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!

Should I or not?

Geoff

Well-known member
Void ain't no troll. He is a very intelligent person who has taken a ton of time to post his findings. I find it sad that some people would such as being a troll.

Every person can make choices and the information he has provided will make it easier for someone to see the differences between the performance of a CCD chip and CMOS.

Many have stated, that there has been a ton of information on this already. In reality there really hasn't been a ton of information on this. Look at the timeline:

Jan/Feb of 2014 the 250 was announced
Soon after DT released some tests taken indoors in a library
LuLa published a white paper by DT expanding on the tech and why the Phase
was special
I don't know of really any other tests.

Soon word of mouth spread about crosstalk and just how terrible it was and within a week or so, it was just an automatic decision that the 250/150 could not be used in outdoor shooting situations with movements due to crosstalk. But no one every really published anything showing this that I am aware of, if so please point me there. Crosstalk effects all sensors, or at least most of them, I know it effects the 260, as I can see the effects on blue skies with extreme shifts.

I for one GREATLY appreciate the posts made by Void has made for several reasons. As far as I know his posts and Guy's testing of the Credo 50 are the first ones to show that the 50MP CMOS chips can work with movements past 10mm outdoors. The time he took to both shoot all of this and then work it up into a well written post is commendable.

It has for sure changed my opinion on if I could use a 250 in my outdoor work, with movements.

Again, I find the use of the term "troll" very offensive in this situation and extremely short sighted. This is a public forum about medium format cameras and he has provided nothing but facts, facts that he has backed up with images.

I see the information, I can read it, and make my decision where it matters in my next purchase.

Paul
On another thread on Getdpi, tjv is testing a CMOS back on a Techno with a Rodie 55, and his prelim results suggest that 12 and 15mm is quite workable. He hasn't yet posted crops, but will. Due to the back's fabrication, it shifts better along its long side, but results are just coming in. Hope its ok to mention this.

There is also testing of the CMOS back in action on Paula's Linhof Studio page.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
After testing the Credo I felt 12mm was my max before getting into trouble as you can see in the review I went back and redid some tests just for that. That's with a Rodie 40 HR lens which is maybe a good test lens as it's very popular among tech cam shooters. 15mm if your willing to do extra work to it. You do get a magenta cast but more important the detail holds up in the corners
 
Void I don't really agree with your last post with a images that are not white balanced and one is green than saying the green is blown out. Also the D800e looks like mush and/or the luminance value is so high it lost all its detail. Problem is we are not sure of the processing and I do think we all agree the DR is higher in the CMOS chip . But I'm not going to sit here and argue these points it's just a circle of confusion that gets us nowhere. We all know CMOS will have better high ISO values as well, no one disputes that.
I have changed the settings as per criticize.

First of all, allow me to say that the white balance does not affect the levels of each channel out of R, G, B, G2 out of the Bayer Array. White balance is just a vector to render colors for the JPEG output from the RAW data. What I show here is that in the test shots the D800E still has about 2/3 EV room for the highlight in the sky from being blown out, while the IQ280 is at the edge. You can apply different white balance in Raw Digger but it will always show you the same levels for each channel out of R, G, B, G2 if you hover your mouse to the same pixel. But let's not worry about that for now, because I have changed the white balance for these two to match up closely and you can see that the D800E here still have more room for highlight:





Then let's move to the shadow part. For white balance purposes I illustrate below where I used the "Pick White Balance Tool" in Capture One in each image. I picked something that I consider to be neutral:



As can be seen, even if I pick the same neutral area for WB purposes, these two sensors have different characteristics in the color cast in the pushed shadow. Obviously in this case the D800E had some green cast in shadow noise, while the IQ280 may had some magenta cast in shadow noise. You might have your own preference but I can't say either is neutral on shadow noise.

Then let's move to the noise reduction and sharpening part. Please be aware that the IQ280 was equipped with a Rodenstock 40HR, which of course would destroy the sharpness of the Nikon 24mm f1.4G. I have now reduced any luminance of NR and sharpening down to 0 for both images. Now I consider it to be a more fair comparison for shadow SNR:





Personally I would say that even the down-sampled IQ280 shadow has more noise. I could upload the RAW files and PM you the link if you have any doubt. I don't want people to think that I am just faking up things and demote the dynamic range of the Dalsa CCD. I understand that it is quite easy to troll the medium format digital forums with a D800E (and now a 5DSR), just like it is quite easy to troll the Canikon forums with Sigma Art lenses, so it might be an inappropriate example here to use the D800E for comparison purposes, but what I wanted to demonstrate to people is just the potential of this Sony CMOS sensor (which is also used in the IQ250). Feel free to give any subjective or objective judgement on this dynamic range thing.
 

