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!

Where's MFD headed ?

Pradeep

Member
Actually, the "Cowboy" shoot was exactly "How Things Work In Real Life".

The entire session had the explicit purpose of demonstrating the Muddy Creek Company's product in real world conditions ............

While the shoot itself was deliberate and with purpose, it didn't preclude "spontaneous works" of which made up roughly half the images chosen by the client.
Marc, my bad, perhaps I did not explain myself fully. When I say 'not real life', I mean a planned and staged shoot where the subject(s), their movements and in most instances the lighting too is controlled or at least predictable (as much as natural lighting can be). In that sense, while marvelous, your images do not come under the 'spontaneous' category, at least IMHO.

I too have shot such images, albeit of a slightly different kind.

The following are from a shoot in Camargue in 2014. Most of the action shots were taken while I was standing almost knee-deep in water with a very treacherous muddy terrain beneath, one slip and I along with my gear would be in the water. With the frenetic action, the shutter speeds had to be high enough and what was happening in front of me was completely unpredictable in many shots, I just had to take the opportunity when it came my way. These were all done with my Canon 1DX with (mostly) the 70-200 f4 lens on it - all hand held, no question of having a tripod there.

There is no way I could have used my Phase iQ180 - which I owned at the time - or even the current IQ3 in such a setup with constant changes in my position and that of the subject(s), the danger of being splashed or falling being ever present. At times I was just a few feet from the horses as they came thundering towards us, swerving away at the last minute.

Again, not meant to define the limits of what MFDB can do today and I accept completely that a lot of progress has been made, but it still remains a niche product is all I am trying to say.
 

Attachments

Pradeep

Member
.........................

BTW, I'm not sure how a Photo Safari in Africa is how things work in real life either ... at least not for many of us:ROTFL: Nice shot none the less.

Actually, even though I many be in a small minority here, being mainly a wildlife enthusiast, I would venture to say that about the only genre where nothing is predictable or planned is wildlife photography. People look upon 'photo safaris' in Africa with some disdain, because those who have not actually gone and done a proper tour with a professional do not realize how grueling it can be and how difficult it is to make images that are better than average. The light is almost always either too little or too much and the animal behavior is completely random, with often little or no warning as to what's going to happen next. It is just you, often in a cramped position with limited mobility due to the animal being close by or other vehicles obstructing your view. If the light is in your face, tough, if the animal's eye is obscured by a blade of grass, you live with it. After holding the heavy lens and camera to your eye for what seems like hours, when the action happens, most are caught unawares.

In the end the subject is how these MFD cameras have continuously improved to expand capabilities ... often more than they are given credit for. So, where they are headed is really up to the user with an open mind as to the possibilities. Costs are directly relative to purpose and longevity in delivering results ... not constantly upgrading every time some new thing comes along (unless it solves a "realistic" task oriented objective one's current gear cannot do). Personally, I see folks buying into extreme capabilities for rarely encountered applications that may make things easier but really don't add much relative to the cost.

- Marc
Agree, Marc, MFD have continued to improve, but still have many limitations. These will not go away with the price structure presently in place. The only way to move forward in this highly competitive world is to drop the price drastically, sell more units and continue to make it as user friendly and versatile as possible. Not every photographer can be pleased, but in any business, it is about selling more (even if for less ) than selling a few for a lot more money. At least that is how I understand business is run.

Finally, an image I took about three weeks ago in Botswana. The lioness had three very young cubs with her and was at the edge of the water. After waiting for a long while she suddenly took off. All of us thought she was simply going to wade through but she leapt. It is not a perfect shot as the focus is a bit off, but the cubs waiting in the grass really tells the story, IMHO.

And that, to me at least, is 'real life photography'. No tripods, no assistants, no strobes, no diffusers, uncontrollable light, even less controllable subject and tough environmental conditions.

GDPI_01-4.jpg
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Pradeep,

Lovely images!

As they say, horses for the courses. But, I don't mind a horse that can win on all courses.

