Site Sponsors
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9
Results 401 to 432 of 432

Thread: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

  1. #401
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Hi,

    That's a nice weight, I struggle a lot coming down to 10.0 kg, independent of what I carry.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Caulfeild-Browne View Post
    I use a Manfrotto bag that contains the XF/IQ3 100 with the SK 80 mm lens fitted, along with the SK 55 mm, SK35 mm and SK 120 mm. Also several filters and spare batteries. It weighs 7.8 kg and I've never had a carry-on problem with any airline - and I've used a lot. Tripod and other gear goes in checked baggage.

  2. #402
    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: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi Marc,

    Your postings are always an interesting reads, thanks a lot!

    Regarding the "Duh" argument it is not about size, but more about weight and the 10 kg carry on limit on flights. If you fly business you can have two carry ons, but I don't fly business. The other way to see it, the A7rII kit covers my needs from 16-400 mm within those 10 kg. I don't know if a modern camera is lighter than the old Blad.

    Regarding the Nyköping image, if you are referring to this:
    Sony A7rII P45+ (stitched)
    This was shot on the A7rII with the Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII. With that lens I achieved the composition I wanted, with a single exposure and without moving back. Histogram and auto exposure lured me into 1/400 s, so the image is a bit low on exposure. Do again, do it right! This was shot on the P45+ with the Distagon 40 at f/11. I needed to move back 3-5 m to get the both buildings into the image. That also meant the park bench is hanging into the image. I considered moving it, but it is quite heavy. I could turn the camera vertically and stitch, that would give me a better composition. I didn't think about it. Do again, do it right!

    Best regards
    Erik
    No, the image I am referencing was the stand alone one where you shot some extra sky and merged it. I think that has the sort of MFD "presence" some of us are talking about. Again, if you don't see it then it is obviously your work and your call.

    The two side-by-side images you commented on above are more about field-of-view, composition and perspective where a 24mm TS lens out-maneuvered a fixed 40mm (Duh!). But if you look at the spire of the main subject building, the P45 looks way better IMO. Also, I find the composition of the Hassey shot to be just as pleasing as the other because the lamp-post is placed between the buildings.

    Would you P45+ back work on a 501 or 503 body? That'd cut a lot of weight immediately.

    - Marc

  3. #403
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    As a final note, I have some issues with folks complaining about other folks tests.
    I do not complain about your tests. I just think many of them are not really meaningful (often you work against your equipment - often you stop down to f16 and, again, you use a software that is effectively limiting with regard to the real potential of your P45+).
    But the "Weldon-Challenge" was about exploring the possiblities and strength of your P45+. Instead of finding out what your P45+ can do for you you made yet another questionable comparison.
    The challenge, by the way, was to show the "contrast" of the two buildings ... and my reading of the challenge is that the task is also content-related... so the challenge also requires some kind of pictorial concept. It's not just about capturing two buildings next to each other... IMO.
    Anyway... I think instead of posting graphs and comparisons you could spend your time much better by really learning Capture One and by really exploring the possibilities of your P45+. Looking at your photos taken with the P45+ I think you never did.

    As a finale note: for me personally most of the tests posted on forums are not really important. They may give an impression but I rarely draw final conclusions from these tests...
    Last edited by thomas; 9th April 2016 at 15:03.
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #404
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Dear Sir,

    I don't stop down to f/16, that is something you claim. A totally ignorant statement on your part. As a matter of fact, I have a lot of issues with aliasing, both on the P45+ and the Sony A7rII. Shooting f/16 essentially eliminates aliasing on the P45+. In general I shoot f/11 on the P45+, as I find it a decent compromise between DoF, focusing accuracy and diffraction. So you make ignorant claims.

    I have shot some single picture shot at f/16 to get sufficient DoF that I have published, but that doesn't mean that I am a frequent user of f/16. Would I do that I wouldn't see aliasing, which I do. The Weldon Challenge images were shot at f/11 on the P45+ and at f/8 - f11 on the Sony. On the Sony I use shifts, so I use very peripheral parts of the image so it is prudent to stop down. Unshifted images on the Sony are at f/8, equivalent aperture to f/11 on the P45+.

    The approach taken on the Weldon Challenge is essentially to:

    • Find my point of view
    • Shoot it with the P45+
    • Shoot it with the A7rII


    It would be hard to learn the benefits of the P45+ without having comparison stuff, wouldn't it?

