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

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I am not coming from 8x10 drum scans, although I have some 6x7cm drum scans and a lot of 6x7cm CCD scans.

My experience with the P45+ has not been a negative one. The images were mostly very good. One issue I would think of that I feel the Phase One workflow is sort of protecting to the highlights.

  • Histograms are very conservative
  • The standard film curve in C1 is very bright
  • A healthy amount of noise reduction in C1 even at base ISO

So everything is set up avoid ETTR exposure. That increases noise. Default noise reduction takes care of that. If you check out the raw file in a straight raw converter, like DCraw you will see some noise.

The A7rII I am using now has some of the same issues, the camera histogram is very conservative. Need to learn more about that, my older Sonys have been less conservative.

I had some discussions with Hans Kruse, who was instructor at least for one of the Phase One workshops. He says that he had experienced something like three hangups with older Phase One system in the workshop, and felt that the system was not very reliable. But he also was quite impressed by the image quality. Still his conclusion was that he could not build a business case for the Phase One system. But, Hans doesn't print very large. Interestingly, Hans found that the Nikon system he owns has significant advantage in DR, but that doesn't really matter for his photography. With the Canons he brackets a bit more, to get ETTR and he also shots HDR.

Something I found out discussing with Hans was that he had issues with his 24-70/2.8 LII zoom, that was off to repair. The loaner he got had also some issues. I have heard that he got the lens repaired and it was quite OK after repair. Sample variations are around us.

I made quite a lot of nice images with the P45+, although I use LR in different versions, not C1. C1 doesn't work for me, although I see some advantages with it.

What I have noticed that I have a lot of nice images, but they essentially don't make it to the wall. Don't know why. I would think that it may depend on using primes, with zooms giving a better choice for compositions. I am a bit point of view fixed. Select point of view and than a lens to match. Another thing may be that the MFD doesn't make it to those best spots.

It is nice to have a gear that can make all jobs well.

From my viewpoint it is questionable if crop frame MFD makes a lot of sense. Full frame MFD with high pixel count makes a lot of sense. Now that the latest MFD backs use Sony CMOS they should be able to play the advantage of size over 24x36mm Sony based cameras.

Hasselblad seem to take a different approach than Phase One. We have only one Phase One dealer here in Sweden, Scandinavan Photo. They have not been very knowledgeable about Phase One when I bought my P45+, they never heard about viewfinder masks. That may have been improved.

In Sweden we have price lists for all Hasselblad and Phase One gear, at www.goecker.se (Hasselblad) and www.scandinavianphoto.se (Phase One).

Best regards
Erik





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.
 

Jamgolf

Member
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.
Very well - you may not be "trying to mislead" but you certainly are misleading even without trying.
 

Lars

Active member
Looking ahead... the competitive advantages that MF has or might have compared to FF 24x36 DSLRs:
- Pixel count (diminishing advantage)
- Dynamic range (not so much difference anymore)
- Bit depth in processing engine (not so much anymore)
- Quality glass (FF catching up)
- Compatibility with technical cameras/lenses (a separate back with the sensor at the front will always be a better choice, regardless of sensor size).
- Leaf shutters
- Subjective image quality (separate discussion)
- Software (C1 is truly impressive in its raw conversion code)
(anything else?)

Hasselblad PMs seem to have done their homework, opening up for high end video. The larger sensor size might be desirable for film makers.

Apart from that - well, if an MF camera was a true professional camera - with this I mean truly better in all relevant aspects except cost - then MF would still have a well-articulated edge. Any other direction would be surprise me. This is the direction Hasselblad seems to pursue perhaps more than Phase One - to be a better DSLR than a DSLR. Of course not all aspects can be better, notably action photography. But for any situation where weight, frame rate and AF speed is less of a priority there is a niche to capture and/or defend. That niche will shrink over time, but it's there.
Erik mentioned commercial photography as the specific target niche for current MF, it's hard to argue against that. Even so, as FF DSLRs improve, that niche will be harder to defend.

