Live view on a technical camera - possible?

[GrahamWelland]

Printing is the great leveller I find. However, if you print BIG (which for me is always) then the MF advantage shows through. I see no point whatsoever printing 10x8 or even 11 x 17in with my MF digital files unless specifically asked to do so. For me it's always 24in minimums when I print (unless it's mono or exhibition fibre from my 3800). At that size the differences make themselves known. Below 11x17 tbh I could keep to my 12/16mp (or even less) cameras as they will look superb at that size regardless.

Btw, I agree with Michael's assessment. Printing really shows up that for most images we're more than adequately covered by cameras 3-4 years old with 2-3 generations of sensor behind our current megapixel behemoths. That said, print 'em big and the differences show themselves quickly. For tonality it's even visible on smaller images once you've become accustomed to seeing the MF advantage.

 

[torger]

Blind testing prints is difficult to do, but interesting. In addition to imaging software development I've worked with hifi audio, and the "we see/hear what we want" psychological factor is stronger than most think. It's easier to arrange blind tests with audio as you can't "cheat" by bringing out a loupe or look for specific identifiers like aperture shape in a bokeh highlight or lens distortion etc. Switching loudspeaker cables many claim they hear the difference, but when doing it in the blind they no longer can.

At some point I'd like to do the same with medium format vs smaller formats to really find out which factors that count, both out of curiosity and as it would be useful knowledge when making imaging software. I'm most interested in the tonality aspect as I've spent a large part of last year making camera profiling software. For many I suppose it's better to not do it as the results could be unsettling

There are some mysteries to me, for example that many are able to see very subtle tonality differences in the advantage of MFD, but still are unable to see the artifacts from crosstalk on tech wides, which indeed primarily affects tonality. Another example is that so few seems to notice the effects of the built-in noise reductions in C1 / Phocus that indeed seemingly improves dynamic range but also hurt both tonality and detail (a classic tradeoff). If we can detect such fine tonality details why are discussions around those other things lacking? As a man of science I can not avoid thinking that there's some bias going on. I saw this phenomenon in audio as well, people that said they could hear differences between cables but still missed obvious issues due to bad listening room acoustics for example.

For most users it doesn't matter of course, just get what you like and if it's placebo in it or not it doesn't matter. When you make software trying to "unlock the secrets" of color and tonality it's however more important to know what's real and what's imagined, and I cannot deny that I find it a bit frustrating at times that some claim "huge differences" between two images and I stare and I stare and don't see it.

 

[Pelorus]

These matters of "bias" as you describe them Anders are, in my view, fascinating insights into the functioning of the human mind/brain. If you take the explanation of these phenomena to the extreme then you get into the realms of the radical constructivists.

Regardless of the explanation that the scientists might choose, there is also a case of "whatever makes you happy".

Blind testing prints is difficult to do, but interesting. In addition to imaging software development I've worked with hifi audio, and the "we see/hear what we want" psychological factor is stronger than most think. It's easier to arrange blind tests with audio as you can't "cheat" by bringing out a loupe or look for specific identifiers like aperture shape in a bokeh highlight or lens distortion etc. Switching loudspeaker cables many claim they hear the difference, but when doing it in the blind they no longer can.

At some point I'd like to do the same with medium format vs smaller formats to really find out which factors that count, both out of curiosity and as it would be useful knowledge when making imaging software. I'm most interested in the tonality aspect as I've spent a large part of last year making camera profiling software. For many I suppose it's better to not do it as the results could be unsettling

There are some mysteries to me, for example that many are able to see very subtle tonality differences in the advantage of MFD, but still are unable to see the artifacts from crosstalk on tech wides, which indeed primarily affects tonality. Another example is that so few seems to notice the effects of the built-in noise reductions in C1 / Phocus that indeed seemingly improves dynamic range but also hurt both tonality and detail (a classic tradeoff). If we can detect such fine tonality details why are discussions around those other things lacking? As a man of science I can not avoid thinking that there's some bias going on. I saw this phenomenon in audio as well, people that said they could hear differences between cables but still missed obvious issues due to bad listening room acoustics for example.

For most users it doesn't matter of course, just get what you like and if it's placebo in it or not it doesn't matter. When you make software trying to "unlock the secrets" of color and tonality it's however more important to know what's real and what's imagined, and I cannot deny that I find it a bit frustrating at times that some claim "huge differences" between two images and I stare and I stare and don't see it.

