Re: MF digital backs. The dilemma
/forum/topic/368633/0

1
2 3 20 21 end

dbiela
Registered: Nov 27, 2004
Total Posts: 66
Country: United States

You may want to see about renting some MF gear to try out or at least get a demo on it. I know 2 photographers that went MF, one went with a PH45 the other an Imacon back and both feel that if they were to start all over they would stay with a Canon 1ds Mk2. One prints large format on an Epson and said he dose not see enough of a difference to justify the money he put out. The other likes the quality but said his clients never use it that big and could use a C. 20D for most of his work. For the type of work that I mostly do I want every drop of detail and like most on this list I am always, reading up, trying out, and looking for that next step up in quality. Unfortunately the space that I shoot in is small and time that is given to me short so MF/LF will not work too well. I stay with FF 35mm type of gear. I have a Contax 645 and love that camera it is a great platform to shoot digital but I just rent a digital back when I need to and I have not done that for a year or two. Having said all of this being that you’re a Leica shooter you will not be happy till you try it out for your self anyway. Cheers



Geert Koning
Registered: Aug 23, 2005
Total Posts: 808
Country: Netherlands

Guy,

Michael Reichman wrote an article on this subject. He comes to the conclusion that the Zeiss lenses are not equal to the P25 back and switched to a Linhof view camera with a P45 back and Rodenstock HR lenses. That will cost a lot of money

Geert.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-view.shtml



foto-z
Registered: Jul 14, 2005
Total Posts: 3309
Country: United Kingdom

Guy, I've tested a P45 with a Cambo WS and Digitar lens. They really do work well together and if you are after maximum resolution, I think this is the combination to beat.

Full frame:


This image is copyrighted by the owner




crop:


This image is copyrighted by the owner




Andi Dietrich
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Total Posts: 3417
Country: Swaziland

There should be mentioned that there were other reviews on LuminousL before. Reichmann says:The Phase One P25 22MP digital back is the finest instrument for recording photographic images that I have ever seen or used in 40 years as a photographer (on a Contax back in 2004)

here are two more links, maybe you can report what they say, I havent read them throug ;-)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds-mk11-vs-p25.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p25-field.shtml


Should be allowed the question if you are looking for ultimat iq or for a system which is enough handy to get some fresh air once in a while. this is personal choice.
Image size should be around 30mp if you want to have full acces to imagebanks. And repeating what I said in another thread: Hasselblad V lenses are still excellent and will by far provide better iq than 18mp



Geert Koning
Registered: Aug 23, 2005
Total Posts: 808
Country: Netherlands

bathman wrote:
There should be mentioned that there were other reviews on LuminousL before. Reichmann says:The Phase One P25 22MP digital back is the finest instrument for recording photographic images that I have ever seen or used in 40 years as a photographer (on a Contax back in 2004)

here are two more links, maybe you can report what they say, I havent read them throug ;-)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds-mk11-vs-p25.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p25-field.shtml



Maybe Michel Reichman changed his mind, that can happen.



foto-z
Registered: Jul 14, 2005
Total Posts: 3309
Country: United Kingdom

DutchGuy wrote:
Maybe Michel Reichman changed his mind, that can happen.


What did he change his mind about?



Geert Koning
Registered: Aug 23, 2005
Total Posts: 808
Country: Netherlands

About the quality of the 645 zeiss lenses in combination with the P25



Andi Dietrich
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Total Posts: 3417
Country: Swaziland

Well, there is a difference between the p25 and the p45, and at a certain point all lenses are outresolved.
The other question is who needs that quality and what for? Is it worth to go for a system like a view camera.



wil_ret
Registered: Jun 04, 2005
Total Posts: 543
Country: Australia

I've just finished shooting a Jim Beam ad campaign here in Sydney.
I used the 1DsMkII with the TSE 90.
I've delivered the files as 47 MB Tiffs and resized with Photoshop to about 120 MB.
The agency is stoked(loves them) and personally I was very happy as well.
I printed a crop from both files and there was a minimal difference.
Also the files out of the Canon needed minimal sharpening.
I'm shure the P45 with an Apo Digitar would have been a little better,but only maybe by comparing the 2 next to each-other.
I bet the printed versions would be almost identical.
What I'm trying to say,that this little Canon is pretty handy and pretty cheap compared to the P45 set-up.
What will the MkIII bring?
Cheers,
Willem.



gogopix
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Total Posts: 1431
Country: Slovakia

Dear Guy

That is whatI am doing The ALPS Tc is tiny and youcan get a Contax mount. For between 5-7,000 you can get a virtually new system with a lens (TC, cables, adapter, $4,000 for the digitar alone, all else is relative inexpensive.)

Victor



Kyle Yates
Registered: Mar 12, 2002
Total Posts: 5764
Country: United Kingdom

bathman wrote:
Well, there is a difference between the p25 and the p45, and at a certain point all lenses are outresolved.
The other question is who needs that quality and what for? Is it worth to go for a system like a view camera.


Here again it depends on your market and your own "desire for perfection".

