Live view on a technical camera - possible?

[torger]

Those are good points. I didn't think about them.

I originally started this thread with the idea in mind that I would need a med format back to mount on a technical or a view camera that would provide me with the types of movements that would expand the possibilities. As I started looking into what's available out there, I'm beginning to think that I'm not too sure about the need for a med format back or even a technical camera.

Are there any compelling reasons to shoot with a med format back provided you're fine with the 40-50mp resolution that modern 35mm digitals provide? What exactly does one gain with a med format back?

If you like the color out of the backs and their bundled software it's hard to recreate the same look with different gear. Some find the "look" of medium format to be the key reason for using it. However the look argument is stronger when shooting short depth of field where the lens rendering becomes more apparent. In technical photography one often uses deep depth of fields ("whole image sharp") and then the lens rendering is much less apparent.

Despite that some still claim that the look, superior colors, more "depth" better "pop" or whatever is the key reason, even when looking at down-sized heavily post-processed web images. It's a valid reason for some but not all of us see it. To me medium format does not have any special magic like this, but it may have to you. By watching images and testing gear you can find out what you think yourself.

Another key reason is resolving power. Say you want the highest resolution you can get with the sharpest lenses, then a tech cam with a recent back and lenses is the answer. It's like if you shoot large format film yesterday and want a digital drop-in replacement, then a tech cam is the answer.

However, say that you come to the same conclusion like me, that you don't really need medium format for the "look", and resolution-wise the 135 high res cameras is enough for you, what are then the reasons?

If you like to work with tilt and shift and doing so with many different focal lengths you have more lenses to choose from in the tech cam ranges, and very high quality ones too. With the 135 systems you typically have only a limited choice of tilt shift lenses, and many of the lenses are limited in how you can combine tilt and shift. With a view camera you get tilt, swing, shift/rise/fall on all lenses as it's built into the body. (Note that some tech cameras are more limited than others when it comes to movements).

Another emotional reason that some of us responds to is the "zen factor", a tech cam is slow to work with, you can't shoot some suddenly appearing wildlife, and if you use a view camera type you can't really even hand-hold it. This narrows down your shooting to certain genres and to some of us this makes us more relaxed and focused on the type of photography we want to do. Others may instead get frustrated by the slowness and if you are one of those you should choose a different camera type. When I'm out photographing in nature my highest pace is about two photographs per hour. I could shoot much faster of course, but when you need to unpack and mount the camera for each shot you really only take out the camera if the shot is going to count. I like that.

I also like the "low tech" feel of those mechanical cameras, it's much like shooting film with the exception that you don't need to scan and dust-spot. That low tech feel is something that make some of us feel more connected to the scene than if using the latest Japanese electronic prosumer product. That too is very personal though and to some it doesn't matter.

There's also a "classic car" factor to it, it can be nice to use something different with a high tactile feel. These are very fine all-metal mechanical instruments and it's a joy to play with the gears compared to the fiddly 135 gear (especially when it comes to tilt-shift mechanics).

Previously a reason to use medium format was that you didn't feel the urge to upgrade that often, and indeed there are people that still use their 10+ year old backs, and that's rarely the case with135. I don't think this is a valid argument any longer though as medium format seems to be almost as quickly changing as 135 these days and those in the forefront upgrade often.

Oh, if you like to use legacy cameras for the look or fun an advantage with a digital back is that you can mount it on many different cameras.

I've been heard complaining a bit in this thread and that's because I feel the "zen" part of tech cams is slowly disappearing. It's becoming more electronic and more software-focused. There's still many choices around though with varying degrees of zen

 

[jlm]

a bit of info:

the canon TS lenses are quite good, (i use the 17 and 24mm, so they are wide and very wide, useful for interiors). they have one axis for tilt and one for shift, and you can un-couple the axes easily. you can also rotate the orientation of the axes as well. to use them on the sony, you need an adapter (mine has a tripod mount); they fit right on the 5D, obviously.

if you use an L-plate on the sony, it will interfere with the adapter tripod mount, in which case, remove the L-plate and use the axes rotation function on the lens to rotate the camera

showing the 17mm (with huge polarizer fitted)

 

[Abstraction]

If you like the color out of the backs and their bundled software it's hard to recreate the same look with different gear. Some find the "look" of medium format to be the key reason for using it. However the look argument is stronger when shooting short depth of field where the lens rendering becomes more apparent. In technical photography one often uses deep depth of fields ("whole image sharp") and then the lens rendering is much less apparent.