Best regards
Erik
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Great images… I can see your customer is happy.

I would think that there is no ruling out using MFD on action type shots. Many times action shooters pre focus where action will happen. In younger times I was shooting a lot of show jumping (horses). You focused on the fence. That was well before we got auto focus, and early AF was more of out of focus, anyway.

Clearly, high FPS, extremely fast AF and long telephoto lenses are not exactly MFD territory, but I know at least one photographer, Andy Biggs, who saddled on to Phase One for African wildlife photography.

Best regards
Erik



Actually, the "Cowboy" shoot was exactly "How Things Work In Real Life".

The entire session had the explicit purpose of demonstrating the Muddy Creek Company's product in real world conditions ... a riding slicker aka "duster" designed to cover the rider's saddle and clothes when in adverse conditions such as rivers, rain, and dusty trails. The rider in my previous examples is the company's owner and an expert rider and genuine cowboy. The dog is his Aussy Cattle dog who accompanies he and his wife on rides ... there is a subculture of serious riders who make very long distance group rides that face the conditions the product helps protect from.

While the shoot itself was deliberate and with purpose, it didn't preclude "spontaneous works" of which made up roughly half the images chosen by the client.

For example, with planned intent, we specifically shot images of a group of riders splashing across a river, but after completing those purposeful images, I also spontaneously shot the "Coming Home" image below ... which, while demonstrative, is also atmospheric and resonated with riders emotionally ... totally unplanned and of the immediate moment when I saw how the lighting was playing on the subjects and horses breath.

The other shot is the wife of the cowboy and co-owner of Muddy Creek. No nonsense, salt of the earth folks with a product idea to sell to other passionate riders like themselves.

BTW, I'm not sure how a Photo Safari in Africa is how things work in real life either ... at least not for many of us:ROTFL: Nice shot none the less.

In the end the subject is how these MFD cameras have continuously improved to expand capabilities ... often more than they are given credit for. So, where they are headed is really up to the user with an open mind as to the possibilities. Costs are directly relative to purpose and longevity in delivering results ... not constantly upgrading every time some new thing comes along (unless it solves a "realistic" task oriented objective one's current gear cannot do). Personally, I see folks buying into extreme capabilities for rarely encountered applications that may make things easier but really don't add much relative to the cost.

- Marc

View attachment 118397


View attachment 118398
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Very nice images. A few are even spectacular.:thumbs:

I won't debate wildlife photography with a wildlife photographer ... as I am not one, nor do I play one on TV:eek:

However, I do think the point being made was that today's, (or even more recent MFD systems), are capable of doing more than just plodding, slow, and zen like contemplated photography ... as it is often portrayed.

Whether, of the moment spontaneous "real life" work has to be defined so rigidly is indeed a matter of opinion. I tend to define it in terms of skill and experience rather than just attributes of a piece of equipment. In extremes, yes, choice of what you use most certainly can effect outcome. I'd be the last person to recommend MFD to photograph sports when there are tools like the Canon 1DX or Nikon D5 and 300/2.8 lenses.

The other aspect of what determines outcome is "Photographers Intent". In my case study above, the intent was demonstration of a product in use ... set-up or spontaneous ... of which I did both. There were no lights, no structured and ridged shoot list, no tripods used (a monopod at times) ... I stood in water with horses racing toward me (albeit reasonably controlled by riders).

I would hazard a guess that when on Safari, the intent is to shoot wildlife in habitat ... where one is taken to where the wildlife is, and expert guides assist in helping get those "found images". The actual timing and composition is then left to skill and experience.

What I have found is that IF one sticks with a camera system rather than jumping from one Lilly pad to the next, you actually get more and more skilled with that tool. I used my H system for many years until it was second nature and I could shoot more situations than I ever thought possible than when I first started with it.

- Marc
 

Pradeep

Member
Hi,

Great images… I can see your customer is happy.
Sorry Erik, If you were referring to me, I don't have any customers, don't make a penny from my photography, it is just a passion but oh what a passion it is!

