Sad about GetDpi (a personal lament)

[Lisa]

I guess I haven't been posting as much as I used to, but then I've said and asked most of what I needed to say and ask, and I don't bother to write unless I think I have something worth reading. I'm still here, though, and still reading almost every day.

So what's the deal on the hordes moving to medium format? Is it new things available in MF, or people wanting to continuously upgrade, or what? (I've never even thought about MF, since I travel light, and even my Nikon D200 is too heavy for my taste; thus, I've never even looked into the MF forum.) What does one do with MF that a decent 10 MP DSLR can't? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually interested in finding out.

Lisa

 

[LJL]

I guess I haven't been posting as much as I used to, but then I've said and asked most of what I needed to say and ask, and I don't bother to write unless I think I have something worth reading. I'm still here, though, and still reading almost every day.

So what's the deal on the hordes moving to medium format? Is it new things available in MF, or people wanting to continuously upgrade, or what? (I've never even thought about MF, since I travel light, and even my Nikon D200 is too heavy for my taste; thus, I've never even looked into the MF forum.) What does one do with MF that a decent 10 MP DSLR can't? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually interested in finding out.

Lisa

Lisa,
Not going to speak for anybody else, but MF is a lot about the total image quality and what can be done with those images. Some of us work for clients that have gotten into a habit of using images for multi-purpose, and that is not always the most effective, nor flattering to our work. I recently had a client take some DSLR images that I had already cropped quite a bit, and turn them into rather large posters for display. Most 10MP files do not hold up all that well in that kind of use, so MF becomes very important to retain quality.

I really do not think it is about much more than really wanting to get the best image captures one can, both in size, resolution, DR, etc. There are a lot of demands on the gear and the user, so it is not usually as easy an undertaking as picking up a DSLR, which actually CAN do the job most of the time for most folks. Those shooting lots of landscapes, architecture, fine art reproduction, fashion, products and commercial stuff tend to need more in the image quality, and only MF is really delivering that....just as it used to with film compared to SLRs. Nothing really more than that, I do not think.

LJ

 

[Bob]

Lisa,
I just got a MF back, and it is not that I am upgrading, I am adding on.
There are four roles for my equipment
1) P&S pocket camera - lots of good choices, my LX2 does very well there
2) Travel camera for me it is all about the M8, nothing better
3) Events and low light That is what the D3 or D300 is for. stuff moves around a lot and in low light
4) Large prints and heavy cropping capability. That is for the P45+. I expect to use it more with the Horseman for the shift capability especially with "suburban landscape" types of shots. I was happy, but not extremely happy with 30 by 40 prints from the M8. I hope that the MF satisfies that need. I might even try some technical camera work tethered, but that is a TBD item while I am waiting for the money pit to get re-filled. I also have not done studio work for several years, so this is a way back in to it.
-bob

 

[Dale Allyn]

Actually, one thing that I find a bit "lacking" here (though I don't mean to use the term harshly) is a forum for display threads without delineation of brand or sensor size. We have the gallery section where people place their images – some for inclusion to a thread, some for sharing – but it feels like a side-line item or a warehouse to me. Again, not wanting to sound harsh (static text doesn't convey tone well).

I seldom look through the Nikon forum because I don't shoot Nikon gear, but I have seen a thread there in which a number of images were shared and comments exchanged about them. Likewise in the small sensor section and there's one in the Canon area. I think it would be great to have a display section where someone might post a thread of macro shots, in which we'd enjoy macro or close-ups from systems of small sensor to MF and beyond. Someone might start a "share your favorite shot from last weekend" thread, etc. In other words a display area that is more system agnostic.

I don't see a need to break it into segments like "Street" or "Landscape" or "Macro". The thread heading could do that. But I do think that it would encourage more image posting, comments and encouragement, and camaraderie across sections currently delineated by brand or sensor size.

I know that Jack and Guy want to keep the forum manageable and clean, and the types of sections will likely go through changes as they learn what works and which areas get little use. Just thought I toss this out to see if others feel it would contribute to a bit more community interaction.

