Site Sponsors
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 355

Thread: Should I or not?

  1. #151
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Should I or not?

    Have to agree. Let's cut the **** guys. If I put the honey badger on this it won't be pretty. Lol

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg
    Last edited by Guy Mancuso; 27th February 2015 at 14:51.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  2. #152
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Libby View Post
    This is quickly turning into a train wreck, in your face exhibits, name calling and the old if you disagree with me you must be a fool.

    Sad
    Its a very personal thing at this level of investment for what basically is a just a tool and we're all right in our own personal way when it comes to the camera we own.

  3. #153
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Libby View Post
    This is quickly turning into a train wreck, in your face exhibits, name calling and the old if you disagree with me you must be a fool.

    Sad
    OK everyone, perhaps a major thread shift is in order. You lot have rejuvenated me and I am so glad I started this topic. Self doubts are slowly but surely dissipating :-)

    So, the quest for the ultimate in IQ for landscapes (well, that's why I bought the darn thing in the first place) requires a different approach - slow, deliberate, methodical, and if low-light, use a tripod always.

    Accepted. Would somebody tell me, what is the best (or easiest) way to improve from the ancient DF+ body? Does anybody know anything more about the rumored body upgrade from P1? Is there another body I can put the IQ180 back on, short of a tech camera?

    If I were to invest more time and go the tech camera route, what are my options? What lenses, what body, and is there a website that can point me in the right direction? As I said, it is primarily for landscapes, so wide angle (probably 50mm and under for the FF back). I am not going to jump into this without some serious thinking but maybe it is time to start the process.

    I am really wary of dealers and would rather avoid asking them - my experience in general with dealers (from automotive to cameras) is that they will use every argument to convince you that their product is the best. I don't blame them, they need to make a living and have convinced themselves that indeed such is the case.

    Thanks again to an awesome crowd!
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #154
    Senior Member RVB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    807
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    OK everyone, perhaps a major thread shift is in order. You lot have rejuvenated me and I am so glad I started this topic. Self doubts are slowly but surely dissipating :-)

    So, the quest for the ultimate in IQ for landscapes (well, that's why I bought the darn thing in the first place) requires a different approach - slow, deliberate, methodical, and if low-light, use a tripod always.

    Accepted. Would somebody tell me, what is the best (or easiest) way to improve from the ancient DF+ body? Does anybody know anything more about the rumored body upgrade from P1? Is there another body I can put the IQ180 back on, short of a tech camera?

    If I were to invest more time and go the tech camera route, what are my options? What lenses, what body, and is there a website that can point me in the right direction? As I said, it is primarily for landscapes, so wide angle (probably 50mm and under for the FF back). I am not going to jump into this without some serious thinking but maybe it is time to start the process.

    I am really wary of dealers and would rather avoid asking them - my experience in general with dealers (from automotive to cameras) is that they will use every argument to convince you that their product is the best. I don't blame them, they need to make a living and have convinced themselves that indeed such is the case.

    Thanks again to an awesome crowd!
    Just a thought Pradeep,have you considered using the IQ on the H5X body?Its very good,much better than the Df imho,Annie Leibovitz is one of many that use this combo although it means swapping glass.

    Rob

  5. #155
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    32° 31' 37.06" N, 111° 6' 0.9" W
    Posts
    4,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    There's been a lot of information written about tech cams both in this section as well as the "Digital Camera Reviews" my suggestion is to do a quick search as then begin asking questions afterwards.

    One very quick comment regarding tech cameras - they are all much the same, meaning a piece of metal with a digital back on one end and a lens on the other. Some cost more than others and some less. Some offer more bells and whistles but at a higher cost. In the end there really isn't a bad tech camera some like a particular brand over another but in the end it'll be the digital back and lens that will either make it or break it. One other comment - lenses for tech cameras can be/are very expensive so be prepared for sticker shock however they are well worth their value.

    Okay, let the fun and games begin as we discuss the pros and cons of all the tech cams on the market.
    Don Libby
    Iron Creek Photography
    Blog
    Tucson AZ

  6. #156
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    For landscape you might want dynamic range and avoid darkframe NR if you shoot long exposure. For technical cameras you might want CMOS Live View if you want to compose fast. In all cases you probably cannot avoid getting a CMOS back in the future, fullframe or near fullframe.

    No one knows what kind of CMOS backs would be offered in the near future. In that case, to increase chances of compatibility, avoid the current symmetric Schneider wide angles, and avoid the widest Rodenstock wide angles. Your safest bet would be the not-so-wide retrofocus Rodenstock Digaron HR lenses (e.g. 40HR, 50HR etc). But these are just general guidelines by speculations. No one can tell what happens next. It could be that the current king of wide angle 32HR works with the next CMOS back, but it could also be that even the more versatile 40HR has limited movements on the next CMOS back. If Phase One throws out a 120 MP fullframe CMOS back, then it is likely that virtually every current wide angles could become obsolete (not crap, but just incompatible with the latest cool technology), and Rodenstock / Schneider would have to refresh their product line with new lenses with more radical retrofocus design.

    For camera systems I went into Alpa because all my friends around me use Alpa and we simply wanted to form an army of Alpa (for aesthetics reasons). For a fresh start again I might consider the Arca-Swiss as they offer tilt and swing for virtually every lens regardless of flange distance (e.g. 23HR).
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #157
    Senior Member Dogs857's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Thursday Island - Australia
    Posts
    307
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    I must apologise to Void for using the word trolling. I did follow up saying that Void is not a troll, however it was a poor use of the word, and was meant as an adjective, not as a noun. Sorry mate.

    For the OP tech cameras are another beast all together. Be prepared for another steep learning curve.

    Check out this page, it is a dealer but holds a lot of information. In fact I found this invaluable when I was researching my own gear.

    Tech Camera Overview

    I have owned both the Arca Rm3di and Cambo and can attest that they are both excellent systems. The Arca focusing system may or may not be to your taste but once you get your head around it it's a fantastic system. The Cambo is cheaper but no less quality. It provides more lateral shift for pano stitching, seems lighter?? and is my new favourite thing in the world. I can't comment on Alpa but there are enough Alpa people in here to do that.

    For a lens try the 55mm Rodie. It is relatively cheap and a good performer by all accounts on your IQ180. The benefit is that it is relatively cheap for a tech lens and won't stretch your budget too far if you decide this is not for you.

    http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-f...r-digital.html
    Last edited by Dogs857; 27th February 2015 at 17:13.
    Stop chasing gear, start chasing photos instead.

    Jeff, but my friends call me Dogs

  8. #158
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Should I or not?

    Cfv50c $15k new, nuff said
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #159
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    OK everyone, perhaps a major thread shift is in order. You lot have rejuvenated me and I am so glad I started this topic. Self doubts are slowly but surely dissipating :-)

    So, the quest for the ultimate in IQ for landscapes (well, that's why I bought the darn thing in the first place) requires a different approach - slow, deliberate, methodical, and if low-light, use a tripod always.

    Accepted. Would somebody tell me, what is the best (or easiest) way to improve from the ancient DF+ body? Does anybody know anything more about the rumored body upgrade from P1? Is there another body I can put the IQ180 back on, short of a tech camera?

    If I were to invest more time and go the tech camera route, what are my options? What lenses, what body, and is there a website that can point me in the right direction? As I said, it is primarily for landscapes, so wide angle (probably 50mm and under for the FF back). I am not going to jump into this without some serious thinking but maybe it is time to start the process.

    I am really wary of dealers and would rather avoid asking them - my experience in general with dealers (from automotive to cameras) is that they will use every argument to convince you that their product is the best. I don't blame them, they need to make a living and have convinced themselves that indeed such is the case.

