Medium Format

I believe its time for DPF to dedicate a separate forum for Medium Format camera; some likes to move to MF from SLR, some needs to know more about this format or else but anyhow, MF now is a very important part of digital photography. actually I believe part of reason for competition for having more pixel and dynamic range is because to compete with MF. I myself considering joining MF for a while and need to discuses it in this forum for getting more info and advice. any comment please?

alifatemi wrote: I believe its time for DPF to dedicate a separate forum for Medium Format camera;
Well, if DPF gets enough discussions about it. But here on dpReview, there's one discussion every week or two. Not enough for another forum.
some likes to move to MF from SLR, some needs to know more about this format or else but anyhow, MF now is a very important part of digital photography.
No, MF is an historical footnote. 5 years ago, there were 12 companies in the game, now there are 4, and the total sales volume for all companies is down under 6,000 units/year. It is possible that the new Pentax 645D may spur an upward trend, but even if it does, it will be years before there's enough traffic to justify a new forum for it.
actually I believe part of reason for competition for having more pixel and dynamic range is because to compete with MF.
You believe incorrectly. Tested side by side, MF does not have the dynamic range that its adherents keep claiming that it does. You're looking at a format that is used in high end studios, with massive amounts of lighting control. Who needs dynamic range. As far as pixels, take a look at the apertures MF shooters typically use: f22, f32, where diffraction takes so much of the resolution that their 40, 50, 60mp pictures don't really look any different than a 24mp FF shot at f11...
I myself considering joining MF for a while and need to discuses it in this forum for getting more info and advice. any comment please?
Photo.net comes closest to a place for "info and advice" on MF. Here, it's ignored. On Luminous Landscape, it's "celebrated" and all its flaws overlooked.

thanks but in DPR there are no many interested people in MF because DPR never reveiw any. if it does, pretty sure there will be lots of interested people in forum. MF not seling too much because of its very high price. how many car, Ferrari sells per year in US? only 800! compare it to Toyota or Ford... I tried a rather oldish 18 mp phase one, it was incredible: resolution, color fidelity, dynamic range, and it was not in studio but in real world condition under the sun with f11, on hand. I very much like canon or Nikon quality increase to compete with them because honesty its very difficult to pay for MF price but the other side of the coin is you don't need to change/upgrade your camera every 2 or 3 years. some of My friends have old Hassy belongs to even 5 years ago and their picture qualities is still unbelievable. I thinks its more or less is the mater of photography style one has; you can't use it for sport and street photography but for architectural and landscape... as far as you know their limitations and of cource if you need large size printing above 24", MF can shows its abilities.

alifatemi wrote: thanks but in DPR there are no many interested people in MF because DPR never reveiw any.
You're confusing cause and effect.
if it does, pretty sure there will be lots of interested people in forum. MF not seling too much because of its very high price. how many car, Ferrari sells per year in US? only 800! compare it to Toyota or Ford...
And yet, Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc. provide cars to publications like "Car and Driver". That's where the car analogy breaks down: the MF manufacturers are secretive, they don't provide cameras to reviewers. Every review you read of an MF camera is someone's privately owned camera, and they review it very subjectively, justifying, in print, the money they spent on the camera.
I tried a rather oldish 18 mp phase one, it was incredible: resolution, color fidelity, dynamic range,
And I've shot at least 6 different oldish, newish, etc. MF backs, and do not find them "incredible". People who have reviewed, side-by-side, MF and FF gear, have said that the MF advantage that "everyone knows" simply isn't there. Even Luminous Landscape, the biggest MF fanboys on the planet, preferred the Canon when they pitted the Mamiya ZD against it.
and it was not in studio but in real world condition under the sun with f11, on hand. I very much like canon or Nikon quality increase to compete with them
They have been doing that, for years. Canon and Nikon both develop their own sensors, and literally spend more in a week in R&D than P1 or Blad spend in a year.
because honesty its very difficult to pay for MF price but the other side of the coin is you don't need to change/upgrade your camera every 2 or 3 years. some of My friends have old Hassy belongs to even 5 years ago and their picture qualities is still unbelievable. I thinks its more or less is the mater of photography style one has; you can't use it for sport and street photography but for architectural and landscape...
I prefer the FF for architecture. Nikon has three excellent tilt/shift lenses, Canon has four, including an amazing 17mm. Blad has the HTS (I think it stands for "Horrible Tilt Shift") a system that puts wide angle lenses in front of a 1.5x teleconverter to be able to shift them, and compromises optical quality severely. Although a scan-back on a 4x5 also shreds MF for architecture, and is cheaper than a large, modern MF back.
as far as you know their limitations and of cource if you need large size printing above 24", MF can shows its abilities.
Again, only if you pay attention to the diffraction limits, which vary from MF back to MF back, and are typically around f11. Shoot a MF back at f22 or f32, the way most photographers do, and you literally will not be able to tell the difference between a large print from MF and FF.

Heh, yea sure.. try Leica S2 and then talk about MF vs FF.. but I guess you will be left simply speachless, cause that camera really shows how difference between MF and FF should look and its not even "full" MF, just "small" MF. P65+ pictures are something crazy good.. price unfortunately too. Though, Im thinking really hard about S2, cause its bit more than just MF..

Really? You're thinking "really hard" about a S2 at $27,000US for a lens and body? Lets hear more.
Mescalamba wrote: Heh, yea sure.. try Leica S2 and then talk about MF vs FF.. but I guess you will be left simply speachless, cause that camera really shows how difference between MF and FF should look and its not even "full" MF, just "small" MF. P65+ pictures are something crazy good.. price unfortunately too. Though, Im thinking really hard about S2, cause its bit more than just MF..

Mescalamba wrote: Heh, yea sure.. try Leica S2 and then talk about MF vs FF.. but I guess you will be left simply speachless, cause that camera really shows how difference between MF and FF should look and its not even "full" MF, just "small" MF. P65+ pictures are something crazy good.. price unfortunately too. Though, Im thinking really hard about S2, cause its bit more than just MF..
Hmmm, I think that's one of those "more is less" kind of things. S2 has...
  • the smallest MF sensor on the market. 54mm diagonal, 1350mm2 area, when the "economy" Blad and P1 offerings are 55mm diagonal, 1452mm2 area.
  • the smallest lens line, just four lenses, most of which aren't actually suited to anything, because of the mismatch between sensor size and lens focal length.
  • a track record of poor support. There was a 10 year gap between the S1 and S2.
  • no perspective control solution. Nikon and Canon make 3-4 excellent tilt/shift lenses. Blad and P1 MF backs can mount on 2x3 ARCA or Sinar view cameras.
Here's the scary part. Leica launched the system with a crop factor! Seriously, all the lenses have focal lengths that say that the camera should have had a 60mm sensor, not a 54mm. It seems pretty obvious to me that Leica probably designed the whole S system, camera and lenses, for a 61mm sensor, just like the "mid line" medium format systems with their 37x49mm sensors.
  • 70mm is too long a "normal" for a 54mm sensor. That's 1.30x the image diagonal. The MF and 35mm makers learned not to do that 50 years ago. They launched a lot of lenses like 55mm or 58mm f1.4 normals on 35mm SLRs, and those all failed in the marketplace, and were quickly replaced with more complex and difficult 50mm f1.4 designs. 1.15x diagonal is "acceptable", 1.30x diagonal isn't.
  • 180mm is too long for a portrait lens. That's 3.33x the diagonal, equivalent to 144mm on 35mm. What are the popular portrait length lenses for the 35mm users that Leica is trying to woo? 105mm and 135mm. The 180mm is a lovely 130mm equivalent on a real MF 61mm sensor.
  • 35mm is awkward, at best, on a 54mm diagonal. 28mm equivalent. It would be a 24mm on a real MF. 24mm is where Nikon and Canon just poured their hearts and souls, to create 24mm f1.4 lenses.
So, with the exact same sensor technology as every other MF maker, but 10% less area than any other maker's most scaled back "economy" offering, with the smallest lens line and mismatch between lenses and sensor size, with a lack of the movements that product, architecture, and even many landscape photographers need, your "more than just MF" camera is so, so much less...

