MF resources

[PaulD]

Hi,

I'm new,and from Belgium of all places!

I stranded here, because this seems to be one of the very few forums , where you are not labeled as an idiot, when you ask a question about MF digital cams. (Am I right?)

My path has been minolta 4mp, Canon 20d, 5D, 5d mkii. I do not regret buying any of these cams. I do not need convincing that MF is even better.

So now when things start to move on the MF scene: Pentax, Mamiya, I wonder if this should be my next step. But resources , reviews, even test pics seem to be few and far between, especially for the Pentax en the Mamiyas (eg. Mamiya m31).

I found Ken Rockwell who thinks the Mamiya is ugly and the Pentax has too many buttons. But those are not my main decision criteria. If I do make the plunge to MF, I do not want to make a mistake, because expensive it is! . IQ is my main concern. And I only need a good portrait lens, something like a 85mm on FF

So where do you guys turn to find the truth ?

thx,

Paul

 

[Terry]

Paul,
Welcome to the forum. I think you will find the people here to be a good resource for you. I am new to medium format as well...I'm sure a lot of people will give you good advice about the different systems.

Again, welcome and good luck.

 

[gazwas]

The difference apart from image size between your 5DII any any current MFDB is not all that massive. Yes, the quality is better, no doubt but the expense involved does not translate to the IQ gains so make sure you get a good ROI. The second hand Market could be a good way into MFD land.

With regards to tests etc, you'll find there is virtually no difference between all the different backs in respect to IQ. Dalsa or Kodak is a bit like BMW or Audi. They are all extremely good and IMO the only thing to separate them is the camera bodies and system. The best way to decide is to ask for a demo of the ones your interested in.

I've been a Phase one shooter for over 10 years but recently tested an Hasselblad H4D and that camera (please note I said camera) and their leaf shutter lenses are absolutely fantastic. If it takes a system to be locked (what ever that means) to be that good then I'm all for it.

Food for thought.

Gareth.

 

[tetsrfun]

So where do you guys turn to find the truth ?
********
I am just a hobbyist, both DSLR and MF, but do a lot of reading. I won't get into the "What is truth" question but for what you are asking, this forum is the best that I have found. I think that the major difference is that many (most?) of the photographers that post here are professionals not "photo-gear fan boys". Their thoughts about "gear" are based on what is best, at this particular time, for them to earn a living.

My "take" from reading about MF here is that, at least for the "big two" manufactures, is that you can't go wrong with either and that the choice ends up being what works for you as an individual.

Steve

 

[Graham Mitchell]

If you are a landscape shooter, then any camera will do the job - you should probably select your platform by the lenses.

However if you need fast flash sync, or viewfinder options, or fast autofocus or very long exposures or any other non-basic feature, the choices become more limited. Perhaps you could describe your needs.

 

[Don Libby]

Graham brings up some good points. and I'll try to add a few (in no particular order)


Decide what you want to shoot with in MF; or at least the primary purpose

Look at the lens selection available to your need

Decide on the platform for your needs and what you might want to grow into. By this I mean DSLR type 645 then eventually a technical camera

Look at software that you'll need to get the best finished product

Look at your dealer support after the sale. Every dealer will want to make the initial sale however it's the dealer that will still talk to you long after the sale is made that you should be interested in.

Very important is how does it feel in your hands and does it feel natural to your eyes?

The actual digital back. We all have our favorites much like automobiles. Any car will get you there just as any digital back will capture an image. It can boil down to pixel size, sensor, and more important closed vs open system.

You can figure in the end your money will go in the following order ...

Most expensive - The digital back
Next expensive - Lenses
Less expensive - The actual camera body.

Good luck and welcome to the club.

Don

 

[PaulD]

Hi,

Ok, thanks for the responses so far, but I do have my act together and I'm pretty sure of why I might want to upgrade to MF.

I want to use it for studio and strobist model photography. That is 95% of my work. I also print these results on paper: A3/A2/sometimes lager formats.
My hope is that the end result will look better than FF dslr. So better prints, higher dynamic range, more detail.

@Graham: from an earlier, shared, forum life you should know that MF also means the opposite of AF. That is where we met before.
Obviously "fast AF" or 10 fps/sec are meaningless to me. (I use a lot of "old" lenses" on my 5D mkii)

I'm here to find out what the best Med.format Cam is for me, price/performance wise. I cannot find enough info on the internet and one of the big riddles to me is: why is everybody talking about the new Pentax, which almost nobody has seen (except in Japan), while I can go today to my local calumet shop, and buy a Mamiya DM33 with a schneider kreuznach 110mm lens, and walk home and start shooting.

Doesn't anybody use the Mamiya? What's wrong with it?

Paul

 

[fotografz]

Hi,

Ok, thanks for the responses so far, but I do have my act together and I'm pretty sure of why I might want to upgrade to MF.

I want to use it for studio and strobist model photography. That is 95% of my work. I also print these results on paper: A3/A2/sometimes lager formats.
My hope is that the end result will look better than FF dslr. So better prints, higher dynamic range, more detail.

@Graham: from an earlier, shared, forum life you should know that MF also means the opposite of AF. That is where we met before.
Obviously "fast AF" or 10 fps/sec are meaningless to me. (I use a lot of "old" lenses" on my 5D mkii)

I'm here to find out what the best Med.format Cam is for me, price/performance wise. I cannot find enough info on the internet and one of the big riddles to me is: why is everybody talking about the new Pentax, which almost nobody has seen (except in Japan), while I can go today to my local calumet shop, and buy a Mamiya DM33 with a schneider kreuznach 110mm lens, and walk home and start shooting.

Doesn't anybody use the Mamiya? What's wrong with it?

Paul

Everyone is talking about the Pentax because it is the newest kid on the block. It is VERY reasonably priced with well thought out features that are a lure for 35mm DSLR users looking to move up in image quality. In addition, it has been a long time in coming, and Pentax users/lovers are quite excited about it.

There is nothing wrong with the Mamiya DM33 ... Compared to the Pentax, it is a more expensive entry to MFD with a state-of-the art body and a reasonably well tested, and well liked Leaf digital back. While the combination of the components (body,lenses,back) is new, each component is not a "new kid on the block" because they have already been much discussed on forums. The other similarly priced option is the Phase One DF camera with a 40 meg P40+ digital back, which features the latest sensor technologies from Phase One

BTW, I'm pretty sure adding the Schneider 110mm lens to the DM33 will drive the cost up beyond the advertised price of $19,990. which is close to 2X the price of the Pentax and H4D/31.

Same for the recently introduced Hasselblad H4D/31. This is also designed as a more reasonable entry into MFD priced colser to the Pentax than the DM33. The latest H4 camera technology coupled with a well loved, and tested back that has been a favorite of fashion shooters for years. The step up from that more entry level MFD camera is the new H4D/40 using Hasselbald's latest sensor technology.

As far as your specific needs are concerned ... I'd recommend looking at a Mamiya DM or a Phase One DF version of the camera, with Leaf shutter lenses ... or the H4 series of cameras where all lenses are leaf shutters. In either case, they will give you the higher sync speeds for studio flash and outdoor strobist works.

Higher sync speeds of leaf shutter lenses will open up new creative areas for you compared to the more limited sync speed of 35mm DSLRs ... which provides an additional incentive to go with MFD beyond the improved image quality.

Hands on is the best way to determine what fits you best. Moving to MFD is a big step in terms of money and time learning a new system and its software. I'd also highly recommend contacting one of the Phase, Leaf or Hasselblad reps and advisors on this forum to secure your system ... After sale support is an important part of the MFD experience.

BTW, if you buy a MFD camera and start shooting that day, you may or may not feel immediately justified in moving from a high end DSLR ... like anything worthwhile, it will take a little time to master the potential of MFD ... and the software that is such an important part of the MFD image chain.

-Marc


:salute:

 

[anGy]

Hi Paul,
I'll share my last years experience, for what it'worth.
I was a Canon user (ending with a 1dsmkIII) and bought a used Hasselblad H3DII-22 system - mainly because I love good sharpness and purity in my pictures. I never felt happy with the Canon system, even with using the best lenses (200mm f2,0for instance). Files were always flat, blurry in a certain way.
The blad gave me an entirely other level of IQ, with rich tones, very sharp images and lots of density mostly in the 0 to 128 part of the histogram, where the Canon files look like crap (just my opinion of course).
I was using those systems for street shooting, landscape, studio, etc (I'm no pro).
A friend who is a art reproduction photographer ( using a multishot mfdb system) told me for years that I should come along and test the Nikon D3x. It is a really good camera he said. 3 months ago I finally made that test. A week later I did it again but not comparing my Canon gear againstnthe Nikon but comparing my Hasselblad system against that Nikon.
The quick conclusion is that my Canon gear was sold 2 weeks later and my Hasselblad system a month ago.

The D3x for me is that good. It has a bit more pixels that the Canon but also seems to have a way better AA filter. Pictures look sharper, AF is more reliable, grey tones are much richer than the Canon. So the Canon is out.

