The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

jerome_m

Member
Yes, the weak border (not corner) peformance of the Distagon can be predicted from the MTF curves, still many photographers feel MTF curves are not very relevant. I do not belong to those, but showing the difference in real world images may be interesting.
That is where the misunderstanding lies. Photographers, as a rules, do not find that MTF curves are not relevant. They argue that a simple MTF curve does not tell the whole story. And the optical engineer would agree on that: if you have ever seen the output of a ray tracing program for optics, you will know that it outputs much, much more data than the simple MTF thrown in as a sales pitch.

The simple MTF curve is useful in the following photographic cases:
  • landscape, for the published apertures (it tells you what aperture to use)
  • architecture, for the published aperture and shift (it tells you aperture and shift to be used)
  • document reproduction, when there is a published MTF closer than infinite distance

It is of little use for portrait and, generally, reproduction of tridimensional subjects. Moreover, it only tells you about sharpness and there is more to photography than getting a sharp picture.

Case in point: the HC-35, for which you cited the MTF. The lens is indeed not that sharp off center, as the MTF shows. But it has beautiful rendering and bokeh and, if you need sharpness (e.g. for landscape), it is quite sharp at f/8 over the whole frame. It is an underrated lens.

I would guess that a 40+ MP 24x36mm camera using either the OTUS 28/1.4 or the Batis 25/2 would outperform a 40-50MP Hasselblad using the HC 35/3.5 except for the sweet spot of the lenses, based on the MTF data.
I have not tried the Batis 25/2, but I have my eyes on it. Still: I do not expect it to outperform my HC-35, I expect it to give a different rendering. Why? Because I know that, as a rule, Zeiss lenses have a specific rendering. I also own the Sony-Zeiss 24/2 in A-mount and it is a very good lens, but quite different than the HC-35.

With the Batis 25/2 you could probably buy the A7rII and the lens at about the same price you pay for the HC 35/3.5. Some buyers don't care about money, but quite a few actually do…
I do care about money. I am waiting for the A7RII to drop in price before jumping in. The A7R went from €3000 to €1700, I am expecting the A7RII to drop in price significantly eventually.
The HC-35 can easily be bought used in great shape for half of what the A7RII costs, BTW.

The other thing is that weight is a major factor as I am flying more than before. With the 24x36mm stuff I can have a very functional equipment in my Kiboko Bataflae and still be within the 10 kg weight limits on many flights.
If I needed a full collection of lenses, I would not fly with the Hasselblad. But, since I can often limit myself to one or two lenses, I have no difficulty staying under the 10 Kg limit.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Marc,

Thanks for good comments. Here are some comment of my own:

Regarding Hasselblad pricing, I am happy that prices are reasonable. I have checked pricing this morning here in Sweden it was more like in the 120 k$US range, including sales tax. That is the price I would pay as an amateur.

The reason I have looked at the Hasselblad HC 35/3.5 was that it was the closest equivalent to the 40/4 I have tested, especially if crop factor has been taken into account. I have checked out the HC 50, and you are right, it is a much better lens. On the other hand it is no really wide wide angle either.

I don't really think that Otus lenses are needed to match MF lenses. With the Otus a tremendous effort goes into eliminating axial chromatic aberration at large apertures. If you check the tests published by Digital Transitions you can see that the Schneider lens they have used has a very generous amount axial chroma. So does the Sony 55/1.8. Otus would have none of that…

Zeiss has redesigned the 50/1.4 ZF for the Milvus series with a design quite similar to the Otus and the MTF data for that lens is very similar to the Otus, I guess that it may have some axial chroma. What I really wanted was an 85/2.0 with very good correction and the Batis would have been a perfect match. Some early tests at Lensrentals and DxO-mark gave incredibly good results for the new Sony 90/2.8G, so I went with that lens. Now, I know that the Batis may have been a better choice. The Batis is sharper, but the Sony has actually less axial chroma. Keeping axial chroma to minimum was a key issue for me.

