Forza Schleck, Schumacher and GST


Sorry, couldn't resist

I don't think anyone expects equal performance at iso 1600!

What would be a reasonable DR decrease for ISO1600, then? (shooting in available light in the back of a warehouse was mentioned)
I am not near that with my Aptus back so I have no experience of higher than ISO 400 as I find even ISO 400 a bit noisy, but I shoot mostly with plenty of light on 50 ISO and always wishing for less DOF on a table. Going 2-3 stops above my ISO400 performance should be doable in a full 645 back with same DR and noiselevels if microlenses is applied. But that would kill ISO 25 performance as the well capacity isn't big enough to handle microlenses and ISO 25. And microlenses is crap for LF use.

An SNR of 48dB should still look good, right? That implies an SNR of around 78dB at iso50, unless I'm missing something.



Dalsa mentions on their site that their fill factor is 80-90% already, so I don't think microlenses are worth it at this point.

I'll second this one. everytime I finished a editorial job, I'm asked to give all the thumbnail pics to the editor. And I have to wait another half hour when the macbookpro converting raws...for gods sick thats 600-1000 raws! really really boring, especially with my already tired to death legs.

[quote=gwhitf,Jul 16 2008, 09:02 PM]


Edit: * A back that shoots embedded previews large enough for a web gallery.

I will go back and try to edit my original post then. I somehow knew that 25-1600 wasn't possible, but a man can dream, right? I will reduce my desired ASA range to 50-800. How does that work for you?

How does Nikon D3 achieve asa 100-25,000, or whatever that high number is?

NIKON does it.

2000 iso on the nikon looks much, much better than 800 iso on any medium format.

Actually the D3 hit just about everything that customers asked for. High iso, huge viewfinder, amazing lcd, rock solid build quality, in camera color/tone settings, hdv output, two cf card slots for backup, 2:3 and 4:3 in camera masks, new lenses and a price of $5,000.

You can buy 8 nikons for the price off the new medium format . . . 8.

JR


P.S. Nikon took a while to deliver what their customers asked for . . . but they did do it.

The things that are being asked of medium format we asked for 5 years ago and the only thing delivered by MF 5 years later is more mpx and a frame size .16 to .26 larger.

James, the original poster was talking about ISO 1600 performance EQUAL to base ISO performance. I doubt very much Nikon does that.

It's incredibly close. So close that you have to look at the exif data to know the setting.

Maybe a 15% difference, but for most of us that have used the Nikon 1000 iso looks better than the 200 iso.

This file has been messed with and obviously this is just a small jpeg with a lot of compression, but the original was smooth at 2000 iso. So smooth we added grain/texture to it.

1600 iso on any medium format would have looked like a snow storm.




JR

If, as TMark pointed out, Nikon and Mamiya are cousins, and Mitsubishi decides they should play together, we might see a NikoPhamiya soon...

Cheers,
Kumar

[quote=dustblue,Jul 17 2008, 07:06 AM]
I'll second this one. everytime I finished a editorial job, I'm asked to give all the thumbnail pics to the editor. And I have to wait another half hour when the macbookpro converting raws...for gods sick thats 600-1000 raws! really really boring, especially with my already tired to death legs.

[quote=gwhitf,Jul 16 2008, 09:02 PM]
Edit: * A back that shoots embedded previews large enough for a web gallery.

[/quote]

Capture One 4.0 has a web-gallery feature that takes about 1 minute per 300 images to create on a fast mac pro (my only experience is with phase backs in this regard). It's a really great tool and incorporates a great open-source javascript for navigation. The produced images are color-accurate sRGB conversions of the files WITH any adjustments you've made in Capture One (white balance, input profile, exposure, contrast etc etc).

Doug

Doug Peterson
Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer
Personal Portfolio

"If, as TMark pointed out, Nikon and Mamiya are cousins, and Mitsubishi decides they should play together, we might see a NikoPhamiya soon..."

Some disclaimers: I research clients' corporate structures, so when some "small" store opens and wants me to shoot signage and some catalogue work, and they claim poverty when it comes to the budget, I can say they should ask their sister companies for some marketing budget, especially when the sister corps are Urban and Anthroplogie. I have only done this for European and US companies because I understand how their regulated disclosures work, I read English and German, and have passable French. The Japanese system is beyond me. So I'm about 60% on the Nikon connection.

