I am on the fence. I have a Mamiya AFDII and was considering getting a MFD back.

I shoot fashion and beauty.

Am I better off:
A ) Shooting film and getting good quality scans
B ) Getting a MFD back like a +P21
C ) Getting a Canon 5D MKII

???

All that matters is the image quality. I can deal with everything else.

If you shoot fashion and beauty the content of your images and your talent are more important than pixel sharpness and big files. All the newest DSLR's allow you to fully concentrate on the subject with their speed and ease of use instead of having to deal with the shortcomings of todays Medium Format Cameras.

Having said that, there is definitely a difference in the quality of a MFDB file especially when it comes to dynamic range and the extend of retouching possibilities, but you would be hard pressed of seeing that difference in the final file

My experience has been, that with a DSLR you get the job done without hassle and you can spend that money on some HMI lights that give you a really different look.

I have been shooting for a few years with a Mamiya AFD II (horribly slow and old fashioned)
and a Mamiya RZ (excellent lenses but huge) with a Leaf Aptus 22 and a Canon 1Ds Mark II/III. Well, I ended up selling all my MF gear and believe me I don't miss it. Yes, the files are better, but no one except me could ever see the difference, even less my clients.

However, I recently tried out the AFI 6/7 and I love the whole package. I'm seriously considering
buying one, but do I need it? Definitely not!

So the decision is yours, but don't expect too much. If you can afford it, go for it, it's just a tool to make money, but if you are on a tight budget you will regret it.

So C) would be my answer.

RS

I would for sure wait until Nov 8th to see what Nikon has up its sleeves.

Other than that, have you considered the ZD back?

Cheers,
Bernard

RSPhoto is correct. If you need the file quality of an MFDB for a picky beauty client, there should be a budget for renting an MFDB. Otherwise, if you want the MF look, shoot the film. But for fashion and beauty, its a mental game. The barriers are in your head, make sure the barrier is not in your hand in the form of a clutsy camera.

I'd hang out a bit and see what the 5d2 really looks like...there are already a bunch of decent used back deals to be had, and more to come.

Excellent answers all.

Would depend on how you work really and if medium format, and all that it entails, is something you benefit from. I wouldn't mind it at all but I don't shoot fashion.

Seems like the 5D will be a wunderkind.

Rent and test. See if it works for you. There's pro's and con's both ways but only you can make the call.

John

it depends on the photographer and the situation.

If you want to play alot with DOF but still get sharp images : MF
If you want to capture 16 bits for great B&W and good gradiants : MF
If you want to capture fine detail without softness : MF
If you need high dynamic range : MF

Now:
If you need to shoot fast (3-4 fps) : DSLR
If you need high ISO : DSLR
If you have a limited budget : DSRL

I changed to medium format for the dynamic range, detail and 16 bits capture.
It's slower than with a DSLR but it never was too slow for me, the opposite is often true for people, MF forces them to think about their composition, and if you shoot with a WLF you will get a whole new experience due to the very large preview.

There was a time MF was really a step down from a DSLR, with cameras like the AFi and the Mamiya 645AFD/III I must say that time is over UNLESS you need 51 focus points (for fashion I don't think so), High ISO (that can be handy) or 3-4 fps.

For me I have solved it by shooting 99% with a leaf back on a 645AFD/III for outside, a RZ67ProII in the studio and a Canon 5D (will be replaced by the MKII) for when I need it.

Medium format and a dslr like the 5d are just way different cameras, even discounting the video function of the 5d.

Different aspect ratios, different handling, lenses, speed and iso.

It's interesting to me that so much has been said about the 5d and the news from Hasselblad and I assume mostly because of pricing, but very little information about other medium format.

I would think there would be a lot of buzz from Michael's front page rumor that Sinar will get out of medium format altogether and essentially rebadge a Leaf.

I don't get it, but then again I'm not in the camera making selling business, I'm in the use cameras to make a living business.

Then again looking at the state of medium format it seems (to be polite) confusing.

Sinar will/won't make a digital back, though they are still showing thier new 31mpx back with dng and in camera jpegs (pity if this doesn't happen because in camera jpegs, a good lcd and a dng format would be a really a needed first). Also what's the deal with Sinar showing Brieze Lights when Bron has thier own parabolic fixtures?. Is this another stragegic alliance?