I would think that there is no ruling out using MFD on action type shots. Many times action shooters pre focus where action will happen. In younger times I was shooting a lot of show jumping (horses). You focused on the fence. That was well before we got auto focus, and early AF was more of out of focus, anyway.

Clearly, high FPS, extremely fast AF and long telephoto lenses are not exactly MFD territory, but I know at least one photographer, Andy Biggs, who saddled on to Phase One for African wildlife photography.

Best regards
Erik
Actually that was what originally did convince me that MFD may be possible in the wildlife arena, Andy Biggs being into it. However, he too carries a regular DSLR rig with him. I did the same last year with my Pentax 645z. Perhaps less than 10% of the images can be taken with MFD in the wild and most are scenic, habitat type shots, certainly not when there is activity and intense at that. Of course if your style is like Nick Brandt's then you can even use large format cameras.

There is more one can do with MFD today, that is for sure, but then there is also more that can be done with traditional gear too, the capability and functionality of most camera systems is increasing and it does become a catch-up game. At this time, I would still maintain that MFD remains a product confined to either pros who need it for their specialty niche or for enthusiasts who love to experiment with the latest and greatest and can afford to do so.

The price barrier still remains a significant issue for most people though.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
i don't personally have need of this function, but marc is a strong advocate of the blad true focus in certain situations. wouldn't this need be served by a moveable focus point, a la' 35mm DSLR? and why did blad choose such a rube goldberg method? seems like many cameras offer the moveable point solution and have for years
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I did an experiment with a Leica S and 70/2.5 lens. I focused on a test chart at about 10 feet distance. I then changed the camera orientation to put the chart at each corner and edge. The camera was mounted on an Arca Cube, so rotations were fairly close to camera center. In other words, the sensor didn't move forwards or backward much while tilting. To my surprise, the sides and corners were very close to center sharpness. This could be field curvature, or a sign that DoF is large enough at that distance to cover the altered focal plane. In any event, I no longer worry at all about focus-recompose with this camera/lens combination.

Best,

Matt
 

Charles Wood

New member
There is still much development left to be done in sensor design. If you want an example of just how badly the Mayer filter destroys resolution, go to the link below. It's a comparison of the Pentax K1, with and without pixel shifting engaged. Admittedly, DPR used a lens on the K1 that is acknowledged as a 'portrait' lens, soft on the edges with field curvature. Yet, in the pixel shift mode, it punches well above it's class. It surpasses the 645z and Nikon D810 with no evidence of moire artifacts. If you really want a shock, select the Phase IQ180. The 36 meg Pentax matches it on resolution. Another pleasant bi product of the pixel shifting/stacking internally of the image, is a pretty dramatic reduction in noise.

Look closely at the etching to left of center of the scene and the various patterns on the currency bill in the lower left area of the frame. I'm of the opinion that getting rid of the Bayer matrix is certainly an area that needs to be explored.

No alias: Pentax K-1 Pixel Shift shows impressive early results: Digital Photography Review
 

Pradeep

Member
Very nice images. A few are even spectacular.:thumbs:
Thank you Marc. Much appreciated.

However, I do think the point being made was that today's, (or even more recent MFD systems), are capable of doing more than just plodding, slow, and zen like contemplated photography ... as it is often portrayed.
Agree completely.

Whether, of the moment spontaneous "real life" work has to be defined so rigidly is indeed a matter of opinion. I tend to define it in terms of skill and experience rather than just attributes of a piece of equipment. In extremes, yes, choice of what you use most certainly can effect outcome. I'd be the last person to recommend MFD to photograph sports when there are tools like the Canon 1DX or Nikon D5 and 300/2.8 lenses.
True, we are all different in our take on what photography itself is or should be. People still use film quite happily and some believe the only 'real' photographs are black and white.

