February 28, 2015, 12:47:19 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - RLPhoto

Pages: 1 ... 90 91 [92] 93 94 ... 245
1366
Lenses / Re: Canon 85L II AF speed on 5D III???
« on: May 01, 2013, 10:50:12 AM »
I used a CPS loan, It was about the same as on my 5Dc but more accurate. Not very fast.

Thanks RLPhoto, It's great to receive feedback from prime shooter ;)

Would you buy it?

I have no use for one. 85mm is a not a preferred focal length for my uses.

1367
Lenses / Re: Canon 85L II AF speed on 5D III???
« on: May 01, 2013, 10:28:21 AM »
I used a CPS loan, It was about the same as on my 5Dc but more accurate. Not very fast.

1368
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon are you listening?
« on: May 01, 2013, 10:26:14 AM »
135mm F/1.8L IS USM

1369
EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?
« on: May 01, 2013, 10:23:10 AM »
So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....

So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....

I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...

I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... thats compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. Thats right... a $400 ps puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.

Tell me again how MF is always better....

Studio

Fashion

Landscapes

Better on some things, not on all.

It's king in its niche.

Btw, I've put a few frames of 4x5 velvia 50 thru a friend view camera. Stunning.

There is no question that MF has physical advantage. However, if you look back and see how fast Canon or Nikon improve their dSLR cameras in just a decade, it certainly shows the huge advantage of economic of scale by big companies. I am sure the R&D budgets of Canon and Nikon are much higher than that of a niche company such as Hasselblad, but they can recoup the cost by selling millions of copies. For the previous generation of 35mm cameras such 5D II or D700, comparing 35mm to MF does not even exist. But at least there are many reviews comparing the new 35mm camera such as D800 to the low-end MF, and I am expecting more reviews when Canon high MP camera comes to the market. Think about how the market will react when the quality gap is getting closer with wide price gap a few more years down the road.
My 2 cents.

History has already shown MF will not be replaced by 35mm. Bigger sensor's will always have an advantage in those areas listed and their will always be that market its DESIGNED for. Don't compare the best 35mm vs a last gen MF... Compare the best to the best IE: The best 35mm cam D800 vs the Best MF cam the IQ180.

1370
EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?
« on: April 30, 2013, 10:09:26 PM »
Yawn. Says it wasn't scientific enough to be solid evidence anyway. I base my statements here on evidence found from real world use and from other users. Check photogy and see how Alex koloskov praises the d800 but really doesn't provide what he needs compared to his Hasselblad. It's IQ in those tests still wasnt up to par and that wasnt even the IQ180. I won't post the link because I'll let you waste more time to go find the article.

Have you ever shot MF before? I loved my 501CM and now I wish I kept to to adapt a MF back to it. If you ever shot MF, you wouldn't be having this conversation.

Well, I keep trying to make well-founded arguments, and the only thing I get in return is anecdotes. I've commandeered this thread long enough, so I'm done.

BTW, yes, I have a friend who does studio photography. I've shot Hasselblads, 31, 40, and 60mp backs (H4D). Oh, he also has a D800 for his studio work...LOVES IT. His assessment of the differences? "Subtle. D800 kicks ass on DR. They blow up just as well."

Good for him, now if this friend is real ask him why he still keeps his MF gear. If you shot these backs, did you come to appreciate the superior sync speeds, quality of DOF with faster lenses, the use of LF optics along with bellows for full tint swing movements and also the quality of the optics? I seriously doubt that.

Faster lenses? http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/lenses-and-accessories/h-system-lenses.aspx (Nothing faster than f/2.2 in the whole lot...FF DSLR lenses are as fast as f/1.2...)

(OK! Sorry, sorry! I'm really DONE now...just couldn't resist disproving one more non-factual response! :D)

Great. More like proved your ignorance that you've never shot MF before. F/2.2 on MF is a razor thin DOF.

That statement proves you have no idea what your talking about. I rest my case.

1371
EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?
« on: April 30, 2013, 09:53:05 PM »
Yawn. Says it wasn't scientific enough to be solid evidence anyway. I base my statements here on evidence found from real world use and from other users. Check photogy and see how Alex koloskov praises the d800 but really doesn't provide what he needs compared to his Hasselblad. It's IQ in those tests still wasnt up to par and that wasnt even the IQ180. I won't post the link because I'll let you waste more time to go find the article.

Have you ever shot MF before? I loved my 501CM and now I wish I kept to to adapt a MF back to it. If you ever shot MF, you wouldn't be having this conversation.

Well, I keep trying to make well-founded arguments, and the only thing I get in return is anecdotes. I've commandeered this thread long enough, so I'm done.

