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!

Should I or not?

Pradeep

Member
Thanks guys. The last four posts have given me a lot of comfort. I did not want to suffer from seller's remorse, looks like that is not going to happen. It is heartening to learn that I am not the only one who has had doubts.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
If you're going on a Safari I recommend keeping a 150-600 or something of the sort "glued" to your 1Dx. I'd also buy the longest lens you could comfortable handhold for the 645Z.

I did a Safari in Uganda last year and it was one of the coolest things I've done in my life. The longest lens I had at the time was a 180mm but my driver was very skilled at getting me reasonably close to the animals for photo opportunities. It also helps to have a very skilled driver when it comes to tracking. Certain animals (usually the predators) are very elusive and rarely sleep in the same area two nights in a row. Also expect to go out several days if able at different times of the day. It's ridiculous how large some of the parks are. It may take a minimum of 30-45 minutes just to get to where the animals are from the lodges (depending on the park.)
 
Thanks guys. The last four posts have given me a lot of comfort. I did not want to suffer from seller's remorse, looks like that is not going to happen. It is heartening to learn that I am not the only one who has had doubts.
If you fully understand what is sunk cost and know what is a rational decision then you would not be bothered by seller's remorse. I have never had a single moment of regret since dumping my IQ260, because it is not suitable for my use cases. I actually had relief instead as I no longer had to face something that depreciates every single day without bringing me the images I want. CCD had its golden days and will eventually go. Even the site owner (Guy) is using the Sony IMX094 CMOS sensor (A7R). You know which is the future. (645Z/IQ250 is a larger version of the A7R/D800E.) If these are not enough, keep in mind that Antony Spencer (who shot the advertisement image for the IQ260 and Phase One A-series) dumped the IQ280 and settled with a D800 (Sony IMX094 CMOS sensor). CCD for me is just like film - they could make nice images but are technically obsolete for me. It is pretty easy for me to ignore the 645 format CCDs, just as easy as ignoring the 8x10 films. ;)
 
Last edited:

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
If you fully understand what is sunk cost and know what is a rational decision then you would not be bothered by seller's remorse. I have never had a single moment of regret since dumping my IQ260, because it is not suitable for my use cases. I actually had relief instead as I no longer had to face something that depreciates every single day without bringing me the images I want. CCD had its golden days and will eventually go. Even the site owner (Guy) is using the Sony IMX094 CMOS sensor (A7R). You know which is the future. (645Z/IQ250 is a larger version of the A7R/D800E.) If these are not enough, I would let you know that Antony Spencer (who shot the advertisement image for the IQ260 and Phase One A-series) dumped the IQ280 and settled with a D800 (Sony IMX094 CMOS sensor).
Hold on pal. Do NOT use me in your lame sales pitch for CMOS. You have no ****ing idea why i sold my CCD sensor backs. This really pisses me off. My wife has breast, lung and brain cancer for the last 5 years and I sold it all to pay her medical bills which runs in to hundreds of thousands. So do not use me as your escape goat to bolster your pitch for CMOS. Do NOT ever assume anything in life. I earned my respect here your still working on it and using me is not the route to take.

I still hold the controls here watch your step. BTW using other on what they do with there buy and sell stuff is there freaking business and there reasons for it are not for you to use in a random rant. People buy and sell for many reasons and half the time it has noting to do with if it works or not.

Frankly I would take a long step back from the keyboard and readjust your attitude here as your not making friends.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Pradeep, good choice. I love my645d. Pentax has some nice 300mm and a 400 mm telephotos. The 1.4x teleconverter is also of high quality--the 2x is not.
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
I am so sick of the claim CMOS is better than CCD which has been repetitively commented all over the places.
The 2 best photographers @ GetDPI, in my opinion, Ed and Dan, using CCD sensor.
We've had a forum "Fun with MF images". If you want to convince me CMOS is better than CCD by showing me your own artistic pictures that better than both of them, I will sell all my CCD DB and never look back.
Please understand, I am not biased and I don't have to as I've currently owned both CMOS and CCD cameras. I've had to be honest I don't see the difference in IQ. It's just one has a better ISO. That's it!

Best regards
Pramote
 

JohnnyR

Member
I am so sick of the claim CMOS is better than CCD which has been repetitively commented all over the places.
The 2 best photographers @ GetDPI, in my opinion, Ed and Dan, using CCD sensor.
We've had a forum "Fun with MF images". If you want to convince me CMOS is better than CCD by showing me your own artistic pictures that better than both of them, I will sell all my CCD DB and never look back.
Please understand, I am not biased and I don't have to as I've currently owned both CMOS and CCD cameras. I've had to be honest I don't see the difference in IQ. It's just one has a better ISO. That's it!

Best regards
Pramote
I don't think CMOS just has a better ISO.
One month ago I decided to step into the MF and since the 135 system has completely taken over by CMOS , I have few knowledge on CCD so I looked for answers. Some 'veteran' photographers told me that
' CCD has unique colors which CMOS will never be able to present',
'CCD preserves more high light details',
'CCD has more color sensitivity',
&'CCD is of course better than CMOS because CCD is more expensive( to be mass-produced)' etc.
Fortunately I didn't easily believe them and got quite opposite opinions by simply checking DXO for data.Then I saw Void's detailed tests on CCD/sony CMOS backs which totally crush those fallacies. Personally I believe in his tests because he's got really concrete evidence and responsible attitude ,most of all , I could find nothing to contradict except for superstition. It is the digital world now and a camera sensor can be surely quantified to numbers.
As a hesitating newbie , I do need these tests and plainspoken conclusions. More or less , we enter MF for its superior I.Q ! One day we will say good bye to BKT , HDR and they will be all replaced by simply moving sliders in ACR.
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
I don't think CMOS just has a better ISO.
One month ago I decided to step into the MF and since the 135 system has completely taken over by CMOS , I have few knowledge on CCD so I looked for answers. Some 'veteran' photographers told me that
' CCD has unique colors which CMOS will never be able to present',
'CCD preserves more high light details',
'CCD has more color sensitivity',
&'CCD is of course better than CMOS because CCD is more expensive( to be mass-produced)' etc.
Fortunately I didn't easily believe them and got quite opposite opinions by simply checking DXO for data.Then I saw Void's detailed tests on CCD/sony CMOS backs which totally crush those fallacies. Personally I believe in his tests because he's got really concrete evidence and responsible attitude ,most of all , I could find nothing to contradict except for superstition. It is the digital world now and a camera sensor can be surely quantified to numbers.
As a hesitating newbie , I do need these tests and plainspoken conclusions. More or less , we enter MF for its superior I.Q ! One day we will say good bye to BKT , HDR and they will be all replaced by simply moving sliders in ACR.
I've owned IQ 180/260 for many years since they came out. I've also owned Leica S2, P1 25+ and Pentax 645Z. I've still owned them all. Each ones of them have their own advantages.
It's very hard to look at the spec. on paper or few picture tests and tell which ones can produce better IQ. Even renting for few days can't tell you. You've had to own them for a while and get use to them to be able to understand and appreciate their capability. I even bought the IQ180 back after I traded the previous one with IQ260.
What I've found out is that it's not cameras but myself to make good pictures or not. Most of the time I am the one who should be blamed when I did not take good pictures.
I like to look at the big "Print", not "Monitor". I can say again, you can't tell the difference in IQ for above cameras I mentioned except IQ180 which has had better IQ @ 44" print or bigger.
It's hard to believe but I even like the color from P 25+ more than Pentax 645Z. I will keep it forever. It's still very good at its based ISO.
The IQ250 will be obsolete in few years and everyone will start to talk about new sensors. On and on and on....
Look at Michael Kenna's work and you will realize photography is not just only sharp image or perfect shadow and highlight. It's way much more than that.
I've just want to share my experience. What you see on monitor is not what you see on the prints.

Best regards,
Pramote
 
Last edited:

kdphotography

Well-known member
.... It is the digital world now and a camera sensor can be surely quantified to numbers.....
As a hesitating newbie , I do need these tests and plainspoken conclusions.
What you have plainly missed (as well as many other armchair quarterbacks happy with sitting at home with DxO and shooting brickwalls) is that photography is not "quantifiable to numbers."

Please understand that this is not a personal attack---less someone else start throwing DxO charts and graphs all over this forum again. But one simply cannot feed a photographic image into a computer reader and numbers come out with objective numbered rankings. Surely I jest, but I'm hoping that you understand (I know the GetDPI family "gets-it") that there is an inherently subjective nature to photography that cannot be circumvented by the latest technology or maybe as simplistically as choosing Nikon over Canon.

One tool may help you see your vision, maybe create it more easily, and hopefully give you more enjoyment as a photographer. But there is no guarantee that having the latest or greatest will be that panacea that you had hoped for. And if you read the first posting in this thread---I think you will see that borne out.

There is a saying now with the advent of digital and the internet: "I read it on the internet so it must be true." If this is a philosophy you're comfortable with, my best advice to a new photographer is to not spend all that money on MFDB (and especially not on a new expensive CMOS MFDB :rolleyes:), or even on a DSLR. And anyone who knows me, knows this must be serious advice if one of the top self-proclaimed GetDPI enablers is telling you not to spend money on new gear. :loco: :D Simply stay at home. Immerse yourself in DxO. Spend time around home building new brick walls around the garden....

Or, you can actually go out and photograph something. I mean, isn't that the reason you got involved in photography---the reason to buy a camera system(s) in the first place? That's where the real experience and the "a-ha" moments come from---not from all the cerebral vomiting, DxO charts, and brick walls. Go out and join a medium format digital workshop. Shoot with different systems. Note that there is a recent thread on how many camera systems folks here have: there is no jack of all trades, just a bunch of different systems for different purposes and pure photographic enjoyment.

Try different MFDB systems. I know this may be difficult for some, but this does require shutting off the computer and going outside and photographing something other than a brick wall. :rolleyes: There is no magic bullet---no magic CMOS MFDB that solves world hunger and climate warming as you might have been mistakenly led to believe. There are many different camera bodies that may effect your decision as well. Go out and get actual experience with medium format digital camera systems to find out what suits you best and tickles your fancy.

I have rarely (if ever) felt constrained by my IQ180. I enjoy this process called photography, working with my cameras strengths and limitations, to create images, and complete projects for my clients. Medium format digital is this very small subset of select photographers where presumably image quality is pretty important. I think it's pretty disingenuous to now think that CCD MFDBs are less capable than CMOS. Pick a tool for the overall system that suits you best. You just may find yourself with both CCD and CMOS cameras, and joining the throngs who have more than one camera.

Go out and create a beautiful, stunning photographic image. Any MFDB can print it large. I promise you, no one will say it is any less beautiful when they find out which sensor type you used.

:) ken

p.s. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. I'm going out to look at boats and bikinis. ;)
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Personally I believe in his tests because he's got really concrete evidence and responsible attitude ,most of all , I could find nothing to contradict except for superstition. It is the digital world now and a camera sensor can be surely quantified to numbers.
He also has an agenda. His test are extreme and they are biased. I am not saying there is not a technical advantage to CMOS over CCD, there is and DXO Mark scores shows that (imaging system have always been quantified by numbers), but what is the actual significance? Voidshatter has a very narrow view of photography that is extreme and his conclusions are not really saying anything beyond examples of confirmation bias and WYSIATI (What You See Is All There Is).

Now, I actually work at a college imaging center doing both applied photography and scientific imaging. I have a science degree in photography. I have been in this field for 30 years with publications and exhibitions of my work. You certainly do not have to take my word for anything. but there are a lot folks folks that throw numbers and "tests" around and sound very impressive to people entering photography. How to separate the wheat from the chaff can be hard, including those that mystify the CCD. Nothing is ever as great or as bad as people may claim. Photography is rather mundane and the "truth" is never amazing nor dire as people will have you believe.
 

darr

Well-known member
This thread's moved on since I last looked.

Foveon shooter here (SD1M, DPM 1,2,3).

But, I also shoot CCD and CMOS and find no difference between them except when it is the camera I used to make the keeper shot. Post-processing is something that should not be ignored as I find it can make the difference between a good shot and a great shot regardless of sensor. My 2 cents. Now I am going back under my rock.

Kind regards,
Darr
 

danlindberg

Well-known member
'Should I or not?'

Keep it and treasure it. Learn its strengths and enjoy a tremendous piece of technology in your hands. Smile at the extreme resolution that is the envy of many. Go with the instinct why you bought it in the first place. Make it work and you'll see that the investment was worth while.
 
Top