But if we just see the prices of the bodys and lens, for example after the PhaseOne - Mamiya 645d III rebrand the model the prices went up up up up and UP AGAIN in the past years...
Anyone remember the cost of a new Mamiya 645AFD II or III and D lens in the past compared now with the price a DF based on the same old model ?
The leaf shutter lenses are Pentax 645 lenses. And both are manual focus. (There you go again, adding criteria. First you want LS lenses, then you want LS AF lenses.) But then again, the Pentax 645D system has the only MFD lens with optical stabilization. Do I win now?
You can slice and dice this anyway you want to, but the fact remains, the Pentax 645D is the most advanced MFD camera out there, with maybe the exception of the S. That is the bar for Mamiya. Folks lamenting the lack of technology in MFD and ignoring the 645D are playing with an incomplete picture.
Its hard to find the launch prices to compare
" the Mamiya 645 AFD body with Autofocus 80mm f2.8 lens and roll film holder (HM 401) has a recommended retail price of 2761.25$ "
When I mentioned how I experianced that a lot of photographers value the looks of their gear, I did not mean to offend you any how and neither did I say the Pentax wouldn't be a professional's camera.
I personally am very rational when it comes to the gear I'm using. I can only justify spending large amounts of money on gear when I get the impression that a certain price performance ratio is right which was the case with my 645 AFDII and Aptus 22.
Maybe we should continue this debate via PMs as this seems to be getting off topic.
Some cameras are certainly more aesthetically challenged then others, and the the Pentax 645 D is not going to win any beauty contests, but some here take it so personally when their gear is dissed, just look at defensive comments about the S2. Personally, I think the Phase DF is a cool looking camera, I just want it to be competitive with the others then I might buy it. The argument about good looking cameras attracting better attention for professionals is sorta true IMO, I didn't initially agree with that assessment, but think it has merit. I think bullying comments from others on who wins is detrimental to making good points or for that matter... any points.
Last edited by johnnygoesdigital; 18th August 2013 at 12:57.
Discussing the looks of camera's is a valid talking point but in the end it's subjective. I use a Leica S and like the ergonomics,I still have my H4D-50 and while it feels a little on the heavy side its pretty comfortable to use.. the Pentax 645D looks pretty good to my eyes,and Lloyd Chambers was pretty enthusiastic about the ergonomics too..writing these words about handling.. "I like this camera. It feels like a camera, whereas too many cameras today feel like computers with a lens. It is a highly functional camera for shooting. Fun to shoot, easy to shoot, doesn’t piss you off with stupidly designed-in problems."
Professional camera reviewers are also highly subjective, especially the ones with paid subscription sites.
While it is very true that many if not most photographers are interested in the visual presence of their tools, I think reaction to camera design can be strongly affected by our experiences with it ... and I do not mean the rationality of its ergonomics and such.
A camera you click with (so to speak), one that you have succeeded with despite some over-sight others are happy to point out, can introduce a "blind" affection that those other folks may not understand. The longer you are with it, the prettier it gets
To avoid the running MFD debate here, I'd offer the example of the Leica M camera ... not exactly redefining industrial design IMO. Basically a squared off brick shape more military in its presence than anything ... not even all that ergonomic. Yet, evoking rabid affection for 50+ years.
1) By "experiential traditions" I mean the separate digital back that allows cross mounting on other type cameras that so many "contemplative" photographers prefer. It promotes a different experience or relationship with photography that is more studied and precision oriented. People fuss with minutia on their tech cameras to tune them like Formula One race cars. There is also a similar relationship in some type studios and various institutions. I spent a lot of time perfecting my full movement Rollie Xact-II with a DB for very precise capture of precision product photography in studio ... however, I could mount the same back on a MF SLR and shoot a portrait of the CEO of that precision manufacturer.
I think it is often forgotten where these MFD systems came from. Many professional photographers were MF shooters, and the evolution of digital capture was forced on them by the rapid change of media over to digital reproduction. There was no D800 " good enough" alternative for a very, very long time. That MFD spread rapidly to advanced enthusiasts, or those involved in studied artistic pursuits like landscape photographers, is what helped keep it advancing ... but those advancements were still dedicated to a specific type enthusiasts experience or professional need.
While that may well change, I'd be sad to see it alter too far from being an alternative to the homogenized thrust so many seem to be clamoring for.
