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!

MF Digital Precision

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I wholeheartedly agree Rob! Speaking of content, it is worth quoting Ansel Adams:

"... in discussing mechanical or optical issues we must not lose sight of the much greater importance of image content--emotional, aesthetic, or literal. I believe there is nothing more disturbing than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept!" The Negative, p. 73

Francois
I knew there was a reason why I liked Ansel, heck I even learned his Zone system. LOL
 

routlaw

Member
Rob, that would be a shame and I am sure it wouldn't be his intention: one of his key arguments is that a lot of people are satisfied with less than optimal results from MFD because they haven't really grasped what it can do when used at its best.

Tim
Understood... but I do have my Betterlight, and it ain't too shabby when it comes to image quality albeit there are many cameras MFDB's included that can run circles around it for useability.:salute:

But having read his review, finding sensible value with these systems for the intended purpose of landscape or other wide angle photography seems more of a stretch now for me. More importantly, how many marvelous images given his talent did he miss from running camera/lens test for this extended period? A lot of film could have been exposed and scanned in this time, and in fact there is a multitude of ways he could have produced outstanding images during this same period. Put another way why should anyone spend valuable time within reason, being a beta tester for expensive camera companies when they could be adding images with content to their library and files and dare I say it perhaps even their bottom line.

I don't want to sound to harsh here after all I have been enamored with and lusted after many of the same camera systems for a long period of time as well. Just raising questions as much as anything. One thing for sure, during the heyday of film photographers did not spend this level of time testing gear... though a few shoots here and there might have been given up due to labs or other mishaps.:cry:

...quoting Ansel Adams:

"... in discussing mechanical or optical issues we must not lose sight of the much greater importance of image content--emotional, aesthetic, or literal. I believe there is nothing more disturbing than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept!" The Negative, p. 73

Francois
Here, here!!!:clap::clap:
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I will be testing the Phase One system tomorrow, including a 28 lens and a P65+ back. Will let you know my findings, but I think it should work perfect, as it is the demo system of the local Phase One representative in Austria :angel:
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Really, if you can make high resolution 80"x60" fine art prints from 6x6 film that you would define as great then you have discovered the Holy Grail and should stick with it.

Personally I wouldn't take 5x4 sheet film up to that size, let alone anything that comes out of a roll film camera.
I get your point ;)

Well - coming from 35mm photography (Leica, Canon, Nikon) then suddenly 6x6 material looks overwhelming. I must say I will also have a look into 5x4 sheet film cameras, and I absolutely agree and by no way want to argue that these deliver superior results to all MF (digital and analog) today, BUT I have the feeling that this is too time consuming, expensive for my work and most importantly I feel that nobody will pay for the difference in results.

Please correct me if you see this differently.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
Peter

My point is that image quality is subjective.

My subjective opinion is that 10x enlargement is as much as I'm comfortable with, regardless of film size.

My initial observations with the Hasselblad H3D11-22 are that the files are wonderfully clean and will take a greater enlargement ratio than any film I've encountered. So, in other words, I'd be happy to go way beyond that 10x factor when printing from the MFD files.

Keith

BTW, I wouldn't even consider using sheet film now.
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Just a thought, there are easier to use 6X9 options out there (such as the Mamiya press) which will give you even greater quality with your scanning workflow for what will still be a fraction of the price of a MFDB solution. Unless you have a lot of spare cash it's doubtful that MFDB's make any sense at all unless backed up by a good business plan that agrees with their purchase. For serious shooting but outside of a pro enviroment dictating their use, film might make more sense than digital should you already have a good scanning workflow and specifically require a MF solution.

I know it might be heresy but have you thought of a DSLR and stitching given that you are shooting landscapes? I gave up on LF when I realised how much easier stitching was for my needs, you get stupid amounts of tonality and resolution due to the amount of pixels used (and size of pixels on my 5D!), less DOF issues, ability to use clean high iso's and of course it's less hassle to set up and shoot, faster as well IMO. Oh and it fits in such a small bag! :D

See www.studio-beni.net/jerusalem for some stitched work, all but two of those are stitched ranging from 33 to 55 megapixels.
 
