Canon 5D Mark III vs MF

<p>Hi folks,<br>

<br />Not sure where to share this so I thought I'd put it here since I have done this shoot with a Canon 5D Mark III along with a Hasselblad H4D40.<br>

We all see an increase of MP in recent dSLRs and a majority of us would recommend to go for a FF camera when it comes to advise someone for the purchase of a new body ...<br>

Aside from the number of pixels that can be cramped in a 24x36mm area, medium format, even at lower MP count, can be ... I always wet something when shooting with a MF.<br>

There is a link to a full size image included (way too big to post in here).<br>

Any feedback ..?<br>

Take care.<br>

<br />MP vs Sensor size here: <a href="http://www.nomadphotography.com.au/blog/medium-format-with-molly/">http://www.nomadphotography.com.au/blog/medium-format-with-molly/</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I always wet something when shooting with a MF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That excited, eh? I had a Labrador Retriever pup like that once.</p>

<p>I'm not quite sure what your point is or what we're supposed to be looking for?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and a majority of us would recommend to go for a FF camera when it comes to advise someone for the purchase of a new body...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, "a majority of us" would not. "A majority of us" don't shoot cozy little staged scenes a couple of feet from our stationary, obliging (and, in the linked post above, ungainly and utterly unnaturally posed) subjects.</p>

<p><strong>I <em>really</em> don't like sweeping generalisations, or blinkered personal opinions stated as incontrovertible, all-encompassing facts</strong>.</p>

<p>Indeed, Keith is absolutely right. I (personally)<em> only</em> recommend FF when it will perform tangibly better <em>enough</em> for someone to justify the increased cost. MF is (especially now) further along the same road. It is hugely more expensive for better performance in some respects.</p>

<p>If you <em>need</em> those aspects, then a D800 isn't likely to cut the mustard, nor (obviously) will a 5D3.</p>

<p>Each type of camera serves its ideal purpose well and also leaves room for improvement and competition. Medium format backs are up to 80 megapixels these days (Leaf, PhaseOne), well beyond 40, so they seem to be keeping pace just fine.</p>

<p>Keith Reeder, not sure I get your point about different people shooting different subjects. To each his own - but directing models on location and getting the shots you (or your clients) need - no matter how stationary and posed things need to be - can be just as challenging to get right as any other subject matter, if done properly. I understand you dislike Omega's example, but you also seem to disdain the entire concept of producing or composing a shot with strategic forethought, which is the skill that has pretty much sustained photography as a viable career since the beginning. Gorgeous owl, but the way, I'm sure you smiled after capturing that.</p>

<p>JDM von Weinberg, I'm not sure if I should believe your story because I've never heard of a Labrador Retriever puppy getting excited. :)</p>

<p>I <em>will</em> stipulate that the "joyous leaking effect" is more common with cocker spaniel puppies. ;)</p>

<p>My brother-in-law used to be able to work her (the labrador) up to a damp frenzy even as a young adult. She was otherwise ok as she got older.</p>

<p>For some things digital MF can be wonderful. For others, less so.</p>

<p>If you can work more slowly, don't need the same range of focal lengths or very large apertures, have quite deep pockets, and frequently (as in virtually always) produce very high quality and very large prints... digital MF is wonderful.</p>

<p>If you produce merely very large prints (20" x 30" or so, and perhaps somewhat larger), you employ longer focal lengths and larger apertures in your work, you frequently have to carry gear on your back, and you need to respond quickly to changing circumstances... full frame DSLRs will generally work better for you.</p>

Sorry I stopped drooling over or being made incontinent by cameras a very long time ago.yes the IQ180 and IQ160 phase

one backs capture an incredible degree of detal and have a very large native dynamic range , same is true for the biggest

H'blad back. But at 40 MP or less the Nikon D800 and D800E rule the field and are far more versatile cameras with a

vastly large array of high quality lenses to work with.

Otherwise, it's horses for courses and frankly for the difference in price, if I had as much money as a basic 39, 50, or

60mp medium format system and could only spend it on photographic related things, I buy a 1D X and a 5D mark III a couple more lenses and would spend the rest on traveling places I haven't yet been to.

