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!

Some really better bits

cunim

Well-known member
It seems to me that the investment and trouble of MF are becoming more difficult to justify. I love my IQ180, but I can no longer show just anyone that the images it makes on a DF camera are obviously superior. Takes a reasonably skilled eye to see the differences and the 35mm cameras continue to improve - quickly. MF, not so much.

So, what could be done? Well, movements still benefit from the largest possible sensor plane, and we can suppose that those who use movements will continue to be a likely market for the MF manufacturers. Are there practical suggestions we can make that would help our technical and rail cameras deliver better moved images?

For my part, I am a great fan of discrete color captures - whether from multishot or linear scanning cameras. The benefits are obvious in those images, so the cost differential from small format becomes less of an issue. As lens and tech camera makers get into electronic shutters, remote controls and the like, perhaps a direction becomes evident. It is only a small step from building an e-shutter to adding a color filter changer. I would love to have an FPS - or even a central shutter - that gave me an option for serial color acquisition. That would be worth the price of admission.

Any other suggestions?
 

jerome_m

Member
It seems to me that the investment and trouble of MF are becoming more difficult to justify.

Can you please explain me what do you need to justify and to whom?

Seriously. There is no "better" in art. Painters are not asked to justify why they want to use a particular brush or colour, even if it is expensively made by crushing small insects or cooking rare plants roots. You are using a particular camera - lens combination, because it is the tool which allows you to project reality onto a flat surface in the manner you want. No further explanation should be needed.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Print larger and look closer. Use a magnifying glass.

The difference is there, it is just that our vision is not good enough to see!

Want a proof? Shot same image with your favorite MF gear and your favorite 135 gear. Process identically and than resize the 135 image to MF size and look at actual pixels. If you shoot high end MFD the difference will be there. Low end MFD, I have much doubt.

Best regards
Erik


It seems to me that the investment and trouble of MF are becoming more difficult to justify. I love my IQ180, but I can no longer show just anyone that the images it makes on a DF camera are obviously superior. Takes a reasonably skilled eye to see the differences and the 35mm cameras continue to improve - quickly. MF, not so much.

So, what could be done? Well, movements still benefit from the largest possible sensor plane, and we can suppose that those who use movements will continue to be a likely market for the MF manufacturers. Are there practical suggestions we can make that would help our technical and rail cameras deliver better moved images?

For my part, I am a great fan of discrete color captures - whether from multishot or linear scanning cameras. The benefits are obvious in those images, so the cost differential from small format becomes less of an issue. As lens and tech camera makers get into electronic shutters, remote controls and the like, perhaps a direction becomes evident. It is only a small step from building an e-shutter to adding a color filter changer. I would love to have an FPS - or even a central shutter - that gave me an option for serial color acquisition. That would be worth the price of admission.

Any other suggestions?
 

cunim

Well-known member
Hi,

Print larger and look closer. Use a magnifying glass.

The difference is there, it is just that our vision is not good enough to see!

Best regards
Erik
Guys, this is not about comparing MF to 135. Of course there are differences made obvious under the right conditions. My point is that it is harder for someone without a skilled eye to see the difference, whereas at one time it was quite easy. That is not because MF is becoming worse. Rather, 135 is innovating rapidly and becoming better. I would like the MF and view camera manufacturers to get that spirit. Jerome, if it doesn't matter to you that's fine. It matters to me, enough so I would pay more for it. What can be done to make MF, once again, a clear leader in image quality?

Hence the request for practical suggestions. My own suggestion is to use discrete color acquisition because some of the new shutters might make that easier to implement. I love multishot images, for example, but not enough to give up my Phase equipment. A filter changer that integrates with something like the Alpa FPS or new Arca or Rodenstock e-shutter lines would give me freedom to choose my gear while also yielding significantly improved image quality. Yum.
 

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
The problem of actual photographers is that they think, after a wile, that everybody is photographer: this is wrong.

A professional photographer does know this if he have a lot of clients. 99,5% of the clients have absolutely no clue about photography and technique and rendering. No clue at all.

