gregory_king1

January 10, 2012

Let's stick for the time being to the equipment Mike's looking at, lest we confuse him more. :-) The AFD will sync at 1/125. Not bad, but not great. It can't shoot with LS lenses, although the new Phase One DF (the new version of the same camera) can, with new lenses.

The back could be used with adapter on an RZ67 with 1/400 sync, but given the extra cost/hassle/crop, it's hardly worth it.

Remember that at those low ISO's, rarely is flash sync a problem because of too much ambient light. Having a powerful enough flash IS a problem. ;) IIRC, the DCS can be used down at ISO 8...so you have the whole other end of the spectrum to explore. ;-) Regarding ultimate image quality in good light....

I've tested 12mp APS-C with top-notch glass against 11mp MFDB, and the MFDB won hands down. I'd say a 2x benefit in resolution is conservative...maybe more. So, if you print square, the resolution of the formats would be comparable (cropping the 5D down), meaning you could print the DCS at twice the area (perhaps even double the linear dimension/4x the size). But if you are like most people and crop the other way, the DCS starts out at a 50% pixel disadvantage, leaving you with not much of a lead in ultimate resolution.

FWIW, I can send you a 22mp native MFDB file to compare with your 5D at the pixel level.

January 10, 2012

Joe,

Lol! That may have been true a few years ago, but the IQ obtainable from today's full-frame and MF DSLRs is superior to film in almost every way, and at ISO speeds that film users can only drool over. To see the slightest advantage in using film you have to move up to at least 6x7cm in format, and stick with film of less than 400 ISO. Oh yes, better budget for some quality drum scans as well.

</blockquote>

Um, you got your years confused. We ARE talking about technology "a few years ago", remember? You seem to have forgotten that since your first paragraph.

We're talking about the DCS. He's not looking into buying a $50,000 back

January 10, 2012

Since it includes the camera (and I presume an 80mm lens), that's not a bad price. No reason to worry about the AFD II. It's not much better (slightly faster AF, from what I read). I'm not sure why Friedmann thinks spending $4000-5000 for a film/scanner setup (plus costs to process film) is preferable to spending $3500 on a digital system. You certainly won't be saving money, since you're a thousand or two in the hole out of the gate.

Let's discuss resolution. Scanning 645 film will provide 20-40mp depending on the quality of your scanner, with the associated grain. The digital back provides 16mp, but to be fair, only 12mp after cropping to similar dimensions. However, those pixels are grainfree, and easily equivalent to 24mp of scanned film...and arguably more. So, in completely simplified terms, I'd say resolution is a push. That leaves tonality and ISO as discriminators. Film (C-41) will provide better ISO performance and film-like tonality. Digital provides a very high contrast E-6 type of look, and operates best at ISO50 and below.

Nice thing about that camera, you can shoot film whenever you need to. :-) I can't say whether the DB will provide better results than your 5D. I find my 22mp MFDB provides much better images than my APS-C digital cameras, but the tradeoffs in speed and ISO etc. make me consider getting out of medium format (I shoot film as well) when I find a FF camera (next generation) that I want.

January 8, 2012

Seems an odd question to ask, considering you own one. Perhaps you'd be better off asking about a prospective Canon or Nikon.

January 4, 2012

I think my approach was a bit different than most.

I bought a Metz flash on Ebay. It came with a module attached that turned out to be a 3952. When I googled it, it came up with this camera called "Mamiya 645AF"

So I bought one. :-)

(No kidding).

Then I got an RB67, and then upgraded to an RZ67.

I like the low cost, good performance, SLR functionality, leaf shutter when I need it (on the RZ) or portability and autofocus on the 645 when I don't.

And I can shoot digital on both.

January 1, 2012

1) Stick with the AFD (I, II or III) or the newer version, the DF. 2) Yes, the AFD was designed to handle all but a few really old (6mp) backs. 3) Yes, Sekor C lenses work, but must be stopped down manually. LS lenses will NOT work...so you're stuck with 1/125 sync speed. 4) Due to the lack of an AA filter, I find MFDB megapixels to be about 2x as sharp as DSLR megapixels. This is for technology that's a few years old, but it should hold for newer versions. The trade-off is not insignificant, though.

1. You can get aliasing and moire patterns

2. You lose a LOT of sensitivity. Even though the pixels are bigger, they usually operate best below 100 ISO. DSLR's can go many stops higher.

3. Weight, size, speed, etc...all are worse for MFDB. I shoot a 22mp 48x36 back now, but I expect to retire it when I get a FF DSLR this year. The photos are great, but the novelty of maintaining two systems (645 and RZ67) to shoot it (and film) is wearing thin. The times when the MFDB would be the format of choice is about once a year for my hobbiest uses....hard to justify maintaining a multi-thousand dollar depreciating investment when I can get similar quality to my MF film with my DSLR.