Keep in mind that the Kieretsu don't function like they did in the past. Much less centralization, and there is more cross polination in terms of suppliers, from what I can tell.

If anyone is in Tokyo and has passable Japanese, I'm sure there is a registry that lists the ownership interests and corporate forms of Japanese companies.

actually, the d3's alternate mask is a 5:4, and not a 4:3.

though, i suspect, a 4:3 mask could also be implemented,
at Nikon's choosing.

D3 has a base iso 200. Thus if comparing the overall noisines and the scale of usable isos of for example P30+ @ iso 1600 to D3, then we should use iso 3200 on Nikon. Or in the case of backs with base iso 50 then we should compare iso 400 to iso 1600 on D3 (or P1 800 to D3 3200). Actually some of Thierry's posted examples of latest Sinars shot at 800 look remarkably clean.

Cheers,
J

Uh, ok . . . I guess.

If it's not possible to go 100 base to 800 (actually I find 800 with the P30+ to be on the very edge of the limit) then I'd be good with a 200 iso base medium format back.

Then again there are other things in play. first medium format lenses and cameras have more of a bellows factor than 35mm cameras (depending on lenses) and the lenses are usually 1 to 2 stops slower across the range, requiring, at least 1 more stop down to produce the same depth of filed.

Also when you compare high iso, it's usually not under well lit conditions. An overexposed strobe image shot at 800 iso on a medium format back can look clean, though the real world use is usually a slightly down lit room, with continuous lighting, then the noise starts to show.

I don't expect a medium format back to be equal to dslr in speed or iso, but I would like to see more than we have now.

I can give a lot of editorial and commercial examples where a very clean 800 iso with continuous lights like hmi, or Kino's for fill is needed.

It seems every project we make the decisions on which camera system to bring along and for studio, lots of light, I'm good with my medium format backs, but for a project like retail or fashion editorial where the day will be long, the light is changing and you work to the last ounce of the day, you know you can get it done a lot easier with a camera that has higher iso.

Still, Nikon has found something in high iso.





JR

Actually I was referring more to the original question of having a huge range of isos vs what's realistically available today -> maximum usable iso compared to the base iso.

Photographing in low light is probably similar to climbing or some other serious sports, you run out of all the luck at once and not by degrees and of course it would be nice to freeze action with a long lense in a dark corner or under street lights. It may take a while before a "real" hi-iso back is introduced if ever since most of the backs do not have a variable iso, it's all done in raw conwersion software. Btw that's why it is possible to do an "iso upgrade" without changing hardware. But who knows, maybe even a real hi-iso back for people shooters happens some day.

There is some anticipation over the D3xyz-whatever. Interesting to see whether Nikon succeeds in incorporating any of the impressive hi-iso capabilities that you so nicely demonstrated of the D3 (compared to Ds2).

Cheers,
J

I tested the Nikon D3 against the Canon 1ds3 today.

I guess it was not a fair test, because every new camera feels very foreign in your hands, the first time. The Nikon felt very heavy and very clunky to me, and the LCD felt very equal (not better) than the 1ds3. I should say that I'm not a zoomer-inner on the LCD, I never do that. So maybe I didn't take the Nikon LCD thru its full paces.

I forgot to shoot the D3 at ASA 1600, so my test was a dud. But I did shoot it at 6400. Tonight, I opened two files -- the 1ds3 at 1600, and the D3 at 6400, and the D3 was noisy at 6400 but not bad, and the Canon was shockingly good at 1600; far better than Mr Russell's example of the 1ds2.

I came home, felt sort of disappointed in the Nikon, and really, more than anything, still wished for a kickass MediumFormat mobile camera. I wish I could put a digital back on a Mamiya 7 body; that kind of feeling in your hands, but not a rangefinder. Really, I want a giant 1ds3, with a 4 inch LCD, and an even larger viewfinder to look through. It will never happen.

deleted

Having owned the 1Ds3 for 3 years and now using a 1Ds3 for about 4-5 months, yes, high ISO is notably improved on the 1Ds3. Canon's DPP software and its noise control parameters do very good work. I suspect a 1Ds3 file downsized to the same size as a Nikon D3 file would put up a very good fight.