    So, you feel that I need to learn Capture One to make best use of the P45+? So, you mean that medium format needs Capture One for decent results. Feel a lot of pity for Leica S users who don't have access to a superior image processing application…

    I do see some benefits to Capture One, like somewhat better suppression of demosaic artefacts than LR, but as you claim that I shoot f/16 that should not be an issue, as f/16 eliminates aliasing on the P45+. But, I of course don't shoot at f/16, unless forced to.

    Let's put it this way, I got a nice challenge and I try to meet it. I shoot both P45+ and Sony A7rII and I do share the images here (*): http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Ar...ldonChallenge/

    I don't mind comments, but I don't like untrue statements about my shooting practices about which you can now little. And please share your own images.

    Best regards
    Erik

    (*) Many of the images are DNGs. I generally prefer DNG to proprietary raw, but the main reason is that a disproportionate part of my images with the P45+ are stitched and I do that stitching in Lightroom, that delivers a DNG image. The alternative would be TIFF. For plain images I normally share IIQ on the P45+ whenever practical.

    Ps

    You don't happen to have an alter egon called ThoMas on LuLa?











    Quote Originally Posted by thomas View Post
    I do not complain about your tests. I just think many of them are not really meaningful (often you work against your equipment - often you stop down to f16 and, again, you use a software that is effectively limiting with regard to the real potential of your P45+).
    But the "Weldon-Challenge" was about exploring the possiblities and strength of your P45+. Instead of finding out what your P45+ can do for you you made yet another questionable comparison.
    The challenge, by the way, was to show the "contrast" of the two buildings ... and my reading of the challenge is that the task is also content-related... so the challenge also requires some kind of pictorial concept. It's not just about capturing two buildings next to each other... IMO.
    Anyway... I think instead of posting graphs and comparisons you could spend your time much better by really learning Capture One and by really exploring the possibilities of your P45+. Looking at your photos taken with the P45+ I think you never did.

    As a finale note: for me personally most of the tests posted on forums are not really important. They may give an impression but I rately draw final conclusions from these tests...

  5. #405
    Senior Member stephengilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Posts
    2,275
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    A question that interests me is whether there is a compelling reason to beat everything to death?

    I understand that some people are just trolls; that they post things designed to annoy others for the "fun" of it.

    But it seems to me that more often people are just compulsive. They can't stop arguing about things, and since there's always someone else with a point that really needs to be made, these threads live on and on.

    Now we're talking about the weight of different systems and whether we fly coach or business class? Sounds like a compelling reason to me.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #406
    Senior Subscriber Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Englewood, CO
    Posts
    2,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1248

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    I am surprised this post has lasted this long.

    I think the title should be changed to "Is there a compelling reason to move to Phase One P45+?"

  7. #407
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Hi Marc,

    I didn't know which image you referred to. I think it was this one:


    Here is another, in the same ilk:


    The last two years about half of my shooting was with the P45+ and I got some nice images, I think. But, oddly enough, none of those have made it to the wall. I generally had the Hasselblad/P45+ combo with me on travel, but for some reason none of those pictures made it to the wall. One reason may be that the P45+ did not make it to those magic places. Or could be that I am shooting everything between fisheye and 800 mm telephoto. I don't know. A lot of nice images on the P45+, anyway:


    Here is one image that didn't make it to the wall:


    Here is another:


    On the other hand, these images made it to the wall:
    Sony Alpha 99 with 24-70/2.8 zoom at 60 mm


    Sony Alpha 99 with Sigma 10/2.8 APS-C fisheye (using 10 MP APS-C crop)


    Sony Alpha 99 with 70-400/4-5.6 at 140 mm


    That challenge Weldon suggested is an interesting learning experience. I have just been trough day one, lets see what the future brings.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    No, the image I am referencing was the stand alone one where you shot some extra sky and merged it. I think that has the sort of MFD "presence" some of us are talking about. Again, if you don't see it then it is obviously your work and your call.

    The two side-by-side images you commented on above are more about field-of-view, composition and perspective where a 24mm TS lens out-maneuvered a fixed 40mm (Duh!). But if you look at the spire of the main subject building, the P45 looks way better IMO. Also, I find the composition of the Hassey shot to be just as pleasing as the other because the lamp-post is placed between the buildings.

    Would you P45+ back work on a 501 or 503 body? That'd cut a lot of weight immediately.

    - Marc
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 9th April 2016 at 14:05.

  8. #408
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Hi,

    An interesting suggestion and quite relevant. The way I see it there are two positions:

    • One is that MFD as such has great benefits regardless of sensor and resolution
    • Another is that high end MFD has significant benefits over smaller sensors


    Potential first time buyers are probable entering at low level, going for an older sensor like the P45+ or cropped frame sensors. Obviously, the latest sensors like the IQ3 100MP have the benefit of both resolution and image size.

