I wonder how many labs would still be in business if they offerred this service, or better yet would archive all of the film, you would just call it in and they would ftp the high rez scans.

It's funny, (Ironic funny, not ha ha funny) I didn't start digital to get rid of film, I started with digital to get rid of polaroid and the unstability and the wait time and the assitants smearing them, etc.

Now it's even more than funny that it took until now with the Nikon to get a preview that was better than polaroid.

JR

Im glad somebody else notices these things, they drive me nuts.


James you always talk about the great color of the 1ds, I feel the same way about the old canon d60.... people I know always say oh is that like an old camera or something? I jsut say yeah....its um old

I was in Osaka shooting 4 athletes for an ad series. During one event, there was this young Japanese photogrpaher, with this tiny laptop uploading some of the most beautiful sports images I've ever seen . . . actually forget the sports part, they were just beautiful regardless of the genre.

At his feet were two Nikon D1's, or whatever the "old" ones were called. They looked like they had been dragged behind a truck.


JR

I think the consensus in the industry is that the big shakeup will come when the Sony fullframe hits the streets. Sony has been quietly commissioning expensive Zeiss full frame lenses and will hit the street with a full system with custom lenses. Canon and Nikon now both have lens issues as moving bodies has soaked up all their energy.

For myself, I suspect that Sony may do a 1-2 and follow up with video-enabled products employing the same lens range.

One shouldn't underestimate the effect of a few good lenses on buying behavior. I use a single lens 85% of the time, and I think that a really good 50, the 85/1.4 or a remake of one of the famed Zeiss zooms may be enough for many to justify buying into the Sony range.

Edmund

What lens issues does Nikon have? They have a zoom line from 14mm up to 400mm that performs better than virtually every prime. They have redesigned their macro primes, redesigned the PC lens line with a 24, 45 & 85 (unfortunately electronic making it useless for my Digiflex ). The long teles are redone with VR (which indeed was long overdue).

Now, I agree we are waiting for the updated 1.4 series (28,35,50,85) and yes these are the ones I would be waiting for but the 'older' versions are still very capable.

Besides these there is also the Zeiss ZF line with its truly insane resolution for those that do not mind MF (manual focussing).

The Sony Zeiss lenses look very nice and I am sure are equally good performers but have you checked out the prices of these? Very hard to gain access to an already divided market with these even if Sony comes with a killer 24MP body that really works.

I don't know diddly about the Canon line of lenses besides the 4.0 series which I wished would be available for Nikon as well. Most my Canon-mates tell me Canon has a more extended line of lenses and is cheaper than Nikon. The only thing they envy me for is the wide-angle side.

Obviously Sony has the resource to do about anything.

Now, whether they do anything new or groundbreaking is another story.

Up to now they are pretty much selling the same prosumer camera with the same features as everyone else, so I don't see where that moves anyone to a Sony, at least in stills.

Remember, it's Sony (and others) who left the market open for the Red, so unless they come out with something remarkable, or more featured like wi-fi that works easily, a very unique lens line, (1.2's rather than just 1.4's) variable crops, removeable prisms, a modular design, (ala the Red) then I just see this as another line of small cameras that sell well in Japan.

The Ziess glass might help, but it won't carry the day if that's the only difference.

Just like the Red found the hole in the digital video to cinema film market, the same thing exists in still cameras.

For stills, there is the 35-mm mindset which grew from PJ and sports work, where in camera processing, frame dimensions have grown from the 35-mm petri dish, though the larger studio/advertising type cameras coming in somewhat as an afterthought.

Then there is the medium format digital cameras, which came from tethered still life, studio DNA, which is probably the reason they are so computer/software dependent and so unwieldly in location and fast changing situations.

In other words there is a place for the "sweet spot" and so far nobody looks like they are going to address it. Obviously a 50/60 mpx digital back at a $40,000 price isn't the complete answer and another 35mm dslr that is a clone of a Nikon or Canon won't do it either.

There needs to be something new, maybe the rumored leica with a 4:3 crop, (or variable crop) and new lenses, new body, maybe a new viewing system.

Or someone could do the RED mindset where you get twice the camera for 1/2 the price of the competition.

That would work.

JR

Canon has some good super-teles, a good 90 shift, expensive but very solid 135, 85, 35 primes and a debatable 50 and 24, AFAIK. Their zooms are now pushed into a corner, apart from the 70-200 maybe. The rest of the lenses are now seriously suffering from the 1DsIII resolution, especially the zooms, at least that is what *my* friends tell me. Nikon will probably be in the same position if they release a hi-rez body - remember that because of their reluctance to go full frame hi-rez before now they will now suddenly hit a huge step-up when they do so.

Please don't read this as my saying that either N or C have bad products. All of us here have used their products in the past, and they certainly have got the job done. It's just that they have legacy lineups which get incrementally updated, and which were partially targeted at crop-frame, while Sony has the benefit of coming in with a bang with brand-new custom designs.