Advantages of the FF DSLR:

IS (VR)

High ISO performance

High frame rate

Automated bracketing

Rich autofocus feature set

Availability of long lenses

The ability to operate handheld for sports, events, reportage, aerial, fashion, lifestyle, and other genres

The ability to afford a backup body (or several)

Live View without tethering

Tilt Shift performance without buying a separate technical camera

Resolution that covers 99.999 percent of uses handily with extra to spare

Advanced HD video capability included

<blockquote>

<p>... cozy little staged scenes a couple of feet from our stationary, obliging (and, in the linked post above, ungainly and utterly unnaturally posed) subjects.<br /> <strong>I <em>really</em> don't like ... blinkered personal opinions stated as incontrovertible, all-encompassing facts</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Uh huh. I'm with you, Keith. Incontrovertibly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it's horses for courses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Watch out, Ellis, that sounds like a sweeping generalisation to me. ;-)</p>

<p>To the OP: I am not going to diss you or your photography, but I'm with JDM (once he's stopped talking about his dogs): I really am not sure what your point is, either in your post or in the linked blog.</p>

<p>Content is - always - the key. Depending on what you want to shoot, you will need different tools to shoot it best. Any advantages of MF digital are instantly neutralized by certain shooting situations where it just becomes a liability (birds in flight, paparazzi, sports - I could go on for pages).</p>

<p>Even when shooting subjects that would seemingly be perfect for MF, the output requirements can themselves render the format overkill (there's no point shooting that still life or fashion job on MF if it's solely for web use).</p>

<p>Most importantly, it's still just a tool. Salivating over technical merits and gawping at 100% crops on a large monitor is all very well, but it always comes back to content and the merits of the actual image.</p>

<p> </p>

I have to say I am a bit surprised by the responses. Perhaps there is a hint of jealousy in them. I had the opportunity a year ago to shoot

the Leica S2 (only 37.5 MP) and I have to say I was very impressed. If I had the money I would love to add one to my selection of

cameras. While the Leica what's the usual limitations of an MF camera (although the handling was quite SLR like and it was not that big)

the images it produced were very impressive.

Is the negative reaction to MF the result of it's poor performance or the fact that most of us cannot afford it?

Good point Philip. I just saw a selection of really well printed portraits by Marco Grob from his "Beyond 9/11" folio. All

were shot with the Hasselblad H4D-60 and an HC 80mm lens. They have an extraordinary power. Granted that most of

their power comes from Grob's phenomenal skills with light and processing skills and his direct almost confrontational

interactions with the people (ranging from anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan(wearing an "Arrest Cheney First" t-shirt) to

former President George W. Bush and other members of his administration) but a lot comes from the extraordinary clarity

and un-compromised detail that the lens and back are capable of.

<p>I find it hard to see any evidence of "jealousy" in any of these responses. I have and use MF digital so it's irrelevant in my case, but responders here (myself included) are merely pointing out the fact that in many shooting situations a DSLR is - by far - the better tool.</p>

<p>The 'poor performance' of MF digital is not necessarily the handling of the body - and certainly not any resolution or low ISO IQ issues. It's simply that - regardless of price - the lens selection (esp. telephoto), maximum apertures, flexibility, frame rates, shutter speeds,high ISO capabilities, size and ease of use favor DSLRs in many situations. For much of the work that I personally do (and the output requirements) MF is exactly the right tool, but there are many more situations where it becomes a liability and in those situations DSLRs shine. It's not a matter of jealousy or the fact that one is more expensive than the other.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It's strange that we still don't have a Like button for (some of the) comments in the forums.</p>

<p>The whole point of the article was to share and show the difference between sensors sizes. The same thing would exist between crop sensor and full frame sensor.<br>

I may be one of the only few who think that 20MP in a medium format sensor is still better than 40MP SLR sensor just for the dynamic range, level of details, the size of the sensor ... Ultimately dSLRs might catch up one day..?<br />May be it's just me :o)<br>

<br />If you have to jump the bus to take a picture or spray and pray then MF is not for you, or maybe you rely too much on what your SLR can do for you that you forget all about the image? I have NO problem with that. It just would not stop me from doing what I love and certainly not stopping me from having a leak when doing what I love turns me on .. :P</p>

Its interesting to read here that photographers who use FF DSLR cameras are considered to be "spray and pray" shooters. Having shot

6x7 and 4x5 for years - in the latter case anything under four minutes for a single shot was blisteringly fast - I think I learned how to take

photos without 10 fps even when the camera in my hands supports that rate of capture.

Having shot Fujichrome in the aforementioned cameras, complete with five stops of dynamic range, extended DR just isn't all that

important to me. That said, according to DxO, the current DR leader isn't a medium format back. It's a FF DSLR. Where does that fit

into the DSLR equation?