More fuel for the 'D800 as good as MF' fire

[Guy Mancuso]

I did not use that side same target on left second white patch down

 

[Aryan Aqajani]

I just found this review today and decided to share it with you guys. Although the comparison is between the Canon 5D MK III and Nikon D800, he has also compare them with his Phase One P45+!

Canon 5D Mark III versus Nikon D800 - A First Look! - Home/ Blog - Bulb Exposures - The Blog about Long Exposure Photography!

Although I no longer have any DSLR and shoot exclusively with medium format (film and digital), these results are so tempting!

 

[fotografz]

I don't think so at all, not now anyway. But it's important to remember that most film formats smaller than traditional large sheets have been invented to make photography easier for consumers (thus increasing the markets and the profit of the camera and film manufacturers) and then worked its way to professionals. That is true for MF as well as for 35mm. It's always a question of cost vs quality, and with an accelerating technical development, it's difficult to foresee what will be available in ten or even a couple of years.

How much the extra quality is worth is rarely the decision of the photographer, at least not in a commercial context. If the client can find a photographer who can create results that are of only marginally inferior quality for a considerably lower price, not going with the more cost effective equipment can easily become a threat against the photographer's livelihood.

Look at stock photography, ten years ago the domain of a relatively small group of photographer earning healthy profits. Now, the photos are taken by tens of thousands of photographers, amateurs and pros, who sell photos at a fraction of the price, often taken with a cheap DSLR or even a p&s camera. But if you compare the technical quality of stock photos now and 15 years ago, it has improved dramatically (yes, I do buy stock photos, and most of those older than 10-15 years aren't useable without compromising the quality requirements of the clients).

Define "Quality". In the context you use, photography seems like a commodity ... similar to soy-beans and copper futures. Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine.

Selecting photographers and cinematographers WAS and to some extent, STILL IS my profession. The criteria is not, and never was, technical quality ... that is a given and is an expectation of any professional for a vast majority of paid assignments.

To cut to the chase, I AM the client, and IMO you are wrong. The criteria is first and foremost the vision, the ability to communicate salient points or strategy with a unique vision and visual ideas. Content, uniquely presented.

While I may have to work with-in some budget parameters, I have sold more expensive alternatives to major corporations based on better ideas and emotionally connective solutions that can make the difference between success or failure in the marketplace. A perfect example of this is how the ads for Target saved that company and matched their new marketing platform ... NOW, that same creative group is at work trying to save J C Penny ... look at the vision and style being portrayed ... do we care what the technical aspects are? The craft is a given, the vision is not.

We are not talking about financially directly dealing with the public at large who is relatively uneducated about differences in expressive qualities and what is needed to make that a reality verses cost. They just react to them in a commercial context, where they suddenly become remarkably tuned in. Nor run of the mill stock photography used by those that are bankrupted of stand-out ideas for their brand, service or product.

I agree that the technical quality of stock has improved over 15 years ago, however, not just because cameras got better, but because some decent photographers have turned to it as a supplement to waning income as the economy and print industry changed., and they are often better at lighting than in past. Again this is a dependance on craft as opposed to a salient and unique vision and idea generation with a camera.

Photographers that don't get this are doomed to profit by attrition, struggle and/or fail. Dozens of commercial studios in my area have gone under because they failed to grasp this fundamental fact. In contrast, a friend of mine got it, and is thriving .... not only locally, but has landed national and international accounts that were never here. I asked what his secret was, and he replied better ideas and visual solutions produced with unquestionable quality ... his brilliant vision supplemented by nine photo stations all running high res MFD including 3 Muti-Shot product cameras.

End of too long rant.

-Marc

 

[paulraphael]

My perspective is the art world, and that's a place where Marc's observations hold true as well. Over the last 15 years, showing work to I don't know how many curators and dealers, I could count the number of comments on technical quality on one hand. And most of these comments were questions, like about why I made a certain choice relative to the vision behind the work.