Great Sand Dunes National Park, Alamosa, CO.
Phase One DF with IQ 180 and SK 150mm LS
Great Sand Dunes National Park, Alamosa, CO.
Phase One DF with IQ 180 and SK 150mm LS
sweet sand dunes
a landscape shot from Brooklyn, cambo, IQ160, rodie 70mm
With my new 45mm. Thank you Graham Welland! I love this lens.
keep the rock...
If you are concerned about sharpening, some local [coarse] sharpening could be applied to the white bits, which I have taken the liberty of doing (way over-done so itís obvious).
Other than my technical camera lenses, the 45D was my sharpest lens! (Hopefully my pending 55LS when I get home will make up for it on the full frame sensor I use now). I'm so glad you like it and I repeat my warning that you!ll now be demanding that same performance from the rest of your Phase/Mamiya glass ... Hold on to your wallet!
Remember: adventure before dementia!
As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
Wish I had some of the color and locales that you guys have... very jealous!
Aptus II 6 - rz Pro IID - 110/2.8
First shot giving Silver Efex a trial
also my first run on some new legs (an iphone 4s snap) - berlebach 8043:
Nice old school legs Shelby
long time not posted here, so i'd like to come back with an image from
Glenade Lough, Ireland.
Shot with H3DII, HC 3.5/50II, Lee Big Stopper.
rmueller, LOVE the B&W !!!
I just ordered a Mamiya DM28 645DF kit and hope to be adding to this thread soon.
Wonderful shots Shelby.
Very nice B&W Mueller.
Observing how regularly we see pictures of the same scenes at Horseshoe Bend and Monument Valley, I wonder if there are more good landscapes in the Cotswolds than there are in the USA?
Ņand is fall color any better than Autumn colour?
I was hoping that my pacemaker would have given me the energy to get out there and take some pictures myself.
Couple shots taken in Oct. YatLee
Truly amazing pictures Yat!
Thanks very much for your kind advice regarding the view camera.
Great Sand Dunes National Park
Phase One DF with SK 55mm LS; IQ 180.
Along the shore of Lake Erie yesterday. C1 defaults, IQ180, 150 mm D. Hand held.
some creatures shot with the S2
Thanks everyone for the kind replies!
Finally got to use those old school legs this afternoon. Here's one from my first headshot session shot solely with the RZ. Overcast with reflector for fill. Initial workup - I'll probably reprocess this with a slightly higher red/yellow content in the skin at a later time.
RZ Pro IID - Aptus II6 - 110/2.8 @ f/5.6 - 1/60 @ ISO 100 on a tripod.
A fellow music student (much younger, obviously!)
Last edited by Shelby Lewis; 27th November 2011 at 19:17.
Thanks Mediumcool - these same stones lose most of their color when they're dry!
Ok so I've never used Medium Format before, are you all using a filter for the landscapes? The colors seem to just pop so much better than the 5D Mark2.
Lots of wonderful images gents!
Shelby, I really like your portrait - nice work.
Great headshot. Makes me think that I might not need to go with a 645DF and could just stick with my RZ67 pro ii (non-D) and just get an adapter.
Boston, MA H4D-60
I think the real answer to your question lies with the inherent color depth and tonal range that a MF digital back is capable of capturing. It's NOT all about resolution, which some people tend to think.
I'm not much of a landscape guy, but my general feeling around here is that beyond the occasional polarizer or ND (for slowing shutter speeds to aid with silkier water), most around here don't use filters that much.
Several of the tech-cam guys prefer to take multiple exposures and blend them as opposed to using ND-grads and the like.
Sometimes you'll see some center-filter usage as well, but that's really just for fall-off correction.
I think the great color you see here is due to all the "umph" these cams have in their files as well as the amount of care that many here put into both capture and processing... especially the capture phase. Some of the more experienced members here walk away with files that need very little technical work on the file, leaving the only "pushing and pulling" in post to the creative enhancements... which gives a great file in the end.
Just my impressions, probably not gospel.
Thanks Jamie and Shelby, I have been checking out all these wonderful images, I had heard the Medium Format blows the stuff I'm using out of the water
Post processing can enhance the colors that are captured, but you cannot create a difference between two colors that was not captured in the first place. If a dSLR does not capture the subtle varieties of a color then when you go to saturate the image in post-processing the result can look unnatural with pasty fake looking color. The same thing can happen with a medium format image, but in general only at a higher level of saturation/enhancement.
Also to record good color the scene has to fit within the dynamic range of the camera. Medium format backs excel at recording a wide dynamic range, and recording subject matter with good color accuracy and tonal differentiation deep into that range.
Therefore, in general, a medium format image will take more post-processing abuse and still look tactile, dimensional, and "real".
