September 21, 2014, 08:37:12 PM

Author Topic: Going medium format for studio work?  (Read 5601 times)

ksagomonyants

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 189
    • View Profile
Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2013, 04:03:13 PM »
I've never owned any medium format cameras although I'd love to some day, so maybe my comment is a little naive. I thought whether it's better for you to get something like Mamiya 645 and a digital back? I know it isn't a true medium format but in this case you will be able to shoot digital and film (if you wish). And in addition, you aren't stuck with the same camera, as you can sell the digital back once it becomes outdated and get a new advanced one. Or get a Pentax 645D, again not a true medium format but much more affordable. Especially if you aren't planning to print huge photographs.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2013, 04:03:13 PM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3453
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #16 on: May 28, 2013, 04:20:21 PM »

Except true flash sync a 1/1000th, get great movement's with bellow's not having the sensor deep in a body, EZ sensor cleaning, superior IQ, and a sense of seriousness with clientele.

Now is it worth 40,000$? Sure, if you got the cash. if not, 35mm is ok.

Well a leaf shutter might sync at 1/1000, but you don't get full power there.

Tilt angles are dependent on focal length, a MF body needs more tilt for the same effect, having said that anybody really serious about tilt isn't using either, they are using backs on monorails and technical cameras.

I have never had an issue cleaning a 135 format sensor. Apparently some people have issues though I can't imagine why.

The first couple of generations on MF digital backs (as I keep saying) do not have an IQ advantage over a D800E. Indeed many early MF digital backs  had sensors little bigger than the 135 format anyway.

As for seriousness, I don't believe that is an genuine reason, if it is it is just showing an insecurity in the photographer. Do Vanity Fair not take Annie Leibovitz seriously because she uses a 1Ds MkIII most of the time? Hi end pros are judged on style and output, just look at Terry Richardson.

Don't be naive.

http://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-Systems/Leaf-Shutter-Lenses.aspx - Sync up to actually 1/1600th. That alone is simply a reason for shooting MF.

MF sensor is way, way easier to clean. It's just like right there.

Extreme Tilt shift movement's can be done that a 35mm cam could only dream of. King of product photography. (well maybe LF could do better.) The sensor isn't buried deep in a body.

And yes, the IQ is better on MF.

Done. End of story, this is why people shoot MF.

« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 04:24:00 PM by RLPhoto »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2370
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #17 on: May 28, 2013, 05:02:55 PM »
Quote
"Don't be naive."

Hah, before you call me that go check the T1 times for your studio strobes, after that go and learn how a leaf shutter works; then reconcile the two at 1/1600. It can be done, but not at full power, just like I said.

As for tilt, the TS-E 17mm has 8º of tilt, that has crop factor to the Hasselblad of around 2. The Hasselblad HTS has 10º so 5º equivalent, the Canon has more effective tilt than the Hasselblad. Technical cameras can do extreme shifting, they also tend to have longer focal lengths so need more anyway, but few people need that and the OP showed no interest in it.

IQ, as I said, yes MF is better with the latest for sure, but first and second generation MF digital backs are not better than the D800E.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

kennykodak

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
  • M.Photog.MEI.Cr.
    • View Profile
Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #18 on: May 28, 2013, 05:05:45 PM »
i sold my Hasselblad digital camera gear and am doing just fine with Canons.  i had more money in that camera than my first house.  got to say though, it made an incredible passport photo on a slow day.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2370
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #19 on: May 28, 2013, 05:09:40 PM »
i sold my Hasselblad digital camera gear and am doing just fine with Canons.  i had more money in that camera than my first house.  got to say though, it made an incredible passport photo on a slow day.
;D
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3453
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #20 on: May 28, 2013, 05:11:04 PM »
Quote
"Don't be naive."

Hah, before you call me that go check the T1 times for your studio strobes, after that go and learn how a leaf shutter works; then reconcile the two at 1/1600. It can be done, but not at full power, just like I said.

As for tilt, the TS-E 17mm has 8º of tilt, that has crop factor to the Hasselblad of around 2. The Hasselblad HTS has 10º so 5º equivalent, the Canon has more effective tilt than the Hasselblad. Technical cameras can do extreme shifting, they also tend to have longer focal lengths so need more anyway, but few people need that and the OP showed no interest in it.

