Digital Medium Format Help!

[usayit]

Gryph,

I don't know... on paper... yes. I've handled some later Hassy's and recently a Leica S2. I'd still take the S2 because of its handling characteristics. At least for me, its design is more "field-able". For one, the S2 is weatherproof. Also, the price of the H4/60 body alone is the price of the S2 + a couple lenses.

What do I know.. though.. I only had a few minutes with both to take a few samples to drool over at home.

 

[Alpha]

First of all, I don't see what all the fuss is about with the Leica. It's just a digital version of the R series with a large sensor (hence the S-series lenses). Hoo-ra. Having shot some of the later R-series film cameras, I can attest that they are great. The lenses are top quality. The handling is great. Maybe the S2 has a built-in flash meter, too (I haven't bothered to look that up). However, I think there are a lot of drawbacks compared to MF digital systems.

1) The S system is not modular with respect to the digital component.
2) The lenses are bound to be far more expensive than what you could find for other solid MF digital systems (Mamiya comes to mind in particular).
3) The flash sync is dependent upon the shutter curtain. I've never known Leica to make a leaf-shutter lens.

As for Hassy, they're top-notch systems with some serious drawbacks. To begin, their backs aren't nearly as user friendly as P1 or Leaf. And while you may be able to get a good deal on a body plus 80mm lens or whatever, you'll pay dearly as soon as you want a second lens. In fact, every one of their accessories are horrifically expensive.

I think the real deal in MF digital right now is Mamiya. Their prices keep dropping and dropping. You can even buy a ZD for $5K now (on KEH).

Also, MF digital does put 35mm digital to shame. One only need to look at sensor and pixel size, and real images I might add, to see that.

Yet MF digital is a VERY big step, primarily because of the digital component. There are several reasons one might NEED to move up from something like a D3X. And if you can't honestly say that you fit the description at least in part, then I think it's obvious that you should NOT move up:
1) You have a compelling need to shoot at higher sync speeds than your current camera and strobe combo allows for and therefore need the flexibility of leaf-shutter lenses.
2) You have clients who request more detailed images than you can provide with your current setup.
3) You have a LARGE amount of expendable income that you would like to spend on a new camera system because you've just outfitted a new studio space, bought a set of brand new Broncolor strobes, a Para 220 and a Cumulite, and want to make full use it all.
4) You have a LARGE amount of expendable income and enjoy working with top of the line equipment. You see digital MF as the future and like the flexibility of upgrading the digital back when better ones come out, while making use of a reliable lens system that may or may not have been around since at least the 80's (I mean no sarcasm there. I love the older lenses).

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Getting a DMF camera is not going to make your photography better at the point you're at IMO. It's just going to give you more detail in what you're doing already.


I've used DMF myself on a few occasions using a Hasselblad H2D-22 when I was interning at a product studio here in PDX, and i tell you what: considering the limitations of the system, if you have a D3x or 1DsIII/5DII it is not worth it in the slightest for the exception of a very narrow set of parameters.

If you're shooting something like product, where you're tethered, on a salon stand, shooting at shutter speeds faster than 1/4 of a second, well the hassy's are super. But when you need maneuverability in ANYTHING, be it autofocus, framerate, playback, zoom, weight, exposure time, ergonomics, changing settings, than damn near any DSLR made in the last 7 years will outgun it.

Medium format has an obvious gain in IQ because of the lack of an AA filter, generally wider dynamic range from the larger sensor, and in the case of the H2D, multishot(which only works when you're tethered).

If you set up a picture in a studio, shot two identical pictures, one on an H2D, and another on a D3x, print them 16x24 or 20x30, you'd be hard pressed to tell a difference.

The studio I was at for the most part rarely uses the H2D anymore in favor of the nimbler 1DsIII's for obvious reasons.

In my belief, with medium format digital, unless you're doing high volume studio product work where you can quickly pay off the overhead of the camera isn't really all its caught up to be:

The cameras are incredibly large and heavy.

You'll want to be shooting tethered (which is not fun).

it's grossly overpriced for what you're getting.

The cameras are slow.

Hasselblad's AF is 20 years behind.

