

The Hasselblad V cameras were incredibly diverse MF cameras, with all sorts of do-dads to accomplish various tasks ... same with the RZ system with its vast array of different lenses ... sometime two or three different lenses of the same focal length.

-Marc

 

[Jay Emm]

Thanks 6x6 for a very interesting post - and the follow up discussion has been interesting too.

I'd just add any "dream" system to continue the good direction Hasselblad has shown with True Focus. I know 6x6 said "keep it simple", but TF actually does just that - it simplifies autofocus (as an option for those times you wish to use it - which for me, is a lot)

Anyway, thanks for the post and contributions - been a good read.

 

[David Schneider]

They fell out of favor when 645s became the digital platform because they don't work in Portrait orientation. However, when doing portraits with a 60 or 80 meg back, a vertical crop is a no brainer. Heck, once 35mm DSLRs got to 20 meg, a lot of wedding and portrait shooters never turned the camera on its side ... including Dennis Reggie.

I have some portrait sessions tomorrow, final products will be 20x24's. Chances are I'll use waist level finder on the H3D2-39 and if I need to go vertical a few times I probably won't put the prism finder on.

 

[FredBGG]

They fell out of favor when 645s became the digital platform because they don't work in Portrait orientation. However, when doing portraits with a 60 or 80 meg back, a vertical crop is a no brainer.

-Marc

But then you are working with a severe crop... might as well shoot with a 35mm DSLR. You lose any benefits of the larger MF format, have to focus on a smaller subject in a finder designed for non crop.

 

[EH21]

The rotating sensor is one of my favorite features of the AFi-ii 12. I can go from portrait to landscape in a second without taking my hands off the camera. I just move the dial on the back with the thumb on my grip hand.

Wonderful to have my choice of finders, WLF, loupe or either prism and not worry about moving the camera around. Ergonomics on the Hy6/AFi are the best IMHO.