Medium Format vs Digital for a fashion photography student.

RE <i>My professional experience is that equipment tends to break down mostly at awkward times</i><BR><BR>This is why I almost never sell off my older equipment; if it still works! I sleep easier! :) <BR><BR>Little used equipment has "lack of usage" failure or droops in perforance. Flash contacts can go bad; top and super slow shutter speeds get slugish on leaf shutters. Once we used the self timer to record our lighting setup and us in the image; and the older cameras self timer got hung; lock solid. So this camera was out of commission as a spare. <BR><BR>Flash Cords always like to fail; strobes with little usage get degraded capacitors that need exercise to cycle quickly. <BR><BR>In the 1970's the E4 Fuji 35mm slide products came in "snapcaps"; and if dropped the film would pop out. Another failure is a super rough mailing would cause the "snapcap" to open. Using the metal or plastic container fixed this problem. <BR><BR>One time I had a brick of Kodak 620 Vericolor II type S; VPS620; asa 100; that had defective metal flanges. The flanges had bad crimps; and would come apart mid roll in the camera; or later while switching rolls. One came off after a roll change; and the bottom of the roll had light leaks. This happened after a few rolls were shot; then one gets a real sick feeling in ones stomach when one realizes that the end is exposed. We had a changing bag to remove the film from a camera. Later shooting; we used OLDER 620 takeup spools; carried as junk in our car. These spools had good crimps; so there was no failure. <BR><BR>A changing bag today is probably viewed as a ancient technology.<BR><BR>In older eras; the aftermarket auto diaphram lenses would often work well for one single exposure ; but often bounce abit when motor drive speeds were increased. It was common practice to observe the diaphram's appearance; ie consistancy in size; when using a motor drive. Some lenses would be say F11 on one frame; F 8 on the second frame; F 8 to F11 on the third frame; F11 on the fourth frame; etc etc; when the drive was run fast. Some of the Soligor; Vivitar ; etc lenses did this long ago. A dried up Nikkor can do this too.

<i>Peter, please let me know where you get your equipment failure predictor. I'd like to get one, No make that two, of them. My professional experience is that equipment tends to break down mostly at awkward times.</i>

<p>

What I meant was that rental on paid shoot days can be a cost effective form of acquiring back up equipment, if one does not have "two of every item." And, as you suggested, a 10D makes a good low cost back-up.

As I suggested, for a student, two 10D bodies make a lot more sense than one

1Dmk2 body. Here is another reason to have two bodies: you can have two sets up at

the same time and just move the subject very quickly from one set up to the other

without havingto waste time striking and resetting up the camera. It also helps to

have two lighting set ups as well. This is how big time fashion and editorial

photographers get so many looks out of a short shooting session.

Ok, here is what I have in mind. A Mark II paired with a 10D for back up. I chose the Mark II for the 8mp and file size, for resolution sake. The 10D as a back up camera has 6mp but it works in times of emergency.

 

Still welcoming comments on this. Now, I am looking that neither of those cameras has a good wide angle performance because of the sensor sizes. Especially the 10D because it has a smaller sensor than 1DmII. Only the 1Ds has this but its out of the question. For creativity sake I like to use wide angle lens.

 

So here we might find the new dilema. How well is 35mm scanned film resolution compared to 8mp (the max resolution I will get from the mark II). Imagining I will get 2 1V bodies to back up each other I will save around $2000 from the Mark II and 10D bodies. We have in mind that I will spend not only time taking the film to get scanned but also money on this. Would it be worth it for just the wide angle side? maybe not just for that. Or what if we throw away the 10D body and replace it with a 1V instead not only for the wide angle side but also by the emergency side.

 

Still maybe not a good idea, but then I might have to drop the wide angle idea after all.

I forgot to add, how many times would you say I will use a telephoto lens (saying from 100mm -300mm) either zoom or fixed, on fashion evironment? I assume this will have more use in on-location situations that for some reason I cant get close to the subject like say, model across the street and want to have a close up and not half of the block.

Do you really want to become a terrific fashion photographer?

 

Here is my heresy:

 

study painting instead, learn color, learn anatomy , learn to see the world &

women in a way that is different from how 97% of the photographers in the

world do. After you graduate go work for a very creative fashion photographer

or three. Learn how they do the business ( hustle up work, take care of clients,

handle money and stay happy & creative). Do your own test shots in your

spare hours and weekends. After two to three years you'll be ready to quit

assisting and start hustling up your own gigs. And technology will have

moved on from the major investment in current gear that you are

contemplating.

 

of course you probably aren't reading any thing I am writing at this point but

hey it is worth speaking the truth even if the person being addressed doesn't

want to listen because perhaps somebody else will read this and it will strike

a resonant chord inside them.

