Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

[Drennon]

The colors rendering is different.
Is this the thing that you are looking for?

This is one aspect that I am very interested in, yes. How is it different?

I am arranging to rent an IQ260 (hopefully over this weekend) so we'll see how it goes in all facets.

I really appreciate everyone's input on this and the conversation that has followed.

As someone who is looking to use this system primarily for fine art (besides not being great with words all the time anyways), there is something I am looking to achieve that can be difficult to convey in purely techinal terms. I know this: I like the way images from my Mamiya 6 look more than images from my 5D Mark II. I'm terrible at defending that preference using the technical language used often to justify one camera over another. I just know it looks different. The point being: I'm hoping to find something close to that in a FF digital back. It may seem like an awful lot of $$$ for something you can't quite put your finger on, but I think it's real (maybe I'll find out this weekend?).

David

 

[Geoff]

Its the old problem: how much is the incremental improvement of MFDB worth over FF DSLR? It costs a lot, has some difficulties in operation, yet gives better results. How much better - see endless threads and discussion.

Marc's insights are valuable as he uses both side by side. For those who see the difference, its palpable. There are some who don't. The net has lots of folks who say there isn't much difference, but make judgments from on-line jogs (!) and haven't seen it in person.

 

[shlomi]

This is one aspect that I am very interested in, yes. How is it different?
David

That is very hard to describe. I think the only way to know is that you shoot your regular materials and then you see it. Looking at the work of others will give you a false sense - you don't know what they did and how. Don't take your 5D2 as a reference for Canon - get your hands on a 1Dx.

I am arranging to rent an IQ260 (hopefully over this weekend) so we'll see how it goes in all facets.

IQ260 is very expensive. Maybe money is not a problem for you.
You have Credo or IQ1 which are 99% identical, and much cheaper.
If you're ready to compromise on user interface, then you have Aptus II 12 and 10 - for $10000 and $20000. They have very distinct and different colors than IQ/Credo - maybe not totally accurate but very pretty and for natural and human subjects the inaccuracies are unnoticeable. The project you mentioned used an Aptus. The user interface of these backs is still going to be much better than the film back you have now, and I love their low maintenance (little dust!).
Credo will be closer to the Aptus colors that you saw in that project than IQ.

 

[Drennon]

I wasn't aware that the colors were significantly different, thank you for bringing that to my attention.

Are backs you mentioned lower maintenance in terms of dust management? If so, how?

 

[shlomi]

Aptus gather little dust - I've had quite a few of them.
I have a Credo now - same architecture as IQ - and it gathers much more dust.
There must be a difference in the build of static electricity on the sensor.
The image is cleaner and more accurate, though, and the UI is much better.

 

[jlm]

regarding the 250 (CMOS with live view) vs the 260 (CCD) in one regard:

on an SLR, the advantage of live view is less important; on a tech camera, much more important

 

[kdphotography]

Nothing better than doing what you're doing---go out and try/rent.

I'd specifically compare the IQ260 and the IQ250, taking in consideration your preference for longer exposures. That aside, I'd also take a quick look at the IQ1 series as well as Leaf Credo offerings.

The IQ180 is my fifth MFDB. With regard to "dust" I've experienced nothing unusual, and generally nothing more than a puff of air needed from bulb blower to clean, and the occasional rare cleaning. And in any event MUCH less problematic than dust on my Canon DSLRs.

If live view or focusing is a concern, tethering via USB3 and Surface Pro 2 is a great option for all Phase IQ series MFDB as well as Leaf Credo. I'd love to see the live view from the CMOS based IQ250 on the larger SP2 screen!

ken

 

[jlm]

MFDB sensors are much, much easier to clean!

 

[Pemihan]

- it can use any kind of flash, including mixing and matching (e.g. Canon flash on top of the DF+ for fill light and a Profoto B1 off camera for a key light

Sorry for the hijack, but can you actually just use a Canon Flash (580 EXII) on top of the DF+?
I didn't think you could do that.

Peter

 

[shlomi]

I don't know what's the deal with the dust on my Credo.
Maybe there's a problem with the specific unit.
Maybe Credo is different than IQ.

