Should I or not?

[torger]

To return to the original question;

Pradeep, my opinion is that MFD in landscape has its strength through technical cameras where you can adopt a large format shooting style with movements, and the shooting experience is way different than a 135 DSLR. If you however want MFD just as a high resolution DSLR I would sell, the smaller systems are just too good now I think.

It's very personal though, some like the handling of the DF+ or the look you get with C1 default profiles etc, but as you seem to use your Canon very frequently and successfully already it seems to me that selling and waiting in the 5DS is a better idea for your needs.

I shoot myself on a Linhof Techno with a H4D-50 back, landscape. I enjoy the large format style of photography, but have no illusions that the old Kodak would be better than a new CMOS, but the absolute image quality is high and it works great with my preferred lenses and camera. I make my own camera profiles so I'm pretty agnostic concerning a camera's color so I can switch system without getting a much different look. I prefer to sit in the front seat concerning look rather than letting the raw converter designers decide how my colors should be.

 

[Pemihan]

What torger said!

I came from Canon into the MFD world a few years back and quickly moved into using technical camera with Schneider and Rodenstock lenses. I now have an IQ160 and love shooting the slow "old school" way with it. So much that I haven't really used my Canon system for the past couple of years and have sold most of the lenses of bar three.
I'm even thinking of getting a ground glass for my tech cam to shoot even "slower". I shoot far fewer images than I did with the Canon but have far more keepers.

If you feel the best way to shoot for you is the DSLR style and not the more slow shooting style, then maybe you should cut your losses and sell. MFD is never going to be quick "from the hip shooting". Not anytime soon anyway...

As a side note, maybe it's time to make a dedicated thread (again) to all those endless CMOS vs CCD, DR, HDR or not debates instead of polluting thread after thread with it.

 

[robmac]

To OP- my $0.02 worth?

Sell the existing IQ kit . You're not using it and it's only dropping in value as time passes. You could even acquire a clean 645z kit for low $$ vs any Phase up/side grade to keep your hand in MF if desired while gaining access to the same Sony chip DR and high iso ability.

If you think CMOS will have you enjoying the MF experience more and Phase won't come up with a rationale way to get there, you need to create your own. Nice thing about the same Sony chip across three brands...

 

[voidshatter]

As a side note, maybe it's time to make a dedicated thread (again) to all those endless CMOS vs CCD, DR, HDR or not debates instead of polluting thread after thread with it.

Could you remind me with history what happened when people started to move from Kodak sensors to Dalsa sensors?

 

[jlm]

the sony A7R is the game changer; used with Canon T/S lenses (17mm and 24mm), you can get the movements most tech cameras provide and your investment is considerably below $8K. but it is 35mm format, though plenty of pixels.

i find the view camera method is more satisfying, though more demanding, expensive and of more limited re-sale. As a price comparison, you can get the Cambo Actus, two Rodenstock lenses and the CFV50c for about $25k. go to phase or credo and that bumps up to $35k; go to Alpa and add another $10K

 

[Pemihan]

Could you remind me with history what happened when people started to move from Kodak sensors to Dalsa sensors?

Probably exactly the same, instead of using dedicated threads the discussions polluted thread after thread.

 

[voidshatter]

... these images are making the point of why many do NOT like the HDR look and feel.

... the majority doesn't dictate tastes, especially good taste.

You seem to contradict yourself. You mentioned that "many" do not like, countered by evidence that indeed these were liked by many, then you routed to judge at a higher level.

This reminds me about Emily Soto. Many other Vogue photographers overlooked her. But time told things. She eventually became popular, and the other oldskool photographers are just jealous of her success.

In the film era no one shot any landscape of the milky way with foreground in a single exposure. Now with the advancement of technology people start to shoot that kind of pictures, and those are indeed very popular pictures. Even iPhone use that kind of pictures as default wallpapers. If you ever observed the milky way with your human eye you would have known that those pictures are not "real" either. Can you do that easily with a CCD (i.e. single exposure with foreground)?

Technology is evolving, and rules are changing... Rangefinder became popular. SLR replaced rangefinder. Mirrorless might eventually replace DSLR. CMOS might eventually replace CCD.

 

[torger]

Okay, I'm sorry but I couldn't resist taking up the dominating OT subject . There are many fine landscape pictures at 500px, but it's also a competition in saturation and sunsets and see who dares to pull clarity and tonemapping slider the farthest. Laymen "likes" on social networks is not a good measure of artistic quality I think.

