DB_Gallery

<p>I just purchased a new Zeiss Milvus 50mm F2 Makro Planar from B&H right when they had stock this week. It is to be specifically used for paid food and lifestyle shoots, I get to use it on a half day shoot tomorrow.<br /> <br /> This lens is a total work of art, just mind blowing build quality without feeling unnecessarily heavy. The focus action on this lens is nothing short of perfection, from infinity to 1:2. The sharpness, color saturation and contrast could be the only reason I would ever need to get this lens. And thankfully, the shade reverses for storage in my bag, I had my doubts when I first saw the design. The lens focuses very easily with all my Nikon bodies, D810, D750, F100, F3HP and the king of them all, the peerless FM3A.<br /> <br /> I first checked out the Milvus line in person at the Telluride Photo Festival when a fellow pro and friend had a set for folks to check out. I was so taken by the in-another-league quality of these lenses that I never even gave the price a second thought. I am putting my 50 1.4G and 60 VR macro on eBay this weekend.<br /> <br /> Zeiss absolutely nailed it with the Milvus line. I don't know that I really need any of the others but this 50/2 Makro is easily the nicest manual focus lens I have ever used!</p>

<p>I think I want to get the 200-500 but I just dropped some coin on the Zeiss Milvus 50mm F2 Makro Planar...nice, nice lens. </p>

I learned about Milvus lenses in late September when a fellow pro who is a Zeiss ambassador had a couple of them with him on a shoot.

Tech is great, but we are 6 pages in and Andrew has probably purchased his camera and is out in Borneo keeping his lens from fogging up while chasing Clouded Leopards. At this point, there is not much more to be done than technical grandstanding. So the only way to keep this interesting is to put it in a far more creative context.

<p>Edward, you sure talk a lot of talk and that likely resonates with those on forums who are far more into gear than photography...but you have yet to post a single image that would make me want to use digital anything over film anything.<br> Sorry, but if you are going to wow us with tech, you have to wow us with great photographs. Otherwise it is more of what there is already way too much of on the internet about photography and gear.<br> Oh, I ordered the new Zeiss Milvus 50mm F2 Makro Planar today, strictly for food and lifestyle ad shoots, ought to be a nice one.</p>

I just shipped off a 16x20 contact frame today since I scrapped the idea of a 16x20 camera when I spent that money on my CFV50c back, I'll just stick with 4x5 on the larger end. As for hybrid process, not interested really, either the darkroom all the way through or digital. It's a manner of working and a deep seated philosophy that is working really well for me.

<p>Andrew, I would go for the D810 then, it opens up the tones a good bit over the D750, has a better tonal range within it's dynamic range. You know you can rent this equipment to check it out from a place like Lensrentals, I have done it in the past and it really helps nail things down, much better than over the counter handling upstairs in B&H. </p> <p>And I hear you on LF in the darkroom, I also shoot that format and it is by far the easiest to print in terms of dust control. Good luck either way, lots of great gear out there that can handle up to 20x30 with ease, all you really need is vision.</p>

<p>I guess I am the odd pro who does not follow social or industry norms or any kind of "reviews"...</p> <p>When I want medium format quality, I use medium format in both film and digital with my CFV50c back. For what it is worth, I shoot in Leica an M3, M6TTL & M240. In Nikon I shoot a F3, FM3A, F100, D750 & D810. In Hasselblad I shoot 2x 501CM's, 500ELX with 8 lenses, 9 film backs and the CFV50c.</p> <p>See the pattern here?</p> <p>Every system has both film and digital components that are relied upon equally in my pro and personal work. In the case of my film use, it is 95% black and white hand printed in my darkroom, something I feel digital will never be able to replace for *me* in terms of journey and final output. So the latest addition of the CFV50c back ( yes, I took advantage of the great deal going on until the end of the year ) has allowed me to now leave the Nikons at home more often when I have things like Winter shot lists to get done for a ski client but want to also make fine art black and white images.</p> <p>And when I do use color film, it is mostly in 120 and 4x5 simply because I feel like it. Now....here is the thing about the new Hasselblad CFV50c back: I demoed it a couple months ago in order to establish it as a viable tool. All it had to do was equal the best D810 images with the better lenses and it did that and a lot more. The detail I get out of it with lenses like my 50mm CF FLE, 100mm 3.5 CFi and 180mm 4.0 CFi are just astounding, a much cleaner and open look than the D810.</p> <p>So again, if you want "Medium Format Quality" then you use medium format, because quality is only partly measured in sheer resolution numbers and I don't feel that digital has changed the fundamental game all that much.</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>When the X100T came out all the reviews spurred me on to rent one. I had previously rented the X100S but it didn't fix the usability flaws for me. The T is a whole different camera operationally. Fuji pretty much nailed it.</p> </blockquote> <p>Did they ever fix the issue in that the only way to see the menu or menu-like items was to either put the damn thing in live view or keep your eye glued to the viewfinder as you fumbled around for buttons in order to make even basic adjustments?<br /> Because that sir, is what I consider to be the single biggest user interface blunder by any camera maker in my 21 years of using digital cameras professionally. After the first firmware update did not address it, I got rid of that stupid thing, bought a clean used M240 and never looked back.<br> <br /> Fuji *really* blew it on the T with that mess...hardly what I would call "Nailed it".</p>