    With the P45+ it is possible to build a decent MFD system at reasonable cost. It is worth discussing the advantages/disadvantages of such a system over modern 24x36 mm technology.

    I don't think that anyone doubts the benefits of high end MFD, especially not with latest generation MFD using the same basic technology as say Nikon or Sony. A valid question may be how large you need to print to have significant benefits from the larger image size?

    Best regards
    Erik



    Quote Originally Posted by Landscapelover View Post
    I am surprised this post has lasted this long.

    I think the title should be changed to "Is there a compelling reason to move to Phase One P45+?"

  9. #409
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Hi,

    That is a question that is very relevant if you travel by air. If you don't do that it is totally irrelevant. For me it has always been a very major issue, those things I consider for many months for each trip.

    A few years ago I solved that issue by "prepositioning equipment" and also checking in MFD lenses but not camera and back. Now I feel that I have a set of gear that covers all my needs, but that essentially means that the MFD stuff is limited to overland trips, including ferries. That doesn't mean I don't like shooting with MFD, it just means MFD stuff is not going to a lot of interesting places.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by stephengilbert View Post
    A question that interests me is whether there is a compelling reason to beat everything to death?

    I understand that some people are just trolls; that they post things designed to annoy others for the "fun" of it.

    But it seems to me that more often people are just compulsive. They can't stop arguing about things, and since there's always someone else with a point that really needs to be made, these threads live on and on.

    Now we're talking about the weight of different systems and whether we fly coach or business class? Sounds like a compelling reason to me.
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 9th April 2016 at 14:55.

  10. #410
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    It would be hard to learn the benefits of the P45+ without having comparison stuff, wouldn't it?
    No. I don't need comparisons to appreciate what stunning IQ a P45 can deliver...

    So, you feel that I need to learn Capture One to make best use of the P45+?
    yes
    So, you mean that medium format needs Capture One for decent results.
    no

    You don't happen to have an alter egon called ThoMas on LuLa?
    no

  11. #411
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    44
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi,

    That is a question that is very relevant if you travel by air. If you don't do that it is totally irrelevant. For me it has always been a very major issue.

    A few years ago I solved that issue by "prepositioning equipment" and also checking in MFD lenses but not camera and back. Now I feel that I have a set of gear that covers all my needs, but that essentially means that the MFD stuff is limited to overland trips, including ferries. That doesn't mean I don't like shooting with MFD, it just means MFD stuff is not going to a lot of interesting places.

    Best regards
    Erik
    What are you packing to get to 10kg?! ... In contrast, something like a leica S and flexible 30-90 zoom is only about 2kg ..... I used to shoot 4x5 film and never got to that sort of weight including tripod!
    How much does the MF in this amazing video weigh - about 2kgs, presumably. And if you bolted a 100mp back to it your flight weight would potentially be fine AND we wouldn't be discussing whether MF is worth it vs 35mm.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H1MCfzVp8WA

  12. #412
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Hi,

    The short answer is Hasselblad 555/ELD, Distagon 40/4CF, Distagon 60/3.5CF, Macro Planar 120/4CFi, Planar 100/3.5CF and a 180/4Cfi.

    But you are quite right, that is not a lot of weight, but I also carry a 24x36 kit, like body, 16-35/4L, 24-105/4, 24/3.5 TSE, 90/2.8 Macro, 70-400/4-5.6 and a HCam TSII. So the MFD kit comes on top of the 24x36 kit.

    The other point is that I don't compare a 100 MP CMOS back on a technical camera, even if I would say that makes sense. Or would make sense if the 100 MP back played well with movements, which may not be the case. I more compare backs that are affordable.

    The recent couple of years used backs became a bit affordable, I jumped on the MFD train when I found a P45+ at 10 k$US. Now days those prices are much lower.

    The 100 MP backs certainly make a difference, with the crop factor backs I am less sure.

    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Warwick View Post
    What are you packing to get to 10kg?! ... In contrast, something like a leica S and flexible 30-90 zoom is only about 2kg ..... I used to shoot 4x5 film and never got to that sort of weight including tripod!
    How much does the MF in this amazing video weigh - about 2kgs, presumably. And if you bolted a 100mp back to it your flight weight would potentially be fine AND we wouldn't be discussing whether MF is worth it vs 35mm.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H1MCfzVp8WA

  13. #413
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    The approach taken on the Weldon Challenge is essentially to:

    • Find my point of view
    • Shoot it with the P45+
    • Shoot it with the A7rII


    It would be hard to learn the benefits of the P45+ without having comparison stuff, wouldn't it?

