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!

Moving up from 5DM2 to P1-65+

SHAY KEDEM

New member
Hi, i'm a fashion photographer working world wide.
I own the top-notch canon's gear (1DS3+5DM2) and the best prime lenses.
recently (for few months now) i started to feel very uncomfortable with the output files, the proportion of a model's body and the overall width of a portrait shot (spaces on the shoulders of a frame)

I put myself into a demo from P1 here at Israel, we did some test-shots over a fashion production i've had at the same day.

I've had some thoughts about some physical assumptions i've made about the MF systems and why models looks better over MF sensor, proportion, length end the space that the body "prints" himself over the MF RATIO.

Conclusion - the physics can't lie - the body of a model is more "accurate" to the human eye through a 6x4.5 ration (4:3 ?), more esthetic and long (portrait situation, standing on the studio's floor, full-body shot)
the face more alike the real-life view, same as body, limbs etc.

I think that for a long time i've had dis-satisfaction that can't override by the top equipment, and the answer for me is to move up to a MF system.

I would really appreciate if you guys can give me some advice about 3 top bullets:

1. what is the big difference between AFDIII and DF body (P1 or Mamiya)
2. what is the big difference from 1.3 crop MF sensor and full frame?
3. Dynamic range - which back gives the most out of a DR 12.5 stops ?

Thank you
Best Regards,
Shay Kedem
Photographer.
 
Last edited:

SHAY KEDEM

New member
Forgive me for asking, but why have you cut out Hasselblad from the equation?
Not for a certain reason, just loved the P1 body and that it feels like DSLR in my hand.

I didn't buy MF system yet, just want to make some sense spending out around 17,000EUR for body, back and lens, and to learn as much as i can before the purchase.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Welcome Shay! And MF is a slippery slope :ROTFL:

1) Biggest difference is AF speed and accuracy, plus you need the DF body to work with the LS lenses.

2) Aside from net pixel count differences, the only real difference is crop factor. The upside is it falls into the sweetest part of the lens optically, the downside is it makes all of your lenses effectively 1/3rd longer focal, so can limit wides.

3) DR is a difficult discussion. First there is a strict engineering definition based on noise level. But as far as viewing is concerned, higher levels of noise may be acceptable and then with careful processing you can often expand tonality in the final image beyond the stated spec. Even more so if a given back has a more pleasing noise signature. Conversely, the moment you add a tone curve or contrast, you reduce visual tonal range, and most MFDB captures look pretty flat and uninteresting without some added contrast. The only conclusive answer I can give you is my P65+ had a little more usable DR than my P45+, and my IQ180 has a little more than my P65+ had. And then I'd add I never felt unduly limited in DR from my P45+. But then at the same time, I do find myself adding black to my IQ180 images fairly regularly...
 

SHAY KEDEM

New member
Thanks Jack,
what about the proportion of a human body over 6x4.5 sensor?
are my assumptions comes true? (i've had only 30 min. to enjoy the P1 system).
again- it felt like the full-body portrait is more alike the "real life" view than a 35mm view at the same focal length.
(maybe it's only glass or so, i don't really know, or maybe its the physics of beaming the picture over the MF ratio)
 

gazwas

Active member
I would seriously look at an H4D over a DF if I was a fashion shooter coming from a Canon as the Hasselblad camera is a joy to use and the lenses silky smooth in operation. The Phase One backs and the Schneider glass in the lenses is amazing but the DF and construction of all the lenses is very average and not worth the money they ask for them IMO.

You really should test the Hassellad before you part with your hard earned.
 

Mike M

New member
Thanks Jack,
what about the proportion of a human body over 6x4.5 sensor?
are my assumptions comes true? (i've had only 30 min. to enjoy the P1 system).
again- it felt like the full-body portrait is more alike the "real life" view than a 35mm view at the same focal length.
(maybe it's only glass or so, i don't really know, or maybe its the physics of beaming the picture over the MF ratio)
Hello Shay Kedem...welcome to the forum

You may be right about a difference in the appearance of proportion between different sensor sizes. However, my own experience has led me to believe that the major differences in the portrayal of life-like qualities (between medium format and 35mm) has to do with texture.

