Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 53

Thread: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

  1. #1
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    The title says most of it.

    I always said when MFDBs went full frame (with long exposure), I would consider making the move from film to digital.

    So clearly that is available, and I've been scheming this transition for some months and was just about to take the plunge with a 645DF and IQ260 demo unit...then the IQ250 was released. I've seen the comparisons and from what I gather from others' analysis the IQ250 is the better performer, at the very least in low light.

    So where this is all going is: What do you think the timeline is a for a full frame CMOS back? I LOVE the way medium format looks, but it just seems like a bad time to drop the $$$ on making the move from film when there seems to be so much change on the horizon for this corner of the photography world. That said, I know you can't put off such purchases forever just because there might be something better next month/year/whatever.

    Any thoughts and opinions on this will be grately appreciated.

    Best,

    David

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    I think full-frame CMOS is at least 1 year ahead, but not more than 3 years. Only a guess.

    But in any case, if you have a working workflow today I'd stay low for a while, say a year or so, to see what people think about the IQ250 when the early adopters have used it for some time. There will then also be comparison from the more economical Hasselblad and Pentax alterantives which use the same sensor. The new 645DF *might* also appear in this time-period(?), which hopefully will make the camera body itself more all-around like a CMOS sensor deserves.

    I think there can be major changes in the MF landscape in the coming five year period thanks to CMOS technology arrival and Sony's involvement. It will be less complex to design digital backs with CMOS sensors (digital output rather than analog), and possible larger sales volumes due to more all-around cameras, so finally we might see lower prices in the segment. But such changes won't happen overnight, so you can be in for a looong wait if you want to wait and see.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drennon View Post
    The title says most of it.

    I always said when MFDBs went full frame (with long exposure), I would consider making the move from film to digital.

    So clearly that is available, and I've been scheming this transition for some months and was just about to take the plunge with a 645DF and IQ260 demo unit...then the IQ250 was released. I've seen the comparisons and from what I gather from others' analysis the IQ250 is the better performer, at the very least in low light.

    So where this is all going is: What do you think the timeline is a for a full frame CMOS back? I LOVE the way medium format looks, but it just seems like a bad time to drop the $$$ on making the move from film when there seems to be so much change on the horizon for this corner of the photography world. That said, I know you can't put off such purchases forever just because there might be something better next month/year/whatever.

    Any thoughts and opinions on this will be grately appreciated.

    Best,

    David
    Full frame as in the same sensor size as the one in the IQ260?

    Honestly, it might take many many years for that to come to market. At least 2 years.

    If you intend to use wide angle lenses the IQ260 is still the best choice. The IQ250 sensor is just too small to get really wide angle of view with currently available lenses. The only way to get extreme wide angle of view with the IQ250 is using the Alpa FPS (or Hatblei H CAM) and a Canon 17mm TSE-II. You can also use a Hasselblad H4X and 24mm lens. On the PhaseOne system the widest angle lens is the 28mm.

    The IQ260 works great with all Rodenstock Tech wide angle lenses, including the 23mm.

    The IQ250 just does not work well with tech wide angles (search around this forum there was a thread with extensive info on this) so if you want extreme wide angles your are limited to SLR type lenses. Even so for any given lens it will have a much wider angle of view on the IQ260. And the Canon TS-E II's cover the IQ260 sensor no problem (yes, even the 17mm!)

    Of course for slight wide angle to normal to tele the IQ250 is a great choice.

  4. #4
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Thanks very much for the responses.

    Ken, yes I am referring to the size of the IQ260.

    I would be using this back most of the time on a 645 camera, likely very little on tech cameras (sigh, I wish it were otherwise). To give some more background, I primarily shoot fine art portrait and landscape using a Mamiya 6 or Hassy 500CM w/ 6x6 film back. I love love love medium format film, but managing the workflow (developing/cutting/scanning/DUST REMOVAL) has taken more time than I think it is worth at this point. Thus, I've wanted to move to the closest digital alternative to what I have been doing, which seems to be the 645 and FF back setup I mentioned. The following project, which I believe was shot primarily on a Mamiya 645 and a Leaf Aptus 75s, got me over the fence:

    Lucas Foglia | Frontcountry

    Which, by the way, has some shots with a LOT of shadows that look great! I hear all this business about noise in the shadows...did they just do a bang up job on noise removal?

    David

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    What sensitivity do you need in your back?
    The CCD backs are pretty good up to 400 and still decent in 800.
    I believe Phase could release a full frame CMOS this year if they wanted to.
    If the CCD backs are still selling well, then it would make sense for them to bleed the market one more year with the old tech, and then start selling the new tech to the same fools.
    It's really the question - is the market already saturated with full frame backs, or is it still going?
    BTW there is a lot of dust with the new backs, so be prepared to clean the sensors every day.

  6. #6
    Subscriber Member jotloob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    KEMPTEN / GERMANY
    Posts
    1,513
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    116

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Don't forget
    The next PHOTOKINA is from September 16th till September 21st 2014 .
    We might see some other new products in the MFD class .
    Regards . Jürgen .
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  7. #7
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    I shoot Portra 160 95% of the time, so low ISO will serve most of my purposes. That said, if a camera was a available with good high ISO performance I would certainly take advantage of it. And I agree, in that I have a hunch Phase could send a full frame CMOS to market in 2014 if they so desired.

    And yes, Photokina is on the way, so who knows what will befall us then.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    In that case I don't think you should wait.
    When the new stuff is presented, this year or next year, it will be for about $40k, and the prices will take more than a year to subside.
    You can get very nice FF backs today for $20k.

  9. #9
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    It's anyones guess exactly when a full frame CMOS sensor would ship. That includes Phase One and Sony's R+D team - though obviously their guesses would be better educated . As the head of R+D at one of the companies we work with once told me: "when you're making something new you only know for sure when it will be done when you're actually done". A full frame CMOS sensor does seem like the obvious next step; though whats "obvious" from a user-desire point of view is not always indicative of what is possible/practical on the technical-development side.

    So with that in mind, my personal best guess is that such a back will come, but will not be on a 2014 timeline and likely not on a 2015 timeline.