2) Interesting. I suspect that is possible due to a substantially smaller sensor, and that it is a CMOS feed ... but I wouldn't know for certain. I am certain that I do not want a Canon to do the work I do with MFD. I've fallen for the hype in past, and tried many times resulting in epic fails. Others may well succeed where I failed, but I really don't care since I get the job done with what I already have
Most "personal" stuff about cameras is not often presented that way. Personally, there are tons of great cameras out there. The vast majority of which, for one reason or another, I would never buy. None of my reasons have got anything to do whether it is a good camera. While I might not buy a camera because it does not have a particular viewfinder or lens, I would not criticize it for it either.
That is kind of like hating me for being a cute Newfoundland when you prefer cats.
a town of trigger-happy crazies who will shoot it down. Yeee-hah!
Of course people take stuff personally ... we aren't automatons reacting to a passionate artistic pursuit like robots ... as some here would suggest.
For example, there is a fair amount of discussion on the LS/CS abilities, and camera vibration cause by the inclusion of the FP shutter action. How important that is depends on how one uses a dual shutter camera. Get Dpi has a LOT of passionate landscape photographers posting here, so that skew will tend to dominate.
So, I understand how a landscape photographer would be put off by not being able to use an in-lens leaf shutter without engaging the more vibration prone focal plane shutter.
Yet for many others it is a non-issue. My over-whelming need for the Hasselblad system (V and H), and then the S2 I now use, is higher sync speed when working with lighting. MF 645s sync at 1/125 with a focal plane shutter, where my S2 does 1/1000 sync in CS mode on all my S lenses. This provides me an incredible level of creative control compared to 1/125.
Given the marketing position Leica went after with the S2, the target was more someone like me than a studied, longer exposure landscape shooter. Not that it wouldn't be nice to eliminated the focal plane involvement, but it would make little real world difference to me.
IMO, sensor size is a need driven specific. While I tend to agree that bigger is better, actual experience with different sensors can be vastly effected by individual applications. A modern smaller 40 meg sensor will outperform a larger sensor Aptus 22 in a number of instances ... those instances being very specific to the task at hand.
Anyone knows if are 6x7 sensor CCD or CMOS makers in the present?
Will be any chance to see DMF 6x7 in the future?
some very large Dalsa CCD sensors for specific aerial photography cameras...but you do not want to know the prices of these! They make Phase One's latest and greatest look like pocket money.)
In the future, for the sort of ordinary MF 6x7 cameras we've grown to love? While one should never say never, I think it's highly, highly unlikely. Let's see the MFD industry crack the bigger-than-35mm-format CMOS problem first, and bring it to market. Even if they manage that technologically, I expect it to top out at full-645 format, no larger, for market reasons.
As I've said in the past I won't buy or use any MF DSLR focal plane based system.
What is a worry is that Hasselblad is the only mainstream manufacturer offering a complete MF DSLR leaf shutter based system.
I think all MF DSLRs should be lens shutter designs. It is one of the key things that differentiates them from the 35mm and under DSLRs. In the future it would also be great to have digital backs with CMOS sensors that have electronic shutters also. There are some cameras that have that option already. In the Nikon V1 you can choose to use the electronic or the mechanical shutter. The electronic shutter is totally silent and vibration free but the flash sync is low (1/60 sec) but if you need a higher flash sync speed you just switch to mechanical shutter operation. That would be great to have on a medium format digital camera. The lens shutter would provide a high flash sync speed capability and the e-shutter would be great to minimize vibration and noise. Best of both worlds.
I think that Medium Format Digital should be cutting edge and offer unique features and capabilities. It kinda does now but it's good to aim much higher.
Thanks for the clarification.
With respect, what you describe is not causal with adverse impact from Canon entering MFD. In such an event, Canon would require to:
a) Provide a MFDB compatible with legacy mounts, in which case the choice of MFDB manufacturer will remain with the photographer, or;
b) Provide a MFDB with a proprietory mount, in which case Canon also will be required to develop a Canon MF body, but here too the choice of manufacturer will remain with the photographer
Of course it is possible that Canon could enter MFD by absorbing an exisiting MFD manufacturer. However, it is not possible to confirm if the effect on photographers would be adverse - how do we know that prices might not tumble? That a CMOS MFDB is delivered earlier than it might otherwise have been? etc.
