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
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
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.
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 ;-)
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
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 ;-)
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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. ...Show more →
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.
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
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.)
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.
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 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.
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.
