denoir wrote:
Even with good AF, you can't point the camera accurately enough to get the focus accurate on a pixel level. It's problematic enough with a 20 MP DSLR, but with a 60 MP camera such as the H4D-60 it really becomes problematic.
I am not sure what pixel-size artifacts you are focusing on You don't need to look at sharpness at the pixel level anyway. No one, but really no one, posts full-size images on the web. If you print, it suffices to look at the images at 50%.
Anyway, the development I'm hoping for is that the prices will drop (Pentax 645D is a good start) and that more amateur photographers will buy them. Then there will be more pressure (and more development resources) to develop MFD cameras that are as good from a usability point of view as a modern DSLR. That would include CMOS & Live View. I know it won't happen any time soon.
Well, if you are willing to wait, then I suspect that you will get what you want. But it will take some years. I would guess at least 2, but maybe more.
As for a scanning back, well, then I might as well continue using the gigapan. It's about as big and weighs as much as an LF camera. And to be honest, I'm starting to feel that I have too much camera gear already.
Well, you listed the ability to get the full shot in one go as desirable. A scanning back gives you that. If you have too much stuff, sell something Yes, I know, PM me and I will send you my email address so you can paypal me money for that advice.
carstenw wrote:
I am not sure what pixel-size artifacts you are focusing on You don't need to look at sharpness at the pixel level anyway. No one, but really no one, posts full-size images on the web. If you print, it suffices to look at the images at 50%.
No, as I said I don't care about a huge number of megapixels. I'm just pointing out that it's pretty absurd to have 60 Megapixel and get worse resolution that you would from an FF camera because of focusing errors. As for what you might want to focus on, there are many examples. Say a tree where you want get the maximum detail from the bark. Front focus a tiny bit and your 60 MP are barely worth 10 MP.
Well, if you are willing to wait, then I suspect that you will get what you want. But it will take some years. I would guess at least 2, but maybe more.
Yes, I would guess so to.
Well, you listed the ability to get the full shot in one go as desirable. A scanning back gives you that. If you have too much stuff, sell something Yes, I know, PM me and I will send you my email address so you can paypal me money for that advice.
A scanning back is hardly a full shot in the classical sense. You set up the big LF camera on a tripod, hook up a computer to the scanning back and then it takes several minutes to get the shot. Even if it doesn't require a computer the procedure is not much different from the Gigapan where I specify upper left and lower right corners and press a button. I don't get one image but 50 or 100 or whatever but they are easy enough to merge automatically. Given that a scanning back costs about $10,000 - about a factor ten compared to the Gigapan, I don't feel any great urge to get one.
Anyway, the part about the gear is simply that I should probably look to my neglected gear rather than getting more of it. I'm getting gear saturated
denoir wrote:
Anyway, the part about the gear is simply that I should probably look to my neglected gear rather than getting more of it. I'm getting gear saturated
Yeah, I need to rationalize a bit too. I have two medium format systems (Hasselblad F and Contax 645) and although I like them both very much, it makes little sense. I prefer 645 for technical shots but square for portraits and general shots, so a good all-round 6x6 system with the ability to take 645 cartridges seems the way to go. The Hasselblad 203FE might fit that, or I could switch to the Rolleiflex 6008AF, which is technically more advanced, but less loved and harder to find.
I also have too many little bits and pieces, like a Contax 139Q with 135/2.8, Olympus OM-1 with 50/1.8, Kodak SLR/n and so on. I should really sell one film 35mm system, expand the other, and replace the Kodak with a used D3x.
denoir wrote:
The latter. I couldn't care less about resolution. I'd be perfectly happy with standard DSLR resolution. What I want it for, and why I'm interested in large format photography, is wide aperture landscape photography. I want to be able to have a tree 50 meters away in focus and with a wide background out of focus. I have been doing that so far by using a Gigapan to stitch images together but it's a lot of work. I'd like to be able to achieve it with a single shot.
I think you are looking for things that will never happen to be. Large format lenses are generally slow. Even medium format lenses don't give shorter DOF than the fastest 24x36 lenses. For example, the Pentax 105/2.4 for 6x7 is sort of the same as a 50/1.2 on 24x36. It gives the same DOF, but the result is of course A LOT sharper at wide apertures, and the bokeh is superior.
If I were you, I'd get a Leica Noctilux 50/1.0 (or 0.95 if money isn't a problem) for the M9 instead. It'll give you shorter DOF than any present (or forthcoming) digital medium format camera, at a lower price too. Mind you, 645 isn't gonna cut it DOF-wise since all lenses are f/2.8 or in some cases f/2. Still far away from 50/1.0 on 24x36, but certainly sharper. And 6x7 is about the same. Just a bit sharper.
Anyway, I have sort of the same desire as you. My cheap solution is 6x7 and B&W film.
carstenw wrote:
Yeah, I need to rationalize a bit too.
Do you still shoot film on a regular basis?
Makten wrote:
I think you are looking for things that will never happen to be. Large format lenses are generally slow. Even medium format lenses don't give shorter DOF than the fastest 24x36 lenses. For example, the Pentax 105/2.4 for 6x7 is sort of the same as a 50/1.2 on 24x36. It gives the same DOF, but the result is of course A LOT sharper at wide apertures, and the bokeh is superior.
If I were you, I'd get a Leica Noctilux 50/1.0 (or 0.95 if money isn't a problem) for the M9 instead. It'll give you shorter DOF than any present (or forthcoming) digital medium format camera, at a lower price too. Mind you, 645 isn't gonna cut it DOF-wise since all lenses are f/2.8 or in some cases f/2. Still far away from 50/1.0 on 24x36, but certainly sharper. And 6x7 is about the same. Just a bit sharper.
Anyway, I have sort of the same desire as you. My cheap solution is 6x7 and B&W film. ...Show more →
Yes, it's possible that the Noctilux would be a good choice from that perspective. Unfortunately it wouldn't be good for other reasons. I like the 50/0.95 rendering but I would not want it on a rangefinder. Focusing exactly wide open is difficult enough with a 50/1.5 for anything except closeups. The (in)accuracy I'd be getting at f/0.95 at a distance of say 10 meters would defeat the purpose of the lens. Plus, I'm not quite willing to spend that much on a single lens.
I have not tried shooting B&W 6x7 but I'll try it if my quest for a color film that I like fails. I've been shooting Tri-X 400 on a Pentax 30. Lovely camera and the 50/1.7 is a nice lens and I like the results better than what I'm getting with color film from the 67. It could be simply that they did not manage to botch B&W scans quite as bad as the color ones.
If I recall correctly, you have an Epson V700 scanner. What kind of output resolution can you get from a 6x7 slide? Can you match your D700 in detail?
Anyway, I'm running out of photos to post, but here is one. I shot a roll of something a while ago, but not sure which stock it was. Possibly Neopan, but I think it was Tri-X.
denoir wrote:
If I recall correctly, you have an Epson V700 scanner. What kind of output resolution can you get from a 6x7 slide? Can you match your D700 in detail?
I'd say the D700 has a slight edge over the Pentax, if I'm using Zeiss lenses. But allover, the results are about equal. I'm not using the Pentax for high resolution. I use it for the love of film and for the "look".
You just don't get this tonality with digital...
Edit: I think it was f/5.6 with the 90/2.8, handheld at 1/60.
denoir wrote:
Do you still shoot film on a regular basis?
I did until last summer, at which point my family life caught up with me, small daughter and all. I shoot exclusively B&W, mostly Adox CHS 25 on tripod, with spotmeter, the full thing, and develop at home, scanning on an Epson V750. It does well with MF, great with LF, and so-so with 35mm.
I have no intention of stopping, not only the look is different, also the way I feel while I shoot. I am much more immersed in it, thinking about it all. There is no live view, no chimping, so you need to get it right the first time. After I release the trigger, I look at the back of the camera, though. Somehow I can't stop doing that...
Thanks Makten. Yes, you are right - lovely tones in the image.
Carsten, for me a lot of the attraction is in the feeling of taking a shot with a film camera. I simply really like the cameras. I like the mechanical feel of it, the sound of the shutter (men, women and children fleeing in horror from the shutter of the 67 ) and advancing the film..
denoir wrote:
Thanks Makten. Yes, you are right - lovely tones in the image.
Carsten, for me a lot of the attraction is in the feeling of taking a shot with a film camera. I simply really like the cameras. I like the mechanical feel of it, the sound of the shutter (men, women and children fleeing in horror from the shutter of the 67 ) and advancing the film..
You have an older, larger more tractor-like mechanical device, which is one particular feel (I don't mean that in a demeaning way; I like the Pentax 6x7/67/67II very much). The Leica M6/MP cameras have an incredibly refined, minimalist feel, approached but not matched by the M8/M9. The Hasselblad V feels very unique, and also has that CLUNK. The Contax 645 feels very modern but minimalistic. The Contax SLRs also feel quite refined, and the Olympus OM-1 feels like a mechanical watch, very tick-tick-exact if you know what I mean. The old Nikons are just solid as hell. There is a whole world of different camera feels out there unmatched in digital. In digital, most cameras feel cheap, or they feel like a magnesium brick, like my D3. The whole clockwork, tactile feeling is gone. In fact, it probably got lost when film bodies moved to plastics, not when we moved to digital.
I have a Pentax 30 as well which is a regular 35mm camera. The B/W shots I've posted have all been taken with it. It is not as you aptly put it "tractor like" as the 67 but it still feels much more like a solidly built mechanical than any of my digital cameras - including the M9. I have dropped it on the floor twice now, something I'd be terrified of doing with the M9. I'd be terrified of dropping the 67 as well but not out of the fear of the camera being damaged but because the total and utter destruction of the thing it was dropped on
As for the feel of the M9..well, there is definitely something different about compared to the feel of a DSLR. The shutter certainly feels more mechanical. I don't like the shutter re-cocking motor sound though - I wish they had kept the shutter cocking lever both for ergonomic reasons (I'm compensating with a ThumbsUp) and to have the option to avoid the motor noise.
All of these things are of course largely a question of subjective preference but also what you are used to. I remember that when I got the 5DII I was disappointed by the loud shutter and mirror slap - my 7D was much more quiet. Now after getting used to the former I think the sound of the latter is just puny and I prefer the sound of the latter. Objectively however for certain applications such as wildlife photography the 7D shutter/mirror slap is preferable by far.
I have to agree that medium format DSLRs are 10 years behind current 35mm (FX) DSLR technology. My friend here shoots a 645D because he is a stubborn Brit. The camera is dumb, essentially awful to work with an offers him far less options than a Nikon D3X would. It's a ridiculous camera, but he insists on shooting Pentax for no other reason than he's shot a Pentax 67 for 20+ years.
Efke Aura 820 IR, developed in Kodak Xtol. I need a deeper filter than the one I've got, as I didn't get quite the results hoped for. Halation, yes... fluffy IR foliage? Sadly, not. I have some reading to do before shooting it again.
You don't need to look at sharpness at the pixel level anyway. No one, but really no one, posts full-size images on the web. If you print, it suffices to look at the images at 50%.
Yes, I know, PM me and I will send you my email address so you can paypal me money for that advice.
) and advancing the film.. 
