aplumpton

<p>I agree that most questions of superior resolution and tonality are settled by enlargement. I made several images of 12 x 18 inches from a full frame Sony (42 MP sensor) that were excellent in both categories, even when viewed at abnormally close distances. One image was printed to 24 x 32 inches (same camera and Zeiss Loxia lens) and seemed as crisp and as tonally detailed as the smaller enlargements. No doubt I could have the same quality at 30 x 45 or similar larger sizes using a small MF sensor camera, but that is not something I usually need and would be willing to pay much greater sums for, notwithstanding the technical excellence of the large system.</p> <p>So, who really can justify the larger digital sensor "MF" camera? My 6x9 Fuji (GSW 690 III) provides much better enlargements than my 2.4 x 3.6 cm film Leica and its fine lenses, but that MF camera and lens can be had at a very reasonable price, considerably lower than that of the FF film Leica.</p> <p>If the Fuji MF digital will sell at a price similar to the 50MP Pentaz 45Z, then it may be worthwhile as it would be considerably cheaper than the equivalent Leica or Hasselblad MF digital systems, yet still very expensive if you don't need 30 x 45 inch prints.<br> </p>

<p>Agree with Ian. I wish Fuji well (still using their high Q/P ratio 6x9 film camera), but their offering is in a fairly crowded segment of needs (50MP and the small MF sensor size) and even a lower price than Hasselblad or Leica (perhaps more like a Pentax 645 D or Z) may not be enough incentive.<br> Will it be that much more quality than a Sony A7rII or the equivalent FF camera?</p>

<p>Paul, as you probably noted, Gus raised a point that I had also forgotten (I use instead an M9 and an IR sensitive M8), that you can "have your cake and eat it" by following his advice. Have fun.</p> <p>FWIW, this is a shot that was better adjusted in post production I think than as a B&W capture mode (sorry, I have only the former at hand).</p> <div></div>

<p>There may be a way, Paul but I much prefer to shoot in colour (or in color... if I am in the USA at that time) while thinking a B&W result for what I am seeing, and them make the B&W conversion later, using the variable three colour sliders in PS or other to get the effect in B&W that I had imagined when pre-visualising the image before capture.<br> Having two film cameras for each medium was not any different from that, as one could only imagine the result with either during film image capture. Nothing has really changed in that sense, unless you must see a result on a monitor (and probably a less effective one than a post production result) while shooting.</p>

<p>Zzzzzzzzz.......</p> <p>Drop the computer mouse, take any camera that is handy, go out and think "f8 and be there!"</p>

<p>These long discussions really amaze me. They are mostly similar to the last one within an endless series.</p> <p>Pro photographers are but a very very small part of the Nikon, Canon users. Most other photographers use these two because they are better known to them than Sony. It is hard not to not see them at sporting events on TV or in the flesh, where they are in their realm, and that alone (unfortunately) influences a lot of photographers, as well as the fact that they are mature, well rounded systems.</p> <p>Serious photographers will buy a camera for its system capabilities, various picture making qualities and durabiity and couldn't care less about the nameplate.</p> <p>A high end Sony system and quality optics are what I presently need and apply as a part time professional photographer (part time only because I have another revenue source as well), but I could likely get similar quality elsewhere for what I shoot. I have changed systems at least three times in as many decades, which is not a problem in my case, given my relatively modest needs of lenses and accessories. </p>

<p>For those who enjoy his more oriental or minimalist approach, Shinan, France and A twenty year retrospective are three particularly fine examples of that and from the same press that Colin mentions. </p>

<p>Apparently Anglo-American photographer Michael Kenna visited several times and created images of this famous place over a period from the early 1990s to 2000. I spent a half hour viewing the 30 some silver based photographs, approximately 7 x 7 inches, that he personally prepared in the darkroom.</p> <p>Some reflect his earlier approach of minimal content and strong subject matter, which I appreciate, but on the whole the black and white images are more detailed. Some, minimalist in approach or not, seem to capture extremely well the ambiance and feeling of the former monastery, and its interaction with light, but I have only visited it on two occasions (battling the great crowds and seemingly endless steps) and have not fully appreciated the spirit of the place. The photos, often well printed and set behind glass, do not always impress as much as an unframed print.</p> <p>Worth seeing, though, and probably through to the end of August, if you are in the area.</p>

<p>Most 16 x 24 inch prints I have seen are mostly of static or slow moving subjects (landscapes, architecture, many nature subjects, still life, portraits, neighbourhood or event scenes where the small f stop is more important for DOF issues). Fast AF is not any great concern in those cases.</p> <p>I have not tried the Fuji system and acknowledge that it might have good color balance, but I inherently prefer to put all the chances on my side for high quality large prints, by using mirrorless full frame, a high resolution sensor, and the better lenses available for it. Between the Sony A7RII and a Nikon D810 or the Canon flagship FF, I much prefer the lighter weight and size of the Sony, and whenever possible, its use with lightweight primes or modest speed zooms. One of my current exhibition prints is 20 x 30 inches and the FF system permits a high level of fine detail even at that size. If I photographed sports for living or hobby I would certainly not use it. The choice, apart for highest possible IQ, depends upon one's personal approach.</p>

<p>The presence of Internet information has pretty much changed the former practices of descriptive literature in boxes of film as well as many other products. My darkroom wall also has many information sheets, including one of time versus temperature development times, that are very convenient when required. However, it is very easy to obtain quite comprehensive information from Ilford (Harman) and I presume Kodak, Fuji, Rollei and other film manufacturers. The small information slips were nonetheless useful and could still be so today when one is in the field and away from the computer or darkroom.</p>

<p>There is a feeling of awe that is perhaps usual yet one that always surprises the senses when visiting places of high mountains and undeveloped steep sloped forest land. I feel that whenever I go west and enter into the Canadian Rockies during the one or two hour trip between Calgary and Banff, Alberta. One has to experience it to feel that awe. Ansel Adams deserves a huge amount of credit for depicting the beauty in that part of his own country and it is unlikely that another will be able to capture it with the sense of mystery and surprise that he did.</p> <p>I would be interested to see some day a photographic exhibition of similar mountainous world sites (USA, France, Switzerland), Nepal, Africa, Peru, Chile, Japan, India, etc.) that have been best captured by the finest artist-photographers (fine art photography), not so as to compare their work or the sites, but to see the best of their work and of the places they photographed, how they visualised them, and what their approaches might mean to the rest of us.</p>

<p>The manual operation 50mm Zeiss Planar E mount manual for the Sony Alpha7tRII makes me forget the desire to re-acquire my once 50mm Summicron. I probably could not detect the difference between the two when used to maximize their scope of reproduction, but either seems to me to be as good as I need for well detailed large prints (the aesthetics of which I gladly spend more time working on). </p>

<p>The Daily mail is a popular English newspaper and possible many of its readers are not familiar with the American West of Ansel Adam's prints. I agree that there is a lot of déjà vu in some of the highly photographed scenes, but I didn't see any written reference in the newspaper article that Baheux is being compared to Adams, just that he is visiting and photographing (like many) the sites of Adam's work. The newspaper images are somewhat muddy which may not have a lot to do with the originals. The article describes some characteristics of the places (such as the nearly 2000 foot deep Crater Lake) which is probably its intention for its readership, possibly with a little collaboration from a USA tourism agency.</p> <p>Cliché is often attached to images that are made in the same area that has been tred by a famous photographer. While many have that questionable quality, what is wrong with attempting an original image made at a similar site before by an Atget (Paris), Adams (American West), or other? Or of a common monument (Statue of Liberty, Eiffel tower), some of which are still in need of a really fresh and original treatment?</p>

<p>Sandy, I may not know Adams well enough, but the photos of Baheux of the same subjects seem to me to be different. Many I think Adams perceived much better, but a few of those of Baheux are quite good in their own right, although others seem to be a bit déjà vu (like the classic camera club type framing of a distant monument mountain using closer branches and vegetation or flowers). Adams is apparently one of his model photographers, so one can expect some closeness of vision. You are right that the 72 (or 120?) dpi screen image is nothing like a good print. Thanks for the link to Baheux</p>

<p>It is still in production with essentially the same formula of 1979 (by Walter Mandler, head of optics, Leitz Canada). One of the finest 50mm f2 optics then and even now, with a well balanced image wide open or closed down. At 2200$ US new one can find mint used examples at lower prices. it is a lens that once you sell it you then wonder why, and look for a same replacement.</p>

<p>I think Damon was thinking of Adams, and not Baheux, who is the subject of Sandy's OP.</p> <p>The Internet site of French photographer Baheux shows no Los Angeles images, simply the natural American West. There are however some fine images of Los Angeles by Adams on the the Pinterest site, a style quite different from what he is usually known for.</p> <p>I wonder how many of Baheux's fine images are film shot and darkroom printed? He once used the darkroom with film cameras but like many he switched to digital. Judging by the reasonable price of his images they are probably digital & inkjet.</p> <p> </p>

<p>"Having difficulty" suggests that you are finding them very equivalent in regard to your needs. Only you can choose which of three good systems you prefer, which may come down to visiting the store of your choice and handling each, or at least two of them, to determine which feels better for you. By purchasing there, they will no doubt be happy for you to take a bit of time to decide on the ergonomics. You can first go to the working photographer camera review links (not amazon.com or other similar commercial site client reviews) on the Internet if you need any further information from a third party on the capabilities of each.</p>