 

[mjr]

This is indeed interesting Anders, I can understand your frustrations, they must be similar to mine when I read that I'm wrong and the differences I see are not there!

Ultimately we all pay our money and make our choice, we are all free to buy and use whatever we want and if we are happy with the route we take then it makes absolutely no difference. Whether a specific piece of equipment produces "better" images than another, cheaper or more expensive, in my opinion is largely down to who's standing behind it, I very rarely see stunning images from anyone who continually posts crops of images as comparisons, that is something I can definitely say, even if I can't technically describe what differences i see in my own images produced with my own cameras and instead trust my eyes. I guess it has always been the same and always will be!

Mat

 

[subrata1965]

Is it possible to convert USB 3.0 to HDMI w/o Windows or Mac OS, for those of us on Credo 50 / IQ150 and not fortunate to have HDMI output? I was looking at this.

Subrata

It's all just about having options and tools---that suits your own personal needs.

At the recent CI in Carmel, we got to try the SmallHD hdmi monitors using the new IQ3 100MP cmos MFDB---comparing both the 7" and the 5" monitors, along with the Sidefinder. I give the nod to the SmallHD 501 5" monitor with the Sidefinder option, mainly for portability and the ability to avoid potential screen glare issues. I haven't had the chance to tether with the Surface Pro (to compare live view), but if the goal is simply composition and focus, the HDMI monitor is a winner. The focus assist tool on the SmallHD is a great help. The SmallHD offers several tools that are easily selected. The 501 monitor with Sidefinder pack easily and I can see this finding a permanent spot in my bag over the larger and heavier Surface Pro option. HDMI makes all the difference here.

I'm pleased to report that the lessons on clamping with the Surface Pro also apply to the SmallHD monitor/Sidefinder. As pictured here, I'm using a two foot micro HDMI to HDMI cable (gets rid of the Phase adapter), Manfrotto Nano clamp, Giottos mini 1304 ballhead, AS compatible low profile top clamp, with a AS plate attached to the Sidefinder. This setup is easily attached to the tripod leg and allows easy adjustment of the eyepiece for viewing. Manual focus with a tech cam doesn't get easier than this! :thumbup: Coming soon from B&H is a short coiled (12" to 24") right angle micro HDMI to HDMI cord and a retractable micro HDMI to HMDI cord---I think these will pack easier yet.

kenView attachment 116897

 

[GrahamWelland]

LV from C1 to an external hdmi monitor? Sure but I suspect that's not what you want (especially since LV on a Surface Pro is going to be better than hdmi).

Natve usb 3 to hdmi without a processor? I think not.

 

[subrata1965]

LV from C1 to an external hdmi monitor? Sure but I suspect that's not what you want (especially since LV on a Surface Pro is going to be better than hdmi).

Natve usb 3 to hdmi without a processor? I think not.

Yes, I was thinking about Native usb 3 (Credo 50) to HDMI. As getting older, bigger the screen is better.

 

[torger]

This is indeed interesting Anders, I can understand your frustrations, they must be similar to mine when I read that I'm wrong and the differences I see are not there!

Ultimately we all pay our money and make our choice, we are all free to buy and use whatever we want and if we are happy with the route we take then it makes absolutely no difference. Whether a specific piece of equipment produces "better" images than another, cheaper or more expensive, in my opinion is largely down to who's standing behind it, I very rarely see stunning images from anyone who continually posts crops of images as comparisons, that is something I can definitely say, even if I can't technically describe what differences i see in my own images produced with my own cameras and instead trust my eyes. I guess it has always been the same and always will be!

That is true. My goal is when someone asks "is medium format worth it" and look into buying gear 5x the cost of 135 format to give as good advice as I can, what I like is happy and satisfied photographers, I don't care about dealers making a sale or not. As much as I'd like a fellow MFD shooter I'm not an MFD sales person, I'm a fellow photographer and I want to provide the best help I can. In that context I think it's important that users get to know that there's both shall we say a "scientific view" and an "esoteric view" on image quality and that if you're the scientific kind and get recommendations from the esoteric there's a major risk that you get disappointed, as you will likely not see the "huge differences" claimed by the esoteric.

