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!
fat pixel digital backs
- Thread starter mmbma
- Start date
shortpballer
Member
When looking back at the older pictures taken with a P25+, and thinking about all these conversations regarding 35mm DSLR's. I realize that I would take a P25+ and an Alpa anyday over a 35mm DSLR, even if the DSLR had 60 megapixels (I'm sure we will be having this conversation here within the next year or so). The look created by medium format cannot be beat (in my opinion) no matter what the megapixels.
Two more photos from a while ago for old time sake:
P25+
H1
HTS 1.5
100 f2.2 HC
26mm macro adapter
Two more photos from a while ago for old time sake:
P25+
H1
HTS 1.5
100 f2.2 HC
26mm macro adapter
M
mjr
Guest
Ha, my car is parked just to the right, slightly out of shot! I took some images for the guy who looks after my car for his website, he has some amazing cars stored. Mine unfortunately isn't quite in the same league.
Something to aspire to for sure!
Mat
Something to aspire to for sure!
Mat
M
mjr
Guest
Here's another couple..
And mine, not so exotic but still a beast!
Mat
And mine, not so exotic but still a beast!
Mat
MaxKißler
New member
I'm using Lightroom 4.3
PeterA
Well-known member
The CFV is the only back I can use with my 200 series bodies and also matches perfectly with my 500 series and V lenses. Film back/polaroid back/digi back - all bases covered - and the older CF CFE FE lenses work well enough on low resolution backs.
Thoroughly recommended for the peasants of MFD world like me:salute:
Thoroughly recommended for the peasants of MFD world like me:salute:
This was shot in foggy conditions some time after sunset. Despite maxing out the back (30 seconds) it was a bit underexposed so it had to be pushed in post. The low outside temperature helped in drastically lowering the amount of hot pixels. (I think it's unfortunate that most back makers limit the exposure time in firmware as longer times actually can be had in cold conditions, which I often work in.)
The image could easily have more contrast, but I wanted to keep a feeling true to the scene, which indeed was foggy, dim and low contrast.
Hasselblad CF22, Linhof Techno, Schneider Digitar 47mm, a small vertical shift, f/11, 30 seconds.
Due to the very dim light and the 47mm with center filter it was difficult conditions to focus with the ground glass, but training has helped me nail focus also in these cases.
The image could easily have more contrast, but I wanted to keep a feeling true to the scene, which indeed was foggy, dim and low contrast.
Hasselblad CF22, Linhof Techno, Schneider Digitar 47mm, a small vertical shift, f/11, 30 seconds.
Due to the very dim light and the 47mm with center filter it was difficult conditions to focus with the ground glass, but training has helped me nail focus also in these cases.
MaxKißler
New member
Yesterday I had the chance to compare my Aptus 22 with an IQ180. It was interesting to see how good that old back kept up with today's latest and greatest. I prefer not to be some sort of measurebator, but the techy side of me was just too curious. Therefore this is not about lines per mm or anything too scientific, just a few shots in a couple of minutes. You might even call it a "real life test"...
To the test:
I shot a friend of mine who is very likely to become an outstanding fashion photographer. We used a 645DF and the SK 110mm. Both images were shot at ISO 50, f8, one Profoto head.
I processed both files in LR 4.3 to match contrast and color. I cropped both images to get an almost same view. After exporting both files I opened them in PS and upscaled the Aptus 22 image to match the exact size of the IQ180 file. I have not applied any sharpeningat all.
Two things surprised me most. First, the Aptus produced increadibly pleasing skin color right out of the box that got even better with a little tuning whereas I had to spend long time on the IQ180 files to make them look good. Second, the difference in sensor sizes is very noticable. That alone would be a reason for me to get an IQ series back. I found the autofocus of the DF increadibly fast and accurate and really began wondering what it is that people are constantly complaining about. It is a great camera system.
Please keep in mind that this was shot with contrasty lighting so it's no surprise that both camera/back combinations could shine. A landscape or architecture shot might have looked completely different.
Aptus 22
IQ180
To the test:
I shot a friend of mine who is very likely to become an outstanding fashion photographer. We used a 645DF and the SK 110mm. Both images were shot at ISO 50, f8, one Profoto head.
