Advices, advices…

Hi folks

I've received 2 hours ago a mail with this promotional message…See here

Is it worth considering? what do ya think about these 2 combos?

Should I dig it before sending my money to canonf or the upcoming 21 millions pixels?

I mainly use rectangular frames, vertical or horizontal so are the extra pixels (28Mpix) worth than the Canons 21? (I mean I'll lose a lot when PP reframing). Would the only difference then be the IQ difference?

For US citizens and other non Europeans, according to www.xe.com
16900 Euros = 24.619,83 USD
and
19200 Euros = 27.956,52 USD

AND

Boitier is a body
Objectif is a lens
Dos is a back

MAc Book is a laptop ;-)

Considering the pack (body, back, lens) is it a real bargain?
By the way I really don't care about the bundled Mac…

Thanks for your inputs!

Leaf seems to be trying to get ahead of two events:

1. Gross availaibility of the 1DsIII

2. Release of sufficient Hy6 Sinar MF cameras in sufficient numbers to compete.

The 1DsIII is only just being moved to stores and isn't really avalialbe. This is likely to change in a month. The Leaf offer of a Mamiya camera with the Leaf back is to end December 15th 2007!

The Hy6 is in short supply. I've been told only 60 world wide this year. In the USA apparently the cameras will be sold to large camera stores as rental kits with a Sinar back.

So does this mean that of the joint Sinar-Leaf Hy6 body, Leaf gets a much larger branded with the Leaf name and freely available in Europe?

So I see a major mismatch of information. I spoke to the California Sinar Representative a week ago and he is now getting training on the Sinar version! Maybe he's mistaken about there being only 60 Sinar HY6 units available worldwide!

Considering he reported that Leaf has only been assured availability of the camera for their brand for two years, we obviously don't know enough.

I was told that the bodies are essentially the same, so there should be no loss or special risk getting the Leaf version.

Asher

Bonsoir Nicolas

in recent time, I haven't really cared about MFbacks, so other opinions might be more important.

My personal opinion about these backs - are somehow mixed; but it depends obviuosly on the typ of photography, one does. Beeing in your situation, I would nail it down to a few simple questions:

- when will it be a improvement, vs your actual equipment?
- will you carry two cams with you?
- does it corresponds to your shooting style?
- does the system you look at has some expansions in the future?

Anyway, before hitting the button, I'd try it out; maybe you could rent one for a week-end...

Beeing Nicolas, I'd rather go for the 656S and the AFi

I just heard from Thierry, the Sinar rep for the Far East. The Hy6 is in good supply not as I was told here. So I'll have to wait to hear more when the Ca rep returns from New Jersey!

Asher

i would say the question is really and only ( beside the money ):
how fast you need to shoot,
what isos you need to use and
in which environment you use the cameras.

i think in your boat photography.... sounds wet and salty. about iso: i would forget alll the hi-words about the high iso capacity which some users claim. i think the canons are another labb game for isos about 100 or max. 200. if you work with lower speeds,- mf might be a great step up.,- if not, i dont think its worths the stress.

Thanks all for your inputs!
Yes, without comparing investments… but areas…



Michael (Hi Michael!) Q&A:
- when will it be a improvement, vs your actual equipment?
That's the question!
- will you carry two cams with you?
Could do…
- does it corresponds to your shooting style?
No idea…
- does the system you look at has some expansions in the future?
They say yes, but…

Rainer's (Hi Rainer!) Q&A:
speed? 1 per second is enough for me (95% of time)
ISO? 800 fairly enough most of the time, use to shoot long exposure @ 100 ISO (night landscape)
Environement? Salty! more seriuosly, not really a big deal, I shoot more and more from chopper…

When no convenient (speed, ISO, long focal (500mm) I could plan to keep the 1DS2

Seems I do answer my own question well merely, but the investment is heavy!

Are all the leaf pixels much better than the Canon's? do they support more easily 300% to 400 enlargements? (though, the more "natural" pix you get, the less % you need for enlargements…)

The real question is, with MF lenses and Leaf MF back, pixel to pixel comparison, are Leaf's that much better? IQ speaking…

Asher's (Hi Asher!) Q&A:
Availibilty is another story, let's speak real IQ!

eh Bonsoir, Nicolas

The MFbacks are not famous for high-iso, as Rainer pointed alreasy out...

so talking about choppershots; best is < 1/250; you might require higher iso.
(1/60 on chopper is dull due to bad rotor trackings, that you never know...)

on boats, how fast dou you shoot normally?

