Digital Medium Format Thread

Mr Perceptive said:
Surely the real problem is the obsession with sharpness - in an attempt to out resolve your eyes in print!
Click to expand...

I have to admit - I want it at 100% preview to be totally sharp - everywhere - even with my face smashed into the screen :D

And you can do that with a single frame off these cameras. The 645z, for focus accuracy and just everything is easily the best camera I've ever had and laid my hands on.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Surely the real problem is the obsession with sharpness - in an attempt to out resolve your eyes in print!
Click to expand...

To me, the issue would be about having consistent levels of detail throughout the image for certain types of landscape shot. Where an image doesn't make deliberate use of oof/bokeh then it can just look a bit sloppy to my eyes.
 
ancient_mariner said:
To me, the issue would be about having consistent levels of detail throughout the image for certain types of landscape shot. Where an image doesn't make deliberate use of oof/bokeh then it can just look a bit sloppy to my eyes.
Click to expand...

Honestly - it isn't an issue with these MF cameras. Not at all. You might need to stop down more than you would from a 35mm system - and that can create longer exposure times...but I find myself frequently at ISO400 on the 645z (base ISO100) and it's as clean as my D810 was at ISO100 (its base iSO was 64).

I've been quite busy with mine, the PP is racking up a bit and I really ought to post some actual pictures but I reckon I've probably taken some of the best shots ever taken of Rannoch Moor with it already :D
 
SFTPhotography said:
Avoid foreground :D - usually the distant view is what is interesting so go with that. The tighter the field of view - the more challenging it is to get front to back sharpness. That's true for M43, APSC, 35mm, small medium format and proper medium format like phase one and hasselblad.

I've found at typical wide but not ultra wide field of view (think 25mm 35mm equivilent) F14 on the 645z works very well. I've never had to stack a thing with it.
Click to expand...

Why limit yourself so much when you invest into considerably expensive gear?

Mr Perceptive said:
Surely the real problem is the obsession with sharpness - in an attempt to out resolve your eyes in print!
Click to expand...

At some point it becomes an obsession, but usually it is dictated by the need for making detailed A0 or even larger prints. The whole statement of shooting at 50 or 100MP is that you NEED the details. When I don't I have much easier time working with 22MP files from 5DIII and even that is still probably double of what these clients require. The I basically worry that it looks OK for sharpness full screen and make sure the contrast and colour are spot on.
 
Curse the people who keep bumping this thread....

I've finished my Film GAS for now, and am looking at my digital stuff (which I rarely use) to see if I should perhaps consolidate it and cash it all in for semi-MF. It'll probably be a second hand 50s or 100s, or an X1D with (ideally) a (35mm equiv) 28, a 50 and a portrait lens.

Does anyone know whether a GFX 35mm lens is likely? I pretty much live with 28 & 50mm lenses (FF equiv). The 30mm would be a shade too wide for me, and the 45mm a shade too long. A quick glance at the Hasselblad lens line up shows they are also missing this focal length...

Also, do folks use the 110mm lens for portraits? I use my (Fuji X) 50-140 for all digital portraits and found the 56 to be inconvenient as a portrait lens. I'm guessing the 100-200 is the GFX equivalent. Any folks used this and have any thoughts as to the results? Both do an 80mm lens which looks like it might work quite nicely too.

Finally has anyone used the X1D as well as one of the Fuji offerings and have any thoughts on how they compare?
 
Harlequin565 said:
Curse the people who keep bumping this thread....

I've finished my Film GAS for now, and am looking at my digital stuff (which I rarely use) to see if I should perhaps consolidate it and cash it all in for semi-MF. It'll probably be a second hand 50s or 100s, or an X1D with (ideally) a (35mm equiv) 28, a 50 and a portrait lens.

Does anyone know whether a GFX 35mm lens is likely? I pretty much live with 28 & 50mm lenses (FF equiv). The 30mm would be a shade too wide for me, and the 45mm a shade too long. A quick glance at the Hasselblad lens line up shows they are also missing this focal length...

Also, do folks use the 110mm lens for portraits? I use my (Fuji X) 50-140 for all digital portraits and found the 56 to be inconvenient as a portrait lens. I'm guessing the 100-200 is the GFX equivalent. Any folks used this and have any thoughts as to the results? Both do an 80mm lens which looks like it might work quite nicely too.

Finally has anyone used the X1D as well as one of the Fuji offerings and have any thoughts on how they compare?
Click to expand...

Ian the GF110 was the GFX portrait lens of choice for most people, the advent of the GF80mm F1.7 change that, though the new lens appears from reviews to be slower to focus, but the 50S/R don’t have speedy AF by modern standards anyway, the 109/100S are faster.

the next rumoured GF lens is a wide angle zoom, something like 21-30mm.

A 32-64 zoom would meet your 28 and 50mm requirements.

I have the GF30mm and GF45mm and intend to add the GF80mm at some point in the future, though at the moment aim finding the 30/45 to meet most of my requirements.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Why limit yourself so much when you invest into considerably expensive gear?
Click to expand...

I never liked foregrounds anyway :D

At the end of the day you get the same issues with smaller format systems - getting something that is right in front of you sharp along with the distant background sharp isn't easy - unless crazy wide field of view which isn't something I do. I've only used the 28mm end of the 28-45 a handful of times as it is.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Ian the GF110 was the GFX portrait lens of choice for most people, the advent of the GF80mm F1.7 change that, though the new lens appears from reviews to be slower to focus, but the 50S/R don’t have speedy AF by modern standards anyway, the 109/100S are faster.

the next rumoured GF lens is a wide angle zoom, something like 21-30mm.

A 32-64 zoom would meet your 28 and 50mm requirements.

I have the GF30mm and GF45mm and intend to add the GF80mm at some point in the future, though at the moment aim finding the 30/45 to meet most of my requirements.
Click to expand...
I think as they have a 45-100 and 100-200 a 25-45 would sort of make a trinity of zooms for the system. If they do a 21-30 it leaves a key focal length range unoffered bar the 32-64 which overlaps heavily with the 45-100.

21mm on this format really is very very wide indeed. Some may want that of course. A 3 zoom, 2 body system would be great for the bulk of landscapers around the world and they'd finally leave behind the smaller formats for this marvellous big sensor world.
 
Last edited:
Another jaunt to Runcorn before breakfast this morning, still mooching about in the old town, today I concentrated on the Silver Jubilee Bridge, opened in 1961 and recently re-opened after a refurbishment, this 330m span bridge passes over the Manchester Ship Canal and The River Mersey. Dues to its height (to clear shipping), it dominates the old town.


Runcorn Silver Jubilee Bridge-1 by David Yeoman, on Flickr


Runcorn Silver Jubilee Bridge-2 by David Yeoman, on Flickr


Runcorn Silver Jubilee Bridge-3 by David Yeoman, on Flickr
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I'm normally a LR user (and generally a happy one at that), but I've just fed some GFX50S images through a trial of DXO PureRAW and the detail has gone up a notch.........................(and I thought it was good before!!)
Click to expand...

Try DXO photolab 4 - you'll never want to use anything else again. Other than the lack of cataloguing it blows LR out the water (for 645z files anyway).
 
Mr Perceptive said:
I'm tempted (very tempted), but DXO doesn't support X-Trans so my thousands of APS-C Fuji files can't be processed
Click to expand...

Ah yes. I'd probably just buy it for the GFX and use it for that, keeping LR (or preferably C1 Pro for the APSC Fuji).

Actually - have you tried C1 pro at all. More cumbersome than DXO pl4 but stunning also.
 
SFTPhotography said:
Ah yes. I'd probably just buy it for the GFX and use it for that, keeping LR (or preferably C1 Pro for the APSC Fuji).

Actually - have you tried C1 pro at all. More cumbersome than DXO pl4 but stunning also.
Click to expand...

Yes I've tried C1Pro - I think my problem is that as a 10 year LR user is hard to adjust to different methods of working!
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Yes I've tried C1Pro - I think my problem is that as a 10 year LR user is hard to adjust to different methods of working!
Click to expand...

I guess I get that - although they are much of a likeness I never really liked LR. Tried it off and on several times - just something about it. I liked C1pro a lot more but love DXO PL4 - I have the 645z to thank for that as C1pro feels the 645z is a direct threat to their Phase One IQ50. I cursed this at first but honestly DXO is THE one for me.
 
SFTPhotography said:
I guess I get that - although they are much of a likeness I never really liked LR. Tried it off and on several times - just something about it. I liked C1pro a lot more but love DXO PL4 - I have the 645z to thank for that as C1pro feels the 645z is a direct threat to their Phase One IQ50. I cursed this at first but honestly DXO is THE one for me.
Click to expand...

Think I'm going to consider a hybrid workflow for GFX files using DXO PureRAW and Lightroom, having just processed an ISO3200 file, I'm very impressed with DXO PureRAW - though I'm not sure if its over sharpening sometimes, need to experiment more.
 
I have two workflows - GFX with C1 and Canon with LR, it’s working well.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Think I'm going to consider a hybrid workflow for GFX files using DXO PureRAW and Lightroom, having just processed an ISO3200 file, I'm very impressed with DXO PureRAW - though I'm not sure if its over sharpening sometimes, need to experiment more.
Click to expand...

It might...I know with the "lens sharpness" in PL4 it sharpens quite aggressively - but you can change the settings etc around. Quite a lot of DXO's defaults are a bit more punchy/aggressive than I would like.
 
gman said:
Good article here
Click to expand...

I remember reading that a while back.

What the article fails to mention is you've also got the curves tool in all 3 and very fine control of black/white points (and for each colour curve can be set).

If you use the sliders - the lack of a whites on seems an odd omission but you can always use the curves tool in conjunction with it -to add whites - just drag the 255 value in...

I don't think the author of that piece quite understood that feature of DXO and using the "smart lighting" tool isn't the best way around it.

One downer - and if you haven't got a lens/camera combination for DXO then sharpening is a pain.
 
I'm tempted by DXO, but I'm already subscribed to Adobe and I'm familiar with it. Typical response I guess. Maybe I'll have a look at the DXO trial.
 
Capture One is worth a look too if you didn't already try it.
 
Artwork for another music video:

full


This time I produced the video too which was released yesterday: https://youtu.be/Hz3c9ejP_Io
 
Last edited:
macvisual said:
Cheers David, my neighbour has one the exact colour scheme.
A lovely thumping 1000cc V twin.

Regards;
Peter
Click to expand...
When I had one it did about 70 miles to a tank... always fancied the SP2 but never got chance of one at the right price.

S4010005 by Rick Phillips, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
Nuts! I've just 'wasted' the last hour reading and watching reviews from Triumph Bonnevilles and RE Interceptors. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I've spent the last few hours with DXO photolab redoing old pictures from the D810. It's quite an improvement over anything else I've done with so will probably reprocess my entire collection with it. Still - the D810 is no 645z and I wish I bought one sooner. Seeing old Pyrenean pictures from 2019 makes me wish I had the Z then.

Tonight is to be still so will take Zedward to Glencoe and tomorrow I might go visit some bluebells and try something new.
 
rick448 said:
When I had one it did about 70 miles to a tank... always fancied the SP2 but never got chance of one at the right price.

S4010005 by Rick Phillips, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Makes the Bobber's 100-120 look long range!!!


ancient_mariner said:
Nuts! I've just 'wasted' the last hour reading and watching reviews from Triumph Bonnevilles and RE Interceptors. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If I didn't already have an acceptable number of bikes (for storage capacity more than spousal approval!!!), I'd be very tempted by an Interceptor. If there are suitable dealers local to you, take one of each out for a test drive. The Interceptor is supposed to be more comfortable than the Continental GT (unless you like rearsets) and (again, supposedly) able to keep up with a 900 Bonnie IRL.
 
Nod said:
If I didn't already have an acceptable number of bikes (for storage capacity more than spousal approval!!!), I'd be very tempted by an Interceptor. If there are suitable dealers local to you, take one of each out for a test drive. The Interceptor is supposed to be more comfortable than the Continental GT (unless you like rearsets) and (again, supposedly) able to keep up with a 900 Bonnie IRL.
Click to expand...

There's Kings 2 wheel centre around the corner from work, and that's where I've seen an interceptor in the metal, but I don't think another bike to be an especially good idea and my riding ability and powers of attention aren't as good as they should be.

A mate had an original Interceptor back in the 80's when they were unfashionable, and it seemed like a nice bike (although we were always having to wait for him, even though I was only on a 250).

trevorbray said:
Bonneville you say

DSCF0070 by -justTrev-
Click to expand...

While the idea of such a thing is attractive, the practicality is definitely not. I did have a BSA shooting star of slightly earlier vintage, and it had all sorts of issues that were acceptable in the 50's and 60's, but not later. That does look lovely however.

Just remembered, I had another mate at college with a Triumph 500 'bathtub'.
 
Last edited:
The modern Interceptor is (apparently) very reliable and REs are no longer referred to as Royal Oilfields!

Could be tempted by a '63 Bonnie but that's about all.

Anyway, I'll let the thread get back to discussing kit that's far beyond my wants and even further beyond my needs!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top