BTW, yes, I have a friend who does studio photography. I've shot Hasselblads, 31, 40, and 60mp backs (H4D). Oh, he also has a D800 for his studio work...LOVES IT. His assessment of the differences? "Subtle. D800 kicks ass on DR. They blow up just as well."

Good for him, now if this friend is real ask him why he still keeps his MF gear. If you shot these backs, did you come to appreciate the superior sync speeds, quality of DOF with faster lenses, the use of LF optics along with bellows for full tint swing movements and also the quality of the optics? I seriously doubt that.

1372
EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?
« on: April 30, 2013, 09:36:01 PM »
So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....

So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....

I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...

I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... thats compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. Thats right... a $400 ps puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.

Tell me again how MF is always better....

Studio

Fashion

Landscapes

Better on some things, not on all.

It's king in its niche.

Btw, I've put a few frames of 4x5 velvia 50 thru a friend view camera. Stunning.

1373
EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?
« on: April 30, 2013, 09:33:25 PM »
So let me get this straight..... MF is better because it has a bigger sensor and more pixels....

So I pay $43,000 for a Hasselbad H50-200MS..... now I need a lens.
Another $5,200 gets me a 300MM F4.5 lens... the longest one they make...
with the crop factor, thats like a 150mm lens on a FF camera.....

I compare this to a 5D3 and an 800mm lens, the longest in the Canon lineup...

I shoot a bird and get 1,000000 pixels on the bird portion of the image..... thats compared to the 72,900 pixels on the bird that the Hasselbad would give me... or the 921,600 on the bird that a $400 SX-50 would give me. Thats right... a $400 ps puts 12.6 times as many pixels on target as $48,200 worth of MF gear.

Tell me again how MF is always better....

Studio

Fashion

Landscapes

1374
EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?
« on: April 30, 2013, 09:29:10 PM »
Yawn. Says it wasn't scientific enough to be solid evidence anyway. I base my statements here on evidence found from real world use and from other users. Check photogy and see how Alex koloskov praises the d800 but really doesn't provide what he needs compared to his Hasselblad. It's IQ in those tests still wasnt up to par and that wasnt even the IQ180. I won't post the link because I'll let you waste more time to go find the article.

Have you ever shot MF before? I loved my 501CM and now I wish I kept to to adapt a MF back to it. If you ever shot MF, you wouldn't be having this conversation.

1375
EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?
« on: April 30, 2013, 08:52:27 PM »
It's funny you said the d800 is changing things. It's not.

That's what they said about 35mm film

That's what they said about the 1Ds

That's what they said about the 5D2

That's what your saying now with the d800

Quite frankly, MF is here to stay and will always be ahead of 35mm. The more pixels you add to 35mm, the harder and harder it gets to make lenses that will suffice, while MF will stay at a lower magnification thus making it simpler to keep more pixels sharp. I love how you bring out the ludicrous DR debate when it's not even relevant. LoL, current MF shooters will always shoot MF because of its mechanical advantages over 35mm + the superior IQ of MF.

You said the d800 is already optimized at 36MP but the IQ180 is at 80mp! LoL, no comparison.

Edit: oh, yes I would still choose the Hasselblad over the d800 for syncing at 1/800th and the ability to use schnider Lenses and tilt-swing bellows. ;)

1376
EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?
« on: April 30, 2013, 08:16:17 PM »
Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.

Your still missing the point. I'm not saying 35mm "wins". You said there was no comparison, no contest. My argument is that there ARE comparisons, and that there IS a contest. Sure, MF currently wins...in a niche. Will that always be the case? Who knows...the point is, the GAP IS CLOSING...for that same niche. My point is, in general, FF DSLR is a better tool overall, particularly when sheer pixel count is not the most significant factor. I can foresee a point in time when FF DSLRs have AS MANY pixels as MF...with better IQ on a per-pixel basis, and with better performance on a per-pixel basis (faster readout, better AF and metering, etc.) Will that day, where MF  and DSLR perform roughly the same, ever come? Who knows. Is there still "no contest" or "no comparison" between MF and DSLR? Hell no...absolutely there is a contest, and the comparisons are showing a shrinking margin for MF.

Well, that's the last time I'll try to make my point. If you still don't get it, eh...

It's funny how you read but do not get understanding. MF is a niche, and in its niche there is no comparison to what it gives the photographer. A MF pixels will be bigger than a 35mm cameras which means sharper images. Give me a 12mp 35mm cam or a 12MP MF cam, and I'll use the MF cam everytime for what it's built for.

There is no contest in the market MF made, because its the cutting edge, its the best tech has to offer and someone will always want to have that.

35mm is like a child swinging its arms at the MF market for decades, and MF simply put its hand on the swinging child's head and heald it in its place.

1377
EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?
« on: April 30, 2013, 07:53:52 PM »
Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.