AFAIK the MF lenses are a bit "slower" too, than the DSLR' one: F 4,5 when open...
vs 2 - 2.8 on DSLR....

Lets start the math ;-)

What's about bad flares, in the extreme highlights; with MFbacks? You might risk to run into that, with glossy waves...
Not all the MFbacks handle extreme highlights very well......

IMHO, your architecture/interior work will benefit more from a MFback, than the yachting. So if you have some clients for the interiors, or do otherwise a reasonable amount in studio, stock, etc; this would favour the Leaf....

On the proside, you might consider your editing time; MF-files should have less, in generally.

Hi Michael
from chopper or chase boat, my general rule of thumb is to shoot with speed priority, and having speed at least twice the focal length, ie 200 mm (FF) minimum speed 1/500… generally I try to use ƒ8 for DOF, sometimes max aperture if I want/need a nice bokeh.

The exception is with the 12-24 Sigma, @ 12mm it needs to be at least ƒ10 to get better corners… but when shooting boats, I have plenty light with our main spotlight;-)

Even with the Canon, I always try my best to keep the ISO the lower, from 100 to 400, sometimes 800 and exceptionaly more. I hate noise (as I did for grain). And yes I know how to use Noise Ninja!

A good third of my work is boat interiors, I do with minimum added light (need permanent lighting to control the multiple shadows and sparks and reflections generated by varnished or white lacquer panels… and even big yachts are quite narrow compared to houses…

So tripod is the rule, low speed (100 ISO), ƒ8 to 11 or 13, then "please can you stop that engine that makes vibrations?" to the captain… ;-)

So, yes the MF should certainly be good for this part of my work, but regarding the workflow, I guess I'll have to stitch as I need to have the equivalent of, say, 16mm (dslr)… BTW do one know where I could find a scale sheet for focal length/format comparison?

But you scare me with outdoor highlights, because I do have flares with UWangles and also CA on the light reflects on the sea, though the 1Ds2 is better handling that than the 1Ds…
I use to get rid of purple fringes during PP and LR and the new C1 (beta2) are doing not bad on this… but I doubt I'll be able to use these RC with leaf files… If highlight CA is worse with MF, I've better to forget about it…
Anyway I'm still wondering if we come to costs comparison, but I won't do as Asher's wishes to get back to film (I'm joking there as he's talking about LF <°-)

which lens you use for the interiors? the widest on mf will be the schneider 24 ( equ. 18mm ) or the rodenstock 28HR ( equ. 21mm ).
Highlight are rendered very good by the sinar backs, together with the brumbaer software.
my experience with choppers ( 4 wing ) is that - without gyro - i need a minimum of 1/500 for a 33mp back and for a 45mm lens !!. this requires very good lenses which are at f4 or so sharp at the corners too. my contax 645 lenses are at theit limit here. better are the sinar-m lenses,- i can use them open and they are sharp till the edges,- but its an expensive game.
the 5d is much less critical here.

Nicolas Claris said:

A good third of my work is boat interiors, I do with minimum added light (need permanent lighting to control the multiple shadows and sparks and reflections generated by varnished or white lacquer panels… and even big yachts are quite narrow compared to houses…

Click to expand...

BTW, you may want to experiment with HDR imaging for interiors.

So, yes the MF should certainly be good for this part of my work, but regarding the workflow, I guess I'll have to stitch as I need to have the equivalent of, say, 16mm (dslr)… BTW do one know where I could find a scale sheet for focal length/format comparison?

Click to expand...

A benefit of larger MP images is that you need fewer images for a given output size/quality, so stitching is faster (less PP, fewer blends, needed). The field of view scales with sensor array dimensions (in millimetres) / focal length. The 'exact' formula is FOV= 2 x aTan( (sensorsize/2) / focallength ). So a 16mm FL on a 36mm sensor array is equivalent to a 44/36x16=19.56mm FL on a 44mm sensor array, in the longer dimension. Also remember that it is harder to correct the aberrations of a lens that covers a larger image circle, it equates to high cost and reduced overall resolution/contrast. Stitching results would be vastly superior for stationary subjects.

Bart

Bonsoir bart

I'll answer you a little later, I'm at work, but wanted to give this info:

Read here…

Nicolas Claris said:

Read here…

Click to expand...