Jim Kasson has done a lot of testing on short telephotos and found some oddities with the Batis 85/1.9, foremost that it auto focuses on red, instead of green. No explanation found.

Regarding the Zeiss line my understanding is that the Milvus 21/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 lenses are first rate and so are the Otuses and the 135/2 APO. The 100/2 Macro Planar is also excellent except for the axial chroma. All the Batis lenses seem to be performing very well, too.

Personally, I went with Canon lenses for some specific reasons. The Canon 16-35/4 is really impressive and I am pretty sure that they outperform all Distagons I had.

Testing outdoors contra studio is an interesting question. Studio subjects tend not have a lot of in focus detail in the corners. Also most lenses need at least 50 times focal length for correct testing and that means that very large test targets are needed. I do some MTF testing near axis and that tends to be consistent with my findings.

So, what I have seen this far is that my zoom lenses keep up well with the old Zeiss primes on the V-system.

What I may add is that I am very glad that Hasselblad is selling VFC backs at reasonable prices. As Perry Oosten said, there are something like 500000 V-series cameras out there. I have always felt a lot of frustration not having a digital option for my Pentax 67 lenses.

Principally, I think that it is a good thing to share experience. My experience is a bit that the P45+ performs pretty much to "paper form", essentially performs as I would expect based on MTF data for the lenses and spec sheets on the sensor, also consistent with DxO data.

One other thing is that I like shooting with the Hasselblad. Shooting with the Sony is more about doing the right things, but the way I shoot, I am very happy with the images coming out of that camera.

Best regards
Erik




Erik, I have a lot of sympathy for your argument based on what you shoot and how you work. I travel a fair amount and when by air I usually take the A7R & A7R-II. When by vehicle I take the S system and the A7R-II with a 24-70/2.8 zoom as back-up.

Other thoughts:

The CFV has been a good product for Hasselblad because there are so many 500 and 200 camera lovers out there. Up until a few years ago I was one of them. Like many, I had slowly built Hasselblad V kit over the years and put it to good use. At the time I was shooting both film for personal work (scanned on a 949), and a CFV-16 for commercial work. I did have the 40IF which was free with a promotional package. In addition to a 503CW, I used a 203FE to access the Zeiss FE lenses like the FE-110/2 and FE-150/2.8 for portrait and creative work. The general impression I had was that the results had a look and feel (character), contrast, and color rendering unmatched by anything at the time. That was NOT just a metric evaluation as much as a creative one. However, the key aspect was that I LOVED working with the V camera ... and I miss that experience to this day.

As such, the value proposition for V system owners is the cost of the CFV back (new CFV50c @ $10K, or used CFV50ccd for less) So, cheaper than a Sony A7R-II and the top lenses necessary to compete with the V kit (if it actually could compete, which I doubt). In the switch over they'd lose the kit they already like using for a kit that lacks all the tactile, and simple operational elements of the V. We cannot dismiss that out of hand.

When it comes to comparing systems, one also cannot utilize knowledge of a system and cherry pick the comparisons. I would not compare the HC35/3.5 which is the one lens in the HC/HCD series in dire need of up-dating, instead I'd opt for the HC50/3.5-II which produces stunning results on any H camera or S camera via the H to S adapter, or Hasselblad's W/A zoom.

The H kit is a wonder of operational value IMO. You can get a new H5D/40 for $8K right now! 40 meg with a larger sensor than the Sony. This kit offers 4:3 ratio, improved True Focus APL that over-rides the need for AF point array to allow off-center focusing. It is faster than wheeling to a focus point on the A7s. True focus also refers to minute automatic adjustments to correct any focus shift when changing apertures. Plus, I've used the mirror delay feature to hand-hold at slower shutter speeds. Things like this come from a more consistent and intimate knowledge of a system that often goes unmentioned.

Comparison shots are very hard to accomplish IMO.