The scientific view is not only bound to enthusiasts that like to post crops and discuss technology, I see also many professionals which make good images that have a scientific view and it seems to me that fewer in that group go for medium format, although some still do. It should be said that most that make the jump to a smaller format actually think that MFD provides better image quality, it obviously does in resolution for the very least if you use the lastest gear, but they don't find the difference to be valuable enough. Some wants the best possible image quality no matter the cost, and others make a tradeoff. For professionals the cost as such is usually a smaller factor (if it's a factor you probably don't have a profitable business), it's much about workflow. Among enthusiasts and semi-pros price/performance is a strong factor.

As a sidenote I also think that the "brick wall shooters" provide lots of valuable quantifiable product information in forums like this. I love the images threads in this forum, but if it wasn't for the technical stuff I wouldn't be here. Many of those that do provide quantifiable information are professionals too. My eyes was opened for the fantastic tech cam compatibility of the Hasselblad Kodak-based backs not through dealers (they didn't say or didn't know) but through forum users that provided me with raw files. This forum helped me understand that the SK35 really has only 75mm image circle of high quality, quantifiable by crops, so I knew that before buying so I knew what I would get. Before getting crops so I could see with my own eyes I just heard lose opinions that it was either great or bad. I've learnt to recognize the users that always says everything is super-great, but somehow they still make upgrades or replacements; while those users help in keeping up a general positive atmosphere in the forum (which is nice), they're not really that helpful for users that want solid information on camera system performance. Sharing crops helps much more in my humble opinion, and describe the good and the bad about handling. Some only provide the good, I don't know if it's fanboyism or if people are afraid to sound negative, but if we really want to help eachother we need to share the full view.

 

[mjr]

Hi Anders

I think we're talking about slightly different things here, those that constantly post crops appear much less motivated by being able to say that this piece of equipment or that piece of equipment work best in these circumstances, thus providing valuable information to others, they appear far more interested in saying that this cheaper piece of equipment I bought is better/equal/acceptably less good than this other more expensive piece of equipment, something I find fairly ridiculous because everyone wants different things. Very rarely do people say, I have been using this kit and have actually found that for me, in my circumstances, I can get away with using this instead.

I find some technical aspects to be extremely valuable and I read a huge amount when I am purchasing gear because believe it or not, I would be much happier handing over cash for a Canon 5ds or a D810 than for a Phase One but for me they don't come close in many areas apart from cost and in some cases size, if they did for me then I'd own them, I have tested them all. So I guess I come in the category of image quality being more important than all else, I have no problem with that. What I find less interesting are the technical posts that state based on theory or science that some equipment will not work or be less useable without it actually having been used, the whole series of "the sky is falling" posts on cmos mfd performance being a case in point, as many on here attest, in actual use, things aren't anywhere near as bad as we would be led to believe. I don't find those things being helpful to other photographers, scientific or not.

I too really appreciate the detail that comes from people showing performance of equipment, I read a lot about performance of the lenses I have, I appreciate those posts because they are saying, here is a shot at maximum movements and I can decide if that is acceptable to me, rather than saying, look how bad this shot is taken with mf and how much better it is with 35mm.

I'm fairly self assured so whilst I said that I can be frustrated because people are saying the differences I see aren't real, it's not really true, I accept my testing methods and my view of the final image above anyone else's view so I'm not really frustrated, it doesn't matter. I always love seeing photographers getting a huge amount of pleasure from whatever they use, I know how good it feels to be using what you want to use, maybe I don't understand the constant comparisons because I think those people would be better served by choosing their equipment and then using the hell out if it!

It's good that we see things in different ways, it's what makes the world go round.

Have a good Sunday.

Mat

 

[torger]

Cameras have a tendency to fanboyism, probably all of us has a little of it, at test is if you get upset if someone trash-talks your camera brand. Although I think I have only little of it, I'm not 100% immune. My heart beats a little extra for Linhof. Anyway the large cost difference in this case gives it even more focus and people trash-talk either 135 or MFD depending on where their heart lies.

Regarding the tech cam camp I think however that we give the manufacturers a lot of love without getting much back. Sure the body manufacturers like Cambo, Arca-Swiss, Alpa, Linhof, Silvestri do the best they can to adapt, and they do pretty well with their latest move is to support 135 systems and SLR lenses on their tech cams as digital backs are by many seen as too expensive and/or too incompatible.