-Lars
 

Lars

Active member
Hej Erik,

I went back to my IQ3-60 files and indeed there is plenty of headroom on the properly exposed ones - in the range of 2-3 stops. Even at ISO 50 (I shot the 100MP CMOS back at ISO 400, the CCD at 50) once you pull up the exposure there is quite a bit of color noise in the raw files. This is what shocked me, compared to Nikon. Obviously that opened a bit of a Pandora's box here. OTOH C1 is so darn impressive in its de-noise algorithm.

Of course you should try overexposure a bit on the Sony to see where you can maximize DR, to find where the sensor clips. A truly scientific (but more difficult) approach would check the sensor color channels separately - I think that can be accomplished using straight Dcraw but it's a lot of work. Some years ago people experimented with profiles that maximized each color channel DR separately - the image would come out heavily discolored before the correction profile was applied - but nowadays with 13-16 stops DR it's not worth the effort.

My own software has Dcraw built-in so I'm pretty familiar with that code. The future of Dcraw is a bit uncertain a the moment - there have been no updates for almost a year on Dave Coffin's code. With new cameras arriving almost weekly, a raw converter gets old quickly if color profiles for new cameras are not added. For example IQ3-100MP files don't read well at all whereas IQ3-60MP files seem to have approximately correct colorants.

Interesting to see Hassy prices in SEK.

-Lars

Hi,

I am not coming from 8x10 drum scans, although I have some 6x7cm drum scans and a lot of 6x7cm CCD scans.

My experience with the P45+ has not been a negative one. The images were mostly very good. One issue I would think of that I feel the Phase One workflow is sort of protecting to the highlights.

  • Histograms are very conservative
  • The standard film curve in C1 is very bright
  • A healthy amount of noise reduction in C1 even at base ISO

So everything is set up avoid ETTR exposure. That increases noise. Default noise reduction takes care of that. If you check out the raw file in a straight raw converter, like DCraw you will see some noise.

The A7rII I am using now has some of the same issues, the camera histogram is very conservative. Need to learn more about that, my older Sonys have been less conservative.

I had some discussions with Hans Kruse, who was instructor at least for one of the Phase One workshops. He says that he had experienced something like three hangups with older Phase One system in the workshop, and felt that the system was not very reliable. But he also was quite impressed by the image quality. Still his conclusion was that he could not build a business case for the Phase One system. But, Hans doesn't print very large. Interestingly, Hans found that the Nikon system he owns has significant advantage in DR, but that doesn't really matter for his photography. With the Canons he brackets a bit more, to get ETTR and he also shots HDR.

Something I found out discussing with Hans was that he had issues with his 24-70/2.8 LII zoom, that was off to repair. The loaner he got had also some issues. I have heard that he got the lens repaired and it was quite OK after repair. Sample variations are around us.

I made quite a lot of nice images with the P45+, although I use LR in different versions, not C1. C1 doesn't work for me, although I see some advantages with it.

What I have noticed that I have a lot of nice images, but they essentially don't make it to the wall. Don't know why. I would think that it may depend on using primes, with zooms giving a better choice for compositions. I am a bit point of view fixed. Select point of view and than a lens to match. Another thing may be that the MFD doesn't make it to those best spots.

It is nice to have a gear that can make all jobs well.

From my viewpoint it is questionable if crop frame MFD makes a lot of sense. Full frame MFD with high pixel count makes a lot of sense. Now that the latest MFD backs use Sony CMOS they should be able to play the advantage of size over 24x36mm Sony based cameras.

Hasselblad seem to take a different approach than Phase One. We have only one Phase One dealer here in Sweden, Scandinavan Photo. They have not been very knowledgeable about Phase One when I bought my P45+, they never heard about viewfinder masks. That may have been improved.

In Sweden we have price lists for all Hasselblad and Phase One gear, at www.goecker.se (Hasselblad) and www.scandinavianphoto.se (Phase One).

Best regards
Erik
 

satybhat

Member
Its the cost, I think.
When it hurts the pocket, you sing.
A bit like the opera - the hero gets stabbed in the back, and instead of dying, starts singing.
 

jerome_m

Member
Its the cost, I think.
When it hurts the pocket, you sing.
Cameras which I do not buy do not hurt my finances.