Best,

Dale

 

[jonoslack]

Jono really simple bud buy a MF back. LOL

Honestly and i am dead serious for as much as you enjoy shooting, you should consider it . No 24 MPX Nikon or Canon will match a MF system with DR, Resolution and all the extra benefits of MF. If i was in your shoes . M8 and MF and call it a day. The only thing a D3 buys you is high ISO speed and if you had a P30 Plus extremely good even at ISO 1600 and it is not any bigger than your D3 kit, Trust me i had them side by side. Just something to think about , I would not even mention it if i thought it was not for someone like you and it is cheaper than you think.

HI Guy
I know your question was partly flippant, but I'll take it seriously, and, since you ask, I'll tell you why not.

The reason is simple, there isn't any shooting I do where I really have the time to stop and think, to shoot deliberately - the reason I get my landscapes is because I've climbed through hedges and ditches and got there, the reason the natural close ups work is because I'm shooting with continuous autofocus to take into account that the damn subject is blowing about all over the place. The reason I get employed by the BBC to do radio presenters is because they like the candid work I do in natural lighting - with people moving around fast in changing light.
Even the still life shots I do indoors are ALL handheld, unarranged and in natural light. The minute I start trying to formalise the situation the life goes out of it. I haven't used a tripod for anything other than testing lenses (which I always do by the way) for at least 2 years.

The only thing that MF would do for me is to give me better image quality for a much fewer number of shots in a smaller number of situations. I also know myself well enough to know that I just wouldn't take it out with me when I was walking (too heavy to get a representative number of lenses).

As for just having MF and the M8's - not a chance - I had a church jazz concert to do a couple of weeks ago: I couldn't possibly have set up a tripod in the circumstances, the lighting was dreadful and most of the shoot was done between ISO 5000-6400. If it had been paid, I would simply have refused, but it was for a charity. The pictures were used for local papers and will be used by the conservancy body. The M8 would have been lovely - but I wouldn't have had a prayer! church shots at high ISO

So, I can't just do with M8 and MF, I need a dSLR - the D300 is no good to me because of the problem with quality zooms at sensible ranges. So I'll have to put up with the D3 until Nikon make a smaller FX camera.

I was so close to buying the Mamiya (as you did) at around the same time, but I realised that although I really WANTED to go MF, there wasn't a single situation I could think of where it would do anything for me except improve the image quality . . . . and I'm not getting complaints about IQ from the M8 or the D3 - what I want to improve is the IMAGES, not the dynamic range or the resolution. Money isn't the problem, and nor is the size. As for the 'no 24MPX Nikon or Canon will match a MF system' - well, you may be right, but it's tough to write Nikon off before it appears, I think everyone was pretty surprised by the D3 (but not the D300, good as it may be).

I'm as much of a gearhead as the next person (more than most), but I have to keep telling myself what we all know:

1. nobody ever liked a photograph BECAUSE the IQ was good
2. nobody even THINKS about the IQ if the image is fabulous.

I need the kit which is going to get me the best image, not the best quality image

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well we decided at the moment to open a Lighting forum as requested. I will do that in a few minutes. As time goes we will make changes and such, we are not perfect believe me and we make some mistakes and such. As we grow we will all evolve. I think something does need to be said though sometimes we have no choice in some decisions that we make, I know they are not popular decisions but one has to remember these decisions are based on the forum at large and not individual and we have to follow our mantra be it someone you like is no longer here that was there decision to not be here. We have to follow what is best overall period. believe me I think i have more people pissed at me for no reason at all but what they believe is true and not really is, not a damn thing I can do or will say about that and unfortunately I can't defend my actions in public and will NOT do that. So i sit here taking the heat when in fact it was not my choice. Hope folks understand what i am saying, my job as one of the owners is to protect you and this forum. It does not come with strawberry's and roses everyday. i have to make hard calls even though not popular or what I want to truly want to do but some truly need to realize there are two sides to every story. We as owners will never tell you the private stories, sorry that is the way it is .