Jamgolf

Member
Pradeep

I am a very recent entrant into the MF inferno and read your post with interest. I am by no means an expert but I am sympathetic to your predicament so I'd offer my point of view.

You mentioned that your brief journey has been "very unproductive". You also mentioned that you are "primarily a landscape and wildlife photographer" - lets talk about these ...

For wildlife, I can totally relate to your frustration with your setup. A DSLR would offer much faster frame rate, much faster and more advanced auto focusing ability and a far wider range of telephoto lenses suited for that purpose. So if wildlife is your passion then you ought to make the switch, as its unlikely that benefits of a CMOS IQ3XX (or whatever) will overcome shortcomings w.r.t. reach, focus, frame rates etc.

Now for landscape. Does your "very unproductive" experience apply here as well? Its surprising if that’s the case. For landscapes, the need for deliberate and tripod based shooting is common even for DSLR shooters. Image quality in good lighting would certainly favor IQ180, compared to any DSLR. And in low lighting - based on all the information already shared - a CMOS back or DSLR would be better. I guess you ought to ask yourself for clarity:
(i) What percentage of your landscape shooting is in poor lighting conditions?
(ii) Realistically what is the longest exposure time you want to be able to use?

You expressed your unwillingness to get into technical cameras, but that would certainly help one of your stated areas of interest i.e. Landscapes if you were to consider that as an option.

If you shoot more landscapes than wildlife, then you have one of the finest photographic tools already, in IQ180. I would urge you to dig deeper and try to overcome the obstacles that have been the cause of frustration.

On the other hand if you shoot more wildlife/action than landscapes or more landscapes in low lighting, needing long exposures, then I guess you ought to sell your gear ASAP - while it still has value and get something that fits your needs.

Good luck with your choice.

Cheers!
-Jawad
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
I've owned several CCD backs much like Guy has. I've owned a P30+, P45+, P65, IQ160 and now an IQ180. I've also owned (and used) a Leica M9 which was also a CCD sensor. During this same time I've owned and used Canon, 1Ds, 1DsII and a 1DsIII and now a Sony A7r both converted to full spectrum and one that isn't.

I've processed files from all the above cameras and in each case the files I liked the most (and this is subjective) are the ones taken from a CCD sensor. I've also sold multiple images taken from all the above cameras and in non of those sales could a client ever tell the difference nor did they say anything.

Addressing the OP. Shortly after moving the MDF I found that I wasn't shooting as many files as I used to with the 35mm cameras. What I did find was that what I did capture was much better, better color, better range, and I could print larger. (I normally print in the range of 40x30, 30x60 and 40x60.)

Upgrading medium format system remind me of the early days of personal computers; it seemed that if you brought the latest greatest on Monday it would be obsolete by the end of the week. Or at least we were made to think that.

If you continue to hunger after the next greatest camera system you'll go broke. Give what you have a chance.

You say you're primarily a landscape and wildlife photographer; well so am I. The greatest thing I love the most about my 180 is the ability to capture in 35ISO. I've shot wildlife in Jackson Hole for several years using a P65 then IQ160 as well as either a 300mm Mamiya and recently the beautifully heavy 240LS with 2x extender on a older DF body. I'm also looking forward this winter to do it again with the 180.

What I've found so far is this - I love shooting full frame. I also love the lower ISO of the 180 whether I'm shooting on a tech camera or the DF. Regarding live view - I don't use it nor do I miss not using it. Yes, the 180 can do LV under proper circumstances however when I'm setup with the tech cam I'm more than likely shooting tethered to a Surface Pro 3 and have a much larger screen to check focusing and if I need to I can also do LV.

Most people who go into MFD face the same issues as you have. It sound like you are going through an adjustment period. Did you buy your kit from a dealer? Has that dealer offered support?