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: Hmmm, I think that's one of those "more is less" kind of things.
Heh...at the end of the day isn't the overriding issue that Leica has partnered-up with Kodak? I don't care much for the look of the files coming out of the S2, but I don't care for the look of the files coming out of the M9, either. Under ideal circumstances they look good, but they mostly look like they were shot using old Kodak CCD cameras like the DCS-14n. Right down to the lack of an AA filter. The idea of the S2 is nice, IMO. As pixel counts head north it seems like a larger sensor would make designing and manufacturing lenses that can resolve more detail a little less daunting. Of course, the S2 seems like it was designed to be primarily used hand-held. Which kind of defeats those diminishing returns. It makes an amazing status-symbol, though. It seems like Kodak either needs to develop some modern sensors or Leica needs to shop around for another sensor manufacturer. I mean, I wouldn't mind having an M9 just for the wide-angle lenses. I'd really enjoy an M9 with a Zeiss 21mm f/4.5 Biogon mounted on it. Well, other than a couple of little issues. The first one is that Leica don't even offer the viewfinder options available on the M7 on their M9, let alone offering something comparable to the 21mm framelines of the Voigtlander R4 series. Which wouldn't be so bad if the sensors were capable of live view, but they aren't. So using a 21mm lens, arguably the best reason for owning a rangefinder in 2010, becomes an issue requiring an external viewfinder for framing. Or here's one...why no monochrome sensor? 18 monochrome megapixels could make a powerful little package and it sort of makes sense for a guy who's made the decision to tote a Leica around. The color-shifts that those wide-angle lenses seem to induce in the M9 might not seem so crippling in a monochrome Leica and the extra resolution from going sans-Bayer would put the M9 up there in the running with the high-rez DSLRs of 2010. Nah, but they have a titanium model coming out. You know, for all those PJs in their khaki photo vests who are running from Inchon up to the 38th parallel to see if General MacArthur is really serious about staging an incursion into the north country.

RRJackson wrote:
Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: Hmmm, I think that's one of those "more is less" kind of things.
Heh...at the end of the day isn't the overriding issue that Leica has partnered-up with Kodak?
That appears to be on the edge of falling apart.
I don't care much for the look of the files coming out of the S2, but I don't care for the look of the files coming out of the M9, either. Under ideal circumstances they look good, but they mostly look like they were shot using old Kodak CCD cameras like the DCS-14n. Right down to the lack of an AA filter.
I thought M9 files look a lot better than 14n files. 14n was noisy, and the colors were very hard to work with. But they do both lack the AA filter, and it shows. Edges that look more "jittery" than "sharp", especially after the software anti-alias tried to fix them. The 14n software was the worst, it made these random "this patch needs to be softened" decisions that frequently left what looked like "wet patches" in hair. Actually, the Kodak 14n, SLR/n, and SLR/c didn't use a Kodak CCD. Kodak's sensor division priced themselves out of the Kodak imaging division's price range. Kodak imaging turned to a low cost CMOS FF sensor from a company called "Fill Factory".
The idea of the S2 is nice, IMO. As pixel counts head north it seems like a larger sensor would make designing and manufacturing lenses that can resolve more detail a little less daunting. Of course, the S2 seems like it was designed to be primarily used hand-held. Which kind of defeats those diminishing returns.
Hand held use helps with the lack of an AA filter. That's what I like about M9. Between the handheld shooting, and the fast lenses typically used at pretty wide apertures, 99% of the image was either far enough out of DOF or motion blurred, and therefore fully anti-aliased.
It makes an amazing status-symbol, though.
I'm not sure most people would recognize it.
It seems like Kodak either needs to develop some modern sensors or Leica needs to shop around for another sensor manufacturer.
I don't think Kodak has put out a really new sensor cell in about 5 years. S2 uses the same cell as M9, it just uses a lot more of them. I've heard that they discontinued their line sensors (scanner sensors) entirely, forcing Seitz to switch to DALSA, and Better Light has products on hold until they find some new sensors. My sources say that there's already M10 prototypes in the field with the same 24mp Sony used in D3X and A900, but with rangefinder friendly microlenses. Which conflicts with rumors that Sony microelectronics is discontinuing the FF sensors, but hey, rumors are what they are. Apparently, the short-mount NEX has prompted Sony to work in the offset microlens area. M10 with liveview, and an R adapter that actually communicates with the camera to record EXIF and control the aperture. No more needing Visoflex for people who want to do the occasional macro with their M. Same Asian electronics partner who did the X. Leica has worked their way through every European camera electronics house.
I mean, I wouldn't mind having an M9 just for the wide-angle lenses. I'd really enjoy an M9 with a Zeiss 21mm f/4.5 Biogon mounted on it. Well, other than a couple of little issues. The first one is that Leica don't even offer the viewfinder options available on the M7 on their M9, let alone offering something comparable to the 21mm framelines of the Voigtlander R4 series. Which wouldn't be so bad if the sensors were capable of live view, but they aren't. So using a 21mm lens, arguably the best reason for owning a rangefinder in 2010, becomes an issue requiring an external viewfinder for framing.
Like I said, I've heard liveview is coming.
Or here's one...why no monochrome sensor? 18 monochrome megapixels could make a powerful little package and it sort of makes sense for a guy who's made the decision to tote a Leica around.
Don't know. It seems a natural to me, especially since Kodak offers the monochrome sensor as a catalog item. Another Kodak customer, MegaVision, who makes scientific cameras, offers something like 6 different Kodak sensors (37x49mm, 37mm square, 24x36 FF, APS, and 2/3 inch) in your choice of Bayer or monochrome.
The color-shifts that those wide-angle lenses seem to induce in the M9 might not seem so crippling in a monochrome Leica and the extra resolution from going sans-Bayer would put the M9 up there in the running with the high-rez DSLRs of 2010.
Agreed. I'm trying to talk a local M8 owner into gambling on one of my monochrome conversions
Nah, but they have a titanium model coming out. You know, for all those PJs in their khaki photo vests who are running from Inchon up to the 38th parallel to see if General MacArthur is really serious about staging an incursion into the north country.
It takes a long time to change corporate culture. Leica spent the last 1/4 century as a fashion accessory company (culminating with begin bought by Hermes) and only 3 years under the full control of a company that actually wants to make cameras.

