Ok, gang, one week into this and here's a few from the TrailerBlad. Am still working out all the processing parameters, so please keep that in mind. As far as the CF lenses go (80mm & 150mm), I'm finding that they hold up pretty well around optimum apertures, such as F8-11, with noticable degradation at other stops. I honestly think film was alot more forgiving. Overall, I'm happy, but there's alot of testing and practice ahead. I go back to SF in a couple of weeks to get the view camera and that's a whole 'nother ballgame...
Which digital back is that on the trailerblad Eric? I know you mentioned it above but I've lost track now.
You're going to love it back home in the SF Bay Area - the sun is finally here in the low 70's. Hopefully the mold will finally dry up and the houses will stop sliding off the hills. Man has the wettest couple of months yet or what?
In general the 100 and 180 were considered better than the 80 and 150. All fine lenses though
Yes what is the exact configuration? Also I have found Zeiss lenses not as good overall wide open compared toLeica
And yes film more forgiving due to some 'play' in the distribution of grain. Pixels are exactly in a plane and errors can be seen and can affect raw conversion. Several have commented on this and I have seen myself in some early 645 film vs Kodak back comparisons (scanned with minolta at 4800 so pretty good, though not quite drum scan quality
Sorry guys, that would be a P25v on a 500cm body...you get a free sixer of bud when you go this route. The Phase case is a pretty good cooler though. I do miss my SF, first earthquake anniversary I've missed in 16 years!
Victor, you're the man on the lense front. I just happened to have the Blad around on a shelf when this P25 deal went down. I'm pleasantly surprised by the 80 and 150 CF's, they do okay wide open, but around F8-11 or so they are nice and crisp corner to corner, with no CA. I rented a 40mm CFi, which wasn't too impressive. I would need more time to test that one, which is kind of a bummer because I know Ashley Morrison over at Galbraith was using a Flexbody/40mm combo that was working well for him. I kind of liked the light and fast aspect of that setup.
I have not tried the 40mm hasselblad but one really special lens is the 30mm. Very sharp. (There is also a 30mm ARSAT lens that M Reichmann reviewed)
With Imagealign software these can produce very interesting images (or leave like fisheye)
Victor, 30mm+ de-fish?? Hmmm. yet another option to consider. What about that Hartblei of yours? Glad Guy named this thread the dilemma, because things just keep getting murkier. BTW, the cover of House and Garden (US) this month has a cover shot and center gatefold spread taken with a P25. Looks pretty good to me...
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Than there are is 22 better than 39 and at what price tag is it worth it 10 k 15k if at all. i still feel a 22 on a 6x9 maybe the most anyone needs and not trying to tear down the new 39 mpx backs but where is the hard proof, the scientific undisputable facts.
The line item for a 39mp digital back (or 28mp in my case) + backup gear on your invoice to the client. That's the proof
FWIW, I find more situations the Leica lenses and DMR get the shots where the MF just is too complicated. MF of course better for mid and WA. The telephoto is real stretch. The longest I have is a 500mm hassleblad and 2x Mutar, yet I get the same equivalent shot from a f4 560mm telyt (if I had the 1.4 focus module )
Anyway, I will likely invest in the 2x focus for the R9 rather than anything else on the MF.
But then my MF complement is really nice (after 3-4 years building) really great for high detail landscape, no doubt, but protrait? can do just as well with the Leica lenses and control background better
Guy Mancuso wrote:
We know we will get better detail moving to MF no question we all know this BUT they real question is were is the line drawn in the sand. Were do we fall off the map and blaze a new trail.
In a perfect world, we would all shoot 4x5 or bigger. The reality is the vast majority of our pictures are printed 9x17 at 150 lpi (double truck) or smaller. At some point -- and I would argue we really are there now -- extra resolution benefits our egos more than our clients. I would not be the least bit surprised if I pick up a 4x5 as soon as all the Leica gear I need is acquired and paid off for the times when I need maximum resolution (there are still things you can't do with digital), but so far with my current clients when I need digital workflow speed I don't yet need 39 MP resolution. Right now, as much as I yearn for MF digital it is kind of no man's land -- too slow when I need to be fast, too expensive for personal assignments/portfolio work, and not quite big enough when maxium resolution (or in some cases movements) trump all other considerations. When I have clients that require ultimate image quality and digital workflow speed this will have to change, but then the client will be paying for the gear and not me.
Obviously each photographer will draw that line in different places, but for me right now with my current clients I have to draw it at the DMR. I do need higher image quality than the Leica offers at times, but for now film (either 6x7, 6x9 or 4x5) handles that need well. My view of the subject is also a bit skewed because I have very high quality film processing and drum scanning available for reasonable prices.
My simple rule has always been that any new piece of equipment has to pay for itself in one year or I will sell it and rent it when necessary. Most photographers who are investing in high-end MF digital systems have it paid for in three to six months. Clearly, they draw their line in a different place than I.
Edited by bigreen505 on Apr 19, 2006 at 01:00 PM GMT
O.K,
I must say a very interesting read so far.
I'm in the same boat,I've been using the Canon now for 7 months and I do find it lacking in certain areas.
We all no where,at the wide end.
So I have decided to go the MFDB route with the Aptus-75.
Why a 33 back i.s a 22 back?
So I can crop later if needed.
Also the latest backs,have improved quite a lot,regarding ASA and capture speed.
I know my accountant will hate me,but with some clever client invoicing,it should be possible.
A 3 year lease on 38K Aussie $ is not that bad.
As a MF system I'm leaning towards the H2.
For movement the Alpa with the 24,35,47XL Apo Digitars.
The 24XL will have no movement,but is very wide anyhow on the full 33MB sensor.
Cheers,
Willem.
Willem: I thought you were pleased with the 17-35mm Nikkor on your Canon?. . . Based on your and other's praise of this lens, I've had it on my want list. Why doesn't that satisfy your needs on the wide side?
Hi httivals,
I don't want to disappoint you,however after you see what a MFDB can do with a 24XL or
35 XL ApoDigitar,you're spoilt forever!
But don't forget we are talking about a $35.000 USD plus set-up!
The Nikkor 17-35 is worth every cent!
A good one will outperform anything else in that class!
So just go out and get one!
Mine will be for sale later this year.
Regards,
Willem.
I just ordered my 35XL on Monday, should have it end of next week. The 17-35 is a great lens, and I love mine on my Nikons. The 35XL on the 6x9 or on an Alpa/Arca/Cambo wide body camera with a digital back...It's an entirely different league of play.
I'm with you guys, Wilem and David, on the Hassy H + Aptus back and eventually the Schneider Digitars or Rodenstock Sironar Digitals on an Alpa or Arca 6x9 or similar view camera for a few special shots. That definitely seems like the best route out there.
So far I’m impressed how light weight the H1 is. It’s not a lot different than handling a 1Ds2. The auto-focus is snappy too. I don’t think the learning curve is a lot worse than a 1Ds2 as far as shooting.
)
)