What I do know:
I need to puff pretty much every day, and wipe about once a week.
Before with Aptus (many of them), I needed to puff once every couple of weeks, and wipe every couple of months. Very different. If you say you never have to wipe, that sounds strange to me.

For sure it's not very difficult to clean, but still - I thought the whole dust thing was over for me when I moved to MF, and now it's back. The point is not that it's difficult, but if you forget to do it, and you have too much dust on the images which can be a problem.

 

[dougpeterson]

I don't know what's the deal with the dust on my Credo.
Maybe there's a problem with the specific unit.
Maybe Credo is different than IQ.

What I do know:
I need to puff pretty much every day, and wipe about once a week.
Before with Aptus (many of them), I needed to puff once every couple of weeks, and wipe every couple of months. Very different. If you say you never have to wipe, that sounds strange to me.

For sure it's not very difficult to clean, but still - I thought the whole dust thing was over for me when I moved to MF, and now it's back. The point is not that it's difficult, but if you forget to do it, and you have too much dust on the images which can be a problem.

Have you recently cleaned out your body? Maybe (obviously only guessing/speculating with incomplete information) when you owned the Aptus your body was still fairly new and had not built up a lot of grime/dust/wear/tear/deterioration-of-baffling etc and therefore less dust was transferring from the body to the back.

 

[dougpeterson]

Sorry for the hijack, but can you actually just use a Canon Flash (580 EXII) on top of the DF+?
I didn't think you could do that.

Absolutely. Just stick it on and put it in manual mode.

Syncs, with leaf shutter lenses, up to 1/1600th - no HSS mode required.

 

[shlomi]

I went through several bodies both then and now.
I am well aware of the thing were a body releases particles - this is not what I have.

 

[kdphotography]

Re Dust---maybe an old camera bag or case that is exacerbating the situation?

I know it's a pita, but I try to wipe out and vacuum my bags/cases occasionally, and you can see the dirt/dust/gunk.

Better yet---an excuse to buy a new bag!

 

[Pemihan]

Better yet---an excuse to buy a new bag!

Didn't you mean a new back

Peter

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Just a few reflections…

The Leica may not be that expensive in MF-terms, but it uses a pretty old sensor, a replacement may be due, perhaps to Photokina? Who knows?

The crop factor is only important if there is a limited set of lenses for a larger sensor. Leica has chosen to build the S-series around a relatively small sensor, but they design lenses for that size of sensor. It's a bit like 4/3, it is a small sensor but the lenses are made for that sensor so it is quite OK.

James Russel (known as BC on LuLa forums) has bought a Leica S2 and he seems to be quite happy with that choice. The S-series also take Hasselblad H lenses and Contax lenses.

I am a bit doubtful that there would be a great difference in image quality between say a 36 MP DSLR and a 39 MP MF camera in small prints, say up to A2-size. Mostly because a 36MP DSLR can produce good enough prints at those sizes, human vision taken into account. I am pretty sure I cannot see a significant difference on the samples I have seen, except on test charts, but YMMV, as usual.

Best regards
Erik

Well I've never held a Leica S in my hand, so I can't make an informed observation.
Obviously I was referring to M and H systems.

The Leica is terrifically expensive, yet offering only 44x33mm sensor.
No C1 support and special tethering.
No 1:1.
It's not for everybody.

From what I see on the internet, it seems the S body would handle about as easily as a 1Dx.
I do know first hand how a 1D* would handle with 85II - and it's pretty fast. The first version was slow, but the current lens handles very nicely. I would be surprised if Leica can match that combination in AF speed, but as I said I don't have first hand experience.

I'm sure in pixel peeping Leica would give much sharper results than 1Dx.
Would you notice it in a portrait displayed on a screen or printed on A4?
I'm not sure you would.
The colors would be different for sure - I don't know the Leica colors or which ones I would like better.

In any case it would seem the OP is interested in FF and not 44x33, so Leica and Pentax, who are smaller and whose handling is inarguably better than H and M, are not really what he's looking for.

Seems pretty sensible that a $40,000 system would give better IQ than a $10,000 system - but if you didn't get FF and high ISO, then the value for the very high additional expense is in question.