Take a step back and rethink your options. By the way this thread has gone it appears to have lost sight of your question(s). The way I see it is you have the option of keeping what you have and get better acquainted with it. The second option is to get out of MFD and cut your loses. The final option is that if you really think the newer 250 suits you better is go for it, knowing you'll never recoup the cost of the upgrade in what you'll be offered as a trade-in. Remember this, if you're thinking of the last option you have by all rights a much better back with the 180 (full frame higher resolution to name 2) than with the 250 (which is a crop sensor and different CCD).

Best of luck, and I hope we can get back on track to helping you out rather than preaching who good one system is over another as I don't feel it answers your core question.
 

Pradeep

Member
As I've said in an earlier post on this thread, it was never my intent to start a CMOS vs CCD war. However, thread drift is inevitable and often welcome as I've realized in my long years on the net (starting with Usenet in '92).

For the record, I DO very much appreciate Void's posts and the painstaking work he has done in providing the samples. It has been a great learning experience.

My intent, for now, is not to switch over to a CMOS sensor necessarily although I did consider it and checked to see if sideways upgrade was possible. My entire issue has been with the MF system overall, and whether it still represents good value. I am aware that that is a very subjective thing and it is all about how much money one can 'blow away' on what is essentially a hobby although a very serious one. I am very fortunate in having a wife who is fully supportive - she did give me a somewhat hard time initially when I told her I was planning to buy the MF kit :)

Why does one buy a BMW over a Ford? That is the essence of this debate, and if I am looking for the best IQ in my photos then there is no question about owning an MF system. The next question is whether I can upgrade to a BMW with an X-drive with ease or not and if it is worth doing it. In the snow belt, for sure, but in California, doubtful. And then, what is the trade-in the dealer is willing to give.

The result (and consensus here, I believe) appears to be that the IQ180 is still the best high resolution back there is. When it is replaced by a FF CMOS I may consider upgrading, if the price is right.

I really appreciate all the posts here in response to my query. I felt a bit foolish initially for starting this thread but I am truly overwhelmed by the warm and generous response. Unlike another 'pro' forum I've been on, there is no intimidation here and no brow-beating by people who 'know too much'.

GetDPI needs more exposure in the photo community.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well maybe bias but this is a great forum and more importantly when we started it was to get away from the brow- beating. Here is one thing I am most proud of is the experience of the people here geniuely want to help folks and sometimes even with that experience people are jerks about how good they are. Not the case here and that is the big difference. Your questions are not only yours but shared by others and even though someone is not posting in this thread they are listening and sitting in the same boat as you. Heck I banged my brain around so long when i had these backs and asked the same questions. As they say never a dumb question and yes sometimes we move OT and thats okay too as long as we eventually get back to the heart of the matter.

As far as GetDPI needing more exposure I agree but we are never after numbers but quality members. Far more important to me and owners here. Now would I like to see us have more advertisers , no question we all need money. LOL
 
As to residual value, I again state that the ONLY value in this exotic gear is in the using. A crop frame CMOS back for a 645 system may well become an exceedingly poor investment if the manufacturers offer a FF 645 CMOS back in the near future ... which is highly likely in order to combat the impending rash of 50 meg 35mm cameras that is on the horizon.

Personally, if I were buying a DB, I would NOT invest in a Crop Frame 50 meg one. Been there, done that with CCD backs and APSc in 35mm.

Now a 80 or 100 meg FF CMOS would catch my attention. Or, in my case a 60 or 70 meg CMOSIS in the Leica S system I now use. Since Leica chose to keep the new S(007) CMOS sensor meg count the same as the S2 and S(006), I will keep my S(006) CCD camera and put my money into more glass ... (recently adding the yummy S-100/2 :thumbs:) If my technical requirements or creative needs change in future, then I'm pleased that Leica will have the CMOS choice to consider.

- Marc
I can't agree with your statements here. The rules for semiconductor is that you generally get an update about every 18 months or so. Of course the Canon 5DSR brings a great hit to the MFDB market, but the D800E was also the case.

Of course you could wait, but who knows what will Phase One announce later this year / early next year. Probably a 48x36mm CMOS. Will you buy it? You still risk getting overwhelmed by a 54x40mm CMOS after about 18 months. Even if Phase One announces a 54x40mm CMOS, will you buy it? You still risk getting overwhelmed by another 54x40mm CMOS with higher pixel count or higher SNR after about 18 months. Even if they announce two fullframe CMOS sensors now, but with different pixel count (hence different degree of tech-cam compatibility), which one would you choose? The higher pixel count one but stuck with lesser lenses, or the lower pixel count one for greater tech-cam lenses? You still won't get the once-for-all invincible solution. You will get smashed by newer products after about 18 months anyway. Phase One is a company aiming to maximize profit by trying to earn all your cash in your wallet. Do you really think that they will sell something invincible? What they want is a hierarchy of ecosystems stimulating consumption. You keep upgrading, they keep making profit.