Modern photographers roam forums who are formidable tools to ignite envy and "fabled necessity".

I can't count the number of ppl who jumped into MF thinking it will improve their seriousness and skills : This is wrong.

A camera is a cold tool and "emotions" have not place with tool. Emotions should be used on the subject.

Today brands and everything around brand know more about our emotions than ourself.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I have one word of advice - print, and print large. Also, compare the beauty of 4:3 aspect ratio with resolution and colour subtlty to 2:3 aspect ratios (which I admit I just don't connect with) on a 35mm system. They are different, whether "better" or not is a moot point only you can answer.

The differences are there but ultimately only one person should care and that is you. IF you don't, then maybe going to a cheaper simple system makes sense to you.

In my case I find myself enjoying the images from my ancient Hassleblad CFV-16 & CXi with old glass more than my other far more technically capable systems.

If you really want to blow the socks off your clients then a technical camera, latest Rodies and an IQ2 series back can certainly produce images that technically are beautiful. However, I think that the soul of the photographer in the images is far, far more important and shows through to everybody, especially the non-photographer.
 
Last edited:

Shashin

Well-known member
I love my IQ180, but I can no longer show just anyone that the images it makes on a DF camera are obviously superior.
I always thought that was the photographer and not the camera. I have seen a lot of great photography, but none of that can be classified as great with simply an equipment spec. sheet. If the only thing separating your work from others is simply resolving power, I would be really nervous. Maybe it is time to develop your art, rather than your technical abilities?

I would also stop hanging with a crowd that confuses narrow technical criteria, like resolving power, with photography.
 

mbn

New member
perfect example of a quote that becomes a totaly different meaning, if you put it out of context. its obvious, that hes talking about the tools, and not the skills.
 

cunim

Well-known member
You know, guys, we have run off topic rather badly. For example, whether or not I am a good photographer (I'm not, and happily admire the better ones on this site) is far from relevant. My interest lies more in the technology than in the product of the technology (photographs). After all, my background is scientific imaging (which I am really good at), not art. Takes all kinds.

I think the suppliers of MF technology have lost some of their direction and much of their passion. I was hoping for constructive suggestions from this group of very knowledgeable end users, suggestions that might help light the odd creative fire at Phase, HB, Arca, Alpa, whatever. Instead, we appear to be rehashing opinions about what makes a "real" photographer.

Oh well. Maybe no one cares about the tool kit, in which case I fear for MF.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well I can understand the comments like I have a 80mpx back and not getting what I want from it or hardly worth it. Let's face some real gear head facts . The backs are not the issue per say its what we stick these things on. I went through 5 backs and none of them technically where every the issue. The issue was and still is the body and lenses we are bolting them on. If your not buying the best glass and using for clarity lets say run of the mill glass well your not drawing everything from that sensor. The DSLR style bodies have a couple really nice lenses but not all of them can draw better than the tech. Cam lenses. Not all of us use or want a tech cam. I happen to like them but again they are usually shot around F11 and you lose those creative bokeh shots because most of the time focusing these backs with tech cams is a freaking crap shoot. I'm testing the Credo 50 right now and live view is really the easiest way to obtain it or tethered to a laptop . Everything else is a little harder to do. So its a little disappointing to spend 50k and still be guessing at focus. I generalize here but you get my meaning. I have the Sony say what you will but it's the best focusing I have run across with live view, focus peaking and 100 magnification. That's three tools to get you home. That's huge if we can take all three into MF both in DSLR and tech cams it makes these big purchase MF systems a much better value. That's what we need to see and we need to get rid of these shutters that exist today along with mirrors and step forward in those areas. The biggest issue is usage versus amount of R&D for a company to jump forward. It's just not there and not enough end users to support it. I just got a IPhone 6 and honestly anyone buying a point and shoot right now pretty crazy. As nice as these devices are it's killed the industry and it's killing the true ART of photography as we know it. This comment coms from both a business prospective as a working Pro and from the Artist within. These devices are just hurting the Art Of Photography at the higher levels . Agree or not , we as photographers that are very involved in the industry and photography are becoming extinct.