Despite that some still claim that the look, superior colors, more "depth" better "pop" or whatever is the key reason, even when looking at down-sized heavily post-processed web images. It's a valid reason for some but not all of us see it. To me medium format does not have any special magic like this, but it may have to you. By watching images and testing gear you can find out what you think yourself.

Another key reason is resolving power. Say you want the highest resolution you can get with the sharpest lenses, then a tech cam with a recent back and lenses is the answer. It's like if you shoot large format film yesterday and want a digital drop-in replacement, then a tech cam is the answer.

However, say that you come to the same conclusion like me, that you don't really need medium format for the "look", and resolution-wise the 135 high res cameras is enough for you, what are then the reasons?

If you like to work with tilt and shift and doing so with many different focal lengths you have more lenses to choose from in the tech cam ranges, and very high quality ones too. With the 135 systems you typically have only a limited choice of tilt shift lenses, and many of the lenses are limited in how you can combine tilt and shift. With a view camera you get tilt, swing, shift/rise/fall on all lenses as it's built into the body. (Note that some tech cameras are more limited than others when it comes to movements).

Another emotional reason that some of us responds to is the "zen factor", a tech cam is slow to work with, you can't shoot some suddenly appearing wildlife, and if you use a view camera type you can't really even hand-hold it. This narrows down your shooting to certain genres and to some of us this makes us more relaxed and focused on the type of photography we want to do. Others may instead get frustrated by the slowness and if you are one of those you should choose a different camera type. When I'm out photographing in nature my highest pace is about two photographs per hour. I could shoot much faster of course, but when you need to unpack and mount the camera for each shot you really only take out the camera if the shot is going to count. I like that.

I also like the "low tech" feel of those mechanical cameras, it's much like shooting film with the exception that you don't need to scan and dust-spot. That low tech feel is something that make some of us feel more connected to the scene than if using the latest Japanese electronic prosumer product. That too is very personal though and to some it doesn't matter.

There's also a "classic car" factor to it, it can be nice to use something different with a high tactile feel. These are very fine all-metal mechanical instruments and it's a joy to play with the gears compared to the fiddly 135 gear (especially when it comes to tilt-shift mechanics).

Previously a reason to use medium format was that you didn't feel the urge to upgrade that often, and indeed there are people that still use their 10+ year old backs, and that's rarely the case with135. I don't think this is a valid argument any longer though as medium format seems to be almost as quickly changing as 135 these days and those in the forefront upgrade often.

Oh, if you like to use legacy cameras for the look or fun an advantage with a digital back is that you can mount it on many different cameras.

I've been heard complaining a bit in this thread and that's because I feel the "zen" part of tech cams is slowly disappearing. It's becoming more electronic and more software-focused. There's still many choices around though with varying degrees of zen

I'm not a zen type of a guy. The type of work I do is already slow and methodical. I've only recently moved to digital, I had been shooting with film for many years before. I shot film with med format and it made sense with film because the bigger piece of film = bigger enlargements, smaller grain, etc. It's not as cut and dry with digital. Sometimes I see the med format "look" and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I think that the "med format look" is there due to the fact that the photographers who shoot med format tend to be better photographers, rather than the equipment being the reason.

I had never shot large format, so I figured that given there's no large format digital and since the cost of film has skyrocketed in the past 10 years or so and the processing infrastructure disappeared, I'd go with a tech camera and a digital back. However, upon reading the replies here and the side conversations that arose, I'm beginning to think that perhaps there's no justification in going with a med format camera and/or back. There are TSE lenses to use on my Canon natively. Alternatively, there are a number of view/tech cameras that will accommodate my camera and provide the movements. Additionally, it would be way cheaper to get a Sony mirrorless, which would open up other tech camera horizons. So, it's not clear as to what would be the best way to go. Not only are there so many options, but there's tremendous overlap among the options out there.

 

[torger]

Well, the whole segment is in a state of flux as I see it, so if you don't have very specific quality requirements or are attracted by the handling I think it will be very hard to motivate the high cost, instead of expanding on your Canon system or get a A7r-II and use that "and wait and see" what happens in the tech cam genre the coming years.

If you need the quality and field of view of a Rodenstock 32-HR and an 60MP fullframe CCD combo you can't really match that quality with any other system today, and you can push it with the 100MP CMOS too although I don't recommend it. These are hugely expensive systems though and you can get pretty close for a lot less these days, much closer than you could just 3-4 years ago.