I find it interesting that we're comparing iso and noise on MF & 35mm and ignoring the actual output size.

a 90-95MB 800iso MF file scaled down to A4 (roughly the size of a D3 file) is going to look quite good as some/ most of the noise disappears with the lost pixels.

On the other hand, a native D3 file (35MB?) at 800iso, when scaled up to 90-95MB, is not going to look as good at that MF file at its native size...

Viewing files on screen at 100% only tells half the story...actually less than a half as we did not mention CMYK conversion, dot gain etc....


My 2¢

Yair

Mr. Shahar,

You are correct. I will rez-down the 1ds3 1600 file today and compare it, same size, to the D3 6400 file, and somehow try to post it.

But I don't want to get off-topic here. My main purpose in starting this thread was to send up a flare, to any manufacturers reading here, that's it's not just about the megapixels. It's about Business. And in my case, Business means showing the shot to the Art Director, (hopefully) without the cost and burden of being forced to employ a $1500 a day Digital Tech for each and every job. The quality, resolution, and overall feel of the in-camera LCD is vitally important, and the importance of this interaction between photographer and client will hopefully not be overlooked. The LCD plays a vital role in the comfort of the client. And when you've got a happy client, that means return business. And when you have return business, you have the confidence to drop $60k or so on a MF system.

A G5 and Eizo monitor should not be required in order to shoot a small job. I simply feel, as others have stated here, that several years have now gone by since the introduction of the MF digital back, and with the intro of the Hassie50 and the Phase60, all we've really added is more megapixels. Features are still lagging; workarounds and excuses are still prevalent. The great ship of MF is slowing down. So many of my friends (and myself included) want to shoot medium format, but the costs, and hassle factors, are simply sending them to Canon and Nikon. What a shame. Medium format just has a look and feel, and in the end, 35 is just 35, and so many people are still rooting for Medium Format to survive.

Beautifully spoken.

This would be like funny, if this conversation was going on the old RG forums 3 or 4 years ago, but the non funny thing is this same exact conversation has been going on for 3 or 4 years.

JR

Again, I have nothing against Techs, but let's stay on the topic of Money.

Take your investment in the MF camera, the back, the lenses, the computers, (the servers/RAIDs), and all the related $99 items that we all know that are necessary. Then don't forget to factor in the cost of being forced to use a Tech for however many shooting days you shoot per year. Multiple that number of days times $1500-1800 per day. And don't forget that some of those days will be on the road, so add to that the Tech's airfare, and then their hotel room, and then their per diem, (and their excess baggage charges).

Compare that to having a MF camera with a killer LCD that you could actually use, and show a client, (unlike the Leaf, Phase, Sinar, or pretty much anything out there right now). If you had that DB, you could train a number of freelance assistants in how you want your cards downloaded. If one of them was booked, you just call the next one. So now you're paying $300 or $400 per day for an assistant to simply take a CF card, stick it in a Reader, and download it to your 17" laptop, into a folder, and then hit "Sync" to the external drive that's velcroed to the lid of your 17". If they try to charge you extra for "being a Tech, since they're downloading", you simply cross them off the list and move on.

Run that math, and compare the annual numbers. And then add those Tech costs to the same Excel area as the MF DB investment, because in the current sorry state of LCDs, you can't have a DB without employing a Tech, if the job is of any size at all. And let's be honest, everyone no matter the budget is now spoiled to seeing every frame pop up. Even editorial.

Maybe if we speak Dollars And Cents, the manufacturers might understand for a change.

And if you can't give us an LCD, then give us an Output Port, to run a cable out of the DB and into some kind of Iphone, with a decent screen. Even that would be a massive improvement.

In the end, when there is $60k or so of investment, it does come down to Dollars and Cents, especially in this new economy.

James, if you seriously think that between 35 digital and MF digital "the look of the image doesn't change that much" then you need to shoot something besides your P30+...

Don't get me wrong, the P30+ is an excellent back, especially for what it excels at -- speed and ISO -- but the P30+ does render more softly and a bit less DR than backs without micro-lenses... Compare ISO 100 or 200 files from a 1Ds3 to any past generation 22MP digital file -- P25, Leaf 22 or Mamiya ZD -- and the difference is night and day; at least as much as the difference between 35mm film and 4x5 film... (And yes I know this last comment will piss off a few 1Ds3 owners, but it's a fact...)

