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!

Sorry, we're closed!

Stan ROX

Member
Hey Guys,

after having all those fine cameras in my studio (H4D-40, Leica S, Nikon D800E) and a final shooting with both cameras (H4D & D800E), I decided to go out of MF business. The last two years have been feeling great with my Hasselblads, but for my type of work, there is so much more flow in my shootings with a smaller cam.

What makes me really sad is that I'll be no longer be allowed to post in the gorgeous "Fun with MF" thread, but will check back for your wonderful pictures regulary. Watch out for the Nikon-Subforum or maybe on facebook/stan.ROX

If you want to see the picture that finally flipped the switch klick here (3.4 MB)
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
Stan,

a few points I would like to ask you in this context (out of interest):

1) Was your decision driven by financial value motives primarily (IQ difference not discernible, DR not really that much better, upgrade costs too high in your view etc.)

or

2) usability aspects (faster shooting, insane battery life, live view, size, weight)?

You are a working pro. Don't you think that showing up with a camera on set that your client's kid/wife can't afford (i.e. a nice Hassy worth 20k+) is a differentiator?

What about the look of MF? It is not the same ... you know you love the 100 2.2 look!

Regards

Paul
 

Stan ROX

Member
Stan,

a few points I would like to ask you in this context (out of interest):

1) Was your decision driven by financial value motives primarily (IQ difference not discernible, DR not really that much better, upgrade costs too high in your view etc.)

or

2) usability aspects (faster shooting, insane battery life, live view, size, weight)?

You are a working pro. Don't you think that showing up with a camera on set that your client's kid/wife can't afford (i.e. a nice Hassy worth 20k+) is a differentiator?

What about the look of MF? It is not the same ... you know you love the 100 2.2 look!

Regards

Paul
Paul,

I would have LOVED to stay in Medium format. Almost everybody stood paralyzed when I took out the big iron, made from stainless steel! Oh, that shine. Followed by:

"Uh, wait. I need to remove the battery ... the camera must be reset"

"Stay there, need a second for the Autofocus"

"OK, give me a second need to change the battery"

Very simply spoken (such a decision goes not that easy and I have thought about for some reasonable time) the decision-driver was the lack of differentiation between the two systems.

If I would make a living from Landscapes or Interior shootings, I would rather do a upgrade (mpix-wise) or extend my kit - but for Beauty, Lingerie and Nudes a 500 USD-Lens (Nikon 85 1.8 G) takes up easily with the HC 100 (check it out here). (Let alone the fact that this picture is purely lit with two Nikon SB-910 controlled via CLS).

Finally: Approaching a shooting site, I carry enough equipment with me to impress almost everybody. Big flashes, small flashes, tripods, my Airport Thinktank International filled up with lenses etc etc. - never had any question, but they know my work.

I just consider this as a new chapter in my work - I've been with Canon for 10 years until I sold everything - sometimes its a good thing to reboot.

There are, however, still some unedited MF-Pictures on my Harddisk :)

S.
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
Stan,

thank you for your comments.

But you know ... never say never! In 5 years you might wind up buying a H5D-40 for 5k on this forum ...
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Paul Spinner-"You are a working pro. Don't you think that showing up with a camera on set that your client's kid/wife can't afford (i.e. a nice Hassy worth 20k+) is a differentiator?"

The difference shows in the photographer's skill, not what looks good to egomaniacs. A professional photographer is just that...professional, otherwise have the clients kid/wife take the photos. Clients are looking for creativity and inspiration-evident in the photographers mastery of the tools, because if you show up with an expensive MFD camera and still suck...hmmm.

I haven't used a MFD camera yet that matches the dynamic range of the D800, and as Stan has pointed out the 85mm is one of the best lenses period. There's a certain look to MFD, for me it's DOF, and skin tones, but I can achieve that perceived look with the D800 - a camera that is superior in dynamic range, and to me, more useful then the logo on the side of the camera.
I personally think that one's creativity and professionalism shows in the lighting and use of modifiers. That's what will make you stand out from the crowd, and besides think of how many more lights/modifiers you can get when getting into the D800 over MFD. Your profit/margin just increased simply by choosing the right tools over ego.
I should point out that this applies to my situation and obviously not all photographers are applicable, but If someone is more concerned by their sense of self importance than a clients needs, then you better be a good photographer.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Interesting to read this, Stan. I'm on my way into MF digital, but see that going for a studio only solution based on my GX680 for product and food photography would make sense for me and stay with Nikon for faster paced work.
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
Paul Spinner-"You are a working pro. Don't you think that showing up with a camera on set that your client's kid/wife can't afford (i.e. a nice Hassy worth 20k+) is a differentiator?"