Leaf has a new sensor, new lcd, new format, but no real concrete information on price or upgrades. (at least any that I completly understand).

Phase has an extremly expensive new model that will go to high iso but drops to 15mpx. That 15mpx part kind of throws me because for the added costs you can easily by a dslr alternative with more useable megapixels. Now maybe it goes to 30mpx at 800 iso, or does something else unique, but you would think that message would be clear.

Hasselblad has new sensors, older sensors but has lowered all their prices to bargain basement, (at least in the medium format world). The upside of the Hasselblad is their price message is clear and their lenses and most of their cameras are in place ready to buy.

Leica has a 31mpx camera but no real information about iso, speed, costs or exact delivery so in the world of digital until that hits the shelves it's all just an interesting ancedote. (Can anyone say Pentax 645 digital, Contax D-1, or the Mamiya ZD).

It's somewhat confusing and if I was buying new today I really would have no idea which way I would go and since none of the new db's offer high iso at even medium mpx size I don't see anything that does something that is much different than what we already have.

What I don't understand is why the news at photokina is vague. After all this is the world's biggest show and the makers have two years to plan for it.

You would think that on the day photokina opened everyone would have their newest cameras on the shelf, with a price tag and boxes of product ready to ship.

After all medium format seems to be a segment facing challanges and anything that's not exactly clear can't be good for sales.

Today I was in another production meeting with clients (the last few weeks I've been in more meetings than FED) and the only camera talk that got any attention is when I mentioned the video capabilities (and that LaForte video link) about the Canon 5D.

That got a lot of attention.


JR

If you've shot the 1ds3 in a lot of lighting situations (especially continuous light and mixed sources) next to a db I think you might modify some of those findings. In fact the Canon hold highlights well and have less casting/banding on skin when working with hard direct light.

As far as dof. Try a 85 1.2 and you will see dof falloff that nothing I've seen in modern medium format that gets close.

As far as dynamic range goes, well the Canons hold up very well, but then again that is why they make 12x rags and foam core.

If your working really large cost produciton I can promise you the last thing anyone is talking about is high dr, of oversharp images. No client is looking for the model's dna and oversharp usually gets the reply of it looks too digital.

In regards to budget, Annie is working pretty much unlimited and she's working with a Canon, so the camera budget isn't a concern.

JR

Phase files seem really over-sharp at defaults. It all starts to look like E100GX at a certain point: too clean, too sharp too saturated. Its unnatural until you work the file.

I'd say buy a 5D2 first and then decide about medium format later. You'll want a 5D2 anyway.

I've been hooked on the medium format image quality, but it's true that most people don't care. Also you see less difference in prints, and less in magazine type prints.

When I get my 5D2 I might make a comparison between it and the ZD. I'm first on a waiting list. You might be able to find a used Leaf at a good price.

People complain about the 5D being slow, but it is a speed demon compared to a Mamiya AFD2. Also I think all the backs will lock up from time to time.

I tried film some but only did one roll as it is a lot of work.

Bill

For me is soon time for an upgrade.
For about a month ago I thought a phamiya was the way to go. For two weeks ago i was thinking Sinar. And now, after the great photokina and the new partnership announcements my impression is that the only manufacturer with clear ideas and a good marketing strategy and prices is Hasselblad.

I sold two H systems bacause I never had that feeling with the H series. Never had a problem and the files were spectacular but the camera never felt right 100%.

Now it seems my third attempt will be go with Hasselblad and stay. Here in Sweden you can buy or rent a Hasselblad anywere. Plus there's tons of used equipment.

The whole DB market is confusing:
1.- What's phase One thinking now? The swedish stores has the P30+ at 18.000 Euros. They don't update their sites or what?

2.- What is this Leaf/Sinar partnership? Don't they believe their last announcements are good enough? Whay does Sinar need a rotating sensor when they have a revolving adapter that was a clear step forward Leaf? This announcement just pull me back...

3.- Leica announces a camera that will start shipping in one year? That's already old news.


Hasselblad has it's downsides of course, buy they have a clear idea of what they want to offer. They have their own lenses, a good software,a good camera and more important, the best prices.

So the choice appears quite easy right now.


/Samuel

I agree with you the H is not a spectacular camera. Its ergonomics can certainly be improved. The camera does what it needs to do and does deliver very good results but it is not one of those pieces of equipment one grows to care.

