The two side-by-side images you commented on above are more about field-of-view, composition and perspective where a 24mm TS lens out-maneuvered a fixed 40mm (Duh!). But if you look at the spire of the main subject building, the P45 looks way better IMO. Also, I find the composition of the Hassey shot to be just as pleasing as the other because the lamp-post is placed between the buildings.
Would you P45+ back work on a 501 or 503 body? That'd cut a lot of weight immediately.
But the "Weldon-Challenge" was about exploring the possiblities and strength of your P45+. Instead of finding out what your P45+ can do for you you made yet another questionable comparison.
The challenge, by the way, was to show the "contrast" of the two buildings ... and my reading of the challenge is that the task is also content-related... so the challenge also requires some kind of pictorial concept. It's not just about capturing two buildings next to each other... IMO.
Anyway... I think instead of posting graphs and comparisons you could spend your time much better by really learning Capture One and by really exploring the possibilities of your P45+. Looking at your photos taken with the P45+ I think you never did.
As a finale note: for me personally most of the tests posted on forums are not really important. They may give an impression but I rarely draw final conclusions from these tests...
Last edited by thomas; 9th April 2016 at 14:03.
2 Member(s) thanked for this post3 Member(s) liked this post
I don't stop down to f/16, that is something you claim. A totally ignorant statement on your part. As a matter of fact, I have a lot of issues with aliasing, both on the P45+ and the Sony A7rII. Shooting f/16 essentially eliminates aliasing on the P45+. In general I shoot f/11 on the P45+, as I find it a decent compromise between DoF, focusing accuracy and diffraction. So you make ignorant claims.
I have shot some single picture shot at f/16 to get sufficient DoF that I have published, but that doesn't mean that I am a frequent user of f/16. Would I do that I wouldn't see aliasing, which I do. The Weldon Challenge images were shot at f/11 on the P45+ and at f/8 - f11 on the Sony. On the Sony I use shifts, so I use very peripheral parts of the image so it is prudent to stop down. Unshifted images on the Sony are at f/8, equivalent aperture to f/11 on the P45+.
The approach taken on the Weldon Challenge is essentially to:
- Find my point of view
- Shoot it with the P45+
- Shoot it with the A7rII
It would be hard to learn the benefits of the P45+ without having comparison stuff, wouldn't it?
So, you feel that I need to learn Capture One to make best use of the P45+? So, you mean that medium format needs Capture One for decent results. Feel a lot of pity for Leica S users who don't have access to a superior image processing application…
I do see some benefits to Capture One, like somewhat better suppression of demosaic artefacts than LR, but as you claim that I shoot f/16 that should not be an issue, as f/16 eliminates aliasing on the P45+. But, I of course don't shoot at f/16, unless forced to.
Let's put it this way, I got a nice challenge and I try to meet it. I shoot both P45+ and Sony A7rII and I do share the images here (*): http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...ldonChallenge/
I don't mind comments, but I don't like untrue statements about my shooting practices about which you can now little. And please share your own images.
(*) Many of the images are DNGs. I generally prefer DNG to proprietary raw, but the main reason is that a disproportionate part of my images with the P45+ are stitched and I do that stitching in Lightroom, that delivers a DNG image. The alternative would be TIFF. For plain images I normally share IIQ on the P45+ whenever practical.
You don't happen to have an alter egon called ThoMas on LuLa?
A question that interests me is whether there is a compelling reason to beat everything to death?
I understand that some people are just trolls; that they post things designed to annoy others for the "fun" of it.
But it seems to me that more often people are just compulsive. They can't stop arguing about things, and since there's always someone else with a point that really needs to be made, these threads live on and on.
Now we're talking about the weight of different systems and whether we fly coach or business class? Sounds like a compelling reason to me.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post2 Member(s) liked this post
I am surprised this post has lasted this long.
I think the title should be changed to "Is there a compelling reason to move to Phase One P45+?"
I didn't know which image you referred to. I think it was this one:
Here is another, in the same ilk:
The last two years about half of my shooting was with the P45+ and I got some nice images, I think. But, oddly enough, none of those have made it to the wall. I generally had the Hasselblad/P45+ combo with me on travel, but for some reason none of those pictures made it to the wall. One reason may be that the P45+ did not make it to those magic places. Or could be that I am shooting everything between fisheye and 800 mm telephoto. I don't know. A lot of nice images on the P45+, anyway:
Here is one image that didn't make it to the wall:
Here is another:
On the other hand, these images made it to the wall:
Sony Alpha 99 with 24-70/2.8 zoom at 60 mm
Sony Alpha 99 with Sigma 10/2.8 APS-C fisheye (using 10 MP APS-C crop)
Sony Alpha 99 with 70-400/4-5.6 at 140 mm
That challenge Weldon suggested is an interesting learning experience. I have just been trough day one, lets see what the future brings.
Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 9th April 2016 at 13:05.
An interesting suggestion and quite relevant. The way I see it there are two positions:
- One is that MFD as such has great benefits regardless of sensor and resolution
- Another is that high end MFD has significant benefits over smaller sensors
Potential first time buyers are probable entering at low level, going for an older sensor like the P45+ or cropped frame sensors. Obviously, the latest sensors like the IQ3 100MP have the benefit of both resolution and image size.
With the P45+ it is possible to build a decent MFD system at reasonable cost. It is worth discussing the advantages/disadvantages of such a system over modern 24x36 mm technology.
I don't think that anyone doubts the benefits of high end MFD, especially not with latest generation MFD using the same basic technology as say Nikon or Sony. A valid question may be how large you need to print to have significant benefits from the larger image size?
That is a question that is very relevant if you travel by air. If you don't do that it is totally irrelevant. For me it has always been a very major issue, those things I consider for many months for each trip.
A few years ago I solved that issue by "prepositioning equipment" and also checking in MFD lenses but not camera and back. Now I feel that I have a set of gear that covers all my needs, but that essentially means that the MFD stuff is limited to overland trips, including ferries. That doesn't mean I don't like shooting with MFD, it just means MFD stuff is not going to a lot of interesting places.
Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 9th April 2016 at 13:55.
yesSo, you feel that I need to learn Capture One to make best use of the P45+?
noSo, you mean that medium format needs Capture One for decent results.
noYou don't happen to have an alter egon called ThoMas on LuLa?
How much does the MF in this amazing video weigh - about 2kgs, presumably. And if you bolted a 100mp back to it your flight weight would potentially be fine AND we wouldn't be discussing whether MF is worth it vs 35mm.
The short answer is Hasselblad 555/ELD, Distagon 40/4CF, Distagon 60/3.5CF, Macro Planar 120/4CFi, Planar 100/3.5CF and a 180/4Cfi.
But you are quite right, that is not a lot of weight, but I also carry a 24x36 kit, like body, 16-35/4L, 24-105/4, 24/3.5 TSE, 90/2.8 Macro, 70-400/4-5.6 and a HCam TSII. So the MFD kit comes on top of the 24x36 kit.
The other point is that I don't compare a 100 MP CMOS back on a technical camera, even if I would say that makes sense. Or would make sense if the 100 MP back played well with movements, which may not be the case. I more compare backs that are affordable.
The recent couple of years used backs became a bit affordable, I jumped on the MFD train when I found a P45+ at 10 k$US. Now days those prices are much lower.
The 100 MP backs certainly make a difference, with the crop factor backs I am less sure.
Weldon Brewster will correct me if I am wrong, by I read in the challenge that you should just take one camera:
(emphasis added).So, this gets me to your second kit. You have arguably one of the best digital backs ever made mounted on a legendary camera system. You have thoroughly showed us what it can't do. I offer you a challenge. Lets see what it can do, what are it's strengths? Head out at dawn on a crisp spring morning and photograph the city hall in Nyköping. I looked on Google earth and it looks like there is beautiful historic building next to the modern city hall. Lets see the contrast of the two. You only need one camera, one lens and a tripod. I'm confident that you will get some great images that will surprise the heck out of you. I make this suggestion with the best of intentions and I will certainly accept any challenge thrown my way.
If you always take two cameras, you limit yourself to the processes and subjects which can be used with both cameras.
Another weekend, another morning I have checked in to see how this thread progresses.
I see that it hasn't been all "sorted" yet (quoting my Scottish assistant, Natalie
Don't know if this helps but last week we had a location shoot for a new wine-in-a-can product. Our assignment was to shoot as many angles and locations and "summer" looks as possible with a bunch of models and product and the usual traveling carnival that is this type of shoot. (grips, mua's, cd's, ad's..etc)
We set up two shooters, myself and the Nat.
Nat used a 5DSR and Canon 135 f2L, I used PhaseOne IQ250/DF+/75-150
So both are 50MP decent camera systems
Occasionally we found ourselves shooting the same scene setup but through "different eyes" as it were.
Here is one of those similar shots done with both systems.
There is no winner, they are both good, which is more useful? ...above my pay-grade, client decides.
The IQ250, IN MY OPINION, is the better product shot and will require less post proc time if chosen.
The 5DSR performed very well and again, in my opinion, a better system for this type of shoot. For studio product stills, not a contest, IQ250.
Thats all I will say on the matter. Just thought this experience was relevant to the "shoot with two cameras" dealio so took a few mins and posted. Hope it is interesting comparison for some.
I am not a product tester nor do I play one on TV or in videos. I shoot professionally for money. If the client is happy, then I am happy. This was done this way because we wanted to maximize downtime with the models and create maximum amount of different shots for client use in a short period of time.