I think the issue is most photographers have forgotten how bad 35mm film was compared to full-frame digital. Personally I think 35mm digital pushes MF film and MF digital pushes 4x5 film -- and yes, some of the latest P&S digicams push the best 35mm film cameras of 5 years ago... (And yes, I know this last comment will piss off a few 35mm film shooters, but it's also a fact...)

Cheers,

deleted

Thank you Jack, your right and I just sold my wife's Infiniti, rented out my NY space to a Rock Band and put a new P65 plus on order. In fact I'm so concerned I thought I just buy two, because I don't want the quality of my work to drop off.

Man am I glad I dodged that bullet.

Much appreciated.

JR

And you know me well enough -- or at should by now -- to know that's not what I meant James... I would rather own a P30+ than a pair of 1Ds3's 8 days a week. In fact, I would love to find a good deal on a used P30+ just for it's advantages. My only point was your comment -- so let's come back to it:

"...not knowing that at some point you just aren't going to see a difference in print, (any print) and unlike moving from 35mm to 8x10 the look of the image doesn't change that much because for the most part were still just shooting to the two smallest frame sizes available in professional photography."

So answer me this: IF you seriously believe what you stated in that quote, then why aren't you shooting a 1Ds3 instead of your P30+?

Cheers,

On-sensor binning/downsampling might give 645 format, 30MP, decent ISO 1600 from the new Dalsa-Phase One sensor, but how about this as a variant:

Update the lens systems (focal length choices) and viewfinders to match the 44x33mm format of the smallest current MF sensors. (I would dare to call this "Full Frame" as opposed to being a "crop format" once the lens choices and viewfinders fit the sensor size, if I am right that good control of FOV, perspective, DOF and such and a good VF are the main virtues associated with "Full Frame".)

Current sensors in that 44x33mm format already give the desired pixel count and will give about 40MP with the new generation of 6 micron pixels, and with micro-lenses, could be able to get to at least fairly good ISO 1600; especially with downsampling from the 40MP option of the new lower noise photosite designs.


For ISO 25, add ND filters.

I agree with that. The process you describe is no different than keeping the 120 rolls labeled correctly & insync with the film notes sheets of yesteryear. Probably the most important aspect of an assistant's job on my shoots. The basic handling of the laptop & CF cards to me is an expected part of the skills of a photo assistant and definitely doesn't elevate them to a "tech". Hell my 14 year could handle the job without blinking.

Great topic GWHITF. Thanks for starting it.

Ken

Well I wouldn't. Not for a location advertising shoot. And that is the point of this topic. Right now if the 1Ds III is suitable for shooting the job (in in most of my cases it is more than) then I am not going to add the pain as the current MF systems do. Though the Canon does have a few short comings, some of which can be overcome in one way or another, the system allows me to concentrate on the important part: the images that need to be made.

Ken

This smells like a perfect application for Mr. Russell's side business of manufacturing stickers. If you call it "full frame" then it is full frame, right? I'm sure Mr. Tech Talk will rally behind Hasselblad's logic of doing that.

All Mr. Russell needs to do is measure the size of the P30 cropped sensor, and then make a sticker and call it "Full Frame 540", instead of "cropped 645", and the marketing guys at Hasselblad will follow suit.

And then make another sticker that says "1600" even though to get to 1600 you've got to move that Exposure slider bar up a couple of notches.

It's all about how you set it up inside your mind. Just add the word "hybrid" to your car, even though it's a Chevy Suburban, and all of a sudden, you can hold your head high in the supermarket parking lot.

Really!! I find it's no contest. I shot side by side with a friend - him with his 1DsIII and me with my D3. We compared my shots at ISO 3200 with his at ISO 1600 and we both agreed the D3 files were a lot less noisy, and just as sharp (maybe even a little sharper).

As for the LCD, he was drooling over the D3.

And I respect that too -- use the best tool for YOU to do YOUR job... But at the same time, you should respect it isn't necessarily going to be the best tool for others to do theirs.

Cheers,

I concur. It's about what you do, your clients needs in your location.

