Is there a compelling reason to move to MF?

[MrSmith]

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

(i see lines going the other way to the fabric in your 100%crop)

 

[CSP]

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 ?

 

[Egor]

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.

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.

 

[Pelorus]

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.

 

[Egor]

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

 

[Abstraction]

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.

 

[ondebanks]

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

 

[Egor]

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.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

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

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

 

[fotografz]

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

 

[MrSmith]

"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.

 

[Pelorus]

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.

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