 

[epforever]

A question, how fast shutter speeds can you do with the Copal shutters with your H5D-50? Does it accept the full 1/500 without sync issues?

An advantage with the Hassy Kodak-based backs compared to Phase One's is that you don't need a wakeup trigger, but it seems to come at the cost that sync errors (with resulting magenta cast issues) can occur for the fastest shutter speeds. My H4D-50 can do down to 1/125 on the Copal without issues, but at 1/250 and 1/500 it can fail. (Note: this is only a problem with Copal mechanical sync, no issues when shooting on the Hassy body of course.)

To me it's not a problem as I'm always shooting at relative small apertures and thus get longer shutter speeds, and would I need shorter due to extreme bright conditions I could always use an ND filter. However if you shoot hand-held wide open it could be. I know of at least one Alpa user that shot hand-held wide open (f/4 on digarons) and had severe sync issues at 1/500 with a Hasselblad back he tried, I forgot which model it was though.

Yes, at higher speeds the Hasselblad backs need a wake-up just like the Phase do. I find that above, say, 1/60, there's a slight magenta cast and a little noise without triggering the back first. (It will sync at all shutter speeds, but at the fastest shutter speeds it shows those issues.) It worsens at faster shutter speeds, i.e., more noticeable at 1/125 and 1/250 and 1/500. So at those higher shutter speeds, I connect a cable release directly to the back, trigger it first (say, at a shutter speeds of 2-4 sec., set on the back), and then fire the lens while the back is firing. And the exposures are very clean. For handholding, I hold the cable connected to the back in my left hand, along with the SWA's left grip. I fire it, then fire the lens, just as on a tripod.

 

[epforever]

Are there any compelling reasons to shoot with a med format back provided you're fine with the 40-50mp resolution that modern 35mm digitals provide? What exactly does one gain with a med format back?

1) Working with a fine instrument rather than plastic junk.

2) Much larger viewfinder. Not to be underestimated as a benefit.

3) Flash sync at all shutter speeds. Also not to be underestimated, if you light your shots. Easier to balance with or overpower ambient. Requires less strobe power. Recycle times are shorter. Flash durations are shorter. Strobe batteries (when required) last longer.

4) Feels better in the hands. Less portable than 35mm (bigger, heavier), but feels solid.

5) Better lenses across the board, rather than merely certain standouts. I can see an immediately apparent difference just looking through the viewfinder with Hasselblad H and V lenses, compared to 35mm. Zooming in on the files, the difference is even more obvious.

6) Easier tethering, in my experience.

7) Better skintones and color. Richer, more robust files that withstand more abuse in post.

8) Your camera will be better than your clients' (whether or not this should matter is another discussion).

9) Modularity. Back can be placed on other cameras, including LF and homemade cameras. Viewfinder can be swapped out for waist level, etc.

10) Easier to clean the sensor, since the back is removable.

11) 4:3 format rather than the uglier, less useful 3:2.

There are more, but that's what comes to mind at the moment.

 

[Abstraction]

Let's look at these points from strictly my own perspective.

1) Working with a fine instrument rather than plastic junk. - I've shot with many film cameras including med format. Either a camera does what it's supposed to do or it doesn't. The fine instrument argument doesn't really do anything for me because I see cameras as tools, nothing more.

2) Much larger viewfinder. Not to be underestimated as a benefit. - I agree. That's really nice.

3) Flash sync at all shutter speeds. Also not to be underestimated, if you light your shots. Easier to balance with or overpower ambient. Requires less strobe power. Recycle times are shorter. Flash durations are shorter. Strobe batteries (when required) last longer. - I agree, but it doesn't apply to what I do

4) Feels better in the hands. Less portable than 35mm (bigger, heavier), but feels solid. - The feel is the same as a fine instrument argument. It's not an issue with me.

5) Better lenses across the board, rather than merely certain standouts. I can see an immediately apparent difference just looking through the viewfinder with Hasselblad H and V lenses, compared to 35mm. Zooming in on the files, the difference is even more obvious. - I would probably say "more consistent" lenses based on my experience med format during the film days.

6) Easier tethering, in my experience. - I haven't had any problems, but ok

7) Better skintones and color. Richer, more robust files that withstand more abuse in post. - Would that still be true with CMOS backs? How would files from those backs be any different from any other file?

8) Your camera will be better than your clients' (whether or not this should matter is another discussion). - Non starter.