I am happy I opted for the CF system that allows me to use the back on several different systems. Early on I wanted to have something I could use both on the H as well as on my V-mount equipment. The H is my workhorse the Digiflex (V-mount) is my fun toy (where can you have MFDB quality with 1.2 or even 1.0 lenses ).

The new pricing I think will truly be a bomb under the way MFDB used to be put in the market. They got rid of the yoke of the trade-in program first, that might have been an advantagous program in the early days but must have become a real burden when the MFDB market growed larger.

Hasselblad does seem to have its act together in many areas.

Im a bit in the same position as you, was going between the decision to go MFDB or go with a new 5Dmk2/old5D etc. I kind of need both worlds to solve the needs for my clients.

In the end i decided to get the MFDB now and will go for a 5Dmk2 a bit later / early next year when prices are lower and the first bugs weathered out

@james,
It all depends on the person buying.

If I look at what my customers want, a 1DsII or 5D is more than enough.

HOWEVER, I'm someone who himself wants more and better quality.
For PURE commercial benefits a DSLR is the best choice.
If you are like me absolute passionate about your photography and you can afford a MF system I don't see problems with my personal points

Have you guys seen this..
Looks like Canon will start copying the RED idea...
This short film was made with the new 5DII un-edited!!!
It's a whole new Ball game now..
Time to get on the waiting list???
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/22/...er-ado-reverie/
OMG
Snook

Can you live with the 5DII's flash sync of only 1/200?

More wine

http://accidentalsexiness.wordpress.com/20...nnie-leibovitz/

I am living with it now. I shoot a Canon 5D as my current main camera.

I have never found it slow for the type of shooting I do. In fact, I have never really found my Mamiya AFDII slow when I shoot with it. I am a methodical shooter.

I am looking to make the jump to pro... pro meaning getting some work doing some advertising work in fashion.

I am concerned that if I can't get suitably large images for the client, I might not get the job.

I know there is always renting, but I don't want to learn how to use the tool when the meter is running and I have a zillion other things to think about.

I was thinking of selling both my AFDII and 5D and getting a Phase One Camera...or Hasselblad H3D-39.

You know That Annie Lebowitz shoots with a 1DsMII and probably MIII now a days right?
Your client is going to pick you for your experience not if you can give them a huge file that looks like crap?

Snook

How can any one produce any work with a 1/200 sync?! I mean good gawd! I wouldn't let a high school photo class use any camera that didn't sync at 1/500. I mean, for snap shots, maybe, but for any serious WERK? come on!

In all seriousness, I don't even sync my Canons over 1/125, just to play it safe. I control light in the studio with negative fill, grids, cinefoil, flags, floppies, cutters, scrims blah blah blah. Its only outside in bright light that its an issue. Either ND filters or renting something that syncs higher than 1/250 works just fine. I use the 1/4000 of an FP shutter way more than any high speed sync.

In regards to the rest of your post, you rent and hire a tech to do the shoot with you. In fact, rent from the tech. The tech will handle everything related to the digital camera. He or she will have a backup back. He or she will set up the camera. Request an AFd2 because you have one and are already familier with it.

Image size is the last thing anyone is concerned about.

If you have $18k in pocket that just must be spent, produce some new work, travel, etc.

Only meant as constructive criticism for that thought, thinking this way only hurts us, not clients. We spend more money thinking that way but few clients really are demanding such. I would say if James Russell can do his work at that level, the rest of us are kidding ourselves and brainwashing ourselves that we REALLY NEED all the large MFDBs. If clients really need large files then renting is certainly justifiable if you're in a market that makes that easy. If you don't have a rental market for MFDB then a top DSLR can and does do pretty well for a huge part of our work.

I love the file quality from my Aptus, but I am getting tired of lugging it around, tired of the slight delay that the AFD series has, tired of the slower frame rate than a normal film back, etc many more reasons. But it is a great tool that does some work so well. But to be honest, I have paid in full for a 5DII to be first in town to get one, and that camera very might well destroy my desire to keep fooling with the AFD/Aptus setup.

I'll lay it out right here, if I could produce even a fraction of what's in my head, then I wouldn't even care what camera I was shooting with. The concepts, visuals and more would be the ruling factor with no specific gear even mattering. And I'll go out on a limb and say I think that's the root cause for many of us getting sucked into MF digital. (JR completely excluded for good reason, his work exudes where we want to be, in our minds. And Andre Napier in that same company)

What John said. Yes. Absolutely.