<p>David and Martin,<br /> Only 33 were made in Wetzlar, compared to 150 in Midland, yet the Wetzlar suggested used prices (David's link) are less than this one. Mr. Boris also has a black M3 with 50mm lens for a mere $35,000. Given the relative abundance of these "rare" cameras, and the fact that they are just relatively easily made industrial products, it is nuts how much they demand, acquire and why?</p> <p>We are not talking about originals versus copies of a famous painting, but do you not think that just as much or more pleasure might be had by instead playing with (or just displaying) another much more readily available Barnack or M camera, at less than 1/20th or 1/30th the price? If I had the money for this, a good 19/20ths or 29/30ths of the price mentioned would go to needy families here or abroad, or deserving students, and the rest to an equally competent and enjoyable less rare device. All said, I think that small markets for some goods should not be a criteria for downstream value. </p>

<p>Initially, I shot anything that aroused my curiosity, and much of that can be seen in my PN portfolio.</p> <p>Now, and excepting record photos of events, places or friends, I have thought more about what sort of aesthetic or artistic approach I want to follow. I attempt to research the themes I want to develop and I work at achieving some sort of goal in that respect. I am still curious, but the curiosity is channelled more into exploration and in creating images that evolve from and are different from my former photographs. Not easy to do, as it is easy to stay in a rut of continuity where the continuity (as opposed to the continuity of artistic approach) can lead to images without any passion, or photos that tend to be copies of work before.</p> <p>Technology change is useful. Digital is a great tool. Given enough quality of reproduction, as I think presently exists for most applications, I don't care what equipment I use, although the simpler ands less bulky the equipment, the easier it is to handle over an extended period. I have some 50 plus images in my summer exhibition and as much as I like the quality of the 3rd party digital prints (which nonetheless required well balanced digital files to achieve some impact), my 5 darkroom crafted B&W prints from film stand up very well in comparison with the B&W digital prints, as they have a tonality and paper texture that is close to magic for me and I will still use my darkroom for certain images. This occurs mostly when I am not rushed and I can spend an evening or two just printing, often while listening to music except when I want to concentrate more on the printing strategy or manipulations, as opposed to more automatic fabrication of a number of copies.</p> <p>So, the major change for this photographer has been that of what, why and how I photograph, with research of themes, and to a somewhat lesser extent by the flexible opportunity that is offered by digital imaging.</p> <p>Camera technology improvement is important but most systems today are adequate for my needs, eliminating any neurotic "which camera should I use?" reflections. A lady visited the exhibition of another female friend, was suitably impressed by what she saw and asked the artist what camera equipment did she use. A month later, the photographer was invited by her female friend to a gourmet style supper with friends. Following a very good meal the photographer asked "Your main dish was excellent - you must have a very expensive oven!"</p>

<p>16 x 24 with a crop sensor is possible, but it is very near or past the limit and I think that this would be particularly so with landscapes or other images requiring high detail out to the edges of the frame. Cameras on tripods and careful exposure can perhaps do that with a crop sensor, but how many pictures would be made under such ideal conditions? If you need zoom lenses for much of your photography then it is granted that DSLRs and FF mirrorless systems will give you perhaps more weight and size than you may want. In that case, I would think about a crop sensor camera like the Fujis and settle for somewhat smaller prints. Each photographer has different needs and satisfying them can require compromises.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I went from Leica RF to Sony A7 and haven't regretted it, although the former system still gets mileage. I am not sure what it is about Sony FF that you don't like (and would be curious to know), but I was also a doubter for some time, before I tried Sony and Zeiss optics on the versatile Sony bodies that convinced me a future change would be worthwhile in my work. Not perfect, but what system is? What Sony and other FF mirrorless cameras really need to do in my humble opinion is to reduce the size of many of the mirrorless optics, to futrther enhance reduction in weight. The smaller sensor Fuji system seems to have advanced in that regard, but I have little on hands knowledge of it.</p>

<p>Edward, interesting point about the sensor geometry on the A7RII. I know little of the camera's design characteristics but your information is reassuring. Robin, I simply mentioned to the newspaper that it is an IR image and that the tonality appearing on most monitors is how the image was adjusted in Photoshop and how it should appear when printed. Obviously that was not enough.</p> <p>When I have RA-4 prints made on Fuji Crystal Archive photographic paper at a local major photo store I give instructions to not make any adjustments to the files. The results are usually fine and do not require second takes, except in one or two cases when I have to remember beforehand to remove color from a B&W image to avoid unwanted color casts.</p>

<p>We often come down to comparing the resolution and microcontrast of lenses, whereas other less easily measurable qualities often carry the day for some of us. I never saw a lens that, at optimum aperture, gave a better rendition of B&W tones than a simple 4 element Zeiss Tessar design, well designed and manufactured, under the same f stop conditions.</p> <p>Similarily, the tonality or signature rendition of the "old formula" Loxia 50mm f2 lens seems to me to go beyond its apparent technical specifications and measurements. In a previous post I showed a large (originally 24 x 36 inch image) of a multicolored stone wall made with the Loxia on the A7RII and that was of high perceived tonality and quality right out to the edges, and within a stop of maximum aperture (f2 was also very good). What more, other than f1.4, would I need (O.K, Leica has a f0.95 standard lens, but where does need really end?)?</p>