IQ, as I said, yes MF is better with the latest for sure, but first and second generation MF digital backs are not better than the D800E.

You have no common sense at all sir. A 35mm cam won't even sync period @ 1/1600th w/o losing massive amount of power. PERIOD! Done deal. To argue otherwise is to ignore that hundred of thousands of shoots have leveraged this advantage over 35mm.

A technical camera rig is a legitimate and important use of a MF system. Can't be ignored, Alex koloskov agreed and he owns a D800. It will not replace is hasselblad, but having the ability to use a system this way is a valid option 35mm can't offer.

If your considering a MF system, $$$$$ usually isn't an issue but all this above + IQ.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 05:13:25 PM by RLPhoto »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2370
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #21 on: May 28, 2013, 06:43:43 PM »
Quote
"Don't be naive."

Hah, before you call me that go check the T1 times for your studio strobes, after that go and learn how a leaf shutter works; then reconcile the two at 1/1600. It can be done, but not at full power, just like I said.

As for tilt, the TS-E 17mm has 8º of tilt, that has crop factor to the Hasselblad of around 2. The Hasselblad HTS has 10º so 5º equivalent, the Canon has more effective tilt than the Hasselblad. Technical cameras can do extreme shifting, they also tend to have longer focal lengths so need more anyway, but few people need that and the OP showed no interest in it.

IQ, as I said, yes MF is better with the latest for sure, but first and second generation MF digital backs are not better than the D800E.

You have no common sense at all sir. A 35mm cam won't even sync period @ 1/1600th w/o losing massive amount of power. PERIOD! Done deal. To argue otherwise is to ignore that hundred of thousands of shoots have leveraged this advantage over 35mm.

A technical camera rig is a legitimate and important use of a MF system. Can't be ignored, Alex koloskov agreed and he owns a D800. It will not replace is hasselblad, but having the ability to use a system this way is a valid option 35mm can't offer.

If your considering a MF system, $$$$$ usually isn't an issue but all this above + IQ.

Dude,


I know the limitations of my various systems, that is why I own 135 up to 6x9 format systems, you are the one that keeps making spurious claims that I feel obliged to swat. I know you are wrong most of the time, I am just trying to offer more accurate information for those less well experienced and impressionable.

So onto your three latest "points".

1/ I never said any different, I said you don't get full power sync at 1/1600, guess what? You don't, but for some reason you decided to tell me I was wrong. As for getting shots now, I am seeing more and more pros ganging improbable numbers of 600EX-RT's to achieve good illumination in daylight at up to 1/8000.

2/ A technical camera despite its uses, can very easily be ignored by the vast majority of MF shooters, and the OP didn't mention the speciality in the post. We could just as easily speculate on panoramic cameras with scanning lenses, which he also didn't ask about......

3/ The OP specifically stated taking out a loan to buy a camera, obviously if you had read that then it would have become apparent that "$$$$$$" absolutely are an issue.

Other than that I agree with everything you said  ;)
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #21 on: May 28, 2013, 06:43:43 PM »

Halfrack

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 466
    • View Profile
Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #22 on: May 28, 2013, 06:45:32 PM »
So for the OP, MF makers are much more demo oriented than we're used to, the folks who sell them are also a notch or two above normal camera store employees.  They have events, like the PhaseOne World Tour where they take these tools out and you can learn about them.  I saw one 2 weeks ago that was a Mamiya/Leaf and I was meaning to get over just to play with one.  Personally I'd love a Pentax 645D, but I would get shot before the charge cleared my credit card. :D

The biggest issue is that if there isn't a local retailer you can visit, it's really hard to get a bit of hands on with the systems.

http://www.phaseone.com/en/FooterMenu/Events.aspx
http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/events_usa.html
"Me owning a lens shop is kind of like having an alcoholic bar tender." - Roger Cicala

sanjosedave

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #23 on: May 28, 2013, 07:01:42 PM »
Talk to your CPA to determine what level of revenue you need to support a DMF of at least $50k

Normalnorm

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #24 on: May 28, 2013, 07:52:53 PM »
The best advice is RENT,RENT,RENT.

This is very expensive gear and you want to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is what will make you happy.