 

Learn to see, then worry about the gear.

 

What is fashion anyway? What does it mean to you? why do "you" want to be

a "fashion photographer"?

<i>I forgot to add, how many times would you say I will use a telephoto lens (saying from 100mm -300mm) either zoom or fixed, on fashion evironment? </i>

<p>

For fashion, telephoto is generally much more important than wide-angle, for the simple fact that wide angle is generally less flattering than telephoto. Jerry Avenaim shoots his headshots/portraits/beauty with an Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 zoom, which gives a 100-400mm equivalent on an E-1 body. Stephen Eastwood at <a href="http://www.nyphotographics.com/">nyphotographics.com</a> uses a Canon 100-400mm L IS zoom on a 10D or 1D MKII. In general, for fashion/people photography, you are going to be using the mid-to-tele range much, much more than the wide-angle range. It just delivers a much more flattering rendering of your human subjects. A Canon 17-40/4L on a 10D or MKII is about as wide as you will ever need for this kind of work. You really don't need anything wider unless you plan on doing wide landscape photography.

Listen, I am not reading blindly at what you write on your ego trips of advise. Why do you think I like fashion photography? I love fashion myself, I love style. I can afford anything with style I please to buy. Passion for the subject. Regarding the other side of the question, I (me myself) will be a fashion photographer because no other style has catched my attention. Why do art? no, I dont want anyone telling me intentions and motives that I didnt put in my frame. I dont want to hear crap coming out some other surrealist artist telling me how much I hate or love society because I shot a tree in a park.

 

Photojournalism? I dont like the fact that: I am given a camera and not a gun in war, I dont like to make people feel stalked when I aim a lens at them (have you imagined yourself being in a bad moment and someone is clicking in your face?), I dont like the fact that I will be taking the picture or someone who is at the verge of dying in the battlefield and the first thing I must do because its my job is take a picture of him/her, I dont like the fact that one day just because I couldnt take the picture because someone somehow made it impossible for me to take it, I will be claiing freedom of press and stuff.

 

At first, I considered commercial photography because I love products. I love to tease people, hence why I love the tease of a picture of a product that sometimes looks much better than what it actually is. I bet you have seen some toy you might buy to your children and its a piece of s*$#t made in china or that hamburger you crave that looks so good on the Mcmenu but it turns out to be CD flat.

 

Later on I decided to focus in fashion because I feel more pulse when doing fashion photography. I get to actually interact with something that speaks and moves, not only something dead that some art director tells me what it should look like. Shapes, style, glamour, you name it, fashion has it. This is what I like about fashion. It is the blend of the fake, the real and the �what we want this to look like� that fascinates me and drives me into it. And although fashion photography can be regarded as a kind of portrait, I would like to stare at it as the art of what mankind wants to be in its purest and finest arrogance, that beautiful feeling of vanity and the ambitious emotion for the perfect look.

 

Remember that pictures actually dress you like you do. Fashion is literaly what you look. Or are you wearing something coming out from the 60s or 70s?

<i>Or what if we throw away the 10D body and replace it with a 1V instead not only for the wide angle side but also by the emergency side.</i>

<p>

Forget the 1V's. It isn't worth it to have just for the wide angle, and it just messes up your workflow. One of the points of going digital is that you no longer have to deal with film. If you're going with one digital body, just do all digital. It will make things a lot simpler. And besides, a new 1V will cost you about $1500-$1600. More than a 10D. And that's before annual film, processing, and scanning costs. Furthermore, a 16-35/2.8L or 17-40/4L is probably going to be plenty wide enough for you even on a 10D. If you must go wider, there's the Sigma 12-24 EX, which I've seen excellent results from (especially stopped down a bit), even on a 1Ds. But I have never seen anyone use this lens for people photography-- for obvious reasons. So the quest for wide-angle (actually, more like ultra-wide angle) may sound like an interesting academic argument, but it is probably going to be of relatively insignificant practical value to you.

I agree 100% with Ellis. I am not a pro and I am not interested in fashion, although I admire good fashion photographers for their creativity and craft, but for me the study of master painters is immensely enlightening. I also believe that the knowledge of painting and art in general and the capability to transform that knowledge into photography is one of the main differences between good photographers and the excellent ones. Look at Josef Koudelka, one of the greatest photographers of all time - his masterpieces so intensely resemble paintings that sometimes I even suspect him that he arranged his subjects.

 

Ellis is also right that fashion is a very demanding and expensive business to run. Even if you had exceptional talent (which is hard to tell from the two pictures you have on the photo.net), you would still need to learn about the workflow, how to acquire, deal with and keep clients, how to organise the business and technical aspects of the whole thing etc. For this, you need a mentor rather than the academic institution as such. But you surely know this, anyway.