 

[Guy Mancuso]

HI Guy
I know your question was partly flippant, but I'll take it seriously, and, since you ask, I'll tell you why not.

The reason is simple, there isn't any shooting I do where I really have the time to stop and think, to shoot deliberately - the reason I get my landscapes is because I've climbed through hedges and ditches and got there, the reason the natural close ups work is because I'm shooting with continuous autofocus to take into account that the damn subject is blowing about all over the place. The reason I get employed by the BBC to do radio presenters is because they like the candid work I do in natural lighting - with people moving around fast in changing light.
Even the still life shots I do indoors are ALL handheld, unarranged and in natural light. The minute I start trying to formalise the situation the life goes out of it. I haven't used a tripod for anything other than testing lenses (which I always do by the way) for at least 2 years.

The only thing that MF would do for me is to give me better image quality for a much fewer number of shots in a smaller number of situations. I also know myself well enough to know that I just wouldn't take it out with me when I was walking (too heavy to get a representative number of lenses).

As for just having MF and the M8's - not a chance - I had a church jazz concert to do a couple of weeks ago: I couldn't possibly have set up a tripod in the circumstances, the lighting was dreadful and most of the shoot was done between ISO 5000-6400. If it had been paid, I would simply have refused, but it was for a charity. The pictures were used for local papers and will be used by the conservancy body. The M8 would have been lovely - but I wouldn't have had a prayer! church shots at high ISO

So, I can't just do with M8 and MF, I need a dSLR - the D300 is no good to me because of the problem with quality zooms at sensible ranges. So I'll have to put up with the D3 until Nikon make a smaller FX camera.

I was so close to buying the Mamiya (as you did) at around the same time, but I realised that although I really WANTED to go MF, there wasn't a single situation I could think of where it would do anything for me except improve the image quality . . . . and I'm not getting complaints about IQ from the M8 or the D3 - what I want to improve is the IMAGES, not the dynamic range or the resolution. Money isn't the problem, and nor is the size. As for the 'no 24MPX Nikon or Canon will match a MF system' - well, you may be right, but it's tough to write Nikon off before it appears, I think everyone was pretty surprised by the D3 (but not the D300, good as it may be).

I'm as much of a gearhead as the next person (more than most), but I have to keep telling myself what we all know:

1. nobody ever liked a photograph BECAUSE the IQ was good
2. nobody even THINKS about the IQ if the image is fabulous.

I need the kit which is going to get me the best image, not the best quality image

Completely understand all that you said . Just wanted you to think about things. Folks need to run what you just said in there heads and make smart calls. Too many times people buy stuff because Joe has one but what they don't realize is Joe has a completely different need or want. Hell just take me for example I have a need for MF because i do not know what a client will do with my files. i work on buy outs with corporate clients. I have no restrictions to size or media and i have been embarrassed once to often when they take something outside the file comfort zone. I simply can't have that happen and trust me sold stuff I did not want to sell to make this not happen anymore to me, some of it is back but i had to find a way to solve this issue fast or i would loss some very good paying clients. We all have to make good decisions on need and not always the wants

 

[TRSmith]

I think MF is the perfect evolution for digital. I can understand the allure. I say that because of my twisted path up until now. Back in the 70s and 80s, MF and Large format held legitimate places in the photographic landscape and it wasn't just for the Madison Avenue Pros. I shot 4x5 for years and have owned several view cameras. I could somehow afford to do that with film cameras—even though it has always been a pricey move to go to a larger format, just not as pricey as it seems now.

Honestly, when I came back to Photography 2 years ago and discovered that everybody (or nearly) was shooting with what I thought at the time was "35 mm" digital, I was shocked! A 30"x40" print from a 35? No way! But some were doing it. And now a lot of those folks seem to have realized that the next step involves a larger sensor. Makes sense to me.