    Here are some rough historical timeframes, based on the first year and last year a back was released with a given sized sensor. These are based on a quick glance through my memory and the years might be off by a year or two, but the general gist should be correct:

    1998 - First CCD, 1.65x crop | Lightphase
    2001 - First CCD, 1.5x crop | H20
    2003 - First CCD, 1.1x crop | H25
    2008 - First CCD, 1.0x crop | P65+
    2014 - First CMOS, 1.3x crop | IQ250

    As the stock brokers always say "past performance is no guarantee of future results" but neither should we ignore history when making good guesses about the future. In no case was a major jump in sensor size done in less than 2 years and the average was around 40 months. Were that average to bear out in this case, 40 months from the IQ250 launch would put it in summer 2017. My gut feeling is that's significantly too conservative and it would happen before then. But I'd also be surprised if it happened in less than 24 months.

    It also seems likely that if/when such a back comes it would be fairly pricey and will be in back order for several months. So add that to the timeline assuming you're interested in using one and not just seeing an announcement.

    Again - just my guess.

    It's in this uncertainty that Phase One's generally very good record of upgrade paths provides some measure of confidence of getting into a system today not knowing what could be released tomorrow. As a rule of thumb Phase One has provided very good trade-in value for jumping a full generation forward and up in resolution. They have done less generous (sometimes even insulting) value for those who want to move sideways in generation (e.g. IQ260 >> IQ250) or down in resolution (e.g. from an IQ180 to an IQ250). Given that it seems likely that if/when a full-frame CMOS sensor came it would be either a future generation (IQ3?) or a higher resolution (80mp? 100mp? 120mp?) which would mean a good path from an IQ260. Again: no guarantee, but many years of history that seem likely to continue.

    So while I'm a very biased source of opinion (see my signature) I think going with an IQ260 today (provided you try one out, do real world testing, and like what you see) makes more sense than waiting for a FF CMOS.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drennon View Post
    I always said when MFDBs went full frame (with long exposure), I would consider making the move from film to digital.
    Why long exposure and how long, if I may ask?

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    David, I'd suggest a modest first step. Look for a DB for your Hasselblad and get your feet wet first. Maybe, even rent one to try it first. Then you can transition to digital while still being able to shoot film.

    Keeping abreast of the latest MFD tech is a money sink hole that high-production commercial studios, funded institutions, and talented photographers with disposable income from other sources can indulge in … but the nature of your questions and concerns tells me you probably aren't one of them.

    I also LOVE the look of MF … and will partake in using one as long as I can hold one to my eye. Similar to you, I shot film with a Hasselbald V and Mamiya 7-II (plus a Contax 645 and Mamiya RZ) … and reluctantly let it all go a few years back. But I was transitioning to digital for a much longer time, using various back/camera combinations.

    Take your time, there's no rush. Even if the latest greatest does come in a year or two you will then have a year or two of actual experience and know far better exactly what it is you want and need for the way you make images.

    - Marc

  12. #12
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Most of my long exposures range from 30 seconds to 15 minutes (using film @ ISO 160).

    As a side note: In considering the transition from MF film to digital, I've had it suggested to me more than once that I move towards a 5D Mark III over a MF digital back. No doubt, it is a fantastic camera, but there's just something about the look of an image from an IQ260 that it doesn't seem a 5D could replicate.

    I hear this quite a bit these days actually...the argument for current DSLRs over MF digital. Are these folks right, or are they missing some major advantages that simply can't be had in a 35mm DSLR? I know there's the sheer resolution gain, but what else? I'm throwing this out there because I am looking for every reason to make the move over a DSLR like the 5D Mark III.

  13. #13
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Marc,

    I think that is great advice, thank you!

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drennon View Post
    Most of my long exposures range from 30 seconds to 15 minutes (using film @ ISO 160).

    As a side note: In considering the transition from MF film to digital, I've had it suggested to me more than once that I move towards a 5D Mark III over a MF digital back. No doubt, it is a fantastic camera, but there's just something about the look of an image from an IQ260 that it doesn't seem a 5D could replicate.

    I hear this quite a bit these days actually...the argument for current DSLRs over MF digital. Are these folks right, or are they missing some major advantages that simply can't be had in a 35mm DSLR? I know there's the sheer resolution gain, but what else? I'm throwing this out there because I am looking for every reason to make the move over a DSLR like the 5D Mark III.
    Actually, the 35mm argument tends to come from comparing the Nikon D800 and now the Sony A7R, which are 36 meg FF … and super optics that can over-deliver at that level of resolution are fast coming on line (like the Zeiss Otis line of optics in development). Plus there is fevered rumor mongering regarding a 50 meg 35mm sensor. It just never stops. However, one thing never changes … the film gate is 35mm.

    The best answer is to trust your eyes. If a MFD image delivers something you feel is missing in 35mm images you've studied, then it's missing … and all the rational geek data is irrelevant. People that do not see the difference have nothing to do with those who do see it.

    My second wedding shooters use Canon 5DMK-III, and I use a FF 24 meg Sony A99 with Zeiss AF ZA lenses + the Sony 36 meg A7R. All great cameras for what they were designed for. I also shoot with a 37 meg Leica S2-P with Leica S lenses and it produces a look and feel that the others cannot … let alone an IQ260 or Hasselblad H5D/60. I almost NEVER use a 35mm camera for portrait work or anything of that sort.

    Photography is seeing. What others see or say should have little to do with how you view things.

    IMHO.

    - Marc
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drennon View Post
    Most of my long exposures range from 30 seconds to 15 minutes (using film @ ISO 160).

    As a side note: In considering the transition from MF film to digital, I've had it suggested to me more than once that I move towards a 5D Mark III over a MF digital back. No doubt, it is a fantastic camera, but there's just something about the look of an image from an IQ260 that it doesn't seem a 5D could replicate.

    I hear this quite a bit these days actually...the argument for current DSLRs over MF digital. Are these folks right, or are they missing some major advantages that simply can't be had in a 35mm DSLR? I know there's the sheer resolution gain, but what else? I'm throwing this out there because I am looking for every reason to make the move over a DSLR like the 5D Mark III.
    Don't look at 5D3, look at 1Dx. 1Dx gives much better look and has much better handling.
    It also gives you all the sensitivity you want.
    I keep 5D3 as a secondary to MFD, but if it was my primary, no question it would be a 1Dx.

    IMO the resolution beyond 20MP is not critical to most shooters.
    You should know if it's important for your work.
    Do your clients demand it?
    Do you usually crop intensely?
    If not then resolution is not critical.

    MF has a significant advantage in optical clarity, but that is hardly noticeable in portraits.
    In fact Canon 85/1.2 is gives a better portrait than what I've seen from Mamiya.

    The colors rendering is different.
    Is this the thing that you are looking for?
    Compare a DB you can get your hands on, to a 1Dx and think on it. Don't compare to 5D3.

