August 23, 2014, 11:49:32 AM

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 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 224
46
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 05, 2014, 05:52:20 PM »
Because realistically, the sub 10k body is already being done by pentax.

Yes, it is...and I don't believe it's really any competition for the Canon and Nikon pro bodies, in terms of sales.
Give Pentax a line of LS primes and a few years, 35mm camera manufacturers will need a lot of incentives to attract users who will make the jump. The next gen cycle will only drop prices even futher to the point where MF will become mainstream again. it's just a matter of time.

47
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 05, 2014, 04:16:26 PM »
Still, my original comment that if nikon made sub 10K CMOS 645 MF system with a wide, norm, and tele prime with LS (1/500th or better) It'd drive the pricing down for the entire MF industry. If we don't need a Machine gun D4s, we have the MFD body at around the same price.

"If." 

You may think gear doesn't matter, but it matters a whole lot to the companies that manufacture it.  Compare the 1D X to the 1D C – effectively equivalent production cost, one retails for thousands more.  Why is that, do you think?   Market size.  As stated above, the entire worldwide MF market is estimated to be ~6000 cameras/year.  I'd wager Nikon sells far more D4s bodies than that. 

Could Nikon design and produce a sub-10K MF body?  Sure...but they're already losing too much money despite their best efforts, planning to lose even more would be quite foolish, and shareholders don't generally like foolishness.

Sure thats a quote of 6000 cams a year from a man who works at leica?  ::) ::) ::) I'm pretty sure mass market is not in their minds to begin with.

Even if so, that 6000 Cams @ 20k+ per body, not at sub 10k. Lets see how the 645z sales go after a year and i'm sure they will sell more than that even though on a crippled lens system. Because realistically, the sub 10k body is already being done by pentax.

48
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 05, 2014, 02:06:33 PM »
An electronic shutter like the x100 would be the best cheapest route for 35mm to move than with LS. It's a shame that I have to report than from ISO 50-200, the nearly decade old 39mp Kodak sensor whipped my 5D3 in post using both adobe CR & phocus. However, after 200 iso it's swiss cheese (pun intended.)

Well, that's expected. The sensor is over twice as large (2.1x larger, to be exact, at 37x49mm), and both sensors have the same kind of read noise problems. Aside from a few minor improvements, like gapless microlenses, Canon's fundamental sensor tech is ALSO a decade old. Now, I don't think the IQ difference between the H3D and a D810 would be quite the same. There is still a difference, and the win probably still goes to the H3D (simply because total sensor area is always going to trump unless you have SERIOUS technology problems), but the gap is considerably smaller, since the read noise of the Kodak sensor is still five times higher than on a Sony Exmor sensor.

On the flip side, cameras with Sony's 50mp medium format Exmor are still going to walk all over even the great D810. Canon can't enter the medium format digital market with an entry that competes with the H3D. They have to start out competing with something like the H5D-50c or the Phase One IQ250. If Canon ignores their sensor performance with the 7D II, they are on the brink. I think the long-term ignorance of their sensor IQ, regardless of whether it really matters a ton or not in the end, is ultimately going to cost them customers, as it's a matter of perception. Why would any established MFD customers buy a Canon medium format that used a medium format sensor based on their own decade-old technology? MFD is all about the low ISO IQ...it always has been. They are the ultimate landscape and studio cameras. Canon wouldn't stand an ice cube's chance in hell if they released a medium format camera with their current sensor tech into the midst of the new MFD market now dominated by large format Sony Exmor sensors.

If Canon was ever to enter the MFD market, they would need to first establish that they are still a leader in sensor technology and overall image quality. I personally think Canon's IQ is great, however I pretty much live at ISO 400 and higher, so the whole dynamic range thing isn't an issue for me. I lift shadows all the time, but at those ISO settings, there is little to no banding most of the time, and what banding there is (at least in the 5D III) is a breeze to clean up with Topaz Denoise. But there is still the perception that Canon is not just losing...but that they have lost the IQ wars. If I was going to spend a couple tens of thousands of dollars buying into a medium format digital system for say my landscape photography...why would I pick Canon if they hadn't proven their IQ, which is what such a camera would be all about, was better than Pentax's, Phase One's, or Hasselblads? I mean, it's a S___-ton of money regardless...and I'd have to buy everything new anyway, since none of my existing Canon gear would be compatible anyway...so why limit myself?