    Thanks again to an awesome crowd!
    I will try not to promote my own equipment decision but you asked about a body and lenses so I will answer:
    For me the Leica S system works very well and I would not give it up even if someone would give me the most expensive phase back in exchange. Some might say it is not good because you cant upgrade the back and keep the camera. I see it like getting a new camera with each sensor upgrade.
    Why I choose/suggest it?
    1) Because it gives me the choice to work on tripod if I have time but woks also very well handheld. (I had some experience were I shot 2 or 3 scenes on a hike with tripod, and various others without tripod because light was changing fast and I was happy to be able to do so)-so I dont agree that good landscape necessarily means tripod all the time.
    2) It is weatherproof so I can (and have) used it in rain, snow without any fear.
    3) The lenses are excellent (I know there are also some excellent Hassy and Schneider and Zeiss lenses as well), and are fully usable at each f-stop even wide open. My fav are at the moment the 24mm,45mm,100mm and 180mm.
    4) The slightly smaller sensor I dont see as an disadvantage. For me it is a very good compromise between achieving the MF-look but giving me a little more DOF at comparable FOV/f-stop. (Advantage for handheld shooting because I can shoot at 0.5-1 f-stop wider open compared to big big sensors)

    Besides landscapes those DSLR-type MF-cameras are also good for other subjects, I use mine sometimes just like I would use a FF DSLR.

    So even a "bigger" digital back might give us 5% IQ in some scenarios (enough time, enough light or no movement in the image if light is lower, big big print) I believe there are a whole lot of scenarios where a little faster and more flexible system like the Leica S (or the Pentax645) might be more satisfying.
    I can only say what works for me and why, without having doubts that for others a digital back with a bigger sensor might work better for them.

    Having said all that I admit that I am also fascinated by Tech cams, mainly for the slower shooting style, thats why I have been starting to experiment with a used Tech cam and an older back. I do see it however as tool for a limited scenarious/types of photography. (And I also lack time to really use it).
    Last edited by Paratom; 27th February 2015 at 20:30.

  10. #160
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    398
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    ...when my PhaseOne IQ160 saw the 645z in the room it suddenly stopped working...dang


  11. #161
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Libby View Post
    One very quick comment regarding tech cameras - they are all much the same, meaning a piece of metal with a digital back on one end and a lens on the other. Some cost more than others and some less. Some offer more bells and whistles but at a higher cost. In the end there really isn't a bad tech camera some like a particular brand over another but in the end it'll be the digital back and lens that will either make it or break it. One other comment - lenses for tech cameras can be/are very expensive so be prepared for sticker shock however they are well worth their value.
    What Don said.

    All of the current crop of technical cameras are excellent and you already have pretty much the ultimate landscape digital back in terms of colour, resolution and tonality with your IQ180.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"

  12. #162
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    OK, I'll play devils advocate here -

    Looking at your earlier posts and complaints about your frustrations with MFD, I would personally not recommend going down the tech camera route. Tech cameras, particularly with the IQ180 is plagued with shooting limitations, potential IQ issues and a whole load of extra work involved with getting the max out of the system. This is then all topped off with a massive increase in camera, lens and focus mount cost and I personally feel if you are looking at investing yet more it might be better spent as Void has been suggesting on the IQ250 upgrade to a more universal back than an even more frustrating and subject limiting tech camera with your current IQ180.
    Last edited by gazwas; 28th February 2015 at 00:22.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  13. #163
    Senior Member danlindberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Spain & Sweden
    Posts
    1,196
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by GrahamWelland View Post
    What Don said.

    All of the current crop of technical cameras are excellent and you already have pretty much the ultimate landscape digital back in terms of colour, resolution and tonality with your IQ180.
    +1
    Mate your IQ180 with an Alpa TC and SK60 and you have an amazingly potent landscape cam in the lightest and tiniest package possible! It would be the Leica M in medium format for size.
    Focus and exposure guesstimation, zero latency, level the cam on tripod and it does not get easier than that! (also easy to have a library with LCC's with no movements for safety) If you have deep shadows, bracket a couple of shots and move on.
    Its pure, not complicated and truly stunning files with shimmed back and adjusted lens!
    Alpa FPS • MAX • TC | Alpagon 32Hr | Helvetar 75 | Schneider 120N | Leaf Aptus II 5 • Leaf Credo 60 | www.danlindberg.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #164
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    OK everyone, perhaps a major thread shift is in order. You lot have rejuvenated me and I am so glad I started this topic. Self doubts are slowly but surely dissipating :-)

    So, the quest for the ultimate in IQ for landscapes (well, that's why I bought the darn thing in the first place) requires a different approach - slow, deliberate, methodical, and if low-light, use a tripod always.

    Accepted. Would somebody tell me, what is the best (or easiest) way to improve from the ancient DF+ body? Does anybody know anything more about the rumored body upgrade from P1? Is there another body I can put the IQ180 back on, short of a tech camera?

    If I were to invest more time and go the tech camera route, what are my options? What lenses, what body, and is there a website that can point me in the right direction? As I said, it is primarily for landscapes, so wide angle (probably 50mm and under for the FF back). I am not going to jump into this without some serious thinking but maybe it is time to start the process.

    I am really wary of dealers and would rather avoid asking them - my experience in general with dealers (from automotive to cameras) is that they will use every argument to convince you that their product is the best. I don't blame them, they need to make a living and have convinced themselves that indeed such is the case.
    Unfortunately, forum threads tend to sound a bit like dealer's sales pitch lately.

    Could you please tell me what is wrong with your DF+ body, SK 80mm 2.8 LS and 45mm Phase f2.8? If I have no idea what points you don't like about these, I can't tell you if another camera would be improved on these particular points.

    At the moment, all we know is that:
    -high iso is poor (not a body problem, may be improved by changing your processing)
    -the system is too slow to set up (won't be improved by a technical cam, maybe you could use a monopod for those times when you have to be quick? - I do, maybe you could do the dark frames in advance or dispense with them)
    -AF is not as advanced as on DLSRs (indeed, no solution to that, but AF should be very accurate, is it?)
    -you like the lenses and the sharpness you get from large prints (so that part will not be improved by a new camera or lens)
    -you don't like the distortion on the lenses (doesn't capture one correct that automatically?).

    You gave us actually very, very little info on your practice, the reasons you are dissatisfied or the kind of landscape pictures you like to take. There is not much we can do with your questions. OTOH, you have one of the best system on the market, many of the (landscape) photographers who use it are ecstatic about it. Why are they pleased when you are not?

  15. #165
    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: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by gazwas View Post
    OK, I'll play devils advocate here -

    Looking at your earlier posts and complaints about your frustrations with MFD, I would personally not recommend going down the tech camera route. Tech cameras, particularly with the IQ180 is plagued with shooting limitations, potential IQ issues and a whole load of extra work involved with getting the max out of the system. This is then all topped off with a massive increase in camera, lens and focus mount cost and I personally feel if you are looking at investing yet more it might be better spent as Void has been suggesting on the IQ250 upgrade to a more universal back than an even more frustrating and subject limiting tech camera with your current IQ180.
    Honestly, from my perspective, this is sound advice.

    IMO, working with a tech camera takes a particular type of personality ... those with that personality make it sound no-brainer, yet it can be difficult for others ... and I'm one of them.

    At times we all hanker for the very best possible performance ... I'd love a 650 Hp sports car that can do amazing things, but fully realize my spontaneous personality would likely result in my immediate death before I mastered driving it

    Perhaps the OP has to rectify what he is willing or able to do, and what his personality may be, with what he wants from the tools needed to do it.

    Often we assume the personality needed to accomplish work we like, and then set out on a frustrating and fruitless task. Just because we like some approach, doesn't mean it is right for us.

    I think this where artistic and craftsmanship intersect. The tools are there to do our bidding and it is that bidding that needs to be defined well enough to make the right choice of tools.

    Shooting sports and landscapes is too generic. A million photographers do that. What is it that you want to do with-in those catagories?

