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 resources

thomas

New member
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.
Marc, I agree with you. But as Paul talked about a future DSLR with 30+ pixel I thought it's just about the print size, i.e. the pixel count...

I do not agree with "anGy" re 22MP MFD... when it comes to the "look" (whatever...) of the files I'd certainly prefer a 22MP MF back over a 24 or 30+ DSLR...
 

anGy

Member
I do not agree with "anGy" re 22MP MFD... when it comes to the "look" (whatever...) of the files I'd certainly prefer a 22MP MF back over a 24 or 30+ DSLR...
My preference also goes to the 22mp back. But since I'm using the D3x + zeiss lenses + raw developer + carefull photoshoping combination, I really am convinced that the gap is way too close for keeping or investing in a 'small' MFDB system. Too many drawbacks that can only be balanced by a real resolution difference or specific need.
My advice to Paul would be to avoid low resolution MFDB but instead go for high-end backs or stay with DSLR.
 

H3dtogo

New member
Mamiya ZD with a couple of lenses goes for less than 3500 euro, so that is way less than a D3x and still smokes the D3x when it comes to the specific MF look and pixelsmoothness at base ISO.
 
P

PaulD

Guest
Hi,

These last few posts seem to converge to a conclusion for me:
-Either go really high end MF
-or stay with top-dslrs.

The suggestion to get one of them second hand ZD's and dabble around with it in the studio is well-noted. I'll read up on what LuLa had to say on that some time ago.

MF remains an option, yes it does, but I'll be patient and follow the market closely. (And thanks for the help).

Paul

Now let me think, if I'm not buying an MF system, what else could I...
 

fotografz

Well-known member
My preference also goes to the 22mp back. But since I'm using the D3x + zeiss lenses + raw developer + careful photoshoping combination, I really am convinced that the gap is way too close for keeping or investing in a 'small' MFDB system. Too many drawbacks that can only be balanced by a real resolution difference or specific need.
My advice to Paul would be to avoid low resolution MFDB but instead go for high-end backs or stay with DSLR.
One has to live with a MFD system for a little time to make clear competitive determinations as to over-all quality assertions. Same for any high end DSLR.

Here are my experiences with both high-end 35mm DSLRs and MFD used concurrently ... for what they are worth to those considering adding MFD to their capabilities: Forgive the long post ... wedding season is coming to a close and I have time on my hands ... :ROTFL:

I know the D3X very well ... I used one for 20 wedding shoots with AFS Nano coated lenses, and just about all of the Zeiss ZF optics before moving to the Sony A900 to take advantage of that Zeiss look, but in AF, and the Sony's color right out of the camera. Processing up to 1,000 images a weekend gives you a clear insight as to image qualities and performance aspects. Prior to that, weddings were done with a Canon 1DsMKIII and all L lenses ... along with some adapted Leica R and Zeiss/Contax lenses including the Zeiss 50/1.2 and 85/1.2. Anniversary models.

I also have lived with a broad range of MFD gear concurrent with the above high-end 35mm DSLR cameras. These included a full Hasselblad 203FE system coupled with a CFV/16 square digital back, a Mamiya AFD system with a couple of different Leaf Aptus backs which I upgraded from 22 meg to a 33 meg Leaf Aptus 75s ... on to the Hasselblad H system ranging from 22 meg H2D, to H3D/31-II and H3D/39-II to my current H4D/40 and CF/39 Multi-Shot on a H2F.

People making a decision today need not go through the upgrade paths that we early adopters did with MFD. They can benefit from the experience of those who went before them when determining what level of MFD will provide the most distance from 35mm DSLRs available now and in the next few years.

The primary difference between the two types of capture systems in terms of image quality (not handling and performance) is that the 35mm DSLRs are at best 14 bit CMOS capture ... where the MFDs are 16 bit CCD capture,
and the old competitive stand-by "real estate". It isn't just meg count, it's more about pure data captured, and by what, on what sized sensor. MFDs are also usually less filtered captures compared to 35mm DSLRs which are trying to be everything to everyone with ultra high ISO performance in a relatively tiny pixel packed confined space ... the more meg these DSLRs go to, the more minuscule the pixel size will become. To date, that has usually resulted in even more filtered images.