Canon is currently in a lose-lose position for entering the medium format market.
I think we're talking past each other here. I was just pointing out the practical uses of a cheaper MF systems especially if Nikon did release a system sub 10k with LS lenses. I really don't care if it says pentax,canon,nikon,etc... as long as that new cmos tech is used with a set of LS lenses. However if they can get electronic shutters working on 35mm cams, that gap would close significantly.

Are you thinking about Schneider Kreuznach 1/1600th sync LS lenses? You do realize that those puppies cost a minimum of $6000 for a really tiny prime, and the cost goes up from there.

A lot of other leaf shutter lenses still only sync at 1/500th. It is possible to have 1/500th X-sync with a focal plane shutter (although, why the 1D X does not use one is beyond me.)

I do agree, that if we could get nice global electronic shutters in FF DSLRs, that could sync at any speed, that would be pretty nice. I think that would be the key to making medium format affordable, since the lenses wouldn't need the complexity of a leaf shutter, which definitely pushes up cost.
I'm speaking of Leaf shutter in general with LS, not specifically with phase1. Still, my original comment that if nikon made sub 10K CMOS 645 MF system with a wide, norm, and tele prime with LS (1/500th or better) It'd drive the pricing down for the entire MF industry. If we don't need a Machine gun D4s, we have the MFD body at around the same price.

49
Lighting / Re: Studio lighting advice for a newbie
« on: August 05, 2014, 11:18:48 AM »
However I highly recommend getting a light meter.
Do you really use a light meter that much these days?  It seems like several people have listed it as one of their least-used items and soon after going digital, I ended up selling mine.  If I was a location shooter with limited time, I think it would be handy, but as long as I have 5-10 minutes to play with the lighting and check my histograms, I haven't found a need for one.
After forcing myself to get into using one again, Its much faster and easier than the shoot/chimp/histo check. It also helps that its built into the Cybercommander but I use my L-508 if i'm throwing speedlites into the mix.
Thanks for the answer and I've been getting back into more studio shooting and have considered a meter, but hadn't thought about the Cybercommander.  It looks so bulky on the website - how is it in actual use?

Its fantastic as when you fire for the meter reading, it automatically inputs that data into your einstein and will tell you what F-stop its at and will update the f-stop info as you power up and down. Genius really as it makes metering that much easier.

50
Lighting / Re: Studio lighting advice for a newbie
« on: August 05, 2014, 11:07:36 AM »
However I highly recommend getting a light meter.
Do you really use a light meter that much these days?  It seems like several people have listed it as one of their least-used items and soon after going digital, I ended up selling mine.  If I was a location shooter with limited time, I think it would be handy, but as long as I have 5-10 minutes to play with the lighting and check my histograms, I haven't found a need for one.
After forcing myself to get into using one again, Its much faster and easier than the shoot/chimp/histo check. It also helps that its built into the Cybercommander but I use my L-508 if i'm throwing speedlites into the mix.

51
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 05, 2014, 10:48:34 AM »
If it's sub 10k, and has 3 LS primes to start, it'd sell like hot cakes.

Please define "sell like hotcakes."

I'd love for someone who thinks this is a viable market to provide some evidence or, at a minimum, reasonably good arguments to support that contention.

In 2013 there was a Forbes interview with Leica's medium format guy. He said, "There are no industry-wide figures, but we think the core medium format market is roughly 6000 units per year – worldwide, for all brands." (Emphasis added by me)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2013/05/08/how-leica-camera-is-reinventing-the-medium-format-market-on-its-own-terms/

That's not very many hotcakes.