You purchased the Leica S system and I can understand why you want some bigger chip. Every man has the feeling that "size matters". I just came down from the largest CCD chip so I am not so desperate about sensor size as you are, because I am pretty clear why sensor size is not the dominant factor here when it comes down to an evolution of technology. Still remember people who invested in the P65+ or H4D-60? They once thought that they sit on the pinnacle of image quality with the largest chip. What happened when the 80 MP Dalsa came out? Now what? That largest chip may not even have more residual value than the much smaller Sony CMOS sensor when you can't find the appropriate buyer. I could also claim that we all know that CMOS is the trend, it would be a rather poor investment for any CCD back at this stage, even for the fullframe CCDs.

I would suggest to look forward and make rational decisions. Do not let any sunk cost to depress you. If the gear is the right tool for you then just enjoy it. If not, then sell it and move on.

 

fotografz

Well-known member
I can't agree with your statements here. The rules for semiconductor is that you generally get an update about every 18 months or so. Of course the Canon 5DSR brings a great hit to the MFDB market, but the D800E was also the case.

Of course you could wait, but who knows what will Phase One announce later this year / early next year. Probably a 48x36mm CMOS. Will you buy it? You still risk getting overwhelmed by a 54x40mm CMOS after about 18 months. Even if Phase One announces a 54x40mm CMOS, will you buy it? You still risk getting overwhelmed by another 54x40mm CMOS with higher pixel count or higher SNR after about 18 months. Even if they announce two fullframe CMOS sensors now, but with different pixel count (hence different degree of tech-cam compatibility), which one would you choose? The higher pixel count one but stuck with lesser lenses, or the lower pixel count one for greater tech-cam lenses? You still won't get the once-for-all invincible solution. You will get smashed by newer products after about 18 months anyway. Phase One is a company aiming to maximize profit by trying to earn all your cash in your wallet. Do you really think that they will sell something invincible? What they want is a hierarchy of ecosystems stimulating consumption. You keep upgrading, they keep making profit.

You purchased the Leica S system and I can understand why you want some bigger chip. Every man has the feeling that "size matters". I just came down from the largest CCD chip so I am not so desperate about sensor size as you are, because I am pretty clear why sensor size is not the dominant factor here when it comes down to an evolution of technology. Still remember people who invested in the P65+ or H4D-60? They once thought that they sit on the pinnacle of image quality with the largest chip. What happened when the 80 MP Dalsa came out? Now what? That largest chip may not even have more residual value than the much smaller Sony CMOS sensor when you can't find the appropriate buyer. I could also claim that we all know that CMOS is the trend, it would be a rather poor investment for any CCD back at this stage, even for the fullframe CCDs.

I would suggest to look forward and make rational decisions. Do not let any sunk cost to depress you. If the gear is the right tool for you then just enjoy it. If not, then sell it and move on.

Well, I tried to be somewhat friendly. Sigh.

"Every man thinks size matters" ... what an ignorant thing to say ... a bit socially backward rhetoric that's not the norm here on Get Dpi.

If I were, as you say "desperate for sensor size", I would not have migrated from a Hasselblad H4D/60 to a Leica S.

Sensor size and meg count are two different subjects. Many would like a FF sensor for their FF 645 system but do not necessarily need or want a huge meg count. I'd venture to say that a FF 645 CMOS camera with 50 meg would be quite satisfying to many. Since the sensor size of the S system is set (with-in that proprietary system it IS FF), then I wouldn't have minded more resolution for some studio applications ... and wouldn't have cared if it were CCD or CMOS.


Have a :) day.

- Marc
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
This is quickly turning into a train wreck, in your face exhibits, name calling and the old if you disagree with me you must be a fool.

Sad
 

gazwas

Active member
This is quickly turning into a train wreck, in your face exhibits, name calling and the old if you disagree with me you must be a fool.

Sad
Its a very personal thing at this level of investment for what basically is a just a tool and we're all right in our own personal way when it comes to the camera we own.
 