    Weldon Brewster will correct me if I am wrong, by I read in the challenge that you should just take one camera:


    So, this gets me to your second kit. You have arguably one of the best digital backs ever made mounted on a legendary camera system. You have thoroughly showed us what it can't do. I offer you a challenge. Lets see what it can do, what are it's strengths? Head out at dawn on a crisp spring morning and photograph the city hall in Nyköping. I looked on Google earth and it looks like there is beautiful historic building next to the modern city hall. Lets see the contrast of the two. You only need one camera, one lens and a tripod. I'm confident that you will get some great images that will surprise the heck out of you. I make this suggestion with the best of intentions and I will certainly accept any challenge thrown my way.
    (emphasis added).

    If you always take two cameras, you limit yourself to the processes and subjects which can be used with both cameras.

  14. #414
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Another weekend, another morning I have checked in to see how this thread progresses.
    I see that it hasn't been all "sorted" yet (quoting my Scottish assistant, Natalie

    Don't know if this helps but last week we had a location shoot for a new wine-in-a-can product. Our assignment was to shoot as many angles and locations and "summer" looks as possible with a bunch of models and product and the usual traveling carnival that is this type of shoot. (grips, mua's, cd's, ad's..etc)
    We set up two shooters, myself and the Nat.
    Nat used a 5DSR and Canon 135 f2L, I used PhaseOne IQ250/DF+/75-150
    So both are 50MP decent camera systems

    Occasionally we found ourselves shooting the same scene setup but through "different eyes" as it were.
    Here is one of those similar shots done with both systems.
    There is no winner, they are both good, which is more useful? ...above my pay-grade, client decides.
    The IQ250, IN MY OPINION, is the better product shot and will require less post proc time if chosen.
    The 5DSR performed very well and again, in my opinion, a better system for this type of shoot. For studio product stills, not a contest, IQ250.
    Thats all I will say on the matter. Just thought this experience was relevant to the "shoot with two cameras" dealio so took a few mins and posted. Hope it is interesting comparison for some.

    I am not a product tester nor do I play one on TV or in videos. I shoot professionally for money. If the client is happy, then I am happy. This was done this way because we wanted to maximize downtime with the models and create maximum amount of different shots for client use in a short period of time.

    Name:  IQ250-overall.jpg
Views: 358
Size:  163.8 KBName:  5DSR-overall.jpg
Views: 351
Size:  154.4 KBName:  IQ250-close.jpg
Views: 357
Size:  288.6 KBClick image for larger version. 

Name:	5DSR-close.jpg 
Views:	57 
Size:	406.9 KB 
ID:	117858
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #415
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Hi,

    Thanks for your input!

    A personal reflection may be that I would prefer the IQ-version of the wide shot but the Canon version on the tight shot. The IQ images have a warmer look, in my opinion while 5D seems to be a bit more cold.

    Best regards
    Erik


    Quote Originally Posted by Egor View Post
    Another weekend, another morning I have checked in to see how this thread progresses.
    I see that it hasn't been all "sorted" yet (quoting my Scottish assistant, Natalie

    Don't know if this helps but last week we had a location shoot for a new wine-in-a-can product. Our assignment was to shoot as many angles and locations and "summer" looks as possible with a bunch of models and product and the usual traveling carnival that is this type of shoot. (grips, mua's, cd's, ad's..etc)
    We set up two shooters, myself and the Nat.
    Nat used a 5DSR and Canon 135 f2L, I used PhaseOne IQ250/DF+/75-150
    So both are 50MP decent camera systems

    Occasionally we found ourselves shooting the same scene setup but through "different eyes" as it were.
    Here is one of those similar shots done with both systems.
    There is no winner, they are both good, which is more useful? ...above my pay-grade, client decides.
    The IQ250, IN MY OPINION, is the better product shot and will require less post proc time if chosen.
    The 5DSR performed very well and again, in my opinion, a better system for this type of shoot. For studio product stills, not a contest, IQ250.
    Thats all I will say on the matter. Just thought this experience was relevant to the "shoot with two cameras" dealio so took a few mins and posted. Hope it is interesting comparison for some.

    I am not a product tester nor do I play one on TV or in videos. I shoot professionally for money. If the client is happy, then I am happy. This was done this way because we wanted to maximize downtime with the models and create maximum amount of different shots for client use in a short period of time.

    Name:  IQ250-overall.jpg
Views: 358
Size:  163.8 KBName:  5DSR-overall.jpg
Views: 351
Size:  154.4 KBName:  IQ250-close.jpg
Views: 357
Size:  288.6 KBClick image for larger version. 