The difference shows in the photographer's skill, not what looks good to egomaniacs. A professional photographer is just that...professional, otherwise have the clients kid/wife take the photos. Clients are looking for creativity and inspiration-evident in the photographers mastery of the tools, because if you show up with an expensive MFD camera and still suck...hmmm.

I haven't used a MFD camera yet that matches the dynamic range of the D800, and as Stan has pointed out the 85mm is one of the best lenses period. There's a certain look to MFD, for me it's DOF, and skin tones, but I can achieve that perceived look with the D800 - a camera that is superior in dynamic range, and to me, more useful then the logo on the side of the camera.
I personally think that one's creativity and professionalism shows in the lighting and use of modifiers. That's what will make you stand out from the crowd, and besides think of how many more lights/modifiers you can get when getting into the D800 over MFD. Your profit/margin just increased simply by choosing the right tools over ego.
I should point out that this applies to my situation and obviously not all photographers are applicable, but If someone is more concerned by their sense of self importance than a clients needs, then you better be a good photographer.
Johnny, I am fully aware that it is the photographer that is most important factor in the equation. But as I see it, the main benefit from MFD nowadays is "marketing". It does make a difference when you impress the client and give him the feeling that he is buying the best quality money can buy. it doesnt matter then, if the camera could have been a Nikon D800 ... what matters is perceived value which is a combination of the output and the impression that one paid for a photographer that uses equipment one doesnt also have. To me it makes a difference if I were to hire a photographer and he arrived on set with a Canon 60D and kit lens ...
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Interesting to read this, Stan. I'm on my way into MF digital, but see that going for a studio only solution based on my GX680 for product and food photography would make sense for me and stay with Nikon for faster paced work.
It's always nice to have two systems for diffrent types of work. This sounds like a nice setup for you. This also reduces limitations on one system no question. Reaching into your cabinet and grabbing the best tool for the work your going to shoot that day is bliss. Having options is wonderful.having limitations just sucks.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
With all due respect Paul, Imo, I think the client is impressed with what they are given in the product, and not the perception of what brand of camera their holding before the shoot. I'm not sure the average client knows the fundamental differences anyway. As far as marketing is concerned for MFD, I could use a camera that costs ten times as much as a D800 that does so much less in terms of functionality, then my perception would be that the photographer is more concerned with their impression and not the other way around. Digital photography today is blending and evolving to a point where only a photographers intuition and skill will set them apart.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Going back to the heart of this thread and for Pros more than anyone these types of decisions are based mainly on money output versus money input. If a piece of gear will not increase revenue than its very hard to justify from a business standpoint. Let me also add to this the basic problem is US and our desire or want as a person not a business to have gear regardless of the ROI. I know its a battle for me and I know I'm not alone is the battle between my wants and business needs. I find from a Pros seat that whatever gets the job done and done correctly regardless of what's in your hand as a good thing. I'm shooting the Nikons its a very good solution for me but I would still rather shoot MF but that's okay too. Sometimes your just forced into things and need to accept them and not worry about it. My heads in a good place on these decisions and frankly I would rather not stress over gear anymore. I have enough things to stress about. I think many Pros worry about the next gig coming in the door as our main concern.
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
With all due respect Paul, Imo, I think the client is impressed with what they are given in the product, and not the perception of what brand of camera their holding before the shoot. I'm not sure the average client knows the fundamental differences anyway. As far as marketing is concerned for MFD, I could use a camera that costs ten times as much as a D800 that does so much less in terms of functionality, then my perception would be that the photographer is more concerned with their impression and not the other way around. Digital photography today is blending and evolving to a point where only a photographers intuition and skill will set them apart.
It is my opinion, just that.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I don't disagree with the perceived value when a photographer shows up with MF gear. I did get a lot of attention with that and yes it does have some market value in regards to they hired a top gun to shoot there product. What does come into play though is how much percentage of value does your client put on that. I have one big client that seen me go up to MF from a P25 to as high as a IQ 160 than seen me go down to the Nikon. I still get hired regardless but it does impress them but we have to ask ourselves the value of that as well. I'm all for looking the part but that takes a lot of things and gear is only a part of that being a good honest, hard working, ill do whatever it takes attitude takes on a much more perceived value to a client. I won't deny gear impressions on clients, but I always asked myself what if any role that plays to the bottom line. But I agree looking the part will not hurt you either.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
With all due respect Paul, Imo, I think the client is impressed with what they are given in the product, and not the perception of what brand of camera their holding before the shoot. I'm not sure the average client knows the fundamental differences anyway. As far as marketing is concerned for MFD, I could use a camera that costs ten times as much as a D800 that does so much less in terms of functionality, then my perception would be that the photographer is more concerned with their impression and not the other way around. Digital photography today is blending and evolving to a point where only a photographers intuition and skill will set them apart.
In my experience results should, and often do matter more than the perception of professionalism.

