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!

  • We are looking for a committed forum member who would like to help with administration and moderation of our forum. Good communication and writing skills would be appreciated. Please message Olaf if you are interested.

MF direction

Paul2660

Well-known member
After reading through the thread, what stands out and to me is the single greatest issue, is that somehow the OP had an opinion or understanding that LiveView on the 360 (CCD) back would work outdoors, which is tragic. If Phase One has any issues to address, it might be that the marketing to the general public has been very vague on Liveview with a CCD back. My dealer is also CI and with my first experience with Live View on the IQ160 (which is really no difference than what you would get on a IQ260 or 360), the short comings were made very clear to me and I came away with a understanding of what the limitations would be to using Liveview outdoors. It's most unfortunate that this did not get clearly stated to Lars.

What Lars experienced, is classic blooming, which in bright daylight can create the effects that he experienced. The first time I tried it on my 260, I was also a bit concerned, as my screen, went bright pink, purple then green. And if you do anything to the camera, touch the back, or lens, etc, the entire process is started all over again. Live view on a CCD, in even the outdoor light that has been shown in the post, would be impossible without a huge amount of ND, ND 8 more than likely. But even with this amount of ND, the blooming still occurs whenever you do anything, zoom in, out, move around the screen, etc. And more importantly, leaving Liveview on for an extended period of time, does cause the back to get hot, and possibly overheat. If you are using this for the first time, in outdoor light, I can see that might have been going through Lar's mind. Again can't fix that now, but in general, across the board, Phase One has tended to imply that Live View on a CCD back is "usable" in outdoor light. So a lot of people, myself included, incur this to mean LiveView in general, i.e. the LiveView from a CMOS DSLR, and attempt to use it the same way, which it cannot be.

As of the files, and getting the best out of them, I am still a bit confused on the raw converter being used, if it's C1 and the files don't appear normal, I would be concerned, but it's a raw converter that is not written by Phase One, then I really can't see that being the problem of Phase One. Phase One does include Capture One DB with all their products, for free and if you want the best out of the files, then you really need to use C1. To Phase One's credit, they have continued to improve the processing on not just the new backs, but even the older backs, like the P45+. The quality of the raw conversion on my older P45+ files dating back to 2008-2010, have a whole new life to them due to C1 9.1.1. Phase One created the back, and they know what is going on behind the scenes with the raw data, I would trust them, just like the best conversions from a Hasselblad back will come from Phocus.

As a Phase One user since 2008, I realize that their products are not like Nikon or Canon or Sony, and there is a lot more individuality and possible knowledge needed to use them. It's always best to work with a dealer, at least to get your feet wet and until you pick up a good rhythm to the workflow, and I hope that in the future Lars can find another dealer to work with to see if he can have a better experience the 2nd time around if he so chooses.

Paul C
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Lars,

I'm sorry you had a bad first experience with medium format.

Live view and high (even mid) ISO both are very mediocre on a CCD back. Since they are still very expensive it's understandable to assume or think otherwise. In the same way you might be surprised that my girlfriend and I paid $1600/month for a 240 square foot apartment (for metric readers that converts to "very very small") in Manhattan which didn't come with an actual fridge (just w mini fridge). A full sized fridge is a very very useful ammenity and it's VERY reasonable to expect that such an expensive (relative to the vast majority of apartments in the world) apartment would come with one. But the attraction/magic of a Manhattan apartment is not the fridge (location, location, location). Likewise the draw of a 60mp CCD Phase One back is not the live view or high (even mid) ISO. If you know this, it doesn't bother you (much). If you don't it's almost like a slap in the face.

Like a small Manhattan apartment a CCD back will be loved by many, but definitely isn't for everyone, neither is medium format.

Re stability/reliability - **** luck to have one die on you in a short sample period. They aren't free of quirks on occasion, but needless to say yours is not the typical experience.

If you'd ever like to try medium format again I'd suggest a CMOS back like the IQ3 100mp sounds like a better fit for your needs and expectations. I'd encourage you not to draw overly broad conclusions from your negative first experience; medium format digital can be magic.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Paul,

Thanks for chiming in. What I have asked myself was if Lars simply had an overheating issue. Being a long time CMOS user I have really appreciated live view as a general solution to all viewing problems. If you come from large format format photography, I would expect that you either use a sliding back or live view. If live view is halfway implemented, I can see that you will not be very happy.

