p.5 #1 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Krosavcheg wrote:
Where I usually shop:
P45+ ￥1,598,000 (on sale now apparently)
Ouch ouch ouch. In Europe I guess this would be less than the roughly 12000 Euro equivalent. Especially if you could find used. Do you pay import duty? Have you thought of ordering from Capture Integration in Florida?
p.5 #2 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Kro, Based on the sample you supplied in model face, you are approaching the limit of both pixel count and Canon's sensor performance. I will say D800 will give you better result in both.
Based on my 'unscientific' experience with D800E, D700, M9 and 6D, I feel canon give least freedom to fine tune tonality on orange/yellow/red compare to all the FF camera I have. My temporary solution(and most portrait samples I see) is over exposure the face, the skin color can be pleasing, but not subtle tonal change. studio light is your friend to improve upon that(which you don't have in this case) so that you have ample light to have more PP freedom to help out the its/canon sensor limitation. and D800E is definitely better and hand down the best I have used.
p.5 #3 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
I checked the prices a bit, and it seems that the prices are similar to what you show. I am a bit shocked that the prices on such old backs have not come down more. I guess there must be a lot of people still buying them. The used P25+ backs go for around $6000, less with less reputable dealers or individual owners, probably.
p.5 #4 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
carstenw wrote:
The used P25+ backs go for around $6000, less with less reputable dealers or individual owners, probably.
The SLR/C goes for around 1/10th of that if you can find one ... just sayin'.
That and you can probably get a wider FOV with the FF than the semi-MF due to the glass availability. 15mm on FF is kinda tough to find glass that gives the same FOV on MF ... if UWA is in the cards at all. 49mm vs. 36mm sensor on the long side is about 1.36X. @ 15 X 1.36 = 20mm, I didn't find anything wider than 28mm when I was looking for UWA MF glass ... and they're going for $4K used @ B&H now.
28mm on P25+ is appx. 20mm on FF. Any wider FOV than that and the P25+ won't get you there. UWA, not your thing ... no worries, then.
A few more thoughts @ FF vs. MF (P25+)
SLR/C + Oly 18 = $1,500 vs. P25+ + 28mm lens = $10,000 (and still can't get that wide).
D800E + Zeiss 15 or Nikon 14-24
Canon FF + 14L, Zeiss 15 17L TS-E, Zeiss 18, etc.
p.5 #5 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
I have an SLR/n and had a Sinar e54LV, and there is no comparison. The Kodak has nice colours when you nail everything, but it is such old tech at this point, and there are lots of problems with it. Sensor-induced purple fringing with lenses that have no problems on my D800, wide angle lens problems, italian flag syndrome, slow shooting speeds, no ISO capabilities whatsoever, the crappiest body ever and the weirdest menus too. You are working inside such a tight envelope to get great shots with a Kodak, and in the end you just have a 13MP image with not-so-great dynamic range. No thanks.
You don't buy medium format if you want to shoot 15mm lenses. The Hasselblad and Phase systems can come close (on full-frame 645 sensors), but that is not what I am all about anyway. I would probably shoot with a 55/60, an 80 and a 100/120, if I could swing a 645-sized sensor, and if not, I would get a 36x48mm sensor and a 35/45, 55/60 and an 80. I would buy a Phase or Leaf back next time.
p.5 #6 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
+1 @ SLR has its issues ... just I like using it. My point really was just that if you are interested in MF and UWA ... there are limits with older "bargain" MF sensors not being as large as their film counterparts were. For that reason, I couldn't make the jump to MF in digital in "bargain" territory for UWA stuff and I couldn't make the jump to the newer larger MF sensors on $$$ ... so, I opted for the SLR/C.
It fits my "tight envelope" ... understanding that it doesn't for 99.9% of the world (but neither does 99.9% of what we do around here anyway).
Just for curiosity ... what is the cost of entry to a Sinar, back and the widest lens available?
p.5 #7 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Carsten: It is a bit weird, especially since PhaseOne released IQ series. The niche is likely to be mainly professional photographers who can afford paying premium through workshops, publications, etc.
So Europe got pretty much same prices? I was approached by one gentleman in NYC - they sell refurbished backs and apparently got wide variety of those.
I don't think I pay duty, but Japan might get cracking down on it since they are increasing consumption tax soon to 8%, and to 10% the following year.
Only time I had to pay import tax is when I ordered Mirex adaptor.
Zhang: Indeed, D800 has more data in channels. I am not sure if it's a capture data or sensor averaging, as I was writing before.
The problem with studio lighting is preciseness of light control.
It's hard to explain, really. If you look at the Zack Arias blog, just above Reason 7 there is a shot of a street. Notice the right part of the image. I am talking about light dispersion and falloff. I am trying to find any shots taken with any combination that can produce similar results.
This is only an example.