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: Actually, the Kodak 14n, SLR/n, and SLR/c didn't use a Kodak CCD. Kodak's sensor division priced themselves out of the Kodak imaging division's price range. Kodak imaging turned to a low cost CMOS FF sensor from a company called "Fill Factory".
Ah, you know I'd heard that somewhere (possibly from you), but forgotten it.
Hand held use helps with the lack of an AA filter. That's what I like about M9. Between the handheld shooting, and the fast lenses typically used at pretty wide apertures, 99% of the image was either far enough out of DOF or motion blurred, and therefore fully anti-aliased.
HA! True enough.
I don't think Kodak has put out a really new sensor cell in about 5 years. S2 uses the same cell as M9, it just uses a lot more of them.
It's got that same look that their CCDs have had for a while now. Harsh mid-day light is tough for any sensor, but with those files there's almost nothing you can do. I see a lot of people shooting landscape stuff and when I occasionally get my hands on one of the RAW files it's the start of an evening full of frustration. "The mid-tones all have a washed-out look and the shadows are the work of Satan himself!!!"
My sources say that there's already M10 prototypes in the field with the same 24mp Sony used in D3X and A900, but with rangefinder friendly microlenses. Which conflicts with rumors that Sony microelectronics is discontinuing the FF sensors, but hey, rumors are what they are.
Well, that would be pretty much ideal. I know it's foolish to say things like this (since perspectives change over time and technology moves fast), but an M10 with that sensor seems like it would be all the camera a guy who likes rangefinders would ever need. I'm not really that guy, but I love wide-angle lenses that don't distort, so I'll stand around on that side of the line. At least until someone notices me snapping away with the lens cap on.
Like I said, I've heard liveview is coming.
I know the "real rangefinder men" scoff at such a thing, but it seems like a natural combination to me. I almost never use it on my D700, but I can imagine using it much more on a rangefinder.
Don't know. It seems a natural to me, especially since Kodak offers the monochrome sensor as a catalog item. Another Kodak customer, MegaVision, who makes scientific cameras, offers something like 6 different Kodak sensors (37x49mm, 37mm square, 24x36 FF, APS, and 2/3 inch) in your choice of Bayer or monochrome.
I don't know about now, but at one time there were Kodak part numbers right on their site for monochrome versions of many of their sensors. I emailed them right after the M9 came out and asked them if there were any plans and the answer was that they could make the sensor, but it was up to Leica to ask for it.
Agreed. I'm trying to talk a local M8 owner into gambling on one of my monochrome conversions
I'd love to see how that goes.
It takes a long time to change corporate culture. Leica spent the last 1/4 century as a fashion accessory company (culminating with begin bought by Hermes) and only 3 years under the full control of a company that actually wants to make cameras.
Well, I'd love to see a moratorium on "special editions" until they have the camera-in-the-hand thing all sorted out.

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: My sources say that there's already M10 prototypes in the field with the same 24mp Sony used in D3X and A900, but with rangefinder friendly microlenses. Which conflicts with rumors that Sony microelectronics is discontinuing the FF sensors, but hey, rumors are what they are. Apparently, the short-mount NEX has prompted Sony to work in the offset microlens area. M10 with liveview, and an R adapter that actually communicates with the camera to record EXIF and control the aperture. No more needing Visoflex for people who want to do the occasional macro with their M.
You'd have accurate framing when you needed it and the ability to use longer lenses as well. A really good clip-on EVF accessory would be nice too.. Now, if this is rumour true, I'm interested. I think the one about Sony giving up FF sensors is probably someone putting 1+1 together and making 3 - or maybe a bit of negative viral marketing.
  • C

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:
Mescalamba wrote: Heh, yea sure.. try Leica S2 and then talk about MF vs FF.. but I guess you will be left simply speachless, cause that camera really shows how difference between MF and FF should look and its not even "full" MF, just "small" MF. P65+ pictures are something crazy good.. price unfortunately too. Though, Im thinking really hard about S2, cause its bit more than just MF..
Hmmm, I think that's one of those "more is less" kind of things. S2 has...
  • the smallest MF sensor on the market. 54mm diagonal, 1350mm2 area, when the "economy" Blad and P1 offerings are 55mm diagonal, 1452mm2 area.
  • the smallest lens line, just four lenses, most of which aren't actually suited to anything, because of the mismatch between sensor size and lens focal length.
  • a track record of poor support. There was a 10 year gap between the S1 and S2.
  • no perspective control solution. Nikon and Canon make 3-4 excellent tilt/shift lenses. Blad and P1 MF backs can mount on 2x3 ARCA or Sinar view cameras.
Here's the scary part. Leica launched the system with a crop factor! Seriously, all the lenses have focal lengths that say that the camera should have had a 60mm sensor, not a 54mm. It seems pretty obvious to me that Leica probably designed the whole S system, camera and lenses, for a 61mm sensor, just like the "mid line" medium format systems with their 37x49mm sensors.
  • 70mm is too long a "normal" for a 54mm sensor. That's 1.30x the image diagonal. The MF and 35mm makers learned not to do that 50 years ago. They launched a lot of lenses like 55mm or 58mm f1.4 normals on 35mm SLRs, and those all failed in the marketplace, and were quickly replaced with more complex and difficult 50mm f1.4 designs. 1.15x diagonal is "acceptable", 1.30x diagonal isn't.
  • 180mm is too long for a portrait lens. That's 3.33x the diagonal, equivalent to 144mm on 35mm. What are the popular portrait length lenses for the 35mm users that Leica is trying to woo? 105mm and 135mm. The 180mm is a lovely 130mm equivalent on a real MF 61mm sensor.
  • 35mm is awkward, at best, on a 54mm diagonal. 28mm equivalent. It would be a 24mm on a real MF. 24mm is where Nikon and Canon just poured their hearts and souls, to create 24mm f1.4 lenses.
So, with the exact same sensor technology as every other MF maker, but 10% less area than any other maker's most scaled back "economy" offering, with the smallest lens line and mismatch between lenses and sensor size, with a lack of the movements that product, architecture, and even many landscape photographers need, your "more than just MF" camera is so, so much less...
All of this is probably true, but you forget one important fact. With S2 its possible to make crazy good photos.. Second, its about size of bit bigger dSLR. Third, you can make R10 from that easily, as theres adapter to Leica R. Plus theres quite a few adapters to whatever you want. Hasselblad lens on that are possible. But for me, is important, how pictures from that look. Wierd lengths of lens are not something that would kill camera. If they were poor quality, then yes, but they definetly are not. You lack "adaptable" approach to photographic equipment. You only say what you think "you cant do" with that, instead of thinking "how to do that". http://dfarkas.blogspot.com/ Plenty of images from so called "much less than MF camera". Luckily, some ppl have bit less narrow minds..

Mescalamba wrote: Third, you can make R10 from that easily, as theres adapter to Leica R.
Adapt a 35mm SLR lens onto a medium format SLR camera?

Mescalamba wrote:
Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:
Mescalamba wrote: Heh, yea sure.. try Leica S2 and then talk about MF vs FF.. but I guess you will be left simply speachless, cause that camera really shows how difference between MF and FF should look and its not even "full" MF, just "small" MF. P65+ pictures are something crazy good.. price unfortunately too. Though, Im thinking really hard about S2, cause its bit more than just MF..
Hmmm, I think that's one of those "more is less" kind of things. S2 has...
  • the smallest MF sensor on the market. 54mm diagonal, 1350mm2 area, when the "economy" Blad and P1 offerings are 55mm diagonal, 1452mm2 area.
  • the smallest lens line, just four lenses, most of which aren't actually suited to anything, because of the mismatch between sensor size and lens focal length.
  • a track record of poor support. There was a 10 year gap between the S1 and S2.
  • no perspective control solution. Nikon and Canon make 3-4 excellent tilt/shift lenses. Blad and P1 MF backs can mount on 2x3 ARCA or Sinar view cameras.
[lens list cut]
So, with the exact same sensor technology as every other MF maker, but 10% less area than any other maker's most scaled back "economy" offering, with the smallest lens line and mismatch between lenses and sensor size, with a lack of the movements that product, architecture, and even many landscape photographers need, your "more than just MF" camera is so, so much less...
All of this is probably true, but you forget one important fact.
Actually, no, I haven't. The "one important fact" that you mention is:
  • Not "one", since you, yourself numbered your points.
  • Not "important"
  • Not a "fact", at all.
With S2 its possible to make crazy good photos..
That is neither "fact" nor "important". It is possible to make "crazy good photos" with practically any system. It is more difficult to do so with the S2 than any other system on earth, because the S lens lineup is smaller than any other system and what lenses there are, are hampered by the focal length mismatch to the sensor.
Second, its about size of bit bigger dSLR.
That's a good example of "unimportant". The "biggest dSLR" is big because it incorporates motors that can hit 10 frames/second, processing power to deal with 160 million pixels/second of data, a vertical grip, and a battery large enough to power it through 2000 shots. The S2 is more on the level of the smallest DSLRs, technology wise. Slow shutter and mirror, barely 1 frame/second, 1/4 the processing power of a large DSLR, and 1/2 half the processing power of the smallest, cheapest entry level DSLRs.
Third, you can make R10 from that easily, as theres adapter to Leica R.
Again, this isn't a "fact". A fact is something that is true, that is correct, and can be verified. The fact is that the registration distance of Leica R lenses is much shorter than that of the S2, so any R lens mounted on an S body would become a macro lens. And that the R lens doesn't have a coverage circle large enough to accommodate the S2 sensor.
Plus theres quite a few adapters to whatever you want.
No. There are no adapters to other 645 systems, because the S mount register is about as long as any 645. The only adapters possible are for cameras with longer registers: 6x6 and 6x7. As of now, the "quite a few adapters" you mention appears to be just one, the old Hasselblad V mount. That doesn't help deal with the lack of wides or the focal length mismatch. And you're not seriously expecting lenses built for an 80mm image circle to be sharp on a 54mm circle, are you?
Hasselblad lens on that are possible.
Not if you want to use the lens's shutter, or not be stuck with stop-down metering.
But for me, is important, how pictures from that look.
They don't look any better than any other medium format camera. And, unless you have a shooter that's a real wizard at MF photography (I've seen very few MF shooters like that) they really don't look any better than a FF DSLR, either.
Wierd lengths of lens are not something that would kill camera.
Actually, they are.
If they were poor quality, then yes, but they definetly are not. You lack "adaptable" approach to photographic equipment.
Again, that is totally untrue.
You only say what you think "you cant do" with that, instead of thinking "how to do that".
I have done so many things that most people would say are impossible... I've designed lenses, cameras, built an insane amount of specialized photographic equipment. I've used several different MF systems, 4x5 with film and digital scan backs, APS and FF DSLRs, every kind of film in existence.
http://dfarkas.blogspot.com/
As I said, someone who is good can get results from the S2 that are about as good as any other system . But nothing to justify your wild claims about how much better it is.
Plenty of images from so called "much less than MF camera". Luckily, some ppl have bit less narrow minds..
Unluckily, you are not one of those people. It does appear that you might be, though.