What I would consider that LV may overheat a CCD back. The one I have I never used with LV, because I never shoot tethered. But I find LV absolutely essential when shooting on tripod. So, if Lars expected LV to work as on a CMOS device it may be that it was overheated. That may also cause excessive noise.
Modern CMOS devices (with column raw converters) have very low readout noise, so you can pull an incredible detail out of the shadows. CCD-s are quite noisy. So, if you shoot intermediate ISO, protect highlights and use a raw conversion without heavy noise suppression you may be confronted with a reality you don't like. Seems that it may be what Lars has been observing.

A high quality raw image should not be in need of a specific raw converter to produce first class images. To put i plainly, I have not met any photographer in person who uses Capture One. I now a photographer in person who did use Capture One. So many photographers produce great images using other tools. That is not saying that C1 is not a great tool. But, the approach that you need to use Capture One for Phase One, Phocus for Hasselblad and Lightroom for Leica is somewhat odd. I am a strong believer that:

  • Photographers should be able to choose the tools of their liking
  • Photographers should own their images
  • Personally, I also object to propriatorey raw formats, although I am fully aware that opinion is not shared by many

My guess is that with CMOS things are getting a bit more mainstream. Raw conversion is on sensor, as close to the source as possible. The signals coming of the sensor are bits and not voltages. Modern CMOS sensors can handle high readout rates without generating excessive heat, although increase of thermal noise have been observed on cameras like the A7rII. In essential, I would expect modern CMOS based MFD to deliver similar image quality, per square millimetre as any modern CMOS sensor using column ADCs (*)

Best regards
Erik

(*) Most modern CMOS devices use on chip Column ADCs. That means that there is an ADC for each column of pixels. That ADC would be a simple but accurate ram type ADC. A 6000x4000 pixel CMOS sensor would have 6000 ADCs working in parallell, so they can have long conversion times. Low readout noise is a typical feature of column ADCs. Some cameras like Nikon D5 and Canon 1Dx don't use column ADCs, but they also give up dynamic range. Latest generation Canon sensors (D80) seem to have column converters, too.


After reading through the thread, what stands out and to me is the single greatest issue, is that somehow the OP had an opinion or understanding that LiveView on the 360 (CCD) back would work outdoors, which is tragic. If Phase One has any issues to address, it might be that the marketing to the general public has been very vague on Liveview with a CCD back. My dealer is also CI and with my first experience with Live View on the IQ160 (which is really no difference than what you would get on a IQ260 or 360), the short comings were made very clear to me and I came away with a understanding of what the limitations would be to using Liveview outdoors. It's most unfortunate that this did not get clearly stated to Lars.

What Lars experienced, is classic blooming, which in bright daylight can create the effects that he experienced. The first time I tried it on my 260, I was also a bit concerned, as my screen, went bright pink, purple then green. And if you do anything to the camera, touch the back, or lens, etc, the entire process is started all over again. Live view on a CCD, in even the outdoor light that has been shown in the post, would be impossible without a huge amount of ND, ND 8 more than likely. But even with this amount of ND, the blooming still occurs whenever you do anything, zoom in, out, move around the screen, etc. And more importantly, leaving Liveview on for an extended period of time, does cause the back to get hot, and possibly overheat. If you are using this for the first time, in outdoor light, I can see that might have been going through Lar's mind. Again can't fix that now, but in general, across the board, Phase One has tended to imply that Live View on a CCD back is "usable" in outdoor light. So a lot of people, myself included, incur this to mean LiveView in general, i.e. the LiveView from a CMOS DSLR, and attempt to use it the same way, which it cannot be.

As of the files, and getting the best out of them, I am still a bit confused on the raw converter being used, if it's C1 and the files don't appear normal, I would be concerned, but it's a raw converter that is not written by Phase One, then I really can't see that being the problem of Phase One. Phase One does include Capture One DB with all their products, for free and if you want the best out of the files, then you really need to use C1. To Phase One's credit, they have continued to improve the processing on not just the new backs, but even the older backs, like the P45+. The quality of the raw conversion on my older P45+ files dating back to 2008-2010, have a whole new life to them due to C1 9.1.1. Phase One created the back, and they know what is going on behind the scenes with the raw data, I would trust them, just like the best conversions from a Hasselblad back will come from Phocus.

As a Phase One user since 2008, I realize that their products are not like Nikon or Canon or Sony, and there is a lot more individuality and possible knowledge needed to use them. It's always best to work with a dealer, at least to get your feet wet and until you pick up a good rhythm to the workflow, and I hope that in the future Lars can find another dealer to work with to see if he can have a better experience the 2nd time around if he so chooses.

Paul C
 

stephengilbert

Active member
I note that no one has commented yet on which brand of tripod Lars might have been using.

This ought to be worth a few posts, don't you think?
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Doug,

Thanks for making that clear. I don't think Lars needs to go to 100 MP CMOS, 50 MP CMOS delivers the same benefits but without the extra sensor surface and resolution.

As a physicist, sort of, I am not a believer of magic, so I don't believe MFD can deliver on that. But I do believe they can deliver on things measurable if they are made in state of the art technology.

Best regards
Erik


Lars,

I'm sorry you had a bad first experience with medium format.

Live view and high (even mid) ISO both are very mediocre on a CCD back. Since they are still very expensive it's understandable to assume or think otherwise. In the same way you might be surprised that my girlfriend and I paid $1600/month for a 240 square foot apartment (for metric readers that converts to "very very small") in Manhattan which didn't come with an actual fridge (just w mini fridge). A full sized fridge is a very very useful ammenity and it's VERY reasonable to expect that such an expensive (relative to the vast majority of apartments in the world) apartment would come with one. But the attraction/magic of a Manhattan apartment is not the fridge (location, location, location). Likewise the draw of a 60mp CCD Phase One back is not the live view or high (even mid) ISO. If you know this, it doesn't bother you (much). If you don't it's almost like a slap in the face.

Like a small Manhattan apartment a CCD back will be loved by many, but definitely isn't for everyone, neither is medium format.

Re stability/reliability - **** luck to have one die on you in a short sample period. They aren't free of quirks on occasion, but needless to say yours is not the typical experience.

If you'd ever like to try medium format again I'd suggest a CMOS back like the IQ3 100mp sounds like a better fit for your needs and expectations. I'd encourage you not to draw overly broad conclusions from your negative first experience; medium format digital can be magic.
 

tjv

Active member
I'll just say that I love my Credo 60 and use it exclusively on a Linhof Techno. Amazing piece of gear. Not perfect, but what is? Never one single issue or hickup in the field or otherwise. A positive comment to help offset the negativity!
 

Abstraction

Active member
Guy Mancuso;689081 Final statement I left MF because I had too said:
Hi Guy,

I realize that I'm a new member here and you don't really know me from a hole in the wall, but I just wanted to mention that for whatever it's worth, my thoughts are with you and your wife. I've lost a few family members to cancer and I know the process that the family goes through. It's all consuming, very rough and it's not something I would wish on anyone.

I hope that things have/will work out for you, your wife and your family.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
A high quality raw image should not be in need of a specific raw converter to produce first class images. To put i plainly, I have not met any photographer in person who uses Capture One. I now a photographer in person who did use Capture One. So many photographers produce great images using other tools. That is not saying that C1 is not a great tool. But, the approach that you need to use Capture One for Phase One, Phocus for Hasselblad and Lightroom for Leica is somewhat odd. I am a strong believer that:

  • Photographers should be able to choose the tools of their liking
  • Photographers should own their images
  • Personally, I also object to propriatorey raw formats, although I am fully aware that opinion is not shared by many
Erik,

With all due respect, the fault of the ability of non-manufacturer raw converters not producing images of the same quality as the manufacturer's raw converter is with that software vendor, not Phase One. It has been stated time and time again by Phase One themselves that they consider the imaging pipeline to be a combination of the MFDB AND Capture One - I've had Lars Noorgard say it to my face, and to participants at the IQ3 100 launch that the only way to assess the true quality of Phase One files is via that combination. He was very frustrated by the adverse feedback feedback of files produced by ACR for example - which is an Adobe issue, not a Phase One Capture One issue. The onus is on the Raw converter software creators to try to get the best from the files, just as Phase One has done for it's non-native conversions for Nikon & Fuji (and Canon) which I continue to find are just so much better than ACR for example and even Nikon Capture too IMHO.

Regarding your experiences of not knowing photographers who use C1, well I can publically state that ALL of the Phase One medium format photographers I know DO use Capture One and ditto for Sony & Fuji X-Series to get the best from those image formats. (Personally I'd use Capture One Pro for absolutely all raw images if it supported my Sigma Merrill cameras too since it's the one format that is missing for me). So you see it rather depends on your sample set when generalizing doesn't it?
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Have to agree with Graham here. Phase one backs and C1 are honey and biscuits. Can't have one with out the other. It's a total package and I have been using it for close to 15 years now with every camera I have owned and honestly time and time again it has beat the output on ACR every time with canon, Nikon, Sony , and Phase. Should add some Leicas as well.


Okay truth be told had them for dinner tonight. Lol
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Graham,

Please note that what I wrote that: "I have not met any photographer in person who uses Capture One". That is quite true, never said that I don't know persons using C1, just that I have never met any of those persons in person. As a matter of fact I don't know a single MFD photographer in person and I have never seen an MFD used in the field. Just to say that both MFD and C1 seems to be rare with photographers I physically have met.

MF is a bit more than Phase One. There is also Hasselblad, who have Phocus, Leica and Pentax. AFAIK Leica and Pentax users can not use C1 unless tricking around with DNG conversion. But Leica and Pentax users are still happy shooters, with great pride in their systems. What software do they use?

If users like Lars and me are a bit stubborn and want to use a tool of our choice I think there should be some respect for that. I do understand that Capture One would deliver some magic. You can say that if you don't want to use C1, don't buy Phase One, buy a Leica or a Pentax instead.

I would expect that MFD "magic" is coming from lenses and the larger sensor surface. Those parameters are not dependent on raw processor.

So, I don't have an issue with C1, expect I don't want to use it.

Best regards
Erik



Erik,

With all due respect, the fault of the ability of non-manufacturer raw converters not producing images of the same quality as the manufacturer's raw converter is with that software vendor, not Phase One. It has been stated time and time again by Phase One themselves that they consider the imaging pipeline to be a combination of the MFDB AND Capture One - I've had Lars Noorgard say it to my face, and to participants at the IQ3 100 launch that the only way to assess the true quality of Phase One files is via that combination. He was very frustrated by the adverse feedback feedback of files produced by ACR for example - which is an Adobe issue, not a Phase One Capture One issue. The onus is on the Raw converter software creators to try to get the best from the files, just as Phase One has done for it's non-native conversions for Nikon & Fuji (and Canon) which I continue to find are just so much better than ACR for example and even Nikon Capture too IMHO.

Regarding your experiences of not knowing photographers who use C1, well I can publically state that ALL of the Phase One medium format photographers I know DO use Capture One and ditto for Sony & Fuji X-Series to get the best from those image formats. (Personally I'd use Capture One Pro for absolutely all raw images if it supported my Sigma Merrill cameras too since it's the one format that is missing for me). So you see it rather depends on your sample set when generalizing doesn't it?
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I have done my part to that. But I have spent 5-6 mornings at Oxbow Bend in Grand Teton NP and not seen a single MFD. Just to be honest my MFD kit will never make it to Grand Teton NP either.

Best regards
Erik


Maybe something to be addressed...
 

thomas

New member
Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr
As a matter of fact I don't know a single MFD photographer in person and I have never seen an MFD used in the field.
&
To put i plainly, I have not met any photographer in person who uses Capture One.
Maybe something to be addressed...
I was tempted to comment on this as well. In the last 15 years or so here in Germany I've seen 3 or 4 professional photographers working with Lightroom... the vast majority uses Capture One. And of course some are using MFD.
But then I remembered this quote... and refrained from commenting ...:
Sometimes it's hard to let someone (...) have the last word, but if you don't, these things go on forever.
 

stephengilbert

Active member
If no one is using MF gear, why the need for weekly (or more) versions of this discussion?

Can't I use an MF camera without somebody who doesn't telling me how outdated it is?

Maybe I like outdated. I've got a 1959 car.
 
Top