My standard advice to anyone considering MFD is to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". In other word's do not compromise in your choice to select a "jack of all trades and master of none". If it takes time to do that ... allow yourself the time. Patience is a virtue.

If your needs are diverse:

I'd select a 35mm DSLR dedicated to performance and high ISO captures which they do better than most anything out there. For example, a Nikon D700 or more capable Nikon D3S Full frame with fat pixels and mind-boggling ISO performance, speed of capture and lightening quick AF ... add a few carefully selected optics to enhance those performance characteristics. "Render unto Nikon, that which is Nikon's" :thumbup: (Or Canon's if that's your preference).

For pure image quality go MFD. In today's marketplace MFD development and turn over has opened up terrific opportunities for those looking for ultra high image quality. As rarified gear comes on the market like the 60 and 80 meg MFD backs, highly capable MFD cameras become available at or below the cost of a high-end 35mm DSLR. I just sold a H3D/39-II with 4 lenses for under $14K. That means the camera was less than a D3X body alone. New H3D-II/31's are now under $10K. One need not wait for 35mm DSLRs to get to 30+ meg ... previous MFDs are already there in much larger sensor sizes that 35mm DSLRs will never get to, ever. "Render unto MFD that which is MFD's" :thumbs:

I'd also strongly advise NOT relying on post processing to correct the ... "Master of none" deficiencies in a system. Post should enhance and be dedicated to that which the system is a master of. It is very difficult, boring and tedious to artificially fix images in post ... and most people are pretty bad at it despite claims to the contrary. :)

-Marc
 
Last edited:
P

PaulD

Guest
Ok guys, this is the plan.

I will do a test, and it is going to cost considerable money, but I want to convince myself, with my own gear, with my own workflow and my own arguments.

I will rent a modern MF cam in the 21 mp range with a 110mm lens and take exactly the same pics with my Canon 5d mkii with the 85mm 1.8.

Why not a 65+ mp MF cam, because I have no intention whatsoever to buy one.

I will take some shots in the forest on a sunny day and some studio shots.

I'll look for high DR shots, lowest cam ISO possible
I'll do them on f 5.6- f8 to eliminate lens issues
I'll do tripod -MLU
And the final proof of the pudding, open them in LR 3.2, do a MINIMAL workflow and print them on an Epson 3800 on Epson lustre A2 format (16"x23")

And then we'll see...or not..

Anybody who has some good suggestions, now is the time...here is the place.
Paul
 

tjv

Active member
One suggestions is to not use Lightroom 3.2 for the MFD processing. Use Phocus / C1 Pro, depending on back manufacturer. LR3 is not optimized for Hasselblad or Phase.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Ok guys, this is the plan.

I will do a test, and it is going to cost considerable money, but I want to convince myself, with my own gear, with my own workflow and my own arguments.

I will rent a modern MF cam in the 21 mp range with a 110mm lens and take exactly the same pics with my Canon 5d mkii with the 85mm 1.8.

Why not a 65+ mp MF cam, because I have no intention whatsoever to buy one.

I will take some shots in the forest on a sunny day and some studio shots.

I'll look for high DR shots, lowest cam ISO possible
I'll do them on f 5.6- f8 to eliminate lens issues
I'll do tripod -MLU
And the final proof of the pudding, open them in LR 3.2, do a MINIMAL workflow and print them on an Epson 3800 on Epson lustre A2 format (16"x23")

And then we'll see...or not..

Anybody who has some good suggestions, now is the time...here is the place.
Paul
"Open in LR3.2 and do minimial workflow"? Sounds like a lazy test to me. Wouldn't going for the optimal final file be more revealing?

If the final proof of the pudding is "easiness", why not add a P&S to the mix? Maybe that'll knock off the 5D ... ;)

Doesn't need to be a P65+. Why not a 31, 33, or 39 which can be had quite reasonably these days?

I doubt you'll get good at processing MFD files in Phocus or C1 Pro overnight, while I presume you are already good at the Canon you already shoot.

Do what you want, it's your decision to make ... lots of others have already done it, and the results were crystal clear.

To each his own.

-Marc
 

pcunite

New member
PaulD,
Make sure you optimize both RAW files using the correct convertors. This means DPP for Canon, and for Hasselblad this means Phocus.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Ok guys, this is the plan.

I will do a test, and it is going to cost considerable money, but I want to convince myself, with my own gear, with my own workflow and my own arguments.