Name:	5DSR-close.jpg 
Views:	57 
Size:	406.9 KB 
ID:	117858

  16. #416
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikKaffehr View Post
    Hi,

    Thanks for your input!

    A personal reflection may be that I would prefer the IQ-version of the wide shot but the Canon version on the tight shot. The IQ images have a warmer look, in my opinion while 5D seems to be a bit more cold.

    Best regards
    Erik
    Those are just the same shots, Erik, zoomed in a little. The focus is softer, at least on the models if not on the product, on the IQ250. MF DoF is just shallower and harder to get right while hand holding in a field balancing oneself over a swimming pool. Their appears to be more detail in shadows and highlights in the IQ image, again...imo. BUT the 5DSR image is tack sharp across the whole range. Don't really care, but I would prefer same sharpness out of the IQ.

    All shots proc in C1 v9 so relative warmth/coolness not really a factor. BUT look at the guy's blue shirt. It is d.o.b.a. (dead on balls accurate) color out of the IQ but went a bit contrasty and crazy out of the 5DSR

  17. #417
    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: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Interesting post Egor.

    I do not play an Art Director on TV, but I actually am one

    All IQ debates aside, I react to those shots the way I always would … which one feels more genuine, interactive and engaging while fitting in the product most naturally?

    While we all would subscribe the abilities of a 35mm DSLR to better fit such a spontaneous shooting scenario, your MFD shot shows that, in the right hands, it is entirely possible to capture those invaluable moments with a
    camera generally labeled as slow and contemplative. So much for stereotypes.

    I also think the MFD shot has a more natural look and feel … or "presence".

    It would have been nice if the MFD shot was done at f/8, but (depending on use) that would not stop me from selecting it as the better image to represent my client's brand.

    Just a different perspective.

    - Marc
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #418
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Interesting post Egor.

    I do not play an Art Director on TV, but I actually am one

    All IQ debates aside, I react to those shots the way I always would … which one feels more genuine, interactive and engaging while fitting in the product most naturally?

    While we all would subscribe the abilities of a 35mm DSLR to better fit such a spontaneous shooting scenario, your MFD shot shows that, in the right hands, it is entirely possible to capture those invaluable moments with a
    camera generally labeled as slow and contemplative. So much for stereotypes.

    I also think the MFD shot has a more natural look and feel … or "presence".

    It would have been nice if the MFD shot was done at f/8, but (depending on use) that would not stop me from selecting it as the better image to represent my client's brand.

    Just a different perspective.

    - Marc
    Agree 100%, Marc! Thanks
    I would (and did) choose the MF shot over the 5DSR shot to represent one of the "lifestyle" shots they were looking for. It just looks better to me, and its not because I shot it, or because its MF vs 35mm or whathaveyou...it just represents the look and feel we wanted. Whether their AD will pick it or not does not matter to me personally.
    Our Nat is a fine shooter herself, and is more comfortable with the Canons and I am more comfortable with the MFD stuff. This was a big shoot and there are over 250 selects out of over 1000 total captures for the day's shoot in 5 different locations and combinations of models, wardrobes, wine product...etc. All in all; a good haul for our client's buck$.
    There are many shots where me and the Phase are clearly superior and vice-versa. But I must say, when the MFD gets it right, it knocks it out of the park. When the Canon gets it right, its just a "ok, great...next..." kind've thing.

    I recently lost a day shoot to a lower bidder on some tech products (sensors for encoders). The client came back to me, showed me what they got, and was saying things like "the shots we got from the other guy are ok, I guess, but they just aren't as "luminous".... they don't "pop" as what you have done for us before. Why is that?"
    I don't know the answer for them, I suspect most of the difference has to do with better lighting and better post proc skills on my part. BUT I did see that the other shooter used 35mm DSLR and I always use view cam and MFD backs for their stuff. So that may have something to do with it as well.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #419
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    216
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    well the focus is better on the 5d.
    the phase shot has a sharp knee (and possibly moire on the shirt cuff?) but when i see sharp hair on his arm but his beard is soft i would not have that down as a keeper unless a bit of creative sharpening/masking would mean the client wouldn’t notice.
    horses for courses, i know which camera i would grab if i had to shoot people and had a big shot list to contend with.
    never trust the opinion of anyone who lists a load of gear in their forum signature. Dealers do not email me asking to buy your products.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #420
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrSmith View Post
    well the focus is better on the 5d.
    the phase shot has a sharp knee (and possibly moire on the shirt cuff?) but when i see sharp hair on his arm but his beard is soft i would not have that down as a keeper unless a bit of creative sharpening/masking would mean the client wouldn’t notice.
    horses for courses, i know which camera i would grab if i had to shoot people and had a big shot list to contend with.
    Cant argue with you there, MrSmith. The 5D is sharper across the whole shot agreed. If this were a portrait session, this shot would not be a pick. BUT, this a product shoot, and the product is what I was focusing on. Like I said earlier, I wish I had the same DoF as the 5D shot, but not necessary imo for this type of shot. The bottle/can is the primary focus, the rest just establishes a feel or lifestyle, but we want the eye to go to the product.