I'll add that a 1DS3 would NEVER fly in NYC for advertising and I've never seen one used for any serious ad work. No art buyer at any agency that I work with would accept less than a MFDB*

Perhaps the term 'advertising' needs to be clarified here. If you are calling catalogue work, stock, look books and the like advertising then ok. You want to talk campaign, in-store display, billboard, magazine spread well then...

*this is my experience and I'm sure there may be instances that differ, but my experience tells me 90% of the time at least this to be true.

It's about full potential, multi-purposing and the ability to tweak and capture as much detail as possible.

The DS3 is a great camera, don't get me wrong.

Read this regarding the current market: http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2014

And this is the market that is greeted by $40k plus digital backs?

Anthony,

I agree about this, in theory. But let's not forget something that I discovered when testing the two cameras. It's about the difference in optics between 35 and 645:

Say that your goal was to shoot a car interior. Or a room interior. And say that the goal of the shot was to capture "as much detail as possible". While there will be more inherent information in the P45+ file, than say a 1ds3 file, you have optics that are working against you in 645, due to less inherent depth of field. And sometimes, just stopping down the lens is not going to get you razor sharpness; it'll get you sorta-sharpness, but not tack-sharpness.

When I considered buying the 1ds3, I set up a silly still life shot at my place. It was a bunch of items of varying color and texture. I shot the P30+, and then framed up the same shot, on the same tripod, with the 1ds3. Same vantage point. Strobe, at something like f11 or 16. There were a couple of items in the foreground of this still life shot -- with the 1ds3 those items were tack sharp, but with the P30+, those items were soft. And there is "good soft" and "bad soft", as you know. One looks like a mistake, and the other looks cool. When it's just barely out of focus, it looks like a mistake. That's how the P30+ file looked, due to it being medium format, and carrying less focus deep into the frame.

I took both files, and I rezzed up the 1ds3 file to the same width as the P30+ file, and then I made two 16x20s, one from each file. Since the 1ds3 file was focused through and through, it appeared "better" than the P30+ file, due to carrying focus deeper into the frame. And even holding the prints up very close, the 1ds3 definitely held its own next to the P30+.

So I'd think for that car interior photographer, or that room photographer, where he wants as much sharp as possible, the "lack of 3D effect" of 35 might just work for you.

But I understand too, in NYC, you've got to show up with the Big Guns, or else you're not a Big Gun. Perception alone means a lot. Maybe even more than reality. But again, it all comes back to your own style; whether you're a ShallowFocus Guy, or a EverythingSharp Guy. (Or, whether you're willing to show up with a P45+ and maybe twelve Profoto packs, in order to carry focus front to back).

I expected that someone would object, so here is my question:
No one disuptes that 36x24mm sensor combined with lenses, viewfinders and such designed for 36x24mm format is "Full Frame", and my imagined system is in a larger format than that, so

Please give me your definition of "Full Frame" which includes 36x24mm format sensors with matching lenses, viewfinders and such, but excludes a system using a larger format like 44x33mm or 48x36mm, also with a full matching system of lenses, viewfinders and such.

[Edit] More specifically, since you raised the idea of calling it "cropped 645", what is cropped if the lens system, viewfinder and such are all matched to the sensor format, anymore than a 35mm format system is "heavily cropped 645"?

Note: Hasselblad's "Full Frame 48mm" does not meet my criteria; it lacks important things like an appropriate normal lens, of 60 to 70 mm.

Hint: you cannot use a criterion like "image sensor diagonal fills the image circle of all lenses", because probably no SLR system satisfies that: telephoto lenses often have image circles substantially larger than the format for which they are designed. Some "excess" image circle is common and irrelevant. (Telephoto optical designs typically have angular coverage of about 50º, about as for a "normal" lens, though lens barrels may vignette this considerably.)

Perhaps the concept is that Full Frame means reproducing a well established format for film-based camera systems.

That goal does have its place, in particular for owners of substantial lens collections for some such film format, so any new format has a disadvantage there. But when the extra cost of the larger sensor exceeds the cost of the new lenses needed to go with the new format, it might be an inadequate reason to stay with the old format.


P. S. I do not particularly expect that any MF system will in fact offer my imagined 44x33mm or 48x36mm format lens additions, though Pentax did plan on adding a 55mm normal lens for its planned 44x33mm format DMF body.

But if the extra cost of full 645 sensors puts off a sufficient number of potential customers and to many of them are changing to 35mm, maybe action will be taken on a "compromise" format.

Well, that is NYC - the place where they made dye transfers & retouched them in the good old days and the images were soft like a fresh poo.

I am shooting national work for AT&T, Uniroyal, two different states Blue Cross/Blue Shield just to name a few examples. All of this with either a 1DsII or III. I am sorry that your marketplace demands more than what may be needed. To me it is a preception that someone has let get out of control. The old "your not a real photographer unless you have..." BS.

I think the point of this thread is that there is still the pain with MF (the tech for example) that the OP is expressing shooting advertising - on location. From my experince (and I have it) the location shooter is a less common in the NYC area. Yes, there are some but the majority of shooters are in the studio - where shooting with MF is going to be a bit easier.


Ken

most of the requirements of this list will be met by the P65...this is the first ime in years that i have the feeling somebody actually listened....the concept of cramming 60mipx in there and then letting the photographer decide how to use them is great imo....i don't think i would ever shoot that thing at anything more then 30 mpix....which is the perfect size, really still a little big, but tons of room for cropping....this could be like those fuji DSLR which use double the pixels to get higher DR...and if this P65 gets 12.5!!!! at 60mpix, maybe it will get 13.5 at 30mpix? insanity! and that should really work wonders for clean high iso as well.....as for the price....why on earth should it be any cheaper? does anyone here really think that phase is rubbing their hands thinking they will make a killing?

the whole screen debate is a little funny...yes the D3 screen is amazing....still is nowhere near a polaroid...sizewise and still can't sit on the table next to the others for the rest of the day....(to play around with, see the progress, play with the layout...just like in the old days...).....
tethered shooting is a blessing and a curse....great to know when you got the shot, but we all know there could be that better one with the unexpected something, the one you used to shoot just one more roll for....
the curse....is the huddling and the microdetail before post that nobody really should see and that can scare the hell out of less informed clients....

leaf had a bluetooth solution years ago....people just loved it....a jpeg popping up with every shot on a HP pda...i think(as far as i remember) you could also browse the whole shoot (no cards, just the imagebank, which i would not have a problem with either....)
i would love to have a wifi solution like that with previews popping into an iphone or ipod touch....that would be the polaroid of the digital age...

i also feel that 2 card chambers or at least shooting to card AND HD (when shooting tethered) should be standard....instant back-up...

the only things i want out of a MF system are: BRIGHT and LARGE viewfinder..even focusing the P30 is tough wide open....bigger sensor and more pixels does not make it easier....don't care about AF much, would not use it anyway but would like AF assist...
rotating back....rotating back...rotating back...
great glass....

I shot a job last week in New York with my 1ds3, (but don't tell Anthony). I had actually planned on shooting color neg in my Hasselblad, but it got too complicated. (That's another conversation). But at the end, I shot one roll of 220 for me. When I picked up that Hasselblad 203 and looked through that huge gorgeous viewfinder, it was like that scene in Wizard of Oz, where it turns from B/W to color. My jaw actually dropped to the ground, it was that good.

I love the word NEVER.

I've heard that a lot. I will never stop shooting film, I will never use anything but an RZ, I will never show an inkjet print. Yea, I love the word Never.

This is a public forum so a lot of this is difficult to address (and risky).

Anthony, I assume your in New York and yes NY is the center of the world when it comes to photography, but it's not the only place high media value, high cost, high quality photography is produced, though few people in our industry would believe that.

But your right, NY production is usually big, with white walls, 4 huge Breezies, two digital techs and a digital back hooked to the multiple cart 'o rocks.

You also have to remember that NY is the epicenter of photographers that very reluctantly moved from film and don't really want to know about digital, so the obvious request when hiring a digital company for a big project is "give me the "BIG" camera, becuase truth be told, they don't know the difference between a 20, 30, 40 or 60mpx file and think digital manipulation is the second installment payment on the Imac they bought at the Apple Store in Soho.