I will rent a modern MF cam in the 21 mp range with a 110mm lens and take exactly the same pics with my Canon 5d mkii with the 85mm 1.8.

Why not a 65+ mp MF cam, because I have no intention whatsoever to buy one.

I will take some shots in the forest on a sunny day and some studio shots.

I'll look for high DR shots, lowest cam ISO possible
I'll do them on f 5.6- f8 to eliminate lens issues
I'll do tripod -MLU
And the final proof of the pudding, open them in LR 3.2, do a MINIMAL workflow and print them on an Epson 3800 on Epson lustre A2 format (16"x23")

And then we'll see...or not..

Anybody who has some good suggestions, now is the time...here is the place.
Paul
If you do this on your own, rather than alongside a knowledgeable use or dealer I can almost guarantee you'll be wasting your money. I've seen this over and over again. The first few times you use a system your chance of making an error (that is not apparent right away) is very very high.

For instance as pointed out above there is no chance you should do this using LightRoom - at least only Lightroom. Each manufacturer puts a lot of time on their software and the hardware/software teams work very closely together to ensure the best final-quality. While some manufacturer software (*cough* DPP) is - at best - somewhat of a pain to use, software like Capture One (Phase One) is really great.

Thereafter you have to know where and how some of the "tricks" are - and one thread online is never going to cover all of them, only an experienced user or dealer would know.

Why don't you fly/drive out to a dealer - I can't speak for every dealer, especially as I'm a continent away, but if you were in the US we (Capture Integration) and, if I may speak for them, Optech (also active on this board), would be glad to work with you and provide you the gear for your test at no charge and stay with you during the test, eliminating insurance requirements and providing you that expertise to prevent an easy error that would completely screw up the results of your test. Surely there is a dealer within a cheap flight of you that could play this role for you, and the cost of the flight may well be less than the cost of the rental, assuming the dealer provides the gear to test for free.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
RSS Feed: Subscribe
Buy Capture One at 10% off
Personal Work
 

BradleyGibson

New member
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.
Welcome, Paul.

As a landscape shooter, I'm going to politely disagree with Graham on that first point. :)

I've purchased quite a number of different digital medium format systems looking for the right gear--I've found major differences in operation, weight, availability of key items (such as longer lenses), vibration and usability.

I do agree though, that it would help to better understand what you would like to do with your system.

I see you're planning a shootout between the Canon and a 21MP MF back. It's good that you're doing your own testing. Some quick points:

* Above posters are correct that you'll see best quality using the "native" raw converters for your gear--that's DPP for Canon and Capture One for Phase.

* You mentioned that you wanted to test the workflow--if you have no intention of using DPP (understandable!) or Capture One in your workflow, then I do think it is reasonable to test using a LR 3.2 workflow. If you do so, you will likely get most (or all) the detail, but your colors will likely not be as accurate. No worries, though, as these are easily adjusted, (and new defaults can be set). Simply be prepared for a little additional setup work for your workflow.

* The MF digital back is going to win hands down when it comes to IQ. Not only because of the back, but the lenses. You're doing a low-ISO test, presumably on a tripod--MF really shines here. If this is how you plan to do all your work, then it is a good test. But if you plan to shoot handheld, at dawn/dusk (when perhaps lowest possible ISO isn't practical due to low light), etc., then you might want to add some real-world shooting conditions to your test. I think you'll find that MF is quite a bit more light hungry and demanding of a higher shutter speed to get that crisp shot than you might expect.

All in all, I think you're going about it the right way by getting your hands on the gear, and trying it out in the ways and places you'll be shooting.

Looking forward to hearing how it went!

Best regards,
 
Last edited:
P

PaulD

Guest
I'm touched to see this much concern, but:

a) I do have C1pro rel.5.2 on my PC.
C1Pro seems a little on the return since Michael Johnsson turned to Rawshooter and is now assisting Adobe in making LR. :)

b)And I won't go for the Hasselblad

c)It makes me feel uneasy that the difference in quality between raw files should be visible only through a sophisticared PP. KISS.

d)Bespoke raw converter, I agree.

e) As for going to dealers , I find them all bad listeners. They want to sell their product and not to solve my problem. The good ones should make these 2 objectives converge.