1378
Software & Accessories / Re: Scanners
« on: April 30, 2013, 07:16:20 PM »
Epson V750 is what I use. Its fantastic, you can use a wet scan and adjust the height of the scanning lens for optimum details in your scans.

1379
EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?
« on: April 30, 2013, 06:57:39 PM »
They use MF because they destroy anything 35mm can offer for what they do. Period.

Sync speeds, leaf shutters, massive sensor size, exceptional glass, and a sense of seriousness for client PR.

I find it amusing when some compared high MP 35mm to MF, its no comparison at all.

I don't think I really agree with all of that. I think that statement was entirely true five maybe six years ago. There is still a gap, for sure, but the gap is closing. The D800 has demonstrated that from a sensor standpoint, 35mm can approach the pixel counts of MFD. The D800 has also demonstrated that 35mm can far surpass the dynamic range of MFD. Medium Format glass is great, but so is the more expensive 35mm glass, particularly from Canon. The two are at least on par...and I would offer that Canon's latest Mark II superteles have higher resolving power with higher contrast than MF lenses (keep in mind, it is more difficult to correct lens defects and aberrations in lenses for larger formats than for smaller formats).

I can't disagree about leaf shutters, they definitely have some advantages, particularly sync speed. If you are a heavy flash user, which is particularly common in a studio setting, a leaf shutter can be a godsend. There is also no question that MFD cameras have higher pixel counts. Pixel count is frequently the most important factor of IQ...the more pixels on subject you get, the lower the relative noise, the higher the overall detail. In that respect, the need for lenses with similar resolving power to Canon's is somewhat unnecessary, MFD lenses resolve enough detail to support the pixel densities found in medium format sensors, and at the closer distances MFD is usually used for, such as studio photography, there is little contest at the current time (pixel counts currently trump lens resolving power).

That said, pixel counts in 35mm are increasing. It seems Canon is testing 40-50mp FF sensors in their next studio and landscape camera. In the next four to five years, we could see 60mp FF sensors, if not more. There are a few decided advantages to FF that MFD cannot touch: High ISO performance; Advanced high-speed AF systems; frame rate. With hyper-parallel readout technology, it will be possible to read out very high pixel count sensors at high frame rates. (Canon already demonstrated a 120mp sensor with a 9.5fps readout rate!) When you NEED those things, then the leaf shutters and massive megapixel counts of MFD don't solve your problems. There is no comparing an MFD to a FF DSLR...the DSLR wins hands down every time in the high ISO/high frame rate/AF tracking scenario.

So...I would say it isn't as easy to matter-of-factly state these days that MF is the vastly superior camera, no comparisons. There ARE comparisons, and in many comparisons, 35mm comes out on top. That clearly indicates that MF, while it still certainly enjoys a for-the-moment-untouchable prestige in the studio photography arena, and in many cases the landscape arena, its powerful edge is dulling. In the landscape arena, where MF once reigned supreme, the D800 has REALLY closed the gap. It still lacks in terms of pixel count...one could photograph landscapes at 80mp if they wanted, or even 200mp with hassy's multi-shot mode. The vaunted D800 still can't quite touch that. The dynamic range of the D800 seriously brings into question the benefit of MF for the average landscape photographer, however. The studio prestige you acquire with your customers when you haul out the MFD doesn't exist for landscape photography...people care about the scene, not the equipment used.

To my knowledge, all medium format sensors still have a lot of read noise...similar to Canon's at low ISO.  It will be interesting to see if medium format cameras move up from 11-12 stops to 14, or even 16 in the few cases where medium format offers 16-bit conversion (I believe Leaf has a couple 16-bit backs), with new advancements in sensor technology. Their key edge was pixel counts...with greater sensor area, they can pack more in, at similar pixel densities as smaller formats. There doesn't seem to have been much innovation on other fronts for MF sensor tech. If they do solve read noise problems and move up to ~15-16 stops of DR, MFD might survive the onslaught of DSLR innovation for another generation or two, assuming the DSLR market doesn't also move to 16-bit as well.

MFD is not the unassailable ivory tower it once was. There ARE comparisons, and the gaps ARE closing. Competition for the studio space will heat up in the coming years, and the MFD market won't be able to solely rely on "prestige" forever.

What ever 35mm can do for studio, fashion or landscape, MF or LF will always do better. The best 35mm can offer is d800, the best MF can offer is IQ180 from phase one. Not even close and it will always be that way.

Don't forget that MF will innovate to keep ahead of 35mm as well. The next batch of MF cams could be 18 stop monsters with 120+ MP! Where is that measly 35mm camera now?

1380
Don't forget to bump your ISO up to 400 to get two stops more out of your flash power. Keeping the flash below 1/2 power will help recycle times.

Pages: 1 ... 90 91 [92] 93 94 ... 245