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?

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Graham,

Lets just say that they are very natural colours. :) And those petals were definitively not blue…

The reason I took this is that I had a discussion with the publisher of OnLandscape, a British Journal, who stated that the P45+ was not capable of correct reproduction of green vegetation, while I sort of believed it could be more of a colour profile issue.

The interesting thing here is that Capture One reproduces the colour as blue, both on P45+ and A99, while Adobe actually does a good job on both.

The Colour Munki Colour picker picked the petal sample as "deep bluish purple" on the pantone palette. Using the color picker in Photoshop CS it picked the very same Pantone colour on the A99/LR conversion, so that repro was quite good.

I don't understand your statement: "Lets see a more neutral comparison without full spectrum influence.", you mean that back/software is not expected to handle full spectrum?

Best regards
Erik


Erik

now you know that you are guilty of picking THE worst color to check with a spectrometer vs the eye.

Bluebells or the flowers you showed typically do not photograph well due to UV/IR and what you show are the classic blue vs purple/pink rendering that technically 'correct' rendering vs what the eye sees. I have hundreds of images of pink/purple bell flowers that only a specific qualitative filter/rendering presented as the correct color that I saw. I see the same thing happening with the C1 rendering vs adobe.

Lets see a more neutral comparison without full spectrum influence.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Sky is obviously very bright in both images and both are processed to taste with quite a lot of manipulation. Obviously, LR CC handles the clipped sky quite well, a bit to my surprise.

One thing to consider is that the P45+ image has a lot of clipping, but only in the green channel. LR is pretty good at reconstructing blown out highlights if only one channels is clipped.

This is one of the advantages of having raw images, anyone can download them and try their own processing.

Now, this was not intended as a test shoot, in that case I would have shot more alternative exposures. This is a part of a challenge I have taken to shoot a specific subject with the blad, but I of course take the opportunity to shoot with both camera systems.

The raw images are here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/WeldonChallenge/

The Panos are DNGs as they were merged in Lightroom CC, I don't know how "raw" they really are. I am pretty sure they are demosaiced.

Best regards
Erik


I don't understand what is going on here. I see the clipping in raw digger, but the sky in the P45 image shows more details in the clouds than the sky in the Sony image.
 

stephengilbert

Active member
I don't have time to read all of this.

Is there a compelling reason, or not?

And, is there a compelling reason to leave?

A new thread idea, perhaps?
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Yes it is a good article. The author developed Lumariver HDR and DCamProf, doing that development he learned a more than he wanted about MFD raw formats and he is also a developer of RawTherapee. I actually read it before buying my P45+ and it is one of the reasons I chose the P45+ over the Leaf alternative.

Anders had bad experience with repairs and dealers. I have my P45+ since June 2013 and I am actually quite happy with it. But I have not seen a lot of benefits with it, except the resolution and that advantage is pretty much gone by now.

But, it depends how and what you shoot. I like to shoot with it but the results say it doesn't really work for me.

On the other hand, prices for old MFD (like my P45+) are going down, so MFD is available at more affordable costs. The new CMOS backs use Sony sensors so they are probably on the same technology curve as other Sony users, so they can play the full advantage of size.

Whatever you shoot from 1" to MFD, it is a good time to be a photographer.

Best regards
Erik

What a great article! I wish I had found it sooner.


Guide to second hand medium format digital backs
 
Last edited:

ondebanks

Member
The fun part makes sense to me, but the money to fun ratio doesn't.
For me, it's significantly about the fun. And the money to fun ratio is actually low if you build your kit from the used market. I'm still shooting a 15 year old back design on a 15 year old camera design, largely with 30 year old lenses. For the type of shooting that system is suited to, I could hardly be happier. For other things, I use DSLRs and an iphone.

How many people are still shooting 15 year old Canon or Nikon DSLRs? Not many. And how many of those are doing so for economic reasons and wishing they could have a more recent Canon or Nikon DSLR? Probably all of them. But old medium format gear is not like that. It delivered great quality then, and still delivers great quality now.

Ray

- - - Updated - - -

Without money, there would be no art. So much is known.
Sweeping statement alert. Not all art has to involve the exchange of money. In truth, very little of it does. From the school-wall mural that my 10 year old daughter (a far better artist than me!) designed, to the prehistoric cave paintings of Lascaux...

Ray
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I wouldn't talk about 15 years old stuff in digital. But, what you say is interesting…

For my part, I used to shoot Minolta and kept on with Minolta in 2006 so I could use my old lenses. But, just a few years later I had all new lenses. I could as well have switched to Canon or Nikon.

In 2015 I started to switch over to Sony A7rII. Although it can use all the old lenses, most of the old lenses went to pasture.

On the other hand, I still use some of my Hasselblad or even Pentax 67 lenses on the A7rII. Add to that, I have a Contax 35-135/3.3-4.5 stuck in the mail that I bought for the A7rII.

So, I see that I switch to new designs like my Canon 16-35/4L and 24/3.5 TSELII but also buy into some older designs. The main reason for that is that older designs have manually controlled apertures.

It is sort of interesting, lenses can live for very long. I guess that most of my lenses are 20+ years old. But, the older lenses may just get irrelevant.

Getting back to the P45+, I enjoy shooting with it and it is capable of delivering great images. But, it starts getting irrelevant. The Sony A7rII can deliver similar image quality, but does it in a smaller, less expensive and more flexible package.