After you make the transition from film to digital, get your system set up with software, your monitor calibrated, your file system setup and start shooting/collecting/processing images, you start to get beyond the wide-eyed wonder and begin to wish for just a little more. A little more DR, a little more sharpness, a little more depth. And you start to see why a MF system would be really sweet for some things.

One other tidbit that I think is something of a factor and that's the huge amount of images that get posted online that never, ever get printed or enlarged beyond 750px x 600px (or whatever your favorite posting size is). If online usage is all that's required, it might be difficult to see any difference between files from a Sigma DP1 and any MF system.

Ultimately, I'm glad the group here is boldly going where I can only hope to go, because when/if I do, this is probably one of the easiest and smartest groups to be a part of. Lots of good info by guys breaking new territory. And yes, it may have put off some folks since it seems like all the attention is there. But I bet it will level out.

In the meantime, post more pictures! I learn as much from what others shoot, regardless of the format, as I do from the more technical posts.

 

[jonoslack]

Completely understand all that you said . Just wanted you to think about things.

As you can see, I really have thought about it! Thought about it so hard that I've actually talked myself out of a new toy that I wanted!

Folks need to run what you just said in there heads and make smart calls. Too many times people buy stuff because Joe has one but what they don't realize is Joe has a completely different need or want. Hell just take me for example I have a need for MF because i do not know what a client will do with my files. i work on buy outs with corporate clients. I have no restrictions to size or media and i have been embarrassed once to often when they take something outside the file comfort zone. I simply can't have that happen and trust me sold stuff I did not want to sell to make this not happen anymore to me, some of it is back but i had to find a way to solve this issue fast or i would loss some very good paying clients. We all have to make good decisions on need and not always the wants

Of course - and I'd really like to use MF for my landscape work, but I know how I get my landscapes, and I know that I wouldn't be there to get them!
(or else I wouldn't have the mf gear with me).

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I think MF is the perfect evolution for digital. I can understand the allure. I say that because of my twisted path up until now. Back in the 70s and 80s, MF and Large format held legitimate places in the photographic landscape and it wasn't just for the Madison Avenue Pros. I shot 4x5 for years and have owned several view cameras. I could somehow afford to do that with film cameras—even though it has always been a pricey move to go to a larger format, just not as pricey as it seems now.

Honestly, when I came back to Photography 2 years ago and discovered that everybody (or nearly) was shooting with what I thought at the time was "35 mm" digital, I was shocked! A 30"x40" print from a 35? No way! But some were doing it. And now a lot of those folks seem to have realized that the next step involves a larger sensor. Makes sense to me.

After you make the transition from film to digital, get your system set up with software, your monitor calibrated, your file system setup and start shooting/collecting/processing images, you start to get beyond the wide-eyed wonder and begin to wish for just a little more. A little more DR, a little more sharpness, a little more depth. And you start to see why a MF system would be really sweet for some things.

One other tidbit that I think is something of a factor and that's the huge amount of images that get posted online that never, ever get printed or enlarged beyond 750px x 600px (or whatever your favorite posting size is). If online usage is all that's required, it might be difficult to see any difference between files from a Sigma DP1 and any MF system.

Ultimately, I'm glad the group here is boldly going where I can only hope to go, because when/if I do, this is probably one of the easiest and smartest groups to be a part of. Lots of good info by guys breaking new territory. And yes, it may have put off some folks since it seems like all the attention is there. But I bet it will level out.

In the meantime, post more pictures! I learn as much from what others shoot, regardless of the format, as I do from the more technical posts.

Best post today Tim. Very very well said. Folks do not be put off by MF learn about it and gain knowledge from it. Some of the best shooters just happen to live there.

 

[jonoslack]

Actually, one thing that I find a bit "lacking" here (though I don't mean to use the term harshly) is a forum for display threads without delineation of brand or sensor size. We have the gallery section where people place their images – some for inclusion to a thread, some for sharing – but it feels like a side-line item or a warehouse to me. Again, not wanting to sound harsh (static text doesn't convey tone well).

I quite agree Dale
An excellent idea - a 'themes' forum. Those threads work so well here, and it would be nice to have some threads where everyone was contributing pictures.

