What makes your MF system tick for you?

[Guy Mancuso]

I thought this maybe a interesting idea to see what actually made you buy or thinking of buying a MF system. There are many parts involved here to making a decision on what is important and what is less so. So this could be any system you are working with but where is the most value or most important part of it. Let's do a poll here and just mark the most important aspects and leave the rest blank. There is no right or wrong answer here but what something like this can tell us is what part of the system are we putting the most buying decision on or the most value on. Obviously you can describe your thoughts more precisely in a post but just like to see the pure numbers part that can tell us this data i think would be interesting to us and the folks that make them.

 

[LJL]

Good idea, Guy. Some of us still "fence sitting" would be curious to see what folks are thinking.

Note: You have "Software" posted twice. Might be that important ;-) Could change one to something like "Flexibility and Integration" or something like that, but those items may be covered in your "System Parts and Accessories" section. (Just thinking about some kits that can permit use of a greater variety of lenses and stuff, versus those that are much more restricted to certain glass and such.) Just a thought.

LJ

 

[Don Libby]

Very interesting. While I like the choices I can't help but think you could have added another. What about the image factor? I knew that switching from Canon 1Ds to MF for my landscape work I wanted not only the larger size but the DR that comes from MF as well.

This should prove to be very interesting - what they have a special on band width?

Don

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Okay made both changes

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I was only on my first espresso when I wrote this. I would pick about 5 or so choices as your top votes. That way it balances better since I made it multiple choice. I am limited on how to set these up would be better to have a value number but software can't do that

 

[LJL]

No problem, Guy. You know this bunch of folks....always willing to tweak and add to eek out a bit more ;-) I think it will show some interesting things as folks think about what is important to them. We may see it all get blended into everything being important, but so be it....that is good to know also.

LJ

 

[Don Libby]

Can I vote again?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Can I vote again?

Hmmm I can ban you 6 times relist you 7 times, than give you two yellow cards and 1 red and it just may work.:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

Heck I don't know. JACK

 

[Don Libby]

Okay I give. UNCLE!!!!

 

[Jack]

Unfortunately the cookies prevent it, only way I know is to start a new poll. Which maybe isn't a bad idea because I need to re-vote too! :ROTFL:

One other thing to consider adding is system size/weight and control layout...

 

[Don Libby]

Unfortunately the cookies prevent it, only way I know is to start a new poll. Which maybe isn't a bad idea because I need to re-vote too! :ROTFL:

One other thing to consider adding is system size/weight and control layout...

If you do this why not just add the "looking really cool factor":ROTFL::ROTFL:

 

[thomas]

I voted for System Parts/Accessories, Flexibility/Integration and Lenses.
I use a Contax and a Cambo WRS.
If the Contax wouldn't be available anymore I doubt that I would buy a Medium Format camera at all. I'd use the Cambo (or similar small, light view camera) with the P45 and would buy a Sony A900.
What I really like very much - and I would never spend any money in a medium format camera that doesn't provide these features - is the aperture ring on the lens and - much more important - an additional waist level finder and an easy to change screen. Damn, even for my old Pentax LX I had different finders and screens. To me (beside that modern aperture dial I don't want to get used to) this is really one of the things I miss in all current camera systems (of any format and any brand... except of the Hy6).
Too, there are nice little things as e.g. the bellows lens hood for the Contax. Though discontinued to me Contax seems to be one of the most complete MF systems.
I recently decided against a DSLR and instead bought the P21+. So the Contax with this back is my "available light" and "highspeed camera
No, seriously: the ISO400 is nice and even the ISO800 is still usable for certain things. And the speed is enough for me personally. The Contax is a small camera and with a Phase back it's not really bulkier than any current DSLR. So instead of buying a new system with lenses and accessories I just decided to purchase a "small" back for hand held shooting with less light. By now I think that was the right decision...
Regards, Thomas

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I sort of did the same thing . Got the P30+ for speed and higher ISO and frankly is very equivalent in size , weight to a Nikon D series or Canon 1 series system. For all the whining about MF systems being slow, heavy and this or that it truly is a bunch of BS in many ways. Seriously there is very little I can't do with it and for me with ONE system it serves it's purpose.

 

[carstenw]

I voted for my Contax 645 with the Sinar back I am hoping to buy. Cheating, a little, since I don't have it yet, but the reasons are real.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Love to know your Pro's and Con's on your back decision. Maybe start a thread on that be interesting to see why some decided on a certain back over the other brands.

 

[pcunite]

There are only four rational gains from using MFD:
* Printing large.
* Ability to crop the heck out of the image.
* More pixels to push around in photoshop if radically changing things.
* Possible sharper image overall assuming exquisite technique.


Everything else is hardly quantifiable. If you like viewing images at 100% on your monitor and zooming in all the way to the grass blades in the back then it is your $40k to do with as you see fit. No one is able to tell a MFD image from one shot on lowly Canon/Nikon gear anymore if good technique and light are used. The falling prices of MFD gear and the dire straights of manufactures who produce this equipment relate this as well.

If you can pay for your equipment in 6 months then it does not matter what you buy. For everyone else it would be very prudent to curb one's lust for MFD. Those of you who own MFD no doubt need to affirm each other of your outrageous purchases with threads like these. I enjoy these threads also. But please send clear messages to those looking at MFD for the first time by letting them know the real advantages and major disadvantages of the medium.

 

[carstenw]

TNo one is able to tell a MFD image from one shot on lowly Canon/Nikon gear anymore if good technique and light are used.

Ah yes, the old "I can't see the difference, therefore no one can" argument. I think you are in the wrong forum. This forum consists almost entirely of people who *can* see the difference.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

It's just to damn long to write that all out. Come to a workshop I WILL SHOW YOU. LOL

It's the same old stuff coming from 35mm shooters to be real honest been there done that more time than I can count. This is even more so in digital than it was in film because we have different DR factors and all that stuff. This is not ONLY about detail and folks need to get past that is all we care about. One factor of many.

 

[thomas]

For all the whining about MF systems being slow, heavy and this or that it truly is a bunch of BS in many ways. Seriously there is very little I can't do with it and for me with ONE system it serves it's purpose.

That may be different. MFDBs are slow. Lower ISO, lower framerates, slower workflow. Question is: are they too slow. For my purposes: no, not too slow. Others have totally different demands and that's certainly okay as well.

 

[thomas]

There are only four rational gains from using MFD:
* Printing large.
* Ability to crop the heck out of the image.
* More pixels to push around in photoshop if radically changing things.
* Possible sharper image overall assuming exquisite technique.

let's add:
* virtually no noise at native ISO
* clean blacks and super fine transitions in dark tonal values
* possibly higher DR
... and the "look" ...