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!

MF direction

Lars

Active member
This was originally intended as a response to the MF look conundrum thread, but expanded beyond the scope of the thread so I'm posting a new thread instead.

===

As an aspiring landscape/fine art photographer, what I get out of my Nikon is very different from what I get out of my large format cameras, simply because with the Nikon I can be sloppy, I can spray the scene, and I can experiment. Shooting 120 film in my Ebony SW23 demands a much more deliberate, careful process but still allows for some experimenting. Finally, using the 8x10" Toyo monorail requires meticulous planning and scouting, often days/months in advance. So my 8x10s often lack any spontaneity whatsoever. Obviously the results are quite different - although with the 36 MP D810 and modern glass I'm finally beginning to take FF digital seriously.

My own experience with MFDB - specifically latest-gen Phase One backs - is considerably worse than the labor of love of shooting 8x10" slide film. I apologize if anyone chooses to be offended by the following but in my experience from a usability standpoint those systems are a complete joke. Had Nikon released a product as crippled as, say, the IQ3/60 CCD back, it would be the laughing stock of the industry for years. And looking at the raw files (raw as in straight out of dcraw w/o de-noise, not rescued by C1), an ISO 400 capture looks pretty much as bad as a Nikon D5 at THREE MILLION ISO. It could of course be argued that C1 should always be used with P1 images, but those same algorithms would clean up a D5 ISO 3M file just as well so I'm not buying that argument. Obviously I'm not impressed, and I cannot imagine getting superior creative results from a system that is essentially as much an obstacle course as a video game.

P1: "Umm.. Here's the $50K IQ3-100MP back for you to borrow. There's no manual."
Me: "Oh... No problem, I'll just download the PDF."
P1: "Huh?"

In fact, I would decline to use a P1 back even if it was free - it completely ruins my creative process, I would hate every second of the experience, and the upside in imaging results is debatable. Had I used my 8x10 at the Carmel workshop, I would have had a handful of truly amazing exposures, as opposed to dozens of crappy, noisy, bulky files. Sure, it would take a bit of time and effort in post including development and drum scanning, but there would be a real contribution to my portfolio, whereas what I got from the P1 backs (60 MP CCD and 100 MP CMOS) was frankly utter crap.

In all honesty, I did go back to the same locations a few days later and re-shot some of the scenes on 8x10" Velvia as well as Nikon D810 and the little GM5, so at the very least the P1 experience was good scouting. The surf was amazing:


Big surf at Big Sur. Lumia GM5, Lumia 35-100, March 2016.

In about 2-4 years' time I expect this whole argument to pretty much be over. We'll have Sony/Nikon/Canon bodies with 60-100 MP, quite a few compatible high end APO lenses, and perhaps even (gasp!) leaf shutter lenses for FF bodies. Phase One and Hasselblad are well aware of that beyond a few specialized applications their competitive advantages are slowly slipping away. In my opinion there's nothing they can do to avoid that - as the FF cameras improve, lens makers will up their game and provide the high end lenses the market demands. This process is obviously already happening, with Zeiss approaching multiple segments from Otus to Milvus to Whateverus, Sigma and Tamron attempting to match or exceed present sensor resolutions with their latest-gen lens designs, Canon with the amazing 11-24 etc, etc. So where does MF go? While I'd love to use a good 300 MP camera, if the cost is on par with a supercar then the market just isn't there, and for everything else there will be 60-100 MP FF sensors with APO f/1.4 lenses at a fraction of current MF price levels. And maybe, just maybe, a leaf shutter lens.



This loops back to my original comment in the "MF look conundrum' thread - it's the photographer and the lens - not the camera - that creates, that makes for the "MF look". (Anyone who thinks that a camera is anything else than a light-tight box with glass in the front, sensor in the back, should look at the Alpa camera above. :) )

Many of the most accomplished creative photographers in the world (including some frequenting this forum) use MF, however they are accomplished due to their photography skills (and just as much marketing skills) rather than due to the gear they choose. If you personally notice that - all else being equal - you get better results using an MF size sensor then it's possibly because you approach MF photography differently than when using a FF DSLR - MF slows you down, makes your shooting more deliberate (and for some reason I personally cannot fathom, you actually enjoy it - just like you cannot understand why I still shoot 8x10" film, even more so slide film), whereas when you pick up a DSLR perhaps your shooting becomes less deliberate (just extrapolating from my own personality LF film vs DSLR). You like the creative results you get from MF so you accept the quirks of the system.

