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!

Stefan Steib

Active member
Well at least within colleagues I´m again and again astonished.
I thought it is out of discussion that the man makes the image not the camera.

I am sure if you give Stan a 500 $ starter DSLR he will still make better images than most people even with an 80 Mpix "Heavy Iron".

Have fun
Stefan
 
V

Vivek

Guest
That is all fine, Stefan, some of the resaons that Stan spells out quite clearly are quite revealing of the current state of the affairs with MF digital and that of the smaller format ones.
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Yes , you are right Vivek.

Today another thing happened that may make the situation even more difficult: even if the 70d may not be a highend camera the new autofocus will probably be groundbraking.

That´s what I always say, usability is the core, resolution is probably second grade from a certain amount of pixels onward.

Professional is what works best to get a result the customer pays for.
Nothing else.

Regards
Stefan
 

rem

New member
I prefer much more the handling with the H4D50 over the Nikons (have only D4 and D600). Its a bit slower, thats great. The Hassy AF is pretty fast and sometimes its also difficult for the Nikon AF to find the point. How many shot I missed, because the Nikon AF was searching... I go never out of Power with the Hassy, 2 Akkus are enough for a hole day shooting. To reset, I had the Hassy this year maybe one time. And I really love to work with the Hassy files over the Nikon files.
In January I lost my hole Hassy Gear and more in L.A. Then I started again to evaluate what system I will, starting again with zero. Checked again the Leica S, but now I have again a H4d50 (before the 40er). And soon the H5D50. And I'm in love again;-)). The Nikons I really use when is now way to work with the Hassy. The most time I have both cameras with me. But I must also say, the most people I shoot for are (if in any case) more impressed from the D4 than from the Hassy. (Nearly) nobody knows the Hasselblad... And I would love to speak better english, but now I'm learning Italiano:) Have fun. And Stan, you have always great pictures.
rem
 

stephan_w

New member
Never got the same CONSISTENT results with Nikon than with the S2, and I'm making almost the same type of work. This is mostly due to the small viewfinder of the Nikon and the unprecise AF - point in it. and probalby my bad eyes. When you shoot studio as you do, then the 85 AFS is a marvelous lens, because once stopped down it deliveres also consistent results. But when bokeh counts and accurate AF then the Leica-System is unmatched (for me) . The S2 is flawless, consistent, reliable. And this phantastic viewfinder.

Btw I used the S2 also over a long time with several SB900 via Pocketwizzards and still use this setup when needed.
 

jduncan

Active member
I prefer much more the handling with the H4D50 over the Nikons (have only D4 and D600). Its a bit slower, thats great. The Hassy AF is pretty fast and sometimes its also difficult for the Nikon AF to find the point. How many shot I missed, because the Nikon AF was searching... I go never out of Power with the Hassy, 2 Akkus are enough for a hole day shooting. To reset, I had the Hassy this year maybe one time. And I really love to work with the Hassy files over the Nikon files.
In January I lost my hole Hassy Gear and more in L.A. Then I started again to evaluate what system I will, starting again with zero. Checked again the Leica S, but now I have again a H4d50 (before the 40er). And soon the H5D50. And I'm in love again;-)). The Nikons I really use when is now way to work with the Hassy. The most time I have both cameras with me. But I must also say, the most people I shoot for are (if in any case) more impressed from the D4 than from the Hassy. (Nearly) nobody knows the Hasselblad... And I would love to speak better english, but now I'm learning Italiano:) Have fun. And Stan, you have always great pictures.
rem

I found this interesting. I will add "the view finder"
The first time you look into a H4D viewfinder is amazing. The clarity, the apparent size of the view etc.

I found more difference between the H4D and the full frame Nikons, between the Full frames and the dx cameras.

I am surprised by the auto focus bit. Canon is far ahead at this moment in terms of autofocus, but I don't feel like my Nikons Hunt that much. Could you elaborate a little?

The D800 have been a "change your heart machine" few moths after it's introduction.

Have you work with it? What make you peek the D600 over the D800 since you have all the speed in the World with the D4?

Thanks,

James
 

Ken_R

New member
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.
great post, I agree.

When we are talking about professional photography we are talking about a professional service.

As in any service industry the tools are only one part of the equation. And in photography the camera/lens is just one of many tools that include lighting and grip equipment, camera support equipment and computer and processing equipment.

A lot of people can make a good image but not a lot can provide consistent, reliable, high quality responsible service and a good experience for the customer. (I can add a few more adjectives!)

In regards to camera gear I use what I think its best for the job. Most times for paid job's it's my Canon gear due to working speed (capturing, client display/approval and post-processing) and lens choices. (although the H1/80mm is great for studio work)

For my personal work I am using mostly the IQ160 w/ the Arca (w/ HR40 and 70 lenses) or the H1/80mm.

Stan, It's unfortunate you had such a bad experience with the Hasselblad in regards to AF and the Battery performance / camera reset issues. So far With the H1/IQ160 combination I have had no issues in that regard. It has been solid so far. Love it for photographing people.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Agreed, the H1/H2 with a DB seem better suited and more reliable than the digital only H's. I had several H3d/H4d's before switching to the H2...great camera. Now just need a P25+!
 

edouard

Member
...
There's a certain look to MFD, for me it's DOF, and skin tones
...
No!, not only DOF and skin tones

On a larger format system the image produced by the lens is better to begin with : Larger size = shift to lower spatial frequencies = using the lens in a better zone of its Modulation Transfer Function = better overall micro-contrast = higher fidelity (to use an audio term) / lifelikeness.
You could say that between equivalent “images” produced by a lens on different formats systems there are more “analogical details” in the larger image.