I like JR's stuff.

The barriers that we meet in producing images are all internal. All mental. After buying a back, rather than renting as I had happily been doing, I spent more time dealing with gear that stood in the way of whatever I was trying to do rather than just shooting. I'm shooting lots 'o' film. Its funny, the MF cameras really work well with film. Everything bad about the Mamiya AFd and RZ with a digital back vanishes once a roll of 220 is loaded.

And Ms. Sweet Fashion Photography, I hope you are shooting many, many editorials in top mags to get fashion advertising for large clients. If you are, shoot hat 5D or 5d2 until the rubber coating wears off revealing its metal frame. I mean it. A much better investment than buying an MFDB is to go on look sees in markets where you want to work. Call up ID and Dazed and Confused on L'Official and French and show your book. While there, shoot an editorial, shoot some tests, shoot shoot shoot. I guarantee you that no one will ask how many megapixels your camera can capture.

Clients choose photographers based on the quality of the images, not the image quality. Which means that style, composition and aesthetics are what's important, not the MP of the camera.

You really, really need to get a firm understanding on what this means, conceptually.

Otherwise you will be doomed to always thinking it's your camera not your talent that has value.

Screw the camera, what do "normal people" think of the images? Are they evocative? Sensual? Commanding? Do the images you produce inspire? Normal people (and I put clients in that camp) are far less concerned about the camera or lens or lighting equipment you are using and are more concerned about what you can create with what you do have.

Photographers also have a tendency to to also think that how difficult an image is to produce somehow factors into the relative value of an image. Perhaps to a tiny degree but again, it's not how hard you had to work to get the shot but what the shot looks like when you're done. That's what has value...it's all about the image.

TRUE!

Let's just not forget that Annie has endorsement deals with Profoto and Canon!!!

Another very important step is obviously post-processing of her files via Box Studios, Pascal Dangin so practically she can shoot with pretty much any camera Nikon, Canon, Leica, MF and the end result will look 100%

Now, the problem is when I have to send my work to Box Studios I have to wait a while and she doesn't.

Well, is there a better camera that can do a better job shooting Fashion/People than 1Ds MkII/III? short answer YES

Am I happy with MF? YES

Would I ever cry if there was no MF? NO, but that's just me!

I personally consider investment in lighting equipment as more valuable than following Camera/Lenses/Pixel Race.... trend!!!

Bingo.

The trick to Box is having the PE or agency take them for retouch. Much more responsive to Saatchi than to lowly little me.

I agree that a lot of what I see coming out of the backs looks oversharpened and thus unreal. A lot of it looks "Digital."

I find it interesting that so much behind the scenes footage of Annie shows up, convincing people that the you need not invest further than the Canons. Hey if she can shoot LV, Disney, AMEX, etc with these things and zoom lenses, then put your wallet away, son. Invest it traveling, buying pages in Le Book, schmoozing potential clients, and what not. I mean, it really doesn't get any bigger than what she is doing, does it?

And the batteries in those new Canons? I took my 1Ds3 to Paris last year and shot for a week without charging it. This 5D2 is really going to be something, considering it's price and portable size. And Chuck Westfall recently said that it will have 2-4 stops better noise performance than the already excellent 1Ds3. WOW.

By the way, I don't know if any of you have used the Highlight Tone Priority option, but I have been shooting editorial and advertising using it, and it really works great. It ads the subtlest noise to the file (which actually looks really nice, IMO) but it gives an effective 1 stop increase in DR when using DPP. I know many people poo-poo'd this feature when it came out, because they were doing tests and examining the files at 300% zoom, but in practive and in print, it looks amazing and saves a ton of post production time. IMO.

And like someone here said, no one in the studio ever asks me about my number of megapixels. That seems to be a thing of the past.

http://www.artnet.com/artwork/425679679/70...-bahrain-i.html
http://www.artnet.com/artwork/425679674/70...xenstopp-i.html
http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2007/jeffwall/
...
...
...

[quote=tho_mas,Sep 27 2008, 10:30 PM]
http://accidentalsexiness.wordpress.com/20...nnie-leibovitz/[/quote]
http://www.artnet.com/artwork/425679679/70...-bahrain-i.html
http://www.artnet.com/artwork/425679674/70...xenstopp-i.html
http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2007/jeffwall/
...
...
...