Edmund

While i agree with most everything you say, it's been my experience in technology based
fields that once you hit the 'high end', you pay thousands for another (roughly ) 2% increase.
The pro audio world is especially like this. I've always assumed it's because once you hit that
threshold, R&D/marketing/all other cliche excuses are exponentially higher to push the
tech beyond that point. Although a 2% increase in a few areas quickly adds up, and those
sensitive to the differences quite often care enough to pay for the difference. To worsen matters
though, sometimes the differences are just subjective preference.
I agree that your model would be nice though.



Put me down for one of them. Or a ticket to whatever planet that happens on.

I anticipate Sony will come in with 25MP under $4K; the announced breakthrough feature for studio shooters is the live-view which I believe can also be exported. Think of being able to put up the SLR view on a big-screen monitor in your studio while you shoot.

I don't think this camera itself will have anything special aside from price/performance, live view, in-body stabilization and good glass at a price. However, there is no limit on the new features Sony can crowd into a new body line - everyone else sure has been resisting innovation as much as possible.

Edmund

I don't kow the history of the RED, but I get this feeling that the owners and makers of that camera actually talked and listened to people that produce professional images for money under high pressured situations. All the way up and down the chain, from pre production to final delivery.

For stills, I get the feeling that the 35mm makers talk and listen to photojournalists, (though the Adobe 98 thing throws me) and the medium format guys may talk to landscape and still life guys, but I would be surprised if either of those two actually spent much time talking to the professional fashion, editorial and advertising photographer.

If they did, I know the Canons would tether easier on a Mac, rename, sort etc., shoot a vertical frame to page size and I am positive that if medium format makers ever spent a week batch processing 1000 raw files a night to jpegs, software, in camera color settings, in camera previews would be a whole lot different than it is now.

As far as the lcd thing, there really isn't anything to add to that. It's obvious that's going nowhere in high end still equipment.

Regardless of the 2% theory, the RED is the exact opposite. It's twice the camera, 1/2 the price and the only downside is the wait time.

Saying all of this, it's probably just the market. Still photography is getting marginalized and moving imagery demands are growing.

That's probably the main difference between the two fields.

JR

Excuse my ignorance on such matters, but i would think someone featured on the phase one
website in the case studies section, and also on one of their dealers websites would be able to provide direct
feedback to the company..? Genuinely curious about that situation..?



I guess time will tell if RED is the exception to the 'rule', a freak of nature, or a sign of things to come.

Ah, good to hear that some think their grass isn't that green We, Nikon users, have been suffering for so long already

the Nikon zooms (14-24/24-70/70-200/200-400) should be able to pull the necessary resolution for the ~24MP sensor as will the other newly released lenses.

I know you are not telling either one has bad products. Just wondering what you meant. I guess you might be right that at the 24MP mark the glasswork is becoming the part to be very careful with. We will see with the introduction of the D3x. I do know that there is more than one Nikkor/ZF lens that can resolve 20MP+ because I already have something like that (Digiflex with 39MP back together with F mount lenses).

I don't speak from personal experience, but some D3 users have found the otherwise well-regarded 70-200, a favorite of PJs, to be lacking in some situations on the D3.

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2008-04-blog....17Nikon70_200VR

Some Canon lenses are in the same boat, but the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, perhaps Canon's best zoom, and the longer primes are fine with FF.

(I'm a Canon guy, but the most of the shorter glass is mediocre with all the sensors.)

breakthrough??
can already be done today with the D3.
(and, very likely, with the Canon's top dogs as well)

Great thread.

I'm lost regarding one thing, though. What is this RED that seems to get mentioned about every third post? Yes, I tried Google, and you can't search for it on this site because it's under 4 characters, for some reason.

What the heck is it?

David

The Red One is a digital video camera that shoots at 4k.

http://www.red.com/

Thanks!

David

RED was started by Jim Jannard, the guy who founded Oakley. i always thought he saw the need thru dealing w/ action sports video people who yearned for something like what RED became...just my 2 cents, I could be totally wrong...I do think they have a great concept

I thought the original premise of this thread was not what is available in medium format , or 35mm dslr, BUT what the sweet spot for location work is and what is NOT available.

I kinda don't think the replies, or better put, the "suggestions" are aimed at Phase, any more than they are about Canon, Nikon, Leica, Phase, Sinar, Leaf, Sony, or maybe even that camera brand that has been invented yet.

If you own and use a medium format back and own and use a dslr you know what each does well, what they don't do well and where they cross territory.

You also know where they both leave territory uncovered and I guess that is what this thread is about.

To mention specific brands . . .Canon and Phase . . . do both listen? . . . I assume so . . . and I'm sure respond in the best way possible, given time, resource and price point.

That still doesn't mean there is not a segment out there that is not being covered.

As far as my relationship with Phase . . . it's simple. I use their equipment, I've shot a promotion for them, they put my name and photos in some promotions.

That's where it starts and stops.

I've never been solicited for ideas, or set in with a team of strategic planners. I doubt very seriously if Phase would ever view me as a contributer to that process and though I have opinions, once again those start and stop with me and probably go no further than this forum.

In other words nobody asked.

They did ask about what I like about what I presently use.

Now in regards to the RED (and once again this is only my opinion and it starts and stops with me), I think in a lot of ways it has a much simpler mission that the still cameras we keep mentioning.