No need to use extremely sharp lenses to get 25Mpx max of useful details like with a D800!

Why nobody "defends" MF even here on a MF forum!?
Mhh maybe it deserve to die? when even Phase-One CEO can only come up with "differentiation" as the main advantage for MF! (c.f. his ~recent video interview)

('should start a thread about all that)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I owned 5 Phase digital backs and DF and Cambo tech cam system and they are wonderful image makers but there is also no ****ing reason to defend it as it stands on its own. Its a mindless debate and in the end no one really gives a crap as we will work with whatever tool will best fit our needs. I have been shooting digital only since 1990 thats 23 years and let me tell you we NEVER even dreamed of these kinds of systems and quality we are getting even in the mirrorless world. Consider us lucky as hell because 23 years ago you would give your eye teeth just to have a decent file to work with. People need to really get over this comparison crap as at the end of the day if you cant shoot worth **** anyway no gear is going to save your ***. There I said it, spend your money on learning how to shoot and be a great artist instead of spending 3k on a lens just because some idiot says its better than anything else on the market. Really who died and made him king.

Thats my morning 3 espresso rant dont let me get to 4. ROTFLMAO

Okay, okay, I know I know I should be much more subtle in my approach and I'm half kidding but those debates are what drives me away from even reading these forums never mind being a big part of them. Bottom line I don't care what name is on them , don't care what format it is and I don't care what Joe dick head is shooting either . What I do care about is what I can get from it and if it works, not to mention as a a Pro I make some money from it.

edouard be assured Im not picking on you and your post.

No offense to anyone named Joe either. LOL

I'm just having a little fun this morning before i do a bunch of printing
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I actually thought of you Joe not that I was referring to you but it made me put the disclaimer in. ROTFLMAO

I probably should have worded that a little different but oh we'll.
 
Side stepping Guy's post so I don't get yelled at... Haha, jk!

I shoot with an H4x and an IQ140 and love eveything about it. As with most MFD shooters, I've gone through a progression of backs and I've also tried basically every camera platform. To me there is a quality difference and other reasons why I made my decision to "invest" in it. Impressing clients didn't factor into it at all. But you can be damn sure I tell them how high quality, top of the line and expensive my equipment is when the opportunity presents itself. They aren't hiring me because of the camera, but when it comes time to negotiate, it helps. When they try to negotiate down, I can use that as a reason of why they should pay me more.

The bottom line, it's about the image you create. You can make close to the same image with any of the pro cameras out there today. Maybe thinking about it as having both an art and business side. Whichever camera you prefer to use factors into the art side. The business side can be what affect the perception of what you are using has on your clients. And let me be clear, I'm not saying you will look more impressive simply by having a MFD. the equipment should match your style and you can pitch it anyway you want. Look at Terry Richardson, his thing was a point and shoot. It became his brand. We all stand out in different ways, the camera you choose in many ways reflects that. I'm referring to your personality, personal style, etc. and I think that happens without you realizing it.

Happy 4th!!!
 

EH21

Member
Paul,

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

"Stay there, need a second for the Autofocus"
Those are familiar expressions to me, and ever since I started shooting film again alongside digital, I can add a break for changing films too. But I'm still happier with the look of the MF files, both digital and film, but the film skin looks great and needs less retouching. If I were doing sets for websites or something, I'd probably be happier with the DSLR's since they have quicker AF and need less light, but for artwork and fewer images, I'm happier with the look of the larger formats.
 

issa918

New member
I am an art director in advertising field, for both prints and TV commercials. I was a film shooter from 135 to 4x5 and acquired Leica S2 set last year for some serious personal works.

The quality of MFD is great, I always know this, because my photographers all using MFD and one is using Credo80. If I can choose the system for my jobs, I will simply ask for the MFD first then DSLR. You will never know if the clients suddenly wants a 5m billboard, and the retouching cost is the same. (My retouchers never talk about high mp files issues, though we all know it has much more works to do).

I was tempted to get a MFD system simply because of the quality. Before that, my cameras were Pentax 67ii and Leica, I simply ignore Leica because the film size is too tiny.

However, after 7 months and 2500 shots, I sold my whole S2 system (S2-P, S70, HC100 + Adaptor, plus many manual lenses) and got a DSLR + an X100s now.

It's nothing concern the quality, but just a personal preference.

1.
I feel quite annoying to refocus every shot because I don't put my subject on centre.

2.
The dof on MFD is a magic, however, I also feel the dof is just too shallow even at f11. You will still get OOF photos sometimes.

3.
The lenses cost are simply too high for personal projects. With the MFD, I want the highest quality lenses, I used some vintage lenses and the area outside centre were unacceptable even at f8. I can't afford what I need, however, or I would say I couldn't justify the cost. It's another story, though.

4.
Speed was fine to me, because I shoot slowly, for a normal portrait session, I only do 20-30 shots including several poses. But it required lots of light which is an issue, because I don't have assistants and my lights were not big enough, with a beauty dish + grid, it's ok, but i simply can't go for smaller aperture like f11.

5.
I love to shoot outdoor, but the iso and minimum handheld speed were another issues, it's a relative thing, it affects dof, sharpness, success rates and other thing. With MFD, I simply want the best quality, which means the lowest iso. But I should say iso320 on S2 is very nice too.

The above are my personal reasons, and I would agree that if I have a team, a MFD is always the top priority.

I may be back. :)
 
Top