If you look at the answers I got in this thread, they do strike me as odd...

First some say MF is way better, others say "< 1mx1m you won't notice the difference". Then I want to test : "Oh no, not on your own, wasting your money"...

Are you all afraid of what I might find ? ;)

Paul
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I'm touched to see this much concern, but:

a) I do have C1pro rel.5.2 on my PC.
C1Pro seems a little on the return since Michael Johnsson turned to Rawshooter and is now assisting Adobe in making LR. :)

b)And I won't go for the Hasselblad

c)It makes me feel uneasy that the difference in quality between raw files should be visible only through a sophisticared PP. KISS.

d)Bespoke raw converter, I agree.

e) As for going to dealers , I find them all bad listeners. They want to sell their product and not to solve my problem. The good ones should make these 2 objectives converge.

If you look at the answers I got in this thread, they do strike me as odd...

First some say MF is way better, others say "< 1mx1m you won't notice the difference". Then I want to test : "Oh no, not on your own, wasting your money"...

Are you all afraid of what I might find ? ;)

Paul
Paul,

a bit nervous about that you might finally find the MF system you bought is the wrong one?

I can assure you, this will always become the case again. So there will always be another system (Phase, Leaf, Hasselblad or Leica) which will be better for certain photographic applications.

My advice - test the systems you would likely consider, all are meanwhile available at different dealers of course and then look also into the support and knowledge of the dealer. And then make up your mind.

You will not get the SINGLE answer here, as this single answer does not exist. ;)
 
P

PaulD

Guest
Paul,

a bit nervous about that you might finally find the MF system you bought is the wrong one?

You will not get the SINGLE answer here, as this single answer does not exist. ;)
a)No, I rarely suffer from buyer's remorse, I'll live with my decision.

b) I'll tell you what I hope to find: that the technical quality of the pics (never mind the artistic) is sooo much better that it is a no brainer.

But it may be like deciding between an EF 85mm 1.8 and the 1.2. You need a magnifying glass the see the difference in the end result. The latter sets you back an extra 1.000$.

And I do not buy things like "the Leica look", "the MF look", the "3D look" etc. Those arguments are the things you say to justify an investment you really did not need. I'll go and see Avatar when I want a 3D look.

Am I doing a good job making myself popular here? :)

Paul
 

fotografz

Well-known member
a)No, I rarely suffer from buyer's remorse, I'll live with my decision.

b) I'll tell you what I hope to find: that the technical quality of the pics (never mind the artistic) is sooo much better that it is a no brainer.

But it may be like deciding between an EF 85mm 1.8 and the 1.2. You need a magnifying glass the see the difference in the end result. The latter sets you back an extra 1.000$.

And I do not buy things like "the Leica look", "the MF look", the "3D look" etc. Those arguments are the things you say to justify an investment you really did not need. I'll go and see Avatar when I want a 3D look.

Am I doing a good job making myself popular here? :)

Paul
Paul, if you haven't noticed, this is a pretty cordial and helpful forum. Lots of very experienced people here who freely share their knowledge, experience and ... yes ... their subjective opinions. Feel free to disagree, but don't expect to goad someone into a flame war.

If you can't see the differences between certain things, doesn't mean others can't. There are some people here with pretty discriminating eyes that see differences others can't see.

It depends on one's personal criteria, creative intent, and how educated their eye may be to what sometimes amounts to subtile differences. They are not motivated by what others can or cannot see, it is a personal quest for excellence in their own work ... be it professional or amateur.

MFD is no different. Personal criteria and how discriminating one's eye is plays a huge role in making decisions. To some people the differences are subtile and not worth the price. For others it is a big difference, and well worth it to accomplish ever higher personal standards of image quality.

One thing is for sure, the general playing field is at a very high level these days due to relentless advancements in digital imaging. So, incremental improvements are relatively expensive.

-Marc

BTW, for example, I could see a difference between the Canon 85/1.8 and 85/1.2L every time I ever used it at f/1.4 or f/1.2 :) ... which is what I paid for. That and the more robust L build for professional applications. Well worth the additional $1,000. when shooting available light wedding photography.
 
P

PaulD

Guest
If you can't see the differences between certain things, doesn't mean others can't. There are some people here with pretty discriminating eyes that see differences others can't see.
I'm not inducing anybody into anything, I just don't give in easily.. I want to find out wether effects are true or largely hype. And you are a friendly bunch who have been very patient with me so far.

