gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.8 #3 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499) | |
Interesting post, and I have a few thoughts on it...
Pavel wrote:
I have three 35 mm film cameras still and a 645 mamiya manual focus body, metered prism and lens set. Dan is right, that if the new Fuji XL (my naming  ) is not very close to 56x42 then we should call it something else. But when I say 645 I mean film, since other than one time I've never shot MF digital (and was disapointed btw)
That's why I've been sticking to the "mini MF" designation for the increasingly popular 33mm x 44mm sensor format. (I've also seen some people referring to the rumored Fujifilm implementation as "XL," but that is something that a rumor site made up I think.) I think that mini MF is appropriate, given that the sensor is almost exclusively being used in cameras that are presented as MF surrogates. And... maxi FF seems kludgy! ;-)
It doesn't help that Pentax (whose mini MF cameras are quite interesting) refers to their offerings as the "645d" and then the "645z." Most people, once they look into this, realize that they aren't really "645" format cameras in the classic sense, but still...
If there is another simple generic name for the 33x44 format, I'm not aware of it — so I'm sticking the "mini MF" for now! :-)
What it is for me is that the photos from film 645 abd 35mm are instantly distinquishable. APS and 35 are not, not in film nor digital, as far as my senses can detect.
I'm sort of with you on this. I think that 35mm and MF film images, especially when printed large and even more so when not cropped, thus retaining their different aspect ratios, often do look quite different. For example, I occasionally get to the Galen Rowell Mountain Light Gallery in the eastern Sierra town of Bishop. Not surprisingly, they feature a large collection of Rowell's photographs, often printed at sizes that we consider normal today but which were once regarded as large for 35mm film, which is what he shot exclusively. They also often have a non-Rowell exhibit going on in a gallery within the space, and it frequently features work done with everything from digital formats to LF film.
The Rowell photographs, as lovely as the best of them are, clearly betray their 35mm film roots in the larger prints, with grain of strikingly large size. Medium format film photographs do not — you can certainly see grain if you look closely, but it is quite subtle and even a nice effect.
So perhaps there is something about film that adds what I like, but I suspect that going to MF digital will have a similar signature look, over smaller sensors. One the downward side, I worry that the digital will be as unforgiving as digital MF format is said to be - and focusing will be devilishly difficult. Some feel that that problem is due to the idea of backs that are not properly shimmed - I don't know. I've been tempted to stop spending and save up for the Pentax system. The older cheaper body, or the new one when it's superseded....Show more →
A few things to think about here.
I think that digital MF, and especially mini MF, won't be all that unforgiving. Especially with the latter, the critical DOF issues that can affect MF will be diminished. And the AF systems of many of the digital MF and mini-MF cameras, from what I've seen and been told, are very accurate. (One friend was part of an experiment in which skilled MF photographers shot two versions of some test photos, one in which they manually focused to the best of there considerable abilities and the other in which they used the camera's AF systems. The manual focus examples never exceeded the accuracy of the AF versions, and in most cases AF was more accurate)
The "shimming" issue is real with removable digital backs such as those from Leaf and Phase One and similar. However, with this more recent crop of mini-MF cameras with the sensor integrated into the camera (as in full frame and cropped sensor and MFT cameras) that really isn't an issue. In other words, it is the issue you mentioned — slight misalignment of removable backs on the older systems.
As to the "signature look" issue, that is the tricky one, and it ends up being kind of subjective. I'll retell here a story I've told before. A friend was getting geared up to teach a couple weeks of workshops in Antarctica. He was, at that time, a former LF film photographer who had switched to Phase One digital MF backs. However, given the weight limits for travel to Antarctica and the fact that he would often be photographing from a boat or a Zodiac, he was giving serious consideration to how he would equip himself.
He is part of a print review group that we are in, and at a meeting perhaps a year ago he showed up with something in addition to the usual "review" prints. Before we started the review we have a bit of social time, and during this he placed four letter sized prints on the table and asked us to look and comment on anything we noticed. All of us, experienced photographers and printers, took up the challenge and inspected these (very boring test) photographs closely. We felt that we could see some differences among them, but there was no unanimity about what the differences were or which were best.
After sharing our observations he told us what he had done. He had made two of the photographs with his large Phase One 80MP back system. The other two had been made using a 36MP Nikon system with their 80-400mm zoom lens. Both sets of images had gone through his post-processing workflow and been sized for printing at 30" x 40", and the crops we were looking at were small sections of the 30" x 40" prints.
That was a "reality moment" for all of us. That said, several folks in the group — including the photographer providing the test examples — do use MF camera systems for at least some of their work.
What always stops me are the lenses. there are plenty of Pentax lenses, but the old ones seem to let the system down, while the new ones are too expensive for me, considering my currently mostly contented state.
Lenses are a real plus/minus issue. I have one of the Pentax lenses, the 80-160mm zoom, which I sometimes use with a Mirex adapter on my FF camera. It is a fine lens, but it isn't a remarkable lens in my view. I feel that the IQ from my 70-200mm Canon lenses is better on my FF camera in situations where I don't need movements. Of course, that same resolution of the Pentax lens would produce higher system resolution on the mini MF system.
For folks shooting manually from the tripod — say landscape photographers, for example — the older and less expensive lenses are a great solution. For others, perhaps not quite so much.
Fuji's MF would be from the ground up. They tend to do the details well and I somehow feel that they are more committed and in it for the long haul than Pentax is. Fuji as a company has a vibe I like. So spending dumb money on a new Fuji system, is almost likely for this one shooter, me.
I share your faith in Fujifilm at this point, though I'm not at all as pessimistic about Pentax as you are. Their initial 645d was a fine offering, and then they went and made it even better with the 645z — so I think there is plenty of evidence of their commitment. Also, like Fujifilm, they are leveraging the technology of their smaller DSLR cameras in very interesting ways, and they are pushing down the price point of some very good cameras.
the reason that I have faith in Fuji having more reasonable prices, is that they have thus far not acted like a boutique brand (Leica anyone?) They are a diversified company whereas Hassy and esp Phase one are not. Those two both need high profit to stay in business. Fuji seems to not need photography much, almost as if it were a passionate hobby and source of pride for some highly placed management. In any case, if gives me a bit of cautious optimism.
I think most of this assessment is pretty accurate.
Take care,
Dan
|
)