Taking the digital medium format step

[Jeremy Johns]

I came across this Link on twitter today.

It's to a really interesting blog post about the step up to a medium format back by Zack Arias and process in choosing the correct back for him.

It's a step I'll be taking in the next couple of years so which is why I found it so interesting. Hopefully some of you will do to.

 

[willie_901]

I am curious about the advantage of MF digital compared to the Nikon D800.

The context really has to do with someone who has no MF equiptment whatsoever. I can see how someone who has a body and a set of lenses would be better off with just a digital back.

 

[boomguy57]

Interesting. I just recently posted a thread about this very topic.

Cheers,

Trevor

 

[Jeremy Johns]

I am curious about the advantage of MF digital compared to the Nikon D800.

The context really has to do with someone who has no MF equiptment whatsoever. I can see how someone who has a body and a set of lenses would be better off with just a digital back.

Hi Willie,

I have no medium format kit either. However it has come to the point where the quality of the digital sensors is really hindering the type of photography I do.

All my professional photography is Jewellery, silver smithing and high end craft. A lot of this work requires a level of detail, tonal graduation and DOF that can no longer be achieved by a dslr.

I currently shoot with a 5d2 and tilt and shift lenses but even then I'm having to focus stack 8 out of every 10 shots. It makes sense to me that the next step is a digi back to get the image quality and a 5x4 camera to help with the ever decreasing usable depth of field the modern sensors have.

J

 

[x-ray]

I went MF digital a year and a half ago. I had Hasselblad V cameras and started looking at the hasselblad CFV39 and 50 backs. I work under very controlled conditions and don't use autofocus much and really like using the V bosies. I was also wanting to use a back on a view camera which limited what I would buy. I considered the H series Hasselblads didn't need or want the features plus the H series backs have micro lenses on the sensor and don't work well with a view camera. I looked at Leaf, Phase and Hasselblad and decided there was no reason to switch systems and the CFV series did evrything I wanted including work perfectly on a view camera. I decided the CFV39 was the perfect solution and purchased a one. I also purchased a Linhof Technikardan 23 and Linhof adapter to use it on. Honestly I could not be more pleased with my system. I've used Canon FF and L glass since the 1Ds and 1DsII and found they did a very good job but felt something in quality and control that was lacking. I'm old school and always selected the camera / format appropriate for the job. Geing stuck with a 2:3 aspect ratio and a DSLR body just didn't work.

While the Canon produced very pleasing results I discovered what was lacking when I made my first images with my MF back. It was like going from 35mm to large format transparency film. Not only are the images razor sharp, the tonality and gradation are much like large format. The images are as smooth as glass and crisp without looking like they were sharpened. I found I don't need to apply additional sharpening over the minimal sharpening in Hasselblads Phocus software. The files just don't need them. Saturation was amazing and color purity was better than E6 film. Describing the files as rich is the only way I can describe them. It's much like watering down paint and painting you house (DSLR) vs using pure pigment (MF). It's not the same as increasing the saturation in photoshop. I can't describe it but it's different. I assume this is to some degree the difference in 14 or 12 bit capture in DSLR's vs 16 bit in the Hasselblad and other MF back. Dynamic range in MF backs range from around 12 stops or more. This is dramatic compared to most DSLR's with around 7-8 stops range. The Nikon D800 claims to have 14 stops range and it may which would be a big plus.

MF digital isn't without a down side. One obvious consideration is cost. Second they do not forgive mistakes in focus. You must be dead on or it's obvious. Third your glass must be killer or you're not going to be very happy either. MF isn't fast to use not even the AF machines. Files transfer at about 1 frame per second to the card. You also need a lot of horse power in your computer. My CFV39 16 bit files that I work in are 240 megs each. I wound up buying an 8 core Mac pro with a truck load of ram and several extra 2T hard drives. With files that large storage becomes another issue. Light is a factor if you are working in the studio. At ISO 25 or 50 in my case my once powerfull Speedotron black line units didn't go very far. I sold around 30,000ws od Blackline gear when I went digital from LF and MF film. It was just over kill. Now it's not the case. I have 8 Force 10's and a set of smaller units and could use another 4,800ws and heads.