Yes, I read about that yesterday from a link on the Luminous Landscape forum. It seems like there will be 2 major MF platforms, Mamiya+PhaseOne(+Microsoft) and Hy6+LEAF/Sinar. It's hard to decide at this moment in time, because with such a serious depth investment, the 'wrong' choice will be expensive (the right one will be expensive too , but it at least has a future).

Assuming the 1Ds Mark III delivers on image quality (also assuming top notch lenses are being used), the price differences between platforms can only be justified when money is no objection, or the utmost image quality in mandatory for a job.

In my estimation, after the dust settles in 2008, in appox. 2010 we can expect new major technological sensor breakthroughs, so making a decision now for a new platform is hazardous.

Bart

For much less one can use film. For example a Mamiya 7 II has film 6x7 in size. The lenses are amongst the sharpest available and inexpensive. A a good kit is about $4,000-$6,000.

Scanning the images with an Epson 750 ~$750. So this is a total of $7,000! Even adding a used Cezanne scanner, that would add $2,000 for a total of $9,000! Scanning at 3,000 dpi would give a resizing of 10-12 X at native resolution, so that's allowing printing 2'x3' easily. With higher level scanning, 10 foot high prints would be easy!

So for getting more resolution for enlarging for a low volume of high resolution images might be film! Yes, it's old-fashioned, but tools should be comsidered just that, devices for a purpose. The film camera will work for at least the next 5 years. The digital back $20,000-$30,000 might be obsolete in just 3-4 years.

For architectural, fashion and beauty photographers with high volume, the cost savings over film is obvious! However for low volume use, MF film imight, just might be worth considering!

Asher

my personal decision to shoot digital never was based on the film- cost- saving factor,- but much more and more from aesthetic reasons.
its a very important point for me that there is growing a new "language" in film,- as it happened also in music 20 years ago. i think to loose so much time staying in the "old" school is a much more important business factor than the film cost savings.
i am speaking about hdr, dynamic range, color reproduction of mixed lights, how to treat digital files for highest results, noise and aesthetic of noise, sensor issues and how to work with them, digital workflow, software, elsnes and how to correct them ...
there are many, many things to learn.
the same than formerly in dark room, different films or develloping them and formats or zone technik and making prints.
and the digital stuff is different than the traditional film shooting,- even if you scan and postpro yourself this is just the half rent or less.
i dont agree that its a good idea to wait and to wait and to wait and to loose the train finally, but for other reasons than the obvious ones which are just short term cost calculations.

Rainer.

I love you.

Nicolas Claris said:

Rainer.

I love you.

Click to expand...

Nicolas,

You don't get off so easily!

No problem with film as far as dpi! So that's not false excuse!

If one use 6x7 and fine film, grain is not an issue really.

Workflow today just means processing in simple Jobo processor or lab service and then scanning.

These steps can be very well controlled for quality and will be reliable. The film can be bracketed if one wishes just like digital.

One should just look at various photographer's works and if something catches your eye then rent a camera and shoot a few rolls of MF film or else 4x5 film. A Mamiya 7 can easily be used handheld.

I'm not say one should use film but that it is logical to look at film to see whether or not the look could help one's own ideas be expressed at a fraction of the cost of digital with a built in analog archival storage!

MF is not expensive and is high quality. Large format can be very inexpensive, $500 to start well. This would be great for professional work. However to go first class, up to $12,000 to work with the very best lenses and a new 8x10 camera and high end used scanner.

I also have fallen in love with a particular LF lens and that is what pulled me over the line to make the decision. The camera choice was secondary. However, once I have chosen to go back to have 8x10 and 4x5 film to supplement my digital work, I can use my MF camera too as the processor will work for that as well.

I'd imagine that 95% of my work would be digital and 5% film.

Different horses for different courses!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Nicolas,

You don't get off so easily!

Click to expand...

Asher my friend,
simply: no. But you knew that already, don't be jealous, I love you too!

BTW this thread was originally to compare new MF solutions to the also new 1Ds3. Not with fim which is another debate that you have started in another thread.

For a newbie to MF like me, this thread with the contribution of Bart, Rainer and Michael about IQ and tech issues is worth reading for me, I guess for a lot of others too, including the ones that are too shy to ask…

Hi Rainer

which lens you use for the interiors?

Click to expand...