May I suggest we move all these post into a group thread, something like "Why I don't want to buy a MF camera" or "No fun with medium format"? People are certainly entitled to hold a negative opinion about MF, not buy a camera, prefer 24x36 to MF or even shoot billboard sized pictures with an iPhone (Apple advertisement campaign), but the forum is starting to be difficult to follow with the many rants.
 

Lars

Active member
Hej Mat,
To be clear, I did not state that the MF backs were the worst cameras at anything. It was just my experience that they completely blocked my creative process, with limited apparent technical upside seen in the process. Perhaps I could have worded my critique in a more nuanced way, but the critique is valid. Over the four days I used the P1 backs, they blocked my creative process. I mean, really blocked. I was frustrated the entire weekend. That's obviously not the right mood for creativity (well, I knew an improvisational sculptor once...)

The point here is not an MF-bashing "rant" but rather a discussion re where the industry is headed. Where do P1 and Hassy go when their competitive advantages are gone?
And yes, as someone pointed out, cost is part of the equation. As it should be.
-Lars

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
 
M

mjr

Guest
The point here is not an MF-bashing "rant" but rather a discussion re where the industry is headed. Where do P1 and Hassy go when their competitive advantages are gone?

-Lars
Lars, I mean no disrespect but if your point was not to come across as a rant against MF then I feel you may have failed!

Look, there are tools for everyone, if there is really no competitive advantage then the businesses will go bust, it's as simple as that. Whilst there are people who want to buy their kit they will stay in business. There are so many types of photography and photographer that it is impossible to generalise, what is no advantage for you can be a huge advantage for someone else and rightly so!

I just received an email from a client who is very excited about his display stand and sent me a quick iphone snap, I hope people don't object to me sharing it..



I shot this with the IQ260 on a Cambo, there is absolutely nothing left wanting in this file, it has printed beautifully at 6m wide and more than that, the client loves it. Could it have been taken with another camera? Of course, anything from a box brownie to a Cap Cam depending on what I wanted from the final shot and the budget, as it is, the absolute best camera for the job was the camera I had, despite having no live view, no viewfinder even, no eye focusing af, I didn't even have a manual for the back, I just set aperture and shutter speed and took the shot.

My point is that whilst entirely valid in your limited time with the cameras on your 4 day trip, mf is capable of producing excellent work, as are pretty much all cameras if used to their strengths.


Mat
 

jerome_m

Member
Hej Mat,
To be clear, I did not state that the MF backs were the worst cameras at anything. It was just my experience that they completely blocked my creative process, with limited apparent technical upside seen in the process. Perhaps I could have worded my critique in a more nuanced way, but the critique is valid. Over the four days I used the P1 backs, they blocked my creative process. I mean, really blocked. I was frustrated the entire weekend. That's obviously not the right mood for creativity (well, I knew an improvisational sculptor once...)
My experience with Hasselblad is not as frustrating as your experience with Phase One. I found that the camera I have generally works. Generally, my process for taking landscape pictures is:
  • walk around till I find a suitable place to show the scene (sometimes I look in the viewfinder of the switched off camera to have an idea of the framing, a reason why I do not want an EVF)
  • install a tripod or monopod on that suitable place
  • chose an aperture (although I sometimes bracket the aperture)
  • press the focus button for AF (which is generally perfectly accurate)
  • press the mirror up button
  • press the shutter button
  • (repeat for other pictures)
  • then, back home, get the files into focus, which does most of the adjustments I need automatically
  • sometimes tweak contrast, colors or sharpening to taste
  • for the pictures which please me, invest a bit more time to add some effects in post process and print them really big

Generally, I found the camera much easier to use than my 24x36, because lens defects are not a problem, lens corrections are automatic, unsharpness from shutter movements is not a problem and the colours are pleasing and natural to my eyes out of the box. And I have more pixels to print bigger.

Still: I recognise that the camera is not perfect. It is large, the menu system is inconvenient (I could configure the camera better and save my settings, but I can't be bothered) and it sometimes locks up (rarely, by my other digital cameras never do that).

Other people will have different experiences because we all interact with our cameras in different ways.