When doing pure comparisons I try to keep as few variables as possible. Doing outdoor comparisons is too hard IMO. I usually do these indoors with Profoto lighting which is a constant, as close as I can get with the focal lengths, equivalent apertures, subject matter, locked down tripod. I shoot with strobes stopped down, and with just modeling lights with wider apertures ... using a grey card for custom WB on both cameras. Since I shoot product and people I try to test both.

I have NOT done this between the Leica S and the recently purchased Sony A7R-II because I haven't had the time, and I'm waiting to secure the Batis FE lenses on back order. I could compare the FE55/1.8 verses the CS -70/2.5 but the S lenses in in for service. Another interesting comparison would be the FE90/2.8 Macro verses my CS120/2.5 but I don't have the 90 and doubt I ever will. One other comparison I'd like to do is the Leica 75/2 APO/ASPH on the A7R-II against the S 100/2.

I've shot these two cameras side-by-side for paying work (mostly people stuff and table-top product) which is the source of my preference for the S system output. I can pick-out the S shots every time, they have a presence lacking from the Sony.

Still, it would be an interesting exercise to compare these two in highly controlled circumstances since they're both in the 40 meg arena and both are 3:2.

When I get the time. I'll try it ... However, don't hold your breath. I'm traveling the next month ... with the Sony's BTW ... :ROTFL:

- Marc
 

jerome_m

Member
showing the difference in real world images may be interesting.
I should also add: I am grateful and thank you for the material you posted on your site. Even if I sometimes disagree on your test setup, it is nice and useful to show real word images taken in comparable conditions between different cameras.

I actually published some comparisons pictures myself on lula at some points, for example here, here or here.

Beware for non-members: one cannot see the test pictures without registering and new registrations are not possible without a subscription.
 

jerome_m

Member
With the Otus a tremendous effort goes into eliminating axial chromatic aberration at large apertures. If you check the tests published by Digital Transitions you can see that the Schneider lens they have used has a very generous amount axial chroma. So does the Sony 55/1.8. Otus would have none of that…
Now, that is an important difference between MF and 24x36. Axial chromatic aberration responds to aperture. So, for a given apparent depth of field, axial chromatic aberration will be smaller with a larger sensor. This is part of the explanation for the different rendering of the in-focus to out-of-focus transitions in MF.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Just to say, I am pretty much aware of the fact that a large amount of MTF data is needed to characterise a lens. The reason I discussed MTF data is in part that you suggested that my testing were consistent with Zeiss MTF data.

I am no optical engineer, but I have significant interest in optics and I am a bit familiars with output from optical calculations. But, I don't think we have more data than vendors provide us with.

Also, optical experts are still holding MTF data quite relevant. You have probably read the two articles on interpreting MTF data by Hubert Nasse?

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/cln_archiv/cln30_en_web_special_mtf_01.pdf
http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/cln_archiv/cln31_en_web_special_mtf_02.pdf

Absolutely, MTF data says very little about out of focus rendition and a lot of other things. Personally, I am a bit over sensitive to axial chromatic aberration and that is not visible in MTF data at optimum focus.

But, we cannot buy all lenses and do proper tests. Reading independent tests is a good way to make educated choices. Not saying good choices, just educated ones.

Regarding weight limits, it seems that I need a bit more of stuff than you. Different needs and different priorities. My standard kit is 16-35/4, 24/3.5 TSE LII, 24-105/4L (right now), Sony 90/2.8G, Sony 70-400/4-5.6G, HCam Master TSII in addition to the A7rII. I don't think I would travel with less on a photo trip. I actually also feel I need a backup body.

Best regards
Erik

That is where the misunderstanding lies. Photographers, as a rules, do not find that MTF curves are not relevant. They argue that a simple MTF curve does not tell the whole story. And the optical engineer would agree on that: if you have ever seen the output of a ray tracing program for optics, you will know that it outputs much, much more data than the simple MTF thrown in as a sales pitch.