[/quote]

So what is your point...we're talking business and not art....

Henri Cartier B. used 24x36mm to become immortal...Capa as well...Ansel Adams did not...different time and different field

Let's make one point clear (because I think people missunderstand me).....

I don't think you can only shoot fashion or whatever with a MF system (I never said so), what I did mean to say is that although every client out there would probarbly be happy with the file quality from a 1DsIII or 5DII it was for me a PERSONAL preference to go for the MF system.
Especially when working on location with strobes the benefits are great for me (fitting my style).
Of course I can shoot a 85mm 1.2 wide open, but add strobes and you will need to use ND filters.

With the MF you can go up in sync speed or go down in ISO (25 on the Aptus I'm using now) and even if that is not possible I still have less DOF on the same aperture as with a DSLR.

UNLESS you don't want that.
For me outside I love to shoot with a shallow DOF.

Is it economical wise ?
Don't think so for most of the jobs.
Did it get me more customers ?
hard to say, I do know some customers choose me because they know I'm very passionate about my work and they also know I use the best equiptment I can afford, so maybe yes.
Don't know what would happen if I would have kept shooting with a 5D or 1DsIII........

There will be people saying that MF is the only choice, I'm not one of them (although I will point out the differences), I still own a DSLR and ordered the 5DII, but when it counts and the situation fits the MF I will shoot with MF.

Even worse, even on holiday I take my normal "snaps" with the MF system, the 645AFD/III is portable enough for me, and when I compare the 5D shots to the Aptus files the dynamic range issue is a big one (I shoot alot during the day of course during holidays).
But again, that's me......... I just love the system and the quality of the files and am willing to pay some sacrifices for that in handling and money.

I felt that Annie L. was choosen as an example that a 1Ds XY is fine for very high demands and/or art. It is! But she's not the sole artist on this planet (though a great one).

Henri Cartier B once said :" there are photographers, and there are camera owners.."

I try to think about it every so often.

R.

i am sure annie would be great too with a mf back (as well as with a g9).
i am sure gursky would make 3meter prints as well with a 5d ( also with a g9 ...) ,
maybe stitching some frames more as long as possible.
wall would look fantastic with a grainy iso800 g9 shot.

i would worry more about the quality of the portfolio i am showing them, than the size of the file they may ultimately want....you also need to understand the limitations of the cameras/systems you are considering vs. what you have and your style.......to be perfectly frank, if i had had the 1ds3 before i bought my leaf back, i would have had to think longer and a lot harder about buying the back....but i will also add that image size or impressing clients was not a factor in the decision to buy a back...
i encourage people to rent before buying a back or borrow one from a friend before buying....it is easier to spend a few hundred dollars in rental fees and decide this is not what you thought than to spend $20,000 plus and come to a similar conclusion...the other benefit of renting when you have a job, is the cost can be legitimately passed on to your client...
i would also not recommend that you sell two cameras to purchase one....it may prove to be placing too many eggs in one basket....

Don't buy anything.

There's some sh!t going down pretty soon, by the end of the year. RED is announcing the "specs" of their DSMC by the end of 2008, and Nikon might have a new product or two announced in November. Maybe Canon with something new in February.

I'm looking for a big jump from my current cameras. As nice as the 5DII looks, I'm still waiting for something a little more special. Plus, I'm sure if I put myself on a 5DII waiting list, I won't get the damn thing until the middle of 2009!

I'm not buying a damn thing. Plus I still make money with the Canon 20D. Isn't that hilarious?... no.

Well, yes!
It was not me who answered Frank commentless with a link to Annie L. They are all using whatever they use for some individual reason. But A 1DsXY is not the answer to all questions. That simple.

this waiting thing is sounding familiar to me. as long i am visiting the internet
for informing me about digital always was something great around the corner,
and always it was true, but never came the big revolution which changed everything
from one moment to the next. problem is that one has to work usually now , not later.
about the "special" thing ... :
no offense here,- but the most special thing in ones work might be how s.o. is shooting
and also later treating the shots, this is not the camera. even if it will be a very very
special camera, it wont make 1 special shot as long you dont do it. in the best case
it can make some spectacular things ( as a 360 degr. roundshot or a fisheye can do ),
but even this
wont be interesting if the artist isnt .