But really, the last digital back that had a sensor that was designed for tech cam use was the P45+, and then Hassy 50MP Kodaks. Then came microlenses, light shields disappeared and sensors got tile patterns. Some of it can be covered up in software pretty well (which C1 eventually did), some can't. The situation got worse with the 80MP Dalsas and the Sony CMOS sensors.

In a fully healthy tech cam world Schneider and Copal would still be manufactured, the Schneider option would be there to us that prefer a more traditional approach and also appreciate the lower weight and cost. Partly due to sensor incompatibility it was pushed out of the market. The digital back manufacturers would provide, like they did before in the Kodak days, backs that was optimized for SLR use and backs that were optimized for tech cam use. Now it's only the former and they don't even do testing (interested dealers do). The large levels of crosstalk is indeed only visible to the average eye in certain conditions, but no sensor+lens combination is deliberately designed that way. If anything it's a 100% clear indication that they were not made to match, and it's thus obvious that tech cams is not part of the equation. It's adapt or die for them. Do I think digital back manufacturers should get a lot of love while they ignore to fulfill the needs of tech cams? Not really.

Do I think the sky is falling? For the traditional large format style photography I think it is, although slowly. There's always the second hand market. Tech cams will probably survive well into the future in one way or another, but I don't really know how they will look. I worry most for Linhof though, that still lacks electronic features such as EF adapters and shutter units, but I guess they're niched enough to survive on their 4x5" camera production alone.

 

[Geoff]

At the risk of taking this off-topic, can we look for a moment at the act of photographing? There are different modes of working, and they aren't the same. There is a difference between "I see and take" (say from the DSLR mode of working), versus "I see and think about it before taking", requiring a separate operation between first seeing and composing, and the act of taking the image.

The first, "see and take", is quick and very popular. It allows for captures to (in theory) replicate one's immediate views. This is strongly desired evidenced by the millions of "snapshot" artists capturing everything as they see it.

"See and think" is different, calling for thoughtful reconsideration of the image prior to taking the shot. This was the way of working with ground glass and slow film, and encouraged composition as part of the art. It also played out on waist level finders (with GG) in the Rollei/Hassy world, and may help explain why those were so beloved.

Today's world offers other ways of reviewing: chimping is common, but after the shot. IPhones and live view allow for almost instantaneous viewing and shooting. They are also super-fast: see it, move the camera around to compose, and shoot. In theory, this is the holy grail.

Is all this new-found speed helping us get better photographs? We are getting more for sure. If a tech camera becomes more like an iPhone, its convenient, but what happens to pondering? Its a needed part of the photographic experience, and instant information does not help.

 

[Abstraction]

At the risk of taking this off-topic, can we look for a moment at the act of photographing? There are different modes of working, and they aren't the same. There is a difference between "I see and take" (say from the DSLR mode of working), versus "I see and think about it before taking", requiring a separate operation between first seeing and composing, and the act of taking the image.

The first, "see and take", is quick and very popular. It allows for captures to (in theory) replicate one's immediate views. This is strongly desired evidenced by the millions of "snapshot" artists capturing everything as they see it.

"See and think" is different, calling for thoughtful reconsideration of the image prior to taking the shot. This was the way of working with ground glass and slow film, and encouraged composition as part of the art. It also played out on waist level finders (with GG) in the Rollei/Hassy world, and may help explain why those were so beloved.

Today's world offers other ways of reviewing: chimping is common, but after the shot. IPhones and live view allow for almost instantaneous viewing and shooting. They are also super-fast: see it, move the camera around to compose, and shoot. In theory, this is the holy grail.

Is all this new-found speed helping us get better photographs? We are getting more for sure. If a tech camera becomes more like an iPhone, its convenient, but what happens to pondering? Its a needed part of the photographic experience, and instant information does not help.

I disagree. Pondering and being deliberate can be easily separated from the equipment used. You can be just as slow and deliberate with a 4/3 as you can be with a tech or a view camera. The tech and view cameras offer advantages of movements, while the 4/3 or a 135 offers the advantage of speed. However, that speed potential is just that - a potential. It's a potential that can be realized or not. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should or you will.

I don't buy the whole premise that you need to buy Type A equipment because it forces you to slow down. You shouldn't need equipment to force you to slow down. The equipment should be there to help you do the things you need to do, not to dictate or to force you to shoot a certain way. If you're forced to shoot a certain way, that means you're experiencing the limitations of technology. That's fine, you can work around those limitations, but it doesn't mean you should embrace those limitations for their own sake.