I think you forget MF was king of general portraiture in film and see no reason why it couldn't return as long as cost goes down. Weddings, editorial, fashion, etc... all medium format or LF. 35mm was for PJ's or sports shooters...

How about convenience, portability, durability, cost, flexibility to name just a few advantages of the DSLR format. I think you forget (or perhaps are too young to remember) that the only reason Medium Format was king of general portraiture in film was that 35mm film was hugely inferior to larger formats in the pre-digital days.

That's not an issue today. Medium format users were only too happy to give up their clunky, slow, inconvenient cameras for DSLRs once the quality became acceptable.

In reality, 35mm can never complete with MF as long as they have focal plane shutters. All 35mm cam's need to get on with electronic shutters or a set of LS lenses but why not just get MF then?

So, the only advantage is focal plane vs. leaf shutters? That was a big difference in the film days when most SLRs synched at 1/60th of a second. Less of a difference today and only important for a small niche of shooters.

Are you suggesting that the worldwide 6,000 unit market would magically expand on the basis of a leaf shutter? Sometimes it's better to just admit that you engaged keyboard before brain. We all do it at times, no shame in admitting it.
The only reason MF fell out of use was the price gap became a canyon with digital and I didn't say 35mm didn't have it uses. Just because you quoted a hack at Leica which its MF is a joke at best when the industry is ruled by phase and Hasselblad proves your ignorance.

I already been right over a year ago saying cmos would come to MF, alas it finally came. Eventually it will get cheaper and you'll see 35mm wain for mid to high end use for sheer IQ and unique advantages. If serious portrait photographers had the choice between a 3k 35mm system and a 5k MF system, you'd bet they'd dump the 35mm gear. It's all about price and it will eventually come down.

52
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 05, 2014, 09:16:48 AM »
An electronic shutter like the x100 would be the best cheapest route for 35mm to move than with LS. It's a shame that I have to report than from ISO 50-200, the nearly decade old 39mp Kodak sensor whipped my 5D3 in post using both adobe CR & phocus. However, after 200 iso it's swiss cheese (pun intended.)

Well, that's expected. The sensor is over twice as large (2.1x larger, to be exact, at 37x49mm), and both sensors have the same kind of read noise problems. Aside from a few minor improvements, like gapless microlenses, Canon's fundamental sensor tech is ALSO a decade old. Now, I don't think the IQ difference between the H3D and a D810 would be quite the same. There is still a difference, and the win probably still goes to the H3D (simply because total sensor area is always going to trump unless you have SERIOUS technology problems), but the gap is considerably smaller, since the read noise of the Kodak sensor is still five times higher than on a Sony Exmor sensor.

On the flip side, cameras with Sony's 50mp medium format Exmor are still going to walk all over even the great D810. Canon can't enter the medium format digital market with an entry that competes with the H3D. They have to start out competing with something like the H5D-50c or the Phase One IQ250. If Canon ignores their sensor performance with the 7D II, they are on the brink. I think the long-term ignorance of their sensor IQ, regardless of whether it really matters a ton or not in the end, is ultimately going to cost them customers, as it's a matter of perception. Why would any established MFD customers buy a Canon medium format that used a medium format sensor based on their own decade-old technology? MFD is all about the low ISO IQ...it always has been. They are the ultimate landscape and studio cameras. Canon wouldn't stand an ice cube's chance in hell if they released a medium format camera with their current sensor tech into the midst of the new MFD market now dominated by large format Sony Exmor sensors.

If Canon was ever to enter the MFD market, they would need to first establish that they are still a leader in sensor technology and overall image quality. I personally think Canon's IQ is great, however I pretty much live at ISO 400 and higher, so the whole dynamic range thing isn't an issue for me. I lift shadows all the time, but at those ISO settings, there is little to no banding most of the time, and what banding there is (at least in the 5D III) is a breeze to clean up with Topaz Denoise. But there is still the perception that Canon is not just losing...but that they have lost the IQ wars. If I was going to spend a couple tens of thousands of dollars buying into a medium format digital system for say my landscape photography...why would I pick Canon if they hadn't proven their IQ, which is what such a camera would be all about, was better than Pentax's, Phase One's, or Hasselblads? I mean, it's a S___-ton of money regardless...and I'd have to buy everything new anyway, since none of my existing Canon gear would be compatible anyway...so why limit myself?