Just as an example. I have a really nice 400/4.5G APO from Minolta. On the other hand I have a Sony 70-400/4-5.6G that seems to be a pretty good match for the 400/4.5G at 400 mm but also covers the 70-400 range. I love the 400/4.5G APO, but it does offer little benefits over the zoom. I will do some more testing but the old great Minolta may be next to go to EBay.

Best regards
Erik

For me, it's significantly about the fun. And the money to fun ratio is actually low if you build your kit from the used market. I'm still shooting a 15 year old back design on a 15 year old camera design, largely with 30 year old lenses. For the type of shooting that system is suited to, I could hardly be happier. For other things, I use DSLRs and an iphone.

How many people are still shooting 15 year old Canon or Nikon DSLRs? Not many. And how many of those are doing so for economic reasons and wishing they could have a more recent Canon or Nikon DSLR? Probably all of them. But old medium format gear is not like that. It delivered great quality then, and still delivers great quality now.

Ray

- - - Updated - - -



Sweeping statement alert. Not all art has to involve the exchange of money. In truth, very little of it does. From the school-wall mural that my 10 year old daughter (a far better artist than me!) designed, to the prehistoric cave paintings of Lascaux...

Ray
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Some of this amusing, and probably the only reason anyone keeps reading this thread.;)

That Erik mentions size factors is a Duh! observation. He's comparing a Sony A7R-II to a high-volume studio production 555ELD work-horse … like comparing a Clydesdale to a trick pony:rolleyes: Interestingly, the 555 is an 18 year old camera design and the last one made was 10 years ago. I'd hazard a guess that the A7R-II will be in a landfill in a few years. Still, I wouldn't want to travel with a 555 either.

Erik, I really like that shot you posted from Nykoping. Even a small web jpeg shows that "striking presence" that many subscribe to MFD. I guess it just goes back to whether you truly think the A7R-II can deliver that … if so, question answered. To me it is obvious, but that's just me (as a reminder, I do have a A7R-II, yet prefer my Leica S images to it by a great margin … while still liking the A7R-II for all it can do).

Anyways …

The Dictionary called to say they are running out of words :LOL:

We could expend half a million more words, link to an endless stream of blog posts pro or con, publicize this chart, or some macro crop comparison (all of which are suspect) … and not one person is going to alter their opinion any more than they have yet … which is no one as far as this thread is concerned.

Hey, let's start a new thread comparing the A7R-II to the new Nikon D5 … which is what I wish I had rather than the A7R-II because 20 meg FF is more than enough for that sort of work, and the Nikon murders the Sony on every performance criteria that matters to me and many, many, many others … :argue:

The trick pony verses a thoroughbred … Hee, Hee …

- Marc
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
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 A7rIIP45+ (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




Some of this amusing, and probably the only reason anyone keeps reading this thread.;)

That Erik mentions size factors is a Duh! observation. He's comparing a Sony A7R-II to a high-volume studio production 555ELD work-horse … like comparing a Clydesdale to a trick pony:rolleyes: Interestingly, the 555 is an 18 year old camera design and the last one made was 10 years ago. I'd hazard a guess that the A7R-II will be in a landfill in a few years. Still, I wouldn't want to travel with a 555 either.

Erik, I really like that shot you posted from Nykoping. Even a small web jpeg shows that "striking presence" that many subscribe to MFD. I guess it just goes back to whether you truly think the A7R-II can deliver that … if so, question answered. To me it is obvious, but that's just me (as a reminder, I do have a A7R-II, yet prefer my Leica S images to it by a great margin … while still liking the A7R-II for all it can do).


- Marc
 
Last edited:

Lars

Active member
Regarding the "Duh" argument it is not about size, but more about weight and the 10 kg carry on limit on flights.
Just keep in mind that carry on limits are quite different between continents, in terms of rules as well as actual enforcement.

In Europe and Australia I have often been asked to weigh my carry-on, as well as have it measured for size.
In Spain I even witnessed an argument about carry-on size turn into a fist fight between staff and a hot-tempered passenger.

This just doesn't seem to happen in the U.S. I'm sure my wheeled carry-on has been close 20 kgs at times.

All this will of course change over time, as airlines seek revenue while attempting to stay competitive.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

When traveling to US I try to find a carrier that has generous weight limits, often meaning longer and less convenient flights. Here in Europe 10 kg is generous allowance.

Another issue is size. Most of my visits were to the US ended in Idaho Falls, something like 24 hours door to door. The last leg is usually on one of those Canadair Regional Jets. My Gura Gear Kiboko used to fit in the overhead bins on that aircraft.

There is always some room for cheating. I have a Domke photo west and can carry my Macbook 13" in one of the inside pockets. On some flights you can have a personal item, and that can be my 70-400/4-5.6 zoom.

Best regards
Erik


Just keep in mind that carry on limits are quite different between continents, in terms of rules as well as actual enforcement.

In Europe and Australia I have often been asked to weigh my carry-on, as well as have it measured for size.
In Spain I even witnessed an argument about carry-on size turn into a fist fight between staff and a hot-tempered passenger.

This just doesn't seem to happen in the U.S. I'm sure my wheeled carry-on has been close 20 kgs at times.

All this will of course change over time, as airlines seek revenue while attempting to stay competitive.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Being a big guy i seldom run into these issues and when I do I just put stuff into my jacket. If I want to go light I'll take the Sony. If I want to get the BEST from the destination I'll take the phase one gear one way or the other! It's worth the effort I find.YMMV
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
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.
 
Top