The simple MTF curve is useful in the following photographic cases:
  • landscape, for the published apertures (it tells you what aperture to use)
  • architecture, for the published aperture and shift (it tells you aperture and shift to be used)
  • document reproduction, when there is a published MTF closer than infinite distance

It is of little use for portrait and, generally, reproduction of tridimensional subjects. Moreover, it only tells you about sharpness and there is more to photography than getting a sharp picture.

Case in point: the HC-35, for which you cited the MTF. The lens is indeed not that sharp off center, as the MTF shows. But it has beautiful rendering and bokeh and, if you need sharpness (e.g. for landscape), it is quite sharp at f/8 over the whole frame. It is an underrated lens.



I have not tried the Batis 25/2, but I have my eyes on it. Still: I do not expect it to outperform my HC-35, I expect it to give a different rendering. Why? Because I know that, as a rule, Zeiss lenses have a specific rendering. I also own the Sony-Zeiss 24/2 in A-mount and it is a very good lens, but quite different than the HC-35.



I do care about money. I am waiting for the A7RII to drop in price before jumping in. The A7R went from €3000 to €1700, I am expecting the A7RII to drop in price significantly eventually.
The HC-35 can easily be bought used in great shape for half of what the A7RII costs, BTW.



If I needed a full collection of lenses, I would not fly with the Hasselblad. But, since I can often limit myself to one or two lenses, I have no difficulty staying under the 10 Kg limit.
 

thrice

Active member
Very interesting thread.
I was a little shocked by the statement someone made not to bother if you're not going 60mp or more.
I have a P45 (non-plus) on a tech cam which is laborious to use.

I have scrutinised A7rII files and yes they can be massaged outside the realms of reality.
The A7rII (42mp) should offer more resolution than my P45 (39mp) but it simply does not.
Maybe it is due to sensor size, maybe it is due to lenses but the acuity, sharpness, metamerism and tonal transitions are leagues apart.
One thing you can get on tech cams you cannot on 35mm is apochromatic wide angles.
I've become so used to seeing no CA in any situation ever since moving to a tech cam that it stands out like the proverbial dog's balls to me every time I see it in print or online. It smacks of cheapness even though the kit used could very well have cost as much as my MF tech cam kit.
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
Very interesting thread.
I was a little shocked by the statement someone made not to bother if you're not going 60mp or more.
I have a P45 (non-plus) on a tech cam which is laborious to use.

I have scrutinised A7rII files and yes they can be massaged outside the realms of reality.
The A7rII (42mp) should offer more resolution than my P45 (39mp) but it simply does not.
Maybe it is due to sensor size, maybe it is due to lenses but the acuity, sharpness, metamerism and tonal transitions are leagues apart.
It's when I see proclamations like these "...acuity, sharpness, tonal transitions are LEAGUES APART" that I feel as though I'm missing out on something because frankly, I don't see it. Sometimes, I see subtle differences where MF is better, sometimes I don't. However, from what I see, whereas I can't say that the Emperor has no clothes, he may just be wearing a thong.
 

MrSmith

Member
There is a P45 sat in the studio, a Hblad and a load of zeiss lenses that I could use to shoot still-life but it sits unused because a Sony/Actus/Schneider combo makes it redundant, there's no compelling reason for me to use it as the files are just not as good to work with. The lenses are a big part of that equation.
Like you I have got used to not seeing any C/A and having sharpness right across the frame. That's something that is not exclusive to MFD especially when a lot of lenses are now essentially 'cross platform'

What works for some people might not be a viable proposition for others (on the rare occasion I need a decent wide angle I make do with a canon TS-e)
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I am pretty sure that the Otus 28/1.4 is fully apochromatic. Colour correction on the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 is said to be excellent.

Yes, I would think that technical cameras are excellent. But I don't think this thread is about moving to technical cameras but more generally about moving from 24x36 mm to MFD.

Best regards
Erik

Very interesting thread.
I was a little shocked by the statement someone made not to bother if you're not going 60mp or more.
I have a P45 (non-plus) on a tech cam which is laborious to use.