It seems to me that rather than stifle choice, Canon entering MFD would extend it.
www.robbuckle.co.uk1 Member(s) liked this post
This is very interesting. Steps 4 to 6 imply that the focal plane shutter starts the exposure and the leaf shutter is only used to end it? That seems like a very odd 50:50 hybrid action. Not at all what I expect from a camera equipped with a leaf/central shutter lens:
2.Mirror goes up
3.Aperture diaphragm closes down to desired f-stop
4.Central shutter closes
5.Focal plane shutter (or rear baffle in the case of pure leaf-shutter reflexes) opens
6.Central shutter opens & closes - making the exposure
7.Focal plane shutter (or rear baffle) closes
8.Central shutter reopens
There's a natural symmetry to this. Steps 7-10 are steps 2-5 in reverse. They are the preparation for the leaf shutter to do its thing in step 6, and the denouement afterwards.
Of course, the exact order of steps 2-5 and 7-10 doesn't really matter. The aperture and mirror actions can be reordered. The only crucial thing is that 4 happens sometime before 5, and 7 happens sometime before 8.
Back to the Leica S. I wonder how they manage to achieve 1/1000 sec flash synch with this sequence you've outlined. If the focal plane shutter is doing half the job of making the exposure, doesn't it run into the usual problem of needing to uncover the full image area before the flash fires? And since the central shutter is open all this time - that's the really weird thing -, it's not like the camera can take its time to open the focal plane shutter fully before it admits any ambient light or flash. At 1/1000 sec net exposure, the focal plane shutter must absolutely slam open? I know that it's a somewhat smaller shutter than the 645 bodies have, but still...opening something like 8 times faster than a 645 shutter has got to have repercussions.
Or do you simply mean if it has a focal plane shutter at all you're not interested?
I'd be rather surprised if a new Phase One body didn't solve the problem of being unable to lockup the focal plane shutter when the leaf shutter in the lens is being used.
I'm always hesitant to recommend a body that is leaf-shutter-only to any photographer who likes to shoot wide open in normal daylite. Being limited to 1/500 (hassy V) or 1/800 (Hassy H) or even 1/1600 (Phase/Leaf) is often not enough when using an f/2.8 or similar lens outside.
It also raises the price, weight, and impinges the maximum aperture of lens design and increases the likelihood of lens failure. Which is perfectly acceptable if the photographers work benefits from leaf shutters but a fruitless cost if it doesn't.
Surely a body that has both leaf shutter compatibility and a focal plane is the best option for any photographer assuming the focal plane shutter can be disabled such that it doesn't impinge on use of the leaf shutter.
Doug, the point is that I'm not interested in leaf shutter lenses that only work in conjunction with a focal plane shutter, such as on the Phase DF, Leica S and Pentax whatever it's called
Now, if that focal plane shutter can be disabled in the new Phase body such that it doesn't impinge on use of the leaf shutter...
http://www.keithlaban.co.uk1 Member(s) liked this post
Well, I suppose the major drawback of written communication is that it's easily misinterpretated. I admit, this could be the case with my original post aswell. So let me stand corrected: I was in a way criticizing the Pentax by pointing out why it doesn't meet my demands. But to me there is a vast difference between criticizing the tool and criticzing the person using it (which I think I did not).
There are probably even more aspects about the Phase/Mamiya system I like to criticize (What I totally dislike about my AFD II is it's fastest sync speed of 1/125s that make it pretty much useless outdoors. At least for shooting people.). And the Hasselblad H aswell ("a camera has to be black!" is just one of them ). That doesn't mean these aren't great cameras and just because I didn't universally criticize all of them in the same post, doesn't mean I was out for a "mine is better than yours" kind of debate.
There is absolutely no doubt about the Pentax being a great camera and a very advanced one too. Maybe this is why I draw the reference to 35mm DSLRs which happen to be very sophisticated. And maybe this is what can be regarded offensive too, after all it's a medium format camera. However I was expressing, that to me, it feels and handles very much like a 35mm DSLR which is not a bad thing, rather the opposite. If money was no object, I'd have a Pentax system complement a Phase/Mamiya outfit. But because money is an object, I'm using an ancient Aptus22. And I'd be very stupid to invest in a better camera, when I could be spending my money on lighting, modifiers etc..
To get back on topic:
Recently I borrowed an old Sekor C 210mm. Set up the heaviest tripod and head combination possible and shot with mirror up. Every image with a shutter speed slower than 1/90th of a second was blurred. I tell you I was shocked!
I start looking the differences of H system and Phase Mamiya, and for me the H3DII have a more modern body, with huge number o customize menus/buttons and sync 1/800 with every lens and bodys.
From Phase One i like to see a new Digital Mamiya RZ with the size of the 645 DF....