Nothing wrong to strive for that type of pictures, but it's not the goal for all photographers. I've made photographs at a more serious (but still enthusiast) level for about five years. I'm trying to make images I like myself, and I know it sounds pretentious but I really want to make something that I can call art and mean it. To become art to me there needs to be a context, an idea which stretches further than getting "likes".

I have not yet released any work widely, but it feels like I'm closing in on finding my style. I've attached one example which I'm pretty pleased with, it's intended as a large print. Although high dynamic range scenes does exist in my style, it's really not common. I rarely use very saturated colors either, the feeling I want to convey rarely mandates high saturation.

As an artist I think you should say "hey, look at my work, I know what I'm doing and this is good" rather than letting the mainstream audience decide what's good and make pictures for that.

Of course your style may still be that of high saturation and strong tonemapping, it's nothing wrong with that and it can be truly heartfelt too, I just want to show that there are styles that doesn't really gain that much from the latest gains in DR.

 

[kdphotography]

....

This reminds me about Emily Soto. Many other Vogue photographers overlooked her. But time told things. She eventually became popular, and the other oldskool photographers are just jealous of her success......

And so, Pradeep, the moral of the story is, abandon ship, sell your MFDB and get a Sony CMOS sensored camera. You may not be happy about it, but maybe someday you too can be as popular as Emily Soto.

:lecture:

 

[AreBee]

Pradeep,

Just wanted to hear from the folks here if they have any advice for me.

No camera is worth keeping if it makes you unhappy.

 

[stephengilbert]

Oh good, legalistic arguments. Just what we need.

The fact that "the majority" like something doesn't mean that "many" don't.

I guess all internet sites eventually become the same thing.

 

[rsmphoto]

i think marc nailed it

+1

 

[Bryan Stephens]

Another point, and I know this has been discussed numerous times on other threads, is that the 35mm sensor is possibly reaching its limitations as far as pixel count, as the more pixels you cram into that sensor size, the pixel size becomes smaller and smaller, making the lenses you need to use have to be sharper and sharper.

The current a7r for example (and the Nikon D810), has a pixel size of 4.9 microns compared to the IQ180 which is 5.2 microns, and I don't think that DSLR lenses are quite on the same level of quality (yet) that the tech cam lenses can achieve. Now, with the new 50 mp sensors that are coming from Canon and most likely Sony, the pixels are going to be even smaller (I believe that the size is 4.1 microns, but please correct me if my math is incorrect), putting that much more emphasis and/or stress on the lens quality. This is another thing to consider.

I shoot both the IQ260 and the Sony a7r and each has its own purpose. The a7r is great to take with me on a quick trip since the kit is so small and compact and the image quality is still excellent, but for extremely fine detail, the tech cam is in a class all its own, and I much prefer or enjoy the workflow.

 

[Pradeep]

Gosh, what have I started?

My thanks to all of you on this wonderful forum for your opinions and advice.

I get the sense that most MF users are either into fashion or advertising where skin tones and accurate color is of paramount importance, where the lighting can be controlled strictly as can the movement of subject(s). There is enough time to achieve all your settings the way you like them. I may be wrong here of course.

I have never doubted that MF IQ is superior to 35mm, I admitted that in my OP. It does take more time and more work to get there too, including heavier and more cumbersome gear to lug around with you. I knew that going in. I also knew that the CCD sensor in the IQ180 is no good beyond ISO 800. I expected MF to be more expensive overall (including batteries), but did not quite expect that much of a price difference.

I can live with many of these limitations. I am also willing to invest the time and money (I have already) to get the best out of my system. Heck, I went back to rangefinders with my M9 and M240, invested into multiple lenses including the fabled Summilux 50 etc. I realized after a while that it was not the holy grail at all. I had bought into the Leica hype and found the 'Emperor Had No Clothes'. Call me a philistine if you will, but I never found the 'way the Leica draws' any better or more pleasing to my eye. I sold the bodies and a few lenses but still have a few left.

Then came Phase One with its hype. Everybody who owned one in that workshop sang its praises, including stuff like 'you can tell the difference in a print sized 8X10'. I tested it, and was captivated by the sheer resolution of the files. However, I still believe there is a significant amount of hype in the MF world. My apologies if I have ruffled any feathers here.