    Many of these will be used for billboards viewed from great distance at 60 miles per hour so not as important to get the faces sharp as one might think, in fact I am often asked to throw them oof in post anyway...but like you said, horses for courses...

    That cuff is not moiré, that, my friend, is called detail and superior glass.
    Attached Images Attached Images    

  21. #421
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    216
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    actually it is moire but all down to the jpeg re-size and my screen and nothing to do with denim and the sensor

    (i see lines going the other way to the fabric in your 100%crop)
    never trust the opinion of anyone who lists a load of gear in their forum signature. Dealers do not email me asking to buy your products.

  22. #422
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Egor View Post
    All shots proc in C1 v9 so relative warmth/coolness not really a factor. BUT look at the guy's blue shirt. It is d.o.b.a. (dead on balls accurate) color out of the IQ but went a bit contrasty and crazy out of the 5DSR

    you seriously talk about color even when it obvious that color balance is so different ? but never the less in my view p1 screws the tone curves and color profiles for competitor cameras on purpose but not so much that it can not be fixed with adjusted settings but the defaults are bad, especially blue and yellow. when i tested the 5ds it was rather obvious that somethings was wrong withe the color rendering of c1, maybe you give dpp or iridient raw a try ?

  23. #423
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by CSP View Post
    you seriously talk about color even when it obvious that color balance is so different ?
    Yes, I do. We are so far removed from default settings that ship with software in our workflow that I can't even dress that comparison. Suffice to say that I disagree with your conspiracy theory on C1 tone curves for non-PhaseOne cameras but whatever, maybe you're right and I just never looked into it. Don't care. I deliver thousands of images per month to clients and don't see it myself nor do they.

    Quote Originally Posted by CSP View Post
    but never the less in my view p1 screws the tone curves and color profiles for competitor cameras on purpose but not so much that it can not be fixed with adjusted settings but the defaults are bad, especially blue and yellow. when i tested the 5ds it was rather obvious that somethings was wrong withe the color rendering of c1, maybe you give dpp or iridient raw a try ?
    Not in my experience. We prefer C1 for raw proc standard on all systems. I have DPP, ACR, DX0, and others; and same thing everytime. The Canon sensor has a tougher time with certain colors and contrast ranges. I don't care. Not worth the trouble and expense of having two or three different workflows. Not a big deal, but does require extra time per image in C1 post for the overall color balance. However the local micro-contrast and color crossovers are not fixable easily. That is why I pointed out the shirt.

  24. #424
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Melbourne AU
    Posts
    181
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Dare I suggest that Egor has brought us (once more) to the heart of the answer to this. Many of us have tried to point this out in this thread, and here it is again:

    Is there a compelling reason to move to MF? Well it appears yes, if you're Egor and delivering thousands of shots a month...or Mat for his reasons...etc, etc.

    We all use what we use for a reason(s), our own reasons. Egor has shown that very well with his series of posts.

  25. #425
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pelorus View Post
    Dare I suggest that Egor has brought us (once more) to the heart of the answer to this. Many of us have tried to point this out in this thread, and here it is again:

    Is there a compelling reason to move to MF? Well it appears yes, if you're Egor and delivering thousands of shots a month...or Mat for his reasons...etc, etc.

    We all use what we use for a reason(s), our own reasons. Egor has shown that very well with his series of posts.
    Thanks, Pelorus. I just re-read my last post and it comes across kid of defensive I guess. Not my intention with this. I assure you. So, sorry about that.
    I just read this morning when I checked into this that someone was asking for same shoot comparison between the camera systems and I just so happened to have that comparison recently so there you have it. Anything beyond that is just conjecture really. Like you say, I like what I like for my reasons that only apply to me and my work. Nothing more. I would never suggest one over the other. They are both fine I just thought it interesting that I had that exact experience recently and wanted to share it. Peace out, the rain has ended

  26. #426
    Member Abstraction's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    233
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Egor View Post
    Yes, I do. We are so far removed from default settings that ship with software in our workflow that I can't even dress that comparison. Suffice to say that I disagree with your conspiracy theory on C1 tone curves for non-PhaseOne cameras but whatever, maybe you're right and I just never looked into it. Don't care. I deliver thousands of images per month to clients and don't see it myself nor do they.