There are real differences from your 35mm gear. Cleaning the sensor is not a major attraction to MF IMO.

While you will see a jump in IQ you may be surprised how it compares to properly prepped 35DSLR files.
There has been some discussion above about the ability to do extreme tilts and shifts in MF. While this is possible with a technical camera and a MF back, it is not true for the Hasselblad and Mamiya bodies. Further, if you do use a technical camera you will be working very slowly and will be applying correction layers to compensate for the unusual color shifts and falloff peculiar to the backs on tech cameras.

The real risk IMO is if you buy, you will be itching to upgrade in  few years when they bring out the new sensors. Granted it is just the back but it is still real money.
If you are a pro you will need a spare back and a spare body. :o

So renting may be a better option than EVER owning.

Neopulse

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #25 on: May 28, 2013, 08:08:52 PM »
So for the OP, MF makers are much more demo oriented than we're used to, the folks who sell them are also a notch or two above normal camera store employees.  They have events, like the PhaseOne World Tour where they take these tools out and you can learn about them.  I saw one 2 weeks ago that was a Mamiya/Leaf and I was meaning to get over just to play with one.  Personally I'd love a Pentax 645D, but I would get shot before the charge cleared my credit card. :D

The biggest issue is that if there isn't a local retailer you can visit, it's really hard to get a bit of hands on with the systems.

http://www.phaseone.com/en/FooterMenu/Events.aspx
http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/events_usa.html


Agree with wanting to own a 645D (much cheaper than when it first came out). It has a few minor setbacks like the ridiculously slow flash-sync speed (would be for still life, and still portraits) and the 98% coverage optical viewfinder (like the 5D MK II had). And also not so sure about the lenses they have for it. Apparently only found 3 when surfing. But it is a serious still camera. I like it a lot. Been watching some videos on it and seen huge photos produced by it. Still though I think the D800/E is an amazing camera in comparison to it, but this kind of quality isn't bad at all. I personally like this model if I ever took the step to medium format for the first time. Although I'm no expert in the area of MF camera, chances are the other MFs might be "far superior" to this particular model. But I think for what I like doing this is enough.

Bennymiata

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 199
    • View Profile
Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #26 on: May 28, 2013, 08:10:28 PM »
It may be easy to clean the sensor in a MF digital camera, but it's also very easy to scratch them.
Check out the sensors on rented MF cameras to see what I mean.

Just one little slip when puting the back on the body can mean a very expensive deep scratch on the sensor.

One other thing, MF cameras are relatively slow to operate comapred to a FF D-SLR, and if your work allows you to work slowly and deliberately, that's fine, but if you think that you can use them for events and just click away, you are sadly mistaken.

Kelt0901

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2013, 08:22:48 PM »
As a very happy and contented Canon user, I added medium format, I now have both and understand the good and bad of both.   I went with the Mamiya/ Phase 1 option, this I considered the better option.   It’s easy to get started on a budget, go to eBay and check out a Mamiya 645d [i, ii, iii] and a used ZD back or other.   This option cost me A$4,800.00, the shots are fabulous quality, however, not suitable for sports or grab shots.   Medium format is a dog to lug around; I use it mostly for studio work.

I elected not to go the Hasselblad route, the newer ones have a propriety digital back interface and you can only use Hasselblad digital backs.   With the Mamiya/ Phase1 solution, you can use many available backs i.e. Mamiya, Leaf and Phase1; there also are others.   Check out eBay.   I am a long time Mamiya user (46 years) and have resurrected my RB67 Pro SD and lenses, my ZD digital back with an adapter mounts on the RB67.   
I like the system so much that, I have just upgraded to the 645 DF body and soon a DM back.   I have modified my Horseman view camera to be able to mount my Mamiya 645 DF body + ZD digital back and my RB67 KL series lenses.   This system is a beast but, fabulous Macro shots with much swing, tilt and shift, also the best solution for panorama stitching.
5Dii, + L series, G9, EOS M, 645i, 645 DF + Mamiya lenses, RB67 Pro SD +  KL series lenses, Horseman view body. 
5D ii, EOS M, 24-70 2.8 L, 24-105 L, 70-200 L, 100-400 L, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 40 2.8; Mamiya 645 DM, ZD Back, 55-110, 105-210; RB67 Pro SD, many KL series lenses; Horseman LDC; Horseman LDX 5" X 4"; Horseman VCC.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2013, 08:22:48 PM »

Kelt0901

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2013, 08:39:53 PM »
It may be easy to clean the sensor in a MF digital camera, but it's also very easy to scratch them.
Check out the sensors on rented MF cameras to see what I mean.