The Nikon is close to the Blad regarding resolution - but the IQ of the Blad is there immediately. Nikon files need carefull sharpness and local contrast to approach the Blad files.
I found out then that the zeiss lenses really give that 3D look to the Nikon files (100mm f2 is really good at f2). This look is not a medium format only caracteristic anymore. The bokeh of the zeiss are superb, then again no more advantage to the Blad. Using top quality pola filters (from Kasemann) help giving deep colors to the Nikon files, even with bright sunshine.
Finally the use of Raw developer instead of Lightroom for developping the Nikon raw files gives IQ results really close to the Phocus + Blad files.

There was no reason for me to still keep the Blad system.

But for portrait use with strobe - and compared to a Canon dslr - I personnaly think that a leaf shutter system, with true focus assistance could make a huge difference. It looks to me that your needs make you a perfect H4D-31 buyer.

The fast sync speed, the accuracy of the true focus and the use of a 100mm f2,2 lens from Blad could be enough to justify the investment.

Personaly, I'll be back in the medium format world when a company will be able to offer one system without serious flows (give a back with 40mpix that has a good lcd screen, works in live view mode and is able to send a jpeg file to an Ipad) and my money you will get !

 

[PaulD]

Hi,

Thanks for all that info guys.
Things are shaping up:

H4D -31 looks interesting, of course bespoke Hassy backs
So does Phase One DF 30: much more versatile, but more expensive
Pentax still a mystery, and why did they decide to use SD cards ?

Taking advantage of leaf shutters would be a real plus with my strobist interests.

Going out to shops is the next move, finding knowledgeable salesmen will be a challenge.

Two more questions:
- what about using pre-digital lenses on these backs?
- is there a formula that will convert MF lens millimetres into 35 mm equivalent, given sensor size and a certain crop factor (mostly 1.3, I guess)

Paul

 

[cmb_]

Hi Paul

Here you can download a focal length calculator provided by Capture Integration.
http://www.captureintegration.com/?s=focal+length+calculator

 

[PaulD]

Hi,

I've done some more reading on the subject, found several dslr-MF comparisons on the internet, visited the MF dealers, etc..

The half-truth comments that you get about their systems and the competition make me feel uneasy. I've been a software salesmen myself and I can notice red herrings when they come along. "High speed sync, yes sir, 1/1600 or more". (Yes but you need extra equipment to do that) etc...

My conclusion is that all tests on the internet are presented with 900 pixel images and the difference between MF and top-dslrs is marginal. In any case not proportional to the minimum 10x cost difference.

In one test (interview) a pro said: "my clients want the look of an MF image". That sounds like the famous "Leica image feel" of olden days. I want to see an exhibition with mixed images MF and top dslr, and the guy who can discern between them. Then I will believe, although this is not a "digital" (based on test results), but analog ("based on perception") criterium.

The dslr manufacturers are not idle either, they are talking also 30+ mpixels on a 35mm sensor in 2011.

But , the one thing that remains a "?" is a direct comparison in printout quality and that is my main reason to examine MF. By definition this is a physical thing and I should now look for a pro who has both systems and can compare prints.

A salesman should help a client to spend his money and feel happy, so far they have been unsuccesful with me.

One thing seems to be obvious however, they did convince me that Capture one is better than Lightroom, but the darn thing can't print. And I want prints!


Paul

 

[thomas]

How large are your prints going to be?
My feeling is uprezzing works better with files based on non AA-filtered cameras (MF, M9 etc.). But I also think as long as we are talking about prints below 1 meter on the long side every current camera will do fine for most subjects (assumed the capture is good enough... technically).
As to printing out of Lightroom I really question the usefulness of that feature without the ability to softproof. In any case printing is just a matter of post workflow and shouldn't affect the buying decission of the camera...

 

[PaulD]

How large are your prints going to be?
My feeling is uprezzing works better with files based on non AA-filtered cameras (MF, M9 etc.). But I also think as long as we are talking about prints below 1 meter on the long side every current camera will do fine for most subjects (assumed the capture is good enough... technically).

1 meter is indeed about the max. size.
How many members here go larger than that on a regular basis ?

In any case printing is just a matter of post workflow and shouldn't affect the buying decission of the camera...

Of course not, but they do have a version of Capture One for Canon.

Paul

 

[thomas]

1 meter is indeed about the max. size.

and you don't get there with your 5D-II???
To get 1 meter on the long side 200% enlargement @ 300dpi is all you need (210% actually...) with your 5D-II. 200% is actually a joke, you don't even need a sophisticated workflow for that... you could in fact simply output at 200% straight from the RAW software with very, very good results.
Things get a bit more complicated at 300% enlargement and above ... IMO... but of course this is still doable with excellent results. You can also print at lower printer resolution (200dpi, 240dpi ... depending on the printer) so that you don't have to enlarge the actual pixel-file that much. But, again, at 200% things should look very good.
So... are you actually printing and if so what exactly are you missing in your prints... quality-wise?