    Not in my experience. We prefer C1 for raw proc standard on all systems. I have DPP, ACR, DX0, and others; and same thing everytime. The Canon sensor has a tougher time with certain colors and contrast ranges. I don't care. Not worth the trouble and expense of having two or three different workflows. Not a big deal, but does require extra time per image in C1 post for the overall color balance. However the local micro-contrast and color crossovers are not fixable easily. That is why I pointed out the shirt.
    Never mind all that. I'm just impressed that you understand your Scottish assistant.

  27. #427
    Senior Member ondebanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by CSP View Post
    you seriously talk about color even when it obvious that color balance is so different ?
    I have to agree with this. For a "fairer" comparison, why not use click-balance for both shots, on the same point of the same white bottle in the woman's hand? That at least might tell us something about how the two cameras behave in the same light.

    In the present state of those two photos, one can certainly draw a conclusion as to which image "feels" better re. selling the wine product, but not as to which camera system is the better tool for this purpose, because the variables are all over the map. Apart from the gulf in white balance, the composition is completely different (one portrait, one landscape), the camera positions and viewpoint are markedly different, the backdrops are completely different, in one shot the models are looking at each other while in the other they are both staring into the distance, and the focus is on different points.

    Ray

  28. #428
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abstraction View Post
    Never mind all that. I'm just impressed that you understand your Scottish assistant.
    Aye to that, Abstraction!

    Onedebanks; I make no "compelling" argument one way or another. I posted this because I thought it interesting. Draw your own conclusions I guess...Nor do I describe my posts as "true tests" showing anything. If you found them interesting for this thread, great, no worries. If you found them useless and unhelpful, sorry I wasted your time. No harm intended.

    I use all gear as tools of the trade. If you prefer the 5DSR for such shoots, great! So did I and employ it often with excellent results.
    If you prefer MFD, great! So did I and employ it often with excellent results as well. Ditto the Sony, iPhone, film...etc.

    I have said before that no successful photographer I know of discusses cameras; we discuss lighting, technique, post proc, and most importantly business acumen.
    I like this forum occasionally because there is good info here and good technique discussed. More often than not, I have other forums where we discuss the latter for days and months and not once is "what camera system do you use?" ever even mentioned. It is irrelevant to what we need to know.

    Tomorrow I and my team have to build a mock store and photograph products on display in it. I have no idea what camera I will use. I already know what construction techniques I will use, how much I will charge and my lighting is already planned out to the N'th degree. What camera will I use? Who cares? any of them will look great when I am done lighting my subjects.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #429
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Hi Ray,

    Just a general comment, not really a response to your posting.

    Once we shoot in the real world there are a many uncontrollable variables.

    I shot these images yesterday:
    P45+, my own DI131222 profile Sony A7rII Adobe Standard

    One could erroneously conclude that the Sony is better at producing clouds, but what happened was that sky improved between the images. One could also argue that sky reproduction is different, but that also depends on white balance and colour profiles. The nice thing with a parametric workflow is that it is easy to apply a colour profile to a lot of images.

    Another variation is raw processor, below is the same image, processed in Capture One and in Lightroom:
    Capture One Lightroom

    Another thing is that I appreciate photographers sharing their images, doing comparisons and even tests. It is easy to find issues with tests, but I appreciate the effort. So, often I find that things should be done differently but I appreciate the effort.

    Just as an example, Digital Transitions posted a decent comparison of the IQ3-100MP with several cameras on a table top setup. They included a Sony A7rII loaned by "Pradeep" to the test. The image from that camera was not so crisp I would expect from mine, so digged into to the EXIF data to see if EFCS was enabled. I never found out. What I did find was that antishake was on, however, that could produce that kind of blur I have observed. But it really didn't matter. The Schneider lens on the Phase One's was very impressive.How would that Sony perform without antishake? We don't know.

    Best regards
    Erik





    Quote Originally Posted by ondebanks View Post
    I have to agree with this. For a "fairer" comparison, why not use click-balance for both shots, on the same point of the same white bottle in the woman's hand? That at least might tell us something about how the two cameras behave in the same light.

    In the present state of those two photos, one can certainly draw a conclusion as to which image "feels" better re. selling the wine product, but not as to which camera system is the better tool for this purpose, because the variables are all over the map. Apart from the gulf in white balance, the composition is completely different (one portrait, one landscape), the camera positions and viewpoint are markedly different, the backdrops are completely different, in one shot the models are looking at each other while in the other they are both staring into the distance, and the focus is on different points.