Frankly it's depressing as hell after 40 years of this it's getting harder to wake up to it , we are being downgraded by iPhones but worse by iPhone mentality.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Well I can understand the comments like I have a 80mpx back and not getting what I want from it or hardly worth it. Let's face some real gear head facts . The backs are not the issue per say its what we stick these things on. I went through 5 backs and none of them technically where every the issue. The issue was and still is the body and lenses we are bolting them on. If your not buying the best glass and using for clarity lets say run of the mill glass well your not drawing everything from that sensor. The DSLR style bodies have a couple really nice lenses but not all of them can draw better than the tech. Cam lenses. Not all of us use or want a tech cam. I happen to like them but again they are usually shot around F11 and you lose those creative bokeh shots because most of the time focusing these backs with tech cams is a freaking crap shoot. I'm testing the Credo 50 right now and live view is really the easiest way to obtain it or tethered to a laptop . Everything else is a little harder to do. So its a little disappointing to spend 50k and still be guessing at focus. I generalize here but you get my meaning. I have the Sony say what you will but it's the best focusing I have run across with live view, focus peaking and 100 magnification. That's three tools to get you home. That's huge if we can take all three into MF both in DSLR and tech cams it makes these big purchase MF systems a much better value. That's what we need to see and we need to get rid of these shutters that exist today along with mirrors and step forward in those areas. The biggest issue is usage versus amount of R&D for a company to jump forward. It's just not there and not enough end users to support it. I just got a IPhone 6 and honestly anyone buying a point and shoot right now pretty crazy. As nice as these devices are it's killed the industry and it's killing the true ART of photography as we know it. This comment coms from both a business prospective as a working Pro and from the Artist within. These devices are just hurting the Art Of Photography at the higher levels . Agree or not , we as photographers that are very involved in the industry and photography are becoming extinct.

Frankly it's depressing as hell after 40 years of this it's getting harder to wake up to it , we are being downgraded by iPhones but worse by iPhone mentality.
Guy, you bring up a great point.

There is no doubt that those devices, like the iPhone have totally changed the perception of what a photograph is, as no one anymore prints anything. They shoot it, post it, and forget it. Most of those folks don't even back up the iPhone, and face losing years of images. You bring up a good point as to why the advances are slower in coming to MF. Much smaller market to start with and with such a high point of entry, future advances may be harder to justify.

The average person takes for granted, that as much time or more goes into creating a true digital photograph/print. To them, all we are doing is plugging that phone/P&S into the printer, and hitting "print".

As with most things, the paradigm will shift back, but not for a while.

Paul
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Now not to say that buying a MF is not worth it, to some its a tool that one wants or must have. Quality of file is the key and I'm going to talk about this in my review of the Credo 50 because I feel it extremely important and put all those mine is better than yours debates to rest. I'll save that for the review.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Frankly it's depressing as hell after 40 years of this it's getting harder to wake up to it , we are being downgraded by iPhones but worse by iPhone mentality.
This fact is getting increasingly depressing for each new "do-it-all-camera-phone" that is being released. As a graphic designer and photographer, I'm right now working on a slide show for a client which is supposed to be shown to literally hundreds of thousands of people. Through the years, I have reminded them to secure quality photos for later use, like on the occasion I'm making the slideshow for. What do I get? More than 50% camera phone snapshots, some even from major events that made nationwide headlines.

The answer I get is "Yes but we thought...".

I'm writing a letter to all my major clients now, offering them an arrangement where I suggest that I participate at all their major events, product launches etc. for a modest fee. If the images are used by them later, they will be charged in full. For the current job, I'm charging extra for damage to my professional reputation. No, I'm not joking.

Sorry for being a bit off topic :)
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Guy,

Nice to hear that you find live view important for focusing. I always felt it was a great advantage. But nice to hear it from a seasoned pro, who has been there and done that.

