shortpballer
Member
Just took a look at this thread for the first time. I must say that when I was shooting the P25+ it had a special look with the bigger pixel size. Here are some photos we did in the past for 3 Michelin Star Restaurant L'Arpege.
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!
Thats what I hope too .I hope so! :thumbs:
I think the key to making this a long-term thread is getting a steady stream of "fat pixel" images here.
I will do my best to get out and shoot more often with my CFV-16II....and post the images here.
Gary
I hate to admit how few images I have actually taken with my CFV-16II and I've only used 3 lenses on it: 40mm CFE IF, 100mm CFi and 120mm Makro CFi.What I would like to know from the interested shooters :
What cameras and lenses do you use to shoot with your Fat Pixel Back
and why do you like the (results) 9µ backs .
Thats what I hope too .
And . . . . not to forget , there is a 5 star photographer here as a member , who surely can add tons of fantastic images shot with his LEAF APTUS II-5 . Dan Lindberg . :thumbs:
The LEAF APTUS II-5 is a fat pixel back ? ? ?
A P25+ at ISO400 has a moderate amount of grain, but processed in Capture One v7 it can be, in my opinion, beautiful. It could be had for significantly less than 10k (back only) and probably under 10k in a kit that would suit the needs you describe.So is the consensus that these 9micron backs ~22mp are great at base ISO which is likely 50 or 100 and then really not so good at 400?
My application is location portraiture and sometimes you need ISO 400 to drag the background up even though you are lighting the portrait with strobe, you need the fill level.
For example a likely exposure is f8 1/15 at 400ISO- just enough drag to keep the background lively.
I will also just shoot ambient at 100Iso, say 1/2second on tripod.
Are these likely to be fails on a fatback?
Should I be saving my scant pennies for a back that can do decent 400? If so what is likely to be south of 10k? considering i like wides too- I know, make it impossible.
Doug, just out of interest, what if any problems would you anticipate for exposures of greater than 1 sec at base ISO?Many of the backs on that list would have no problem with 1 sec at ISO100. Its the ISO400 question that would challenge many/most of those backs.
Careful with that name calling. im probably the youngest one here!I was just in the studio a few days ago watching the kid play with our view camera with the P25+. It reminded me of one thing I never had to do with the files--apply an unsharp mask.
So, remind me again why having tons of pixels is important?
The backs that don't handle long exposure well would produce excessive stuck/hot pixels and would have poor shadow color accuracy. Some of the "fat pixel" backs are only supported in raw processing software which was not meaningfully updated as newer/better algorithms were developed. This is one major advantage of a Phase (and most of the Leaf model) fat pixel back: they are supported in Capture One v7 which is a full 10 years newer than some of these digital backs and breath new life into them especially concerning mid-to-high ISO performance and long exposure exposure.Doug, just out of interest, what if any problems would you anticipate for exposures of greater than 1 sec at base ISO?