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: As I said, someone who is good can get results from the S2 that are about as good as any other system . But nothing to justify your wild claims about how much better it is.
Don't you think we'll eventually see large format or large-ish medium format (6x9, 6x17) cameras with really high pixel counts that are geared towards landscapers and the like? I mean, I know there's stuff like the Betterlight scanning backs, but it seems like we'll eventually see the end of scanning backs as larger sensors become available. Obviously this is mainly coming to mind because of Canon's recent big-sensor announcement, whatever that announcement actually means.

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: Blad has the HTS (I think it stands for "Horrible Tilt Shift") a system that puts wide angle lenses in front of a 1.5x teleconverter to be able to shift them, and compromises optical quality severely.
Interesting idea. Would it be possible to build a TC with integrated tilt/shift mechanics that allows the conversion of different lenses (such as a 50/1.8 or even zoom lenses) to tilt/shift lenses? A very low power TC should be sufficient to use full frame lenses with T/S on crop sensors... Sounds like an extremely attractive concept, but apparently hasn't been done yet... so, probably impossible (?).

mattr wrote:
Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: Blad has the HTS (I think it stands for "Horrible Tilt Shift") a system that puts wide angle lenses in front of a 1.5x teleconverter to be able to shift them, and compromises optical quality severely.
Interesting idea. Would it be possible to build a TC with integrated tilt/shift mechanics that allows the conversion of different lenses (such as a 50/1.8 or even zoom lenses) to tilt/shift lenses? A very low power TC should be sufficient to use full frame lenses with T/S on crop sensors...
The teleconverter goes in the wrong direction. It makes the lenses work, but it increases focal length, and the camera's crop factor increases it more. Say you put a 1.3x TC, a 1.5x crop camera, and the widest FF lens, Nikon 14-24mm together. That's now a 28-48mm. It would be cheaper to not do the teleconverter, and simply rig a T/S mount for an APS EVIL liveview camera, like a NEX or EP-1. That way, on an EP-1, you have the same effective 28-48mm, but none of the optical compromises of using a teleconverter on a wide angle zoom. And on a NEX, you have a more functional 22-37mm, a perfect "mini architecture" rig.
Sounds like an extremely attractive concept, but apparently hasn't been done yet... so, probably impossible (?).
No, just impractical.

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: The teleconverter goes in the wrong direction. It makes the lenses work, but it increases focal length, and the camera's crop factor increases it more. Say you put a 1.3x TC, a 1.5x crop camera, and the widest FF lens, Nikon 14-24mm together. That's now a 28-48mm.
Yes, but T/S at longer focal length can still be useful. Many seem to think the Canon 90mm TS-E is one of their best lenses. A 1.7x T/S-TC with a cheap 50/1.8 on full frame could be a substitute for this lens.
It would be cheaper to not do the teleconverter, and simply rig a T/S mount for an APS EVIL liveview camera, like a NEX or EP-1. That way, on an EP-1, you have the same effective 28-48mm, but none of the optical compromises of using a teleconverter on a wide angle zoom. And on a NEX, you have a more functional 22-37mm, a perfect "mini architecture" rig.
Excellent idea, also for landscape photography. What are the companies waiting for? I'm sure there would be a market. Reviewers like Reichmann from LL would certainly be excited.
No, just impractical.
Why would it be impractical? I seriously don't get it. The new EVF cameras would make it even possible to set tilt while looking through the viewfinder (and not at the LCD screen at arms length). They could even have some eye control to get higher magnification at different parts of the frame. Thinking a little more about it, there could be a servo for tilt control and the perfect setting to get best overall sharpness could be set automatically by contrast detect...

mattr wrote:
Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: The teleconverter goes in the wrong direction. It makes the lenses work, but it increases focal length, and the camera's crop factor increases it more. Say you put a 1.3x TC, a 1.5x crop camera, and the widest FF lens, Nikon 14-24mm together. That's now a 28-48mm.
Yes, but T/S at longer focal length can still be useful. Many seem to think the Canon 90mm TS-E is one of their best lenses. A 1.7x T/S-TC with a cheap 50/1.8 on full frame could be a substitute for this lens.
The Canon is a world class macro lens, designed specifically for razor sharp, highly detailed product and technical macro shots. It's just like the Nikon 85mm PC-E that I borrow so much it thinks my place is home... A cheap 50mm f1.8 on a 1.7x TC is going to look horrible compared to the specialized macro lenses. If you want something cheap that handles that way, an enlarger lens on a Zoerk m39 macro tilt-shift adapter, or on a Nikon PB-4 tilt/shift bellows, will get you into the game, with an optical quality that will shred the 50mm f1.8 on the 1.7x tc.
It would be cheaper to not do the teleconverter, and simply rig a T/S mount for an APS EVIL liveview camera, like a NEX or EP-1. That way, on an EP-1, you have the same effective 28-48mm, but none of the optical compromises of using a teleconverter on a wide angle zoom. And on a NEX, you have a more functional 22-37mm, a perfect "mini architecture" rig.
Excellent idea, also for landscape photography. What are the companies waiting for?
I think the design work is a lot more complex than just the simple mount converters we have now. We're talking about the smallest tilt/shift mechanism that's ever been built.
I'm sure there would be a market. Reviewers like Reichmann from LL would certainly be excited.
I don't know. It takes a lot to excite him, especially about something with such a small format.
No, just impractical.
Why would it be impractical? I seriously don't get it.
It's very difficult to make a teleconverter work well on wide angle lenses. Wide angle lenses aren't very high resolution to begin with. That's why, when a wide angle design ends up actually sharp, like the Nikon 14-24 or the Zeiss 21mm Distagon, people treat it like it's a major religious event. Put a regular, not so sharp wide on a sharpness stealing teleconverter, and make things worse by not having a good match between the lens's exit pupil and the converter's design, and things really get bad. That's why the fact that some 8mm fisheyes, by pure capricious coincidence, work pretty well on teleconverters strikes people as hard to believe. But for just any old wide on a teleconverter, the results are pretty horrible.
The new EVF cameras would make it even possible to set tilt while looking through the viewfinder (and not at the LCD screen at arms length). They could even have some eye control to get higher magnification at different parts of the frame.
The impractical part is the combination of focal length multiplier and teleconverter. Back in the film days, Nikon had 28mm and 35mm PC (shift) lenses, and people used to complain that the 28mm was too wide.
Thinking a little more about it, there could be a servo for tilt control and the perfect setting to get best overall sharpness could be set automatically by contrast detect...
It would be easier to give the camera a tilt/shift sensor.