Canon is currently in a lose-lose position for entering the medium format market.
I think we're talking past each other here. I was just pointing out the practical uses of a cheaper MF systems especially if Nikon did release a system sub 10k with LS lenses. I really don't care if it says pentax,canon,nikon,etc... as long as that new cmos tech is used with a set of LS lenses. However if they can get electronic shutters working on 35mm cams, that gap would close significantly.

53
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 05, 2014, 01:00:25 AM »
In reality, 35mm can never complete with MF as long as they have focal plane shutters. All 35mm cam's need to get on with electronic shutters or a set of LS lenses but why not just get MF then?

Hmm...I don't think I'd call an electronic shutter better. At least, they won't be better until they are all global shutters that instantly shift all pixels into a background per-pixel memory. Most current electronic shutters on DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras scan, so exposure isn't guaranteed to be the same from bottom to top. A global shutter would need to be high end as well...there is still row activation with a global shutter, and still that scanning. They can shift the pixel value into the pixel memory faster than a full readout, but there is still that lag. For longer exposures, that doesn't matter as much...for action photography, the lag matters. A nice high end global shutter design, the kind used in digital cinema cameras that can operate at thousands to tens of thousands of frames per second, is the kind of design I'd really want in a DSLR electronic shutter...at least then, I'd know I could use it for high speed photography and not have to worry about a slight exposure gradient across my images.

As for leaf shutters...they have their cons as well. I think the key benefit everyone wants from a leaf shutter is the ability to, at least theoretically, sync at any flash speed. At times I've read about how leaf shutters can operate at several ten thousandths of a second, and still sync. A lot of that is simply not true, at least, not in the context of DSLRs. Most DSLR-sized leaf shutter lenses sync at 1/500s, a very few have synced at 1/1000s. The only leaf shutters I know of that have synced at 1/20,000s or faster are really tiny ones in small compact cameras.

There is also the issue of inconsistent exposure. Because a leaf shutter opens in the center, flowers outward, then flowers back inward, you get less exposure at the periphery and more in the center. That effectively guarantees vignetting in every single image...additional vignetting, on top of any that might naturally occur due to lens design.

Leaf shutters, good high end ones, are also complex and costly to build, and they would have to be in each and every lens. Personally, I would rather NOT incur the additional cost of having a leaf shutter built into each and every lens I buy...I think its more cost effective to have the shutter, whatever design, elsewhere, and allow lenses to be cheaper.

As for MFD, I guess time will tell. Sensor area is the ultimate key to better image quality, but the older sensor designs used in say the Hasselblad H3D and H3D II were similar in design to Canon's current sensors. They had as many problems with shadow noise as Canon cameras...lots of it, banding, etc. The current H5D-50c still sells for $28,000 just for the camera, and it's at least a few thousand for a lens. Canon would need to compete with the H5D-50c, not the old H3D, if they wanted to break into the market. I honestly don't see Canon doing it for all that much cheaper than Hasselblad, and if they did, they would likely be taking a loss on the products just to be competitive (especially if they aren't using a 300mm wafer fab...I think there was a rumor a while back that Canon might be either migrating to a fab that does 300mm fabrication, maybe taking over some of the capacity from P&S fabs that aren't producing as many compact cameras...or maybe building a new fab, but to manufacture MFD size sensors, they would have to take capacity away from something either way).