9) Modularity. Back can be placed on other cameras, including LF and homemade cameras. Viewfinder can be swapped out for waist level, etc. - That's the thing that drew me in at first, but seeing how there are so many options available out there, with tech cameras accommodating 35mm format cameras, it's no longer cut and dry. Sure, the back is more flexible, but there are ways to accommodate the existing equipment

10) Easier to clean the sensor, since the back is removable. - Yes, albeit I never had to clean the sensor. The cameras sensor self cleaning does a good enough job.

11) 4:3 format rather than the uglier, less useful 3:2. - Yes, I agree.

There are more, but that's what comes to mind at the moment.

The reasons are there, but they're not compelling enough to justify the costs. If the price of entry was a few thousand dollars, then these reasons would be enough of an incentive. However, with the price of entry starting at around $15k for a used back, which will not be able to accommodate long exposures (a must for me), it makes me pause. Furthermore, it seems to me that if I were to jump into the med format, it makes sense to do so at FF. Otherwise, the gains become marginal. So now, the price of entry jumps to about $25k for a used back. Start adding a camera and lenses and all the accessories and you're way into the mid $30k. If you're shooting professionally, then you need your backup equipment and unless you're willing to use smaller formats for backup, that's another $30k. That's an insane amount of money for a camera system.

When I shot film professionally, I got FULLY equipped for well south of $10k. Even adjusted for inflation, that's still south of $20k in today's $$. At that time, the reasons for going med format were much clearer - there was no way to attach a 35mm camera to a view camera and the difference in quality going from 35mm to 645 even was BIG. Is med format digital becoming more like a Rolex? More jewelry than a watch?

 

[torger]

For the record, my H4D-50 body is more plastic-fantastic (hello popup flash) than a Canon 1D body. The Linhof gearing is surely much nicer than the tiny sloppy TS-E wheels though.

When it comes to the color/skintone argument my view is that it's 90% about camera color profiles, and certainly not anything about sensor size as such. The Hasselblad profiles are very well designed, just as Phase One and Leaf. It's subjective rather than accurate color, but it seems to suit the typical "professional taste" very very well. When I compare a Hasselblad Phocus rendering from my Hassy with say an A7r-II with Lightroom's default rendering the Hassy is simply vastly superior. However, as I prefer making own camera profilels I've done that for both cameras and then I can't say the advantage is there. Very few users make own profiles though and it's quite hard to make good ones, so most get what the standard software provides and there I think one can say that the MFD manufacturers have clear lead, especially since most 135 users choose to run third-party software like Lightroom which typically has considerably worse color than the native software.

When MFD did not have CMOS the CCD vs CMOS was a strong debate. It was mainly Dalsa CCD vs Sony CMOS. Now when also MFD uses Sony CMOS that debate has moved to the background, but there are still those that think the CCDs have that extra little something. CCDs have a different noise profile for sure which may lead to some difference in texture (less "plastic" perhaps) but it's only a pixel peep thing as far as I can see. Anyway the thing is that you'll see both opinions on CCD vs CMOS and MFD CMOS vs 135 CMOS, that there is a big difference and that there is not. You must see for yourself and make up your own mind. I suggest to do blind testing if you can, and not concentrate too much on pixel peep but rather the overall look.

I've seen people come from the A7r-II and move to a 22 megapixel CCD and think they did a vast improvement in image quality. That does happen, but it's not common. There are also those that say that 135 has gotten so good so in order to get a meaningful improvement you must go for the best MFD can offer, which is 100MP CMOS today.

Concerning the costs of second hand backs it seems to me that your prices are way too high. Where have you got them from? Look here for example: Hasselblad CPO a H4D-60 is $13k, a H4D-50 like I have is $7k. If you're prepared to buy in the private market you may possible get even better deals.

Phase One is not the brand if you want most value for money. However you should be able to get a P65+ for about $10k, and despite its age it has virtually identical image quality to a IQ360, minus long exposure.

 

[mjr]

Urgh, these threads are always a little ridiculous, there are as many solutions to what you want to create as there are people, every single person wants something different.

If you have your own requirements then fine, buy what fits them, it certainly won't matter to anyone else what you choose to work with, same as what I choose doesn't matter to anyone but me. The hardest part if narrowing down exactly what you want and building from there, if it doesn't warrant medium format then fine.