Texture and surface tonality can look false to the human eye when captured on lower resolution and low quality camera systems. Complex patterns in fashion textile patterns and especially human hair have a "firmness" or a "solidity" to them that always looks more believable on medium format than 35mm.

In gestalt psychology, there is something called the "law of closure." According to gestalt, when a viewer looks at a photograph that is missing detail then his/ her subconscious mind actually creates detail in order to fill-in the perception of missing details. There is more detail contained in a good MF file than a 35mm and this means that the human mind does not have to work as hard at creating missing detail using it's subconscious. The result is that viewer perceives a more accurate depiction of the subject matter and much less less distortion. It's very possible that this phenomenon is what you are experiencing by the perception of differences in appearance of "proportion" between formats.

If you get another opportunity to test MF, then I'd suggest looking carefully at the complex patterns in clothing and human hair. There's a good chance that any good MF system will render them well regardless of sensor ratios. This means that systems like the Leica S2 with a 2:3 ratio could be just as good of an option as 6x4.5 etc

Fashion is the one place where I genuinely believe that digital 35mm looks bad. That's just my personal opinion, and others are certainly free to disagree. But the majority of editorials and campaigns that are currently being shot by lower tier photographers are being done with smaller formats and the tell-tale signs are always present in the complex patterns. The lack of detail in those areas gives a falseness to the photographs.

Steven Meisel and Patrick Demarchalier are two examples of photographers that have work displaying strong detail in complex patterns. It might be worth checking out some of their recent studio work to see if you like it's sense of proportion and firmness in texture.

Hope that helps a bit - best of luck with your decision
 

Mike M

New member
ah...now that I think about it...there are certain instances where format ratio would definitely effect a perception of proportion and it has to do with position of the lens axis plane within the frame.

The lens axis plane is always in the center of the photograph (unless using tilt/shift) If the format is 2:3 then the lens axis plane will be closer to the edges of the inner side of the frame than the outer. Depending on the composition, this could effect a perception of proportion between subject matter that is farther away from the lens axis plane in relationship to subject matter that is closer. 6x4.5 format might have a more equal distribution of distance between the lens axis plane and the edges of the frame, so this could make a more harmonious perception of proportional relationships between subject matter contained at the edges of the frame. But it really depends on composition....my guess is that the differences might be more evident in close-up shots, like headshots, than in full body shots.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Thanks Jack,
what about the proportion of a human body over 6x4.5 sensor?
are my assumptions comes true?
I have preferred 4:3 for most vertical subjects for many years. Heck, I prefer it for most horizontal subjects too. So yes, I do agree with you. I think the average proportions of the human body just seem to work well within it. Moreover, it also is a nice "frame size" for composing according to the golden mean or Fibonacci spiral rules.
 

SHAY KEDEM

New member
Mike, Jack, thanks, i think you just nailed it.
BTW-Mike, Steven Meisel using 645DF with DB.

BTW2- recently i'm cropping my 5DM2 photos to 6X4.5 square, but hey, who am i kidding?, it's not the real deal...(cause again, the proportion of a body will not change) it's only more equal to the eye.

BTW3- I published several photos on VOGUE ITALIA's website, most of them cropped 6x4.5
they used to this crop over there.
 

archivue

Active member
i prefer 4/3 also... just for information : i think that with a D3X you can shoot 4/3... in fact 24x32...

Still if i was in your choose, i will go with an IQ140 and a DF Body.