I have scrutinised A7rII files and yes they can be massaged outside the realms of reality.
The A7rII (42mp) should offer more resolution than my P45 (39mp) but it simply does not.
Maybe it is due to sensor size, maybe it is due to lenses but the acuity, sharpness, metamerism and tonal transitions are leagues apart.
One thing you can get on tech cams you cannot on 35mm is apochromatic wide angles.
I've become so used to seeing no CA in any situation ever since moving to a tech cam that it stands out like the proverbial dog's balls to me every time I see it in print or online. It smacks of cheapness even though the kit used could very well have cost as much as my MF tech cam kit.
 
Last edited:

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
One interesting comparison between IQ-180 and Pentax 645Z with an A7rII thrown in…

Hi,

Here is a very interesting comparison between an IQ-180, a Pentax 645Z and an A7rII thrown in. It is an interesting read.

I have found the Pentax 645Z quite impressive with the lens that was used, sort of contradicts all talk about Pentax having bad lenses.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...5mm-645z-test-a7rii-90mm-macro-must-read.html

I have checked out the raw images, but don't know if they are still there for download.

Best regards
Erik
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
This posting on Lensrentals is a bit illustrative

Hi,

This blog post is not about MFD but still interesting: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/02/comparing-the-leica-monochrom-to-a-sony-a7r-ii/

It's a blind test comparison between Leica M Monochrome and Sony A7rII with two Leica owners and a skeptic judging the images…

Best regards
Erik


It's when I see proclamations like these "...acuity, sharpness, tonal transitions are LEAGUES APART" that I feel as though I'm missing out on something because frankly, I don't see it. Sometimes, I see subtle differences where MF is better, sometimes I don't. However, from what I see, whereas I can't say that the Emperor has no clothes, he may just be wearing a thong.
 
Re: One interesting comparison between IQ-180 and Pentax 645Z with an A7rII thrown in

Hi,

Here is a very interesting comparison between an IQ-180, a Pentax 645Z and an A7rII thrown in. It is an interesting read.

I have found the Pentax 645Z quite impressive with the lens that was used, sort of contradicts all talk about Pentax having bad lenses.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-...5mm-645z-test-a7rii-90mm-macro-must-read.html

I have checked out the raw images, but don't know if they are still there for download.

Best regards
Erik

The folks who say that Pentax lenses are 'bad' are just either snobs or are very annoyed at how cheap they are vs HassyPhase. Of course, that's only the legacy lenses. The new optics are top notch, priced to match, and still get a bad rep. People have always snubbed the Pentax glass which is a bit silly because many of my favorite shooters throughout history used the P67. Zeiss lenses are great, but somewhere along the lines people got it into their heads that if Zeiss lenses are so good, that must mean Pentax lenses are un-good. Very strange, considering it's completely unfounded. I'd put a 75/2.8 FA up against a 80/2.8 Planar any day, and same with a 75/2.8 AL up against a 60/3.5 Distagon. The Pentax 55/4 can do anything the 50/4 Distagon (not sure about the newer FLE) can do. The only 'meh' lens I've encountered is the 645 45/2.8. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, but Pentax is playing the game as well as anybody.
 

jerome_m

Member
It's when I see proclamations like these "...acuity, sharpness, tonal transitions are LEAGUES APART" that I feel as though I'm missing out on something because frankly, I don't see it. Sometimes, I see subtle differences where MF is better, sometimes I don't.
As a MF user, I would agree that "leagues apart" is exaggerated. Subtle differences is more like it.

For me it is about:
-having a whole series of lenses matched in color and rendering (something Leica and Minolta also did on 24x36, so it is not a strict MF exclusive)
-not having to worry about distortion, chromatism, etc...
-color-rendering out of the box which I find pleasing (even if it is not actually accurate)
-(usually) better bokeh
-less shutter vibration
-the higher resolution
-and also camera haptics, viewfinder, etc...
 

Pradeep

Member
This is the most silly statement I have heard in respect to photography.- We live on different planets. It is the print. Who hangs negatives on the wall? Who puts negatives in a show?