The benefit of medium format film was the cameras were all still designed roughly the same way. A medium format SLR might have had some additional features, but there was nothing in particular that made them particularly more costly than smaller cameras...not as far as the bodies went. They didn't have the extra cost of manufacturing extremely low yield sensors that cost a fortune to make. The customer took care of paying the cost of the film. That's nothing to say of the IQ we can get from a "lowly" 35mm DSLR these days, let alone a digital medium format. It's a little unfair to compare a modern DSLR with the "cheap" 35mm film and cameras of yesteryear. Full frame DSLR image quality is now far superior, and digital medium format is again superior to FF DSLR.
While a nice long response, the reality is the x100s do a fine job a super sync speeds and my H3D with its humble 80mm nails 1/800 syncs like clockwork. I saw no issues using either the x100 or LS lenses with fast triggers & lenses in good working order.

An electronic shutter like the x100 would be the best cheapest route for 35mm to move than with LS. It's a shame that I have to report than from ISO 50-200, the nearly decade old 39mp Kodak sensor whipped my 5D3 in post using both adobe CR & phocus. However, after 200 iso it's swiss cheese (pun intended.)

54
Lighting / Re: Studio lighting advice for a newbie
« on: August 05, 2014, 12:07:03 AM »
PCB Einstiens are the best value and will be hard to out grow. They can do just about anything within reason and anything larger your getting paid enough to rent that Broncolor set.

However I highly recommend getting a light meter.

55
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:49:17 PM »
If it's sub 10k, and has 3 LS primes to start, it'd sell like hot cakes.

Please define "sell like hotcakes."

I'd love for someone who thinks this is a viable market to provide some evidence or, at a minimum, reasonably good arguments to support that contention.

In 2013 there was a Forbes interview with Leica's medium format guy. He said, "There are no industry-wide figures, but we think the core medium format market is roughly 6000 units per year – worldwide, for all brands." (Emphasis added by me)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2013/05/08/how-leica-camera-is-reinventing-the-medium-format-market-on-its-own-terms/

That's not very many hotcakes.

I think you forget MF was king of general portraiture in film and see no reason why it couldn't return as long as cost goes down. Weddings, editorial, fashion, etc... all medium format or LF. 35mm was for PJ's or sports shooters.

Hassy does service H3DII but not the H3D directly. Warranties are not offered on either but you can still get service as long as parts are available. (Which I was informed plenty was as the 39mp sensor was a very popular one.)

In reality, 35mm can never complete with MF as long as they have focal plane shutters. All 35mm cam's need to get on with electronic shutters or a set of LS lenses but why not just get MF then?

56
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 04, 2014, 01:11:14 PM »
If it's sub 10k, and has 3 LS primes to start, it'd sell like hot cakes.

IF it is sub 10k. Given the $7k price of the 1D X, which uses a sensor that has about half the area of a 44x33mm "small" sized medium format sensor, let alone something in the 60x40mm range, I find it highly doubtful that Canon would practically give away a MFD camera for $10k. Especially not with Canon's pricing trend lately. I also don't see the lenses being cheap by any means...it's a lot tougher to design the optics of a lens that must perform ideally from corner to corner in a much larger image circle. I agree with one of the previous comments...they would be more like Canon's Cine line of zoom lenses, which are tens of thousands of dollars each.
It's relatively easy to get a Hasselblad h3DII 39 with a 80mm kit for well under 10k and around 8k. A 210mm and a 35mm LS lens will add another 5k if bought used to the price tag. MF has become much more affordable and it could soon be available again to the masses if the price trend continues. Pentax could lead the way if they released a Line of LS lenses.

57
Reviews / Re: Pentax 645z Review
« on: August 04, 2014, 09:07:51 AM »
No LS lenses is what killed this system for me.

58
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 04, 2014, 09:06:47 AM »
If it's sub 10k, and has 3 LS primes to start, it'd sell like hot cakes.

59
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Advice: P&S IR Conversion
« on: August 02, 2014, 08:18:37 PM »
I have an IR converted Rebel T1I. Love it. Got it done when it was still 250$.

60
I liked the 645Z but its the lens lineup that kept me from buying one.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 224