 

[torger]

I think both views are valid, and it's a personal thing. Of course you're right that you can use a speedy DSLR like a large format camera if you like to, and indeed that was how I did most of the time when I used my Canon for landscape photography. But it's about what you enjoy using and what you resonate with. Of course there's no difference to drive a classic car or my tiny Toyota when going from A-to-B, you'll get there with both alternatives. Still some find enjoyment of the classic car, despite that it may actually be less comfortable.

I get a bit stressed by all this electronics and hunt for ever-improving image quality and convenient features. Reacting against it, making photographs in a classic very basic way, I see the image projected on the ground glass make my movements, put a sensor there and register the image, done.

I also got a bit stressed from having a camera that instantly can react to all opportunities. I like to narrow it down. Of course I could do it in my mind only, but it just feels better to have a system that so well aligns with how I want to make images.

And one thing I'm 100% sure about, once medium format cameras work the same as smaller cameras and the same price difference is still maintained, then I'm out. I do not believe that you sacrifice any meaningful image quality by choosing the smaller format these days, and if handling is just too similar the motivation to stay in won't be there for me any longer. (I must have a reason to not continue to use my current system first though...)

I'm very rational and "scientific" when it comes to image quality, but when it comes to handling and shooting process I'm the emotional type. I don't make commercial photography though, my intention is to make art, and using gear that I like how it handles and shoots help me getting "in the mood", get more connected to the scene etc. This is something personal, no rights or wrongs. Would I do commercial photography I would probably take on a more rational approach there and look at what solution that would be most efficient to get results for the client.

If gear doesn't matter at all to you, congratulations that's good, then you only need to look at raw performance and what you actually need in technical terms. With your very rational view on gear I'm very surprised that you are still shooting film. Why is that?

Oh, I'm a little bit of both also in this. I don't like to be limited by focal lengths, I don't like to be limited in movements. To my Linhof Techno I have 35, 47, 60, 72, 90, 120 and 180 all Schneider Digitar, thanks to their compact symmetrical design and lens boards it all fits in my camera backpack which I carry with me. So from my shooting perspective my camera is more flexible in opportunities than any other system I could come up with. But I can't shoot hand-held, and I can't shoot any suddenly appearing wild-life, and it feels rather relaxing.

(In theory medium format should be the gear that you need to update the least often, and thus a good alternative to tech-stressed guys like myself. However I don't think it has worked out so well with tech cams, it's changing quicker than most formats I've seen. But it's still true in one sense, the gear I have today matches or even exceeds 4x5" in quality quite well, and who needs more? So you don't really need to upgrade if you can battle the temptation.)

 

[Jon Warwick]

I do not believe that you sacrifice any meaningful image quality by choosing the smaller format these days,

I find your comments interesting, given I am actively looking to improve image quality from my current 24mp Leica M240 by investigating medium format. I see a very obvious difference in IQ between the M240 and the S series cameras (38mp) in terms of acuity and 3D'ness starting at print sizes of 30"x20", no matter what I do to the files, so was curious what print sizes you're looking at? Admittedly, resolution is not overly dissimilar, but I find the smoothness and 3Dness and acuity off the S (the "look") is very different!

 

[torger]

I find your comments interesting, given I am actively looking to improve image quality from my current 24mp Leica M240 by investigating medium format. I see a very obvious difference in IQ between the M240 and the S series cameras (38mp) in terms of acuity and 3D'ness starting at print sizes of 30"x20", no matter what I do to the files, so was curious what print sizes you're looking at? Admittedly, resolution is not overly dissimilar, but I find the smoothness and 3Dness and acuity off the S (the "look") is very different!

Of course, it depends on what you compare. In my case it would be my 50 megapixel Hasselblad H4D-50 with a 50 megapixel Canon 5Ds, or possibly 42 megapixel A7r-II if I need mirrorless. All cameras with my own custom profiles, makes cameras look very similar in color, modern sensors are these days much more similar than they once was. The reason I'm using the Hasselblad digital back rather than one of those two is not image quality, but because only that back do my camera and lenses any good.

I'm not against megapixels, in fact I'd like say 400-600 or so to really kill aliasing for good, but there's the law of diminishing returns and if we compare against the highest resolution the 135 formats can offer I think we are in that space.