Having used it now for over a year, I am still blown away by how good a well exposed, low ISO image is and how well it prints on my Epson 9900. However, my enthusiasm is tempered by significant limitations on how much I can use it.

In an ideal world, I would like to use nothing but the IQ180 for everything I do, but I know that is impossible. Horses for courses and all that. I have done what some have suggested, taken just the MF with me on trips and used that alone. However, it is not a wildlife camera (despite what Andy Biggs might say) and it is not a landscape camera for all occasions either.

In the end what has brought me to this stage is the strange and unwelcome policy for trade-in or upgrade on the part of Phase One.

I do not make any money from my photography. It is quite simply, a major passion for me and therefore my quest is still for the ultimate in image quality in a package that is more usable than what I have at present. I love the large sensor and wish it came with a better camera and did not limit me to an ISO of 50 for best quality.

Perhaps there is something like that out there................ or will appear soon.

Thank you again, your thoughts are very much appreciated.

 

[fotografz]

You seem to contradict yourself. You mentioned that "many" do not like, countered by evidence that indeed these were liked by many, then you routed to judge at a higher level.

This reminds me about Emily Soto. Many other Vogue photographers overlooked her. But time told things. She eventually became popular, and the other oldskool photographers are just jealous of her success.

In the film era no one shot any landscape of the milky way with foreground in a single exposure. Now with the advancement of technology people start to shoot that kind of pictures, and those are indeed very popular pictures. Even iPhone use that kind of pictures as default wallpapers. If you ever observed the milky way with your human eye you would have known that those pictures are not "real" either. Can you do that easily with a CCD (i.e. single exposure with foreground)?

Technology is evolving, and rules are changing... Rangefinder became popular. SLR replaced rangefinder. Mirrorless might eventually replace DSLR. CMOS might eventually replace CCD.

Many here don't like HDR, not many "globally". IMO, these type of images simply remind me of Thomas Kinkade kitsch. His kitschy art is pretty popular with a lot of people, but not many critics, collectors, artists and painters ... or anyone with a few taste-buds left on their tongue . We have to remember that velvet paintings of Elvis are wildly popular ... :ROTFL:

BTW, last time I looked the rangefinder is still being used to good effect for ways of seeing that a rangefinder tends to promote. So, I guess "replace" means used in a mass manner ... again, more doesn't mean better.

- Marc

 

[Don Libby]

The fastest way to turn me off of a post is using someone else's work. It's called copyright infringement.

 

[Kolor-Pikker]

Yes, I am thinking of abandoning hope.

But you already bought the the back!

Exciting though my brief journey into the MF world has been, it has been very unproductive. In the last year and a half since I bought the IQ180 I've only shot about 1000 images compared to around 50,000 with my Canon gear in the same period.

Larger formats have a different shot ratio, I could probably unload hundreds of shots on my iPhone for dozens on my Canon to just a few on my 645Z. If I shot large format film, I'd probably happy with 10 photos a month - if that.

There are many reasons, perhaps the inability to shoot at ISO over 200 (even at that I feel there is too much noise), very old camera to go with it, lack of live view, need for a tripod most of the time, etc. I did spend a lot of time trying to get the most out of it but it has not been easy. I realized before I bought it that there would be challenges but I did not realize it would be that difficult. My fault, yes.

I was quite close to getting an IQ back myself a while ago, and a lack of high ISO probably wouldn't have bothered me too much as I have another system to fall back on, but for photography in controlled conditions CCD backs can look quite good.

Most of all I was disappointed with the upgrade policy. When I bought it I was told that the path to the next model would be very easy and relatively inexpensive. When I called a few months ago to see if I could trade in the IQ180 for the IQ250 (figuring I could put the high ISO capabilities to good use and then upgrade to the new camera body when it came out), I was told it would cost me over 20,000 to buy the IQ250 even at trade-in because it was being traded for a 'less expensive model'. Which meant that my $30,000 IQ180 was now worth less than $10,000 in just over a year. Somehow that did not make sense.

Don't know about your expectations, but I rarely buy any piece of electronics expecting to get anything resembling a good deal down the line, if it comes with digital components, I know I'm buying it for keeps. But if you do want to sell, only do it privately with other people, so long as your price undercuts the used prices of retailers, someone's sure to buy.

So I soldiered on, hoping I would be able to get more use out of my present system. Even tried out the 250mm SK LS prime, bought another lens (75-150). Paid $750 for repair of the shutter release mechanism on the camera body.