I processed both files in LR 4.3 to match contrast and color. I cropped both images to get an almost same view. After exporting both files I opened them in PS and upscaled the Aptus 22 image to match the exact size of the IQ180 file. I have not applied any sharpeningat all.
Two things surprised me most. First, the Aptus produced increadibly pleasing skin color right out of the box that got even better with a little tuning whereas I had to spend long time on the IQ180 files to make them look good. Second, the difference in sensor sizes is very noticable. That alone would be a reason for me to get an IQ series back. I found the autofocus of the DF increadibly fast and accurate and really began wondering what it is that people are constantly complaining about. It is a great camera system.
Please keep in mind that this was shot with contrasty lighting so it's no surprise that both camera/back combinations could shine. A landscape or architecture shot might have looked completely different.
Aptus 22
IQ180
MarkoRepse
Member
Yup an Aptus22 is really still an amazing back and anyone who states otherwise obviously hasn't used one. The IQ180 wins in this test and its the resolution that does it but if you don't print massive I wonder if you could tell. Also, the Aptus22 has massive DR and I am curious how it compares to the 180 or upcoming 280 in this respect; its DR is better than the DM33 I have now.
Max, why lightroom though? I expect C1 should be better. PS: I agree, the DF is very far from bad.
Max, why lightroom though? I expect C1 should be better. PS: I agree, the DF is very far from bad.
MaxKißler
New member
Marko, interesting that you mentioned it: I had the silly impression that DR is slightly better with the Aptus 22. It appeared to have a tad more detail in the extreme highlights but that might aswell be wishful thinking. What I did notice for sure is the IQ180 produced a slightly yellow color cast that I didn't like and couldn't get rid of. You might even see it in the images I posted above.
The main reason I prefer to use LR instead of C1 is because my workflow involves a lot of processing at raw level and as little PS as needed. I have tried to get along with C1 but do not see the great benefit in using it instead of LR. I would even dare to say that the usability of C1 is horrible whilst LR is more or less self explanatory. Another feature I like about LR is the easy file management and the new process version (2012, same as in camera raw CS6) equipped it with an increadibly capable development algorithm. Check out this video if you are interested: Adobe Camera Raw 7.0 in Photoshop CS6 | Photoshop CS6 Feature Tour | Adobe TV
I particularly like the feature that automaticly reduces all chromatic aberrations in an image. It just works all the time.
I've got the impression that a lot of people prefer to use their raw developers only for basic adjustments, then export a tiff to work on everything else in PS. I try to use PS only for the fine tuning such as retouching and sharpening etc. All other significient adjustments I do before in my raw developer.
Of course there are things I hate about LR. It's got tons of useless features. It simply doesn't look very professional and as far as I know tethering support for digital backs is limited. But despite it's shortcomings it's the right tool for me so far.
Regards
Thank you kindly.
The setup was super simple... sheet of printer paper for the seamless, bottle of port(yeah yeah...) as the seamless hanger/support pole thingey... ambient light from huge window.
It was shot two stops under at ISO 200 and pushed quite a bit...
Shot with the RZ and the H25. A combo I am madly in love with / would kill for a modern update to the RZ67 made of... carbon fiber because carbon fiber is baller.
bensonga
Well-known member
You had me laughing out loud! :salute:
And which RZ lens?
Wish I could justify the cost of a digital back from my RZ ProII. A 22mp Leaf Aptus 5 would be perfect.
Gary
You had me laughing out loud! :salute:
And which RZ lens?
Wish I could justify the cost of a digital back from my RZ ProII. A 22mp Leaf Aptus 5 would be perfect.
Gary
Im resourceful- I literally have nothing other than a camera[system]. I wanted a seamless, so printer paper it was, you know? needed a heavy object to tape the paper to... I mean I COULD have used the empty tequila bottle....
A leaf Aptus is WAY out of my budget, Id LOVE to have one, but I made the decision and concession to get into medium format for a little bit more than the price of a used 5D mark 2, at the cost of being tethered all the time. But its not like I can just walk the RZ67 around as much as I pretend that its possible.
Used the 110mm. I cant dream of using any other system for a long long while.
Ill probably keep the H25 until it dies.