Last edited:

KeithL

Well-known member
The Hassy guys will no doubt defend their 28mm lens but I have seen results from it that a Hassy dealer was very pleased with and they sucked in a low key way. Similar to the Phase/Mamiya 28D, possibly slightly worse.
I tested my newly aquired HCD 4/28 this morning, took two images, or rather two views of the same subject. My heart sunk on viewing the first, it was a real disappointment, soft corners and weird distortions. The second was a revelation, sharp right across the frame and perfect perspective. The cause, well, user error.

The point about these super-wides, and believe me 28mm on a 49x37mm sensor is spectacularly wide, is that they need to be very carefully positioned in relation to the subject, failure to do this accurately leads to all kinds of distortion. The second point is that it takes a while to appreciate just how much subject is in the frame and just how much depth of field is needed to cover the subject, failure to appreciate this and allow for it results in the appearance of soft corners.

Now, I’m not saying that everything Joseph or for that matter Tim have witnessed is down to user error, just that these lenses need extreme care in use.

Thank God I took that second shot and got it right!
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
You also have nice software that makes great corrections for the 28mm as well as the Mamiya. Both Hassy and Mamiya have done a nice job with there software for these lenses.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Sorry guys, these lenses, shot under optimal conditions, correctly positioned, with every possible wind in the right direction, are soft in the corners. They are miracles of engineering, better than anyone expected given the constraints, helped by good software but the simple fact remains: they are soft in the corners.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
Tashley? Tim?, Apologies, I haven't a clue who you are, would you be suggesting that I'm mistaken, or that my eyes are deceiving me, or I don't know how to judge images, or I haven't enough experience in judging images, or even perhaps that I'm lying?
 

hcubell

Well-known member
Tashley? Tim?, Apologies, I haven't a clue who you are, would you be suggesting that I'm mistaken, or that my eyes are deceiving me, or I don't know how to judge images, or I haven't enough experience in judging images, or even perhaps that I'm lying?
David Grover from Hasselblad has posted some crops of corners from the HC28mm lens at: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=33641&pid=276279&st=40&#entry276279.
They look quite impressive to me, and these are JPEGs. Perhaps Tim should try it for himself.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
You seem to have said that about them...
Tashley has suggested that all Mamiya and Hasselblad 28mm lenses have soft corners. I'm saying that mine hasn't.

Perhaps Tashley has tested many examples of the HCD 28, in which case he has an advantage over me as I've only tested the one, my own.
 

LJL

New member
(I guess the expected refutation will be that they are still soft, and NOT landscapes!)

Seriously, these are looking pretty darn good. I still think, as Ben has commented, if one is so nearly obsessive about the corners and still needs wide to go large for print, then shoot with good piece of less wide glass that is tack sharp to the corners and stitch a couple of frames. Expecting extreme sharpness in the corners of a 28mm lens on MF is pushing the limits.....unless you are prepared to spend a huge amount of money for a tech camera and lens, which is NOT the direction being discussed.

One of the biggest advantages of shooting MF over say 35mm DSLR, is that you are getting a much larger image file to both deliver more detail and to permit cropping if needed. If the 28mm is tad soft in the corners, as Guy said, take a step or two back and crop the frame a tiny bit, or shoot a bit longer lens and stitch a couple of frames. While I appreciate the great desire to have corner to corner perfection, I am also realistic in what can be delivered for what cost and use. I would venture to say the most folks buying and shooting a 28mm are doing so to capture the broader perspective and setting, and are going to take care to eliminate "soft corners" by making sure the subjects in those corners are inconsequential to the image itself. (Oh wait, that gets into composition and subject matter.....my, my.)

Just a few thoughts after wending through this thread and wondering WTF!!!