(with the H2D-22) Exposures longer than 1/4 of a second have hot pixeling worse than the D700 at 1 hour.

grossly overpriced for what you're getting.


Just my opinion, but after using the H2D-22 i feel sorry that the studio spent $30,000 on it when it was out, just to have a $2300 5DII DSLR have IQ that is very close. They had their reasons though, like what Alpha was saying, the clients demanded it, and it paid off.

 

[usayit]

First of all, I don't see what all the fuss is about with the Leica. It's just a digital version of the R series with a large sensor (hence the S-series lenses).

Absolutely nothing between the R system and the S2 is shared. Not the sensor, body, info display, rear display, lenses, etc.... Its a ground up effort. There was a digital version of the R by way of a module; Digital Module R (DMR). There's more shared between my RD1 and a Nikon D100.

Oh.. I guess we missed the part about R system being a manual focus system...

1) The S system is not modular with respect to the digital component.
2) The lenses are bound to be far more expensive than what you could find for other solid MF digital systems (Mamiya comes to mind in particular).

You expect any differently from Leica's positioning?. This is like complaining that Nikons are not modular. Heck my MF 645 pentax isn't modular. Everything by Leica is expensive for various reasons. The same argument can be said comparing Hassy's to Mamiya. Heck, I can say the same about Pentax high end DSLRs versus the high end Nikons.

3) The flash sync is dependent upon the shutter curtain. I've never known Leica to make a leaf-shutter lens.

You missed the "CS" leaf shutter lenses for the S2.


In general, I think 90% of all commercial photography can be done with high end DSLR equipment. Its a niche market and with that comes price.

 

[Alpha]

Absolutely nothing between the R system and the S2 is shared. Not the sensor, body, info display, rear display, lenses, etc.... Its a ground up effort. There was a digital version of the R by way of a module; Digital Module R (DMR). There's more shared between my RD1 and a Nikon D100.

Oh.. I guess we missed the part about R system being a manual focus system...

Granted.

You expect any differently from Leica's positioning?. This is like complaining that Nikons are not modular. Heck my MF 645 pentax isn't modular. Everything by Leica is expensive for various reasons. The same argument can be said comparing Hassy's to Mamiya. Heck, I can say the same about Pentax high end DSLRs versus the high end Nikons.

Oh but I do complain that cameras aren't modular. You're missing my point. I think modular systems have a HUGE advantage when you're working with a system where basically the only thing you NEED to update is the digital component. I have my share of non-modular cameras, too. They're different animals. I think that modular is simply better suited to advances in the technology.

You missed the "CS" leaf shutter lenses for the S2.

OK cool.

In general, I think 90% of all commercial photography can be done with high end DSLR equipment. Its a niche market and with that comes price.

I agree.

 

[gsgary]

How about this MF i use now and again

 

[table1349]

Gryph,

I don't know... on paper... yes. I've handled some later Hassy's and recently a Leica S2. I'd still take the S2 because of its handling characteristics. At least for me, its design is more "field-able". For one, the S2 is weatherproof. Also, the price of the H4/60 body alone is the price of the S2 + a couple lenses.

What do I know.. though.. I only had a few minutes with both to take a few samples to drool over at home.

Even back in my film days I rarely took my Pentax 67 out of the studio. If I did, it was still very much in a controlled shoot environment, tripod mounted etc. Otherwise I was using one of my F2 bodies. For my usage, I would rather have the larger sensor for the advantages it provides over the SLR type body. But then this wouldn't be near as much fun if we all shot the same.

 

[djacobox372]

Where should I be asking this? As I said I couldn't find much info anywhere...

This seems to be more of an 'amateur' site.

Anyway, the Leica S2 is going to be top dog in the MF field soon and probably for a long time to come.

Leica Camera AG - S-System

Leica S2 First Impressions

For that kind of money I would take an H4/60 with its 40.2×53.7 mm 60.1meg sensor over a 30X45 mm 36.5 meg sensor. There is medium format and then there is MEDIUM FORMAT.

I thought medium format smallest size was 60mmx45mm... everything smaller should be considered "crop" medium format.