We all play this game and I personally own a lot of cameras and on a large job all of them come out on a table. Sometimes I use them all, sometimes just one, but the site of two large folding tables covered with over a hundred grand worth of equipment does make a client feel they're getting their money's worth . . . same with the two tech stations, the multiple monitors and all the busy little bees running out of the studio to get those special lattes and cupcakes.

That's just part of the biz, so I accept it.

Then again I can't count the number of times I've started a project tethered to one of the tech stations, (sorry, cart o' rocks), hooked by my 16' string and ended up shooting 50% of the job with a smaller camera.

Usually when that happens I know there is about a 85% chance the client will pick an image from the smaller camera.

Don't misunderstand this, as some of my best (and lately most noticed) work has come from the medium format cameras, nobody should fool themselves into thinking big work can't be done with a smaller camera.

After all Annie shoots the Queen with a Canon and a zoom. That's pretty big.

Anyway today I went by a camera dealer and for the first time held a 1ds3.

What an amazing viewfinder.

So could I shoot all of my work with a Canon?

I think I'll answer this one off line, but I do have a few questions for Anthony and everyone here.

How many digital backs do you own?

How many have you owned.

How often do you rent them?

Ah yes, the target market.

JR

That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. And really really true...

Gwitf, you really should meet my friend Tark from Nashville. You can almost always find him in the Liquid Nails section of the Home Depot...


Mister Russel always right. Though he hates when you calls him Mister...

I would prefer if you call me Mister President, (though wait a few months).

JR

Kumar,

Rent "Deliverance."

Cousins hooking up isn't always a good thing.

True, true.

My jaw tightened on his thoughts about Web usage pricing being less than usage in say the print arena. That practice of charging less for Web usage started way back in the day when the Web was at it's V.5 stage. And it continues today.

I remember being in negotiations with an agency about an estimate I had sent over and me questioning why the same photo destined for the web was worth pennies on the dollar compared to print. She shrugged and said "It's a banner Ad, it means nothing". Now when brick and mortar and print are shrinking and the Web is the place for commerce, not much has changed. Why should it when they can just pull off cheap ass stock and have it "suffice".

All this will change. I am always suprised when I see a beautiful campaign and then flick on the web site and it's just e-commerce, cropped at the chin, shot on medium grey seamless.

In fact if you want to be blown away, go to your favorite mass brand U.S. website and take a look.

After about 22 seconds you will fall asleeep.

then go on thier european and Asian websites.

Wow, the difference is 9 billion percent.

JR

I concur. It's about what you do, your clients needs in your location.

I'll add that a 1DS3 would NEVER fly in NYC for advertising and I've never seen one used for any serious ad work. No art buyer at any agency that I work with would accept less than a MFDB*

Perhaps the term 'advertising' needs to be clarified here. If you are calling catalogue work, stock, look books and the like advertising then ok. You want to talk campaign, in-store display, billboard, magazine spread well then...

*this is my experience and I'm sure there may be instances that differ, but my experience tells me 90% of the time at least this to be true.

It's about full potential, multi-purposing and the ability to tweak and capture as much detail as possible.

The DS3 is a great camera, don't get me wrong.,


Anthony

I have to respectfully disagree with you about magazine usage with the 1Ds III. I have an eight page spread in the current Vanity Fair (August 2008, Pages 131 - 145) that were shot with the 1Ds III.

The files were processed with Brian Griffith's Raw Developer program. One image was croped to about 2/3rd of the frame and I can see it - I don't know if the average VF reader would.

Yes, I could have shot with Medium Format, but the per shot rate on the P30 is too slow for my aerial work. Two years ago, I shot another aerial piece for them using a 1Ds II and the images ran as opener spreads and 3/4 trucks.

VF has very high printing standards and from my experience, the 1Ds III meets the reproduction standards for the magazine.

Thank you.

Cameron

Jack, I've come late to this thread but I suspect James was mostly referring to actual offset print output which is rarely bigger than A3. In those circumstances does a P45 really look so much better than a DS3, or a D3 or a 5D?

I was required to shoot 4x5 film for a magazine here in Oz until last year. I proved to them that a 5D will give identical results at A3 DPS and now we shoot on the Canon saving them buckets on film and allowing me to shoot far more freely. If I shot on a P45 the results would be very hard to distinguish.

Ah, you noticed the finder.

Edmund