The point here is not an MF-bashing "rant" but rather a discussion re where the industry is headed. Where do P1 and Hassy go when their competitive advantages are gone?
They still have twice the resolution and they are likely to keep that advantage forever, since the sensor is twice the size. But yes, generally speaking, that industry is in crisis. Hint: all traditional camera makers are in crisis at present because the cameras in cell phones is sufficient to cover the needs of 95% of their customers. So what?
 

JeRuFo

Active member
Looking ahead... the competitive advantages that MF has or might have compared to FF 24x36 DSLRs:
- Pixel count (diminishing advantage)
- Dynamic range (not so much difference anymore)
- Bit depth in processing engine (not so much anymore)
- Quality glass (FF catching up)
- Compatibility with technical cameras/lenses (a separate back with the sensor at the front will always be a better choice, regardless of sensor size).
- Leaf shutters
- Subjective image quality (separate discussion)
- Software (C1 is truly impressive in its raw conversion code)
(anything else?)

Hasselblad PMs seem to have done their homework, opening up for high end video. The larger sensor size might be desirable for film makers.
-pixel count ( resolution has always been the advantage of MF and still is. When FF went to 36mp MF went to 80 mp, now FF is at mid 40s with CMOS, MF is at 100 with CMOS.)
-Bit depth (as with MP both seem to be moving forward together, but that might indeed top out.)
-Quality glass (The bigger the sensor, the better lensed can be, because the light passes through more glass and doesn't need to hit lenses at extreme angles as much. You mention the Otus-lenses, but they cost the same as MF glass.)
-Subjective image quality ( Besides the subjective quality differences, there are also real advantages, like edge sharpness for wide angles and the resolution as mentioned. Plus, why would a videomaker want a bigger sensor if there is no advantage over FF?)
And one of the reasons I like MF:
- aspect ratio (sure you can do that in a smaller format, but somehow big manufacturers seem to shy away from it, so history does still count a bit in the digital age.)

And then there are practical reasons, like photographers that have invested in glass want new cameras for it and will buy those. FF manufacturers tried to push people to aps-c, but most pros weren't having it, so there came a line of semi-pro FF cameras instead of the APS-c they were pushing for. People that bought 50k of MF glass will want to use that for a few more years, even if FF ever catches up.

I don't see software as an advantage for MF, it had some catching up to do with all the new stuff for FF and it seems it is almost there. But software is there regardless of sensor size and FF relies on it heavily too, for correcting lenses.

Plus, who cares if there is a future for MF? I don't think many people feel very strongly about using this specific sensor size. If there is a better camera in another size for them, the market will shift towards that. But there is a present and near future for MF, which means at least 5 more years of these things around and people that use it and want a forum to talk to eachother. It may never be for you and may never need to be, but it is and will be for a while for quite a few people.
 

dchew

Well-known member
Lars,
Thank you for starting what I think is a heartfelt thread about your experience. I can empathize with your experience even though mine has been, in summary, the opposite. My main frustration was early sync issues with the back. Thankfully both Alpa and P1 worked those out to the point where I can't remember the last time I had a problem. Your experience and resulting opinion just amplifies what I've been trying to say in other threads: Different people place value on different things. What one person finds a horrible annoyance another considers an advantage, and vice versa. That diversity of thought, opinion and value is what makes our world such a great place. Here's to everyone finding the tool that fits their vision the best, so we all can make the best images we are capable of making. :chug:

And may all the camera makers (and dealers) take Lars' experience to heart and continue improving their products.

Plus, who cares if there is a future for MF? I don't think many people feel very strongly about using this specific sensor size. If there is a better camera in another size for them, the market will shift towards that. But there is a present and near future for MF, which means at least 5 more years of these things around and people that use it and want a forum to talk to eachother. It may never be for you and may never need to be, but it is and will be for a while for quite a few people.
This is a really good point. Who really cares? And why does it seem those who worry the most are not people who shoot MF cameras? Well, at least those who ask the question the most are not current users of MF. And by the way, wasn't FF supposed to be dead 10 years ago too? MF has been dead since the release of Velvia. That film was so sharp no one ever bought a MF camera again. Anybody else remember those writings?