3 Member(s) liked this post
All shots proc in C1 v9 so relative warmth/coolness not really a factor. BUT look at the guy's blue shirt. It is d.o.b.a. (dead on balls accurate) color out of the IQ but went a bit contrasty and crazy out of the 5DSR
Interesting post Egor.
I do not play an Art Director on TV, but I actually am one
All IQ debates aside, I react to those shots the way I always would … which one feels more genuine, interactive and engaging while fitting in the product most naturally?
While we all would subscribe the abilities of a 35mm DSLR to better fit such a spontaneous shooting scenario, your MFD shot shows that, in the right hands, it is entirely possible to capture those invaluable moments with a
camera generally labeled as slow and contemplative. So much for stereotypes.
I also think the MFD shot has a more natural look and feel … or "presence".
It would have been nice if the MFD shot was done at f/8, but (depending on use) that would not stop me from selecting it as the better image to represent my client's brand.
Just a different perspective.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post1 Member(s) liked this post
I would (and did) choose the MF shot over the 5DSR shot to represent one of the "lifestyle" shots they were looking for. It just looks better to me, and its not because I shot it, or because its MF vs 35mm or whathaveyou...it just represents the look and feel we wanted. Whether their AD will pick it or not does not matter to me personally.
Our Nat is a fine shooter herself, and is more comfortable with the Canons and I am more comfortable with the MFD stuff. This was a big shoot and there are over 250 selects out of over 1000 total captures for the day's shoot in 5 different locations and combinations of models, wardrobes, wine product...etc. All in all; a good haul for our client's buck$.
There are many shots where me and the Phase are clearly superior and vice-versa. But I must say, when the MFD gets it right, it knocks it out of the park. When the Canon gets it right, its just a "ok, great...next..." kind've thing.
I recently lost a day shoot to a lower bidder on some tech products (sensors for encoders). The client came back to me, showed me what they got, and was saying things like "the shots we got from the other guy are ok, I guess, but they just aren't as "luminous".... they don't "pop" as what you have done for us before. Why is that?"
I don't know the answer for them, I suspect most of the difference has to do with better lighting and better post proc skills on my part. BUT I did see that the other shooter used 35mm DSLR and I always use view cam and MFD backs for their stuff. So that may have something to do with it as well.
3 Member(s) liked this post
well the focus is better on the 5d.
the phase shot has a sharp knee (and possibly moire on the shirt cuff?) but when i see sharp hair on his arm but his beard is soft i would not have that down as a keeper unless a bit of creative sharpening/masking would mean the client wouldn’t notice.
horses for courses, i know which camera i would grab if i had to shoot people and had a big shot list to contend with.
never trust the opinion of anyone who lists a load of gear in their forum signature. Dealers do not email me asking to buy your products.2 Member(s) liked this post
Many of these will be used for billboards viewed from great distance at 60 miles per hour so not as important to get the faces sharp as one might think, in fact I am often asked to throw them oof in post anyway...but like you said, horses for courses...
That cuff is not moiré, that, my friend, is called detail and superior glass.
actually it is moire but all down to the jpeg re-size and my screen and nothing to do with denim and the sensor
(i see lines going the other way to the fabric in your 100%crop)
never trust the opinion of anyone who lists a load of gear in their forum signature. Dealers do not email me asking to buy your products.
you seriously talk about color even when it obvious that color balance is so different ? but never the less in my view p1 screws the tone curves and color profiles for competitor cameras on purpose but not so much that it can not be fixed with adjusted settings but the defaults are bad, especially blue and yellow. when i tested the 5ds it was rather obvious that somethings was wrong withe the color rendering of c1, maybe you give dpp or iridient raw a try ?
Dare I suggest that Egor has brought us (once more) to the heart of the answer to this. Many of us have tried to point this out in this thread, and here it is again:
Is there a compelling reason to move to MF? Well it appears yes, if you're Egor and delivering thousands of shots a month...or Mat for his reasons...etc, etc.
We all use what we use for a reason(s), our own reasons. Egor has shown that very well with his series of posts.
I just read this morning when I checked into this that someone was asking for same shoot comparison between the camera systems and I just so happened to have that comparison recently so there you have it. Anything beyond that is just conjecture really. Like you say, I like what I like for my reasons that only apply to me and my work. Nothing more. I would never suggest one over the other. They are both fine I just thought it interesting that I had that exact experience recently and wanted to share it. Peace out, the rain has ended
In the present state of those two photos, one can certainly draw a conclusion as to which image "feels" better re. selling the wine product, but not as to which camera system is the better tool for this purpose, because the variables are all over the map. Apart from the gulf in white balance, the composition is completely different (one portrait, one landscape), the camera positions and viewpoint are markedly different, the backdrops are completely different, in one shot the models are looking at each other while in the other they are both staring into the distance, and the focus is on different points.