For me, I wrote a list of what I needed to achieve and then worked out how to get there, I shoot commercially so I listen to my clients and then provide them with what they need, that for me includes mf for many reasons. I have files on my computer from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica and Phase One, they are all taken and processed in my style and I know very easily which camera shot which image. Mpx mean very little to me and are certainly not indicative of quality of final output, I have files from my P25+ 5 years ago that have a more pleasing look to them than anything I took in 2 years of using Nikon and the best Zeiss glass, they just stand out to me. The Leica S is another level all together, a crop sensor and "gasp" a ccd at that, in the studio under strobes for business portraits there is nothing I have tried that comes close to matching the smoothness and transitions from light to dark. The IQ260 is a tool for a job, one that is very lucrative for me, with the Rodenstock glass the images are sharp, detailed and crisp, long exposures, interiors with movements, I can't get that combination from any other camera I have access too, so it is the right thing for me.

I shoot outside a lot for personal projects, I don't want a camera with a bellows, it's just not what I want for bad weather, strong winds etc. so the cambo works well with movements built in the lens mount, it's still a wind sock but less so than a bellows camera would be so that works for me. As a commercial photographer, cost is much less of an issue but still important, if my business wasn't making enough to support the equipment I wanted then I'd have some serious issues to deal with. My equipment pays for itself many times over.

When I bought the Leica I tested every other camera I could get my hands on and regardless of mpx count, the final image was just stunning for what I shoot, it fitted perfectly. If I didn't need to cover a different style of photography that the Leica just doesn't excel at then I'd still have it over any 35mm system, regardless of manufacturer, if final image quality counts then the differences are plain to see for me. Once I used mf in my own way then it wasn't a question of what would do the job adequately for cheaper, the only question was how hard do I need to work to get it, I don't care if the clients see a difference, I see it, I produce a lot of stock libraries for clients and I make a big point of the fact that every image I supply will look as good at 800px wide on the web as it does printed 5m wide on a display stand, there is no doubt that could be covered adequately with any system available today but I want to feel confident with what I produce and being different to everyone with a Canon 6d and a couple of lenses is important to me and my clients. With the tech cam last week, I had my client with me for half an hour amazed at what the camera could do, that for me is very valuable and helps to separate me from my competition, even though I am more expensive in a lot of cases.

Anyway, I hope you find what will do the job for you and enjoy using it, guaranteed my experiences will have very little in common with yours or anyone elses.

Mat

 

[torger]

I shoot outside a lot for personal projects, I don't want a camera with a bellows, it's just not what I want for bad weather, strong winds etc. so the cambo works well with movements built in the lens mount, it's still a wind sock but less so than a bellows camera would be so that works for me.

The bellows is not really an issue in wind unless it's very strong. The thing is that these cameras are small 6x9cm cameras, so it's not an 8x10" type of bellows here. I've tried up to about 10m/s with my Techno. Sure if I'm going to shoot in storm I'd prefer a hand-holdable camera. I'd worry more about the sliding back than the bellows though. If you need a focusing cloth due to poor light it's also a mess to handle in strong winds of course.

With the Cambo and high precision focusing rings you don't need the ground glass, that can be a big advantage when there's no live view. The largest drawback of view cameras has been the ground glass, which is changing now with the CMOS backs, but then there's the wide angle issues so it's not so straight-forward drop in replacement as it could have been.

 

[mjr]

I agree that bellows is more of a personal issue for me than necessarily a practical one, it's just something that if I can get away without using one then all the better for me. For landscape work where my aim is to get everything sharp then I have zero focussing issues, f11 at 5m with a 32mm and you can point it where you like, everything from average tripod height is in focus, rear rise/fall helps with composition and it's that easy. I can set it at home and wander about all day without needing to refocus. The 50mm and 90mm I have with tilt are a revelation, 1 degree of tilt at f11 and again, I can cover pretty much everything. Obviously that is just one discipline but even with tighter compositions, I never need more than a couple of shots to get things right, I am sure that is quicker than using a sliding back. It's just a different way of working to ground glass, not necessarily better or worse, just good for me.

Mat

 

[torger]

Yes sliding back + ground glass is slow. Some use infinity stops on the rail to focus in the way you suggest so it's possible also on the view camera, but I do that slow ground glass focusing for each shot . Compared to how incredibly slow I am in the rest it doesn't make that big of a difference to me

 

[torger]

While handling was "it" to me, it seems only a clear difference in image quality will convince Abstraction. This is one thread that highlights small vs large and how easy some see differences and other have a harder time to do it:

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/55802-iq180-vs-up-res-a7r2.html

As you can see in that thread some of us don't really see much differences apart from the resolution, while others claim to see vast superiority in color tonality. Take a look at those images. If you see a clear superiority unrelated to resolution I think it's likely that you will appreciate medium format and you don't really need to worry about what's going on in the smaller formats. If you instead don't think the difference is there and feel that the cost need to be justified with a clear improvement in quality, well, then there will be an issue.