Sadly, I have still not been able to use it despite having traveled to South Africa and having done local tours in the US. The gear cannot replace DSLRs (at least not right now) and to carry both systems into the field is just too much.

As long as you keep your lens and accessory count rational, I personally wouldn't find it too difficult to travel with two systems, but your needs may be different. Of course it depends on what you want to do in your travels, sometimes you have to compromise and accept that you won't be doing landscapes, street photography and wildlife while traveling abroad and pick something to focus on.

Which brings me to the present. Given my experience with the Sony A7R, the news of the Canon 5DS/R and my existing multiple Canon bodies, is it worth it for me to hang on the MF system or should I cut my losses and sell it all?

Among the new high MP count cameras, the 5DS seems like the least exciting, unless Canon proves us otherwise in regards to their historically poor low-ISO noise/banding and DR performance. The A7R wins on size, but its noise is worse than the D810.

I am primarily a landscape and wildlife photographer, do not make a living from it and do not do portraits or studio work - other than family pictures now and then. While the results from the MF are stunning and the large prints I've made truly 'immersive' as they say, I am not sure that is enough to carry on with the system. I am not going to be able to get into the esoteric world of tech cameras at all, so further 'improvement' in my images is very unlikely.

As a landscape photographer you probably should have gone the tech cam way from the start, they're not nearly as large or heavy as I expected from pictures online, and in person I actually found them quite small. Perhaps your impression of MF not being for you is from having used it with the "wrong" system, the DF body is more for general use, and in particular, I find it to be a studio camera more than anything... The first impression it gave me was that it was just too slow and clunky to even bother taking outside, and the problem might be in that and not the back itself; even with a god-like sensor, a terrible body will still foul the experience.

I am not sure if I should wait for a CMOS version of the IQ180 - what if the trade-in is equally expensive? The new camera body rumored to come out in April will be no less than $5000 if that. Granted the lenses are great and would hold value for me, but that's about it.

Since the 33x44 CMOS just came out, I expect a full-size version will be at least two years down the line, but the manufacturing process is claimed to be difficult enough as it is right now. Concerning the new body, it's ultimately going to be just as large since the flange distance, prism and back configuration have to stay the same to retain compatibility with the current system, but if the operation is smoothed out and it'll be practical to hand-hold without strobes as the Leica S and 645Z are now, that would be a nice change.

Has anybody been in a similar situation. Are others thinking of jumping ship?

i just jumped ship from Canon to the 645Z, but I would have been happy with a CCD back too, if anything it would help me justify owning a $1200 tripod.

It is not just about the money (who am I kidding!), it is the whole experience I guess that has been 'difficult'. In my quest for the ultimate in image quality I may have indeed bitten off more than I can chew. I guess it is buyer's remorse a year later, I don't know.

I still think the DF is the problem, as of now if I had to put together a list of worst camera bodies in medium format, the DF+ would be at #1, followed by the Hasselblad H at #2. The 645Z I can hand-hold with the 55mm at 1/125th with fair certainty and at 1/200th I pretty much know I'm going to get a sharp image, while on the few occasions I used the DF I just couldn't get tack sharpness even at 1/300th, which was made more infuriating by the limited ISO as you say, but If the body had better handling and mirror/shutter action, and if the lenses had stabilization, it would be much more fun to shoot with.

 

[voidshatter]

Many here don't like HDR, not many "globally".

I just did a quick search here and found that many people here used to care about DR (not necessarily HDR). What has happened since then?

 

[RVB]

I don't get the continued obsession with DR. What is the point of electronically recording a scene beyond the human eye's DR ability, then compressing that spectrum, by lifting shadows and muting highlights so that every shot looks like you just walked out of a Lord of the Rings movie?

In my case, there is a time/place for this. If I have a deep shadow, that is near black, I'd prefer to see some texture detail in there. But by no means am I interested in a "fill flash" effect in the shadow.

I have no empirical evidence but I have read that the human eye is capable of 20stops DR.

Rob

 

[Bryan Stephens]

My take is that HDR is a "false" implementation of DR.

The DR of an image or capture is exactly that, it is the DR of that specific image, not a blending of several images to obtain the DR that one is hoping to achieve.

Some people use HDR quite effectively where you really cannot tell that the image is HDR, as it is subtle, where some totally overblow it and oversaturate their images to the point that they appear fake.