    Know the handling of all MFDs is vastly worse than a good 35mm - they are very much slower, have much less functions, and extremely heavy to hand hold. If you run around camera in hand, then that is your answer right there.

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    FYI, not all MFD cameras are heavier than all 35mm DSLRs.

    Canon 1DX with Canon 85/1.2L weighs 5.9 Lbs.

    A Leica S with S120/2.5 weighs 5.6 lbs. With a HC100/2.2 and adapter the weight is just over 5 lbs.

    With an adapted Hasselblad HC100/2.2 on my S camera, it's the equivalent of 85mm FOV and the DOF is very close to that of an 85/1.2-II on a 35mm FF Canon camera. On the S camera I can shoot using the FP shutter or use the leaf shutter to sync with strobes to 1/1000 rather than 1/250. Big difference when working with moving subjects or shooting in bright outdoor conditions.

    The Canon 85/1.2L-II is a notoriously slow focusing lens no matter what Canon camera it is mounted to. There is no practical difference in speed between my S & 100/2.2 and the 85/1.2L-II. The S viewfinder is much bigger and brighter which helps relieve eye fatigue during longer term shooting assignments.

    The 36 meg and a larger sensor of my S doubles the resolution of a 1Dx which translates into better tonal transitions and color fidelity. It isn't just resolution for big prints or severe cropping.

    I think the Canon 1DX is a terrific camera for its' intended purpose and if I had need of that performance it'd be my choice also. However, it isn't MFD IQ no matter how you look at it.

    IMHO.

    - Marc

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Well I've never held a Leica S in my hand, so I can't make an informed observation.
    Obviously I was referring to M and H systems.

    The Leica is terrifically expensive, yet offering only 44x33mm sensor.
    No C1 support and special tethering.
    No 1:1.
    It's not for everybody.

    From what I see on the internet, it seems the S body would handle about as easily as a 1Dx.
    I do know first hand how a 1D* would handle with 85II - and it's pretty fast. The first version was slow, but the current lens handles very nicely. I would be surprised if Leica can match that combination in AF speed, but as I said I don't have first hand experience.

    I'm sure in pixel peeping Leica would give much sharper results than 1Dx.
    Would you notice it in a portrait displayed on a screen or printed on A4?
    I'm not sure you would.
    The colors would be different for sure - I don't know the Leica colors or which ones I would like better.

    In any case it would seem the OP is interested in FF and not 44x33, so Leica and Pentax, who are smaller and whose handling is inarguably better than H and M, are not really what he's looking for.

    Seems pretty sensible that a $40,000 system would give better IQ than a $10,000 system - but if you didn't get FF and high ISO, then the value for the very high additional expense is in question.

    BTW Canon does have high speed sync - not as elegant a solution as leaf shutter lenses, but nevertheless it works.
    Last edited by shlomi; 10th April 2014 at 04:13.

  18. #18
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by shlomi View Post
    BTW Canon does have high speed sync - not as elegant a solution as leaf shutter lenses, but nevertheless it works.
    The Canon HSS system (and Nikon Equivalent) are great for a limited number of applications and has a few advantages over a leaf shutter lens:
    - it can sync flash up to 1/8000th sec
    - it does not require a leaf shutter (duh) thereby reducing cost
    - it can be used with eTTL for automatically setting the flash power in fast changing situations

    However, the option to use a leaf shutter lenses has it's own major set of advantages:
    - it can use any kind of flash, including mixing and matching (e.g. Canon flash on top of the DF+ for fill light and a Profoto B1 off camera for a key light)
    - no special "mode" is required on either the flash or the body so you don't have to think, at all, about what shutter speed you're at or if you're at some threshold. Changing from 1/200th to 1/1600th requires no more thought or consideration than from 1/200th to 1/60th.
    - the effective power of the flash does not change as you increase shutter speed (unless the flash duration is too long)

    For me as a wedding photographer the last advantage there (power remains the same) is the one that is of the greatest aid. When using a normal or wide lens at normal or close distances the Canon HSS system works great for me. But with a normal or longer lens at a normal or long distance the effective loss in power switching to HSS (which makes the flash behave like a continuous light, which it can't do with as much power as a single massive discharge) means I can barely get any light on the subject; definitely not enough to compete with the sun.


    Below is one of my shots from the Phase One IQ160 @ 1/1600th with simple Canon flash. It didn't even require full power on the flash.

    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  19. #19
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by shlomi View Post
    Well I've never held a Leica S in my hand, so I can't make an informed observation.
    Obviously I was referring to M and H systems.

    The Leica is terrifically expensive, yet offering only 44x33mm sensor.
    No C1 support and special tethering.
    No 1:1.
    It's not for everybody.

    From what I see on the internet, it seems the S body would handle about as easily as a 1Dx.
    I do know first hand how a 1D* would handle with 85II - and it's pretty fast. The first version was slow, but the current lens handles very nicely. I would be surprised if Leica can match that combination in AF speed, but as I said I don't have first hand experience.

    I'm sure in pixel peeping Leica would give much sharper results than 1Dx.
    Would you notice it in a portrait displayed on a screen or printed on A4?
    I'm not sure you would.
    The colors would be different for sure - I don't know the Leica colors or which ones I would like better.

    In any case it would seem the OP is interested in FF and not 44x33, so Leica and Pentax, who are smaller and whose handling is inarguably better than H and M, are not really what he's looking for.

    Seems pretty sensible that a $40,000 system would give better IQ than a $10,000 system - but if you didn't get FF and high ISO, then the value for the very high additional expense is in question.

    BTW Canon does have high speed sync - not as elegant a solution as leaf shutter lenses, but nevertheless it works.
    The weight specifications I quoted are the manufactures', not a guess.

    I've extensively used a Canon 85/1.2 MK-II on a Canon 1DsMK-IV and can assure it is still snail slow, and hunts in medium light to low light. Canon uses internal lens AF motors so which camera is less important than how hard it is to drive all those big glass elements in that lens.

    I don't make images for display on screen @ sub-one meg jpegs. I print them mostly at 17 X22 using 16 bit feed to my printer. Yes, I can easily see the difference with no need to pixel peep. So while you aren't sure, I am because I'm not making a conjecture, I've used the stuff we are talking about side-by-side.

    Pulsed HSS is a weak solution to professional lighting use, and useless in most any difficult ambient situation.

    Prior to the Leica S, I used a Hasselblad H4D/60 … which at any decent sized print shows the depth of detail, tonal transitions and gentle DOF roll off missing in 35mm stuff. For portraits and such the H4D60 was very easy to use and the ergonomics and control layout superior to most 35mm cameras … True Focus alone is a better solution to off-center focus than any 35mm.