Best regards
Erik


Well I can understand the comments like I have a 80mpx back and not getting what I want from it or hardly worth it. Let's face some real gear head facts . The backs are not the issue per say its what we stick these things on. I went through 5 backs and none of them technically where every the issue. The issue was and still is the body and lenses we are bolting them on. If your not buying the best glass and using for clarity lets say run of the mill glass well your not drawing everything from that sensor. The DSLR style bodies have a couple really nice lenses but not all of them can draw better than the tech. Cam lenses. Not all of us use or want a tech cam. I happen to like them but again they are usually shot around F11 and you lose those creative bokeh shots because most of the time focusing these backs with tech cams is a freaking crap shoot. I'm testing the Credo 50 right now and live view is really the easiest way to obtain it or tethered to a laptop . Everything else is a little harder to do. So its a little disappointing to spend 50k and still be guessing at focus. I generalize here but you get my meaning. I have the Sony say what you will but it's the best focusing I have run across with live view, focus peaking and 100 magnification. That's three tools to get you home. That's huge if we can take all three into MF both in DSLR and tech cams it makes these big purchase MF systems a much better value. That's what we need to see and we need to get rid of these shutters that exist today along with mirrors and step forward in those areas. The biggest issue is usage versus amount of R&D for a company to jump forward. It's just not there and not enough end users to support it. I just got a IPhone 6 and honestly anyone buying a point and shoot right now pretty crazy. As nice as these devices are it's killed the industry and it's killing the true ART of photography as we know it. This comment coms from both a business prospective as a working Pro and from the Artist within. These devices are just hurting the Art Of Photography at the higher levels . Agree or not , we as photographers that are very involved in the industry and photography are becoming extinct.

Frankly it's depressing as hell after 40 years of this it's getting harder to wake up to it , we are being downgraded by iPhones but worse by iPhone mentality.
 

jerome_m

Member
Well I can understand the comments like I have a 80mpx back and not getting what I want from it or hardly worth it. Let's face some real gear head facts . The backs are not the issue per say its what we stick these things on. I went through 5 backs and none of them technically where every the issue. The issue was and still is the body and lenses we are bolting them on. If your not buying the best glass and using for clarity lets say run of the mill glass well your not drawing everything from that sensor. The DSLR style bodies have a couple really nice lenses but not all of them can draw better than the tech. Cam lenses. Not all of us use or want a tech cam. I happen to like them but again they are usually shot around F11 and you lose those creative bokeh shots because most of the time focusing these backs with tech cams is a freaking crap shoot. I'm testing the Credo 50 right now and live view is really the easiest way to obtain it or tethered to a laptop . Everything else is a little harder to do. So its a little disappointing to spend 50k and still be guessing at focus.

I am a bit surprised by the negative comments. I use an Hasselblad H4D-50. The built-in AF system is almost always dead on and, on the occasions where it is not, it was usually my fault for not waiting long enough for it to find the correct focus position. The lenses all outresolve the sensor enough to excite moiré on fine details at reasonable apertures like f/5.6-f/8. Bokeh is pleasing on most lenses, except maybe the HC50-II full open.

I don't think that all this is an Hasselblad exclusive, BTW. There are fashion photographers using MF cameras and they usually manage to focus on the model's eyes accurately enough. They are certainly not using tethered live view
for doing so.

I mean: I agree that the higher the resolution, the more critical focus becomes. But your comments seems to be a bit exagerated as to the limits of present technology. We can get reasonably sharp pictures with DLSR style bodies and MF backs... ;)
 

cunim

Well-known member
Thanks for the comments. The Megavision product is an interesting but dedicated system. I don't see major technical difficulties moving that sort of capability into a compact, integrated shutter / filter changer. Mind, the poor engineer tasked with doing it might disagree. Anyway, that's my particular fetish as others seem perfectly happy with the Bayer matrix.

Live view remains the major thing. Like Guy, I really like the EVF in the A7r and would love to have that on a full size MF-class back. I suppose we are half way there with the new Sony chip cameras, and a 0 crop version is bound to arrive at some point.

Come to think of it, if we had a 0 crop live view back that would work with a multishot color acquisition system - and mount to tech and rail cameras - now that would be really something.
 
Top