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: I think the design work is a lot more complex than just the simple mount converters we have now. We're talking about the smallest tilt/shift mechanism that's ever been built.
There have been TS adapters for m43 for some time now (not interested because my "legacy glass" is all EF... and there is no way to stop those lenses down), but AFAIK it is either Tilt or Shift... no adapter handles both. It has been something mentioned rather frequently on the m43 forum FWIW, but I agree the NEX cameras are positioned best here. A MF lens on such an adapter would allow for some incredible tilt-shift stitching potential - if the camera grip clears the shift mechanism.

Chez Wimpy wrote:
Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: I think the design work is a lot more complex than just the simple mount converters we have now. We're talking about the smallest tilt/shift mechanism that's ever been built.
There have been TS adapters for m43 for some time now (not interested because my "legacy glass" is all EF... and there is no way to stop those lenses down),
Well, there is, and all it takes is a small micro. I've built controllers that can run an EF lens before, and helped another group with theirs. There's two commercial EF controllers on the market, too. And an Eastern European company that tried to make an adapter with a micro to go from four thirds and uFT to EF. The big problem is getting info for the other side of the interface, the so-called "open" four thirds system. We're up to at least four different people in three countries who have tried, only to get the door slammed in their faces.
but AFAIK it is either Tilt or Shift... no adapter handles both.
Odd. It shouldn't be that hard, on uFT. You've got at least 20mm clear.
It has been something mentioned rather frequently on the m43 forum FWIW, but I agree the NEX cameras are positioned best here. A MF lens on such an adapter would allow for some incredible tilt-shift stitching potential - if the camera grip clears the shift mechanism.
If not, bag the camera and bring it inside the grip. I build a macro setup that does this, even with a FF DSLR. Maximum utilization of the lens mount, by not having to put anything at all into it.

mattr wrote: Yes, but T/S at longer focal length can still be useful. Many seem to think the Canon 90mm TS-E is one of their best lenses.
The 90 TSE certainly is one of their best lenses... at least that is my impression going by some of the A1-sized prints I have gotten out of it (f11, with 3-shot stitches on the 5D2 gets about 4:3AR, 40MP sharp corner to corner ), but only when considered for the full, near-MF sized, image circle. On the 18MP generation APS-C sensor, it doesn't have quite the "bite" (pixel level not as sharp even as the 24 TSEII), and I actually think the 85/1.8 and 50/1.8 beat it for stopped down performance - though I haven't tested the hunch. Canon will hopefully update the lens at some point to get past the mechanical issues (not enough tilt to really make it sing, and the problem with shift/tilt being at 90degrees and not adjustable in the field) and in the process push the optics another notch.

Chez Wimpy wrote:
mattr wrote: Yes, but T/S at longer focal length can still be useful. Many seem to think the Canon 90mm TS-E is one of their best lenses.
The 90 TSE certainly is one of their best lenses... at least that is my impression going by some of the A1-sized prints I have gotten out of it (f11, with 3-shot stitches on the 5D2 gets about 4:3AR, 40MP sharp corner to corner ), but only when considered for the full, near-MF sized, image circle. On the 18MP generation APS-C sensor, it doesn't have quite the "bite" (pixel level not as sharp even as the 24 TSEII),
That is basically the insanely large image circles of those lenses. The Canon and Nikon 85 and 90mm tilt/shift lenses have about 100mm image circles (more on that, in a minute). And they have to be optimized for a reasonably consistent look across that huge circle, so the end result is that the designer "takes sharpness from the center" to distribute it to the edges.
and I actually think the 85/1.8 and 50/1.8 beat it for stopped down performance - though I haven't tested the hunch.
I'd bet against that hunch.
Canon will hopefully update the lens at some point to get past the mechanical issues (not enough tilt to really make it sing, and the problem with shift/tilt being at 90degrees and not adjustable in the field) and in the process push the optics another notch.
I'm not sure they can boost the tilt/shift too much. The problem with the Canon 90mm TS/E and Nikon 85mm PC-E affects all tilt/shift and view camera lenses. The best place to tilt is in the image plane. That keeps the tilted area centered in the lens's image circle, so you get the best optical performance, and you don't have to chase the image around as you tilt. But when the lens is at the bottom of a "hole" defined by a lens mount some 45mm away, you only have so much freedom to do this, before the lens mount eclipses the lens. That's not much of a problem with wide angle and normal lenses: their exit pupils are fairly close to the lens mount. Look at the Nikon or Canon wide and normal tilt/shift lenses, they both have what is essentially a goniometer, a curved slider, and if you pull some perpendiculars from that curve, you'll find they intersect at the camera's sensor. This is necessary to conserve the lens's image circle, especially on the wides. You can still tilt a pretty good amount, because the rear of the lens is so close to the camera's lens mount. The 85 and 90 have a gomiometer arc in the other direction. It makes the axis near the lens's rear node. The longer focal lengths (you figure, an effective 115mm arc at the close focus limit of the 90mm Canon) means you can't really tilt the camera (the sensor) much without intersecting the lens mount. So, you effectively tilt the lens. The problem is that you need an extra 30mm of image circle (small angle approximation) for every =/-10 degrees of tilt you allow. So, if you start out with FF's 43.3mm image circle, add 24mm to allow +/-12 mm of shift, then add 30mm to allow +/-10 degrees of tilt, you require an insane 97mm image circle. I doodled up one that had dual, counter-motion arcs, to pick up as much camera tilt as you could before the mount eclipsed the lens and to pick up as much lens tilt as you could before you ran out of image circle.

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: The problem is that you need an extra 30mm of image circle (small angle approximation) for every =/-10 degrees of tilt you allow. So, if you start out with FF's 43.3mm image circle, add 24mm to allow +/-12 mm of shift, then add 30mm to allow +/-10 degrees of tilt, you require an insane 97mm image circle.
I figured something like this would be the problem. As it is, the lens eclipses the mount in some orientations (if you put the tilt-shift on the same axis, it is actually visible in the FF camera's viewfinder). The irony of course, the longer the focal length, the more tilt you need for practical subjects. When you can back up, landscapes with foreground detail are a snap, but if the location is restricted (or you want greater subject compression) you have to stop down to diffraction extremes for sharpness to be acceptable. This required the full f32 (at 8 degrees tilt) for the mountain to be mostly in focus... stitching to 40MP helped with masking diffraction effects on the final print. View: original size

mattr wrote: Yes, but T/S at longer focal length can still be useful. Many seem to think the Canon 90mm TS-E is one of their best lenses. A 1.7x T/S-TC with a cheap 50/1.8 on full frame could be a substitute for this lens.
Longer focal length T/S lenses are used mostly forthings like product photography. People who shoot images for catalouges and advertising can afford to buy the real thing. What most amateurs and hobbyists want a T/S lens for is architecture and landscapes - for that they want a wide angle T/S.
  • C

CFynn wrote: What most amateurs and hobbyists want a T/S lens for is architecture and landscapes - for that they want a wide angle T/S.
I don't buy that. At the very least, it's an overly-broad generalization. Landscapes don't always have to be shot with a wide-angle, in fact I would say shooting nothing but wide gets boring and is borderline cliche. I have all 3 of the Nikkor tilt/shifts, and I use them all for landscapes. In fact, the 24 PC-E easily gets less use than the other two for landscapes, although it's probably most-used for architecture (which I don't shoot as much of). For landscapes the 45 PC-E is my most-used T/S lens. The 85mm doesn't get used quite as much for perspective correction, but it's still very useful for stitching or when I can use tilt to increase DOF. Personally I would love it if all my primes were T/S, even the telephotos. But I would especially like to have something in the 30-35mm range. Super-wide FOV is overrated. I probably wouldn't spring for a 17 t/s even if Nikon offered one, because although there are time when it would be useful, they're few and far between for me; I just don't shoot that wide on a regular basis. I am jealous of the Canon 24 TS-E2 though.