    Horses for courses. A camera like the 1DX is great for hosing off shots, tracking moving targets, and other specific stuff that a MFD isn't made for. It pales in comparison when it comes to IQ … but if you can't see it, that's fine. Just don't assume everyone is the same as you are.


    - Marc

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    >The weight specifications I quoted are the manufactures', not a guess.

    I didn't say that it was.

    >I don't make images for display on screen @ sub-one meg jpegs. I print them mostly at 17 X22 using 16 bit feed to my printer. Yes, I can easily see the difference with no need to pixel peep. So while you aren't sure, I am because I'm not making a conjecture, I've used the stuff we are talking about side-by-side.

    I didn't say that either.

    > Horses for courses. A camera like the 1DX is great for hosing off shots, tracking moving targets, and other specific stuff that a MFD isn't made for. It pales in comparison when it comes to IQ … but if you can't see it, that's fine. Just don't assume everyone is the same as you are.

    I definitely didn't say that. I'm using a very expensive system because Canon IQ was insufficient for me in some respects that are relevant for my work. What I said was a very different thing than what you said.

    You seem to be taking this personally, so I will leave it at that.

  21. #21
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by shlomi View Post
    The colors rendering is different.
    Is this the thing that you are looking for?
    This is one aspect that I am very interested in, yes. How is it different?

    I am arranging to rent an IQ260 (hopefully over this weekend) so we'll see how it goes in all facets.

    I really appreciate everyone's input on this and the conversation that has followed.

    As someone who is looking to use this system primarily for fine art (besides not being great with words all the time anyways), there is something I am looking to achieve that can be difficult to convey in purely techinal terms. I know this: I like the way images from my Mamiya 6 look more than images from my 5D Mark II. I'm terrible at defending that preference using the technical language used often to justify one camera over another. I just know it looks different. The point being: I'm hoping to find something close to that in a FF digital back. It may seem like an awful lot of $$$ for something you can't quite put your finger on, but I think it's real (maybe I'll find out this weekend?).

    David
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    548
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Its the old problem: how much is the incremental improvement of MFDB worth over FF DSLR? It costs a lot, has some difficulties in operation, yet gives better results. How much better - see endless threads and discussion.

    Marc's insights are valuable as he uses both side by side. For those who see the difference, its palpable. There are some who don't. The net has lots of folks who say there isn't much difference, but make judgments from on-line jogs (!) and haven't seen it in person.

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drennon View Post
    This is one aspect that I am very interested in, yes. How is it different?
    David
    That is very hard to describe. I think the only way to know is that you shoot your regular materials and then you see it. Looking at the work of others will give you a false sense - you don't know what they did and how. Don't take your 5D2 as a reference for Canon - get your hands on a 1Dx.


    Quote Originally Posted by Drennon View Post
    I am arranging to rent an IQ260 (hopefully over this weekend) so we'll see how it goes in all facets.
    IQ260 is very expensive. Maybe money is not a problem for you.
    You have Credo or IQ1 which are 99% identical, and much cheaper.
    If you're ready to compromise on user interface, then you have Aptus II 12 and 10 - for $10000 and $20000. They have very distinct and different colors than IQ/Credo - maybe not totally accurate but very pretty and for natural and human subjects the inaccuracies are unnoticeable. The project you mentioned used an Aptus. The user interface of these backs is still going to be much better than the film back you have now, and I love their low maintenance (little dust!).
    Credo will be closer to the Aptus colors that you saw in that project than IQ.

  24. #24
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    I wasn't aware that the colors were significantly different, thank you for bringing that to my attention.

    Are backs you mentioned lower maintenance in terms of dust management? If so, how?

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Aptus gather little dust - I've had quite a few of them.
    I have a Credo now - same architecture as IQ - and it gathers much more dust.
    There must be a difference in the build of static electricity on the sensor.
    The image is cleaner and more accurate, though, and the UI is much better.

  26. #26
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    regarding the 250 (CMOS with live view) vs the 260 (CCD) in one regard:

    on an SLR, the advantage of live view is less important; on a tech camera, much more important

  27. #27
    Senior Member kdphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Carmel/Tucson
    Posts
    2,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Nothing better than doing what you're doing---go out and try/rent.

    I'd specifically compare the IQ260 and the IQ250, taking in consideration your preference for longer exposures. That aside, I'd also take a quick look at the IQ1 series as well as Leaf Credo offerings.

    The IQ180 is my fifth MFDB. With regard to "dust" I've experienced nothing unusual, and generally nothing more than a puff of air needed from bulb blower to clean, and the occasional rare cleaning. And in any event MUCH less problematic than dust on my Canon DSLRs.

    If live view or focusing is a concern, tethering via USB3 and Surface Pro 2 is a great option for all Phase IQ series MFDB as well as Leaf Credo. I'd love to see the live view from the CMOS based IQ250 on the larger SP2 screen!

    ken

  28. #28
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    MFDB sensors are much, much easier to clean!

  29. #29
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,113
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post
    - it can use any kind of flash, including mixing and matching (e.g. Canon flash on top of the DF+ for fill light and a Profoto B1 off camera for a key light
    Sorry for the hijack, but can you actually just use a Canon Flash (580 EXII) on top of the DF+?
    I didn't think you could do that.

    Peter
    Peter
    My website

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    I don't know what's the deal with the dust on my Credo.
    Maybe there's a problem with the specific unit.
    Maybe Credo is different than IQ.

    What I do know:
    I need to puff pretty much every day, and wipe about once a week.
    Before with Aptus (many of them), I needed to puff once every couple of weeks, and wipe every couple of months. Very different. If you say you never have to wipe, that sounds strange to me.

    For sure it's not very difficult to clean, but still - I thought the whole dust thing was over for me when I moved to MF, and now it's back. The point is not that it's difficult, but if you forget to do it, and you have too much dust on the images which can be a problem.

  31. #31
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by shlomi View Post
    I don't know what's the deal with the dust on my Credo.
    Maybe there's a problem with the specific unit.
    Maybe Credo is different than IQ.

    What I do know:
    I need to puff pretty much every day, and wipe about once a week.
    Before with Aptus (many of them), I needed to puff once every couple of weeks, and wipe every couple of months. Very different. If you say you never have to wipe, that sounds strange to me.