The other aspect of what determines outcome is "Photographers Intent". In my case study above, the intent was demonstration of a product in use ... set-up or spontaneous ... of which I did both. There were no lights, no structured and ridged shoot list, no tripods used (a monopod at times) ... I stood in water with horses racing toward me (albeit reasonably controlled by riders).
Yes, the intent in my case was to shoot riderless horses (mostly) running towards us and composing/shooting things the way my own vision dictated. Not having to meet somebody else's needs or wants (being an amateur) is refreshing in some ways. So, yes, intent is the key which drives all photography and choice of gear, I agree with that.

I would hazard a guess that when on Safari, the intent is to shoot wildlife in habitat ... where one is taken to where the wildlife is, and expert guides assist in helping get those "found images". The actual timing and composition is then left to skill and experience.
Actually, the tour leader simply arranges the logistics of the trip, where to go, how to get there, where to stay and the vehicles to be used. Everything else, including game drive hours, choice of what to see and how to shoot is mostly determined by the photographers. Often you are in the vehicle with just a driver (who is an expert at animal behavior), nobody else. None of these images are 'found', you could drive for four hours and not see anything and then you go around a kopje or a thicket and suddenly there is this lion pride with cubs playing, or a martial eagle eating an african hare on a branch. Often you have seconds before the moment is gone and the animals run away. Sometimes you luck out and they keep playing and then it is like being in paradise if only for a few minutes.

What I have found is that IF one sticks with a camera system rather than jumping from one Lilly pad to the next, you actually get more and more skilled with that tool. I used my H system for many years until it was second nature and I could shoot more situations than I ever thought possible than when I first started with it.

- Marc
Very true. I wish I could have stayed with just the one system I bought years ago. On my first trip to Kenya in 2007 I was quite happy with my Canon 40D and 5D. There are many people here too who continue to use tried and trusted gear from 8-10 yrs ago. But technology is not static and continues to move forward. If you can afford to, you want to be part of that progress. You also want to get the best IQ you can, and thus the relentless pursuit of gear. It is also a bit of a thrill to see what the new 'gadget' has to offer and thus I am an absolute gear junkie, I confess happily:D
 

fotografz

Well-known member
i don't personally have need of this function, but marc is a strong advocate of the blad true focus in certain situations. wouldn't this need be served by a moveable focus point, a la' 35mm DSLR? and why did blad choose such a rube goldberg method? seems like many cameras offer the moveable point solution and have for years
No sure, but I think that it has to do with the real estate that has to be covered with-in a MF viewfinder. Most 35mm TTL mirrored cameras typically don't cover out to the frame edges, but are more concentrated in the center 1/3 to 1/2 or so viewfinder area, and that pattern would be semi-useless when placed in a much larger MF finder IMO. Recent 35mm FF Mirrorless cameras like the Sony A7/A7R seems to allow a much more useful scroll area for selecting the AF point. Not sure why.

The True Focus APL feature is useful when shooting something like a portrait in portrait orientation with a shallow DOF. So when you center focus on the eyes in the top 1/3 of the viewfinder and recompose, the eyes stay in focus.

In practice, even using a custom button access, I found that accessing the scroll AF points and setting the AF point with the A7R-II to take more time than implementing True Focus did. With TF, I needed to aim the center AF point on the critical focus area, then recompose that point anywhere in the frame composition. I didn't have to access anything and didn't have to scroll anything into place. Fundamentally, it is just the age old focus-recompose technique except the camera's CPU makes the focus adjustment.

Contrary to your opinion, I wish 35mm cameras had the True Focus option.

On the other hand, when you do set a focus point on a 35mm you can AF multiple times with the subject in that compositional position. So, YES ... it'd be great if MF could have a wide spread of cross type sensitive AF points to select from.

- Marc
 

etrump

Well-known member
As usual Marc, an extremely well reasoned response.

I consider MF digital the consolidation of several markets that were previously segmented. You still have the professional advertising, fashion and architectural shooters who traditionally shot MF. You will always have a statistically smaller number of amateurs who appreciate the larger than 35mm formats. In addition to those traditional users you now have larger format film shooters who can finally get similar results with MF digital without the issues and costs of film. Some will find 35mm "good enough", but most will follow the curve and produce incredible stuff with the best tools available.