Okay this was a bit off-topic to the 'MF look conundrum' thread but it's a reasoning that ties together several current and past threads here. I am fully aware that some will disagree with me - even strongly - but I think sharing my experience and my own opinion based on my experience is the right thing to do. YMMV.

Lars
 
Last edited:

Dogs857

New member
Ahoy Lars

That is a well presented argument and something that I have been agreeing with for a while. It's all about the photographer, and what the photographer wants to use.

It doesn't matter if pixel pitches are similar, it doesn't matter if lenses are similar, it just doesn't matter. If you don't see the benefit in using a particular piece of gear then you are better off with something else. Personally I don't see the quality differences you point out, but then I am not you. That doesn't make you wrong, or me wrong. That just makes it what it is.

For the record I have tried the D800, and just hated that camera. Every time I pick one up it makes me sad because it just does not gel with me. The files are noisy at anything over a 10sec exposure (even less sometimes) and I never saw what all the fuss was about compared to my D3x. Then I bought a Phase back. After my first shoot I pulled the files into Capture One and thought immediately that this is what I was after. I enjoyed using the camera, I loved the output of the files and I was happy. This made my work better because I was happier with what I was using.

I have tried the Sony wonderkids but really dislike them as well. This is more of a zen thing I will admit with that camera. It did not gel with me at all despite lots of trying. I wanted to like it, but in the end every time I picked it up it made me sad. I didn't like the way it was set out, the size, the files, the evf, etcetera, etcetera. It might have the most amazing image quality in the world but there is no point if you don't enjoy using the gear.

As to the future of MFD well anything is possible. I am somewhat curious to see just how many pixels they can squeeze onto a 35mm sensor. Eventually they are going to run out of space, and the strain on the other parts of the system may get too much. Then again they may not, we will wait and see.

I have been back and forth with MFD a few times now due to various reasons, and none to do with quality. I am now using a 645D and enjoying the camera.

You can't see the benefit, I can. Neither of us are right and both of us are right. The only thing that has been getting me down is the number of posts that seem to want to prove that the Sony camera is superior. It's not, but then again neither is the Phase camera.

For photographers the best camera is the one you enjoy using, and the one that gives you the results you want.

Enjoy your photography Lars.
 

JeRuFo

Active member
As with all these 'what makes MF so special?' threads, the answer is simple. If you don't think it's special then it isn't special. Every photographer should use what gives him/her the image he/she wants.

While I don't agree with your reasoning (why not use C1 with P1 files if it gives great results? You don't develop slide film in Rodinal either, just because it is a classic developer? And my scans are far more bulky than any RAW file. You seem more angry at the price of MFD than anything else,) I can totally see why you would get frustrated with digital files and how far off anything presentable they are and would expect more if you are used to seeing big Velvia sheets. But there are also times when I love a good digital camera. I shot a Leica S for a while last month and was quite in awe of how natural the files look without the crispness that many digital cameras have and how it tempted me to play around.
If I were in a position to travel more I would definetely invest in a big sensor digital camera too, because it would not be fun to develop that much film over and over again. I'd still use film for the big, planned shots, but for not much else.
But in the end it doesn't matter. Whether someone thinks or actually does get better results from a certain camera system, if you get the shot you want you'll take that camera with you the next day again. There have always been more expensive cameras sold than used and some end up on a shelf or get sold quickly, but the people that continu working with them probably don't do it to torture themself and so do see something special in them.
 

Lars

Active member
Jeff -
Well said.
Of course can I see the obvious benefits - more pixels, available leaf shutter lenses, technical camera compatibility if you use a separate back, bragging rights for your clients. What I'm saying is that 1) those benefits are less important than some years ago as there are viable alternatives now; 2) most of those benefits are in my opinion going to become irrelevant in the next few years 3) My personal impression trying out MFDB backs left me unimpressed by the frankly amateurish quality in UX and raw image quality.