Jeff Kohn wrote: I am jealous of the Canon 24 TS-E2 though.
I would be too... The single greatest feature of that lens is the adjustable T/S orientation in the field . I can't even begin to count the times I have mounted the 24 on a FF camera, shifted down for perspective and tilted down for DOF only to switch minutes later, with tilt still down, but the shifts sideways to allow for stitching (three shots in portrait flat stitch for a 17mm effective FOV @ 40MP). Incredibly useful at this focal length.

Jeff Kohn wrote:
CFynn wrote: What most amateurs and hobbyists want a T/S lens for is architecture and landscapes - for that they want a wide angle T/S.
I don't buy that. At the very least, it's an overly-broad generalization.
No, it's a pretty useful observation. It's even possible (thanks to a few photo sites and stock sites that let you sort by focal length) to see what sort of percentages there are. Remember, all "most" means is "over half". I played a little with image sites, and found it was over 80%.
Landscapes don't always have to be shot with a wide-angle, in fact I would say shooting nothing but wide gets boring and is borderline cliche.
I would say that landscapes tend towards boring and cliche, regardless of focal length, but that's not really the issue.
I have all 3 of the Nikkor tilt/shifts, and I use them all for landscapes. In fact, the 24 PC-E easily gets less use than the other two for landscapes, although it's probably most-used for architecture (which I don't shoot as much of). For landscapes the 45 PC-E is my most-used T/S lens.
I like normals, too.
The 85mm doesn't get used quite as much for perspective correction, but it's still very useful for stitching or when I can use tilt to increase DOF. Personally I would love it if all my primes were T/S, even the telephotos.
100% EVIL camera, with a T/S sensor. Some lenses won't be able to shift, because of small image circles, but they'll all be able to tilt.
But I would especially like to have something in the 30-35mm range. Super-wide FOV is overrated.
I don't buy that. At the very least, it's an overly-broad generalization.
I probably wouldn't spring for a 17 t/s even if Nikon offered one, because although there are time when it would be useful, they're few and far between for me; I just don't shoot that wide on a regular basis. I am jealous of the Canon 24 TS-E2 though.
Apparently, Canon felt that it was the "flagship" of the TS-E line.

Jeff Kohn wrote:
CFynn wrote: What most amateurs and hobbyists want a T/S lens for is architecture and landscapes - for that they want a wide angle T/S.
I don't buy that. At the very least, it's an overly-broad generalization. Landscapes don't always have to be shot with a wide-angle, in fact I would say shooting nothing but wide gets boring and is borderline cliche. I have all 3 of the Nikkor tilt/shifts, and I use them all for landscapes. In fact, the 24 PC-E easily gets less use than the other two for landscapes, although it's probably most-used for architecture (which I don't shoot as much of). For landscapes the 45 PC-E is my most-used T/S lens. The 85mm doesn't get used quite as much for perspective correction, but it's still very useful for stitching or when I can use tilt to increase DOF. Personally I would love it if all my primes were T/S, even the telephotos. But I would especially like to have something in the 30-35mm range. Super-wide FOV is overrated. I probably wouldn't spring for a 17 t/s even if Nikon offered one, because although there are time when it would be useful, they're few and far between for me; I just don't shoot that wide on a regular basis. I am jealous of the Canon 24 TS-E2 though.
Hi Jeff - I said wide, not "super wide" your 30-35mm range is still wide. To get a 35mm T/S with a 1.7x T/S convertor you'd have to start out with a 20mm lens - and that would only be equivalent to a 50mm on APS-C. You'd have light loss with the convertor - and to minimise that you'd probably want to start with a fast lens. Fast 20mm lenses are not cheap.
  • C

Hi Joseph, Even if medium format does lag behind full frame in technology, one does not really need high technology to make a well exposed image at ISO 50. Here's a 100% crop from the new Hasselblad H4D-60, using default settings from their Phocus converter: View: original size Here's the same crop, resampled down to 50% (15mp) and back up to 100% using standard bicubic in Photoshop both ways: View: original size I suspect this is about the kind of resolution you'd expect to get from a 24mp FF camera with AA filter (remember, Foveon just about achieved parity with Bayer using half the pixel count. The 60mp image downsized to 15mp can be regarded as having Foveon resolution) Here's a link to a 47mp crop of the 60mp image saved as a size 10 jpeg: http://jodoforce.smugmug.com/Other/Demo/Job0008prv-crop/986356227_VyDee-O.jpg (smugmug limits uploaded images to a maximum of 48mp) but I suspect you have plenty of samples yourself. Taken with the 80mm lens at f/11, ISO 50. Source here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=44979.0 Some colour aliasing can be seen but given the work volume of the typical MF photographer I'd say they are willing to take the time manually correcting the colour in return for the extra resolution granted by the lack of the AA filter. I can't believe that excluding a piece of glass that may cost a couple hundred dollars on a camera that costs tens of thousands is a cost decision rather than design decision. In summary, the pixel quality may not be up there with the latest DSLRs but is adequate for low ISO work and there are enough extra of those pixels to really make for larger and sharper enlargements.

Joe0Bloggs wrote: Even if medium format does lag behind full frame in technology, one does not really need high technology to make a well exposed image at ISO 50. Here's a 100% crop from the new Hasselblad H4D-60, using default settings from their Phocus converter:
Joe0Bloggs, That picture is very impressive. From my perspective I am not willing, and my clients aren't making me, to go with MFD because of the workflow requirements to use those systems. Everything about them pretty much (except for image output) sucks compared to using a 1D(s) body. I don't print large enough to need MFD, which I assume causes MFD to then say they are superior color-wise and so on. Whatever is better about MFD is lost on 90% of the world's market. I personally want MFD to have LiveView so that I can use it easily for some of the work I do. I want the crazy resolution for retouching and for the perfectionist in me.

Couple of points: [*] 1 I have an HTS and use it most days, it does not "compromise image quality terribly" [*] 2 The statement "most [MFDB] photographers shoot at f22" is simply untrue I shoot most stuff in studio at around 5.6-11 and frequently at 2.2 and none of the photographers I know shoot frequently at 22 and above. Nick-T http://www.nick-t.com http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com

Nick-T wrote: Couple of points: [*] 1 I have an HTS and use it most days, it does not "compromise image quality terribly"
That differs greatly from my experience. Did you shoot the shortest lenses?
[*] 2 The statement "most [MFDB] photographers shoot at f22" is simply untrue
No. It simply disagrees with your experience.
I shoot most stuff in studio at around 5.6-11 and frequently at 2.2 and none of the photographers I know shoot frequently at 22 and above.
All of the ones I know, do. What do you and the photographers you know shoot? Most of my acquaintances are product shooters.