    Personally, I did that for myself, I jettisoned a box car full of MF gear/backs/lenses and zeroed in on the Leica S that I now use because it fits my spontaneous nature, love of using lighting, has superlative optics, yet is exceedingly simple to use. Not that I recommend it for anyone else, but it fits me.

    Best of Luck,

    - Marc
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #166
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    198
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Sorry to chime in a bit late.
    Here's what I feel.
    Mostly when it comes to camera gear, a buyers remorse is followed by a sellers remorse.
    Do not sell your gear prematurely. I guess you have already decided that.
    Having said that, a small disclaimer: The gear I have: IQ280, 75-150LS, 120macro, 45D and 80D. Alpa STC, 40HR and 70HR. I also have the Leica M9, MM and a bunch of lenses.
    Most recently, I acquired the Hasselblad xpan and a Leica M6 and M3. Too much gear? Yes. Buyer's remorse ? You bet. I have used all of the above gear over the last year, and I suppose the only consolation is that renting an equivalent amount would have been far too costly. Of course I have had a lot of good images.
    Recently I have been toying with the idea of selling all the M gear and changing to a Leica S with 2-3 lenses. Still unsure about that. When that happens, I might want to change again. The cycle goes on. The problem is my own psyche. Not the gear. Not the incremental improvements that voidshatter or anyone here waxes green with (all respect to him, btw, his data resource and presentation is flawless ). People do it all the time. But we should be fortunate to have this first world problem. I say this first hand, having experienced both ends of the money spectrum. So don't waste your time on remorse. Get good images (they all are good, in that they have left you with a nice experience when you took them, even if you were to delete them on the basis of certain criteria.
    Coming back to the topic, I have come to believe the IQ280 (or IQ180) is meant for a singular purpose: To make the cleanest possible images at ISO35 with planned, proper exposures. Use it anyhow else and the results may be sub-optimal. Used in the manner above, the results are superlative.
    Best luck.

  17. #167
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Should I or not?

    Agree and given your having issues now than a tech cam may not be the best choice its also another 20 grand to add to your system. With the IQ 180 it's even more a issue since you need very expensive rodenstock glass. It's also not the best tech cam back either. Frankly given your situation you maybe better off bolting that 180 to a Hassy body.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  18. #168
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Should I or not?

    I also would not buy a Leica S right now either until you see what's coming next from them. Right now you would be buying old tech . Very good but still tech like your 180.

    Honestly right now your chasing pixels and that is not always a good thing.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  19. #169
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Should I or not?

    One other point with a IQ 180 is your not doing it any favors by throwing good glass on it you really need to throw the best in class at it. With that DF back you need to pick up the mirror and take any vibration out if it to gain the best results. The IQ 180 requires the best technique you can muster.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  20. #170
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Just an observation and nothing scientific with hard concrete evidence but as amazing as getdpi is, it does have a select number of enablers that speak very highly of tech cameras and make newer users feel rather empowered to jump steaight in feet first (probably guilty also in the past). I have then noticed a lot of those new users last about 18 months and you see all their kit in the buy and sell section priced at a big loss.

    Make what you will of that but (no offence OP) I get the impression you might end up belonging to this group also.

  21. #171
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Little Rock AR
    Posts
    1,927
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Should I or not?

    One thing is for sure, Life is too short to get stuck with something you don't like. I just read about Simon Harper's passing, hard to believe.

    Find the equipment you like, and shoot it and don't worry about the rest. If you feel the 180 is not the right solution, it's got plenty of value on the web to sell, and you might find a dealer that will take it back in trade enough that works for you.

    Believe I am talking to myself too here.

    Take a few days, and think about it.

    Paul
    Paul Caldwell
    [email protected]
    www.photosofarkansas.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #172
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    you maybe better off bolting that 180 to a Hassy body.
    As much as I like my Hassy body, I don't see how that would solve the problems at hand. What would Pradeep win?

    Better AF? Hasselblad AF is tops, but is the AF from Phase One less accurate? (Honest question: I don't know)

    Better lenses? Pradeep seems to be happy with his lenses. He has a 80mm, and I don't think the Hasselblad 80mm is much different. He also has a 45mm, which has no equivalent in H mount. The only choices would be the HC 35mm, which is only good for landscape use when stopped down and the HC 50mm. The second version of the HC 50mm is as good as it gets, but is the 45mm really much worse? Besides, the 45mm is faster.
    Pradeep should also realise that the HCD 28 and HCD 24 do not quite cover his IQ180. Last but not least, I would not know how to correct the distortion of the H lenses on an IQ back (in Phocus, it is automatic).

    The rest of the specs appear to be similar between the two bodies. Is there something I have forgotten?

  23. #173
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Should I or not?

    Reason I mentioned Hassy was it sounds like he does not like the DF. Here is where a dealer comes in , you try the Hassy see if it fits you better. I did forget about some of the lens limitations. But I do think those lenses have corrections in C1. Have to look into that for sure
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  24. #174
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    Unfortunately, forum threads tend to sound a bit like dealer's sales pitch lately.

    Could you please tell me what is wrong with your DF+ body, SK 80mm 2.8 LS and 45mm Phase f2.8? If I have no idea what points you don't like about these, I can't tell you if another camera would be improved on these particular points.
    Jerome, I think your post is one of the most perceptive in this thread.

    At the moment, all we know is that:
    -high iso is poor (not a body problem, may be improved by changing your processing)
    I think it is more a limitation of the back, and will definitely be better with a CMOS sensor, which is why I thought of the IQ250, but I would rather have a FF sensor, else for the money the forthcoming Canon 5DR would be way more cost efficient, though obviously not at the top in terms of quality.

    -the system is too slow to set up (won't be improved by a technical cam, maybe you could use a monopod for those times when you have to be quick? - I do, maybe you could do the dark frames in advance or dispense with them)
    Yes, won't be improved with a tech cam, but if the final goal is the best IQ, I am prepared to be slow and deliberate.

    I didn't know you could dispense with the darkframe or do it in advance (Guy would say 'get to know your camera better').

    -AF is not as advanced as on DLSRs (indeed, no solution to that, but AF should be very accurate, is it?)
    -you like the lenses and the sharpness you get from large prints (so that part will not be improved by a new camera or lens)
    -you don't like the distortion on the lenses (doesn't capture one correct that automatically?).
    AF is hard even with the A7R once you mount a canon tele on it, have to use live-view which we know is not really good on the IQ180. I tend to use manual focus and repeated evaluation on the back for getting the DOF right, and of course this too is part of the 'slow and deliberate' approach.

    I am told the lenses that go on the tech cameras are sharper else why bother with the whole thing?

    C1 does not even recognize the 45mm Phase One lens! Distortion is very difficult to correct which is not the case with my images of the NYC skyline with the Canon lenses.

    You gave us actually very, very little info on your practice, the reasons you are dissatisfied or the kind of landscape pictures you like to take. There is not much we can do with your questions. OTOH, you have one of the best system on the market, many of the (landscape) photographers who use it are ecstatic about it. Why are they pleased when you are not?
    I have no 'set' practice. I like landscapes of all sorts, cityscapes, seascapes, fall colors, waterfalls, mountains, whatever looks good. My favorites are sunsets and sunrises especially with something good in the foreground (cliche', yes, I know). I also love to do panoramas, particularly of city skylines.

    I bought the system because at the time (and even now) it is the largest sensor with the highest resolution out there. My reasoning was simple - I wanted the best IQ I could get. It was a workshop out in the arctic, there was no internet, no opportunity to do any research (I didn't even know Phase One would be there) and all I had to go on was the opinion of other users and what I saw on my laptop in the images taken by the trial kits). None of this is any excuse, but I had to make the decision before returning home and commit myself else I would not get the discount. Again, it was my decision only and I am not blaming anybody, just explaining the fact that I probably walked into it without doing my homework properly.