C1 OTOH is pure magic, their imaging team is first-class - I expect Phase One to transition to a pure software company over the next decade.

"You can't see the benefit, I can. "

I don't think you meant it this way, but this implies that I don't "get it", that I am somehow unable to see or understand something - I would argue that I actually do. Slap a Digitar on a D800, shoot long exposures at base ISO and then you have a relevant comparison to what you do with the P1 back. If OTOH you compare $5K Schneider glass on the P1 to $500 Nikon glass on the D800 then it's a less relevant comparison (in the context of this discussion). You need high end glass to fully utilize high-MP sensors - regardless of format.
-Lars
 

Dogs857

New member
Ahoy Lars

No mate I did not imply anything by that sentence at all. It was a poorly worded thought.
 

Lars

Active member
... I can totally see why you would get frustrated with digital files and how far off anything presentable they are and would expect more if you are used to seeing big Velvia sheets.
Not at all - just specifically unimpressed with P1 files. They were so bad there was no point in even trying. My Nikon files are fine, as are my 1.8 GB drum scans. I build imaging software, have actually not been in a darkroom since late 70's.

The "bulky" comment refers to typical beginner's bad habit - uncertainty about the result - first time with this specific gear - made me fire far more shots in the hope that at least one would catch the best light. In the end, none was technically good, nor artistically relevant.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
MFD sure has been a punching bag lately.

FF 135 may get more of this and that in future, it may get a nice set of leaf-shutter lenses eventually, lens makers probably will continue stepping up their game. As they do, I'll consider it. I'm already half way there.

For now, I have images to take, and I already own various types gear to make those images the way I want ... creatively, aesthetically and physically. The emphasis is on "NOW".

I do not own any Phase One gear ... however, I feel labeling them "a joke", "crippled", etc., seems odd given the incredibly beautiful images so many photographers seem to produce with that equipment. I don't feel compelled to defend P1 or MFD ... the images do a fine job of that on their own.

While I also agree that what is in front of the lens, and who is behind the camera, has a everything to do with it ... I'd also postulate that those same minds made a conscience decision to use a certain tool to accomplish their task ... so, because photography does require use of a tool, you cannot separate one decision from the others just because it is convenient to your point-of-view.

Chose what you will ... the proof will be in the pudding ... not endless deriding opinions, points, counter-points, and images that lean heavily on technical proficiency as opposed to any real breakthrough in creative insight, or opening up new vistas of understanding or feeling regarding any given subject ... be it accomplished with a MFD camera, a FF 135 camera, APSc, a 1" sensor ... or a cell phone.

- Marc
 
Last edited:

JohnBrew

Active member
Hello Lars and thank you for opening up a new venue where we can all express more open views! Several of the MF vendors have been plying me with their products for some time. Currently I shoot a D810/Otus & various Nikon lenses. I have shot a P45+ and CFV-50c with various ALPA cameras and lenses in the testing procedure of moving to MF.
During the last 50+ years I have sampled many camera systems and lenses, but I have never even handled a Hasselblad. However, while I don't believe MF offers any advantage in resolution today, the color, tonality and sheer presence of a large MF print has convinced me that perhaps I should look a little further into the genre, so to speak. So in the next few weeks I will be trying the H system. Partially because my 810 is hors de combat at the moment. Secondly because I'm going to Italy next month to shoot in some places I've never been before (this will be my ninth trip) and I really want the absolute best image quality possible. If my Nikon cannot be repaired in time I will hopefully approve of the Hasselblad and take one instead of my Nikon.
My first camera was a 6 x 6 and I still cannot get over the contact prints from it. I was lucky in that my first foray into photography was a trip to Big Bend Nat'l Park. Some of the best images I have ever made. I would like to repeat that experience with current MF. My production with stitched images courtesy of the 810 and Zeiss Otus are pretty incredible, but I feel they are somewhat lacking in what could be produced with careful PP and MF.
As always, photography, as in life, is a constant experiment and I feel the need to push myself to see what I can achieve.
 