To me the RED was built to be the digital equivalent of 35mm cinema cameras like the Arriflex.

Will it cross over territory like prosumer handicams and high end engs. Yes I'm sure it will, but I think it is main role is to be the digital movie camera.

JR

Sorry, James, you asked for this:

Is there actually "one" digital movie camera, or is it like still cameras where there is a Canon 5D but it is mainly used because it is the cheapest way to get 90% of the jobs done ?
Are the big budget movies going to be done with a BlueImax and the teeny budget ones with a MiniGreen ? While non-projection imagery gets made with the WideTVYellow ?

Edmund

Edmund

There will soon be the Red Epic which should be better than the Arri/Panavision 35mm cams. I think of the Red One as being used where ever people used Super 16 or 35mm. The Sony EX1/3 are like Super 16, in that they can fake 35mm projected pretty well. I think the Sony EX1/3 is a breakthrough product. It's right after the Red One in terms of IQ.

To answer your quesyion, it seems the Red One and the new Red cameras cover all the bases for motion: The Epic will be like IMAX, the One is for 35mm, the new Reds are for ENG and Super 16 like applications.

Of all the other makers, (Canon, Panasonic, Sony et al) only Sony's EX1 and 3 have IQ that can be projected to 35mm standards. The others are either stupidly expensive or lack in IQ, including Sony's 9000 series cams.

Hi Mark

You are right in all what you said except that the RED could be used as an ENG camera.
The mo...er is way to heavy. I do sports 5 times a week but it's still to heavy for me over a long period of time.
The epic will be little lighter and smaller. Also the DR will be around 13 stops.
The epic will have 100 fps at 5K., around 125 fps at 4K and 250 fps at 2K or even more.
So this cam will realy enter the "film" world.

Tim

I talked to Phase regional rep years ago, right after buying the P25, at my place. P25, well, yes, that was many years ago. I held up my 1ds1 and my P25, and I asked the guy, "Which camera LCD would you base a $50k P.O. on, if it was your ass on the line?" He says something like, "Yeah, we know that our LCD needs some work".

That's why I started this thread -- here we are now with the P65+ announced, and in effect, very little gaining of ground except for megapixels. Same box; same LCD. (When, truth be told, the P25, years ago, offered more than enough megapixels for myself and for untold number of colleagues).

That's why I brought this up here, publicly -- to ask, "Is it me, or are these companies putting their feature emphasis in the wrong places? Most of us throwing away over 50% of the file for reproduction, and yet, if we shoot the back on location, we can't make out anything on the LCD in terms of higher values."

I just feel like I'm in that gap between 35 and MF -- wanting to shoot the MF lenses, but simply not willing to put up with the workarounds and excuses. (Actually, not really excuses -- mostly, just dead silence).

That's why, for me, I simply bailed on MF, and bought two 1ds3's and some film Hasselblads. The time was up. I voted with my pocketbook, and urge you all to do the same.

It doesn't take an economist to work the numbers and come down to the point that a $20,000 upgrade or $40,000 back purchase is a lot of investment.

Maybe these new backs are worth it, time will tell, but I know that for that kind of money I want the people that pay me to be bowled over by the results, from capture to delivery.

At this price you would assume that the camera back would have few compromises, but I'm not a digital engineer so I don't know if it's possible to make the camera some of us are looking for.

The p65+, the new Hasselblad and whatever/whoever else makes a new back, may be the very best equipment possible given the resource and the price.

The lcd and the in camera preview is something few of us can answer so I guess we have to take the word of the manufacturer's that this is the best possible.

I do know that the proprietary nature of medium format isn't a technical issue, it's a business decision and I am positive this is where medium format limits itself and is developing a self fullfilling prophecy or low volume, high price.

Even putting up with the limitations of the lcd would be a lot easier to take if your original p25 would fit on any camera you chose, including the Hasselblad F, the Rolleiflex, a Contax, a V system . . .

You have to kind of wonder where all of this is going.

The RED, in still phtography terms is an expensive system, but they knew that it would make no sense to limit it to just RED lenses. Almost any lens that was made for 35mm cinema film cameras will fit on the RED and if you want to work the bargain basement you can mount 35mm Nikon lenses.

That's a huge option.

JR

The discussion of the importance over the LCD on the digital back makes me wonder how do we shoot pictures before such thing. I think digital back is more forgivable in this regard because their value is to shoot high quality raw file, I would not rely on checking the LCD all the time for sharpness, it slows down the work. I prefer to trade for more power for operation. The biggest benefit for the LCD for me was to have a quick check on the exposure and histogram and get back to work quickly.

I guess all the gentlemen moving from medium to larger format to digital all have good idea about the focus (from viewfinder, at the time pressing the shutter) and DOF and exposure. View camera or Alpa type camera is another story.

My take on the ideal MF system for location and advertising is the camera we have today, perhaps a bit faster, but I find shooting on my P45+ and H3D39 on CF cards is already very convenient, and acceptable speed. I think if we can have a battery pack with reliable high speed transmitter and can power the firewire port and at the same time getting the digital file sent wirelessly will be nice. For above ISO 400, I will retire the back and use 1Ds MK3 as back up.