BTW Canon does have high speed sync - not as elegant a solution as leaf shutter lenses, but nevertheless it works.

 

[shlomi]

Hi,

Just a few reflections…

The Leica may not be that expensive in MF-terms, but it uses a pretty old sensor, a replacement may be due, perhaps to Photokina? Who knows?

The crop factor is only important if there is a limited set of lenses for a larger sensor. Leica has chosen to build the S-series around a relatively small sensor, but they design lenses for that size of sensor. It's a bit like 4/3, it is a small sensor but the lenses are made for that sensor so it is quite OK.

James Russel (known as BC on LuLa forums) has bought a Leica S2 and he seems to be quite happy with that choice. The S-series also take Hasselblad H lenses and Contax lenses.

I am a bit doubtful that there would be a great difference in image quality between say a 36 MP DSLR and a 39 MP MF camera in small prints, say up to A2-size. Mostly because a 36MP DSLR can produce good enough prints at those sizes, human vision taken into account. I am pretty sure I cannot see a significant difference on the samples I have seen, except on test charts, but YMMV, as usual.

Best regards
Erik

I'll get back to that point, since two users here (not you) accused me of talking about things I have no idea about.

I've never had my hands on a Leica S, but I've used several other 44x33 MFDs, and also 48x36, 56x36 and 53x40, so I do have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about. I am not relying on "on-line jogs" (Geoff), mainly because I no idea what those are.

If I needed a camera to handhold and auto focus, then there is a very good chance I would be using a Leica right now. As my needs include tethering, close up, post processing - Leica is not something I bothered to check.

The price of the Leica system may start only in $20k, but every lens is $5k-$8k, and you would need 3-4 lenses for a pro practice, which makes it much pricier than Mamiya for instance, since Mamiya offers many choices, not all of then sky high expensive.

To say that 1Dx is a camera for "hosing off shots" only, is a very narrow minded look at it. 1Dx is Canon's top of the line camera. It is intended for high end use, for all applications. It is used by professional photographers for those applications, and they are extremely satisfied with it.

Most professional photographers will not or can not spend $40K on a system. That does not mean that a $10,000 system is some sort of semi-pro system. That is a ridiculous statement. Canon and Nikon are much more important in the pro field than MFD.

I like MFD and it does offer advantages to my very specific applications. Mostly I use it because I like it and I don't want to get bored. From a business standpoint, If I kept on using 1D*, my expenses over the past 5 years would be almost zero, and my revenues would be about the same if not higher. At these prices it is very hard to justify MFD as a business decision. And IMO, most MFD users are those that can afford it and like it - some pros, but mostly well off amateurs.

Most importantly, image quality is not by any means a scalar number.
You can not compare two cameras like that:
IQ (camera-1) < IQ (camera-2)
Image quality can be broken down to many different aspects, to count very few for example:

IQ(x).resolution
IQ(x).detail
IQ(x).sharpness
IQ(x).colors
IQ(x).optical-diffraction
IQ(x).fall-off
IQ(x).fringing
IQ(x).distortion
IQ(x).bokeh
IQ(x).ISO50.highlights.detail
IQ(x).ISO50.lowlights.detail
IQ(x).ISO50.highlights.chroma-noise
IQ(x).ISO50.highlights.luminosity-noise
IQ(x).ISO50.lowlights.chroma-noise
IQ(x).ISO50.lowlights.luminosity-noise
IQ(x).ISO800.highlights.detail
IQ(x).ISO800.lowlights.detail
IQ(x).ISO800.highlights.chroma-noise
IQ(x).ISO800.highlights.luminosity-noise
IQ(x).ISO800.lowlights.chroma-noise
IQ(x).ISO800.lowlights.luminosity-noise

Even when you are comparing IQ aspects you can glean from two files, you must do it considering other crucial variables: how the pictures are displayed in real application (almost all commercial images are displayed in their final application either on screen or on no more than A4 print), and the circumstances of how the picture was taken - high or low light, hand or tripod, moving or stationary subjects etc. Commercial and industrial photographers hand off their digital files to the clients and don't need to print them. Comparing two pictures of a human from 2m distance will give certain results, and if you're shooting a 3mm dental implant at close up, the comparison will be totally different. In certain application and certain condition camera1 may produce nicer results than camera2, and then in totally other applications and conditions, the results may very well be totally different. That is all that I was trying to say, apparently I was not using enough words and some people were able to misinterpret my words completely.