 

So, equipment is not the issue here. Of course, two cheaper bodies are better than a single expensive one; with high-volume work, digital can be cheaper than film in the long run; it is easier to experiment with; offers (and demands) more control; it can be a great outlet for creativity. On the other hand, unless you have mastered the principles that apply to photography regardless of the medium, digital can be more of a burden than a bliss. Of course, courage, dedication, passion, capability to work hard, faith in oneself, luck, communicability and at least some sort of financial independence are much more important than equipment, but that goes without saying.

 

So only you can decide, what to buy. Sometimes less is more, other times simple tools can be limiting.

 

Cheers,

 

M.

I suggest studying painting because that is the base from which most of the

great fashion photographers from Cecil Beaton to Irving Penn to Albert

Watson to Nick Knight launched themselves. I don't give a damn for the same

kind of criticism you abhor -- but there is a lot to be said for learning the

discipline of starting with a clean canvas and learning to be responsible for

everything that goes into the image. That is a great visual education. I am glad

you love fashion and clothes: you know what you want to do -- that is great.

 

Am I on an ego trip here? maybe a small one. I was just trying to give you

some hard earned advice. But in the end it is your money and your time:

you'll spend both anyway you like.

 

I also noticed that in another similar thread, Peter Phan who is so very hot on

encouraging you to go with the 1Dmk2 has no intention of getting one himself.

ha ha ha, well maybe I am the test rat or something.

What Ellis said. =)

<i>I also noticed that in another similar thread, Peter Phan who is so very hot on encouraging you to go with the 1Dmk2 has no intention of getting one himself.</i>

<p>

Well, I would get a 1D MKII, if it came in a 10D body. Size and weight are a consideration. In the other post, I mentioned that I'll be waiting for the 10D MKII because I didn't need the 1D MKII's 8fps (5fps would be adequate), or extra size/weight. And the other factor to consider is that I'm not making comparisons to medium format, whereas Maximiliano is. I'm just trying to answer his questions, unlike some people who have gone a bit off topic, telling him how he should or shouldn't live his life and what he should or shouldn't study. No need to make this such a personal affair. Just answer his question (if you want to) and move on.

what about the Hassie H1? can get a digital back for it. Never used it, but it got great reviews in PopPhoto. Just a sugestion.

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=264709&is=REG

"f you get one 1ds you are going to need two because it is essentially a computer

and computers crash."

 

 

This is the most uninformed statement I have read. Computers crash because of the

faulty software that is developed for different hardware systems that will run it. One

program is written and has to run on a Dell with an IBM harddrive, or a Compaq, or an

eMachine with a user-installed video card. This is one reason why Macs crash less

often than PCs, by the way, the software is written for specific Apple and third party

hardware.

 

Most modern devices, such as Ellis' car, Ellis' programmable thermostat, and Ellis'

pacemaker (joke), have the same type of "computer" as a dSLR with the code hard-

wired into it for that particular machine.

<i>what about the Hassie H1? can get a digital back for it. Never used it, but it got great reviews in PopPhoto. Just a sugestion. </i>

<p>

That small part about getting a digital back isn't very small. A medium format digital back will cost you between $10,000 to $30,000. And there are mobility issues. Most medium format digital backs require that you shoot tethered to a computer and the digital back plugged into an electrical outlet. Otherwise, you're back to using medium format film, with all its film, processing, and scanning hassles and costs. It kind of defeats the purpose of investing in digital equipment in the first place.

Ellis Vener has given some pragmatic advise. Of course, only for somebody willing to listen.

 

I think a student should learn the art (fashion photography here), rather than get worried about "best quality" tools. I am pretty sure you can not put in your resume that you shot with a particular camera, or with a certain lens. A Master can bring better results with any decent quality tool. I am not saying tools are not an important aspect.

I agree with Walia, except for for his views on Ellis' advice.

<em>"This is the most uninformed statement I have read."

--Photo Design<br>

</em><br>

Anyone who shows up to a paying gig however humble with only one

piece of vital equipment is risking their reputation and future

employment at least with that customer.<br>

<br>

Years ago I should up to a shoot with a nearly new Nikon F2, the

only camera I owned at the time. It had a hidden and rather

trivial defect. The base plate was pressed upwards just a bit at

the O/C key. Kodak cassettes fit fine but Ilford cassettes were

so tight that I was afraid of damaging film transport, over

lapping exposures or shredded sprocket holes. I had only Ilford

HP5 with me. I found myself scraping the plastic end of the

Ilford cassette down on the curb and deburring it with my thumb

nail.<br>

<br>

This was the first job with this customer and perhaps my first

even. As Im deburring the cassette I could here the editor

saying to someone, "Does he know what hes doing."