All photography is a process with result being the final step -- the print. You want to put on a laptop, get a iPhone, I even saw some billboards shot with an iphone 6+.

Maybe my response is too complicated. I'll simplify it for you It is the print--It is the print ---It is the print ----It is the print----It is the print
Yes, the final result that we are all looking for usually is the print. But then the question is, what about the print? How big, how bright, how to mount it, where to mount it, who is going to look at it and from how far away?

Every time I drive into The City through the Midtown tunnel, I come up against this 30ft tall billboard taken with a humble iPhone, my car as it swerves over the ramp comes almost within 50 ft of this hoarding and I swear it looks beautiful.

OTOH, prints on the wall of a gallery or museum are typically viewed from much closer. So you need a higher resolution image than the one yielding a print of 10-12 dpi for the billboard.

In one sense the OP is correct, cameras are simply tools for us to reach our goals. If you need high speed flash sync, then your choices are limited to a few cameras that offer it.

This MFDB vs DSLR/Mirrorless is an endless and pointless debate. I've owned the IQ180 and now own the Pentax 645Z. For me, the Phase product did not work, I found the Pentax more useful. However, since I got the A7RII and the Batis lenses, even that is just sitting idle.

But that's just me and my shooting style, my subjects and my own aspirations. Who am I to say what will or won't work for anybody else?

And it's not always about the money. I could buy the new Phase kit, but I'd rather put the difference in a better car. Even that's stupid, for how does spending an extra $60K get me that much more oomph in something that is simply designed to get me from A to B? But, it's my decision. Do I need it? Heck no, but I sure as hell love it.

And that's 2c from me. More waste of everyone's bandwidth :facesmack:
 

hcubell

Well-known member
It's when I see proclamations like these "...acuity, sharpness, tonal transitions are LEAGUES APART" that I feel as though I'm missing out on something because frankly, I don't see it. Sometimes, I see subtle differences where MF is better, sometimes I don't. However, from what I see, whereas I can't say that the Emperor has no clothes, he may just be wearing a thong.
Seriously. If you actually have a legitimate interest in what medium format digital can do for you compared to what you now use, and not just a desire to engage in a pointless polemic that seems directed at questioning how other people spend their money, you would go rent the equipment and try it out, shooting whatever it is you like to shoot for a few days and working with the files. The only opinion that matters is your own, and nobody trying to decide whether to spend the considerable amount of money involved should be looking for answers on the internet. If you can't figure it out by doing the tests yourself, you surely don't NEED it. OTOH, if you just LIKE it, then by all means jump in, you will be in good company.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Re: One interesting comparison between IQ-180 and Pentax 645Z with an A7rII thrown in

Hi,

Keep in mind that those Distagons and Planars are film era lenses. Digital sensors are flat, for instance, film never was. MTF curves for those Hasselblad Distagons is seldom good, with the IF version of the Distagon 40 being an exception.

Now that 24x36 mm sensors improved so much, Zeiss is making some much improved lenses like the Milvus 50/1.4 and 85/1.4, the new lenses are very different from the old "double gauss" designs, using almost twice the number of elements and exotic glass.

Zeiss and Hasselblad have MTF-plots measured on sample lenses at 10,20 and 40 lp/mm, making comparisons of MTF data easy. That doesn't make them better but it is very useful for some comparisons. Leica, Schneider and Rodenstock also have MTF data that may be measured on sample lenses.

Some would argue that MTF data doesn't tell the hole story about a lens and that is quite true, but it tells a lot.

This image was shot with the Distagon 40/4 on the P45+:



While this one was shot with a Canon 16-35/4 zoom on the A7rII:


The crops are actual pixels near the horizontal edge. The A7rII and the P45+ have essentially the same resolution in MP 42 vs 39, even closer if the A7rII image is cropped to P45+ dimension. I am pretty sure my Pentax 67 45/4 would outperform my Distagon 40/4 on this shot.