 

[fotografz]

and you don't get there with your 5D-II???
To get 1 meter on the long side 200% enlargement @ 300dpi is all you need (210% actually...) with your 5D-II. 200% is actually a joke, you don't even need a sophisticated workflow for that... you could in fact simply output at 200% straight from the RAW software with very, very good results.
Things get a bit more complicated at 300% enlargement and above ... IMO... but of course this is still doable with excellent results. You can also print at lower printer resolution (200dpi, 240dpi ... depending on the printer) so that you don't have to enlarge the actual pixel-file that much. But, again, at 200% things should look very good.
So... are you actually printing and if so what exactly are you missing in your prints... quality-wise?

I'm using a 25 meg Sony A900 with Zeiss lenses, and my second shooter uses a 5D-II with L lenses ... as well as using my a H4D/40 MFD.

What is very apparent when doing even 17" X 22" prints shot in the exact same conditions is how the tonal graduations, dynamic range, and focus fall-off looks better with MFD. The bigger the print, the more this becomes readily apparent. 1 meter prints reveal a significant difference in my experience. Above that ... there is no question at all.


One other consideration I've found advantageous with MFD for closer work is that I can back-off the camera to mitigate less DOF, and provide more working room for lighting , etc., without losing much in terms of working resolution. Not to mention the variety of TS solutions available with full movements and lenses that no DSLR or MFD system can compete with.

MFD isn't for everyone, but it sure is for me ... I could never go back now ... it's too late ... it spoils you :ROTFL:

 

[anGy]

I think there is something very tricky with the MF world:
when you have no experience in it you have great expectations.
'Best quality systems', 'professional use', 'legendary companies' terms feed that.
When you see a demo or start using your brand new system you can immediately see the extraordinary file quality 'out of the box'. They really look beautiful in their raw developer and there is often not much to change/correct.
It is a great selling factor comparing to the dslr files that always need to be sharpened, boosted in colour, local contrast etc.
The color accuracy and overall natural feel of the image is better, even for unexperienced eyes (my wife was rarely fooled during 'blind'... dslr/mfdb comparison).

These too general and pesonal statements aren't true anymore after Photoshop. There is a lot that can be saved with the dslr files (selective color and hue/sat tools to improve color accuracy, high pass at different levels to boost local contrast, etc). I used comparison files between both systems to save actions in photoshop that can easily close the gap between them.

Of course it is very difficult/impossible to recover certain kind of informations (some color shades are simply not there, deep black are poorer although already rich enough for many recovery jobs).

IMO 22mp back IQ is too close from D3X to justify an investment.
I only see a justification in the following points:
* need at least 40mpix for large prints
* need specific use (leaf shutter, technical cam)
* need very large DR (pushing the blacks a lot)
* being able to see the real IQ of a picture
Regarding the last point, I think photography is a bit like high end hifi systems.
Trying to hear differences between a 10.000eur and a 25.000eur system is not that easy for unexperienced listeners.

 

[PaulD]

Hi ,

I know I can get to 1 meter with 5d mkii, and with enough dpi. Been there, done it.

But the 21 mpixels are in the wrong configuration.
They are 2 x 3, and I do a lot of 1x1 pics, so to start out I loose 30 %.

So a 4x3 config of 31 mp has almost double the pixels...for me.

But then canon is rumoured to go 30+mp in 2011...

What "fotografz" says is exactly what my print shop told me last time I showed up with a 1mx1meter print. "The pixels from an MF can are "better" pixels.

I'm lost.

Paul

 

[pcunite]

My conclusion is that all tests on the internet are presented with 900 pixel images and the difference between MF and top-dslrs is marginal. In any case not proportional to the minimum 10x cost difference.

... SKIP ...

But , the one thing that remains a "?" is a direct comparison in printout quality and that is my main reason to examine MF. By definition this is a physical thing and I should now look for a pro who has both systems and can compare prints.

Make sure you find a pro who is truly unbiased and knows DSLR very well and is using the native camera raw convertor to tweak the image. Also make the image the best you can in both workflows, don't set both to defaults... I never understood that. The workflow is part of the testing...

When all is said and done you should find MFD to have more detail at larger outputs, preferred by retouchers, appropriate for large gallery sized printing, and a sucky workflow. Everything else is a red herring. Remember DSLR only has one shortcoming.

The question you have to ask yourself is it worth it for business reasons? The answer is usually no. However, for personal reasons the answer is often yes.

 

[PaulD]

The question you have to ask yourself is it worth it for business reasons? The answer is usually no. However, for personal reasons the answer is often yes.

Business reasons: meet the first client that sees the difference.
Probably the editor of Vogue can see it, the rest of the world doesn't.

Personal reasons: whatever gave that idea ? :angel:

Paul