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!

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

Drennon

New member
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
 

torger

Active member
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.
 

Ken_R

New member
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.
 

Drennon

New member
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
 

shlomi

Member
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.
 

jotloob

Subscriber Member
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 .:salute:
 

Drennon

New member
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.
 

shlomi

Member
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.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
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.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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
 

Drennon

New member
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.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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
 

shlomi

Member
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.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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
 

shlomi

Member
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:

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
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.

 

fotografz

Well-known member
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
 

shlomi

Member
>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.
 
Top