<blockquote> <p>Our local shortage of chemicals and papers means I often end up digitally shooting a lot of intended B&W subjects.</p> </blockquote> <p>The closest source for those items for me is about 200 miles and two 12,000 foot mountain passes away, I have been ordering from B&H and Freestyle for 100% of this since 2002.<br> If it ever comes to be that I can no longer get them, I will simply exit photography.</p>

I love my M240, no way I would compromise and get a Sony anything, I only paid 4K for it mint used. It does better in low light than the test / enthusiast crowd would have you believe as well. But it is not my first choice for Leica and is strictly for paid shoots that need color or quick turnaround. I still by far and away prefer the real photographs I get from black and white film in my M3 & M6. But the 240 has a great look to it, really nice tonal distribution with a richness and sharpness that is only surpassed by my new 50MP Hasselblad CFV50c digital back.....again, a device I choose second over film.

<p>I know...I just had to razz you..:-) I would get an H25 over a "Hasselnuts" any day, even as an enthusiast. </p>

<p>Oh, I really don't think your 22mp back is "easier" to focus Phil, it is just not showing possible inaccuracies nearly as much. I find focusing using the 50c back to be pretty easy, especially verifying it with live view. The 1.3x crop does not bother me at all, it makes the system that much more versatile for me and most of the clients that will use images from it would want that aspect ratio to begin with. <br> For the enthusiast crowd, maybe toting a laptop around just to play with cameras is the way to get into using your Hasselblads beyond film. But for a guy like me who will pay the back off in a couple months of really fun and fantastic photo work, the 50c is a no brainer. </p>

<p>I will admit I was also waiting until digital V backs in general fell a lot more in price, more like $4,000-$6,000 would have been nice but I would have either bought used or been waiting quite awhile if ever for new. But, rumor has it that Hasselblad might get purchased by Phase One so a digi back this good, light ( 4 oz. more than a film back ) this beautifully matched for the V system might be the last of it's kind for all anyone knows.<br /> <br /> It was a pretty easy decision really, this back makes my Hasselblad V system incredibly powerful and versatile in the digital age and the image quality is fantastic, even at higher ISO's.</p><div></div>

<p>This is how it is done folks:</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>Cute but no cigar for me.<br> I have a big Hasselblad system that is my primary for black and white fine art that I have been wanting to use for more work. So in order to make that value proposition work better, I just bought a brand new CFV50c back on the promotion that they have going until the end of the year. I demo'd the back for about 10 days over the Summer and totally loved it. </p>

<p>Thank.<br> God.</p>

<p>Ray, you are correct, that was the M8 I was thinking of, and that too for a few years. I also agree the M9 was good up to about 1,250 depending on lighting, color cast and exposure.</p> <p> </p>

<p>It's a workflow thing on their end...</p> <p>It is not uncommon for members of the editorial staff to use more than just the office production environment machines to do layout, post production, etc. In evaluation stage, these images are often viewed on mobile devices so your 7,000 px wide finals will bloat an otherwise speedy system. It is fairly common practice for editors to send out a PDF of a cover or spread to another editor and low res images make this a lot faster.</p> <p>The way I always approach getting finals to a pub is that I post produce 2-3 times the number of images the pub is looking for and select the top out of those to send. I work the photos up fully as in press ready and then batch export a low res set ( 1,600 px or so ) to send as needed with the high res ready to go at a moments notice via either my Dropbox account or a folder ready to send to their FTP or via something like WeTransfer. If the art director / editor asks for slightly different angles of the same take, I have the alternates ready to go in both hi and low res...<br /> Hope that helps!</p>

<p>The caliber of real estate offered for sale will often dictate the expected technical and artistic result.</p> <p>Photographing real estate is very nuanced in terms of the price / quality expectation, so communication before any work is done is really key. I usually only do it as part of a lifestyle shoot or bigger campaign and at that level, the budgets are usually in the $1,800-$3,000 per day range and having the rooms prepped and propped is easily taken care of.</p> <p>Not that I work in this area but the mid to lower end is where it is perhaps a bit tougher. The reason is that at this point, the agent could have been getting good enough photos from their own DSLR, in camera HDR and panoramic images from their phone but want something considerably better and are willing to pay for it...to a point. The balance you need to then strike is getting images that make it worth to do and that satisfy the client's product and budget needs.<br /> <br /> So it is easy to come up with a little better images than the agent / iPhone combo but what about a lot better and can you do it and not end up making $10 an hour because you need to spend a lot more time on it to get it right than a seasoned real estate shooter?<br /> <br /> Why is she wanting you to do it specifically if she knows you have no experience is the 1st thing I would ask?<br /> Could that be......price or even free?</p>

