russruth
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #18 · Re: MF digital backs. The dilemma | |
There is something to be said about keeping it simple.
Personally I have overcomplicated my life using a Nikon D2x, Canon and Contax/Aptus.
The Aptus and the Nikon came because my Canons were dropping files, but the main reason was I really don't like the quality or look of the 1ds2 file. The original 1ds was pretty good, but the 2's just seem to take a lot more work in post for me to really like the look.
My experience with the Aptus has run the gamut. At first it was new and really not ready for distribution. It had some gltiches with firmware and the software was in beta forever.
Now all of those issues have been addressed and the Camera is very solid.
What makes the Aptus file different is the film like quality. We all use this term andin C it is a personal preference, but for me I can hit color and tone on the Aptus much, much faster in post than the Canon or even the Nikon, though the Nikon D2x does work very well, except for detail and it tends to blow highlights.
The cost of the Aptus is debatable. In my Contax Aptus 22 I probably have $25k invested in Back, Camera and 4 lenses which today can probably be bouight for $20,000 even, maybe less.
Still a large chunk of change, but for me to start fresh with a R-9, DMR and lenses will put me close to that figure, so the Aptus/Contax is not that bad of a deal.
If MF has any issue it's the useable iso. It just requries a lot more light quanity.
In the film days I would say going from a dslr like the Canons to the Aptus is the same step up as going from 35mm to 6x9 film, like the Fuji 680, in light quanitity, complexity and camera speed.
The quality jump is also comparable.
If the Aptus has any monetary value, or bargain it is that even at 22mp the system is probably good for 5 years or more.
For most people the Phase 45 is too slow to shoot people, the Aptus 75 is a little faster but still much slower than the A-22. Also going from 40mb to 60mb raw files really plays havoc with storage, archiving, batch processing etc.
Personally I don't subscribe to the talk that a 39, or 33 mp camera really outresolves the Contax Zeiss lenses. Maybe the detail difference is not that notable, but the actualy higher density will be noticed and allow for some improvement in post production, though I haven't tested this so I can't be 100% positive.
There is a lot of talk that the A-22 will drop further in price, but I don't think that will happen in the near future. At photokina there could be some things arnnouinced in MF that will change everyone's buying decisions and some of these announcements might make the A-22 even more of a wise choice.
The one thing I have noticed about digital backs like the Aptus is it takes a long time to really understand the camera and the file. Just a week of testing barely gets you there and it has taken me almost a year to learn to get the best of the file.
I've been told by Chuck Jones that the same holds true for the dmr.
Speaking of the dmr, the only issues I see is the file size, the crop factor and how it performs at 400 iso . . . well also the lens cost. Something about a $6,000 15mm lens just kind of makes my head spin.
Still, I'd like to try one and probably before the year is out do some kind of test to see if it works for my genre and style.
Best,
James Russell
|