alifatemi wrote: thanks but in DPR there are no many interested people in MF because DPR never reveiw any. if it does, pretty sure there will be lots of interested people in forum. MF not seling too much because of its very high price. how many car, Ferrari sells per year in US? only 800! compare it to Toyota or Ford... I tried a rather oldish 18 mp phase one, it was incredible: resolution, color fidelity, dynamic range, and it was not in studio but in real world condition under the sun with f11, on hand. I very much like canon or Nikon quality increase to compete with them because honesty its very difficult to pay for MF price but the other side of the coin is you don't need to change/upgrade your camera every 2 or 3 years. some of My friends have old Hassy belongs to even 5 years ago and their picture qualities is still unbelievable. I thinks its more or less is the mater of photography style one has; you can't use it for sport and street photography but for architectural and landscape... as far as you know their limitations and of cource if you need large size printing above 24", MF can shows its abilities.
If you like that kind of shooting a used Hasselblad with lenses and a CFV back won't set you back that much more than the cost of a new Nikon D3x system - and you will be able to shoot film on the same camera as well. A Pentax 645D body now costs around $9,500 (and that should come down a little) and second hand Pentax 645 AF lenses which will work with that system are not too expensive - so you can also equip yourself with a modern medium format system for around the same price as Nikon's top end high res camera with lenses. I use to shoot a lot of medium-format film (two Rollei TLRs, a Hasselblad C/M and Technika 6x9), and there is a lot to be said for the methodical way of photographing necessary with these cameras. But frankly, if you take the same kind of care, you can achieve medium format like results or better with a DSLR like the Sony A900 for a third the cost of a new medium format back.
  • C

CFynn wrote:
alifatemi wrote: thanks but in DPR there are no many interested people in MF because DPR never reveiw any. if it does, pretty sure there will be lots of interested people in forum. MF not seling too much because of its very high price. how many car, Ferrari sells per year in US? only 800! compare it to Toyota or Ford... I tried a rather oldish 18 mp phase one, it was incredible: resolution, color fidelity, dynamic range, and it was not in studio but in real world condition under the sun with f11, on hand. I very much like canon or Nikon quality increase to compete with them because honesty its very difficult to pay for MF price but the other side of the coin is you don't need to change/upgrade your camera every 2 or 3 years. some of My friends have old Hassy belongs to even 5 years ago and their picture qualities is still unbelievable. I thinks its more or less is the mater of photography style one has; you can't use it for sport and street photography but for architectural and landscape... as far as you know their limitations and of cource if you need large size printing above 24", MF can shows its abilities.
If you like that kind of shooting a used Hasselblad with lenses and a CFV back won't set you back that much more than the cost of a new Nikon D3x system - and you will be able to shoot film on the same camera as well.
But you're talking about a cropped MF system, which means that the few wide angle lenses you can get will set you back a mall mint. Even getting a decent normal (by using a Blad wide) is expensive. And you're comparing apples and oranges. A new D3X is a weather sealed, 5 frame/second camera with arguably the best AF system in the entire industry, and an accurate 100% viewfinder. If you want a fair comparison, even a Canon 5D II or Sony A900 (both under $3,000) are more advanced cameras than a 500 series Blad.
A Pentax 645D body now costs around $9,500 (and that should come down a little)
Once demand catches up to the point that they open up other markets. But remember, the Pentax 645D is still a highly cropped 645. Its 33x44mm sensor gives it a 1.27x crop factor relative to film 645 at 42x56mm. Although they do have a "D" normal for the cropped format, wides are still problematic. And again, it's not a Nikon D3X class camera, it's a really, really big K7. Which still puts it at least a decade ahead of a Blad or P1. I've shot the 645D, it really is the best MF body on the market.
and second hand Pentax 645 AF lenses which will work with that system are not too expensive - so you can also equip yourself with a modern medium format system for around the same price as Nikon's top end high res camera with lenses. I use to shoot a lot of medium-format film (two Rollei TLRs, a Hasselblad C/M and Technika 6x9), and there is a lot to be said for the methodical way of photographing necessary with these cameras.
I'm quite thoroughly convinced that a "methodical way of photography" has to come from inside the photographer. If you learn to see and think that way, you can do it with 8x10 sheets, 35mm film, an APS DSLR, or a scan-back on a 4x5. If you don't learn it, and you end up convinced you need a "slow" camera to "force you to slow down", you've lost the battle, and given up control of your creative process to outside forces that are only imagined.
But frankly, if you take the same kind of care, you can achieve medium format like results or better with a DSLR like the Sony A900 for a third the cost of a new medium format back.
Exactly.

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: I'm quite thoroughly convinced that a "methodical way of photography" has to come from inside the photographer. If you learn to see and think that way, you can do it with 8x10 sheets, 35mm film, an APS DSLR, or a scan-back on a 4x5. If you don't learn it, and you end up convinced you need a "slow" camera to "force you to slow down", you've lost the battle, and given up control of your creative process to outside forces that are only imagined.
Seriously true. If you want a "methodical way of photography" with any camera, put an old 256MB card in it and turn the dial to M. No need to brag that you had to spend $5,000 to force yourself to be methodical.

graybalanced wrote:
Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: I'm quite thoroughly convinced that a "methodical way of photography" has to come from inside the photographer. If you learn to see and think that way, you can do it with 8x10 sheets, 35mm film, an APS DSLR, or a scan-back on a 4x5. If you don't learn it, and you end up convinced you need a "slow" camera to "force you to slow down", you've lost the battle, and given up control of your creative process to outside forces that are only imagined.
Seriously true. If you want a "methodical way of photography" with any camera, put an old 256MB card in it and turn the dial to M. No need to brag that you had to spend $5,000 to force yourself to be methodical.
Exactly. I'd take it a step farther: I don't even need to deliberately choose a small memory card to force me to be more methodical. Remember the old saying "plan the shoot, shoot the plan". The plan says about how many shots will be shot. The plan might involve hours of prep that culminate in 4 shots (including a color checker and bracketing) or the plan might say 50 shot focus stack. The plan might say wander around, play the flute when you feel like playing the flute, shoot what you feel like shooting when you feel like shooting.

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: If you want a fair comparison, even a Canon 5D II or Sony A900 (both under $3,000) are more advanced cameras than a 500 series Blad.
Yes, that may be the case, but digback shooters don't choose that format because of, but despite the camera body. The ultimate motivation is IQ, colour depth, sharpness, for some also image ratio, big sensor surface. The MF pro market seems so tiny now because the consumer (DSLR) market has grown so huge.

Bernie Ess wrote:
Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: If you want a fair comparison, even a Canon 5D II or Sony A900 (both under $3,000) are more advanced cameras than a 500 series Blad.
Yes, that may be the case, but digback shooters don't choose that format because of, but despite the camera body.
This is true. But I'm not the one who brought that into the discussion in the first place. The fact that MF shooters don't pick the format because the bodies have the capability of a high end Nikon or Canon gets tossed out the window by people who say "a low end MF is about the same price as a top end FF". You can spend about 1/3 the money of a top end FF and get a Canon 5D II which delivers comparable image quality to a Canon 1Ds III.
The ultimate motivation is IQ, colour depth, sharpness,
Which can typically be realized simply by learning to shoot the gear you have, better. Not that I've seen very many MF shooters that can get anything resembling the best sharpness or color accuracy out of their systems. What's "colour depth"?
for some also image ratio, big sensor surface.
Why is that a motive?
The MF pro market seems so tiny now because the consumer (DSLR) market has grown so huge.
Perhaps the MF pro marked seems so tiny now because it has shrunk, by an average of 30% per year, every single year for the last two decades. 10 years ago, it was an 85,000 unit market, supporting 18 companies. Today, it's a 6000 unit market supporting 4 companies.

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: You can spend about 1/3 the money of a top end FF and get a Canon 5D II which delivers comparable image quality to a Canon 1Ds III.
And, although it's not even close to having the best AF and handling among FF DSLRs, it's WAY better than any MF camera I've ever handled. That's not intended to minimize the usefulness of MF, but none of them seem to have very good AF or intuitive interfaces. Which isn't the point, I guess...but it's worth noting.