Canon 16-35/4 at 24 mm and f/8
Screen Shot 2016-03-22 at 06.59.13.jpg
Zeiss MTF data for Distagon 40/4
Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 03.31.21.jpg

From what I have seen then new HC-lenses seem to be much improved compared to the old Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad. Zeiss also designed the lenses for the Contax 645. Some of those lenses were significantly better than the older Hasselblad lenses.

The image comparison between the IQ-180 and the Pentax 645Z show two things in my humble opinion:

  • A Pentax 645Z can deliver impressive image quality with the right lens
  • MF zooms can deliver very good image quality

A technical camera with a high resolution sensor is probably as high we can set the bar for a comparison.

Best regards
Erik


The folks who say that Pentax lenses are 'bad' are just either snobs or are very annoyed at how cheap they are vs HassyPhase. Of course, that's only the legacy lenses. The new optics are top notch, priced to match, and still get a bad rep. People have always snubbed the Pentax glass which is a bit silly because many of my favorite shooters throughout history used the P67. Zeiss lenses are great, but somewhere along the lines people got it into their heads that if Zeiss lenses are so good, that must mean Pentax lenses are un-good. Very strange, considering it's completely unfounded. I'd put a 75/2.8 FA up against a 80/2.8 Planar any day, and same with a 75/2.8 AL up against a 60/3.5 Distagon. The Pentax 55/4 can do anything the 50/4 Distagon (not sure about the newer FLE) can do. The only 'meh' lens I've encountered is the 645 45/2.8. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, but Pentax is playing the game as well as anybody.
 
Last edited:

CSP

New member
There is a P45 sat in the studio, a Hblad and a load of zeiss lenses that I could use to shoot still-life but it sits unused because a Sony/Actus/Schneider combo makes it redundant, there's no compelling reason for me to use it as the files are just not as good to work with. The lenses are a big part of that equation.
Like you I have got used to not seeing any C/A and having sharpness right across the frame. That's something that is not exclusive to MFD especially when a lot of lenses are now essentially 'cross platform'

What works for some people might not be a viable proposition for others (on the rare occasion I need a decent wide angle I make do with a canon TS-e)
we sure have something in common :) but i too shoot a lot of people and portrait work on location with mixed light settings and here MF simply sucks and is unusable when you can´t stop down and need to work under pressure what is rather normal in the corporate world.
 

MrSmith

Member
Having tried to use a 500series HB in that situation you realise what you need is a nice fast f2 medium zoom and easily accessed af zones right across the frame. It's 2016 and a £25k medium format camera can't even do the basics.
(Sorry if that sounds like a troll-post but it's a valid point)
 
M

mjr

Guest
There are some who would say that manually focussing a portrait with a medium format camera is a basic skill, 50% of my commercial work is location portraits, I have never ever had an issue with a single focus point on a modern MF camera, I have also never had a problem with mixed lighting but we all face different challenges.

This is a commercial shot, produced to the clients brief, mixed daylight, crappy office lighting and a splash of strobe, shot on a ccd sensor S, wide open, processed to the clients wishes and eventually cropped so not exactly art but still.

 

CSP

New member
There are some who would say that manually focussing a portrait with a medium format camera is a basic skill, 50% of my commercial work is location portraits, I have never ever had an issue with a single focus point on a modern MF camera, I have also never had a problem with mixed lighting but we all face different challenges.

This is a commercial shot, produced to the clients brief, mixed daylight, crappy office lighting and a splash of strobe, shot on a ccd sensor S, wide open, processed to the clients wishes and eventually cropped so not exactly art but still.


shooting with an single focus point is so awkward and feels so wrong after experiencing eye focus on a7r2. i´m too old to work with gear which AF did not much improve in the last 30 years and has a performance like a minolta 9000. when i shoot portraits i want to work with the people in front and not with the camera.

also it seems this was not a really dimm location when you can shoot @iso 200 and the ambient is in balance too....
 
Top