The thread also highlights that you can't take my word or any other's word on image quality, as we can sit and look at the same pictures and draw entirely different conclusions. You need to see for yourself.

 

[Abstraction]

While handling was "it" to me, it seems only a clear difference in image quality will convince Abstraction. This is one thread that highlights small vs large and how easy some see differences and other have a harder time to do it:

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/55802-iq180-vs-up-res-a7r2.html

As you can see in that thread some of us don't really see much differences apart from the resolution, while others claim to see vast superiority in color tonality. Take a look at those images. If you see a clear superiority unrelated to resolution I think it's likely that you will appreciate medium format and you don't really need to worry about what's going on in the smaller formats. If you instead don't think the difference is there and feel that the cost need to be justified with a clear improvement in quality, well, then there will be an issue.

The thread also highlights that you can't take my word or any other's word on image quality, as we can sit and look at the same pictures and draw entirely different conclusions. You need to see for yourself.

Thank you for that link. That's a bingo! I do see a difference, the IQ180 is better, but it's not THAT much better to justify the cost. I think I can come close with color profile adjustments where you'd be hard pressed to tell a difference.

So much great info on this thread and in these forums in general. A great, big thanks to everyone who took the time to reply. My horizons have been widened.

 

[kdphotography]

I've always said, "The photography isn't done until it's printed."

Internet and web images don't count, imho.

Print it and then compare.

 

[mjr]

I must admit to finding 100% crop comparisons to be telling a very small part of the story and largely pointless. Bottom line is that the uprezzed Sony crop didn't look anywhere near as good as the IQ180 shot, no point ignoring the resolution because the 180 comes with all the resolution and uprezzing a file doesn't give you the same thing so there's no competition in that regard. If the results are good enough for the individual then all good but it's no good thinking that you can get the same thing. I also think it's pointless because if a lesser quality uprezzed file is good enough then why bother with the A7R2 and not get a lower model and uprez that.

I also think that a lot of people look at the 100% crop and make judgements but surely at some point the complete image is more important? I look at some of the recent comparisons on LL for example and it baffles me, what's the point of it all, buy what you want and shoot with it! I loved that image that recently won the press photography awards, amazing shot full of fear and desperation and noise and softness and converted to b&w presumably to deal with the colour noise and I couldn't care less, it does what I wish a lot more photography did, certainly my own, and that is tell a story in a beautiful and touching way. http://www.worldpressphoto.org/

I can imagine some people in that position, "hold the baby in the barbwire again, I need to get my tripod, keep it still I need a low iso because otherwise it will have too much noise and it won't be as good" "Don't move, let me change lenses, this one has better microcontrast if I view at 200% and the shot will be so much better for it" etc. etc. Haha!

 

[Jeffrey]

Shoot what you can afford to either rent or purchase. After trying various products, shoot the camera/lens/back you prefer and then go and have a great time shooting.

Opinions and judgements are just that. I'd rather shoot and have a lot of fun than critique what others are shooting, for I'm not much interested in what equipment anyone else is shooting.

 

[Abstraction]

Shoot what you can afford to either rent or purchase. After trying various products, shoot the camera/lens/back you prefer and then go and have a great time shooting.

Opinions and judgements are just that. I'd rather shoot and have a lot of fun than critique what others are shooting, for I'm not much interested in what equipment anyone else is shooting.

It's not a question of caring what anyone else is shooting or what equipment they're using, it's trying to figure out whether something is really worth a very substantial investment. It's all very subjective, and this thread has been incredibly helpful in getting to the bottom of things.

 

[alajuela]

I've always said, "The photography isn't done until it's printed."

Internet and web images don't count, imho.

Print it and then compare.

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:clap::lecture::clap:

 

[torger]

Printing often reduces the difference between systems, demonstrated for example here:

https://luminous-landscape.com/kidding/

but it of course depends on how large you print, the subject and how close you inspect the print.

If you want to investigate "the look" on a more global scale I think watching on screen can make valid comparisons, although its more satisfying to look at prints.

In any case it's wise to think all the way to your end product. The most obvious is evaluating the need of a certain resolution.