No complaints though. It's like going back to film in MF. You take your time and do it right. No rushing and no sloppy technique. Exercise care and you'll be rewarded.

 

[gavinlg]

I'd buy a mamiya ZD body (not back) in a heartbeat if one popped up whilst I had the coin. I'd shoot with a more expensive back on body if I had the means. Larger formats will ALWAYS give something extra in IQ.

 

[x-ray]

I'd buy a mamiya ZD body (not back) in a heartbeat if one popped up whilst I had the coin. I'd shoot with a more expensive back on body if I had the means. Larger formats will ALWAYS give something extra in IQ.

I agree that film has it's own look but digital has closed the gap if not over taken LF. Digital MF has much more dynamic range than LF E6. Velvia has about 5 stops at best and Provia has around 7-8 stops. Working raw files you can design your ow emulsion. You're not bound by an engineer designing the look of an emulsion. there's much more flexibility in raw files.

Don't get me wrong, I spent much of my career shooting LF color transparency as large as 11x14 (in the old days) and love the process and look but I would never go back and could not do may jobs today with the ease I do them on digital. It's not that digital is easier, it's more versatile and has the flexibility to alter color balance, contrast, tonality and etc. Color film is what it is and you can't change it much.

 

[Jeremy Johns]

x-ray, thanks for a great write up and further insight into switching to MF.

I know it's going to be a long journey, but it's one I've been anticipating for a while now.

J

 

[BobYIL]

x-ray, thanks for a great write up and further insight into switching to MF.

I know it's going to be a long journey, but it's one I've been anticipating for a while now.

J

Soon the D800/E series will be offered by renting services everywhere. How about renting one with a tilt-shift or macro lens of your choice and run some tests during a weekend, for example? This series offer also excellent DR besides some unique advantages like low-cost macro lens & gear, wider DOF, incomparably high ISO capability and live-view.

 

[Jamie123]

Don't get me wrong, I spent much of my career shooting LF color transparency as large as 11x14 (in the old days) and love the process and look but I would never go back and could not do may jobs today with the ease I do them on digital. It's not that digital is easier, it's more versatile and has the flexibility to alter color balance, contrast, tonality and etc. Color film is what it is and you can't change it much.

That's only true if you use color transparency, though. With color neg film you have a lot of flexibility especially as everything ends up being scanned nowadays. I never bother using filters when I shoot color negs with tungsten lights as I can easily adjust the color balance when scanning. And the latitude with films such as Portra 400 is amazing. A while back I forgot to stop down the lens to f32 for the exposure and shot at f5.6 instead. To my surprise the sheet came out perfectly useable. The contrast was quite flat but that could easily be corrected in post.

That being said, digital mf is a joy to use. It's still different than film but it's so nice that it doesn't make you miss film. I recently did a shoot on a Phase One IQ160 and it was the first time I thought I could actually switch to digital completely. Now if only I could afford that back! 🙂

 

[Jamie123]

I know it's going to be a long journey, but it's one I've been anticipating for a while now.

Unlike with consumer cameras, with digital mf you don't really need to go by what you read on the internet. Any decent dealer will let you try out the back before you buy it.
Don't get me wrong, it can't hurt to ask for other people's recommendations but this is definitely not a purchase you want to make without having thoroughly tested whether or not the product fits your needs.

 

[Jamie123]

I'd buy a mamiya ZD body (not back) in a heartbeat if one popped up whilst I had the coin. I'd shoot with a more expensive back on body if I had the means. Larger formats will ALWAYS give something extra in IQ.

Are you talking about the Mamiya 64FAF body (Phase One 645DF) ? I think it's a decent camera but the Mamiya lenses don't quite cut it, IMO. I like the Schneider lenses but unfortunately they only work on the Phase One version which doesn't take a film back.

 

[bobbyrab]

Jamie. Could you show any shots from your shoot with the phase one back, I do a couple of shoots a year that I rented the Leica S2 for, but I was thinking of trying out a phase one to use on my hassleblad as it would be a cheaper option than renting the whole S2 kit.