Perhaps this lies in lack of my skill in exposure and PP? In that case it would be just silly to go to MF.
p.5 #8 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Krosavcheg wrote:
Perhaps this lies in lack of my skill in exposure and PP? In that case it would be just silly to go to MF.
Maybe this is the case apply to me most likely! I feel silly each time I complain about certain camera. I know the camera is not really a limit factor but me.
No question about the difference. It all depend on how picky you are. and priority of your photography. But that blog shot has to show us 100% crop relative to original one to prove the difference in MF.
If you run out of pixel (data) in your original sample, no matter what you do can't make 35mm works. A full head portrait with ample light shoot at f8 might be a better showcase compare 35mm and MF. It will also convince me about its tonal and color advantage over 35mm camera say D800E or humble M9, other than pixel count.
p.5 #9 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Zhang: The reference was just to illustrate that I find appealing in MF digital. It's not quite a conclusive technical statement...
I am actually considering renting the back first. There is another factor - as soon as you up your resolution the flaws become more apparent. I have a feeling I haven't mastered 5D MkIII enough to jump to next level.
p.5 #10 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
RustyBug wrote:
+1 @ SLR has its issues ... just I like using it. My point really was just that if you are interested in MF and UWA ... there are limits with older "bargain" MF sensors not being as large as their film counterparts were. For that reason, I couldn't make the jump to MF in digital in "bargain" territory for UWA stuff and I couldn't make the jump to the newer larger MF sensors on $$$ ... so, I opted for the SLR/C.
It fits my "tight envelope" ... understanding that it doesn't for 99.9% of the world (but neither does 99.9% of what we do around here anyway).
Just for curiosity ... what is the cost of entry to a Sinar, back and the widest lens available?...Show more →
The back I bought was already used, and cost me 5000 Euro, some years ago. Now it would be worth around 3000 Euro, I would guess. 22MP. Nice back, and it uses adapters to fit various cameras. Unfortunately the Contax adapter was glitchy. 21mm equiv. is about the widest you can get for a MF DSLR. If you are willing to go to something like a Cambo or Arca Swiss, then you can get a lot wider.
p.5 #11 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Gotcha ... thanks.
I looked pretty hard at the prospect of used MF and the combination of factors didn't have me go down that road. The points that you mention regarding the SLR/C are valid and they are compromises that I contend with, not unlike contending with compromises that one contends with different formats. It's always a game of "choose your poison".
If you are Superman and impervious to everything, then anything goes @ $$$$, size, weight, etc. ... but for now, I approach using my SLR/C more like a smaller version of an MF format (slower and more thoughtful), having gone through the similar exercise at evaluating if I was ready for the step up to MF Digital or not. My personal conclusion was that MF digital wasn't quite appropriate for me.
That's not meant to suggest that the SLR/C is equivalent to MF, but I like the look I can get from it with MF glass ... in part to the glass, Kodak colors, no AA filter and larger pixels for nice tones. Certainly not the latest and greatest, but for under a $1k @ FF with Kodak color, it provides me with pretty good bang/buck if you can tolerate the narrow operating envelope.
But, my real point here wasn't about the SLR/C ... it was that the entry into used MF with smaller MF sensors can hit a limit @ how wide you can go and FF (D800E, etc) might be something to consider in that context if UWA is of interest to a person. It would typically seem "no contest" MF wins vs. 35mm, but if your are up against the UWA wall, 35mm may an advantage in ability (not contesting quality diff). Of course, it is possible to have both 35mm AND MF.
p.5 #12 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
If you are after the MF look, there is always the possibility of getting some of that via FF and stitching. Stopping down a little and stitching together two image can get you close to the look of a 44x33mm sensor. It isn't the same, but it is more than just FF.
p.5 #13 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
andyjaggy82 wrote:
That's the one thing I really noticed when I for a very short period started shooting 6X9 film. It was incredibly difficult to get everything in focus with the larger format, with APS-C, you can pretty much set it to f11 focus towards infinity and everything up to a few feet in front of the camera will be sharp.
That's the "downside" of larger formats.
Well, in reality it isn't a downside, people are just preconditioned to think that "high ISO is BAD". Which can only be said to be true in an absolute sense as long as you ONLY compare within a certain format. It isn't true when comparing formats of different sensor (or film) size. You can shoot a scene with large format ISO800 sheet film, and still have much less noise (and much more detail!) than the best ISO64 135-format films. And digital works in a much more linear way (has less losses at higher ISO ratings!) than what film could ever hope to achieve.
ISO is an area-based metric, since photometric exposure is one part of the ISO definition. And exposure is "per area".
So, to make the target illuminance / aperture / ISO system that some people some 60 years ago set as the standard "work", you need to use longer shutter speeds (or more flash power if you're in a studio) to get the same DoF on larger formats. Because if you keep shutter speed the same, you "only" get as much light as the smaller systems (when keeping DoF the same), not more.
When you want to keep the DoF the same on a larger format you basically have three choices:
1) keep shutter speed (or flash power) the same, raise the ISO and accept that the larger format probably will have a slightly less efficient sensor. You will get slightly more noise [for the same exact amount of light energy on the image]
2) allow longer shutter speed, or more flash power. The larger format will then get more light incident on the image sensor, and hence less noise overall
3) balance 1) and 2) to an acceptable compromise
BTW: I'd go for the P45+. But the prices you quote seem rather high to me - are you talking about the entire back+body combo, or just the back?
p.5 #14 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Carsten: I am not quite after the large size files as such - I need something giving better reproduction of colour and light gradation. I tried stitching, but rather often either I suck or subject moves...
Joakim (I don't quite fancy calling you Suede anymore.. but I hope I spell your name correctly):
Some time down the road in all the explanations the phrase changed the meaning. Rather similar to Bible if you ask me - someone tries to explain to a less comprehensive person a concept, simplifies it, that other person carries it on and before you know it becomes Chinese Whispers/Rysska Posten (but let's not talk religion).
High ISO is a property allowing one to continue photographing in less desirable lighting conditions. It's just as simple at having this option at hand depending entirely on the nature of work - It's hardly a good idea to shoot ISO1600 with a macro lens in the complete dark hoping to reproduce texture of a vintage roles cog. But it's rather neat to be able to capture a street performance or a concert moment, etc.
Just a note: when shooting with a flash, the aperture and iso control flash exposure while shutter controls ambient light. In other words, one can shoot outside in relatively bright conditions at say f11 and having 1/200 of shutter nearly black out the surroundings.
So to achieve ideal exposure for artificial light (strobes or flash) each aperture stop increment requires either: 1. Strobe to subject distance decrement in accordance with inverse square law, 2. Strobe power increment, 3. ISO increment.
But essentially you are right - each aperture stop requires compensation.
I see only one problem with MF digital back - the ISO performance. Even now in available light I often shoot at f5.6 with ISO400 to keep my shutter speed at acceptable level.
Japan is immensely bright. On occasion I shoot outdoors at f1.4 and 1/8000s at iso 100.
Shooting in Sweden is immensely difficult for me...
The price is only the back. I got 2 bodies I plan to use it on - Mamiya RZ67IID and Fuji GX680III. There were some comments on extreme sharpness of the resulting images, and I hope Mamiya is somewhat softer than generally used Schneider and Zeiss glass..
There is no hope with Fuji though - those lenses are state of the art...
p.5 #15 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Here is a sidetrack from the thread topic, but can be used as reference example.
I was working on PP of the shots from a recent projects and try to achieve the somewhat cinematic look (disregard shallow dof in this particular case). The shots are still not 100% satisfactory and the PP differs between those.
p.5 #16 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
I thought for a second you had an insanely large katana collection...
What is it that you find unsatisfactory? It is a bit hard to comment when I don't know. Maybe MF would solve the problem, maybe not. The skin tones on the two differ dramatically, btw, as does the contrast. I am curious why the wall in the first shot is so green when her skin tones are in the right neighbourhood? What light are you using, just natural light falling in?
p.5 #17 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
carstenw wrote:
If you are after the MF look, there is always the possibility of getting some of that via FF and stitching. Stopping down a little and stitching together two image can get you close to the look of a 44x33mm sensor. It isn't the same, but it is more than just FF.
Mostly after the tonal transitions more so than the stitched psuedo uber-dof/mf look. The combination of the (relaxed) projected image difference (even though center crop) and larger pixels works pretty well for me taste. Granted I don't have the same real estate ... and I can still stitch (some things) ... but I'm mostly after the tones/colors when I mount my MF glass on my SLR/C.
p.5 #18 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Krosavcheg wrote:
Here is a sidetrack from the thread topic, but can be used as reference example.
I was working on PP of the shots from a recent projects and try to achieve the somewhat cinematic look (disregard shallow dof in this particular case). The shots are still not 100% satisfactory and the PP differs between those.
p.5 #19 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference
Aaah...monsieur wishes to inquire into my PP tricks?
Nothing difficult. I just used levels in Red and Blue to change the light tone followed by curves adjusting contrast.
Those are just two different methods - I haven't decided which way I want to process them, so they will differ.
All lighting is natural - a large window to your left (or her right..)
In the second - 3 shot stitch I enhanced the already present blues by adding a channel adjustment, modifying to taste, applying a black mask and painting in the adjustment with a soft brush set at about 30% opacity and 30% flow.
Lol...I have only one sword and that's prop. You should see my Kalashnikov collection..
Well there is my dilemma...I can't explain what the shots are missing - smoother gradients? You see, I started this thread to be able to explain it.
And I am 100% it is not PP...
Look at this photo for instance. And just forget about the lighting and PP.
I can guarantee it wasn't taken with a 35mm equivalent. Can you see what makes it stand out?