One thing of course that is different in any case once you start comparing a 1Ds2 with even the most exotic lenses on it to any sort of MF / LF system is that you'll get a different "Image" with the MF gear --DOF etc will be different compared to the 35 MM shot.

Whilst a discussion of this this doesn't add to the technical merits or otherwise of these systems the final picture will certainly be "different".

So if you need that "Different" look at the best quality possible then yes go for a view camera.

There's still a lot of life left in the top notch lenses even with the latest crop of MF backs (but of course at a price).

The fact that this type of gear is selling is proof enough that there IS a demand for this --the buyers of this equipment are usually serious pro's --not teen hobbyists with rather more money than sense.

I think also the fact that we are discussing this type of gear on this Forum shows that there certainly is an interest in this even if I suspect a lot of this kit is way beyond our budgets

Usually pretty well any endeavour that people find worthwhile doing there is ALWAYS a demand for better quality --whether it's you as a SHOOTER or simply as knowlegeable CLIENT / CUSTOMER who wants the best image he can afford.

Cheers

-K



marbrink
Registered: Sep 18, 2005
Total Posts: 694
Country: Sweden

I wouldn't want to work with 31 or 39mp backs. Just think about the storage and the processing time in the computer. But these backs have their place. It's for those who used LF in the past. So it's a small audience but there is one.
Personally I would much rather go for a good 22mp back.



Artisador
Registered: Feb 09, 2004
Total Posts: 3174
Country: United States

I hear you Guy -

Best wishes with this most recent quest (for the best)

/\rt

The Alpa info is here:

ALPA DIGITAL



Lotusm50
Registered: Sep 26, 2005
Total Posts: 4208
Country: United States

Guy Mancuso wrote:
First let's say you went the hassy or contax route and bought a P25 or even the P45 not leaving Leaf out of this but will just talk one system for easy understanding. It seems to me that the lenses here in 21/4 are the issue that they can't simple resolve what the sensor is putting out , okay there maybe one or two but maybe all you are getting out of them is like 18 mpx of resoultion , I picked a number here but seems in this area you may be better off with the DMR or the Canon 1dsMKII because the difference while there may not be worth the cost or
convenince of the DSLR.


If you "pick" 18mp that might be the conclusion, but quite frankly one should have better information than just arbitrarily picking a number that might bias your answer. What if we "pick" the actual resolution to be about 22mp? Would that plus the enhanced dynamic range make the decision for the P25? Perhaps, it depends on what you are doing.

Guy Mancuso wrote:
Now hear is the rub that is maybe 25k and can i justify this extra system in my work. It's intereting that from what i have gathered in my research is the p25 on a Contax is only slightly better than my DMR. First it is the Leica glass which is probably much better than the Contax MF glass and also the DMR is a Mini MF back.


"MUCH better"? Probably not. What's your criteria? The Contax 645 lenses resolve as well as most 35mm lenses. The Leica lenses over a 35mm patch might be a "little" better (but the 24x36mm center of the image circle of the 645 lenses is d*mn good too). But add in larger imaging area of the MF back would clearly (the way I see it) give you significantly better resolution with the Contax 645 lenses and a P25.

As for Michael Reichmann (since he was brought up), I'm not sure there is anyone on the web more catptured by sponsorship interest (except perhaps Bob Atkins). So there are certain things from him that I take with a grain of salt. His shifting opinons on this issue (raised by other posts in this thread) is evidence to me. Perhaps the Contax with a P25 is seen as competition for the 1Ds MKll (that is why we are having this conversation here, isn't it?).

Quite frankly, I would like to see for myself, or have some reliable, objective, properly-designed tests done to to illuminate this issue more clearly. The new Digitar lenses and a P45 may indeed knock off a Contax 645 and back. But as with the comparision between the 1Ds MKll and the C645, there is a tradeoff between convenience and quality.

I should point out that these comparisions are nothing new. The same sorts of issues werediscussed with film, and the answer always is, pick that works best for the combination of subject, situation and desired output. The comparision with digital might be a little tighter than with film, but it is the same calculus.



Andi Dietrich
Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Total Posts: 3417
Country: Swaziland

Lotusm50, ou said what I thought, Reichman could not run his reviewing business without having once in a while better gear to present... I never saw useful file samples of the gear he reviewed. Fot the small pics he publishes, he could use a 2mp Camera. Is there a sample gallery I did not spot?

One can change his mind. Words like "this is the best", change every couple of months. Things like "the p25 on a contax compares with 4x5", should not change, even if there is better gear around. This could mean, he does not execute his reviews very seriously or he has interest elsewhere.

Kyle, you are right about the different "image", thats very much what I feel. Photogs with the right jobs, buy such things just that they have some costs to reduce from their tax bills! I' m none of them and there are not too many here I think



mark1958
Registered: Jan 27, 2002
Total Posts: 7860
Country: United States


Victor where do you get the contax mounts?

gogopix wrote:
Dear Guy

That is whatI am doing The ALPS Tc is tiny and youcan get a Contax mount. For between 5-7,000 you can get a virtually new system with a lens (TC, cables, adapter, $4,000 for the digitar alone, all else is relative inexpensive.)

Victor



HerbChong
Registered: Dec 02, 2005
Total Posts: 4778
Country: United States

bathman wrote:
Lotusm50, ou said what I thought, Reichman could not run his reviewing business without having once in a while better gear to present... I never saw useful file samples of the gear he reviewed. Fot the small pics he publishes, he could use a 2mp Camera. Is there a sample gallery I did not spot?


he's not in the reviewing business and he's not in the online gallery business. he sells fine art prints, does commercial photography and leads photo workshop tours, each of which are successful enough to pay for his toys. there is no point for someone like him to have an online gallery with higher quality images.

Herb.....



Lotusm50
Registered: Sep 26, 2005
Total Posts: 4208
Country: United States

HerbChong wrote:
he's not in the reviewing business and he's not in the online gallery business. he sells fine art prints, does commercial photography and leads photo workshop tours, each of which are successful enough to pay for his toys. there is no point for someone like him to have an online gallery with higher quality images.

Herb.....


Huh? If he's not in the reviewing business, then what is that big "luminous landscape" website all about? It nearly all reviews of one sort or another. It appears to be one of several businesses -- or is maintaining all that bandwidth,the site upkeep, and the constant adding of new material all a charity? I'm sorry, he definitly IS in the reviewing business, and Andi's comments about it are spot on.



Lotusm50
Registered: Sep 26, 2005
Total Posts: 4208
Country: United States

HerbChong wrote:
he's not in the reviewing business and he's not in the online gallery business. he sells fine art prints, does commercial photography and leads photo workshop tours, each of which are successful enough to pay for his toys. there is no point for someone like him to have an online gallery with higher quality images.

Herb.....


Huh? If he's not in the reviewing business, then what is that big "luminous landscape" website all about? It nearly all reviews of one sort or another. It appears to be one of several businesses -- or is maintaining all that bandwidth,the site upkeep, and the constant adding of new material all a charity? I'm sorry, he definitly IS in the reviewing business, and Andi's comments about it are spot on.



HerbChong
Registered: Dec 02, 2005
Total Posts: 4778
Country: United States

i don't think you haven't read much of his site then. it's almost all techniques and how he uses his equipment. he owns just about everything that he writes about.

Herb....



t_streng
Registered: Jan 26, 2006
Total Posts: 661
Country: Germany

I agree that IMO Michael Reichmans articles regardnig image quality do not seem to be based on facts only.
While I have to thank him for answering some gear questions, we have discussed some pro and cons (ff vs dx for example) and IMO he just ignores some facts sometimes.
Also I allways had the feeling that his comparisons between film and digital capture overrate digital/underrated film.
I like to read his articles but I take it more as an opinion .



cdnguyen
Registered: Mar 19, 2003
Total Posts: 873
Country: United States

Guy,
Move up to MF and sell me your DMR.
Charles



helios4
Registered: Jun 02, 2005
Total Posts: 75
Country: France

There is no MF dilemma. If you can aford digital MF, just upgrade. Of course you'll not use ISO >200 but even on our leica or canon we try to stay at 100...so......



dbiela
Registered: Nov 27, 2004
Total Posts: 66
Country: United States

I did some research and wanted to bring this up. One. Are you interested in larger file size or sharper images. Doing the math a P45 is about 20MP of data for the size of a FF canon sensor. We have all heard the rumors that Canon is coming out with a 22MP and some have it at more like 24MP or 27MP chip camera. It would not give you the 112mb file size of the PH45 but the Canon would have a more densely pack pixel count this should give you a more acute (detailed) image, the down side is if the pixels are smaller they could produce more noise but Canon has done a good job on noise in the past. Two. if I remember right Calumet has a few small view cameras with plates for Canon or Nikon to use on the rear standard. Then you would be able to shoot the digitar lenses on it. If you want to save a bucks besides a use view camera there are some nice 6x9 & 4x5 wood kits for photography at less then $200. Just a thought



gogopix
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Total Posts: 1431
Country: Slovakia

Well, Guy has done it again..spurred a pivotal thread on image making

Having the P25 started me, after seeing MRs LL Cambo the latest discussion of these image makers, on the ALPA track. I am interested in the flexibility.

All who ask...owners of ALPA have assured me a Contax mount is available This is basically a piece that sits at back of the camera to accept the P25 (or other) back. It is just a hanger - no electronics, no shutter control, no wake up. But it does have most important shims to get focal plane correct (1/100mm I think)

This mount is then compatible with all ALPA 12 series cameras (I am interested in TC for travel)

Big issue is still lens, so I am buying mount, and camera and cable and crossing fingers that ONE lens will work!

Will try 24xl Schneider, but I am sure will need the LCC C1 calibration for each capture gerouping (light condition). I think the real help will be the Rodenstock which I believe will be HR and retro focus. That will keep incidence angle down.

Second issue for some is shift range, not for me. I will be happy if low or no lens cast.

Fotocare getting avaiability for me now

Victor



1
2 3 20 21 end