    For sure it's not very difficult to clean, but still - I thought the whole dust thing was over for me when I moved to MF, and now it's back. The point is not that it's difficult, but if you forget to do it, and you have too much dust on the images which can be a problem.
    Have you recently cleaned out your body? Maybe (obviously only guessing/speculating with incomplete information) when you owned the Aptus your body was still fairly new and had not built up a lot of grime/dust/wear/tear/deterioration-of-baffling etc and therefore less dust was transferring from the body to the back.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  32. #32
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pemihan View Post
    Sorry for the hijack, but can you actually just use a Canon Flash (580 EXII) on top of the DF+?
    I didn't think you could do that.
    Absolutely. Just stick it on and put it in manual mode.

    Syncs, with leaf shutter lenses, up to 1/1600th - no HSS mode required.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    I went through several bodies both then and now.
    I am well aware of the thing were a body releases particles - this is not what I have.

  34. #34
    Senior Member kdphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Carmel/Tucson
    Posts
    2,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Re Dust---maybe an old camera bag or case that is exacerbating the situation?

    I know it's a pita, but I try to wipe out and vacuum my bags/cases occasionally, and you can see the dirt/dust/gunk.

    Better yet---an excuse to buy a new bag!

  35. #35
    Senior Member Pemihan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,113
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by kdphotography View Post
    Better yet---an excuse to buy a new bag!
    Didn't you mean a new back

    Peter
    Peter
    My website
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  36. #36
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,191
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Hi,

    Just a few reflections…

    The Leica may not be that expensive in MF-terms, but it uses a pretty old sensor, a replacement may be due, perhaps to Photokina? Who knows?

    The crop factor is only important if there is a limited set of lenses for a larger sensor. Leica has chosen to build the S-series around a relatively small sensor, but they design lenses for that size of sensor. It's a bit like 4/3, it is a small sensor but the lenses are made for that sensor so it is quite OK.

    James Russel (known as BC on LuLa forums) has bought a Leica S2 and he seems to be quite happy with that choice. The S-series also take Hasselblad H lenses and Contax lenses.

    I am a bit doubtful that there would be a great difference in image quality between say a 36 MP DSLR and a 39 MP MF camera in small prints, say up to A2-size. Mostly because a 36MP DSLR can produce good enough prints at those sizes, human vision taken into account. I am pretty sure I cannot see a significant difference on the samples I have seen, except on test charts, but YMMV, as usual.

    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by shlomi View Post
    Well I've never held a Leica S in my hand, so I can't make an informed observation.
    Obviously I was referring to M and H systems.

    The Leica is terrifically expensive, yet offering only 44x33mm sensor.
    No C1 support and special tethering.
    No 1:1.
    It's not for everybody.

    From what I see on the internet, it seems the S body would handle about as easily as a 1Dx.
    I do know first hand how a 1D* would handle with 85II - and it's pretty fast. The first version was slow, but the current lens handles very nicely. I would be surprised if Leica can match that combination in AF speed, but as I said I don't have first hand experience.

    I'm sure in pixel peeping Leica would give much sharper results than 1Dx.
    Would you notice it in a portrait displayed on a screen or printed on A4?
    I'm not sure you would.
    The colors would be different for sure - I don't know the Leica colors or which ones I would like better.

    In any case it would seem the OP is interested in FF and not 44x33, so Leica and Pentax, who are smaller and whose handling is inarguably better than H and M, are not really what he's looking for.

    Seems pretty sensible that a $40,000 system would give better IQ than a $10,000 system - but if you didn't get FF and high ISO, then the value for the very high additional expense is in question.

    BTW Canon does have high speed sync - not as elegant a solution as leaf shutter lenses, but nevertheless it works.

  37. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi,

    Just a few reflections…

    The Leica may not be that expensive in MF-terms, but it uses a pretty old sensor, a replacement may be due, perhaps to Photokina? Who knows?

    The crop factor is only important if there is a limited set of lenses for a larger sensor. Leica has chosen to build the S-series around a relatively small sensor, but they design lenses for that size of sensor. It's a bit like 4/3, it is a small sensor but the lenses are made for that sensor so it is quite OK.

    James Russel (known as BC on LuLa forums) has bought a Leica S2 and he seems to be quite happy with that choice. The S-series also take Hasselblad H lenses and Contax lenses.

    I am a bit doubtful that there would be a great difference in image quality between say a 36 MP DSLR and a 39 MP MF camera in small prints, say up to A2-size. Mostly because a 36MP DSLR can produce good enough prints at those sizes, human vision taken into account. I am pretty sure I cannot see a significant difference on the samples I have seen, except on test charts, but YMMV, as usual.

    Best regards
    Erik
    I'll get back to that point, since two users here (not you) accused me of talking about things I have no idea about.

    I've never had my hands on a Leica S, but I've used several other 44x33 MFDs, and also 48x36, 56x36 and 53x40, so I do have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about. I am not relying on "on-line jogs" (Geoff), mainly because I no idea what those are.

    If I needed a camera to handhold and auto focus, then there is a very good chance I would be using a Leica right now. As my needs include tethering, close up, post processing - Leica is not something I bothered to check.

    The price of the Leica system may start only in $20k, but every lens is $5k-$8k, and you would need 3-4 lenses for a pro practice, which makes it much pricier than Mamiya for instance, since Mamiya offers many choices, not all of then sky high expensive.

    To say that 1Dx is a camera for "hosing off shots" only, is a very narrow minded look at it. 1Dx is Canon's top of the line camera. It is intended for high end use, for all applications. It is used by professional photographers for those applications, and they are extremely satisfied with it.

    Most professional photographers will not or can not spend $40K on a system. That does not mean that a $10,000 system is some sort of semi-pro system. That is a ridiculous statement. Canon and Nikon are much more important in the pro field than MFD.

    I like MFD and it does offer advantages to my very specific applications. Mostly I use it because I like it and I don't want to get bored. From a business standpoint, If I kept on using 1D*, my expenses over the past 5 years would be almost zero, and my revenues would be about the same if not higher. At these prices it is very hard to justify MFD as a business decision. And IMO, most MFD users are those that can afford it and like it - some pros, but mostly well off amateurs.