To say one camera's IQ is better than another one's, is a meaningless statement. The user needs to define for himself what are his actual needs (maybe some of those needs is that he likes certain things even though he doesn't need them), and also what are the implications for him to spend all that money.

 

[shlomi]

Hi,
The crop factor is only important if there is a limited set of lenses for a larger sensor.

I don't want to write another endless essay, but that is not correct.
Sensor size does have real implications, different sized optics have different limitations.

 

[fotografz]

I'll get back to that point, since two users here (not you) accused me of talking about things I have no idea about.

Now who is taking things personally?

I've never had my hands on a Leica S, but I've used several other 44x33 MFDs, and also 48x36, 56x36 and 53x40, so I do have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about. I am not relying on "on-line jogs" (Geoff), mainly because I no idea what those are.

"On line jogs" is spell check's auto correction for jpgs … it is a typo that anyone could figure out.

If I needed a camera to handhold and auto focus, then there is a very good chance I would be using a Leica right now. As my needs include tethering, close up, post processing - Leica is not something I bothered to check.

FYI,

The Leica S can be used tethered, I do it all the time. Leica choose to use DNG RAW and Lightroom. If you do not like LR, then that is understandable as a personal preference, but it CAN be used tethered and it works very well.

1:1 close-up photography with full data bus communications is possible with the HC120/4-II, or greater with use of the HC extension tube set and the HC100/2.2, or the Contax 120/4, or the Contax bellows … or any legacy Mamiya, Hasselblad V, Pentax Macro lens in mechanical stop down mode.

The price of the Leica system may start only in $20k, but every lens is $5k-$8k, and you would need 3-4 lenses for a pro practice, which makes it much pricier than Mamiya for instance, since Mamiya offers many choices, not all of then sky high expensive.

Leica lenses are expensive. Nothing new there, every one knows that. The S system is a "from the ground up" design, so no less expensive legacy lenses exist. If one wants to use less expensive legacy lenses on the S camera, any Hassey H or Contax lens can be used including AF and auto aperture. The newer digital designed optics from other manufactures are also not exactly inexpensive.

To say that 1Dx is a camera for "hosing off shots" only, is a very narrow minded look at it. 1Dx is Canon's top of the line camera. It is intended for high end use, for all applications. It is used by professional photographers for those applications, and they are extremely satisfied with it.

A disingenuous, out-of-context comment … I said: "Horses for courses. A camera like the 1DX is great for hosing off shots, tracking moving targets, and other specific stuff that a MFD isn't made for."

Most professional photographers will not or can not spend $40K on a system. That does not mean that a $10,000 system is some sort of semi-pro system. That is a ridiculous statement. Canon and Nikon are much more important in the pro field than MFD.

No one on this thread said that a Canon 1DX was a semi-pro camera. Only you said that here. I do agree that the Pro level Canon and Nikons are more important to some professional photographers than MFD ever will be. Horses for courses.

I like MFD and it does offer advantages to my very specific applications. Mostly I use it because I like it and I don't want to get bored. From a business standpoint, If I kept on using 1D*, my expenses over the past 5 years would be almost zero, and my revenues would be about the same if not higher. At these prices it is very hard to justify MFD as a business decision. And IMO, most MFD users are those that can afford it and like it - some pros, but mostly well off amateurs.

"Specific applications" is the key word here. More importantly, personal preferences are paramount because photography is still a subjective creative endeavor. The OP expressed his personal preference for the look and feel of MFD, but is at a loss to technically explain why. My advice was simple … "trust your eyes" and go with what you feel delivers the look and feel you like. Doesn't matter how subjective, it is what he likes. I do the same thing. I do NOT like Canon's files or their best lenses. Even though I've used them to get work done, they never lit my fire, so why should I continue on with them?

