Agreed. I'm waiting until my hire costs for 6 months are more than the cost of a H4D40 and then I'll just my a body and 80mm lens and hire the other lenses until they pay for themselves too. I'm also wondering if Hasselblad will react to the D800 and rearrange their range making the 40MP the entry level and dropping the 31MP. I've already seen that Calumet here are selling off their 22MP and 33MP Mamiya/Leaf hire bodies.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Does Medium Format have a future?
- Thread starter steveash
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed. I'm waiting until my hire costs for 6 months are more than the cost of a H4D40 and then I'll just my a body and 80mm lens and hire the other lenses until they pay for themselves too. I'm also wondering if Hasselblad will react to the D800 and rearrange their range making the 40MP the entry level and dropping the 31MP. I've already seen that Calumet here are selling off their 22MP and 33MP Mamiya/Leaf hire bodies.
Film's not entirely dead
Saw some photographer's folios the other week, one uses a rolliflex, the other a view camera and boy did they have some beautiful prints. Not sure how easy it is to replicate that dreamy feel on digital.
Saw some photographer's folios the other week, one uses a rolliflex, the other a view camera and boy did they have some beautiful prints. Not sure how easy it is to replicate that dreamy feel on digital.
I think digital medium format will be around for at least another 5-6 years. Unfortunately, film medium format has died largely because of the availability of film rolls. Even back in the 70's when Kodak announced it was going to discontinue Kodachrome 25 & 64, it sent shockwaves thru out the photography community. I don't believe anything has been invented yet that equates the image resolution and color depth of those two films, especially K25. Film used halide crystals in a random pattern. Digital IC sensors lack this randomness and could be one important reason why they produce lesser quality images.
I used to shoot with a Mamiya 7 MF camera and got some superb images using Fuji film Astia and Provia. But the film stock was secondary to the quality of the lens. I just don't think we have quality lenses being made today. Most of them are slow as molasses.
In the late 90's Olympus came out with their E-10 digital camera. It featured a huge and fast zoom lens, something like a 2.0-2.4. Unheard of today. And this camera was only 4 MP. But the quality of the lens allowed you to get spectacular images that I swear rival the latest offerings.
I know your post was specifically about MF - so let me say that as long there are people who are willing to use this system and can afford it - it will be here. I seriously doubt whether the average person can afford the new Hassy's - upwards of $40,000 - that's a car and it used to be three homes back in the 70's. No doubt high quality cameras were more affordable to the working pro than they are today.
And while I am on the subject, there is talk about digital cameras becoming extinct because of smart phones whose sensors are becoming more and more advanced. What do you think about this?
As a working professional, I can tell you that digital cameras essentially killed the wedding photography business as a general rule. Sure there are couples still willing to pay for a professional, but that person has to offer something of greater value than before. In the 70's, many people did not own a point and shoot. So it was easy to come in with medium format equipment and blow everyone away with quality work. Now digital P&S are so small you can carry one in your shirt pocket and whip it out and get an acceptable picture.
Finally, let me say what I have been preaching for decades - that the camera equipment does not make the picture. The person behind the camera does. Give Mr. Spielberg a five dollar and forty year old Super 8 camera and he will make you a movie that will blow away anything made on the the latest pro video cameras used by wanna be filmmakers. In short, you can produce outstanding images on any format if you know what your doing - if you know light, shadow, camera angles, etc.
I used to shoot with a Mamiya 7 MF camera and got some superb images using Fuji film Astia and Provia. But the film stock was secondary to the quality of the lens. I just don't think we have quality lenses being made today. Most of them are slow as molasses.
In the late 90's Olympus came out with their E-10 digital camera. It featured a huge and fast zoom lens, something like a 2.0-2.4. Unheard of today. And this camera was only 4 MP. But the quality of the lens allowed you to get spectacular images that I swear rival the latest offerings.
I know your post was specifically about MF - so let me say that as long there are people who are willing to use this system and can afford it - it will be here. I seriously doubt whether the average person can afford the new Hassy's - upwards of $40,000 - that's a car and it used to be three homes back in the 70's. No doubt high quality cameras were more affordable to the working pro than they are today.
And while I am on the subject, there is talk about digital cameras becoming extinct because of smart phones whose sensors are becoming more and more advanced. What do you think about this?
As a working professional, I can tell you that digital cameras essentially killed the wedding photography business as a general rule. Sure there are couples still willing to pay for a professional, but that person has to offer something of greater value than before. In the 70's, many people did not own a point and shoot. So it was easy to come in with medium format equipment and blow everyone away with quality work. Now digital P&S are so small you can carry one in your shirt pocket and whip it out and get an acceptable picture.
Finally, let me say what I have been preaching for decades - that the camera equipment does not make the picture. The person behind the camera does. Give Mr. Spielberg a five dollar and forty year old Super 8 camera and he will make you a movie that will blow away anything made on the the latest pro video cameras used by wanna be filmmakers. In short, you can produce outstanding images on any format if you know what your doing - if you know light, shadow, camera angles, etc.
Eh? The fastest lenses in the M7 system were f4 primes. Most were f4.5 and the 210mm was an f8.
So how about the Voigtlander 50 f0.95 and 17.5mm f0.95 (announced last week!) for micro 4/3rds.
My girlfriend shoots with a Phase 1 P45 back. The image quality and size of the files are total ridiculous. Makes me and my Nikon D3 look inadequate, but then again she is a pro and gets paid for her pictures. One client actually asked her if she had access to the Phase 1 80MP back. As long as people think more MP is better, there will be a market for MF sized images.
I hope they can last longer than that. They really need to innovate to keep going. I think the problem is that while before they were engineering companies making high quality mechanical/optical devices they are now technology companies working with micro-electronics. It's harder to do this on a small scale. A demand will always be there for high end equipment but the manufacturers will struggle to stay ahead in a shrinking market.
With sales of SLR cameras never higher than they are right now, phones don't seem much of a threat. They will eat up the point and shoot market but enthusiasts/professionals want a level of manual control that I can't see phones ever having. They also want to separate themselves from the average 'snapper'.
Perhaps digital cameras killed the traditional wedding photography business but the wedding business in general still seems to be flourishing. I haven't heard of people deciding that they don't need a photographer at all because guests' point and shoot's are good enough. There is certainly more competition than before. The game has changed and will always continue to.
16 bit image acquisition
inherent shallow depth of field
aspect ratio
something not be overlooked: they force you to slow down
'April 2003'
Blast from the past - before the days of wide gamut digital sensor capture, using scanned film (where grain would provide a dithering function) and outputting to print (where the low dynamic range and grain will again dither).
I don't think Photoshop supported many 16 bit operations back then either. It would have been painful to use.
Also bear in mind that unlike Photoshop processing (mostly carried out in a log response colour space that will control banding and posterisation), sensor capture is a linear function. Higher bit depth is essential at the sensor to take this into account.
Article is not very relevant.
Last edited:
Forget the D800 and Medium Format we can all sell our cameras and just use phones now:
Nokia 808 Pureview with 41MP camera
Nokia 808 Pureview with 41MP camera
PM me the address I should bill the Hasselblad hire to.
----------
Forget the D800 and Medium Format we can all sell our cameras and just use phones now:
Nokia 808 Pureview with 41MP camera
</thread>
So you're not speaking based on experience then?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
There's one person I know with a Blad who's got a D800 on order already, I'll see if I can talk him into doing some comparison prints after sensor profiling with a color chart once he receives his D800. If he were closer, I'd try to get over with my D3x and do it sooner, but that's not likely to happen given the distances.
Paul
I'm with firestarter here. The article has quite a bit of dated information. Recent versions of Photoshop don't have any limitations on working with 16-bit files IIRC, which was his main complaint. And another issue is that he performed his prints test using AdobeRGB prints. 9 years after the article, the photography world is using ProPhotoRGB as the standard color space for editing.
Modern inkjet systems have color gamuts that exceed even that of AdobeRGB in some areas (and possibly even ProPhoto some areas as well). In order to fully utilize the entire gamut of your printer ink, the best practice is to keep your pictures in the ProPhotoRGB colorspace.
However, ProPhotoRGB is so wide that using 8 bits of quantization to cover the space between the primaries can lead to banding. So if you work in ProPhoto, you really need to be in 16-bits. IMHO this is the main reason for staying in 16-bit. The difference can be small, yes, but you can also severely degrade your image by overworking in 8-bit.
It's the same for music studios, virtually all of whom record in 24-bit nowadays. They need the overhead for digital manipulation, and when the output is reduced to 16 bits, the quantization errors are suppressed below the noise level. Properly mastered, there really is no music that cannot be correctly represented in 16 bits of dynamic range for human consumption. But the 24-bit recording is necessary for the flexibility you get in the mastering/processing stages.
I know quite a few working pros- even the ones who own digital Hasselblads rarely shoot with them these days. Look at the LL article linked above this post and extrapolate out to a 14-bit high-resolution body with a modern sensor-- that's a 13x19 print. If there's a visible difference, show me- because everything I'm looking at says there will be more difference in lighting and exposure than tonal graduations.
Paul
Well I don't own a MF digital back, no. But then neither do you.
But I do have experience with ProphotoRGB and 16 bit processing, and I also have experience of processing my own 6x6 and 6x7 images through Imacon/Hasselblad scanning and Photoshop.
The article was flawed in it's treatment of ten year old technology - it's even less relevant today.
Fantastic! Are you planning to sell your D3x and buy a compact then?
Four years later - with even more progress in low end sensors, Michael Reichmann is still shooting Phase One gear. I wonder why?
Proper quality prints or Sams Club?
I'd say the differences are less visible today as well- in fact I'd bet that there's more differences in raw converter processing.
When I can get visually equivalent results with similar performance, I'll certainly consider it.
My bird photography requires the ability to enlarge significantly- bigger sensors with more density are helpful for that- and narrow DoF for subject isolation is key- when I get that in a smaller body with the same or better lens magnification, then I'll sure look at it.
If you think I *wanted* to pony up for the D3x, you're sorely mistaken. In fact it took about six months of analysis to determine the performance would work for me against buying two *much* cheaper bodies with other characteristics.
Cachet mostly. Photographers don't spend real money on workshops lead by a guy with a P&S
Frontiers are 8-bit output devices, so that wouldn't be a legitimate test, would it?
Paul
For many working pros, it's not about achieving the epitome of technical perfection. Photojournalists shoot JPEG because it's more important to get the shot, preserve its integrity, and get it to the newsroom as fast as possible, rather than capture the perfect image. Pros do what they need to do to sell work and earn money. Anything more is superfluous and a waste, and a bad business move on their part. I'm not saying that shooting in 16-bit is some magic panacea that will make everyone's photos better. But I believe there are fringe cases in which it can make a difference.
14-bit file is more like the 16-bit capture of a MF back than the 8-bit capture of shooting to JPEG. 14 bits is still 16384 levels per channel vs. 256 for 8-bit. But whether or not there is a gain in shooting 16-bit MF backs vs. 14-bit DSLR RAWs, that's an entirely different discussion, and one which I would tend to agree with you, the extra 4 bits are well within diminishing returns. But a big part of why I shoot RAW is precisely to get those higher bit captures from my camera.
Do you shoot, process, and print in 8-bit only? It would seem from your post that you shoot 14-bit NEFs, which by extension also means you probably edit in 16-bit too. If it is are no better, why do you bother?
Fair question.
Because I eventually hope to get into a gallery that sells 50' prints, and at that size the touch better shadow detail and tonal graduations are what may sway the owner to carry my prints. However, I'm often happy to print 8-bit to a Frontier for 8x10 prints.
Paul