    Most importantly, image quality is not by any means a scalar number.
    You can not compare two cameras like that:
    IQ (camera-1) < IQ (camera-2)
    Image quality can be broken down to many different aspects, to count very few for example:

    IQ(x).resolution
    IQ(x).detail
    IQ(x).sharpness
    IQ(x).colors
    IQ(x).optical-diffraction
    IQ(x).fall-off
    IQ(x).fringing
    IQ(x).distortion
    IQ(x).bokeh
    IQ(x).ISO50.highlights.detail
    IQ(x).ISO50.lowlights.detail
    IQ(x).ISO50.highlights.chroma-noise
    IQ(x).ISO50.highlights.luminosity-noise
    IQ(x).ISO50.lowlights.chroma-noise
    IQ(x).ISO50.lowlights.luminosity-noise
    IQ(x).ISO800.highlights.detail
    IQ(x).ISO800.lowlights.detail
    IQ(x).ISO800.highlights.chroma-noise
    IQ(x).ISO800.highlights.luminosity-noise
    IQ(x).ISO800.lowlights.chroma-noise
    IQ(x).ISO800.lowlights.luminosity-noise

    Even when you are comparing IQ aspects you can glean from two files, you must do it considering other crucial variables: how the pictures are displayed in real application (almost all commercial images are displayed in their final application either on screen or on no more than A4 print), and the circumstances of how the picture was taken - high or low light, hand or tripod, moving or stationary subjects etc. Commercial and industrial photographers hand off their digital files to the clients and don't need to print them. Comparing two pictures of a human from 2m distance will give certain results, and if you're shooting a 3mm dental implant at close up, the comparison will be totally different. In certain application and certain condition camera1 may produce nicer results than camera2, and then in totally other applications and conditions, the results may very well be totally different. That is all that I was trying to say, apparently I was not using enough words and some people were able to misinterpret my words completely.

    To say one camera's IQ is better than another one's, is a meaningless statement. The user needs to define for himself what are his actual needs (maybe some of those needs is that he likes certain things even though he doesn't need them), and also what are the implications for him to spend all that money.
    Last edited by shlomi; 10th April 2014 at 23:29.

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi,
    The crop factor is only important if there is a limited set of lenses for a larger sensor.
    I don't want to write another endless essay, but that is not correct.
    Sensor size does have real implications, different sized optics have different limitations.

  39. #39
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by shlomi View Post
    I'll get back to that point, since two users here (not you) accused me of talking about things I have no idea about.

    Now who is taking things personally?

    I've never had my hands on a Leica S, but I've used several other 44x33 MFDs, and also 48x36, 56x36 and 53x40, so I do have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about. I am not relying on "on-line jogs" (Geoff), mainly because I no idea what those are.

    "On line jogs" is spell check's auto correction for jpgs … it is a typo that anyone could figure out.

    If I needed a camera to handhold and auto focus, then there is a very good chance I would be using a Leica right now. As my needs include tethering, close up, post processing - Leica is not something I bothered to check.

    FYI,

    The Leica S can be used tethered, I do it all the time. Leica choose to use DNG RAW and Lightroom. If you do not like LR, then that is understandable as a personal preference, but it CAN be used tethered and it works very well.

    1:1 close-up photography with full data bus communications is possible with the HC120/4-II, or greater with use of the HC extension tube set and the HC100/2.2, or the Contax 120/4, or the Contax bellows … or any legacy Mamiya, Hasselblad V, Pentax Macro lens in mechanical stop down mode.


    The price of the Leica system may start only in $20k, but every lens is $5k-$8k, and you would need 3-4 lenses for a pro practice, which makes it much pricier than Mamiya for instance, since Mamiya offers many choices, not all of then sky high expensive.

    Leica lenses are expensive. Nothing new there, every one knows that. The S system is a "from the ground up" design, so no less expensive legacy lenses exist. If one wants to use less expensive legacy lenses on the S camera, any Hassey H or Contax lens can be used including AF and auto aperture. The newer digital designed optics from other manufactures are also not exactly inexpensive.

    To say that 1Dx is a camera for "hosing off shots" only, is a very narrow minded look at it. 1Dx is Canon's top of the line camera. It is intended for high end use, for all applications. It is used by professional photographers for those applications, and they are extremely satisfied with it.

    A disingenuous, out-of-context comment … I said: "Horses for courses. A camera like the 1DX is great for hosing off shots, tracking moving targets, and other specific stuff that a MFD isn't made for."

    Most professional photographers will not or can not spend $40K on a system. That does not mean that a $10,000 system is some sort of semi-pro system. That is a ridiculous statement. Canon and Nikon are much more important in the pro field than MFD.

    No one on this thread said that a Canon 1DX was a semi-pro camera. Only you said that here. I do agree that the Pro level Canon and Nikons are more important to some professional photographers than MFD ever will be. Horses for courses.

    I like MFD and it does offer advantages to my very specific applications. Mostly I use it because I like it and I don't want to get bored. From a business standpoint, If I kept on using 1D*, my expenses over the past 5 years would be almost zero, and my revenues would be about the same if not higher. At these prices it is very hard to justify MFD as a business decision. And IMO, most MFD users are those that can afford it and like it - some pros, but mostly well off amateurs.

    "Specific applications" is the key word here. More importantly, personal preferences are paramount because photography is still a subjective creative endeavor. The OP expressed his personal preference for the look and feel of MFD, but is at a loss to technically explain why. My advice was simple … "trust your eyes" and go with what you feel delivers the look and feel you like. Doesn't matter how subjective, it is what he likes. I do the same thing. I do NOT like Canon's files or their best lenses. Even though I've used them to get work done, they never lit my fire, so why should I continue on with them?

    Personally, it is VERY important that I am satisfied and like my work first before all else. It is why I do this. If others like it afterwards, then that is great. But it HAS to fulfill my vision and desire for a look and feel as part of my personal quest to express myself with photography. How I do that is my personal creative responsibility, no one else's.


    Most importantly, image quality is not by any means a scalar number.
    You can not compare two cameras like that:
    IQ (camera-1) < IQ (camera-2)
    Image quality can be broken down to many different aspects, to count very few for example:

    IQ(x).resolution
    IQ(x).detail
    IQ(x).sharpness
    IQ(x).colors
    IQ(x).optical-diffraction
    IQ(x).fall-off
    IQ(x).fringing
    IQ(x).distortion
    IQ(x).bokeh
    IQ(x).ISO50.highlights.detail
    IQ(x).ISO50.lowlights.detail
    IQ(x).ISO50.highlights.chroma-noise
    IQ(x).ISO50.highlights.luminosity-noise
    IQ(x).ISO50.lowlights.chroma-noise
    IQ(x).ISO50.lowlights.luminosity-noise
    IQ(x).ISO800.highlights.detail
    IQ(x).ISO800.lowlights.detail
    IQ(x).ISO800.highlights.chroma-noise
    IQ(x).ISO800.highlights.luminosity-noise
    IQ(x).ISO800.lowlights.chroma-noise
    IQ(x).ISO800.lowlights.luminosity-noise

    Even when you are comparing IQ aspects you can glean from two files, you must do it considering other crucial variables: how the pictures are displayed in real application (almost all commercial images are displayed in their final application either on screen or on no more than A4 print), and the circumstances of how the picture was taken - high or low light, hand or tripod, moving or stationary subjects etc. Commercial and industrial photographers hand off their digital files to the clients and don't need to print them. Comparing two pictures of a human from 2m distance will give certain results, and if you're shooting a 3mm dental implant at close up, the comparison will be totally different. In certain application and certain condition camera1 may produce nicer results than camera2, and then in totally other applications and conditions, the results may very well be totally different. That is all that I was trying to say, apparently I was not using enough words and some people were able to misinterpret my words completely.