The problem with tech cams, large IC glass, tilts and shifts is light does not hit the sensor at the right angle to avoid crosstalk and microlens diffraction with current sensor technology. While it can be handled in some fashion with software and LCC exposures, the higher the resolution and larger the print the more noticeable the anomaly even when corrected properly. Until that situation is remedied, if even possible, I think you will continue to see the trend away from tech cams.

Ed


Where is MFD headed?

It could be headed back to where it historically started ... in the studio, or special applications, or conceptual work, and institutional photography.

I've rarely had a discussion about digital cameras with any of them ... they discuss ideas, lighting (lots about lighting), creativity, how to sell clients a visual idea, and such.

Different world ... and a bigger world than most folks here might imagine.

- Marc

Attached are a sample of product work and one conceptual shot from a series of 10 done for a bank.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I don't think there is anything like microlens diffraction…

Aside from that, I am pretty sure that it would possible to make a sensor that worked well large beam angles. Leica has done that with the sensor for the M (type 240). It is quite possible that a designer optimising for large beam angles would give up on some other desirable qualities.

Phone cam designers also have issues with large beam angles and there are new designs with shallow pixels and physical separation between pixels for small sensors. Those designs may migrate to larger sensors like APS-C, full frame MF and eventually MFD.

Mirrorless cameras have similar issues to technical cameras. Not so much of a problem with lenses designed for DSLRs, but wide angles tend to be large. If you take the Sony A7 series, it is a very small camera using big lenses.

So I see some hope that designs are emerging that will work better with technical cameras, but it will take time. I don't think the market is large enough to design a new sensor from the bottom up but especially the mirrorless trend (if there is such a trend) will yield sensors that are more suitable for mirrorless MFD.

The other side of the coin is that both Hasselblad and Phase One have revamped their systems and both are SLR type devices, with lenses constructed around the mirror box. As long as MFD makers regard MFDSLR type devices their main product they won't put a lot of effort into promoting technologies helpful to technical cameras.

Would Hasselblad make a mirrorless MFD, that would lead to a turn.

It is a bit interesting to note what is happening with the A7 and Loxia designs. Early Loxias were revamped Contax G2 designs. The Loxia 35/2 is a Biogon design, but it has been revamped to work well with the Sony sensor. On the other hand the Loxia 21/2.8 is a Distagon type device, albeit very compact. So it is possible to make decently small "Distagon type" lenses using modern concepts like aspherics and modern glass.
Screen Shot 2016-05-10 at 07.05.23.jpg

Best regards
Erik

As usual Marc, an extremely well reasoned response.

I consider MF digital the consolidation of several markets that were previously segmented. You still have the professional advertising, fashion and architectural shooters who traditionally shot MF. You will always have a statistically smaller number of amateurs who appreciate the larger than 35mm formats. In addition to those traditional users you now have larger format film shooters who can finally get similar results with MF digital without the issues and costs of film. Some will find 35mm "good enough", but most will follow the curve and produce incredible stuff with the best tools available.

The problem with tech cams, large IC glass, tilts and shifts is light does not hit the sensor at the right angle to avoid crosstalk and microlens diffraction with current sensor technology. While it can be handled in some fashion with software and LCC exposures, the higher the resolution and larger the print the more noticeable the anomaly even when corrected properly. Until that situation is remedied, if even possible, I think you will continue to see the trend away from tech cams.