I personally can't go that way because i'm shooting really different stuffs (architecture and artwork) !
 

mvirtue

New member
1) Biggest difference is AF speed and accuracy, plus you need the DF body to work with the LS lenses.
And you really will want the LS lenses to use in a studio with strobe. I just have the Phase 645AF and every so often would really like to use strobes with it. But then I just pull out my RZ :)
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
During the cold Massachusetts winters, I shoot mostly girls which is just about the only subject warmer than a icicle (other metaphor deleted) in-studio.
I found the 4:3 ratios just about right to allow for a good amount of space and crop-ability.
As for AF, the DF is ok and the older bodies are just awful by comparison. But I have moved from a 1DsMIII to a DF and the technique as well as the shooting pace needed adjustment. At the end of the day, the slower pace worked out well at least for me.
-bob
 

Mike M

New member
Fashion photographers also have to consider how each individual photo will look within an editorial style sequence. Print magazines have traditionally been dominated by vertical crops but many editorials are now being shot exclusively for the internet and this allows much more freedom to work in horizontal. A nice feature of 6x4.5 is that horizontal and vertical full-frame shots work well together when placed in a series. The 2:3 ratio has much more of an abrupt change between full-frame horizontal and vertical shots. This is just one more possible reason that makes good sense for some fashion shooters to migrate towards 6x4.5 over 2:3
 

SHAY KEDEM

New member
If i'll put to test the P1-645DF vs. Hasselblad H4D-31, which ergonomics, solid, anti-dust facilities and ease of use is more "pro" in feel?. i know it's a matter of taste, and i won't start a "HASSY VS. PHASY" kinda fight at my first day here, but hey - have you test the Hasselblad H4D-31 or you own one?.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
If i'll put to test the P1-645DF vs. Hasselblad H4D-31, which ergonomics, solid, anti-dust facilities and ease of use is more "pro" in feel?. i know it's a matter of taste, and i won't start a "HASSY VS. PHASY" kinda fight at my first day here, but hey - have you test the Hasselblad H4D-31 or you own one?.
I do prefer the hassy for fashion, but I find is not flexible or adaptable for landscape but I find the DF acceptable for fashion and it sings for landscape.
YMMV
-bob
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
No question I know what I would buy here is a Iq 140 for the speed of back on a DF with 110mm LS lens and the 80 LS lens. Second back choice the IQ 160 if you don't like working the crop factor. I have the 160 and it is pretty dang fast. Faster than I thought.

I happen to like the DF, some may not and I shoot a lot of handheld work. Here you need to get it in your hand and try it under your style of shooting .
 

SHAY KEDEM

New member
My work is inside the studio and outdoors, both handheld, 1/1600 is crucial for my work, i'm moving around the model and shooting in motion.
the IQ series is a bit expensive for me right now, the options are:
P40+ / P-60+ or H4D-31.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I understand the cost factor for sure. I had the P40 and loved that back a lot as it is the same sensor as my 160 only smaller. My toughest part with the P40 was dealing with the crop and shooting fast doing fashion you could run into a wall on the crop factor units . What happens is it is sometimes hard to see the crop lines in the finder when you are shooting against different backgrounds. You will get used to it but you are seeing visually outside the sensor on the screen. I did it for almost 2 years with the P30 and P40 units and i finally went Ful frame and i can shoot and frame to the edge. Certainly easier on me.

If you need 1/1600 than you need the DF for its flash sync also and the LS glass. Right now 55,80 and 110 and with 150 and 240 in the works. So you are pretty covered with the LS lenses which are really nice too. If you go used P40 its around 13k and used P65 around 23k. So you have to look at your budget and see where you are at but seriously I loved the P40 my only bitch was the crop factor and you can certainly deal with it and get used to working like that.

I will say I do like this Dalsa sensor for color as it is pretty neutral which I think is best for fashion, you will get occasional moire with almost any back but less with the smaller micron ones like this sensor. The P30 and H31 use a higher pixel pitch sensor which the higher the pixel pitch the higher the chance on moire. They also use micro lenses on these backs the H31 and P30 which are not good for tech cams but that is not your concern.
 
Top