Sure if you are shooting very detailed subjects and print very big (such as cityscapes), getting the highest possible resolution, or stitch, doesn't hurt. If you have that clear special need it shouldn't be that hard to figure out the best gear for the job. Personally I mostly shoot intimate landscapes scenes and thus don't have a particular need for ultra-high resolution.

I also think it matters a lot if we shoot with deep or shallow depth of field. If we shoot shallow depth of field the bokeh and lens look comes into play at a whole other level, and Leica of course has a very good reputation there. I'm not going to argue against that because I have too little experience from them. I do like the rendering of classic Hassy V and RZ lenses on film which I've seen some more of. However in tech cam photography it's most often about "the whole scene sharp" and then lens rendering is much less a factor, although I surely like the foggy bokeh of the simple symmetric Schneiders I use (I don't particularly like the shape of the Copal aperture though).

Anyway, if we in general think medium format will make our images stand out more because it's medium format, then I think we're mistaken. As an image quality separator it's become less and less relevant, simply because the smaller formats, if handled well, are so good these days. I see nowadays more often than before the argument that the standout is also about impressing clients with that you use expensive rare gear, and it may actually be a valid point in some cases, but it feels a bit tragic that it's even brought to the table.

There are other opinions of course and it will never stop being controversial. The best advice I can give is that everyone should look with their own eyes and not trust the opinions of others, just see it as interesting food for thought. If you do see the "3Dness and smoothness" and do see them as significant and important and unattainable from a smaller formats, then do go for it.

 

[Abstraction]

If gear doesn't matter at all to you, congratulations that's good, then you only need to look at raw performance and what you actually need in technical terms. With your very rational view on gear I'm very surprised that you are still shooting film. Why is that?

I assume that was addressed to me.

I don't shoot film anymore, but I wish I did. I viewed film and I still do, as a palette. Each film has a different look and you could pick and choose the best film to help you express your vision. The reason I don't shoot film anymore is because the film processing infrastructure has disappeared for the most part. I shot slide film and I had found that Cibachrome prints best reflected the slide and hence, my original vision. However, you'd be hard pressed to find a Cibachrome printer anymore. Lots of film choices have disappeared as well. So, I moved to digital because it was pointless to continue shooting film. If you want your slides printed, they either make an internegative and print it optically, which defeats the whole point of shooting slide film or they scan the slide and print it digitally, which defeats the whole point of shooting film at all.

So, I did what I thought was the most rational thing: I switched to digital.

My decision to stay with film or to switch to digital had very little to do with emotional attachments. I liked shooting film because it allowed me to pick and choose my color palette. I switched to digital when those choices were no longer there.

 

[mjr]

I see nowadays more often than before the argument that the standout is also about impressing clients with that you use expensive rare gear, and it may actually be a valid point in some cases, but it feels a bit tragic that it's even brought to the table.

Ha! You feel like that because you don't have clients Anders, which means that to those that do, whether you think it's tragic or not is irrelevant, it seems odd to just dismiss it because you don't experience it. My client last week was amazed at what can be done with a tech camera, he had never heard of one before, would it sway him to pay me even if my images were not good? Of course not, does it add to the whole package, the feeling that he is paying for something of value, absolutely.

John, for what it's worth, I see the same things you do in MF so I guess we are both delusional! I see it in P25+ images shot with schneider lenses on an Alpa, with the Leica S and with the IQ260, there is no comparison for me. I saw far far better image quality from the 36mp S than I did from the Canon with 50mp, for me it has nothing to do with the amount of pixels on the chip, my conclusion is it's all about the size of chip combined with the lenses and the processing, which of those steps has the biggest impact is not important to me, the fact that the differences are there is. Trust your own eyes and go with what makes you happy.

Mat

 

[Abstraction]

Ha! You feel like that because you don't have clients Anders, which means that to those that do, whether you think it's tragic or not is irrelevant, it seems odd to just dismiss it because you don't experience it. My client last week was amazed at what can be done with a tech camera, he had never heard of one before, would it sway him to pay me even if my images were not good? Of course not, does it add to the whole package, the feeling that he is paying for something of value, absolutely.