Of course this is just simplifying one of many differences that exist between two very different kinds of cameras. Here is a partial list of the things that affect the final image (the point is to show there are many factors - it is a system):
Lens Hood / Flare > Lens coating > lens > aperture/shutter > body's internal blackness > IR filter > microlenses (or lack thereof) > AA filter (or lack thereof) > sensor size > sensor resolution > sensor pixel type > readout speed > sensor-to-AD-convertor path, A/D convertor (both bit depth and quality) > heat sinking / cooling > raw file compression > black calibration > in camera raw data manipulation > characteristic curve > ICC profile > demosaic algorithm > deconvolution algorithm > noise reduction type > up-res or down-res algorithm > sharpening
Note that resolution is on that list (it's what most first-time-lookers focus on) but is really only one part of the overall system.
You may find for instance, as many here have, that Capture One Pro produces much better color with your existing Canon than LightRoom or Aperture. The profiling and demosaicing in raw processing is often overlooked by users as being just something that happens in the background which takes a raw file that contains no color (only Red pixels, blue pixels, and green pixels) and lots of issues (e.g. chromatic aberration, noise, stuck pixels, color crossover, uneven spectral response etc) and makes it into the "true image" when in fact the raw processor is largely responsible for the end result (even before you go to enhance or style the image).
In medium format raw processing benifits from tight coordiantion between the hardware and software. The guys who make Phase One digital backs work down the hall from the guys who write the Capture One software that is recommended for Phase One backs. They speak constantly with Leaf and Mamiya engineers who make those backs. They all take mutual pride in making each other look better and both have a financial/business incentive to make the best total system.
Suffice it to say that medium format cameras don't have low cost, high ISO, fast shooting speeds, or a huge number of features, and they are more difficult to learn and to use; so if they don't deliver fantastic image quality and a good user experience then they won't be purchased by anyone. As a result the engineering, marketing, and resources of medium format companies goes very heavily into making the image capture the best quality images (even if it means sacrificing a convenience or non-quality-related feature).
So in short, yes, medium format colors are just better :-).
That said, part of it is often just better overall craftsmanship - users of medium format backs tend to be (though of course not always) more sophisticated overall photographers (composition, subject matter, post processing, lens selection, use of polarizers where useful, shooting at better times of day (even when it means waking up very early!), willing to get off the beaten path to find good stuff, patient etc). Both because it requires a major investment that usually indicates a higher level of seriousness/commitment and because the equipment itself is not conducive to run-and-gun thoughtless photography but rather encourages slower, more considered effort.
Probably you didn't get many answers quickly because this is primarily a thread intended to post images and is considered a respite from more technically/equipment oriented threads. Also because most of the difference is hard to explain until you've used medium format - the internet is full of folks trying to prove/disprove the difference using numbers or posting web JPGs. If you want the real answer to this question you really must try a back yourself by rental, purchase, or one of the workshops put on by the GetDPI folks. Of course I should point out for full disclosure that I'm highly biased in all that I've written here in that my company (Capture Integration) is a medium format dealer.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off
Plenty of guys making a living on the 5Dii.
I actually can't see a huge resolution difference (it's there, though) between my 5Dii and my 28mp Aptus II-6... but the files from the aptus can be pushed and pulled so much further, and the sharpness (when I nail the technique) is just mind-boggling. The RZ glass has a gentleness in it's rendering that I personally like that takes a bit of the edge off... while not losing all that MF resolution.
In the end, though, it's the subtle gradation in colors that come along with the 16bits and high resolution that seems to really help, especially for landscape work. Even for headshots/portraits, if I have a retouch-intensive job, the MF files always look nicer in the shadow regions. The transitions are so much smoother.
I also have a LOT more headroom in the highlights with my aptus than with the 5dii... I can recover highlight info in my aptus files that really surprises me sometimes.
In the end, though... the best camera is the one that you have with you!
Thanks for the insite Doug and the continued info Shelby.
I have ordered a Mamiya DM-Series 28Mp DSLR Camera Kit with 80mm LS Lens from a local dealer and it should be here by this weekend.
I am a slow shooter and try to do everything in camera, I'm not a fan of setting for hours in post processing when I could have spent time on location and got it right during the shoot.
Thanks Lloyd and Swissblad for the kind words about the headshot... much appreciated!
Body-scenics, the RZ certainly is a viable platform. I'm using because I want to shoot more slowly and carefully, but it's definitely not for those in a hurry. I use it on a tripod exclusively during these sessions. Focusing, for me, is a tad tricky at further distances... but for the tight faces that I shoot not a problem. I shot about 60 frames during yesterday's hour session and a majority were in focus... not bad for a first time out with that specific camera with only the eye-plane being in focus (f/5.6 is pretty shallow on MF).
I think my focus screen may need a very slight adjustment... or I may need another diopter in the WLF magnifier (which I use all the time)... as I always miss (if I miss) to the front.
Here is the link to what I sot with the 5D Mark2 I want to reshoot it with the new gear and try to print it big.
Well said Marc and thank you Doug!