Pradeep

Member
This is quickly turning into a train wreck, in your face exhibits, name calling and the old if you disagree with me you must be a fool.

Sad
OK everyone, perhaps a major thread shift is in order. You lot have rejuvenated me and I am so glad I started this topic. Self doubts are slowly but surely dissipating :)

So, the quest for the ultimate in IQ for landscapes (well, that's why I bought the darn thing in the first place) requires a different approach - slow, deliberate, methodical, and if low-light, use a tripod always.

Accepted. Would somebody tell me, what is the best (or easiest) way to improve from the ancient DF+ body? Does anybody know anything more about the rumored body upgrade from P1? Is there another body I can put the IQ180 back on, short of a tech camera?

If I were to invest more time and go the tech camera route, what are my options? What lenses, what body, and is there a website that can point me in the right direction? As I said, it is primarily for landscapes, so wide angle (probably 50mm and under for the FF back). I am not going to jump into this without some serious thinking but maybe it is time to start the process.

I am really wary of dealers and would rather avoid asking them - my experience in general with dealers (from automotive to cameras) is that they will use every argument to convince you that their product is the best. I don't blame them, they need to make a living and have convinced themselves that indeed such is the case.

Thanks again to an awesome crowd!
 

RVB

Member
OK everyone, perhaps a major thread shift is in order. You lot have rejuvenated me and I am so glad I started this topic. Self doubts are slowly but surely dissipating :)

So, the quest for the ultimate in IQ for landscapes (well, that's why I bought the darn thing in the first place) requires a different approach - slow, deliberate, methodical, and if low-light, use a tripod always.

Accepted. Would somebody tell me, what is the best (or easiest) way to improve from the ancient DF+ body? Does anybody know anything more about the rumored body upgrade from P1? Is there another body I can put the IQ180 back on, short of a tech camera?

If I were to invest more time and go the tech camera route, what are my options? What lenses, what body, and is there a website that can point me in the right direction? As I said, it is primarily for landscapes, so wide angle (probably 50mm and under for the FF back). I am not going to jump into this without some serious thinking but maybe it is time to start the process.

I am really wary of dealers and would rather avoid asking them - my experience in general with dealers (from automotive to cameras) is that they will use every argument to convince you that their product is the best. I don't blame them, they need to make a living and have convinced themselves that indeed such is the case.

Thanks again to an awesome crowd!
Just a thought Pradeep,have you considered using the IQ on the H5X body?Its very good,much better than the Df imho,Annie Leibovitz is one of many that use this combo although it means swapping glass.

Rob
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
There's been a lot of information written about tech cams both in this section as well as the "Digital Camera Reviews" my suggestion is to do a quick search as then begin asking questions afterwards.

One very quick comment regarding tech cameras - they are all much the same, meaning a piece of metal with a digital back on one end and a lens on the other. Some cost more than others and some less. Some offer more bells and whistles but at a higher cost. In the end there really isn't a bad tech camera some like a particular brand over another but in the end it'll be the digital back and lens that will either make it or break it. One other comment - lenses for tech cameras can be/are very expensive so be prepared for sticker shock however they are well worth their value.

Okay, let the fun and games begin as we discuss the pros and cons of all the tech cams on the market.
 
For landscape you might want dynamic range and avoid darkframe NR if you shoot long exposure. For technical cameras you might want CMOS Live View if you want to compose fast. In all cases you probably cannot avoid getting a CMOS back in the future, fullframe or near fullframe.

No one knows what kind of CMOS backs would be offered in the near future. In that case, to increase chances of compatibility, avoid the current symmetric Schneider wide angles, and avoid the widest Rodenstock wide angles. Your safest bet would be the not-so-wide retrofocus Rodenstock Digaron HR lenses (e.g. 40HR, 50HR etc). But these are just general guidelines by speculations. No one can tell what happens next. It could be that the current king of wide angle 32HR works with the next CMOS back, but it could also be that even the more versatile 40HR has limited movements on the next CMOS back. If Phase One throws out a 120 MP fullframe CMOS back, then it is likely that virtually every current wide angles could become obsolete (not crap, but just incompatible with the latest cool technology), and Rodenstock / Schneider would have to refresh their product line with new lenses with more radical retrofocus design.