Thanks for all the good replies. Especially from Frank

I am definitely not a gear head... believe me. I only bought my 5D about 6 months ago when it got to be really cheap.

I am not the type of photographer who walks around with a camera all the time. I have tried that and it bores me. My real love is deliberately constructing an image. That is where my love for Medium Format comes from. I really do love film. Perhaps I should stick with that for the time being and renting MFD if required.

The most important part of photography to me is the lighting. Perhaps I should put my money towards that end of it.

Getting notice in the fashion world is very difficult. I am just trying to give myself an edge... perhaps the anti-digital route is one way

For what it's worth, if you look at the Annie photo shoot videos on Vanity Fair, you'll see that she uses a Mamiya RZ for a lot of the shots. I think she goes back and forth between the two.

I shoot MFDB because it helps me bring my vision of the world to life. I don't use it for everything and I'm happy to pick up small format when ever I need to. A crappy concept shot in focus, with lots of megapixels and expensive lighting is gonna result in a crappy photo. The true value in photography lies in the idea. That's the most important thing.

I think we're at the point where you can choose any format and the client will be happy. The playing field has become equalized to a point - we all have the equipment - so the difference is all about the style and ideas behind the work.

Of course, if you don't have any good ideas or a defining style, shoot film, Kodak now includes a scratch off in the box that has all the good ideas you'll need. It's sort of like the prize in the bottom of the Cracker Jacks.

John

Whatever works for you works for you and that's what you should do.

Also if you just like cameras and can afford it, buy them, because it's nice to have new things.

Still, every Photokina there is all of this buzz about new equipment and some more interesting than others, though in the end, it's still more about the photograph than the camera.

I see it all the time, photographers trying to work their way up and thinking they need a bigger camera to do it, then someone shows Annie or someone else shooting a Canon and then the reply is yea, but she has better retouching, better crew, or better styling or better subjects.

All of this is true, but if your trying to make your mark in any form of professional photography it would probably be a wiser investment to have better retouching, better styling, better crew, better subjects.

I think were at the top of the arms race and someone is finally going to give in. Maybe Hasselblad has started it with their price cut, maybe Canon took it to the nuclear option level with the $3,000 5d, but as of today nobody I work for cares about the pixel count.

In fact the last two clients I've worked with were surprised I chose digital over film.

There is a huge list of what my clients care about, but pixels, well it's just a given than nearly any professional digital camera will produce a good result.

Regardless, I'm making no judgement and honestly respect whatever tools anyone wants to use as long as they do it well and I can promise you that anyone's current or future clients share the same thought.

JR

Being methodical is irrelevant. If you are balancing flash with ambient light you will need better flash sync than this. Of course that won't affect landscape shooters or anyone else shooting with natural light only, but I'd expect most fashion shooters to need fast flash sync.

My pocket wizards that control my lights can sync only at 1/200 with my 5D.

Are you saying I should get something better?

A very true statement in the fashion industry. Styling is critical... and for beauty photography, the shot is only as good as the subject. (all other things being equal)

Good advice ... thanks!

Only if you need it It sounds as though you are not mixing sunshine and flash much (if at all). If you are not having any problems, please disregard my post.

Well I did do that last week and it was a bit of struggle . So you do have a point

not saying a higher sync isn't welcome sometimes but, "need" is relative. it's not as useless as you are making it out to be....1/200 is decent enough in majority of situations(unless u need to freeze action)...and it really depends on what time of day you're shooting and if you're trying to completely overpower the sun or just throw in some fill w/ the strobe..... you can still easily overpower sun w/ 1/200 sync as long as you have enough power going through your strobes......try a bi-tube w/ 2 7b's if you need to be 3 stops under ambient at noon......and also, bein' able to go to ISO 50 on the 5d pretty much gets you back to where you'd be w/ 1/500 or 1/400 sync and iso 100 film.

Laforet's stills are up:
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?ac...&articleID=2128

I know they are jpegs but the samples I saw in a studio, also jpegs, were better, mainly due to better lighting and being shot at base ISO 100. At first I thought they didn't look all that great, but realized they were shot at HIGH ISO illuminated by a Pro 7b's modeling light in a beauty dish, set up for lighting the movie. Laforet's stills were shot at what, 1600? See the highlights blowing on the woman's face in the woman in the jewel tone dress? (Cobblestones). See how they are blowing, w/o any harsh red or green transitions? At high iso? These look fine for high iso.