Guy GUY GUUUYYYYYY ! (are you listening):ROTFL:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Your killing me . LOL

Okay get a list going and we have to see what Jack thinks. I'm the push over here

The problem is everything on one page without too much scrolling. I may have to take out a row of images on the front page

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Question we almost did this yesterday but refrained, merge the R and M and just have Leica. We have just Nikon , Canon. There is not a lot of room to consolidate and expand at the same time with trying to keep the front page from being a busy mess

 

[jonoslack]

I think MF is the perfect evolution for digital.

snip

"35 mm" digital, I was shocked! A 30"x40" print from a 35? No way! But some were doing it. And now a lot of those folks seem to have realized that the next step involves a larger sensor. Makes sense to me.

Well, I think I disagree pretty radically; certainly, it's already possible to get much larger quality prints from 35mm digital than it ever was with film, however, right now, bigger sensors are the answer. Guy and Jack, and other professionals who need BIG FILES NOW would be mad not to use it.

BUT when you look at what's being achieved with those teeny weeny sensors in cameras like the GRD II, and you look at the difference in size between those and 35mm, and when you realise that current quality lens design will resolve a great deal more than we currently get, and when you think how fast sensor development is currently going. I think the future is in smaller sensors, because I'm pretty certain that the issues with DR and noise will be solved convincingly during the next few years (look at the leap forward the D3 represents in those fields).

The research dollars are going to go where the biggest market is, and that's in 35mm and smaller sensors. It isn't going to be long before Nikon or Canon (or Sony) are going to have 36mp FF sensors with good DR and noise, and with high quality zooms to go with them for sensible money. At that point there are going to be a lot of photographers who no longer need to make that MF investment, which will increase the price differential.

To my mind, the point at which you can get a great A0 (34"X46") sized print from a 35mm sensor is not far away, and when it IS here, then the argument for spending all those bucks on MF are going to be pretty hard to qualify (except for gearheads like me of course!)

 

[jlm]

Amen, Tim. i completely agree.
I might add this:
my last excursions into fine art photography involved large format and I welcomed the slow shooting, considered framing, etc, and felt a good day was bringing home five or six 4x5 negs. one of the things I like about being a MF'er is it is conducive to that method of shooting, both in time taken and not having to peep through a tiny hole to see your shot
also with Dale's idea: one main spot to post images, brand no-matter.

 

[jonoslack]

Question we almost did this yesterday but refrained, merge the R and M and just have Leica. We have just Nikon , Canon. There is not a lot of room to consolidate and expand at the same time with trying to keep the front page from being a busy mess

Sounds pretty sensible.
of course, I should have said jack Jack JACK JAAAAACCCCKKKK as well!

. . . . but then Guy, I knew you were the pushover

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I am the pushover
so

landscape and travel
people
macro and wildlife
street
Product
architecture
sports and fun


I don't know , you guys tell me

 

[Guy Mancuso]

If up to me merge Leica sections R and M take destinations hot spots and put into new landscape and travel into a new Section called Themes. I would also have to lose a row of random images 9 instead of 12 to make up for space.

 

[Dale Allyn]

Guy, I wasn't even suggesting controlled themes yet. I mean not a section for each. I was suggesting a display/share section where the original poster of any thread would set the tone of that thread.

I expect that it may grow into a need for what you've outlined, but I was trying to take a small step first, since the forum is still rather intimate in size.

If you have room and are ready for sections, then that's great. In any case, there is a lot that can be learned by looking at images posted by others, especially if folks include a little info about the shot.

Cheers.

 

[jonoslack]

I am the pushover
so

landscape and travel
people
macro and wildlife
street
Product
architecture
sports and fun


I don't know , you guys tell me

HI Guy
No - I agree with Dale - just one forum for photo threads - the themes can go in the forum - so you have a themes forum
someone starts a thread on cuttlefish bones, or street photography, or whatever, and then people can chip in shots from all sorts of different cameras.