    What I did not realize then was that it would be a different style of shooting, take much longer to make images (a problem when the light is changing rapidly), the process is terribly unforgiving of any vibration/shake in long exposures, indoor images (portraits) are another problem altogether with specialized flash units/controllers (maybe I am wrong about this one). IOW, it takes much more effort and time to get a properly exposed and sharp image but when it happens the results are magical.

    One example: Shooting the Manhattan skyline from the Brooklyn Bridge park at night (one of my favorite locations here), I found that I could not stand at my usual place in the park. The long exposure was over 30 seconds (and then the dark frame). Even with a sturdy tripod, standing on concrete, there was enough vibration in the ground from the trains passing over the Manhattan bridge to cause blurry images. I had to move 200 feet away from the bridge, losing the perspective I desired. There is very little you can do about something like this, unless it is a sensor that allows higher ISO with the same low-noise profile. Yes, I could reduce the exposure by raising the ISO on the IQ180, but then I lose the ultimate in quality (don't all sensors do their best at the 'base/native' ISO?), which is the purpose of buying the system after all.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #175
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Should I or not?

    After reading this and to speed things up and more important get to a level of accuracy that you can see easier, focus easier and know you nailed it than a CMOS sensor like the Credo 50 or IQ 250 maybe a better solution. You hit live view on the backs and the mirror locks up and your exactly on live view mode via like Nikon, a Canon and Sony. When I tested the Credo 50 on the DF I never even looked in the finder. Lol

    It seriously made the process easier and you want to stick with the highest pixel count as possible than this maybe the answer.

    Now crop factor vs FF a endless debate no question but having several crop factor backs and FF it really is just a lens thing. For the DF and the 28mm your actually better off cutting off the corners and you get I think like a 33mm framing. Still wide and worst case you can do a Pano. Now everything becomes longer obviously but there are many folks shooting crop backs and very pleased with them. I made these choices several times even went from a 160 to a 140 with and without a tech cam and it really was not as bad as I thought.

    My whole reasoning here is you still stay in MF here without dropping down to 35 and you get the benefit of CMOS 35mm. Yes you will take a bath on the upgrade which I think sucks big time but you do gain a lot of functionality but more important for you it may just make your life and images a lot better. Again get one in your hands and try it first. Now I'm Going to say something I should not say , you went to a workshop where the premise is to buy not really to understand the system first, frankly they did you a disservice and yes I taught one of there workshops and they are fun but they are all about sales, not about teaching you how to really work with them. Plug here, our workshops are about teaching not buying. There is a difference. Honestly this maybe your best option and you gain functionality, speed, accuracy and a little easier to feel comfortable with. This is not a CCD vs CMOS debate far from it but one to help you and that's why you asked in the first place. I'm reading all your options and posts and that Guys conclusion, right or wrong but the way I see it.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  26. #176
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Should I or not?

    Here is the rub to all this and I have been down this upgrade path once too often. The trick now is at some point the best upgrade path will be on the CMOS side. This happened twice already once with getting on the Dalsa side of the house and once with getting on the FF side of the house. Phase in there infinite wisdom gave us decent upgrades when we where already on the Dalsa side but crap from going from Kodak to Dalsa. They do it the FF frame side as well now it's you get punished going from CCD to CMOS but once in CMOS when the FF comes out and your in CMOS already it's not a bad upgrade up. This is hard to explain in the written form but really the bottom line is we won't see CCD backs anymore . So those upgrade to CMOS will hurt but at some point in time you will have to jump over.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  27. #177
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    I think it is more a limitation of the back, and will definitely be better with a CMOS sensor, which is why I thought of the IQ250
    Well: yes, of course. Although probably not as much as Phase One wants us to believe.

    Yes, won't be improved with a tech cam, but if the final goal is the best IQ, I am prepared to be slow and deliberate.
    Maybe you should try to be slow and deliberate with what you have first.

    I didn't know you could dispense with the darkframe or do it in advance (Guy would say 'get to know your camera better').
    I am not entirely sure about that, since I do not have an IQ180.

    AF is hard even with the A7R once you mount a canon tele on it, have to use live-view which we know is not really good on the IQ180. I tend to use manual focus and repeated evaluation on the back for getting the DOF right, and of course this too is part of the 'slow and deliberate' approach.
    On my ancient H4D-50, I just point the AF zone at a feature with sufficient detail, press the AF button and the AF is set where I want. It rarely misses, even when checked afterwards on the computer. I can't imagine that Phase One would be that much worse. Maybe your camera needs to be calibrated?

    I am told the lenses that go on the tech cameras are sharper
    That is what one reads on forum. Let just say that I doubt it and hope I do not start another flame war.

    C1 does not even recognize the 45mm Phase One lens!
    I can't imagine that to be true. OK: maybe it is true, in which case you have all reasons to be furious, but you should definitely check.

    What I did not realize then was that it would be a different style of shooting, take much longer to make images
    It is a bit more involved, but it should not take "much longer to make images". You keep saying that and I keep wondering why.

    indoor images (portraits) are another problem altogether with specialized flash units/controllers (maybe I am wrong about this one).
    Normally, you use a studio flash and flashmeter indoor. It is 100% manual but quite simple once one has learnt it.

    Even with a sturdy tripod, standing on concrete, there was enough vibration in the ground from the trains passing over the Manhattan bridge to cause blurry images.
    Well... yes, but that would be a problem with any camera on a tripod. And I am sure that you do not take all your landscape near train tracks, so...

    There is very little you can do about something like this, unless it is a sensor that allows higher ISO with the same low-noise profile.
    You should not believe the high iso hype. I mean: sure, modern CMOS are better, maybe one or 2 ev, but low noise is only possible when you have enough light. Whatever you may read here or there, cameras hit limitations due to fundamental principles.

    Yes, I could reduce the exposure by raising the ISO on the IQ180, but then I lose the ultimate in quality (don't all sensors do their best at the 'base/native' ISO?), which is the purpose of buying the system after all.
    You reduce the quality from the output of your IQ180. But since you start so high, you may still have better quality than lesser solutions. This being said, if you believe that you will take the majority of your pictures at iso 400-800, get a cmos back. Or a Pentax 645z, which is quite good and a lot cheaper.

    Actually, this may be your best choice: get a 645z. You appear to have sufficient financial ease for this proposition to make sense: you get the Pentax as a second camera, try both in parallel, and sell the one you don't like in 6 months.

  28. #178
    Senior Member kdphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Carmel/Tucson
    Posts
    2,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    I think the number one thing that many photographers (including those in Dante's Inferno) forget---- is the pure enjoyment of photography; the process and the magic that generates the excitement to participate as a photographer.

    It doesn't matter if a camera or a sensor is "the best" if it doesn't give you the enjoyment in the process we call photography. And maybe some of that can be addressed by knowing/learning how to use equipment better. But the end result is the same: if the camera or process doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy, you've lost a large part of that magic and excitement that made you want to participate as a photographer.

    For myself, I purchased the Sony A7r (yes, a Sony branded sensor that Void keeps pushing. Is he a paid Sony representative? ) And guess what? I disliked it----a lot. Never mind this "wonderful sensor"---the camera lacked the magic in the process. I converted it to IR/full spectrum, and the magic came back. And yes, I've shot with the IQ250---and guess what? For me there was no magic! The point here is to shoot with whatever gives you the most enjoyment in the process---whether that is a Sony RX1 or a Phase MFDB.

    If you want to exploit the weakness of a particular camera or sensor---you can do exactly that (as Void has done). But honestly, in the many years I have shot with MFDBs (645M, P30, P45+, P65+, IQ180----yes in the realm of the greatest of enablers ) I have rarely, if ever, run across a situation where I felt confined as a photographer or wishing, damn, I wish I had a MFDB with a CMOS sensor. I guess I'm used to working with the tools I have in any given situation and making it work. It's called photography and I enjoy the process.

    And you can easily find some incredible work here---Dan Lindberg comes quickly to my mind, and even when he was using an older generation MFDB, you could hardly say his photography was constrained by the sensor. His talent and eye for composition simply sings. *wow* not a Sony sensor in sight!

    The membership rolls here in Dante's Inferno places everyone in what I call "rarefied air." I think a fair bet is that the demographic is middle-aged or older, well-educated, and lives fairly comfortably compared to our counterparts confined to lesser-endowed Nikon and Canon brands We're pretty damned lucky, with even older generation MFDBs holding their ground well against recent generation DSLRs. Presumably those that invested in MFDBs did so with a particular purpose in mind, and I know for me that enjoyment in the process continues to be a large part of why I use a MFDB.

    I'm not particularly fond of the Phase DF---it works, and I know all the foibles to make it work well. And yes, a new Phase body is definitely on the way soon. I very much enjoy using the IQ180 on a Cambo, and think I enjoy it more each time I use it. I've recently adapted my lenses to use the xume system to allow me to use filters more easily, not because I need to, but because it's part of the process I enjoy.

    Changing to a Sony CMOS sensor will not change that. If I bought an IQ150/250, it would be to use live view on a Cambo Actus (yes, John Milich's fault). But the interest is in the process, not the sensor.

    So my advice is to ignore the Voidshatter inspired rants and raves over Sony CMOS sensored MFDBs. Ignore the calls for a new technical camera or a particular platform. Go back and find what inspires you to participate in this thing we call photography. If you enjoy the process and make beautiful imagery, everything else will fall into place. If that means leaving the MFDB world behind, do it. If it means buying a new CMOS MFDB, do it. Life is short, and in the scheme of things, photography is a rather small investment that can give a lot of enjoyment.

    Or you can get a boat.

    ken

  29. #179
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    I also would not buy a Leica S right now either until you see what's coming next from them. Right now you would be buying old tech . Very good but still tech like your 180.

    Honestly right now your chasing pixels and that is not always a good thing.
    I agree, except you can find used S2 for very good prices.
    But I also would probably wait until we see how the new sensor in the S 007 will work.

  30. #180
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Should I or not?

    I know Tom but your still buying into old tech and that value keeps dropping. This all sucks big time. But Leica needs to make the change and than see where that goes.

    Only thing good here is the lenses will stay and continue on.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  31. #181
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,058
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Should I or not?

    Yes on the S2, but usually good prices in this medium mean old technology. If that's what one likes then go for old technology.

    For myself I decided to make the CMOS jump and bought some weather sealed lenses to go with my new weather sealed system based on the 645Z.

  32. #182
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: Should I or not?

    Something not to overlook is the technical part of a tech camera
    I find i use shifts for perspective control in most shots especially with wides, tilts less so but they are so useful
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  33. #183
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,035
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    I was sure in the same position as the OP and worked with Dave at C1..... finally purchasing a Leaf Credo 50 and have never regretted it. I also have an IQ180 which I pondered what to do with. Of course I posed all of this to Dave and he offered me a cash buyout which I felt was fair but decided to keep the back because I was counseled that it would be worth more in trade than the cash offer. I don't use it much any more having been spoiled with the incredible live view of the Credo. I also haven't been bothered with the crop factor and have never had a time when I wished for FF but that is just me and wouldn't necessarily apply to others. My usual print size is at least 40 inches in the long direction and I have never been disappointed with the detail of 50MP vs 80MP..... and I'm a real finicky printer. Its just my 2 cents but may help the OP a little.

    Victor

  34. #184
    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: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    I agree, except you can find used S2 for very good prices.
    But I also would probably wait until we see how the new sensor in the S 007 will work.
    It all depends on how much money one has to work with. A mint S2P for $7K+/- verses $25.4K for the up-coming S (007) leaves a LOT of money to get the S or CS lenses ... which is the reason to get any S in the first place.

    The new CMOS S(007) still hasn't hit the streets, and if it's like most Leica new tech, it will take a year+ to sort out.

    Even if the used S2 drops from $7K to $5K, (at which point, I'll buy a back-up), that's a $2K depreciation in approx. a year ... where a new S (007) will drop that much or more the minute you take it out of the box.

    This chasing new new tech is what cost so darned much in MFD. It is an endless circle until you stop it yourself, and just work with what you have.

    Now lenses are another matter altogether

    - MARC

  35. #185
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    552
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by kdphotography View Post
    I think the number one thing that many photographers (including those in Dante's Inferno) forget---- is the pure enjoyment of photography; the process and the magic that generates the excitement to participate as a photographer.

    It doesn't matter if a camera or a sensor is "the best" if it doesn't give you the enjoyment in the process we call photography. And maybe some of that can be addressed by knowing/learning how to use equipment better. But the end result is the same: if the camera or process doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy, you've lost a large part of that magic and excitement that made you want to participate as a photographer.

    For myself, I purchased the Sony A7r (yes, a Sony branded sensor that Void keeps pushing. Is he a paid Sony representative? ) And guess what? I disliked it----a lot. Never mind this "wonderful sensor"---the camera lacked the magic in the process. I converted it to IR/full spectrum, and the magic came back. And yes, I've shot with the IQ250---and guess what? For me there was no magic! The point here is to shoot with whatever gives you the most enjoyment in the process---whether that is a Sony RX1 or a Phase MFDB.

    If you want to exploit the weakness of a particular camera or sensor---you can do exactly that (as Void has done). But honestly, in the many years I have shot with MFDBs (645M, P30, P45+, P65+, IQ180----yes in the realm of the greatest of enablers ) I have rarely, if ever, run across a situation where I felt confined as a photographer or wishing, damn, I wish I had a MFDB with a CMOS sensor. I guess I'm used to working with the tools I have in any given situation and making it work. It's called photography and I enjoy the process.

    And you can easily find some incredible work here---Dan Lindberg comes quickly to my mind, and even when he was using an older generation MFDB, you could hardly say his photography was constrained by the sensor. His talent and eye for composition simply sings. *wow* not a Sony sensor in sight!

    The membership rolls here in Dante's Inferno places everyone in what I call "rarefied air." I think a fair bet is that the demographic is middle-aged or older, well-educated, and lives fairly comfortably compared to our counterparts confined to lesser-endowed Nikon and Canon brands We're pretty damned lucky, with even older generation MFDBs holding their ground well against recent generation DSLRs. Presumably those that invested in MFDBs did so with a particular purpose in mind, and I know for me that enjoyment in the process continues to be a large part of why I use a MFDB.

    I'm not particularly fond of the Phase DF---it works, and I know all the foibles to make it work well. And yes, a new Phase body is definitely on the way soon. I very much enjoy using the IQ180 on a Cambo, and think I enjoy it more each time I use it. I've recently adapted my lenses to use the xume system to allow me to use filters more easily, not because I need to, but because it's part of the process I enjoy.

    Changing to a Sony CMOS sensor will not change that. If I bought an IQ150/250, it would be to use live view on a Cambo Actus (yes, John Milich's fault). But the interest is in the process, not the sensor.

    So my advice is to ignore the Voidshatter inspired rants and raves over Sony CMOS sensored MFDBs. Ignore the calls for a new technical camera or a particular platform. Go back and find what inspires you to participate in this thing we call photography. If you enjoy the process and make beautiful imagery, everything else will fall into place. If that means leaving the MFDB world behind, do it. If it means buying a new CMOS MFDB, do it. Life is short, and in the scheme of things, photography is a rather small investment that can give a lot of enjoyment.

    Or you can get a boat.

    ken
    +1. There is something common in this thread: the MFDB experience is a bit unusual, has limits (what doesn't) and there are many things it doesn't do well. What it does well can't be replicated by other approaches, and it is for these reasons those of us who like it aren't inclined to give it up.

    Its a bit like LF, 4x5 or 8x10. Nothing else does the trick, its hard as heck to do well, but very satisfying. After one has been shooting for many years (decades) the interest in the next fast shot wanes, with the more important issue being "is this shot worthwhile?". And its in that 1%, the pursuit of the best you can be, that MFDB can be a good friend.

    There are other places to do one's work, and to grow: I can't imagine Cartier-Bresson shooting with MFDB, so its not for everyone. If, however, you have a hankering to grow into work that looks like the work (like Dan Lindberg and others) are doing, then it might just help pull you along.
    www.gigi-photos.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  36. #186
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    After reading this and to speed things up and more important get to a level of accuracy that you can see easier, focus easier and know you nailed it than a CMOS sensor like the Credo 50 or IQ 250 maybe a better solution. You hit live view on the backs and the mirror locks up and your exactly on live view mode via like Nikon, a Canon and Sony. When I tested the Credo 50 on the DF I never even looked in the finder. Lol

    It seriously made the process easier and you want to stick with the highest pixel count as possible than this maybe the answer.

    Now crop factor vs FF a endless debate no question but having several crop factor backs and FF it really is just a lens thing. For the DF and the 28mm your actually better off cutting off the corners and you get I think like a 33mm framing. Still wide and worst case you can do a Pano. Now everything becomes longer obviously but there are many folks shooting crop backs and very pleased with them. I made these choices several times even went from a 160 to a 140 with and without a tech cam and it really was not as bad as I thought.

    My whole reasoning here is you still stay in MF here without dropping down to 35 and you get the benefit of CMOS 35mm. Yes you will take a bath on the upgrade which I think sucks big time but you do gain a lot of functionality but more important for you it may just make your life and images a lot better. Again get one in your hands and try it first. Now I'm Going to say something I should not say , you went to a workshop where the premise is to buy not really to understand the system first, frankly they did you a disservice and yes I taught one of there workshops and they are fun but they are all about sales, not about teaching you how to really work with them. Plug here, our workshops are about teaching not buying. There is a difference. Honestly this maybe your best option and you gain functionality, speed, accuracy and a little easier to feel comfortable with. This is not a CCD vs CMOS debate far from it but one to help you and that's why you asked in the first place. I'm reading all your options and posts and that Guys conclusion, right or wrong but the way I see it.
    Thank you Guy.

    BTW, the workshop was simply a photo trip organized by a pro that I've gone with before. There was no indication that Phase One would be there with their trial kits and a sales person. I had read a little about the fabulous digital backs from Phase and found the idea quite appealing. Couple that with the intense enthusiasm shown by those who had bought the system previously, I was hooked. Again, the decision was all mine.

    I don't want to be chasing a mirage forever. To me it appears that switching to the CMOS crop sensor (be it the Phase or Credo) is going to be equally complicated and expensive. It is not as if the IQ250 costs a few thousand only, even at trade-in, I will have to pay around $20K or so I am told. And then the FF CMOS comes along (or something else that is 'better') and I am lusting for an upgrade again.

    Another option would be to simply ditch everything from Phase and switch to Leica S or Pentax 645Z, but I am not convinced that the quality is the same or even close. My own experience with Leica (M9 and M240) is that again there is more hype than substance. I don't mind the expense as long it buys me something worthwhile. That too is subjective, I know. But I no longer feel like buying a pair of Ferragamo shoes simply to show off the logo.

  37. #187
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by jerome_m View Post
    On my ancient H4D-50, I just point the AF zone at a feature with sufficient detail, press the AF button and the AF is set where I want. It rarely misses, even when checked afterwards on the computer. I can't imagine that Phase One would be that much worse. Maybe your camera needs to be calibrated?
    Yes, it works, but only up to a point. Given the large sensor, for a full DOF, I found it better to use hyperfocal guides with manual focus.

    I can't imagine that to be true. OK: maybe it is true, in which case you have all reasons to be furious, but you should definitely check.

    Well... yes, but that would be a problem with any camera on a tripod. And I am sure that you do not take all your landscape near train tracks, so...
    In C1 I have to manually pick that lens every time.

    And no, the problem is not with any camera. I've shot from the same spot for years and on a weekend night you cannot get to the railing, there are so many photographers about. I have super sharp images from my Canon and Sony A7R even with the train thundering past (BTW, the bridge is at least 100 feet away).


    Actually, this may be your best choice: get a 645z. You appear to have sufficient financial ease for this proposition to make sense: you get the Pentax as a second camera, try both in parallel, and sell the one you don't like in 6 months.
    It's a thought.

  38. #188
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by kdphotography View Post
    So my advice is to ignore the Voidshatter inspired rants and raves over Sony CMOS sensored MFDBs. Ignore the calls for a new technical camera or a particular platform. Go back and find what inspires you to participate in this thing we call photography. If you enjoy the process and make beautiful imagery, everything else will fall into place. If that means leaving the MFDB world behind, do it. If it means buying a new CMOS MFDB, do it. Life is short, and in the scheme of things, photography is a rather small investment that can give a lot of enjoyment.

    Or you can get a boat.

    ken
    Been there, almost done that

    I agree, it's all about the moment. Freezing fingers (or other more sensitive parts) or not, it is the excitement while the image is being made that does it for me.

    In the end, it is also about the 'eye'. A great photo can be made with a toy camera. I bet Ritchie Blackmore would blow me away with a $100 guitar.

  39. #189
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    And no, the problem is not with any camera. I've shot from the same spot for years and on a weekend night you cannot get to the railing, there are so many photographers about. I have super sharp images from my Canon and Sony A7R even with the train thundering past (BTW, the bridge is at least 100 feet away).
    If you took the images with the A7R at the same shutter speed and they are much sharper than the images from the Phase1 camera, there may be a problem with your tripod. Even if you have a fancy tripod, I have seen random vibration happen because of unbalanced heads or even poor design of the camera attachment. It may be worth trying another tripod/head to see if you have the same problems.

    But maybe you wanted to say that the Sony was super sharp because you could use it at iso 1 zillion and get a fast shutter speed, I don't know...

  40. #190
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    Thank you Guy.

    ...
    Another option would be to simply ditch everything from Phase and switch to Leica S or Pentax 645Z, but I am not convinced that the quality is the same or even close. My own experience with Leica (M9 and M240) is that again there is more hype than substance. I don't mind the expense as long it buys me something worthwhile. That too is subjective, I know. But I no longer feel like buying a pair of Ferragamo shoes simply to show off the logo.
    You could allways get a demo for a weekend and make your own opinion and see what works for you and what does not.

    However, to me you sound a bit like you want the latest, greatest and biggest, otherwise you might have the feeling to not have maximized IQ.

    Maybe it would be worth to analyze first what exactly does not work with your current gear/ find out the exact reason why you are not satisfied. Is it the phase body doesn't suit you in regards of handling? Does the back not deliver (in which particular regard and would an upgrade to another back change anything?), or are you just upset that the upgrade is so expensive? Or something else?

  41. #191
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Hi,

    I have similar considerations. My experience is shooting P45+ on Hasselbald V-series for 20 months. The other equipment I am shooting is Sony Alpha 99 and 77.

    What I have found is that I have a resolution advantage with the P45+, 39 MP vs 24 MP. That advantage is very real.

    The minus side is that I don't necessarily feel that the images are any better my normal print size which is A2 (16x23") . Going to A1 the resolution advantage is probably obvious, but I seldom print that large.

    On my recent exhibit with pictures from alpine landscapes, not a single P45+ image made it to the wall. Part of that is that I don't carry dual gear to all places. On the other hand, would I show images from where i live I guess I would have hanged quite a few P45+ images. Here I just walk around and make just a few images, gives me peace of mind. I often shoot with the P45+ and I am quite happy with the result.

    The way I see it, using the old style equipment is a bit of fun, but it may be that to much effort is going into making the pictures. They tend to be a bit boring. With DSLR my images are more lively.

    So, what I feel is that I really enjoy shooting MFD, but it may be I am making better images with DSLR.

    There is no gain in image quality with MFD. The resolution advantage is clearly there, but it may only be visible in large print.

    For me it is easy, I have an MFD gear and I will continue using it. But my main, real world gear is still 135 digital, FF and APS-C.

    Some P45+ pictures from today:




    Best regards
    Erik
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 28th February 2015 at 23:47.

  42. #192
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Hi,

    This is an interesting point. I have been shooting with a P45+ on a Hasselblad 555/ELD with a 120/4 Macro Planar. I am quite religious about prereleasing the mirror.

    What I found when I missed MLU in that series is that image without MLU was absolutely useless, although I was standing on a rock with an RRS 33 series tripod and an Arca Swiss D4 head.

    Many great shots were made hand held with Hasselblads, but we live in a new era of pixel peeping, where systems easily are taken to the limit.

    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    One other point with a IQ 180 is your not doing it any favors by throwing good glass on it you really need to throw the best in class at it. With that DF back you need to pick up the mirror and take any vibration out if it to gain the best results. The IQ 180 requires the best technique you can muster.

  43. #193
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,058
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Should I or not?

    I too when using a Hassy 503CW with P45+ for 3 years , where mirror lock-up was not used the images were useless.

  44. #194
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Libby View Post
    The greatest thing I love the most about my 180 is the ability to capture in 35ISO.
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Libby View Post
    Coming back to the topic, I have come to believe the IQ280 (or IQ180) is meant for a singular purpose: To make the cleanest possible images at ISO35 with planned, proper exposures.
    With all due respect, I know you make great images out of the IQ180 and I know many people like it so much. I don't mean to start a flame here but I am a tech geek and I always try to dig the technical details so I hope you excuse my unpleasing talks.

    I'm not a fan of the Dalsa CCD sensors so I see it the other way around. I regard this ISO 35 setting a "drawback" instead of an advantage, because anything below ISO 100 on the IQ180 is just extended ISO, and Phase One is not honest enough to comment that these are extended ISO as Canon or Nikon does. This ISO 35 is purely a marketing hype. You will not get better image if you shoot at ISO 35 than you shoot at ISO 100 at the same shutter speed and aperture. The real lowest native ISO setting on the IQ180 is indeed ISO 100. From ISO 100 and onward (above) on the IQ180 the actually measured ISO is significantly below the claimed ISO, making it a poor choice for scenes where light is dim and shutter speed is a constraint (e.g. the OP's situation). The only possible advantage of having a measured ISO well below the manufacturer claimed ISO is to increase the exposure time without blowing out highlight, but long exposure is not the strength of the IQ180 or any other Dalsa CCD sensors.

    Below shows my tests at ISO 35 and ISO 100 at the same shutter speed and aperture. The shadow SNR stays the same. The highlight details are also the same.


    If you look into dxomark then you would be able to find that the measured ISO only starts to increase when the manufacturer ISO is at ISO 100 or above.


    Here is an illustration of native ISO and extended ISO. For the same aperture and shutter speed, you do not get different image quality if the measured ISO stays the same. You can even verify this with Raw Digger (check the same spot - do they share the same levels?). It doesn't matter how far the blue line deviates from the red line. Some cameras do not offer the orange line. Some cameras do not offer the green line. Some cameras get the blue line closer to the red line. These do not affect the fact that only the blue line is the native ISO range.


    The IQ180 has four native ISO settings: 100, 200, 400 and 800 (or including 1600 and 3200 if you count sensor+). Shooting an IQ280 at ISO 35 is just like shooting a D810 at ISO 32, self-deception.

    On the other hand, the Kodak CCD is different: the P45+ has two native ISO settings: 50 and 100. Shooting a P45+ at ISO 50 is as real as shooting a D810 at ISO 64. (i.e. you gain better image quality than you shoot at higher ISO)

    ISO 35 setting (manufacturer ISO 35) on the IQ280 is shooting at manufacturer ISO 100 but the measured ISO is 29.
    ISO 100 setting (manufacturer ISO 100) on the IQ280 is shooting at manufacturer ISO 100 but the measured ISO is 29.
    ISO 200 setting (manufacturer ISO 200) on the IQ280 is shooting at manufacturer ISO 200 but the measured ISO is 60.
    ISO 400 setting (manufacturer ISO 400) on the IQ280 is shooting at manufacturer ISO 400 but the measured ISO is 120.

    ISO 140 setting (manufacturer ISO 140) on the IQ260 "long exposure mode" is shooting at manufacturer ISO 200 but the measured ISO is 89.
    ISO 200 setting (manufacturer ISO 200) on the IQ260 "long exposure mode" is shooting at manufacturer ISO 200 but the measured ISO is 89.
    ISO 400 setting (manufacturer ISO 400) on the IQ260 "long exposure mode" is shooting at manufacturer ISO 400 but the measured ISO is 178.
    ISO 800 setting (manufacturer ISO 800) on the IQ260 "long exposure mode" is shooting at manufacturer ISO 800 but the measured ISO is 360.

    ISO 50 setting (manufacturer ISO 50) on the P45+ is shooting at manufacturer ISO 50 but the measured ISO is 48.
    ISO 100 setting (manufacturer ISO 100) on the P45+ is shooting at manufacturer ISO 100 but the measured ISO is 95.
    ISO 200 setting (manufacturer ISO 200) on the P45+ is shooting at manufacturer ISO 100 but the measured ISO is 95.
    ISO 400 setting (manufacturer ISO 400) on the P45+ is shooting at manufacturer ISO 100 but the measured ISO is 95.


    Yes, of course you get the cleanest image at ISO 35 on the IQ180 (as clean as ISO 100 on the IQ180, not cleaner), but it is not as clean as what you can get from a Sony CMOS sensor at ISO 100 or even ISO 64 (I've spent too many conversations on the dynamic range and shadow SNR comparison between the IQ280 and the D800E/IQ250 already).
    Last edited by voidshatter; 28th February 2015 at 18:56.

  45. #195
    Senior Member kdphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Carmel/Tucson
    Posts
    2,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    So, how is that Fuji GX680?

  46. #196
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Should I or not?

    As Stephen Stills said "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with" ...
    Last edited by GrahamWelland; 28th February 2015 at 19:21.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  47. #197
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    31
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    I've read this thread keenly, with great interest, being in a similar situation as the OP, although I don't have his purchasing power. IMHO this discussion isn't really about IQ180 vs 250 vs 160, or DR or Dalsa vs Sony. So IMHO (again) those discussions are a definitely OT. Here's my 2c:

    TL;DR in quotes
    Medium format is slower, especially MFDSLR
    There is simply no getting around it, the mirror for 645 is ~1.6x larger in linear dimensions than the 135 mirror. Mirror slap is massive, so working with MF is necessarily slower. When handheld, even at ≥1/focal length speeds I have the DF+ set for 0.5s MUP, just in case. Due to lack of R&D (smaller market, requiring higher margins) MFDSLRs apart from the 645z have primitive AF systems with mostly one AF point. Horrible, but one can work around it. There really isn't quite the "hop out of the car and snap a few shots" scenario here, especially when one considers the abysmal ISOs available for most MFDBs. Combined with the smaller DOF in a larger format, and the rarity of fast (>2.0) lenses available means that MF requires more light than 135.

    None of this is new BTW, this always existed when film was the dominant medium. Larger formats = more light required, though with larger formats one could argue that the photographer could use higher ISO film and get away with it due to lower enlargement required (still true with digital BTW, though 135 digital has much better ISO performance than MF).

    So to the OP, that part of life is unavoidable, one just has to adjust to it. If you would like I'll take that IQ180 off your hands for that 10k trade in amount
    Tech cams are even slower
    This has already been covered, but yes tech cams are less well integrated than SLRs. sync cables, LCCs, hyperfocal focusing (or ground glass) etc etc etc. May not be what you are looking for. What I personally would like is a m4/3, A7 or Fuji style mirrorless MF camera.

    Why the Sony 44x33 sensor is not my answer
    When I went chasing after the MFDB "dream", my objective was sensor size first, resolution second. I dislike using "full frame" to refer to the 54x40 sensors (actually by my calculation 1.1x crop from actual film size, hooray for marketing), which for someone who would prefer to shoot 6x6, 6x9, 6x17 is already medium format. Anyways that is the largest sensor size available. Here's why I think 44x33 isn't worthwhile IMO:

    By my calculation 24x36 is ~1.25x crop factor from 44x33 (of course due to ratio differences that is necessarily an estimate) while it is ~1.55x crop from 54x40. This is equivalent to the difference between the Canon 1Dx to the 1D4 (1.3 crop) and to the APS-C cameras. Whether you see the differences between these formats is up to you but in my experience a 1.3 crop isn't particularly significant.

    So basically you're paying for 1.5x (linear) penalty for size (mirror and shutter) and gaining only 1.25x in linear sensor size. IMHO that is not worthwhile and I would rather go for the D810, A7 or even the upcoming 5Dr - much smaller mirror & shutter translate to more usability, along with more R&D money that translates into better bodies. Sorry to the Sony evangelist(s) on the forum, I'd rather save a *large* stack of dough and go with 135 for that format. Marginal benefits do not outweigh the advantages IMO.
    So while I still haven't come to a conclusion on my own uses for MFDB, I think that for the OP what I would suggest is try bringing just the DF+ and IQ180 into the field, and compliment it with an large sensor compact like the Panasonic LX100 for more casual shots. And definitely get a few more lenses. And if you are careful and creative, you can bring more than you think into the "field". I use a Domke F-5xc for my lenses when I'm out. It is a tiny bag, but holds the 35mm, 55mm LS, 80mm LS, 150/2.8D AND the 210mm (and appropriate additional dividers). Perhaps that may help with the dilemma of size?
    Apologies for the long post, but hope that was helpful.

  48. #198
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Should I or not?

    I think that when you consider crop factors with MFDB's and 35mm that you also consider the difference in sensor aspect ratio.
    Remember: adventure before dementia!

    As Oscar Wilde said, "my tastes are simple, I only like the best"
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  49. #199
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    759
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by jianghai View Post

    Why the Sony 44x33 sensor is not my answer
    When I went chasing after the MFDB "dream", my objective was sensor size first, resolution second. I dislike using "full frame" to refer to the 54x40 sensors (actually by my calculation 1.1x crop from actual film size, hooray for marketing), which for someone who would prefer to shoot 6x6, 6x9, 6x17 is already medium format. Anyways that is the largest sensor size available. Here's why I think 44x33 isn't worthwhile IMO:

    By my calculation 24x36 is ~1.25x crop factor from 44x33 (of course due to ratio differences that is necessarily an estimate) while it is ~1.55x crop from 54x40. This is equivalent to the difference between the Canon 1Dx to the 1D4 (1.3 crop) and to the APS-C cameras. Whether you see the differences between these formats is up to you but in my experience a 1.3 crop isn't particularly significant.

    So basically you're paying for 1.5x (linear) penalty for size (mirror and shutter) and gaining only 1.25x in linear sensor size. IMHO that is not worthwhile and I would rather go for the D810, A7 or even the upcoming 5Dr - much smaller mirror & shutter translate to more usability, along with more R&D money that translates into better bodies. Sorry to the Sony evangelist(s) on the forum, I'd rather save a *large* stack of dough and go with 135 for that format. Marginal benefits do not outweigh the advantages IMO.
    I fully understand your enthusiasm in sensor size. I've been there, done that.

    By calculations,

    54x40mm vs 44x33mm:

    (54^2+40^2)^.5/(44^2+33^2)^.5
    = 1.22

    44x33mm vs 36x24mm:

    (44^2+33^2)^.5/(36^2+24^2)^.5
    = 1.27

    54x40mm vs 44x33mm:

    54*40/44/33
    = 1.49

    44x33mm vs 36x24mm:

    44*33/36/24
    = 1.68

    In my opinion the improvement from 44x33mm towards 54x40mm is even more marginal when compared against the improvement from 36x24mm towards 44x33mm. For a dedicated long exposure user on a technical camera it's not worth it to pursuit the extra sensor size in the 54x40mm format at this stage at the cost of losing Live View and shadow SNR (3 stops of DR / with alignment issues for bracketing) and the flexibility to avoid darkframe NR.

    I totally agree that you better off spend the money in the 35mm format systems for greater values. The problem is that you will never have the wide angle lenses with quality anywhere close to the Rodenstock / Schneider.

    I am currently shooting with an IQ250 + 23HR combo. The angle of view is equivalent as a Canon 5DS + 17mm f/4 L TS-E.

    Below is a sample image from Canon's official website taken by a 5DS and a 17mm f/4 L TS-E lens.



    I do not have a direct side by side comparison yet, but what I can tell is that such corner sharpness is nowhere on par with a technical camera. It is widely known that the 17mm TS-E has softer corners than the 24mm TS-E, and Gerald has also confirmed that the 23HR has a sharper corner than the 24mm TS-E.

    For long exposure photographers, filter system is also something that has to be considered carefully. For the 17mm TS-E the only reliable choice without light leakage issues is the huge monstrous 145mm Fotodiox filter system with very limited choices of filters, and there is no centerfilter to counter any vignetting caused by the ND filter. For the 23HR on the other hand, we have mature and reliable 100mm Lee filter systems, as well as 95mm ND filters from Singh-Ray to couple with the centerfilter to offset vignetting. If you ask any landscape photographer what they feel about trying to get appropriate filters for bulb lenses (such like the Canon 17mm TS-E) most of their answers would be "annoying".

    When it all comes down to image quality, I know that for my dedicated long exposure shots the IQ260 cannot produce better images than a D800E / D5300 can (3 stops less DR, darkframe NR, tiling issue, no real Live View, alignment issue for bracketing etc), so that is regarded as sunk cost. Lesson learnt. Hit taken. Deceiving myself that "come on, it's the largest sensor" didn't work for long. I had to move to something that yields better image quality. After all, the most satisfying achievement is the pixel peeping enjoyment, rather than the EXIF data showing off that my size is bigger. To me at this stage the larger Dalsa CCD sensors are kinda similar as picking the film in 8x10 - older technology, less flexibility. You will know by yourself whether there is a bitter pill to swallow when you compare your images side by side against a D800E (e.g. shadow noise).

    MFDB is not cheap. We all suffer from diminishing returns. It's the inferno after all. Phase One's upgrading policy would not let anyone to do a downgrade. You can only move from a lower pixel count towards a higher or equal pixel count. Any "downgrade / cross-grade" would incur a significant loss for the buyer. For new buyers I would say that at this stage indeed the 44x33mm CMOS back would be perhaps the safest choice as an upgrade path would always be open should there be another fullframe CMOS back announced in the near future. If you pick the 60 MP Dalsa or even the 80 MP Dalsa, there is a risk that you lose the choice to move to a fullframe CMOS sensor with lower pixel count (for technical camera compatibility) *if* there is such one.
    Last edited by voidshatter; 28th February 2015 at 23:37.

  50. #200
    Senior Member Dogs857's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Thursday Island - Australia
    Posts
    307
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Should I or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by voidshatter View Post
    For new buyers I would say that at this stage indeed the 44x33mm CMOS back would be perhaps the safest choice as an upgrade path would always be open should there be another fullframe CMOS back announced in the near future. If you pick the 60 MP Dalsa or even the 80 MP Dalsa, there is a risk that you lose the choice to move to a fullframe CMOS sensor with lower pixel count (for technical camera compatibility) *if* there is such one.
    This is probably one of the truest statements I have seen in a while. Especially given the experience of people like the OP who have had issues trying to cross from the 180 to the 250
    Stop chasing gear, start chasing photos instead.

    Jeff, but my friends call me Dogs

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
  •