    To say one camera's IQ is better than another one's, is a meaningless statement. The user needs to define for himself what are his actual needs (maybe some of those needs is that he likes certain things even though he doesn't need them), and also what are the implications for him to spend all that money.

    Personally, I'm not misinterpreting your words … I take them at face value and don't agree with everything you say. It's this disagreement, and that of others, that you can't seem to accept.

    For example, "Needs and wants" in photography are different propositions altogether. The OP already defined that he WANTS MFD. Why others insist on using "NEED" as the counter argument to something a photographer WANTS in their work often baffles me. Fortunately, personal creative judgement, and what one sees in certain results, hasn't succumbed to the pure logic of need … the eye still rules, and not everyone sees the same thing in the same way … despite relentless efforts to quantify and qualify like we were all part of the Borg Collective

    Since you took the time to go into detail, it warrants a detailed answer. See inserts in above quote.

  40. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Need is what makes you money.
    Want is what makes you happy.
    I don't think its so baffling.
    Some people spend money on systems to make them money.
    Others spend money on systems to enjoy them or what they produce.
    There could also be a combination of the two.
    Some photographers do it as if they were plumbers, others as if they were poets. Both attitudes are valid.

    My comment was not disingenuous - you were clearly implying that 1Dx is an inferior camera.

    You did misinterpret my words and denied three things I did not say.

    I am well aware that tethering is available in Leica, but based on many reports it is nowhere as good as Phase, which would make sense as one company focused on tethering for about ten years. I am also hesitant to believe Leica auto focus is as good or better than Canon. I find it very easy to believe that Leica provides the best sharpness at f/8-11 for distances 2m+. That is not the criteria nor the application that is critical to me. I'm sure it is for many. I was in no way implying that Leica is not the right choice for some.

    I was not aware that you can mount H glass on Leica with AF. Still I am hesitant to mix and match between different brands. BTW extention tubes and bellows are not the right way to 1:1 - you need the glass that was built and optimized for this for good results.

    You also misundestood what I was saying on how to (not) compare image qualities. It was in no way an effort to quantify, but rather an effort to deconstruct how to compare in order to avoid "intuitive" misconceptions.
    Last edited by shlomi; 11th April 2014 at 03:10.

  41. #41
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by shlomi View Post
    Need is what makes you money.
    Want is what makes you happy.
    I don't think its so baffling.
    Some people spend money on systems to make them money.
    Others spend money on systems to enjoy them or what they produce.
    There could also be a combination of the two.
    Some photographers do it as if they were plumbers, others as if they were poets. Both attitudes are valid.

    My comment was not disingenuous - you were clearly implying that 1Dx is an inferior camera.

    You did misinterpret my words and denied three things I did not say.

    I am well aware that tethering is available in Leica, but based on many reports it is nowhere as good as Phase, which would make sense as one company focused on tethering for about ten years. I am also hesitant to believe Leica auto focus is as good or better than Canon. I find it very easy to believe that Leica provides the best sharpness at f/8-11 for distances 2m+. That is not the criteria nor the application that is critical to me. I'm sure it is for many. I was in no way implying that Leica is not the right choice for some.

    I was not aware that you can mount H glass on Leica with AF. Still I am hesitant to mix and match between different brands. BTW extention tubes and bellows are not the right way to 1:1 - you need the glass that was built and optimized for this for good results.

    You also misundestood what I was saying on how to (not) compare image qualities. It was in no way an effort to quantify, but rather an effort to deconstruct how to compare in order to avoid "intuitive" misconceptions.
    Okay, we agree to disagree and to continue isn't helping the OP in either case.

    I stick with my original advice to the OP: Trust your eyes. Try before you buy. Don't listen to nay sayers about anything you personally like, and go with what pleases you because in the end, it is your work not theirs.


    - Marc

  42. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Well so far no one has mentioned the op's comparison points: mf film and the excellent project he cited, Frontcountry- a very interesting set of pictures and beautifully done...

    He wanted to know if 645 mf digital has arrived vs. a vs. film, and associated overhead vs cost.

    This is an interesting thing as I've gone over it in my head a few times now.

    What it took in film to get me to where I want to be was an imacon X1. Nothing else that I've used has come close in ease of use or results. With negs clean from the lab the spotting is very minimal. And I got in for less than 10k on the scanner.

    But comparing color and back to the cited project: Frontcountry looks digital to me. It is the linearity of the color. You could call it purity, but digital to me is very perfect and immediately identifiable.

    So comparing film mf to digital mf is very difficult, for starters, digital is limited to what we used to think of as "near mf"- less than 645. So the lens features are barely starting to show over larger formats, 6x6, 6x7, etc. And the color is not nearly the same. I can make my scans look very similar to digital but the basic difference is that digital has very linear open mid tones and film is the characteristic crushed mid tones of the S-curve. The shadow detail is not the same at all. So if you have something you like in mf film be aware that digital mf is going to be very different, not film-like, and is its own thing.

    plus in 20 years, will you still have the files?



    Quote Originally Posted by Drennon View Post
    Thanks very much for the responses.

    Ken, yes I am referring to the size of the IQ260.

    I would be using this back most of the time on a 645 camera, likely very little on tech cameras (sigh, I wish it were otherwise). To give some more background, I primarily shoot fine art portrait and landscape using a Mamiya 6 or Hassy 500CM w/ 6x6 film back. I love love love medium format film, but managing the workflow (developing/cutting/scanning/DUST REMOVAL) has taken more time than I think it is worth at this point. Thus, I've wanted to move to the closest digital alternative to what I have been doing, which seems to be the 645 and FF back setup I mentioned. The following project, which I believe was shot primarily on a Mamiya 645 and a Leaf Aptus 75s, got me over the fence:

    Lucas Foglia | Frontcountry

    Which, by the way, has some shots with a LOT of shadows that look great! I hear all this business about noise in the shadows...did they just do a bang up job on noise removal?