Onedebanks; I make no "compelling" argument one way or another. I posted this because I thought it interesting. Draw your own conclusions I guess...Nor do I describe my posts as "true tests" showing anything. If you found them interesting for this thread, great, no worries. If you found them useless and unhelpful, sorry I wasted your time. No harm intended.
I use all gear as tools of the trade. If you prefer the 5DSR for such shoots, great! So did I and employ it often with excellent results.
If you prefer MFD, great! So did I and employ it often with excellent results as well. Ditto the Sony, iPhone, film...etc.
I have said before that no successful photographer I know of discusses cameras; we discuss lighting, technique, post proc, and most importantly business acumen.
I like this forum occasionally because there is good info here and good technique discussed. More often than not, I have other forums where we discuss the latter for days and months and not once is "what camera system do you use?" ever even mentioned. It is irrelevant to what we need to know.
Tomorrow I and my team have to build a mock store and photograph products on display in it. I have no idea what camera I will use. I already know what construction techniques I will use, how much I will charge and my lighting is already planned out to the N'th degree. What camera will I use? Who cares? any of them will look great when I am done lighting my subjects.
1 Member(s) thanked for this post3 Member(s) liked this post
Just a general comment, not really a response to your posting.
Once we shoot in the real world there are a many uncontrollable variables.
I shot these images yesterday:
P45+, my own DI131222 profile Sony A7rII Adobe Standard
One could erroneously conclude that the Sony is better at producing clouds, but what happened was that sky improved between the images. One could also argue that sky reproduction is different, but that also depends on white balance and colour profiles. The nice thing with a parametric workflow is that it is easy to apply a colour profile to a lot of images.
Another variation is raw processor, below is the same image, processed in Capture One and in Lightroom:
Capture One Lightroom
Another thing is that I appreciate photographers sharing their images, doing comparisons and even tests. It is easy to find issues with tests, but I appreciate the effort. So, often I find that things should be done differently but I appreciate the effort.
Just as an example, Digital Transitions posted a decent comparison of the IQ3-100MP with several cameras on a table top setup. They included a Sony A7rII loaned by "Pradeep" to the test. The image from that camera was not so crisp I would expect from mine, so digged into to the EXIF data to see if EFCS was enabled. I never found out. What I did find was that antishake was on, however, that could produce that kind of blur I have observed. But it really didn't matter. The Schneider lens on the Phase One's was very impressive.How would that Sony perform without antishake? We don't know.
Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 10th April 2016 at 21:39.
Let's face it, professional work is what initially drove development of most higher end gear. When print media suddenly went all digital, there was a scramble to bring digital to photography … film became time consuming and scanning was costly compared to using a digital back on existing MF cameras. During that time it generated a lot of discussion, but once that settled down, it was business as usual with the focus on other variables of producing a photo shoot for pay.
In fact, I'm not sure many people grasp how much goes into even a simple commercial shoot. The shoot itself is the tip of the iceberg. Selling/promoting, Preproduction and post production is the rest of that iceberg … often involving a lot of people besides the photographer.
If you are shooting food, what food stylist you secure is more important than what camera. Endless talent selections for lifestyle stuff. Wardrobe. Props. Permits to shoot on location. How you plan out the lighting is of primary consideration, etc. etc. etc. … as little as possible is left to chance.
Having the proper tools including cameras and lenses are the price of entry, not a differentiator.
The Photographer selects what he/she thinks is appropriate for the task, which may be one system, or a bunch of them to provide different approaches.
To me, 35mm DSLRs, SLTs and FF Mirror-Less that are reasonably similar in resolution, all pretty much deliver equally. Which one works best for you is a personal decision.
Personally I use a larger format camera because I like the lenses in that system, prefer the "presence" of the files it produces, and it has a dual shutter for HSS lighting or focal plan shutter for available light work.
I have an outdoor shoot this week and after I see where, and at what time of day it will happen, I will plan the lighting and decide whether I need HSS with the strobes … these decisions will point to which camera.
Horses for courses … as long as all the horses are good ones.
2 Member(s) liked this post
"I have said before that no successful photographer I know of discusses cameras; we discuss lighting, technique, post proc, and most importantly business acumen.”
yep. an hours catch-up with a friend last week: bikes (pedal not motor) fee’s, agents, business, girlfriends, holidays, films, moving house.
about 5min on cameras, basically about movements and still life. no MTF, no full well capacity, astigmatism or circles of confusion were mentioned. he uses a 1Q80 has no idea of what the sony chipped cameras are. i guess he’s too busy shooting and trying to arrange his daughters nursery pick-up.
never trust the opinion of anyone who lists a load of gear in their forum signature. Dealers do not email me asking to buy your products.3 Member(s) liked this post