LJ
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Tashley? Tim?, Apologies, I haven't a clue who you are, would you be suggesting that I'm mistaken, or that my eyes are deceiving me, or I don't know how to judge images, or I haven't enough experience in judging images, or even perhaps that I'm lying?
Keith, I have no intention of accusing you of lying. I don't have the Hasselbald lens but I was sent an example of it's output as being a really good file and a ringing endorsment of its powers by someone from Hasselblad who was being extremely helpful. It was without any doubt soft in the corners. As have every example of every Mammy 28D I have ever seen been, whether taken by me or by anyone else.

I fully agree that positioning relative to subject is important but nonetheless I have never had one shot from mine, which is the third one I've had and as good as any I've seen, which satisfies me in the corners. I use the word 'soft'. It's relative. For me it's relative to a Schneider 35XL on a Cambo with the same back. Or it's relative to a 28 Cron on an M8. Or a 24-105L zoom on a 1DSIII.

No rude intent here.

Tim
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
(I guess the expected refutation will be that they are still soft, and NOT landscapes!)

Seriously, these are looking pretty darn good. I still think, as Ben has commented, if one is so nearly obsessive about the corners and still needs wide to go large for print, then shoot with good piece of less wide glass that is tack sharp to the corners and stitch a couple of frames. Expecting extreme sharpness in the corners of a 28mm lens on MF is pushing the limits.....unless you are prepared to spend a huge amount of money for a tech camera and lens, which is NOT the direction being discussed.
I'm making no friends here but I politely disagree: IMHO there's not much point shelling out an absolute fortune for a 39mp back and then putting glass on it that can't live up to what it does. Having seen the results from the 28D I did make the extra investment in a tech camera and glass and I do now get the results the back can deliver. This is exactly what Joe Holmes was talking about!

One of the biggest advantages of shooting MF over say 35mm DSLR, is that you are getting a much larger image file to both deliver more detail and to permit cropping if needed. If the 28mm is tad soft in the corners, as Guy said, take a step or two back and crop the frame a tiny bit, or shoot a bit longer lens and stitch a couple of frames. While I appreciate the great desire to have corner to corner perfection, I am also realistic in what can be delivered for what cost and use. I would venture to say the most folks buying and shooting a 28mm are doing so to capture the broader perspective and setting, and are going to take care to eliminate "soft corners" by making sure the subjects in those corners are inconsequential to the image itself. (Oh wait, that gets into composition and subject matter.....my, my.)

Just a few thoughts after wending through this thread and wondering WTF!!!

LJ
I totally agree that not all shots need it but the stuff I'm currently shooting does and as I've mentioned before, if I have to crop the soggy corners off I end up with a file not much larger than a FF DSLR, most of which have lenses available that can be brutally sharp to the corners. To put this in context, an M8 file shot at F5 with a 28 Cron will have sharper corners in an uncropped 20" wide print than any 28D file on a P45+. Sure there will be more resolution and detail such that I could crop heavily but hey, I framed it like I framed it. If I wanted a less wide view I'd but a less wide lens!

For a lot of work it's not a problem. I do understand that!

Tim
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
28 cron on a M8 is a 35mm . A 28mm on Hassy or Phase is 21mm in 35 equivalent. On a M8 that is a 15mm lens and the canon starts at 24mm so none of the above you mentioned are in fact equivalent to a 21mm in 35mm FF format. A Tri elmar at 16mm on a M8 would be and in Canon you have to go to a alternate lens to even think about getting something sharp in the corners for a 21mm. Only one lens I know of the Zeiss 21mm and the Leica 19mm is soft in the corners BTW, so is the 16-35 . We are talking a 21mm equivalent here. At least this what I had to deal with when I shot Canon , things may have changed since than. A 35mm Scneider you can't compare against. The ONLY lens that you can compare in MF is a Rodenstock 28mm lens.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Tim,

Any chance of stopping this when it gets to a hundred posts?

Steve
I once posted a thread on LUF suggesting (proving in fact) that the 35 Lux has a tendency to back focus on the M8. Despite the fact that I had an email from Leica themselves stating that this was true, the denials ran to many hundreds of posts. That was when I learned that there really are miracle lenses out there!
:toocool:
 
Top