I use the Sigma 4.5-5.6/12-24, oftenly @ 15mm - Before I used the Canon 17-40 L
Details are shot with the Canon L 24-70

As for choppers (2 blades only) I mainly fly Robinson 22 or 44, they are very light so they don't need a lot of torque at low speed to maintain the machine in the air, therefore there are much less vribrations than on a bigger machine. As already said, I have the best spotlight one can dream and never lack of light when flying…

Nicolas Claris said:

Asher my friend,
simply: no. But you knew that already, don't be jealous, I love you too!

BTW this thread was originally to compare new MF solutions to the also new 1Ds3. Not with fim which is another debate that you have started in another thread.

For a newbie to MF like me, this thread with the contribution of Bart, Rainer and Michael about IQ and tech issues is worth reading for me, I guess for a lot of others too, including the ones that are too shy to ask…

Click to expand...

MF is of course important to all of us. I have been waiting for the Hy6 to test and am eager to see more activity. I'll be delighted and celebrate when you buy a MF camera. However, in looking at MF, the option of film too means that a MF camera that can take both film and a DB gives one extra flexibility to get any DB if one wishes. The integrated new Hasselblad will not allow this but the Contax (if available) and the Mamiya will.

We must also consider what lenses are available (and I note that only Mamiya and Hasselblad, TTBOMK, have modern 28mm lenses unique to their systems). You might consider this for your own ultrawide angle work in the narrow but magnificent staterooms and engine rooms!

So, for example, the Leaf/Sinar Hy6 choice may not be the best for you if you want to have those particular 28mm lenses.

Thus, in addition to pixels number and quality, one should bring in to the discussion lens availability which makes whatever back you choose the tool for your work!

For you, the best bang for the back might be the Mamiya based system.

I'd rent a Mamyia DB package and see if it does the job. I'd love to hear you impression of the actual files of your own work much more than the theoreticals. This is, after all what Leonardo and Rainer have done.

Asher

Nicolas Claris said:

Asher my friend,
simply: no. But you knew that already, don't be jealous, I love you too!

Click to expand...

LOL.

For a newbie to MF like me, this thread with the contribution of Bart, Rainer and Michael about IQ and tech issues is worth reading for me, I guess for a lot of others too, including the ones that are too shy to ask…

Click to expand...

I also have an MF (6x6mm roll film) camera, a Rolleiflex SL-66, but it's not digital back ready. I've done a lot of film scanning, but IMHO it requires a >4000 ppi (6-8k ppi) scanner to minimize 'grain-aliasing'. And even then, it's results are very different from a digital capture due to different MTFs.
But that's something for a different thread.

The main thing with MF is that it is best suited for a more studied type of photography (which I like), lots of light (or exposure time), and it needs top notch lenses which are expensive by definition (due to large image circle). Large sensor arrays are also expensive by definition, due to their size and low manufacturing yield (despite a lot of bad pixel mapping).

CCD technology (as used with current MF backs) IMHO is a bit of an obstruction for future development (larger sizes, higher ISO). One of the reasons is the bucket-brigade type of reading data from the sensels. Each subsequent cell in the read line adds noise (reduces DR) and more pattern noise, so more sensels equals more read noise, which limits high ISO use and requires active cooling of the sensor array (especially life-view requires cooling). Lots of exposure, and software calibration, helps to mask the issues.

CMOS devices offer lower power consumption (=better read-noise and longer battery life) and the sensels can be read multiple times without loss of the original signal (allows improved read noise). It amazes me that CMOS hasn't found its way to MF yet, but it probably has to do with having to recover the cost for CCD development first (which takes time with low quantities).

Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

LOL.
The main thing with MF is that it is best suited for a more studied type of photography (which I like), lots of light (or exposure time), and it needs top notch lenses which are expensive by definition (due to large image circle). Large sensor arrays are also expensive by definition, due to their size and low manufacturing yield (despite a lot of bad pixel mapping).

Click to expand...

Thanks to the decline of film, there are a lot of used MF lenses available and while not optimized doe digital, they still can serve for much of the work.

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

CCD technology (as used with current MF backs) IMHO is a bit of an obstruction for future development (larger sizes, higher ISO). One of the reasons is the bucket-brigade type of reading data from the sensels. Each subsequent cell in the read line adds noise (reduces DR) and more pattern noise, so more sensels equals more read noise, which limits high ISO use and requires active cooling of the sensor array (especially life-view requires cooling). Lots of exposure, and software calibration, helps to mask the issues.

CMOS devices offer lower power consumption (=better read-noise and longer battery life) and the sensels can be read multiple times without loss of the original signal (allows improved read noise). It amazes me that CMOS hasn't found its way to MF yet, but it probably has to do with having to recover the cost for CCD development first (which takes time with low quantities).