Lars

Active member
I do not own any Phase One gear ... however, I feel labeling them "a joke", "crippled", etc., seems odd given the incredibly beautiful images so many photographers seem to produce with that equipment.
Marc,
Good point - I need to be specific here. I was hoping not to have to.

One day of the workshop I borrowed an IQ3 60MP CCD back. As pointed out earler, there is no documentation available and no instruction was given beyond "Ask questions." At some point in the afternoon I set up the camera, switched the back to preview, and it was... trashed. All black except for one green square. I powered it off and on again, tried to find a reset command or a ctrl-alt-del sequence using the buttons on the back - it kept malfunctioning. None of the CI staff or anyone else were nearby to ask. I pretty much accepted that I had somehow broken a $30K piece of gear that I just borrowed with my credit card as security - all that was on my mind from that point on was what property I would be forced to sell to pay a lawyer a retainer fee, or even how soon I could quit my job and leave the country. I am not joking here I was sh-t scared.

A few hours later in the evening I very reluctantly approached Dave Gallagher of CI and explained what had happened. He just laughed and said "Yeah CCDs do that sometimes when overloaded with light, just power it off for a few minutes.".

Laughing at a possible customer, well, that's a separate discussion between me and Dave - I'm sure he meant no harm, but considering the circumstances it will be a while before I forget.

Point is, to me this user experience is a complete joke, it's a crippled product, and not providing documentation is amateurish. Heck, even the need for documentation is amateur night. Any other digital camera - SURELY including your Leica S - I can just pick up and fire away with. That's one source of the harsh words - I stand by them.

As I mentioned in the original post, this is sharing my experience and my opinions based on those experiences.
-Lars
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I understand Lars. A bad experience. Can't argue with that.

I had a few of those myself ... not limited to MFD BTW. Oddly, after 9 different Hasselblad H CCD cameras I never had a light over-load issue like that. I did get a H2D/22 that shot DNGs that simply did not reliably work despite trying to be ahead of its' time. Hasselblad quietly replaced the camera with a new H2D/22 sans the DNG file format ... with a sheepish apology.

I once had a Pro Nikon light up like a Christmas tree at a wedding shoot ... looked like a blinking Robby The Robot ... scared the living crap out of me since I was 1/2 way through the wedding. Never seen anything like it ... thought it was going to blow up or something.

"MF direction" is an interesting question if we remove the rancor.

How will MFD meet the new challenges from other formats as time and technology marches on?

The generation of MFD users like myself that profess to see a difference in look and feel beyond pixel count may wain as new users with a different sensibility come on the scene. What would entice them to consider MFD?

Mirror-less need not be restricted to 135 formats ... so maybe there is something there? Hasselblad just jacked up the sync speed to 1/2000 on the H6, and hinted that something else of more importance than the H6 is coming soon.

Then again, maybe the whole thing will give way to some new tech we haven't imagined yet.

- Marc
 

jlm

Workshop Member
Responding more directly to the title of the thread, I would say the direction of Mf has always been to optimize the benefits of a larger format, compared to, say 35mm. Viewfinder, "negative" size, out of the box thinking on camera layout (hassle lad and rollei), ground glass viewing, etc.
Seems they now have to move even further as 35mm has upped the game
 

Jamgolf

Member
I am not responding to the OP.
My reply is for sake of others who at some point might read this looking for "truths" on MF digital backs.


from a usability standpoint those systems are a complete joke...

Umm.. Here's the $50K IQ3-100MP back for you to borrow. There's no manual.
Credo 60 has one of the simplest menus of any electronic device I have owned.
Here is the entire menu. Please be the judge: http://jawadmalik.com/img/s11/v32/o282653245/c2/p1971361621-200.mp4
Do you think this is a "complete joke"?


I would decline to use a P1 back even if it was free...

I would hate every second of the experience...
Thems fightin’ words . . . you decide if you want to believe them


the upside in imaging results is debatable...

I cannot imagine getting superior creative results from a system...