Personally I am very excited about the future of photography. FF? MF? Who cares. I suspect sensors and processing power will eventually be cheap enough we will have 4x5 sensors with huge fat pixels, small tiny pixels, whatever. 6x6? No problem. Just go to Walmart and pick the one you want off the shelf. :thumbs:

I am not looking forward to removing all those dust spots though!

Dave
 
Last edited:

Jager

Member
Man, oh man. Is this bash medium format month, or what? And from a large-format shooter at that...

Lars, in your list of MFD advantages, you left out the most important: sensor area. The same reason, presumably, you shoot 8x10.

And that - the size of the imaging media, which then translates into a range of other qualities - is the direction MFD is heading in. It's the direction medium format has always been heading in.

Sorry your one-time experience with a demo unit at a workshop turned out so poorly. Perhaps give it another shot, in better circumstances?
 

cunim

Well-known member
Lars,
Thank you for starting what I think is a heartfelt thread about your experience. I can empathize with your experience even though mine has been, in summary, the opposite. My main frustration was early sync issues with the back. Thankfully both Alpa and P1 worked those out to the point where I can't remember the last time I had a problem. Your experience and resulting opinion just amplifies what I've been trying to say in other threads: Different people place value on different things. What one person finds a horrible annoyance another considers an advantage, and vice versa. That diversity of thought, opinion and value is what makes our world such a great place. Here's to everyone finding the tool that fits their vision the best, so we all can make the best images we are capable of making. :chug:

And may all the camera makers (and dealers) take Lars' experience to heart and continue improving their products.



This is a really good point. Who really cares? And why does it seem those who worry the most are not people who shoot MF cameras? Well, at least those who ask the question the most are not current users of MF. And by the way, wasn't FF supposed to be dead 10 years ago too? MF has been dead since the release of Velvia. That film was so sharp no one ever bought a MF camera again. Anybody else remember those writings?

Personally I am very excited about the future of photography. FF? MF? Who cares. I suspect sensors and processing power will eventually be cheap enough we will have 4x5 sensors with huge fat pixels, small tiny pixels, whatever. 6x6? No problem. Just go to Walmart and pick the one you want off the shelf. :thumbs:

I am not looking forward to removing all those dust spots though!

Dave
I agree, Dave. My $0.02 - a larger MF format would create more options for how the gear is used (movements, use of some lovely older lenses, less stress on new lens designs, ultra hi res etc.). I believe this type of technology would establish a clear difference between high end pros/compulsive amateurs - who learn to take advantage of the gear - and those who are perfectly happy with the quick and convenient 135 gear. Room for both types.

That is a rational argument, trying to convince someone in the MF world to recreate a clear difference between their products and the small formats. It is the subjective narrowing (or even closing) of that gap that starts threads like this. My heart, however is with on-demand multishot and that would do a lot for any format. If P1 had that on their new backs I would upgrade from my IQ180. I see no reason to upgrade without it. Re MS, I moved from 'Blad to Phase some years ago (for various reasons). I am very sad I cannot afford to run both brands, purely because of the 200MS. Never tried the 200, but the 50MS blew me away. Not the resolution, though that easily compared with the IQ180. Rather, there is a truth about MS images that brings one closer to film. Brings me back to the clear subjective difference argument. Until MF reestablishes that, their market will continue to be in doubt.

Rant off.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
In the past, there were issues of integration in MFDB, things that would not have been acceptable in the more mass-marketed, volume-sales realm of the DSLR. These can be glitches in the electronics, the interface, understanding the menus, or even in how to "tweak" the use of the back (and camera/lens combo) to get optimal performance.

However, such difficulties were largely in the past, with todays backs much better. I had a P20 with interface problems, and it drove me nuts. The present back (a Leaf Aptus) largely works like a charm, although there is the odd electronic glitch or hiccup, usually due to a low battery. But things happen.

If you want bullet-proof, works every single time, etc., the cameras produced in the hundreds of thousands will trump those backs produced in the thousands.

This isn't to say they are flawed, or lousy, nor to suggest they are perfect. I find todays backs work pretty well, mostly all the time, but things do happen. This is not uncommon in areas of "extreme quality in technology" - talk to a car person about driving an early 1950s Ferrari: try to shift gears without crunching. Can't be done. Its ridiculous, they aren't user friendly, but they are specialty products and very good for the job they do.