Ed
 
Last edited:

vjbelle

Well-known member
Lots of valuable information in this thread but I'm surprised that there has been no mention of the real elephant in the room - diffraction. At present the 100mp Phase back has a pixel pitch of 4.65. I shoot at f11 +/- 1/3 stop which puts me at the edge of diffraction limitation. At 100% pixels I can see a difference between f8 and f11 and although most of my lenses could be shot at f8 DOF would be razor thin. None of this is visible in my prints but eventually even that will suffer. If the next iteration of the Phase backs comes in at 120mp then the pixel pitch will be 4.269 which will start to put more of a diffraction strain shooting at f11. However none of this is as bad as 35mm will be, even at a mere 60mp. At that level the pixel pitch will be 3.689 which means that f5.6 or f4.0 will become manditory for sharp images. This will eliminate all but the very best lenses available for those systems and will also mean limited DOF. It also means that using a 60mp DSLR/Mirrorless on a technical camera with MF lenses will be very taxing or impossible. The sheer size of the MF sensor has major advantages over its 35mm sibling. So, I think MF is here for a while - at least for me.

Victor
 

JohnBrew

Active member
Victor, I think your fears are well founded, not to mention what the smaller pixels will do to color fidelity. I suppose by the time we reach smaller pixel pitches in MF and even 35mm FF, technology will have advanced to the point where this issue is a thing of the past. Perhaps the boffins at Sony have already solved the problem with theory but haven't yet figured out a way to implement production?
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Lots of valuable information in this thread but I'm surprised that there has been no mention of the real elephant in the room - diffraction. At present the 100mp Phase back has a pixel pitch of 4.65. I shoot at f11 +/- 1/3 stop which puts me at the edge of diffraction limitation. At 100% pixels I can see a difference between f8 and f11 and although most of my lenses could be shot at f8 DOF would be razor thin. None of this is visible in my prints but eventually even that will suffer. If the next iteration of the Phase backs comes in at 120mp then the pixel pitch will be 4.269 which will start to put more of a diffraction strain shooting at f11. However none of this is as bad as 35mm will be, even at a mere 60mp. At that level the pixel pitch will be 3.689 which means that f5.6 or f4.0 will become manditory for sharp images. This will eliminate all but the very best lenses available for those systems and will also mean limited DOF. It also means that using a 60mp DSLR/Mirrorless on a technical camera with MF lenses will be very taxing or impossible. The sheer size of the MF sensor has major advantages over its 35mm sibling. So, I think MF is here for a while - at least for me.

Victor
So far, I am finding I can get most of the loss back with tools like Focus Magic and now Piccure+ The later has some very good abilities but its very slow to run, overall worth it however. But my aging eyes, can't see it like they used to anyway.

Paul C
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Paul..... I also use Focus Magic and I have purchased Piccure+ but don't use it much. I find Topaz 'Infocus' and Focus Magic solve my sharpening issues. As I mentioned none of this is visible in print and for me its all about the print - and I have a sense that you also have the print as a major goal. Right now things are just fine at f11 so the 100MP back has worked out well for me. I would always trade some diffraction for added pixels. My experience has shown that upsampling with lesser pixels and no diffraction is no match for more pixels and slight diffraction. From my perspective I wish they would just stop here and work on added features/improvements to the current sensor size.

Victor
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
John, I don't know how anyone can break the laws of physics. There may be some radical designs out there but they sure would be beyond me. I have just found that in the MF world f11 is almost a necessity for any reasonable DOF and peak lens performance (for my purposes). I realize that MTF charts may counter that but even when I had my DF and was shooting the Phase/Schneider lenses they all really needed f11 for edge to edge sharpness. My Digitars are very different but have a much larger image circle to work with. I can't imagine what the 35mm world is going to be like with a 70 or 80MP sensor....lenses will hit diffraction at f4! For anyone who is serious about photography this has got to be a concern.

Victor
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Hi Victor, I could not agree more with this from your previous post:


"My experience has shown that upsampling with lesser pixels and no diffraction is no match for more pixels and slight diffraction".

I kept thinking back in the 2006 to 2011 time frame that there would be some form of software solution that would allow this, but really if you look at the market today it's the same old stuff, and none of them IMO can begin got approach a non-upsampled file, i.e. 20 x 30, or 30 x 40 etc, especially at 300 and 360ppi, which are the defaults for Canon and Epson respectively.

Paul C
 
Top