For camera systems I went into Alpa because all my friends around me use Alpa and we simply wanted to form an army of Alpa (for aesthetics reasons). For a fresh start again I might consider the Arca-Swiss as they offer tilt and swing for virtually every lens regardless of flange distance (e.g. 23HR).
 

Dogs857

New member
I must apologise to Void for using the word trolling. I did follow up saying that Void is not a troll, however it was a poor use of the word, and was meant as an adjective, not as a noun. Sorry mate.

For the OP tech cameras are another beast all together. Be prepared for another steep learning curve.

Check out this page, it is a dealer but holds a lot of information. In fact I found this invaluable when I was researching my own gear.

Tech Camera Overview

I have owned both the Arca Rm3di and Cambo and can attest that they are both excellent systems. The Arca focusing system may or may not be to your taste but once you get your head around it it's a fantastic system. The Cambo is cheaper but no less quality. It provides more lateral shift for pano stitching, seems lighter?? and is my new favourite thing in the world. I can't comment on Alpa but there are enough Alpa people in here to do that.

For a lens try the 55mm Rodie. It is relatively cheap and a good performer by all accounts on your IQ180. The benefit is that it is relatively cheap for a tech lens and won't stretch your budget too far if you decide this is not for you.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...rodenstock-55mm-f4-5-apo-sironar-digital.html
 
Last edited:

Paratom

Well-known member
OK everyone, perhaps a major thread shift is in order. You lot have rejuvenated me and I am so glad I started this topic. Self doubts are slowly but surely dissipating :)

So, the quest for the ultimate in IQ for landscapes (well, that's why I bought the darn thing in the first place) requires a different approach - slow, deliberate, methodical, and if low-light, use a tripod always.

Accepted. Would somebody tell me, what is the best (or easiest) way to improve from the ancient DF+ body? Does anybody know anything more about the rumored body upgrade from P1? Is there another body I can put the IQ180 back on, short of a tech camera?

If I were to invest more time and go the tech camera route, what are my options? What lenses, what body, and is there a website that can point me in the right direction? As I said, it is primarily for landscapes, so wide angle (probably 50mm and under for the FF back). I am not going to jump into this without some serious thinking but maybe it is time to start the process.

I am really wary of dealers and would rather avoid asking them - my experience in general with dealers (from automotive to cameras) is that they will use every argument to convince you that their product is the best. I don't blame them, they need to make a living and have convinced themselves that indeed such is the case.

Thanks again to an awesome crowd!
I will try not to promote my own equipment decision but you asked about a body and lenses so I will answer:
For me the Leica S system works very well and I would not give it up even if someone would give me the most expensive phase back in exchange. Some might say it is not good because you cant upgrade the back and keep the camera. I see it like getting a new camera with each sensor upgrade.
Why I choose/suggest it?
1) Because it gives me the choice to work on tripod if I have time but woks also very well handheld. (I had some experience were I shot 2 or 3 scenes on a hike with tripod, and various others without tripod because light was changing fast and I was happy to be able to do so)-so I dont agree that good landscape necessarily means tripod all the time.
2) It is weatherproof so I can (and have) used it in rain, snow without any fear.
3) The lenses are excellent (I know there are also some excellent Hassy and Schneider and Zeiss lenses as well), and are fully usable at each f-stop even wide open. My fav are at the moment the 24mm,45mm,100mm and 180mm.
4) The slightly smaller sensor I dont see as an disadvantage. For me it is a very good compromise between achieving the MF-look but giving me a little more DOF at comparable FOV/f-stop. (Advantage for handheld shooting because I can shoot at 0.5-1 f-stop wider open compared to big big sensors)

Besides landscapes those DSLR-type MF-cameras are also good for other subjects, I use mine sometimes just like I would use a FF DSLR.

So even a "bigger" digital back might give us 5% IQ in some scenarios (enough time, enough light or no movement in the image if light is lower, big big print) I believe there are a whole lot of scenarios where a little faster and more flexible system like the Leica S (or the Pentax645) might be more satisfying.
I can only say what works for me and why, without having doubts that for others a digital back with a bigger sensor might work better for them.

Having said all that I admit that I am also fascinated by Tech cams, mainly for the slower shooting style, thats why I have been starting to experiment with a used Tech cam and an older back. I do see it however as tool for a limited scenarious/types of photography. (And I also lack time to really use it).
 
Last edited:
Top