December 21, 2011

Rich,

Ha ha, I knew that would rankle someone. ;-) I didn't say the A850/900 didn't have their own advantages...they just don't have the same ones the A77 has. For example, they have twice the ISO performance according to DXOmark. You'd expect that from a sensor twice the size, but 2-3 years newer technology in the A77 should have closed that gap. I guess they made a 1/3 stop improvent, considering the pellicle. So, as you say, if you're looking for sheer image performance and legacy handling, the 850/900 are the ideal choice. But I have that now in my existing cameras. So I guess I'm asking to have my cake and eat it too. I want the A99 to have the image performance of the 850/900 at least, with hopefully some modernization added. Plus, I want all the whizbang features of the new technology.

December 19, 2011

At this point, it seems worth it to wait for the next FF, in my opinion. The current FF options are too old, and have none of the advantages of the A77. And the A77 has some teething pains, but is still APS even if it gets them sorted out.

For me, I think an A850 AND an A77 would be a good combo. But since I have neither, I'm thinking I'll skip the A77 and hope the A99 is all it can be. My A550 and medium format will suffice in the meantime.

December 15, 2011

Well, we all know Joe is the master...I always defer to his eloquence on equivalence. ;)

And of course, the impact on bokeh of magnification is as important (or moreso) than DOF. I just recommended an 85mm 2.8 lens as a present for a friend of mine. It's much cheaper than the 85mm 1.4 of mine that she was used to borrowing. It'll be interesting to see her comments on its portrait capability, when a similarly framed shot will have more DOF than she'd get with her 50mm 1.7 wide open.

December 14, 2011

Hard for anyone else to say. You have to multiply the number of priceless shots you'd have missed without it by the disposable income you spent on it, and divide by 1349.

If the resultant value is greater than your age, then yes...it's worth it. :-)

In my case, I'd say the added value of the A77 is worth the extra $400 to me, but I'm not sure either camera is worth more than the $350 I paid for my A550.

So...I'll wait for a FF version to come out. THAT camera, at over $2000...will probably be worth it to me.

December 8, 2011

Starvy,

One of the advantages of live view, allowing the camera to identify faces/smiles. It can optimize focus and exposure for people (and specifically people you KNOW in newer models), and in this case, trip the shutter when it detects a smile.

I wasn't a fan of LV before, but it's useful. And with an SLT, you get it at all times, since the viewfinder is just another form of LV.

December 8, 2011

Not personally, but the best example I saw posted was using it as an automated baby photographer. The shooter spent time entertaining the baby, and every time the baby smiled, the camera (on tripod) took a shot or two.

Otherwise, it's probably best used as a "more intelligent" self-timer for family photos.

December 6, 2011

I use a basic rule of thumb of one stop less DOF for each increase in format size. 35mm 1.4 (APS) = 50 mm f/2 (35mm) = 85mm f/2.8 (645) = 110mm f/4 (6x7) It's pretty close to constant with respect to absolute aperture size, which would be around 25mm in each case. Since the lenses aren't exact multiples of eachother, you move your feet a bit to reframe each lens to the exact magnification, which changes the DOF.

December 6, 2011

Perhaps it's because many/most of the MF cameras are reflex? This increases the registration distance significantly, resulting in more difficult retrofocal designs for wide angles.

That wouldn't explain lack of wide angles on something like a Mamiya 7, though.

My 30mm Arsat is a fisheye, and still only equivalent to 18mm on FF.

November 30, 2011

Try setting it on P mode. You may be setting it on AUTO mode, which IIRC reverts to standard settings whenever it is switched off.

November 30, 2011

Dianna,

There aren't many macros that AREN'T 2.8, if you are talking about prime lenses. Macro zooms are slower, and most are only 1:2 macros...they don't go all the way to 100% magnification.

But not that it matters much. You usually use smaller apertures to increase DOF at macro focusing distances.

Insects are easier to get with longer focal length lenses, because you're less likely to bug them (no pun intended). But shorter (30mm and 50mm macros) are much cheaper.

I would recommend looking at the 30mm or 50mm macros from Sony (or older 50mm Minolta macros). All are equally good, and will give you effective 45mm and 75mm respective fields of view and focusing distances.

If you want 100mm, there's a cheap 100mm f/3.5 branded by Phoenix, Cosina, and a few other names. You can google "Plastic Fantastic". Be sure to get the AF version. Or look for a 70-300mm 1:2 macro zoom. It's made by Tamron or Sigma (or both). They run under $200 and get decent reviews. As noted above, they won't get you as much magnication, and will be a little less sharp, but can also be used as standard zoom telephoto lenses.