Personally, it is VERY important that I am satisfied and like my work first before all else. It is why I do this. If others like it afterwards, then that is great. But it HAS to fulfill my vision and desire for a look and feel as part of my personal quest to express myself with photography. How I do that is my personal creative responsibility, no one else's.

Most importantly, image quality is not by any means a scalar number.
You can not compare two cameras like that:
IQ (camera-1) < IQ (camera-2)
Image quality can be broken down to many different aspects, to count very few for example:

IQ(x).resolution
IQ(x).detail
IQ(x).sharpness
IQ(x).colors
IQ(x).optical-diffraction
IQ(x).fall-off
IQ(x).fringing
IQ(x).distortion
IQ(x).bokeh
IQ(x).ISO50.highlights.detail
IQ(x).ISO50.lowlights.detail
IQ(x).ISO50.highlights.chroma-noise
IQ(x).ISO50.highlights.luminosity-noise
IQ(x).ISO50.lowlights.chroma-noise
IQ(x).ISO50.lowlights.luminosity-noise
IQ(x).ISO800.highlights.detail
IQ(x).ISO800.lowlights.detail
IQ(x).ISO800.highlights.chroma-noise
IQ(x).ISO800.highlights.luminosity-noise
IQ(x).ISO800.lowlights.chroma-noise
IQ(x).ISO800.lowlights.luminosity-noise

Even when you are comparing IQ aspects you can glean from two files, you must do it considering other crucial variables: how the pictures are displayed in real application (almost all commercial images are displayed in their final application either on screen or on no more than A4 print), and the circumstances of how the picture was taken - high or low light, hand or tripod, moving or stationary subjects etc. Commercial and industrial photographers hand off their digital files to the clients and don't need to print them. Comparing two pictures of a human from 2m distance will give certain results, and if you're shooting a 3mm dental implant at close up, the comparison will be totally different. In certain application and certain condition camera1 may produce nicer results than camera2, and then in totally other applications and conditions, the results may very well be totally different. That is all that I was trying to say, apparently I was not using enough words and some people were able to misinterpret my words completely.

To say one camera's IQ is better than another one's, is a meaningless statement. The user needs to define for himself what are his actual needs (maybe some of those needs is that he likes certain things even though he doesn't need them), and also what are the implications for him to spend all that money.

Personally, I'm not misinterpreting your words … I take them at face value and don't agree with everything you say. It's this disagreement, and that of others, that you can't seem to accept.

For example, "Needs and wants" in photography are different propositions altogether. The OP already defined that he WANTS MFD. Why others insist on using "NEED" as the counter argument to something a photographer WANTS in their work often baffles me. Fortunately, personal creative judgement, and what one sees in certain results, hasn't succumbed to the pure logic of need … the eye still rules, and not everyone sees the same thing in the same way … despite relentless efforts to quantify and qualify like we were all part of the Borg Collective :ROTFL:

Since you took the time to go into detail, it warrants a detailed answer. See inserts in above quote.

 

[shlomi]

Need is what makes you money.
Want is what makes you happy.
I don't think its so baffling.
Some people spend money on systems to make them money.
Others spend money on systems to enjoy them or what they produce.
There could also be a combination of the two.
Some photographers do it as if they were plumbers, others as if they were poets. Both attitudes are valid.

My comment was not disingenuous - you were clearly implying that 1Dx is an inferior camera.

You did misinterpret my words and denied three things I did not say.

I am well aware that tethering is available in Leica, but based on many reports it is nowhere as good as Phase, which would make sense as one company focused on tethering for about ten years. I am also hesitant to believe Leica auto focus is as good or better than Canon. I find it very easy to believe that Leica provides the best sharpness at f/8-11 for distances 2m+. That is not the criteria nor the application that is critical to me. I'm sure it is for many. I was in no way implying that Leica is not the right choice for some.

I was not aware that you can mount H glass on Leica with AF. Still I am hesitant to mix and match between different brands. BTW extention tubes and bellows are not the right way to 1:1 - you need the glass that was built and optimized for this for good results.

You also misundestood what I was saying on how to (not) compare image qualities. It was in no way an effort to quantify, but rather an effort to deconstruct how to compare in order to avoid "intuitive" misconceptions.