Its not quite clear where things went south in the demo by the OP - it seems a combination of 1) electronics that kind of spooked the weekend, 2) bad (or no) advice about how to shoot for the best files, and 3) a loss of confidence for the next few days. That's a pretty bad series of events and would sour even the most enthusiastic. If you had any remaining interest (and it would be understandable if you did not), a way to go might be:

- only work with fully integrated systems, that have a track record and deliver
- get some good instruction/workshop on the system
- recognize that this gear seems to always need a bit of "turn it off and restart" at one time or another.

But if this isn't for you, that would make sense too.
 

satybhat

Member
I agree, Dave. My $0.02 - a larger MF format would create more options for how the gear is used (movements, use of some lovely older lenses, less stress on new lens designs, ultra hi res etc.). I believe this type of technology would establish a clear difference between high end pros/compulsive amateurs - who learn to take advantage of the gear - and those who are perfectly happy with the quick and convenient 135 gear. Room for both types.

That is a rational argument, trying to convince someone in the MF world to recreate a clear difference between their products and the small formats. It is the subjective narrowing (or even closing) of that gap that starts threads like this. My heart, however is with on-demand multishot and that would do a lot for any format. If P1 had that on their new backs I would upgrade from my IQ180. I see no reason to upgrade without it. Re MS, I moved from 'Blad to Phase some years ago (for various reasons). I am very sad I cannot afford to run both brands, purely because of the 200MS. Never tried the 200, but the 50MS blew me away. Not the resolution, though that easily compared with the IQ180. Rather, there is a truth about MS images that brings one closer to film. Brings me back to the clear subjective difference argument. Until MF reestablishes that, their market will continue to be in doubt.

Rant off.
As someone new and thinking of entering MF (with my own money this time) - I have previously used the IQ280, and recently the IQ3100 on jobs only - I am very interested in this Multishot argument. Could someone clarify exactly how the Hassy MS back differs from the conventional backs? Film-like you say? I'm all ears. Are there any images you can see?
The reason I ask is because I have been thinking of moving from my S006 to the DMF backs - not yet sure whether to go Phase or Hassy.

Thanks
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Are your subjects static? as movement, any movement, will not work well with the Multishots. The Hasselblad can produce excellent files of static subject matter but not for outdoor work (wind) or water or both. Wonderful color and zero aliasing.

The Olympus EM with multishot has the ability to use the sensor stabilization process to help alleviate movement issues, (micro 4/3) and Pentax has also stated they can do this with the multishot on their new 35mm full frame. Both of these require the sensor stabilization, similar to Sony's.

Maybe Hasselblad has this in store for their 100MP camera in a future offering.

Paul C
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
I have followed the (several) rants about MF and have found them quite entertaining. I grew up with 6x9 and 6x6 film then moved to 35 mm for colour work. I've owned many different brands and formats but have tended to come back to MF for most of my work. In recent years I have been very happy with my Sony mirrorless and Phase One gear. They do what I need them to do.

But something that seems to be missing in the MF vs FF35 debate is the pleasure one gets from using one's preferred gear. It isn't always about utility or horses for courses. For example, I drive a high-end twin turbo car which easily reaches 250 kms/hr - something I have only done once or twice. For 90% of my driving, a base Chevy or Ford would be just as effective in getting me from A to B. So why do I spend the dough on the fancy wheels? Easy - it gives me great pleasure to drive a thoroughbred even if I'm not using all its potential.

The same applies to my MFDB gear. It's a way better camera than I am photographer and rarely do I use all its potential. But dang, I just love using it! Emotional? Yes. Impractical? Somewhat. But add in all the technical advantages that I see (others may not) and for me its worth lugging around the weight, knowing that for my work it's the best available and that one day I may actually live up to its capabilities.

Even tools can have emotional attachments!
 

Dan Santoso

New member
I think each of us value MDF/35FF more based on our own experience, skill, purpose and need.

You want to a small gear?, get a A7RII

You want the best IQ, MDF has the solution.

The camera choice is also based on your work. As a commercial photographer, the MDF is a must. Agency know what camera we use!! They will question you when you use 35mm ( it happened a lot)
 
Top