Medium Format digital

treeman

treeman

Messages
4,094
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Anyone using Medium format digital capture?

Just toying with the idea of going down this route, particularly for my equine portrait work, the faster flash sync and extra dynamic range are very attractive, though the price, not so attractive!
 
treeman said:
the faster flash sync and extra dynamic range are very attractive, though the price, not so attractive!
Click to expand...
I'm using Phase One and yes, it costs an arm and a leg!

I do not see why you would need a medium format for that
purpose! Sure, there are some advantages but I can sync
my flashes to HSS with my Nikons too. As for the dynamic
range, true is that paper doesn't share it and digital renditions
neither. The main argument for DR is gone since the newer
engines in Capture One Pro and the incredible LUMA tool!

I think I would invest in a pro flash system and /or extend
your 35mm gear which may include a 36MP+ body!

You will know you really need to go the medium format way
when the 35mm system will not resolve the equations anymore!
 
Last edited:
The HSS trick just doesn't work, every stop you gain in shutter speed you loose in flash efficiency, I'm shooting with big soft boxes in bright sun sometimes and I don't want any daylight in the shot, most times my 1200w/s Profoto gear does the trick, but not always!

I already have a D800, but ultimately it has a little sensor with little pixels, when compared to MF, its never going to match it....
 
•
If you are not willing to blindly invest some dough in a 80 or 100 MP,
maybe you should invest more time in making work what you got?

At this point, we share three things, Nikon, Profoto and horses.

If 1200 w/s are not enough go for 1000 w/s x2 as I did! I suspect you
might use an Accute with older technologies incompatible with the
actual HSS as their flash duration is possibly too long.

treeman said:
I don't want any daylight in the shot
Click to expand...
This is not what you mean really…
cause in that case, your problem is hopeless!
Remember… you're competing against the Sun!
 
Last edited:
treeman said:
I already have a D800, but ultimately it has a little sensor with little pixels, when compared to MF, its never going to match it....
Click to expand...

But the medium format sensors are not much bigger. They are barely big enough to be called medium format.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
They are barely big enough to be called medium format.
Click to expand...
•
Well, most are 60 X 45 mm… so a medium medium format! ;-)
Their ratio (4:3), really, is the extra… plus the MP of course!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Kodiak Qc said:
Well, most are 60 X 45 mm… so a medium medium format! ;-)
Their ratio (4:3), really, is the extra… plus the MP of course!
Click to expand...

Are they? If so, that's an improvement.

The Pentax 645Z claims to be medium format but has a 44 x 33mm sensor.


Steve.
 
That depends if you are talking the older cropping backs or the newer full 645 format sensors. (which is roughly 2.5x the size of 135 format or FX) The phase one P65+ is what I'm after as it's a full 645 format back, but it's usually north of £5k so I'll bide my time shooting with film in my mamiya 645 AFD for now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Kei said:
the newer full 645 format sensors. (which is roughly 2.5x the size of 135 format or FX)
Click to expand...
•
+1

Joe, sorry but I'm not familiar with the Pentax products!
 
Kei said:
That depends if you are talking the older cropping backs or the newer full 645 format sensors. (which is roughly 2.5x the size of 135 format or FX) The phase one P65+ is what I'm after as it's a full 645 format back, but it's usually north of £5k so I'll bide my time shooting with film in my mamiya 645 AFD for now.
Click to expand...

Yes. I have just looked at the Phase One website. I couldn't find an actual figure, only a comparison picture. By putting it into CAD and scaling it so the 35mm frame was the right size, it would appear to have a 54 x 40 sensor which is quite impressive. Most 645 film formats are about 56 x 42 so just about a negligible difference.


Steve.
 
high speed sync isnt the same, it pulses the flash over the shutter duration, illumiating the slit of the shutter, so your losing flash power vs one big pop, and u may be reducing the "stop" effect of flash too.

leaf shutters are also much quieter so that may help with horses.

you could try a sigma dp merrill, they do fur *much* better than bayer, leaf shutter which does 1/2000 at 5.6 or above, and 200 to 350 quid range, and the lenses are stupid good.

af is slow and there are other issues, but it would be a cheap way to play about, and quality is ball park d800, depending on subject.
 
pingu666 said:
high speed sync isnt the same, it pulses the flash over the shutter duration, illumiating the slit of the shutter, so your losing flash power vs one big pop, and u may be reducing the "stop" effect of flash too.

leaf shutters are also much quieter so that may help with horses.
Click to expand...

If you have a leaf shutter, you don't need HSS. Normal flash will work at all speeds.