While I'd love to use a good 300 MP camera,...
So 100MP is crap but love me some 300MP - Please consume with grains of salt


an ISO 400 capture looks pretty much as bad as a Nikon D5 at THREE MILLION ISO
OP shoots/enjoys 8x10 slide film.
Velvia 50 is shot at ISO 40 to properly be exposed.
No one pushes Velvia 50 to 400 - but hey lets push IQ380, native ISO 35 to 400.
CCD backs like light - shooting a CCD back at 400 ISO will result in disappointment.
This statement absolutely does not apply to IQ3 100 (CMOS).


I think sharing my experience and my own opinion based on my experience is the right thing to do...

At some point in the afternoon I set up the camera, switched the back to preview, and it was... trashed.

...to me this user experience is a complete joke, it's a crippled product...
An experience based on an afternoon with a DB that was presumed “trashed”.
OP’s experience with the demo sounds unfortunate but is not typical.
Just ask other owners of Leaf, Phase, Hasselblad digital backs if they have experienced similar hickups.


what I got from the P1 backs (60 MP CCD and 100 MP CMOS) was frankly utter crap
I quote OP and rest my case: “it's the photographer and the lens - not the camera - that creates”
 

Lars

Active member
Jamgolf,

If you are not responding to my OP then why are you quoting it?

Re truths, would you say that all experiences count - yours as well as mine?
Or are you of the opinion that I should not share my bad experiences with MF because they differ from yours, using different gear?

Nobody is accused of lying or misleading here. I hope.
Although parts of your post certainly go beyond hinting at attempting to discredit me, which frankly is bit disturbing.

". . . you decide if you want to believe them"

If you want to accuse me of lying or misleading then do readers a favor and say so, so that we can discuss what specifically you accuse me of lying about. I'd be happy to expand on my experience and how I came to form my opinion based on those experiences - although I think I have been pretty clear above.

-Lars


I am not responding to the OP.
My reply is for sake of others who at some point might read this looking for "truths" on MF digital backs.



Credo 60 has one of the simplest menus of any electronic device I have owned.
Here is the entire menu. Please be the judge: http://jawadmalik.com/img/s11/v32/o282653245/c2/p1971361621-200.mp4
Do you think this is a "complete joke"?



Thems fightin’ words . . . you decide if you want to believe them



So 100MP is crap but love me some 300MP - Please consume with grains of salt



OP shoots/enjoys 8x10 slide film.
Velvia 50 is shot at ISO 40 to properly be exposed.
No one pushes Velvia 50 to 400 - but hey lets push IQ380, native ISO 35 to 400.
CCD backs like light - shooting a CCD back at 400 ISO will result in disappointment.
This statement absolutely does not apply to IQ3 100 (CMOS).



An experience based on an afternoon with a DB that was presumed “trashed”.
OP’s experience with the demo sounds unfortunate but is not typical.
Just ask other owners of Leaf, Phase, Hasselblad digital backs if they have experienced similar hickups.



I quote OP and rest my case: “it's the photographer and the lens - not the camera - that creates”
 
M

mjr

Guest
Lars

Your experiences are exactly that, your own, they become universal opinion if lots and lots of people have the same experiences and they become fact when they are indisputable. I have had a lot of negative experiences with a lot of things from cars to photographic gear to people, the difference is that I don't believe that my negative experience in any of those situations somehow entitles me to declare the thing/piece of equipment/person as pointless and crap.

A few years back I bought a Porsche 911 Turbo, I drove it out of the showroom and felt like a giddy child, second morning it wouldn't start due to the battery being flat. It spent 3 of the next 6 months in different dealers having issues fixed, I got fed up and sold it. I could obviously go on to a Porsche forum and state that the 911 is crap, I wouldn't drive one if it was free, I hated the experience etc. and those would be the accurate description of my own personal experiences and quite possibly there will be people who agree with me, more than a few even but it wouldn't be fair to simply dismiss the whole thing because of my bad experience.