<p>I had an M9 for awhile, I loved the low ISO files but above 640 things went south quick. I also agree that they had a unique look to them. Then I had issues pop up with it ( lockups while in silent mode, the regular shutter was far too loud ) and the X100 came out, the perfect storm to exit Leica digital and only use it for film.</p> <p>Fast forward to January of this year, I buy an X100T and within the first 5 minutes of using it, think it is broke because the menu items fail to show up o the rear LCD when I hit the menu button. Long story short, Fuji made the camera totally useless for me in making the menu viewing on the LCD an exercise in keeping track of button pushes. That ended my love affair with Fuji cameras and my claim that the X100 killed my desire for a digital M.</p> <p>So while attending Look3 in VA in June, I give the M240 a spin. First thing I don’t like is the size…it is portly. But the handling, the shutter sound and especially the files, wow! Even though they had gobs of wonderfully pliable dynamic range, if I did my job in assembling good light with tone and texture, they just did not need that much.</p> <p>I have since bought a 28 Elmarit Asph, 50 Zeiss Planar and the incredible 35mm 1.4 FLE and put some 8,000 faultless frames through my M240 since finding one mint used for 4K in late June. Getting the M240 and good glass has turned out to be a fantastic move for my corporate photojournalism and long term projects, thin is the last thing I would use to describe the photos I am getting from it.</p>

I have been trying out a loaner of this back from Hasselblad USA and I think it is great, I will probably get one since my existing Hassy kit is pretty big. I wish it were a little cheaper but honestly, for what I paid for my system, it still makes sense on the balance sheet. It's a sweet back and since this is really just to replace my heavy use of the Nikon system for ad work, I don't mind the crop factor that much, my 40mm FLE is still pretty wide.

<blockquote> <p>Daniel, while admittedly I don't necessarily agree with you very often in general, I do share some of the same sentiment in your 1:20pm post above.</p> </blockquote> <p>I just had to crack up at this. You are ok Shun, lets maybe make this a new direction for our interaction on this forum...:-)</p> <blockquote> <p>And I am well aware that a $1400 200-500mm/f5.6 is definitely not going to be in the same league as a 200-400mm/f4 or 500mm/f4 that cost 5, 6, or even 7 times as much.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is why I am going to rent it. I usually get a special request loan or rent the 200-400 VRII for high paying annual shoots I do, it's a sharp, sharp lens and does well with a TC-14 as well. But it is big, not 400 2.8 big but commit to using it if you haul it big. So the 200-500 really appeals to me in regards to being a lens I can yank out of the bag, nail a few shots with and get back to the lenses I really love using which are small and light primes. <br> One thing to consider here is that Nikon *could* by sheer virtue of advances in technology, have created a great sharp zoom in the same way they created at the time a landmark zoom in the budget 75-150 F3.5 series E. That lens was nearly an embarrassment for Nikon because it ended up producing far better images than even some primes at the time in a higher price point. <br> But time & experience with it will tell the real story, 5.6 is a slowish lens by most standards so contrast could be the first thing that suffers. You never know though....maybe Nikon knocked it out of the park with this one, lets hope so!</p> <p> </p>

<p>If there is one thing I have learned regarding these new gear announcements it is that web speculating, picking apart gear based on specs and not actual use and **especially** testing can be a big time suck. <br> Basically, I don't care about the reviews by all the usual suspects because they are not really photographers but day after day, hour after hour arm chair gear test web heroes. They are not pushing the gear to the limits with stellar imagery that comes from really knowing light, texture and tone. <br> The lens I am interested in is the 200-500. I have read the specs, price, that looks good. When one of my usual sources for a rental house gets it in, I will rent it for no less than 4 days, check it to see if it is working according to spec then get out there in the real world and put a couple hundred frames through it. <br> Then if it checks all my boxes, I will simply put the order in and buy it, done deal. I sometimes think that people like to talk about gear than actually get out and use it...to me that is not photography.</p>

<p>Oh brother, My 70-200 2.8 weighs a pound more than the new 24-70, does not mean I want to lug the 24-70 around. I also haul 20-30 pounds packs of medium and large format equipment for miles upon miles and gain thousands of feet of elevation. <br /> Still have no interest in the 24-70, prefer lighter primes in those focal lengths.<br> <br /> For some people the increase in size and weight of the new 24-70 is an issue, your world of photography is not everyone else's...</p>