November 22, 2011

Somewhere in that complicated issue of physics, optics, and human perception, there's the effect of the anti-aliasing filter. In my experience, a cheap MF lens on an unaliased digital back can outresolve almost by 2x an expensive lens on an APS-C sensor.

So, in a way, I'd rather have 22 million clean unadulterated pixels than 88 million deliberately blurred ones. :-)

I think you get some of the same effect running the A77 sensor at 12mp. The AA filter is softer than it is for the A700, since it's designed for the higher pitched sensor.

I would be interested in seeing that comparison.

November 17, 2011

FWIW (I can't see the images and am not sure therefore what the issue is....):

The 76 has built-in Metz wireless capability. If you have another flash (like a 54) on the camera in control mode, and leave the 76 unplugged to its control module, it will automatically assume the slave role and fire in response to the 54, with metering.

Hopefully this info will help someone. :)

November 17, 2011

Richard, Ah, thanks. You are correct. Guess I'll need to get an A850 instead. ;-)

I just tried an Eye-Fi card in my A550 last night. It will automatically "tether" to an Android/Ipad...which could then be used with certain printers to print directly. (But obviously with no editing capability).

The other option is to use any (older included) Eye-Fi and a wireless network to transmit files over the network to a computer. Of course, it'll be slower, and provide no camera controls.

Way to go, Sony. Cut your hand off to spite your face. Neutering your 7-series cameras is stupid enough. Doing without an 8 or 9 series camera to force people up to is just plain lunacy.

November 17, 2011

Richard,

Ah, thanks. You are correct. Guess I'll need to get an A850 instead. ;-)

I just tried an Eye-Fi card in my A550 last night. It will automatically "tether" to an Android/Ipad...which could then be used with certain printers to print directly. (But obviously with no editing capability).

The other option is to use any (older included) Eye-Fi and a wireless network to transmit files over the network to a computer. Of course, it'll be slower, and provide no camera controls.

Way to go

November 17, 2011

Okay, I went a bit far on that one. ;-) I got the A55 and my A700 mixed up.

I should have added "when shot at similar resolution, vs my current A700", since I figure I won't shoot the A77 at 24mp except for controlled portraits.

I guess I haven't seen any info that the A77 (at 12mp) is better than the A55.

I would be more interested to compare it to my 22mp MFDB, which looks sharp at 200% resolution due to no AA filter. I'm thinking it'll fail miserably....but then I'll still have a reason to shoot 22mp on MFDB and 12mp on the A77.

November 16, 2011

Meh...not sure I'd care at this point. ;)

The LAST thing I want the A77 for is the resolution. Over the A55, I want the: - bigger body - better FPS - higher ISO - micro AF adjust - 1/250 shutter - electronic first curtain - better viewfinder - better battery life - tethered shooting.

Did I miss anything? ;)

(I'm not critiquing your test...I just think expecting a 24mp APS-C sensor to actually provide that much useful results is expecting a lot)

November 8, 2011

Sounds just like you aren't waking up the back. With the H5, you need to pulse it once to wake it up, then a second time to take the photo. This means you either have to take the photo TWICE within 5 seconds (a pain), or fashion a wake up cable. I used a wired cell phone headset that had a "talk" button that fit the same port as the PC cable. My H10 had two ports (one on each side), so I think yours will as well. One had the PC cable, the other my cheap wake-up cable. I'd push the button, the lights would flash...then I'd take the shot.

I even built up a remote wireless adapter to attach a wake up cable and electronic shutter release cable to a Minolta wireless shutter release. Half-press wakes up the back, full press activates the shutter.

Hope this helps.

November 7, 2011

Does the meter reading change in A mode when you change the aperture? (Even though obviously the real aperture isn't changing).

November 7, 2011

I wish we had new letters...A & M are overused in camera context. ;-)

The lens is coupled to the meter through the lever at the top of the lens. It tells the camera what aperture the lens WILL be at when it stops down at time of shot (A mode). So the meter subtracts the required amount of light from the equation since it's metering wide open. Is the notch on the camera locking with the lever on the camera? If you set the lens to M, it will stop down, so the camera gets less light. But it doesn't know better, and will meter assuming it is still wide open. So, shooting with the meter in Auto Exposure (A or AEL) mode, but puitting the lens in M would result in underexposure (I think).

But you said you set the shutter speed manually, so that shouldn't be a problem. I can check my 645E when I get home.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by gregory_king1