Steve.
 
@treeman, perhaps the thing to do would be to try a medium format film camera, as an adjunct to your shoots. You could get a good quality used Hassleblad 500 (6*6), Mamiya 645 or Bronica SQ (6*6) for around £500-ish, 90% recoverable if you sell. All with fantastic lenses. The Mamiya 645 AFd that @Kei mentioned is not that much more, has metering and autofocus, and can take a digital back if you decide to (IIRC) I've played VERY briefly with one and it's a seriously lovely camera..

Or if you want a real man's frame ( ;) ), get a Mamiya RB67 or RZ67, rotatable backs so you can go landscape or portrait without messing about with L grips or whatever. The negatives are nearly 5 times the area of "full frame", and a perfectly easy 2400 dpi scan will get you a 42 mp image. And you can choose the image size after the shoot, go for double that if it's worth it, or much smaller if it's one of the less successful ones. Drum scans would get you even more.

You should not be thinking that film is expensive; the amount of film and processing you can buy for the depreciation on a top quality medium format digital would keep you busy!
 
ChrisR said:
if you want a real man's frame ( ;) ), get a Mamiya RB67 or RZ67, with rotatable backs
Click to expand...
•
+100

…the beautiful time it was…
 
what speed does the rz lenses do?
my rb lenses dont actually reach 400ths anymore, so he likely wouldnt gain much with the rb :(
 
pingu666 said:
leaf shutters are also much quieter so that may help with horses.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but all of the medium format digital options have a mirror, don't they?

As they have mirrors, the medium format cameras would likely be louder as they have larger mirrors to move, unless you're using mirror lock up (which still would make noise when triggered). My Hasselblad is louder than any 35mm camera I've ever used, whether I use it with leaf shutter or shutterless lenses.
 
ChrisR said:
@treeman, perhaps the thing to do would be to try a medium format film camera, as an adjunct to your shoots. You could get a good quality used Hassleblad 500 (6*6), Mamiya 645 or Bronica SQ (6*6) for around £500-ish, 90% recoverable if you sell. All with fantastic lenses. The Mamiya 645 AFd that @Kei mentioned is not that much more, has metering and autofocus, and can take a digital back if you decide to (IIRC) I've played VERY briefly with one and it's a seriously lovely camera..

Or if you want a real man's frame ( ;) ), get a Mamiya RB67 or RZ67, rotatable backs so you can go landscape or portrait without messing about with L grips or whatever. The negatives are nearly 5 times the area of "full frame", and a perfectly easy 2400 dpi scan will get you a 42 mp image. And you can choose the image size after the shoot, go for double that if it's worth it, or much smaller if it's one of the less successful ones. Drum scans would get you even more.

You should not be thinking that film is expensive; the amount of film and processing you can buy for the depreciation on a top quality medium format digital would keep you busy!
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris but I already have a Hassy and have also previously owned an RB and RZ. The film is all well and good, but for my clients, they want immediacy! Just the way things are these days.
 
treeman said:
Thanks Chris but I already have a Hassy and have also previously owned an RB and RZ. The film is all well and good, but for my clients, they want immediacy! Just the way things are these days.
Click to expand...

If you already have a Hasselblad, you could just buy a digital back for it, such as the CFV-50c CMOS back (http://hasselblad.co.uk/products/digital-backs-/cfv-50c.aspx). You'd be able to use all of your existing lenses, backs, bodies, and most accessories with it.

The biggest weakness, in my opinion, is that the sensor isn't square and even then still isn't full frame 6x4.5, but that issue is not exclusive to Hasselblad. At least they bundle a focusing screen with the back to show you the new crop lines.
 
skysh4rk said:
If you already have a Hasselblad, you could just buy a digital back for it, such as the CFV-50c CMOS back (http://hasselblad.co.uk/products/digital-backs-/cfv-50c.aspx). You'd be able to use all of your existing lenses, backs, bodies, and most accessories with it.

The biggest weakness, in my opinion, is that the sensor isn't square and even then still isn't full frame 6x4.5, but that issue is not exclusive to Hasselblad. At least they bundle a focusing screen with the back to show you the new crop lines.
Click to expand...
Yep I looked at buying a CFV 50 but don't like the idea of the huge crop factor............If I was going to buy a Digital MF camera other than my Leica S I would go for the biggest H series Hasselblad that I could afford. even B&H are selling the 50MP Hussies at 50% off.......hard times
 
Second hand H series are an option. Last year I picked up an H3Dii with the 80mm lens, hardly used, for the new price of the lens on its own.
 
From a technical/quality point of view, the best full-frame DSLR with the best lenses at optimum apertures is a good match for the smaller medium format digitals, if not the real MF ones. For example, a Canon 5DSR with 35/1.4L Mk2 at f/4 (just finished testing that) is amazingly bluddy sharp, right to the corners. Or Zeiss Otus. Then invest in just nuking it with flash. One Hasselblad buys a lot of Profoto.

But from a marketing perspective, is there some mileage for you to be seen using MFD? With the polo set, as per your About portrait ;) I suspect there might well be. Maybe you could double your rates :D And I'm not sure the reality of leaf shutters is quite the Nirvana it looks like on paper - limited focal lengths, optical limitations imposed by the shutter, old lens designs, sync speeds less than claimed, and also limited by flash durations etc - so you might have to spend on flash anyway.

Canon Bob has just got a Pentax 645D I think. He's always worth listening to :)
 
I agree with what Richard says above about the top of the range DSLR from Canon, Nikon, and even Sony............with good glass, you can get amazingly sharp pictures that will blow your socks of, but if you are a gadget kind of guy like me then they become boring. A TV add/magazine all of a sudden tells you that your new D5 is no longer the best camera on the market but a XYZ coupled wit a 123 will blow its socks off.................so of we pop to the ABC shop and invest another bunch of money into a new XYZ (and on and on we go).
I have 2 XL dry boxes at home full of top of the range camera gear but old film cameras are what makes me tick right now......craziness, absolute craziness.
I've seen amazing pictures taken with an iPhone...........I thought golf was expensive until I picked up my first camera 6 1/2 years ago :(
 
HoppyUK said:
Canon Bob has just got a Pentax 645D I think. He's always worth listening to :)
Click to expand...
My wife would disagree somewhat, Richard.

In the past couple of months I decided to forego the 1DxMkII's and soldier on with the MkI's and decided to have try with the Pentax 645Z. I also retired my 5D3 and picked up a 5DSR to fill its shoes.
So two different formats aimed at similar subject matter (landscape and portrait) and each clearly have their strong points and downsides...so here's my take.

Sensor.....the 645Z sensor would seem to compare favourably with the 1Dx as far as noise/iso is concerned....quite something for 51+Mp and well beyond the usable range of the 5DSR. Shadows can be recovered noisefree from 3 stops underexposed and a full 5 stops with a little NR work in PP.....it's quite remarkable. The following screenshots are a SOOC raw file underexposed by 5 shots (maybe a little more) and then simply pulled up in LR. The histogram really illustrates how little light the 645Z needs to generate a usable file.
p2030309082-4.jpg

p1973548391-4.jpg

There's so much latitude in the raws that ETTR isn't a prerequisite with the 645Z and it's just a case of staying away from clipping highlights...the shadows are of little concern. The DR from the 645Z is noticeably better than Canon although Nikon and Sony may well be closer and hence less potential gain for your £'s.

Weight......the 5DSR and a few lenses can be carried around all day whilst equipping the 645Z bag will have your shoulders aching. The 645 28-45 zoom is about the same size and weight as
a 35mm 70-200/2.8

Lenses.....the newer 645 Digital lenses are very much the equal of Canon's latest offerings when it comes to resolving detail but they run at 2-3x the price. I've used my Zeiss 135/2 (optically the best lens that I own) on the 5DSR and it seems to make good use of most of those pixels. Pentax have limited their zooms to 2x or less and perhaps Canon's best zoom offerings are in the same mould (16-35/4 and 11-24/4) which puts them closer to prime lens quality. It's feasible that the 35mm lenses are sharper but probably only by the extra enlargement factor needed to produce the same size print.
There's a wealth of cheap, older lenses for the 645 system and they perform fine if you're happy to shoot at f/8 or slower....simply for maximum sharpness

I live in SW France and the harsh summer sun results in deeper shadows and I often found it difficult to get a good, balanced exposure with my Canon setup.....I normally carry a couple of IR converted 5D2's to play with in the afternoon. The Pentax is far more adept in these conditions and has just coped exceedingly well with sunny, snow capped mountains and shadowy ravines all in the same shot.....not unlike HDR with a single exposure.

I intend to keep both for their positive points but it'll be the 645 that gets the most use with the 5DSR being the more portable option (and a chance to use the Zeiss lenses). I could go on and on but they're only my opinions and the circumstance might not fit everybody's case.

Bob
 
ndwgolf said:
I've booked a demo with the H6D in July when I will be in Solihull........will compare the files with the Leica S before deciding :)
Click to expand...

Wouldn't expect anything else from you Neil.
 
ndwgolf said:
The guy from Hasselblad was saying that the 100c backs have been pushed back due to the earthquake in ??? and that if I want it now I can take the 50 first and once the 100's are available they will swap it out free of charge...........could be taking a H6D back to Malaysia
smile.png
Click to expand...

You da Man Neil..
 
ndwgolf said:
The guy from Hasselblad was saying that the 100c backs have been pushed back due to the earthquake in ??? and that if I want it now I can take the 50 first and once the 100's are available they will swap it out free of charge...........could be taking a H6D back to Malaysia
smile.png
Click to expand...

You know the saying buy cheap, buy twice? You're a different take on that Neil - buy the most expensive and buy three times :D It'll be interesting to see how you get on, as there aren't many people that have actually owned and properly used the best from Nikon, Leica, and Leica again, and Hasselblad.

I know there's the gadget appeal, and nothing wrong with that at all, but where is the point where image quality is so good there's no point in upgrading further? Given what you can now get from the best of full-frame, you must be close! FWIW, the appeal of medium format for me would not be 100mp (and even the fastest computer will struggle with that) but the much larger sensor area. Big formats are just effortless in image quality - you don't have to worry about optimum f/numbers or using every square mm. And then there's head-down waist/chest level viewing, that disconnects you from the subject. Pros and cons to that, but an undistracted view of what's in the frame, and with people/portraits, they also react differently to that, it's less intimidating.

Keep us posted :)
 
Fwiw I do much prefer using my MFD Hasselblad for portraits and landscapes. FF still wins due to versatility for wildlife, sports and events.
 
Canon Bob said:
My wife would disagree somewhat, Richard.

In the past couple of months I decided to forego the 1DxMkII's and soldier on with the MkI's and decided to have try with the Pentax 645Z. I also retired my 5D3 and picked up a 5DSR to fill its shoes.
So two different formats aimed at similar subject matter (landscape and portrait) and each clearly have their strong points and downsides...so here's my take.

Sensor.....the 645Z sensor would seem to compare favourably with the 1Dx as far as noise/iso is concerned....quite something for 51+Mp and well beyond the usable range of the 5DSR. Shadows can be recovered noisefree from 3 stops underexposed and a full 5 stops with a little NR work in PP.....it's quite remarkable. The following screenshots are a SOOC raw file underexposed by 5 shots (maybe a little more) and then simply pulled up in LR. The histogram really illustrates how little light the 645Z needs to generate a usable file.
p2030309082-4.jpg

p1973548391-4.jpg

There's so much latitude in the raws that ETTR isn't a prerequisite with the 645Z and it's just a case of staying away from clipping highlights...the shadows are of little concern. The DR from the 645Z is noticeably better than Canon although Nikon and Sony may well be closer and hence less potential gain for your £'s.

Weight......the 5DSR and a few lenses can be carried around all day whilst equipping the 645Z bag will have your shoulders aching. The 645 28-45 zoom is about the same size and weight as
a 35mm 70-200/2.8

Lenses.....the newer 645 Digital lenses are very much the equal of Canon's latest offerings when it comes to resolving detail but they run at 2-3x the price. I've used my Zeiss 135/2 (optically the best lens that I own) on the 5DSR and it seems to make good use of most of those pixels. Pentax have limited their zooms to 2x or less and perhaps Canon's best zoom offerings are in the same mould (16-35/4 and 11-24/4) which puts them closer to prime lens quality. It's feasible that the 35mm lenses are sharper but probably only by the extra enlargement factor needed to produce the same size print.
There's a wealth of cheap, older lenses for the 645 system and they perform fine if you're happy to shoot at f/8 or slower....simply for maximum sharpness

I live in SW France and the harsh summer sun results in deeper shadows and I often found it difficult to get a good, balanced exposure with my Canon setup.....I normally carry a couple of IR converted 5D2's to play with in the afternoon. The Pentax is far more adept in these conditions and has just coped exceedingly well with sunny, snow capped mountains and shadowy ravines all in the same shot.....not unlike HDR with a single exposure.

I intend to keep both for their positive points but it'll be the 645 that gets the most use with the 5DSR being the more portable option (and a chance to use the Zeiss lenses). I could go on and on but they're only my opinions and the circumstance might not fit everybody's case.

Bob
Click to expand...

What an excellent post.
 
If it's high flash sync speed you want, how about a Sony RX1. Full frame sensor, dedicated 35mm lens, and 1/2000th sync speed. And very small. Might be worth a try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top