Do you think I felt embarrassed? The customer was pleased with my

work so I had that customer for the next 15 years. If I had

failed Id have been toast.<br>

<br>

Later an official Nikon repair station (or one pretending to be)

denied that there was a problem with the camera. Laying a

straight edge across the base plate at the O/C key I could see it

was depressed. There was no cosmetic damage. The camera was never

dropped. I sweat so much to buy it that I never put it down

without a camera pad. I had shoot a four rolls of TX with it so I

thought my F2 was good to go. I ended up repairing it myself and

it never gave me another problem.<br>

<br>

BTW did you parents really name you Photo?<br>

<br>

All the best,<br>

<br>

Dave.

<em>"What if we put canons in instead of nikons?" --Maximiliano

Braun<br>

</em><br>

Chose the system you prefer first then the camera and lenses. I

wear glasses and I much prefer the Nikon finders. If I wanted to

switch Id have to have the mother of all fire sales. Im

also a dedicated improviser so I like the Nikon F bayonet for its

broad compatibility. There are some that shoot Nikon for manual

focus and Canon for AF and digital and like both systems. I

wouldn't worry about the megapixels as these companies leap frog

each other every few months. One could get very tied and very

poor changing systems every few months.<br>

<br>

The Nikon v. Canon "debates" are mostly about personal

preference or defending ones purchase. If you prefer Canon I see

no problem.

<i>I wouldn't worry about the megapixels as these companies leap frog each other every few months. </i><p>

I'm not sure that statement is supported by reality. It would appear that, between Canon and Nikon, Canon is the one that has the considerable lead in pixel resolution. And it appears that Canon is the only one of the two pursuing larger sensor formats (1.3x, 1.0x) that better accomodate higher pixel counts. Canon is on its second-generation 1.3x sensor, and they've had a full frame body since late 2002. Nikon has yet to indicate that they plan on going any larger than 1.5x. And their flagship DSLR is still a 5.4mp camera introduced in 2001. <p>

 

1D (December 2001): 4mp/8fps<br>

1Ds (November 2002): 11mp/3fps<br>

1D MKII (April 2004): 8mp/8fps<br>

<p>

 

D1H (May 2001): 2.7mp/5fps<br>

D1X (July 2001): 5.4mp/3fps<br>

D2H (November 2003): 4mp/8fps<br>

Nikon had a full 24x36mm capture with their E2 digital; it used a relay lens; and was a mighty 1.3 megapixels. The local newspaper got one years ago; it was 17,000 dollars with a coupld of lenses. This was a Fuji/Nikon joint venture camera body; with its telltale boxy look; for the relay lens. Nikon started with full frame digital in its digital slr's; the when to a cropped direct sensor; for cost.

<i>Nikon had a full 24x36mm capture with their E2 digital; it used a relay lens; and was a mighty 1.3 megapixels...Nikon started with full frame digital in its digital slr's; the when to a cropped direct sensor; for cost. </i>

<p>

Kelly, unfortunately your comments are totally misleading. The Nikon E2 did not use a full frame (36 x 24mm) digital sensor. It actually used a tiny 2/3" (8.8 x 6.6mm) sensor. And by using some internal trickery, they were able get it to "see" the same angle of view as a full frame (35mm) sensor. This is a far cry from having a sensor that actually measures a full 36mm x 24mm, where the extra space allows for more pixels. So in fact, Nikon did not "start with full frame digital in its digital slr's", and they did not go to a "cropped sensor" for the purposes of cost because they never had a full frame sensor to begin with!

<p>

You can read up on the Nikon E2

 

<a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/specroom98/e3/e2.htm

">here</a>.

Peter; Nikon had full frame capture before Canon did.<BR><BR>Your paragraph is the one that is missleading><BR><BR>I correctly stated 24x36mm CAPTURE; and did not say sensor. The relay lens mapped the smaller sensors size into a 24x36mm capture; which is defined as full frame> <BR><BR>The Nikon E2 was marketed as having a full frame; almost 24x36mm response; so there was no cropping factor. <BR><BR>The reason for the relay lens on the E2; is so there would be NO chopping; and almost the entire 24x36mm area at the effective film plane could be used.<BR><BR>If E2 had no relay lens; it would be just like most all of the Nikons and Canon dslr's today; with its cropped angle of view. <BR><BR>The NIKON reps clearly hawked the E2 was having about the same angle of view as a standard 24x36mm frame; when it came out. The reps at the trade shows ALL mentioned this simple fact about the E2; one of its main focal points at the trade shows I went to. <BR><BR>Nikon simply beat Canon to the full frame effective digital sensor; long ago in the ancient E2 ; a joint venture between Nikon and Fuji. Making a effective full frame sensor was the design goal of this camera a decade ago.