    David
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    this to me is also important, when you did your comparison in prints between mf film and 35mm digital your eyes told you the difference: so its a perfect chance to rent a back, use the same gear, make the prints and judge.

    I have a feeling however, that workflow issues aside, you might still prefer the mf film over the digital. But I don't know how you are scanning. If the scanner is low end then its toast.

    the other aspect you mentioned was that this was primarily fine art. since you are not on deadline, its not work, I would consider again workflow issues. I shoot digital for work and film for personal. for the personal stuff there is no deadline. I enjoy getting contacts back from the lab, and then the "second shoot" which is the edit process, looking again, afresh after a few days or a week or even going back to older work and looking again, I believe that this is one of the determining characteristics of the traditional photographic practice that the digital onslaught has cast aside. The contact sheet and editing is very much like shooting, it is looking at real objects and having reactions to a given. With digital it is not the same, we load up the files, we start "processing" which is usually "perfecting"- i.e. fixing things...wb, exposure, lens correction, etc, etc, pretty soon even the crappy stuff starts to look like the keepers. I don't find this in film, you look at the contact, and its either there or 'it ain't! Just like in shooting. With digital we kind of substitute quantity for quality (flame bait!!!

    Last thing, color is one thing, you can like digital color for a lot of reasons, I do enjoy its purity sometimes, the perfectness of it sometimes "makes" a picture and is its own pallet. But BW....oh my. Digital bw is just a mess. Its the lack of a given, a given spectral response. So the fact that you can do anything to it means to me at least, its nothing.

    What I'm saying is that film gives you a limit, something, and you react to that, and its not perfect. Be careful what you wish for


    Quote Originally Posted by Drennon View Post
    This is one aspect that I am very interested in, yes. How is it different?

    I am arranging to rent an IQ260 (hopefully over this weekend) so we'll see how it goes in all facets.

    I really appreciate everyone's input on this and the conversation that has followed.

    As someone who is looking to use this system primarily for fine art (besides not being great with words all the time anyways), there is something I am looking to achieve that can be difficult to convey in purely techinal terms. I know this: I like the way images from my Mamiya 6 look more than images from my 5D Mark II. I'm terrible at defending that preference using the technical language used often to justify one camera over another. I just know it looks different. The point being: I'm hoping to find something close to that in a FF digital back. It may seem like an awful lot of $$$ for something you can't quite put your finger on, but I think it's real (maybe I'll find out this weekend?).

    David
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  44. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    I've recently been to a display of Frontcountry at a gallery in London. What struck me was how the prints looked among the least "digital" that I've seen. They were sharp and crisp, but excessive acuity that can come from digital wasn't apparent to my eye ..... the colors were not particularly saturated for many prints. All in all, they reassembled (in my personal view) a grain free and weakly saturated version of Portra in 4x5 or 120.

    The images were excellent, and I would add the compositions were first class.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  45. #45
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    i've been shooting leica Monochrome b/w and am quite pleased with the results, printing piezo (all black/grey inks). i shoot with a #15 yellow filter and apply a film like curve in processing raws.

    still getting my feet wet with scanning 6x6 black and white negs in silverfast (a noxious interface), but is seems one could apply a shoulder/toe curve as needed, eh?

  46. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    457
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    perhaps it is like anything it requires a great deal of discipline to cultivate a workflow- with film the funnel narrows with each successive choice, the camera, the film, the dev. the paper, the print. One tends to suggest the next.

    I think in digital the workflow funnel is harder, once choice does not narrow anything, it just seems to open up. It would take discipline to apply the same sets of choices to every digital file and accept the results. (which is kind of like film, you make your choices and you are literally stuck.) No such stickiness in digital.



    Quote Originally Posted by jlm View Post
    i've been shooting leica Monochrome b/w and am quite pleased with the results, printing piezo (all black/grey inks). i shoot with a #15 yellow filter and apply a film like curve in processing raws.

    still getting my feet wet with scanning 6x6 black and white negs in silverfast (a noxious interface), but is seems one could apply a shoulder/toe curve as needed, eh?

  47. #47
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    i'm going to change my location: to Brooklyn as well
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  48. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,925
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by dougpeterson View Post
    Absolutely. Just stick it on and put it in manual mode.

    Syncs, with leaf shutter lenses, up to 1/1600th - no HSS mode required.
    2nd hijack, what about the DF?

    Paul

  49. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Costa Rica, central america
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by Drennon View Post
    The title says most of it.

    I always said when MFDBs went full frame (with long exposure), I would consider making the move from film to digital.

    So clearly that is available, and I've been scheming this transition for some months and was just about to take the plunge with a 645DF and IQ260 demo unit...then the IQ250 was released. I've seen the comparisons and from what I gather from others' analysis the IQ250 is the better performer, at the very least in low light.

    So where this is all going is: What do you think the timeline is a for a full frame CMOS back? I LOVE the way medium format looks, but it just seems like a bad time to drop the $$$ on making the move from film when there seems to be so much change on the horizon for this corner of the photography world. That said, I know you can't put off such purchases forever just because there might be something better next month/year/whatever.

    Any thoughts and opinions on this will be grately appreciated.

    Best,

    David
    Since this topic is speculative by nature I will add this: All point that Leica is coming with a CMOS S. If is the same CHIP the superiority of Leica Glass could be fully shown. So My recommendation will be to wait.

    Back to topic. I am surprised that the first Chip is not a 48 x 36 mm sensor. Maybe is because it will need 4 exposures?

    Here is a stepper with the exposure dimensions :
    Nikon | Precision Equipment | i-line Scan Field Stepper NSR-SF155

    A 44 x 33mm sensor needs just two exposures. An alternative will be to be bold and go for a 52 x 33 mm sensor. But the MF companies were very conservative.

    Canon do have larger exposure steppers but I just wanted to show something typical.

    Best regards,
    J. Duncan

  50. #50
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: Making the jump from film to first MFDB...considering full frame CMOS timeline.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul2660 View Post
    2nd hijack, what about the DF?

    Paul
    You can use a (modern) Canon flash in manual mode on Phase One AF/DF/DF+ and Mamiya AFD3/DF/DF+.

    It should also work on an AFD1/2 though I've not personally done this.

    It's just a hot shoe.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •