Must all professional photographers use FF or even MF?

[oymd]

Is it a must for a Professional photographer to go FF or even MF?

Or is FF mainly for professional studio/portraiture work...with APS-C based Pro cameras used for sports/wildlife etc for the crop factor/extra tele reach?

For instance, all the portrait magazine covers (GQ, Esquire, VF, ELLE, VOGUE etc), are they shot by APS-C D300/7D class cameras, or FF D3/5D class, or even Medium format; Mamiya/Hasselblad cameras.

And very generally, what does Medium Format offer over FF? Is it just better signal/noise ratio?

Just trying to grasp the uses of the various sensor families...

Can someone enlighten me?

 

[cobra_lite]

Nikon's latest Pro-spec cameras are both FF - the D3s and D3x.
One has 12-ish Mpx and the other 24-ish Mpx.

Canon offers far more variety in my opinion, allowing the user to choose professional crop-frame or full-frame models.

As to MF - most studio-based portait and fashion toggers doing glossy magazine or advertising shoots will be using MF by now, although you can get 'almost' MF quality from the D3x.
Much better quality...

 

[Mahoneyd187]

1. No. Many professionals shoot with full frame, but many shoot with a cropped sensor, and alot use both systems.

2. Not really, most pro sports shooters that shoot Nikon for example, will be using a D3/D3S. They are not restricted to genres. The most relevant in my opinion is weddings, regularly dimly lit places with no flash allowed.

3. I know of many high level professional fashion photographers that shoot with cropped format dslrs, one of which is http://www.benjaminkanarek.com/Home.html (Pentax K5 I believe) another is Melissa Rodwell (Nikon D2X).

Medium format = huge dynamic and tonal range, massive file size, absolutely superlative for image quality and a retouchers best friend (or worst nightmare). Not better with noise than a FF sensor at the moment, they are maxing out at ISO 800 I think. Mostly used for high profile commercial, advertorial, fashion and portraiture.

Hope that helps

Danny

 

[oymd]

1. No. Many professionals shoot with full frame, but many shoot with a cropped sensor, and alot use both systems.

2. Not really, most pro sports shooters that shoot Nikon for example, will be using a D3/D3S. They are not restricted to genres. The most relevant in my opinion is weddings, regularly dimly lit places with no flash allowed.

3. I know of many high level professional fashion photographers that shoot with cropped format dslrs, one of which is http://www.benjaminkanarek.com/Home.html (Pentax K5 I believe) another is Melissa Rodwell (Nikon D2X).

Medium format = huge dynamic and tonal range, massive file size, absolutely superlative for image quality and a retouchers best friend (or worst nightmare). Not better with noise than a FF sensor at the moment, they are maxing out at ISO 800 I think. Mostly used for high profile commercial, advertorial, fashion and portraiture.

Hope that helps

Danny

yep..a lot..

Thnx..

 

[oymd]

Nikon's latest Pro-spec cameras are both FF - the D3s and D3x.
One has 12-ish Mpx and the other 24-ish Mpx.

Canon offers far more variety in my opinion, allowing the user to choose professional crop-frame or full-frame models.

As to MF - most studio-based portait and fashion toggers doing glossy magazine or advertising shoots will be using MF by now, although you can get 'almost' MF quality from the D3x.
Much better quality...

So why is MF 10x the price then!!

And can a Hasselblad be carried around on a strap on your neck, or its a strictly tripod/studio setup?

Thanks

 

[AJQS]

Is it a must for a Professional photographer to go FF or even MF?

No it isn't. It all boils down to what you want your camera to do.

IIRC there's a wedding phootgrapher who shoots exclusively with Olympus 4/3s DSLRs.

 

[squishy]

To give you some idea
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Choose the D3x and pentax 645D (MF) and select one of the studio comparisons, then compare at 100%

The D3x is outstanding, but the 645D is simply stunning.
You can see text of the white painted wall behind the studio scene.

 

[oymd]

To give you some idea
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Choose the D3x and pentax 645D (MF) and select one of the studio comparisons, then compare at 100%

The D3x is outstanding, but the 645D is simply stunning.
You can see text of the white painted wall behind the studio scene.

WOW...I just had a look there...

The Pentax 645D is FORTY megapixels!!

And even though its max ISO is 1600, even when I magnified the studio scene all the way up, I could see absolutely no noise...

wow...

if a pro photographer can afford that pentax, why even bother with the APC-S ones?

 

[squishy]

Medium format lenses probably rack up quite a price. And there's much less flexibility in terms of lenses.

Plus the IQ from a D3x/5DII/1DsIII/A900 is easily good enough for many, many applications.

 

[cuthbert]

whilst the image quality from the pentax 645D is lovely, it isn't 10 grand lovely, not by a long chalk.

i'm not sure if it's jpeg compression or lens resolution in that although the files are 'bigger', there doesn't seem to be much more detail there when you compare it to say the D3s or 5D2 - it does depend where you look in the sample pics, but i'd feel pretty short changed if i'm honest with that performance.

 

[Ozei]

whilst the image quality from the pentax 645D is lovely, it isn't 10 grand lovely, not by a long chalk.

The 645D is twice as expensive as the D3x and it's pretty bulky too (front to back) - which makes it relatively unwieldy hand-held IMO.

NASA bought eleven D3s cameras for the shuttle/space station - they didn't choose MF bodies, probably because of their bulk.

 

[Ozei]

PS. http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/info/news100708.htm

 

[haggis]

Way too many equipment whores about that will say MF is the future without thinking why.

Sent from my iPad using TP Forums

 

[Laudrup]

whilst the image quality from the pentax 645D is lovely, it isn't 10 grand lovely, not by a long chalk.

i'm not sure if it's jpeg compression or lens resolution in that although the files are 'bigger', there doesn't seem to be much more detail there when you compare it to say the D3s or 5D2 - it does depend where you look in the sample pics, but i'd feel pretty short changed if i'm honest with that performance.

If you aren't seeing a lot of difference between the 12MP D3s and the 40MP medium format 645D then the photographer isn't doing it right. I just opened up the A900, D3X, 5D MK II and 645D and you can easily see the difference.

 

[cuthbert]

If you aren't seeing a lot of difference between the 12MP D3s and the 40MP medium format 645D then the photographer isn't doing it right. I just opened up the A900, D3X, 5D MK II and 645D and you can easily see the difference.

i was just looking at the test shots from http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM - i don't have access to any real world examples from the 645D.

my point was is that although the images are very clean and much bigger, there isn't all that much more detail there and what is captured (such as the texture of the clothing), it certainly isn't worth the premium.

i don't know how the Pentax camera figures in the grand scheme of things- it might be one of the lower performing MF cameras out there - it certainly isn't the leap in image quality i expected, not even in the same magnitude as say a canon 450d to a 5d2.

 

[POAH]

you can use what ever you want

Is it a must for a Professional photographer to go FF or even MF?

Or is FF mainly for professional studio/portraiture work...with APS-C based Pro cameras used for sports/wildlife etc for the crop factor/extra tele reach?

For instance, all the portrait magazine covers (GQ, Esquire, VF, ELLE, VOGUE etc), are they shot by APS-C D300/7D class cameras, or FF D3/5D class, or even Medium format; Mamiya/Hasselblad cameras.

And very generally, what does Medium Format offer over FF? Is it just better signal/noise ratio?

Just trying to grasp the uses of the various sensor families...

Can someone enlighten me?

 

[grum]

The Pentax would be useful if you were making huge building sized adverts or something - otherwise it's never worth the cash for the vast majority of photographers.

 

[Laudrup]

i was just looking at the test shots from http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM - i don't have access to any real world examples from the 645D.

my point was is that although the images are very clean and much bigger, there isn't all that much more detail there and what is captured (such as the texture of the clothing), it certainly isn't worth the premium.

i don't know how the Pentax camera figures in the grand scheme of things- it might be one of the lower performing MF cameras out there - it certainly isn't the leap in image quality i expected, not even in the same magnitude as say a canon 450d to a 5d2.

The 645D really does kill the 5D MK II in those tests, and for £10k it should. Here is some more tests this time vs a 1Ds MK III:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/pentax-645d-canon-eos-1ds-mark-iii-comparison-15653

 

[maninsuitcase]

I am yet to see a single high fashion photographer use anything but a Hasselblad H4D. 1 was using a canon 1d but he was stood in the sea at the time, and as soon as he was on shore again he was back on the Hasselblad. I am sure the same goes for most top end commercial work which is the Hasselblad/Phase one/red demographic.

At that end of the game the price isn't an issue. For most pros price will be a big issue and a D3x or a 1Ds will get you "close enough" and still represents a significant investment in the body(s) and lenses to get the most from the files.

Would I buy a Hasselblad/Phase One if I could afford it? probably. Would I need that level of equipment? no. Would I know what to do with it? not a chance.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

I am yet to see a single high fashion photographer use anything but a Hasselblad H4D. 1 was using a canon 1d but he was stood in the sea at the time, and as soon as he was on shore again he was back on the Hasselblad. I am sure the same goes for most top end commercial work which is the Hasselblad/Phase one/red demographic.

At that end of the game the price isn't an issue. For most pros price will be a big issue and a D3x or a 1Ds will get you "close enough" and still represents a significant investment in the body(s) and lenses to get the most from the files.

Would I buy a Hasselblad/Phase One if I could afford it? probably. Would I need that level of equipment? no. Would I know what to do with it? not a chance.

I posted 2 up in my first post. Benjamin Kanarek (Harpers, Vogue etc covers on a regular basis), Melissa Rodwell (D2X), Keslar Tran (1D)....the list is endless. If you've yet to see a single high fashion photographer shooting with anything other than SPECIFICALLY a H4D, then to be honest you probably don't know many

 

[oymd]

you can use what ever you want

I'm just educating myself...I'll never own a FF or a MF..!!

I have a m4/3 Panasonic G which is actually complicated for my needs!!

But I'm just trying to understand the whole point of the "Hasselblad aura", and what does it actually bring to the pro photographer's arsenal that a TOP END FF or APS-C can't...

 

[specialman]

As noted earlier in the thread (and said time and again by myself, AWP and others) Nikon really should have stuck with a pro (gripped) DX body like D2x/xs to run alongside the FF D3, and that for me would be the only reason I'd ever return to Canon, to take advantage of the 1.3x crop in the 1D. The beauty of DX for me as a pro is getting more from long lenses, a cost-effective way of working. D300s is the closest but it's not gripped - add-on grips just ain't the same.

If they brought out a D2s - good up to say ISO 6400, video, 51-point AF and all in a 1.5x crop sensor - I'd have at least one today and would probably forgo FF altogether if the performance was as close to the D3 series as possible.

However, as a result of none of this never likely to appear, I'm currently contemplating the D3s because I need better high ISO performance than my D2x can give and I also want video, such is the direction were going at work. I'll just have to work round the crop issue by physically cropping in PP, even with the loss if pixel dimensions.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

As noted earlier in the thread (and said time and again by myself, AWP and others) Nikon really should have stuck with a pro (gripped) DX body like D2x/xs to run alongside the FF D3, and that for me would be the only reason I'd ever return to Canon, to take advantage of the 1.3x crop in the 1D. The beauty of DX for me as a pro is getting more from long lenses, a cost-effective way of working. D300s is the closest but it's not gripped - add-on grips just ain't the same.

If they brought out a D2s - good up to say ISO 6400, video, 51-point AF and all in a 1.5x crop sensor - I'd have at least one today and would probably forgo FF altogether if the performance was as close to the D3 series as possible.

However, as a result of none of this never likely to appear, I'm currently contemplating the D3s because I need better high ISO performance than my D2x can give and I also want video, such is the direction were going at work. I'll just have to work round the crop issue by physically cropping in PP, even with the loss if pixel dimensions.

Another DX soldier falls .......

 

[specialman]

Another DX soldier falls .......

Ha ha Don't worry, I'll be keeping the D2x - just superb in the studio and it has ISO 100...

Anyway, I'm working on the assumption that the boss will buy me a D3s......

 

[Starastin]

I posted 2 up in my first post. Benjamin Kanarek (Harpers, Vogue etc covers on a regular basis), Melissa Rodwell (D2X), Keslar Tran (1D)....the list is endless. If you've yet to see a single high fashion photographer shooting with anything other than SPECIFICALLY a H4D, then to be honest you probably don't know many

Melissa Rodwell - seriously ?

p.s. Vogue says - 30% MF 70% FF .

 

[Starastin]

Another DX soldier falls .......

why would you want to defend DX ? especially for fashion/ portraits / commercial etc.

DX doesn't make any sense in that world.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

Melissa Rodwell - seriously ?

p.s. Vogue says - 30% MF 70% FF .

Yes seriously, she's shot for Harper's Bazaar...sorry, you must be better....should I have mentioned you too?

 

[Mahoneyd187]

why would you want to defend DX ? especially for fashion/ portraits / commercial etc.

DX doesn't make any sense in that world.

Commercial - covers every genre of photography, medium format IS only REQUIRED for a tiny percentage of that

Portraits - try chasing children round for portraits every day with a medium format camera, then tell me you'd prefer that to a cropped dslr, full frame, sure, but far from a necessity.

Fashion - printed in a magazine, at that size nobody knows or cares what it was taken with.£1000 cropped vs £10000, difference at mag size if processed and retouched well is very very minimal

If I had a choice I'd be shooting advert and celebrity portraiture with a P65+ but I'm not I take family portraits, so it doesn't suit my needs at all!

 

[FruitFlakes]

Cropped sensors are a compromise of sensor yield, manufacturing costs and profits. Pro dSLRs aren't subject to the same economic constraints as consumer models, so they'll inevitably have the best possible sensors in there. And since professionals will buy top of the line stuff, and publications will go to these pros, there'll be a higher proportion of FF/MF output simply due to the fact that larger sensors are exclusively a pro feature.

 

[specialman]

why would you want to defend DX ? especially for fashion/ portraits / commercial etc.

DX doesn't make any sense in that world.

Probably in high-end glossys then the picture editors are looking for ultimate quality do no argument there, but as I've pointed out, DX still has a massive part to play because it's a more cost effective format if you can live with the compromises attached to it (lower maximum ISOs, lower pixel count, limitations on lenses at the wide end).

Regarding Mahoney's comment about another DX user departing (me), I am not a fashion tog and the studio work I do is catered for sufficiently by DX. The reason FF appeals to me is that Nikon does not produce a body that works for me in DX Si to get what I want, I have no other option to go FF unless Nikon announce the D400 has everything I need AND comes in a D2/D3 body shell, which ain't gonna happen in a month of Sunday's...,.

 

[oymd]

Why do Consumer/Prosumer/Pro brands like Canon-Nikon etc only stick to mainly APS-C sensor D-SLRs with 1 top of the line FF model, and NEVER venture in to a MF camera? At least ONE model?

Their sales surely would support a venture into producing a Nikon/Canon MF camera?

And vice versa, why hasnt Hasselblad over the years, EVER tried to produce an APS-C or FF D-SLR?
I'm sure it would sell tons, just because of the LUXURY name?

Is there a reason different camera companies never venture in to the OTHER format?

 

[Mahoneyd187]

Cropped sensors are a compromise of sensor yield, manufacturing costs and profits. Pro dSLRs aren't subject to the same economic constraints as consumer models, so they'll inevitably have the best possible sensors in there. And since professionals will buy top of the line stuff, and publications will go to these pros, there'll be a higher proportion of FF/MF output simply due to the fact that larger sensors are exclusively a pro feature.

Larger sensors are not exclusively pro feature, I'm willing to bet that there are just as many hobbyists on this forum that own a D700/5D as there are full time paid professionals. By the way, Nikon list their D300/s as a professional camera.

As I've already mentioned, I'm aware of many top international fashion photographers using cropped cameras, you can't deny fact. You want more? Last thing I heard Bruce Smith still uses 2X Nikon D2H bodies when he wants shooting speed, as well as using medium format when ultimate quality is required. Feel free to tell him he's doing something wrong....

Time for a reality check, most professionals will never own, or need, a digital medium format camera, publications will go to whoever creates the most cutting edge and relevant images, do you seriously think they demand to know what the image was shot with? Do they want to know that it can be printed on a billboard if they need it to? 99% of the time no they don't care at all, as long as it prints A4 at great quality they'll be happy.

Give an average professional a H4D vs a great fashion photographer with a 7D and a professional retoucher and I'll challenge anyone to spot the different in a mag size print.

Of course medium format has its place, I'd love one....but would my clients tell the difference? Nope....would Joey L's clients...yes....therefore he should have one, and I have no logical reason to.

 

[Starastin]

have you ever shot MF ?

 

[FruitFlakes]

Larger sensors are not exclusively pro feature, I'm willing to bet that there are just as many hobbyists on this forum that own a D700/5D as there are full time paid professionals. By the way, Nikon list their D300/s as a professional camera.

You've missed the point entirely. Manufacturers are more likely to put in top of the range sensors in their professional bodies, professionals are more likely to buy those same professional bodies as they're deemed as a professional model by their manufacturers. There's a larger chance that published work will come from MF/FF than crop as there's a higher tendency for pros to shoot with bodies that are top of line.

As I've already mentioned, I'm aware of many top international fashion photographers using cropped cameras, you can't deny fact. You want more? Last thing I heard Bruce Smith still uses 2X Nikon D2H bodies when he wants shooting speed, as well as using medium format when ultimate quality is required. Feel free to tell him he's doing something wrong....

And you can't deny that the converse also happens. As for Bruce over there, he is doing something wrong, if he wants speed AND quality he could get 2x D3s. But whatever works for him.

Time for a reality check, most professionals will never own, or need, a digital medium format camera, publications will go to whoever creates the most cutting edge and relevant images, do you seriously think they demand to know what the image was shot with? Do they want to know that it can be printed on a billboard if they need it to? 99% of the time no they don't care at all, as long as it prints A4 at great quality they'll be happy.

Give an average professional a H4D vs a great fashion photographer with a 7D and a professional retoucher and I'll challenge anyone to spot the different in a mag size print.

Of course medium format has its place, I'd love one....but would my clients tell the difference? Nope....would Joey L's clients...yes....therefore he should have one, and I have no logical reason to.

I'm not talking about the qualities of larger sensors over crop. I'm merely explaining why there's a correlation between FF/MF and pro usage.

 

[squishy]

Why do Consumer/Prosumer/Pro brands like Canon-Nikon etc only stick to mainly APS-C sensor D-SLRs with 1 top of the line FF model, and NEVER venture in to a MF camera? At least ONE model?

Their sales surely would support a venture into producing a Nikon/Canon MF camera?

And vice versa, why hasnt Hasselblad over the years, EVER tried to produce an APS-C or FF D-SLR?
I'm sure it would sell tons, just because of the LUXURY name?

Is there a reason different camera companies never venture in to the OTHER format?

I bet they've considered it over the years, but they have a huge market in what they already do, and must have concluded it isn't worth the effort for a comparatively small market in which other brands have established their names.

 

[Starastin]

I bet they've considered it over the years, but they have a huge market in what they already do, and must have concluded it isn't worth the effort for a comparatively small market in which other brands have established their names.

+1. they already have a certain image amongst togs. they could seriously mess up their image if they start doing MF . + it's a completely different stuff and as you said - super small market.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

You've missed the point entirely. Manufacturers are more likely to put in top of the range sensors in their professional bodies, professionals are more likely to buy those same professional bodies as they're deemed as a professional model by their manufacturers. There's a larger chance that published work will come from MF/FF than crop as there's a higher tendency for pros to shoot with bodies that are top of line.

And you can't deny that the converse also happens. As for Bruce over there, he is doing something wrong, if he wants speed AND quality he could get 2x D3s. But whatever works for him.

I'm not talking about the qualities of larger sensors over crop. I'm merely explaining why there's a correlation between FF/MF and pro usage.

You said specifically that pros will buy top of the line equipment, if that's true, then every pro owns a top spec digital mf camera, or large format. And its not true.

Yes Bruce COULD get 2x D3S cameras, and I'm sure he would if he needed to. The fact he doesn't, proves my point.

The whole attitude of professionals should only use FF or MF is ridiculous. If you've not looked already look at Benjamin Ranarek who shoots cropped Pentax, cover after cover of fashion magazines like Vogue but you're still trying to tell me MF or FF is a requirement....I'm not arguing or trying to kick up a stink, it just isn't the case, the reality is, there ARE top pros using cropped, like it or not.

And as I said, Nikon class there own D300 and D300S as pro. So sort of kills the argument of best sensors going into the pro cameras....

A pro camera has more features than just sensor size.

I won't even bring up sports and wildlife professionals, you'll be telling me they all need medium format next

 

[Mahoneyd187]

have you ever shot MF ?

You know I want one. And to be honest I'm contemplating buying one, but that's besides the point, it won't be to replace my Nikon cropped kit, it will be to compliment it. If I can stage it, I'll shoot it mf....if I can't, the DX format will do just fine anyway as I need speed for family portraits (kids) over mp any day, and most of my commercial stuff is brochure/leaflet/web size anyway

 

[specialman]

To answer the OP in my humble opinion....

Is it a must for a Professional photographer to go FF or even MF?

No.

Or is FF mainly for professional studio/portraiture work...with APS-C based Pro cameras used for sports/wildlife etc for the crop factor/extra tele reach?

Probably a mix of both, with oddballs in each camp using kit that wouldn't normally associated with that form of photography....

For instance, all the portrait magazine covers (GQ, Esquire, VF, ELLE, VOGUE etc), are they shot by APS-C D300/7D class cameras, or FF D3/5D class, or even Medium format; Mamiya/Hasselblad cameras.

Don't know. The most 'fashionable' I get is an angler who actually has a shave in a morning

And very generally, what does Medium Format offer over FF? Is it just better signal/noise ratio?

Never used digital medium format so cant comment on that front, although if it's anything like MF film, then it'll be like a different world when it comes to reproduction quality....

 

[Starastin]

ok - lets put it this way - first one has to establish his place in the crazy competitive world and then he/she can shoot whatever wants.

other thing - it's best to shoot FF/MF (in fashions case) that will show that you're serious about your work.

Benjamin Ranarek - he must be sponsored by them or be that old that still thinks Pentax is a huge company.

Of course he proves the point about the equipment rubbish talk, but - by all means - everybody should use the best equipment possible to them . and that doesn't mean MF all day everyday just because it's 44x33mm but subject to the photoshoot. although - there are ex war togs who used MF in '40ties.