Click to expand...

As of 4 years or more ago, Canon, HP and a bunch of others had some nvestment partnership in a Northern CA company making CMOS arrays in which each sensel has it's own A to D convertor and read out at the back and can be addressed individually as a camera. The idea was ability to do binning, keep the sensel open until sufficent charge accumulated for accurate count over b.g. noise and customize it for all sorts of vertical markets. Images can be taken at 10,000 frames per second if needed! Oh, yes, the CMOS has 3 Foveon-like layers. In addition Canon has its own separate 3 layered CMOS sensor.

Since, as you point out CMOS can be manufactured for less than corresponding size CCD chips, one would have expected cannon to have dropped the other shoe by now! My feeling is that they will when they feel they can end up with more money flow. At present, they have very unique "king of the jungle" DSLR choices for everyone from beginners to pros. I can see a whole new set of cameras and mounts in a MF camera dominated by either Canon or else Nikon. Canon, IMHO, has all the capability but has I think no need to bother as it can sell as many DSLR bodies as it can push out of the factories!

To return to reality of using MF backs at reasonable costs, we should look at the choices made by Leonardo and Eric, both of whom went for used MF sytems, Phase One and Rollei respectively. Right now, I'd like to know what happens to all the Phase One, Leaf and Sinar backs of last year taken in this year for trade in!!

Asher

Hi Nicolas,

If you do not need anything at the moment, I would suggest you keep your options open, i.e. do not commit to anything. Whatever 'special offer' is offered at the moment, will be improved later on when there is more competition. Also, there is rapid improvement in this technology, and corresponding lower price for stuff that was around a year ago. It generally pays to make a late decision.

Also, if the subject is static, e.g. an interior, then I think stitched images may give the best results, if you have a rig set up for your requirements. Are your customers complaining at what you produce at the moment? Will you be able to lever higher charges if you get the mf kit, or lose customers if you don't, or is it that you think you see a bargain offer you don't want to miss?

Best wishes,

Ray
.

I'll have to dig more into the last posts by Asher and Bart…

Ray
Thanks for your post, I'm not seeing after bargain that I wouldn't want to miss, I like bargains when they come down right at the same moment I want to buy some stuff…

These 2 marketing offers/bargains just drove my sight to these kind of solutions as I am on the way to get the Ds3 (ordered already). it is surely not a chance… I guess these companies want to catch the attention of pixel peepers or IQ seekers before they plunge again into Canon bodies (pun intented;-)

For my actual clients, I don't think they will pay more if I have a MF back, they are happy with my work (well, I guess so as they do continue to hire me…) some clients as US magazines are lost as I don't want to lower my prices, just because I should be happy and proud to make covers for them…

But it could help me to catch some new clients in the luxury market seeking for better quality and therefore I would be able to charge more.
If you do photography for the living, you have to adapt your work and your rates to the client you want to satisfy and be satisfied to work with/for. A kind of difficult balance to drive carefully…!

My other goal is to keep, among my littke world, as the one to beat, the one which is always a step beyond others… if I weren't modest and humble, I would have used the word vanguardist… In front. Looking forward for an old guy like me (there's a romantic French song that I love, sung by Serge Regianni, it is a love song, the tittle say: "The woman that is in my bed is not 20 for a long time") that's the only way to survive, I can't understand when some young guys are so shy and compleasant with their present (work/time/world/life etc.) but this is OT…

I like taking risk (if I can afford them…).

Annnnnnnnnd, after all, I will be selfishly pleased, for my own, without any other justification than quality, to simply "be better" with my photography. Clean pics, laaaaaaaaarge prints, beautiful colours, natural sharpness and nice bokehs…
yes, just for myself… (and the one who cares also :---)

leonardobarreto.com said:

I hope one day my day-rate is as good as that of Nicolas, but probably for that I would have to keep an A+ karma and reincarnate in the first world...

Click to expand...

Hi leonardo
LoL! sorry, but I don't know where you could find any info to let you think about my rates, but I can tell you that they -unfortunately- are not that high (anyway never high enough!).
I do a living (but what does this means?) from photography because I also own with my wife a 4 people tiny advertising agency and that we use my pics for the print editions and advertising of my clients, all these jobs melted do bring us into the average medium French class… not that rich!
I'm rich because I do the work I love and that I and my family can eat from this work…
If only my A+ Karma could help to find a good rep in the US!