But the trappings of professionalism almost always matter a little, and often matter a lot. Doctors wear white jackets for a reason beyond their ability to show germ-carrying-dirt/grime easier (see this podcast about the Placebo effect). Part of the trappings of professionalism is your attitude, punctuality, communication skills, business cards, website, and even small things like posture.

But part of the trappings of professionalism is also gear including the camera, lens, lighting, and even the cases/grip/accessories.

Show up with great trappings of professionalism but produce poor results and you're likely not to get hired again. But if you have the choice between great results with or without great professionalism I think the choice is clear.

The camera is only a small part of that, but it is part of that for sure.

This is one of the reasons I've always thought medium format companies were smart to keep backs within a given line (e.g. all of the P+ backs) identically styled. Other than a small marker in the corner of the back a P20 and a P65+ look the same as do an IQ140 and IQ280, despite very large differences in price and spec. You don't own a PXX+... you own a Phase One digital back.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
It's a interesting topic and you always wonder what if any real effect this has. I know I get hired because I deliver the goods always, that I can hang my hat on. Big companies hire consultants to query these things, it would be interesting to figure this out but none of us has the resources like that to put our money into figuring it out. You can get a good idea from the clients you work for and to stay in business you need to know what makes them happy.

I can see how this debate can go several ways and believe me I have thought about it a lot. Not sure there is truly a wrong answer either as clients are as diverse in thinking as we are as photographers. But yea it begs the 64k question does it really pay off.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
These are excellent points, I do shoot MF, but mostly film. Certainly it's not wrong to invest in MFD, but if it's just to look good as a perception then the resulting photographs better show the same effort.
 
Last edited:

Swissblad

Well-known member
Sorry to see you leave, Stan - but will catch up with your work on the Nikon forum.
Stunning photo BTW.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
If you want to see the picture that finally flipped the switch klick here (3.4 MB)
Well, as hairy chests go, it probably would have flipped my switch too. :p (Certainly can't argue about a lack of resolving power!)

On a more serious note, life as an amateur is a lot easier and I can certainly understand the needs of a working professional. Your description of your Hasselblad battery/focus/battery/lock up etc sounds very familiar to my DF experience for a long time, although thankfully it's a lot better these days. When the gear becomes a block to creativity or business then it's time to go.
 

RVB

Member
Paul,

I would have LOVED to stay in Medium format. Almost everybody stood paralyzed when I took out the big iron, made from stainless steel! Oh, that shine. Followed by:

"Uh, wait. I need to remove the battery ... the camera must be reset"

"Stay there, need a second for the Autofocus"

"OK, give me a second need to change the battery"

Very simply spoken (such a decision goes not that easy and I have thought about for some reasonable time) the decision-driver was the lack of differentiation between the two systems.

If I would make a living from Landscapes or Interior shootings, I would rather do a upgrade (mpix-wise) or extend my kit - but for Beauty, Lingerie and Nudes a 500 USD-Lens (Nikon 85 1.8 G) takes up easily with the HC 100 (check it out here). (Let alone the fact that this picture is purely lit with two Nikon SB-910 controlled via CLS).

Finally: Approaching a shooting site, I carry enough equipment with me to impress almost everybody. Big flashes, small flashes, tripods, my Airport Thinktank International filled up with lenses etc etc. - never had any question, but they know my work.

I just consider this as a new chapter in my work - I've been with Canon for 10 years until I sold everything - sometimes its a good thing to reboot.

There are, however, still some unedited MF-Pictures on my Harddisk :)

S.
You might miss those Leaf shutter's at some point Stan,or the giant viewfinder,bit no doubt the D800E is very impressive camera,and those images are gorgeous....
 
Top