And so to your Phase One experience, it sounds like a combination of factors gave you a crap time and that is something you feel strongly enough about to declare the whole thing as pointless, you are obviously entitled to do that but I hope you can accept that for a lot of people the experience is the opposite, and their opinions are just as valid as yours. I have 3 different systems on my desk at the moment, a Sony, Nikon and Phase One, if I could have afforded to keep it the Leica would be there too, I use them all for different things and they all excel at something or I wouldn't use them. We all want different things, it's obvious that I want different things than you do, I get them currently from the Phase but previously the Leica and to some extent the Nikon too, if anything coming out of any of those cameras is crap, I don't really have to look at the camera, I look at what I did with it.

So, thanks for writing your experiences and opinions, it's an interesting read but does nothing to change what I use on a daily basis and what my clients pay me lots of money for, I am sure my experiences will mean as much to you as yours means to me, hopefully you can find exactly what you love using and then just make beautiful images with it. I use an IQ260, effectively the same as the 360 you used and I find when I use it in the right situation and with the correct settings then the results are beautiful, I wouldn't presume to declare it the best camera in the world though, that would be as daft as declaring it the worst!

Have a good day.

Mat
 

Jamgolf

Member
If you are not responding to my OP then why are you quoting it?
(i) So your glaring exaggerations can be high lighted and (ii) so there is some context to my post.

would you say that all experiences count - yours as well as mine?
Absolutely - eveyone's experience counts.
Most people would not consider a demo or an afternoon to be enough experience to trash something. You apparently do.
If I download software you create and spend 15 minutes, and if it crashes on my machine, would you think I would have enough experience to start a thread to trash it, declare it “crap”, “utterly useless”, “complete joke”.
I bet you would not like that.

Nobody is accused of lying or misleading here.
I am not accusing you of lying.
I am stating the obvious - that you are grossly exaggerating.

If you want to accuse me of lying or misleading
No. I do not want to accuse you of lying or anything.
But you are most certainly trying to mislead others with your exaggerations.
 

DanielDuarte

Active member
I will toss my two cents in, take them with a grain of salt as with all opinions.

I am purely a fine art photographer with little to no negative outlook on commercial photographers, I simply haven't found myself in a position where I would take that work.

We all know its the user, the tool is just that... a tool. This year I entered graduate school to receive my MFA and a combination of new pressures and tight work schedule shifted me away from 8x10 LF work and into digital. I purchased and returned numerous systems since the fall and ended up buying an H5D-50C. While this is an amazing tool, I am selling it tomorrow morning.

I wish I had listened to someone earlier, the MFD systems are for those in the commercial world... if your intention are fine art images, well you could go from a box camera shooting paper negatives to 8x10. Sharpness and MTF curves and all this crap doesn't matter.

Open a few photo books, those people killed the photo game with crude tools and limited resources.
 

PhiloFarmer

Member
[QUOTE=J but I have never even handled a Hasselblad.

Well...that's a mouthful of honesty.....

You might...just might...try one sometime (and as an "old-fart," I'm speaking of the V-System....). You'll be very pleasantly impressed...and creative-driven!

Cheers,

Hank
 

Lars

Active member
If I download software you create and spend 15 minutes, and if it crashes on my machine, would you think I would have enough experience to start a thread to trash it, declare it “crap”, “utterly useless”, “complete joke”.
I bet you would not like that.
Actually, that's par for the course for most consumer products - you only get one chance at first impression - especially in software. Not that I like it.
But from a product management perspective that's reality - ask any product manager. Your products should be usable from day one. The automotive industry has this pretty much nailed down.

I repeat - the experience I had with the CCD back malfunctioning to the point of being unusable the first day is simply not acceptable, not from a $50 cheapo camera nor from a $30K high end back (or a new car for that matter). Add to this the fact that this was a CI-sponsored workshop to showcase their new products, including this specific back.
Sure, this my OPINION, but it's not based on any unreasonable expectation, is it? If so, what specifically is unreasonable about that expectation? Spell it out, please.

No. I do not want to accuse you of lying or anything.
But you are most certainly trying to mislead others with your exaggerations.
No. I am in no way trying to mislead.
But the above is indeed an accusation in the second row despite the denial in the first row.

-Lars
 
Top