But I will only pay for differences that I , or my peers can see, without knowing the technique used. Many of the so called differences are due to an effect you could label "positioning".

"I've done this pic with a Leica, can you see the special leica-look?"...
Of course you see it, but only after you've been told it is done with a Leica.

I think we are way off-topic, let me continue my efforts to become a believer.:)

Paul
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I'm not inducing anybody into anything, I just don't give in easily.. I want to find out wether effects are true or largely hype. And you are a friendly bunch who have been very patient with me so far.

But I will only pay for differences that I , or my peers can see, without knowing the technique used. Many of the so called differences are due to an effect you could label "positioning".

"I've done this pic with a Leica, can you see the special leica-look?"...
Of course you see it, but only after you've been told it is done with a Leica.

I think we are way off-topic, let me continue my efforts to become a believer.:)

Paul
Understood.

I have a friend that tried MFD, and while he could see a side-by-side difference, he felt the trade-offs from a high end DSLR weren't worth it. That's the personal criteria I mentioned.

Personally, I don't care if my peers can or cannot see something. That even extends to clients in many cases. The more you shoot, the more you become your own worst critic. The quest then becomes very personal, as does the search for ways to improve creatively, technically, and in some cases professionally.

Admittedly, this is not a practical point-of-view ... if I settled for what others think, I'd have more cash in the bank ... but would think less of myself for not trying based on my own criteria for improvement. Whether that goal is obtainable is doubtful ... the target keeps moving ... hopefully upwards :ROTFL:

As I said, to each his own.

-Marc
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Just three quick points..

1. Photography is an idiosyncratic pursuit, pastime and profession. teh more experienced one gets the more idiosyncratic one's attitude becmes to preferences. I'd prefer that my Leica M9 had autofocus - but wouldn't like it in any different body and I wouldn't wish the lenses to be any bigger than they are !!! So everyone has their own twist on whats what - same goes for every set of tools ever made fr any hobby, craft or profession you choose to pick....

2. The Jpeg on the screen in front of everyone is a real 'leveler'

There is a lot of pixel peeping discussion on the net -because hey - with a Jpeg what do you think you can see anyway - hence teh 100% crops and the this and the that..

My CFV11 is a 16 megapixel back- but in fat light conditions and good processing will smoke any 35mm camera including the M9 for what I care about - tonality (just more info to process) don't know if the 80+ megapixel backs are going to add much to a 40 megapixel back regarding tonality - I do know they will massively up the anti regarding resolution - matched to the right lens at the right aperture pointed at the right object on the right tripod etc etc - what do you care abut regarding you choice of back - and why? These are personal issues.

3. It is all about what float your boat and makes it fun or easier or better
the easiest way
to have buyer's regret is to not try as much as you can - before you buy. ie what everyone will tell you.

Still no MFD camera made today - except for perhaps the Leica S2 is going to give you that hand held feeling a 35mm dslr will give you - you will have to use faster shutter speeds at any ISO in order to get a sharp shot - or use a tripod and mirror up.


good luck
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I'm not inducing anybody into anything, I just don't give in easily..
The problem is your refusal to give in easily is going to guarantee you do NOT get optimal results from you MF back. So let me save you some time and effort --- If you are NOT going to bother to learn the dedicated conversion software for either Hassy or Phase, and are going to rely 100% on LR or ACR, then stick with your Nikon, since I can almost guarantee you won't see enough advantage in a 22MP back to make the swap.

However, if you actually listen to the advice YOU ASKED FOR, and use the dedicated converters PROPERLY (which will take a few weeks of working with it on your own, or a few hours of 1-on-1 with somebody who knows the software), then I can virtually guarantee you WILL see obvious advantages to the 22MP back over your Nikon.

As Peter said, it's your choices and your experiences that count, and whether you make the most of them or not is up to you :)

Cheers,
 

Geoff

Well-known member
If you can't see the difference, thank your lucky stars. Your pocketbook will remain healthy, your work flow simpler, your overall investment and learning curve simpler, backup requirements simpler, and the time spent to get the nuances reduced.

So.... don't give in. Not at all. Stay pat on simpler answers. And we'll all be envious.
 
Top