    Ray
    Last edited by ErikKaffehr; 10th April 2016 at 22:39.

  30. #430
    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: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Egor View Post
    Aye to that, Abstraction!

    Onedebanks; I make no "compelling" argument one way or another. I posted this because I thought it interesting. Draw your own conclusions I guess...Nor do I describe my posts as "true tests" showing anything. If you found them interesting for this thread, great, no worries. If you found them useless and unhelpful, sorry I wasted your time. No harm intended.

    I use all gear as tools of the trade. If you prefer the 5DSR for such shoots, great! So did I and employ it often with excellent results.
    If you prefer MFD, great! So did I and employ it often with excellent results as well. Ditto the Sony, iPhone, film...etc.

    I have said before that no successful photographer I know of discusses cameras; we discuss lighting, technique, post proc, and most importantly business acumen.
    I like this forum occasionally because there is good info here and good technique discussed. More often than not, I have other forums where we discuss the latter for days and months and not once is "what camera system do you use?" ever even mentioned. It is irrelevant to what we need to know.

    Tomorrow I and my team have to build a mock store and photograph products on display in it. I have no idea what camera I will use. I already know what construction techniques I will use, how much I will charge and my lighting is already planned out to the N'th degree. What camera will I use? Who cares? any of them will look great when I am done lighting my subjects.
    Aye to that Egor!

    Let's face it, professional work is what initially drove development of most higher end gear. When print media suddenly went all digital, there was a scramble to bring digital to photography … film became time consuming and scanning was costly compared to using a digital back on existing MF cameras. During that time it generated a lot of discussion, but once that settled down, it was business as usual with the focus on other variables of producing a photo shoot for pay.

    In fact, I'm not sure many people grasp how much goes into even a simple commercial shoot. The shoot itself is the tip of the iceberg. Selling/promoting, Preproduction and post production is the rest of that iceberg … often involving a lot of people besides the photographer.

    If you are shooting food, what food stylist you secure is more important than what camera. Endless talent selections for lifestyle stuff. Wardrobe. Props. Permits to shoot on location. How you plan out the lighting is of primary consideration, etc. etc. etc. … as little as possible is left to chance.

    Having the proper tools including cameras and lenses are the price of entry, not a differentiator.

    The Photographer selects what he/she thinks is appropriate for the task, which may be one system, or a bunch of them to provide different approaches.

    To me, 35mm DSLRs, SLTs and FF Mirror-Less that are reasonably similar in resolution, all pretty much deliver equally. Which one works best for you is a personal decision.

    Personally I use a larger format camera because I like the lenses in that system, prefer the "presence" of the files it produces, and it has a dual shutter for HSS lighting or focal plan shutter for available light work.

    I have an outdoor shoot this week and after I see where, and at what time of day it will happen, I will plan the lighting and decide whether I need HSS with the strobes … these decisions will point to which camera.

    Horses for courses … as long as all the horses are good ones.

    - Marc
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #431
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    216
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    "I have said before that no successful photographer I know of discusses cameras; we discuss lighting, technique, post proc, and most importantly business acumen.”

    yep. an hours catch-up with a friend last week: bikes (pedal not motor) fee’s, agents, business, girlfriends, holidays, films, moving house.
    about 5min on cameras, basically about movements and still life. no MTF, no full well capacity, astigmatism or circles of confusion were mentioned. he uses a 1Q80 has no idea of what the sony chipped cameras are. i guess he’s too busy shooting and trying to arrange his daughters nursery pick-up.
    never trust the opinion of anyone who lists a load of gear in their forum signature. Dealers do not email me asking to buy your products.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  32. #432
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Melbourne AU
    Posts
    181
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

    Hi Egor,

    Please don't take me wrong. I absolutely felt that you had reached the heart of it. I absolutely liked your original post - it echoed my views that it's horses for courses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Egor View Post
    Thanks, Pelorus. I just re-read my last post and it comes across kid of defensive I guess. Not my intention with this. I assure you. So, sorry about that.
    I just read this morning when I checked into this that someone was asking for same shoot comparison between the camera systems and I just so happened to have that comparison recently so there you have it. Anything beyond that is just conjecture really. Like you say, I like what I like for my reasons that only apply to me and my work. Nothing more. I would never suggest one over the other. They are both fine I just thought it interesting that I had that exact experience recently and wanted to share it. Peace out, the rain has ended
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •