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!

A switch: Phase One to Nikon.........

BlinkingEye

New member
I thought I would leave this article, published today, for everyone to mull over.

Some interesting real world comments and practical thoughts, albeit there is some personal considerations, opinions and perhaps a bit of conjecture.

Take it for what it is.

I did notice there is little discussion regarding lenses. Further, Pentax is mentioned but that thought is not carried through.

Enjoy the reading.

I Switched From Phase One to Nikon. Here's Why.
 
M

mjr

Guest
Nice article, these things are good to read from an anecdotal view point, man finds a system that works better for him and buys it, it's designed to prompt discussion but his decision doesn't mean anything to anyone but him. I moved from Nikon to MF and would never move back, except for probably picking up a D500 for some event work because it's the right tool for the job. Ultimately, finding the equipment that allows you to work optimally is always the key, what that equipment is is not important to anyone else, unless someone feels that using the same equipment as someone who is good will help them to be good too, in which case, go for it!

Mat
 
I switched from Nikon to the 645Z and I'm not looking back either! Dude pointed out that the Z was out because of the 1/125th flash sync, but the D810 has a whole 1 stop more, and they both have HSS so... Another person just doesn't do any research because "Pentax".

Granted if he's just shooting magazine editorial the D810 is a fine choice and more than adequate to the task. If he was really having a ton of reliability issues with his Phase equipment it sounds like he was abusing it and needs something bullet proof.
 

Christopher

Active member
Good read, even though I had the feeling I read nearly the same stuff before. ?!?

I think it depends on the needs. I don't see a problem with flying. There is no difference for me between taking my phase one or Nikon gear with me. A real difference would make a song with 3 primes.
 

etrump

Well-known member
One less competitor to worry about IMO. The quality of photographs in the article kind of demonstrate the point.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Good read, even though I had the feeling I read nearly the same stuff before. ?!?

I think it depends on the needs. I don't see a problem with flying. There is no difference for me between taking my phase one or Nikon gear with me. A real difference would make a song with 3 primes.
I thought the same thing, I believe it was posted before mid last year. I remember the same format, type of photographer, issues, answers etc.

Can't find the other blog post now.

Paul C
 

Jamgolf

Member
MF is not for everyone, I get it...
However based on some recent threads and posts I wonder if this is the "Bash Medium Format" forum.
I love the civility and decorum of this forum - the diversity, the encouragement and acceptance of various points of view.
But lately there has been a constant barrage of negativity toward MF that I find quite offensive.
I honestly hope this is not something permanent.
 

stephengilbert

Active member
I can't believe how many otherwise sensible seeming people get sucked into these threads, often yielding hundreds of posts.
 

jagsiva

Active member
I think all the other pools/forums are drying up or have dried up...so here they come. The irony is that most of us with an MF kit, also have at least one if not more 35mm kits. There is no need to convince us of anything. Same goes the other way, we are not trying to convince anybody of anything.
 

modator

Member
Well done !
The next article woul be "A switch: Nikon to a little Sony bridge camera" !
That's the way the Young photographer are going..... The 135 slr are too bulky and heavy and the quality of the new bridge camera are going better and better...
For many fashion subject is impossible to distinguish the difference !
The new file size for pubblication on the web magazine is going 800x600 pixel maximum size... That's the future !

Best regards, Domenico.
 

Jan

Member
I thought the same thing, I believe it was posted before mid last year. I remember the same format, type of photographer, issues, answers etc.

Can't find the other blog post now.

Paul C
If you scroll through the comments, which i did, the photographer is saying he first published on Reddit and was asked by PetaPixel to re-publish. For what it is worth 😉
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I had this conversation with a working Pro from China several months back; a photographer whose fashion images get put up on billboards. He had just finished shooting a job with his Phase IQ and a D810 -- he said while the Phase images were technically superior, his client chose one of the Nikon images for their billboard. His comment was simply that we as photographers that edit the images daily can readily see the nuanced differences, but his clients -- and he emphasized these were his particular clients -- are rarely seeking technical perfection as much as a certain look that generates an emotion.

In response I would say you cannot argue the convenience factor. And it's tough to argue the image resolution differences at magazine full page size, 4K static, and even less so at conventional web resolutions and color spaces. And apparently this holds even for billboard resolution. Finally, there is the increase in web video which a lot of clients are moving to. So yeah, even for the strictest commercial purposes, it's tough to argue this author's reasoning. But there is still a notable tonal and resolution advantage to the MF file when compared directly to the D810's onscreen, and there remain visible color, tonal and "character" differences (superiorities?) to MF when viewing large prints from each.

That said, just because it worked for this pro or my friend above, doesn't mean it will work out that way for every pro. And then, for the hobbyist/artist where net IQ, resolution, color and tonality may be the holy grails, there is no contest.

What I find most interesting is what this brings up as as a discussion point: Historically (and I suspect presently) MFDB manufacturers have seen their prime customers as the working pros in commercial fashion, studio and advertising. Will this now morph toward the serious hobbyist/artist? I for one think probably so...
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
The problem with a billboard, at least to me, is that really a 20MP image can get there, billboards have been made with iPhone images. You are viewing something that is most times 25 yards or more away and tends to be up another 20 feet off the ground. Plus most time you the viewer are moving, in a car, cab, bus, train, and you don't have anytime to focus, and look too hard at the image. Plus the average art director or designer I have worked with over the past 5 years, pretty much felt that all I needed to do was plug the camera into the printer and hit print. The internet has changed the way a lot of professionals view large detailed prints. The folks making the print they know different, but why argue, it never seems to pay off, just go with the flow.

I have sold images of this size from MF, DSLR, (stitched files) and for this size either platform worked. The print quality is also not of very great concern.

However when the image is large an within close viewing distance, it's another story totally at least to me. Here resolution is king and MF even a 60MP shot can go further. We are talking 75" x 120" at 300ppi output, which will be viewed from 24" or less.

It's all a matter of what the customer wants.

Paul C
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
My take on this…

Hi,

My take on this is that any photographer, or other craftsman, may choose his/her tools of the trade according to specific needs. The fact that the same article has been published twice has little (almost zero) relevance.

Clearly, each job has requirements. A craftsman/photographer may choose to use a tool that exceeds those requirements.

  • On the other hand, there are also a lot of physical limitations. One is point of view. You really want to shoot a king cobra with an ultrawide?
  • Another limitation is DoF. The best lens on the XF won't help you if you need sharpness from 0.5 m to infinity. What you need is tilt.
  • The depth of focus and diffraction will always limit your options, tilts may be a solution

  • So, if you shoot sports you need accurate AF, short response time and good high ISO capability.
  • In many cases you need to use Scheinmpflug
  • Or you need shift
  • Or a fish eye lens

Printing small, like A2 (16" x 23") you don't need all those megapixels, ten of them may do. Printing large you may need all MP you can get, especially if your prints are viewed close. "Look at that thing! Is it a penguin or a dust speck?".

So, I would say that it is far more important to have adequate equipment, matching requirements, than great equipment.

Best regards
Erik
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
He sites reliability issues as one of the major reasons. That makes sense. When you're on a job, it's more important to have reliable equipment than probably anything else. There's a lot of stuff one will sacrifice for a camera that just works.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

That is correct, but it applies to any camera system. I always carry two cameras when on travel. The backup doesn't need to be as good as the primary, but still needs to be good enough.

Best regards
Erik


He sites reliability issues as one of the major reasons. That makes sense. When you're on a job, it's more important to have reliable equipment than probably anything else. There's a lot of stuff one will sacrifice for a camera that just works.
 

cunim

Well-known member
I rarely pay attention to this type of thing because the uses of MF and dslr are so clear for my own purposes. I use MF when I am working for my most demanding clients (me, myself and I) and/or need movements. If I could, I would have a digital LF camera for those applications. Just the thought of a 4 x 5 multishot CCD on the P2 makes me go all weak in the knees. I am not alone. If the MF manufacturers made something like that we would not need to have this discussion.

I use a convenient mirrorless camera for routine work - which would include shots for paying clients if I were a pro.

It seems to me that as photography changes from a highly skilled craft to whatever it is today, we no longer value the unique capabilities of studio cameras. Most young photographers I meet do not even know what movements are. If we no longer need those capabilities, we no longer need the skills and tools that gave them to us. Sadly.
 
Top