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote: I'm quite thoroughly convinced that a "methodical way of photography" has to come from inside the photographer. If you learn to see and think that way, you can do it with 8x10 sheets, 35mm film, an APS DSLR, or a scan-back on a 4x5. If you don't learn it, and you end up convinced you need a "slow" camera to "force you to slow down", you've lost the battle, and given up control of your creative process to outside forces that are only imagined.
I agree. When I started with digital after using film I did a lot of spraying and praying because it was all free. I went back to using film cameras because I enjoy it and I do find myself trying to be more selective with my digital photography now.

Thanks people for contributing. but don't forget the main subject of this discussion: that is if dpzen needs a separate forum for MF? we got 88 posts till now; not bad ha? I believe we really need it. good or bad, MF is very important(ok, important!) part if serious photography, why not give people of such an interest a chance to presents themselves? does it harm anybody? It just helps we learn more I suppose.

alifatemi wrote: Thanks people for contributing.
You're welcome.
but don't forget the main subject of this discussion: that is if dpzen needs a separate forum for MF?
That topic was hashed out, thoroughly. There is not enough interest to support an MF forum. So, we moved on to other topics.
we got 88 posts till now; not bad ha?
Actually, it's terrible. This thread is 12 days old, and it is the only MF thread currently running. 7 posts per day is not enough to justify a forum. If you believe otherwise, submit a request to dpReview through the "Feedback" page. If they believe it's worth an experiment, they'll put a call for votes up on the Open Talk forum. A discussion here, in this forum, is meaningless.
I believe we really need it. good or bad, MF is very important(ok, important!)
Vanishing? Trivial? Historically interesting?
part if serious photography, why not give people of such an interest a chance to presents themselves? does it harm anybody? It just helps we learn more I suppose.
As I said, no one in this conversation can make that decision. Send Phil and the gang a feedback.

CFynn wrote:
I use to shoot a lot of medium-format film (two Rollei TLRs, a Hasselblad C/M and Technika 6x9), and there is a lot to be said for the methodical way of photographing necessary with these cameras. But frankly, if you take the same kind of care, you can achieve medium format like results or better with a DSLR like the Sony A900 for a third the cost of a new medium format back.
  • C
This is very true. It is also true that the capabilities of most cameras today exceed the techniques of most photographers. Most are wrapped up in getting new equipment instead of perfecting/learning technique.

Soothsayerman wrote:
CFynn wrote:
I use to shoot a lot of medium-format film (two Rollei TLRs, a Hasselblad C/M and Technika 6x9), and there is a lot to be said for the methodical way of photographing necessary with these cameras. But frankly, if you take the same kind of care, you can achieve medium format like results or better with a DSLR like the Sony A900 for a third the cost of a new medium format back.
  • C
This is very true. It is also true that the capabilities of most cameras today exceed the techniques of most photographers. Most are wrapped up in getting new equipment instead of perfecting/learning technique.
Funny that today many posting on DPR seem to think a good photograph is one with shallow depth of field and smooth out of focus blur (bokeh) and seem ready to spend vast sums of money to achieve this. In DPR posts I've noticed "good dof" is usually equated with shallow dof. I remember when many people chose 35mm over medium format because it gave them greater depth of field.
  • C

CFynn wrote: Funny that today many posting on DPR seem to think a good photograph is one with shallow depth of field and smooth out of focus blur (bokeh) and seem ready to spend vast sums of money to achieve this. In DPR posts I've noticed "good dof" is usually equated with shallow dof. I remember when many people chose 35mm over medium format because it gave them greater depth of field.
35mm is a sweet spot. The negatives were big enough to be reasonably grain-free and detailed in most situations. The lenses were a reasonable size and could be quite fast without becoming too huge (most of the time). And the working DOF was usually manageable. Weight is also in a workable realm. This rig was over seven pounds, the fastest lens made for it was f/2.4 (a 165mm f/2.8 pictured here) and of course you had to reload every ten shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/r_jackson/2933674818/ View: original size

RRJackson wrote: This rig was over seven pounds, the fastest lens made for it was f/2.4 (a 165mm f/2.8 pictured here) and of course you had to reload every ten shots:
That is a nice piece of kit -- 'Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed.' ~ Winogrand

Soothsayerman wrote: That is a nice piece of kit
It really had that feeling like you were using a giant F3. It was a 70's SLR in just about every practical way. Very satisfying to use. Very heavy, though. And fairly limited in its applications. But it was fun to walk into a concert and shoot big film. Pushing ISO 400 film to ISO 1600 wasn't a big deal because the huge frame minimized the grain. In fact, at 1600 the grain from this Neopan was essentially invisible: http://www.flickr.com/photos/r_jackson/2144189107/ View: original size

RRJackson wrote: It really had that feeling like you were using a giant F3. It was a 70's SLR in just about every practical way. Very satisfying to use. Very heavy, though. And fairly limited in its applications. But it was fun to walk into a concert and shoot big film. Pushing ISO 400 film to ISO 1600 wasn't a big deal because the huge frame minimized the grain. In fact, at 1600 the grain from this Neopan was essentially invisible:
I used a to have a C330 that I used and it was a fine machine. At the time, I thought of getting the pentax because it was more like a giant f3 but it just never happened and eventually I got rid of the 330 because I started using 35mm all the time. It would be interesting to have another mf film camera but I know I would not use it. I do still use a Canonet QL17III. Ahh film. -- 'Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed.' ~ Winogrand

Soothsayerman wrote: I used a to have a C330 that I used and it was a fine machine. At the time, I thought of getting the pentax because it was more like a giant f3 but it just never happened and eventually I got rid of the 330 because I started using 35mm all the time. It would be interesting to have another mf film camera but I know I would not use it. I do still use a Canonet QL17III. Ahh film.
I have to force myself to use it anymore. A few months back I stand-processed some 35mm Neopan in HC-110. It eased the contrast back a bit and I was generally happy with the way it looked, but it was the last time I shot film and that was last November. I love it, though. But like you said, I find that if I'm going to go to the effort of shooting film I'll usually go ahead and shoot 35mm. This is one of those stand-processed images from November and I used my F5 and 85mm f/1.8 lens that night. When the convenience of a modern SLR like the F5 is available to me I have a hard time making my old eyes manually focus or even deal with an unpredictable AF system like my old Pentax 645NII had. And even given the convenience of the F5 I seldom pick it up. Sad, really. When I look back at images I've shot it's frequently the stuff I shot on film that has the most appeal to me, but the siren song of digital is just too hard to resist. http://www.flickr.com/photos/r_jackson/4076902617/ View: original size

RRJackson wrote:
Soothsayerman wrote: I used a to have a C330 that I used and it was a fine machine. At the time, I thought of getting the pentax because it was more like a giant f3 but it just never happened and eventually I got rid of the 330 because I started using 35mm all the time. It would be interesting to have another mf film camera but I know I would not use it. I do still use a Canonet QL17III. Ahh film.
I have to force myself to use it anymore. A few months back I stand-processed some 35mm Neopan in HC-110. It eased the contrast back a bit and I was generally happy with the way it looked, but it was the last time I shot film and that was last November. I love it, though. But like you said, I find that if I'm going to go to the effort of shooting film I'll usually go ahead and shoot 35mm. This is one of those stand-processed images from November and I used my F5 and 85mm f/1.8 lens that night. When the convenience of a modern SLR like the F5 is available to me I have a hard time making my old eyes manually focus or even deal with an unpredictable AF system like my old Pentax 645NII had. And even given the convenience of the F5 I seldom pick it up. Sad, really. When I look back at images I've shot it's frequently the stuff I shot on film that has the most appeal to me, but the siren song of digital is just too hard to resist.
Yep, I understand. That's why I still shoot film occasionally because it just has a 'feel' that I like but digital is easier in a lot of ways and I cannot manual focus a camera as fast I used to be able too. You have some really nice work!

Add new comment

Image
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: png gif jpg jpeg.
Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: zip rar.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.