Just one little slip when puting the back on the body can mean a very expensive deep scratch on the sensor.

One other thing, MF cameras are relatively slow to operate comapred to a FF D-SLR, and if your work allows you to work slowly and deliberately, that's fine, but if you think that you can use them for events and just click away, you are sadly mistaken.


As a Mamiya user with a ZD Digital back, I certainly agree.   I did scratch the back glass, it’s not the sensor, it lies underneath, the exposed glass is the IR cut filter and is user replaceable, the replacement cost me A$400.00 on eBay.   FYI, an IR photo filter can replace the IR cut filter for, I am told, fabulous IR shots, I have one and yet to test it out.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 08:43:01 PM by Kelt0901 »
5D ii, EOS M, 24-70 2.8 L, 24-105 L, 70-200 L, 100-400 L, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 40 2.8; Mamiya 645 DM, ZD Back, 55-110, 105-210; RB67 Pro SD, many KL series lenses; Horseman LDC; Horseman LDX 5" X 4"; Horseman VCC.

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3453
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2013, 09:59:48 PM »
Quote
"Don't be naive."

Hah, before you call me that go check the T1 times for your studio strobes, after that go and learn how a leaf shutter works; then reconcile the two at 1/1600. It can be done, but not at full power, just like I said.

As for tilt, the TS-E 17mm has 8º of tilt, that has crop factor to the Hasselblad of around 2. The Hasselblad HTS has 10º so 5º equivalent, the Canon has more effective tilt than the Hasselblad. Technical cameras can do extreme shifting, they also tend to have longer focal lengths so need more anyway, but few people need that and the OP showed no interest in it.

IQ, as I said, yes MF is better with the latest for sure, but first and second generation MF digital backs are not better than the D800E.

You have no common sense at all sir. A 35mm cam won't even sync period @ 1/1600th w/o losing massive amount of power. PERIOD! Done deal. To argue otherwise is to ignore that hundred of thousands of shoots have leveraged this advantage over 35mm.

A technical camera rig is a legitimate and important use of a MF system. Can't be ignored, Alex koloskov agreed and he owns a D800. It will not replace is hasselblad, but having the ability to use a system this way is a valid option 35mm can't offer.

If your considering a MF system, $$$$$ usually isn't an issue but all this above + IQ.

Dude,


I know the limitations of my various systems, that is why I own 135 up to 6x9 format systems, you are the one that keeps making spurious claims that I feel obliged to swat. I know you are wrong most of the time, I am just trying to offer more accurate information for those less well experienced and impressionable.

So onto your three latest "points".

1/ I never said any different, I said you don't get full power sync at 1/1600, guess what? You don't, but for some reason you decided to tell me I was wrong. As for getting shots now, I am seeing more and more pros ganging improbable numbers of 600EX-RT's to achieve good illumination in daylight at up to 1/8000.

2/ A technical camera despite its uses, can very easily be ignored by the vast majority of MF shooters, and the OP didn't mention the speciality in the post. We could just as easily speculate on panoramic cameras with scanning lenses, which he also didn't ask about......

3/ The OP specifically stated taking out a loan to buy a camera, obviously if you had read that then it would have become apparent that "$$$$$$" absolutely are an issue.

Other than that I agree with everything you said  ;)

1. M00t because your missing the point again. 35MM can't sync up to that point. Thus a advantage for MF, and not for 35mm. You say" well, @ 1/1600th you don't get full power on a leaf shutter, while you forget that a FP shutter won't sync at all unless aided.

2. It relevent because it add another tool that 35mm doesn't do. Its very dumb to assume he'll never end up doing this. Panoramic cameras? lol what are you smoking? he's discussing MF cams.

3. If your considering a MF system you should be at the point where $$$$$ isn't an issue but all of the above is.

You read yet do not get understanding.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 10:01:56 PM by RLPhoto »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Going medium format for studio work?
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2013, 09:59:48 PM »