 

[Jeremy Johns]

Soon the D800/E series will be offered by renting services everywhere. How about renting one with a tilt-shift or macro lens of your choice and run some tests during a weekend, for example? This series offer also excellent DR besides some unique advantages like low-cost macro lens & gear, wider DOF, incomparably high ISO capability and live-view.

This isn't the camera for me. The more pixels crammed onto one surface the worse things get for macro / close up product photography.

The tilt & shift lenses from canon and nikon are not able to compensate with the incredibly shallow, usable DOF their sensors now allow.

It's time to move away from dslr's and into digital backs (older ones with less pixels) and 5x4 movements.

What did you think of the linked article at the beginning of this post?

J

 

[djonesii]

went with a ZD, quickly outgrew it, now have P30+

went with a ZD, quickly outgrew it, now have P30+

Digital medium format is a very slippery slope, and a VERY expensive one.

There is huge argument if a D800e will replace medium format or not. When I looked at a P30+, it beat a D3X hands down, and the delta was small, about 2K as I recall ....

That is for studio shooting of fine art figure. The way that I shoot requires a great deal of dynamic range, and a lot of pixels so that I can crop if I really want to.

In landscape, a technical camera with a 60/80 megapixel back with schniderr or rodenstock lenses is clearly going to beat the pants off a D800 as the Nikon lenses are not up to the current best of breed standards, especially the Tilt/Shift. Maybe close, but when you get to 20X30 prints, it's not even a contest.

As to the folks who suggest a ZD, I'd recommend skipping it. The ergonomics just are not there.

There www.getdpi.com is really a good place to look for medium format info.

Dave

 

[Jamie123]

Jamie. Could you show any shots from your shoot with the phase one back, I do a couple of shoots a year that I rented the Leica S2 for, but I was thinking of trying out a phase one to use on my hassleblad as it would be a cheaper option than renting the whole S2 kit.

I don't like to post my work on forums but I'd be happy to send you a high-res through pm a bit later when I'm home.

Haven't tried the S2 yet but I might. Around here it's actually quite a bit cheaper than the Phase One IQ160 and IQ180.

 

[x-ray]

I don't think the D800e will replace MF any more than 35mm tech pan replaced 4x5. There are more factors than just sharp that make a pleasing image.

If you're a pro Hasselblad will either arrange a loaner or personal demo of their gear. If you're going to use it on a V Hasselblad strongly consider the CFV50. The 39 is out of production now. There's a lot of hype around the IQ backs and they're good but the difference in dynamic range is only 1/2 stop and the difference on native image size is not much between the two systems. I don't know about the IQ160 but the 180 has issues with some lenses like the Schneider 35mm and the 160 does not. Other issues with calibration are common with the 180. I'm not certain I would buy the 180 at this time especially given the $44k price. I know one person that purchased a tech cam setup with IQ180. This is a very expensive club to join. I estimate he has on the order of $100k in the body, back and a few lenses. This is a new Porshe 911 and vacation money plus some.

I went with the Hasselblad back for a couple of reasons. Image quality among the three makers is about the same. One may have slightly different color but no one is what I would call better. Most specs are about the same. I wanted a back that worked on a view camera without issues especially with super wide lenses. Wides are where the problems are. I wanted seamless integration with my V cameras. Super high pixel count wasnt important. The native print size of the 39 back is bigger than I generally reproduce. Also I use this for commercial use and didn't want to create a problem for clients regarding massive file sizes. The 117 meg file does create issues with some clients. They just don't have computers with the power to deal with these large files but others are ok.

The two big pluses were the integration with the V camera without cables to wake up the back. Most backs require a cable between the shutter and the back to wake the back up for an exposure. The Hasselblad backs do not. Also a non micro lens back was essential to use on the view camera.

Nothing wrong with the Phase or Leaf but if you're considering one of any brand make certain it will do what you expect it to. It could be a very expensive mistake.

 

[BobYIL]

This isn't the camera for me. The more pixels crammed onto one surface the worse things get for macro / close up product photography.

The tilt & shift lenses from canon and nikon are not able to compensate with the incredibly shallow, usable DOF their sensors now allow.