John, for what it's worth, I see the same things you do in MF so I guess we are both delusional! I see it in P25+ images shot with schneider lenses on an Alpa, with the Leica S and with the IQ260, there is no comparison for me. I saw far far better image quality from the 36mp S than I did from the Canon with 50mp, for me it has nothing to do with the amount of pixels on the chip, my conclusion is it's all about the size of chip combined with the lenses and the processing, which of those steps has the biggest impact is not important to me, the fact that the differences are there is. Trust your own eyes and go with what makes you happy.

Mat

I had clients and my stance on the subject was that it's none of their business which camera I use - I use whatever camera I deem fit for the job. Either they liked the work I produced or they didn't. If they didn't, the type of camera I used to create substandard work wouldn't matter to them one bit, just as the type of camera that I used to produce exceptional work wouldn't matter to them either.

As far as the differences are concerned, judging from the RAW files I have seen, downloaded from this site and some others, I am pretty confident saying that whereas the differences are there, they're not significant enough to justify the price delta. As I had mentioned earlier, if the price of entry was a few thousand dollars, I would say that the image quality difference justifies the price of entry. As it stands, I don't see the need for MF unless you're doing extremely specialized work or you need the 80 or 100 pixels to do the mega enlargements. In other words, from what I can see, MF is not just a niche market, it's a shrinking niche market.

 

[mjr]

I had clients and my stance on the subject was that it's none of their business which camera I use - I use whatever camera I deem fit for the job. Either they liked the work I produced or they didn't. If they didn't, the type of camera I used to create substandard work wouldn't matter to them one bit, just as the type of camera that I used to produce exceptional work wouldn't matter to them either.

Abstraction, you do realise that different markets have different clients, I work in a very large area with a few clients that would in the wider world be considered small businesses, it's remote here and everyone has a camera and thinks they are a photographer. Where as in some places a client will want you to do no more than provide the goods, in areas like mine, it's personal relationships that count and anything that can be done to create that interest and bond is very important, hence me turning up with a tech camera and the client saying wow, what's that, is a good thing.

It's great that you have come to the conclusion that it's not worth it to you, you have gone from wanting info on only full frame backs with live view to realising that there is only one really effective cmos model for that and the cost of entry for someone with no existing equipment is huge, to finding a solution to allow you to use your existing kit and get what you want, I doubt you'd have even been thinking about at all had you known this at the start. There are a good number of photographers though who have build up a system or built up clients that appreciate their work for whom it is valid and to them, benefits out way costs and it's all good. Whether you decide to buy mf or not is of no relevance to me personally, I hope that what you do buy gives you pleasure and this process has been rewarding in some way.

Mat

 

[torger]

I liked shooting film because it allowed me to pick and choose my color palette.

Thanks, I was curious to know. Actually I guessed palette was the reason, and I too think it's quite attractive. Post-processing is not something I particularly enjoy or want to be a focus in my photography, so to work with a number of fixed presets is quite nice. I see many photographers use film for this reason, to concentrate on what the see as the core of photography.

However you can do fixed presets also with digital too of course, it's just like you can use a DSLR like a large format camera, it's about discipline. I've spent quite some time to reach a disciplined post-processing routine and I think I'm just about there.

Film responds to color quite differently from a camera though so you really can't get the same look with digital as with film, so if you really like the film palette there's no good substitute. In balance of things I prefer to have the digital control of colors though, the possibilities to make a personal design which is in line with your "message" are considerably better, and indeed making realistic colors is easier with digital too.

Unfortunately color software for digital cameras is under-developed, that's why I made my own DCamProf. Digital photographers don't really have the tools they could have had to control color, and I think that's a reason why there's such strong "mythology" around colors from various cameras, as most don't really know what sits in the software and what sits in the hardware. Most sits in software, but if you don't have the tools to control it it doesn't really matter.

There's another thing about film. We've been talking about clients and status of camera systems. When it comes to art photography, at least here in Europe, film has a special status. The audience thinks it's more "honest", although of course many in actuality scan and post-process digitally just as if it was a digital image. In the era of "photoshoped" (it's a verb now) commercial photography the audience long for something more pure and traditional. So for my genre if I was about to think about status I should look into large format film, preferably 10x8", that has much higher status than the latest coolest digital camera. I'm today just not skilled enough to work with film though, I shoot too little, and digital gives me margins for errors and possibility to correct mistakes at the scene. I'm not ruling out that I will turn to film in the future though, although I hope I won't do it for "status" reasons...