It's time to move away from dslr's and into digital backs (older ones with less pixels) and 5x4 movements.

What did you think of the linked article at the beginning of this post?

J

Before deciding for anything, I would rather have a look at this site, google translate it, download the tiff file for the #18 for example, open it and make some comparisons against the DMF files you can find and have some ideas. Afterall it's your own eyes to decide for what you need:

http://pcfoto.biz/na-prvi-pogled-nikon-d800e

http://www.sendspace.com/folder/4x2ujv

(BTW, with proper adapters even the MF 25 to 120mm lenses can be used tilted on the FF format cameras... just like the FF-SLR lenses are being used with tilt-adapters on Nex bodies for example..)

 

[Jamie123]

Before deciding for anything, I would rather have a look at this site, google translate it, download the tiff file for the #18 for example, open it and make some comparisons against the DMF files you can find and have some ideas. Afterall it's your own eyes to decide for what you need:

http://pcfoto.biz/na-prvi-pogled-nikon-d800e

http://www.sendspace.com/folder/4x2ujv

(BTW, with proper adapters even the MF 25 to 120mm lenses can be used tilted on the FF format cameras... just like the FF-SLR lenses are being used with tilt-adapters on Nex bodies for example..)

As x-ray pointed out, there's a lot more to image quality than resolution. Most of the people who are saying the D800 will replace digital mf have never shot digital mf. Looking at samples on the web doesn't really help much as you can't see what the image would look like if it had been shot on a digital mf back.

As for tilt-lenses, adapters and such, there is a lot more to movements than front tilt/swing.

That being said, I think with digital mf backs it's actually better to combine shots in software (such as helicon focus) instead of using tilt/swing in the camera as this can have a negative effect on resolution. I often assist a still life guy and we use a Sinar F2 with P45+ in the studio. We never use tilt, we just take multiple shots at different focus points and combine them later.

 

[Jamie123]

I don't think the D800e will replace MF any more than 35mm tech pan replaced 4x5. There are more factors than just sharp that make a pleasing image.

If you're a pro Hasselblad will either arrange a loaner or personal demo of their gear. If you're going to use it on a V Hasselblad strongly consider the CFV50. The 39 is out of production now. There's a lot of hype around the IQ backs and they're good but the difference in dynamic range is only 1/2 stop and the difference on native image size is not much between the two systems. I don't know about the IQ160 but the 180 has issues with some lenses like the Schneider 35mm and the 160 does not. Other issues with calibration are common with the 180. I'm not certain I would buy the 180 at this time especially given the $44k price. I know one person that purchased a tech cam setup with IQ180. This is a very expensive club to join. I estimate he has on the order of $100k in the body, back and a few lenses. This is a new Porshe 911 and vacation money plus some.

I went with the Hasselblad back for a couple of reasons. Image quality among the three makers is about the same. One may have slightly different color but no one is what I would call better. Most specs are about the same. I wanted a back that worked on a view camera without issues especially with super wide lenses. Wides are where the problems are. I wanted seamless integration with my V cameras. Super high pixel count wasnt important. The native print size of the 39 back is bigger than I generally reproduce. Also I use this for commercial use and didn't want to create a problem for clients regarding massive file sizes. The 117 meg file does create issues with some clients. They just don't have computers with the power to deal with these large files but others are ok.

The two big pluses were the integration with the V camera without cables to wake up the back. Most backs require a cable between the shutter and the back to wake the back up for an exposure. The Hasselblad backs do not. Also a non micro lens back was essential to use on the view camera.

Nothing wrong with the Phase or Leaf but if you're considering one of any brand make certain it will do what you expect it to. It could be a very expensive mistake.

I've heard the same thing about the IQ180 and I agree. Even if money was no issue I'd go for the IQ160 instead of the IQ180 (not that I can afford either one). The IQ backs are really nice but they may be a bit overkill for the kind of work he's doing as it can mostly be done tethered so there's no need for the fancy screen. My advice would be something like a P45+ back which, I think, can be bought used at around $15k in the us.

The Hasselblad would certainly also be quite nice but AFAIK you can't mount the back in portrait orientation, right? So basically you always need to use a 90° prism?