Why the dearth of medium format housings?!

[Paul Kay 46]

Troy

 

I'm sure it is but unfortunately I often work in very less than ideal conditions and find the f/1.4 combined with the S45 viewfinder that I use to be just what I want under the conditions I often work in.

 

Dan

 

 

Just been to Yosemite where I shot on both a 1DS and a Leica M6 (Velvia 100). Despite one being a lovely little camera to carry and perfect to handle, the other, a heavy brute quite simply yields better results. Film has progressed but I somewhat frustratingly, I couldn't, in all honesty, contemplate using it for anything other than my own personal pleasure!

[Troy Aitken 0]

Troy,

It was a

joke

!

 

 

O.K. I did,nt want you to discourage anyone from taking out a second mortgage to procure an U/W Mercedes.

 

But all jokes aside, you won;t be sorry if you take a mf u/w.

I HAVE HANDS ON EXPERIENCE AND CAN TELL YOU FIRST HAND

VIEWFINDER IS EXTREMELY BRIGHT

28MM IS EXTRELELY WIDE, FAST FOCUS AND SHARP AS A SAMARI SWORD

16GB SANDISK GIVES 308 RAW FILES

VERY CLEAN IMAGES WITH COLORS THAT LOOK LIKE CANDY

FILM QUALITY W/O THE GRAIN

GIVES THE ABILITY TO PRINT SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY

IMAGINE AN AREA OF 1.3" 2" APPROX BLOWN UP AND 5'X8' WITH INCREDIBLE DETAIL AND BEAUTIFUL BOKAH. AT 72DPI THIS CAN BE ACHEIVED IN 16BIT MODE ON THE EPSON 64" UK-3 INKJET PRINTER. HOW ABOUT BACKLIT PANELS.

 

Let us know if you take the plunge

Troy

 

How many images do we throw away. Better to take your time, anticipate the shot and capture something that you will have for the rest of your life to enjoy. Skill and patience is required for any shooting u/w.

[Dan Schwartz 0]

20 posts already? I'm listed as a "clownfish" now; but I sure do hope you don't think of me as that!

 

Actually, I'm learning a whole hell of a lot here; and this discussion has also forced me to recall all of the minutae of why I upgraded to medium format shooting to begin with!

 

I also noticed amongst the posts here that there are a lot of misconceptions about both medium format gear and techniques: Certain ways of doing things in the MF world don't translate well into the 35mm/dSLR world (and vice versa), because 35mm gear evolved differently. Part of the reason for the different evolutionary paths is that the 35mm SLR market evolved into "prosumer" gear; while 120/220 evolved into professional gear, with the largest markets being portrait and wedding.

 

G-d must love wedding photographers...

Because He created so many of them!

.

 

 

Anyway, I also hope I cleared up some of the misconceptions some of you have over (at least some) medium format issues. Mamiya listened to their customers and came out with the whole 645AF system back in 1999; and they have been releasing (backwards-compatible) improvements every 2-3 years.

 

The relative stability of the 645AFd platform, I believe, makes a good argument for a manufacturer to build a housing for it.

 

________________________________________________________

 

As a footnote, the USA distributor of Mamiya gear also handles the Metz TTL adapters and Stroboframes designed & built for the Mamiya cameras & lenses they sell. I'm sure one of the housing manufacturers would do well to contact Elmsford.

 

Cheers!

Dan

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Dan

 

Just been to Yosemite where I shot on both a 1DS and a Leica M6 (Velvia 100). Despite one being a lovely little camera to carry and perfect to handle, the other, a heavy brute quite simply yields better results. Film has progressed but I somewhat frustratingly, I couldn't, in all honesty, contemplate using it for anything other than my own personal pleasure!

 

Didn't your inner "Ansel Adams" scream when you forgot to take your Toyo 4x5 field camera with you to Yosemite?!

Edited October 16, 2007 by Dan Schwartz

[Paul Kay 46]

No

 

But I did regret selling the Ebony Wide!!!

[Dan Schwartz 0]

I'd like to juxtapose these two posts, as Troy & I are on the same sheet of film... [more...]

 

I've been following this discussion; very interesting. It seems that for 90% of diving photography with a broad range of diving conditions etc, MF would have few advantages, and actually be more cumbersome - to the point of 'losing the shot' in some cases. I think about the availability of zooms such as the 10-17, 12-24, 17-35 as examples.

On the other hand, under very controlled conditions, such as those at Stuart's Cove, great viz, pool studio, etc using fixed primes - I don't think anyone could argue that MF quality would be a winner.

Given the choice then, I think I would still want a smaller format camera as my primary camera, and then if I could dream, the MF as my 'backup'

 

O.K. I did,nt want you to discourage anyone from taking out a second mortgage to procure an U/W Mercedes.

 

But all jokes aside, you won;t be sorry if you take a mf u/w.

I HAVE HANDS ON EXPERIENCE AND CAN TELL YOU FIRST HAND

VIEWFINDER IS EXTREMELY BRIGHT

28MM IS EXTRELELY WIDE, FAST FOCUS AND SHARP AS A SAMARI SWORD

16GB SANDISK GIVES 308 RAW FILES

VERY CLEAN IMAGES WITH COLORS THAT LOOK LIKE CANDY

FILM QUALITY W/O THE GRAIN

GIVES THE ABILITY TO PRINT SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY

IMAGINE AN AREA OF 1.3" 2" APPROX BLOWN UP AND 5'X8' WITH INCREDIBLE DETAIL AND BEAUTIFUL BOKAH. AT 72DPI THIS CAN BE ACHEIVED IN 16BIT MODE ON THE EPSON 64" UK-3 INKJET PRINTER. HOW ABOUT BACKLIT PANELS.

 

Let us know if you take the plunge

Troy

 

Troy,

 

I see you've solved many of the issues of bringing MF digital imaging underwater. Can you please post samples (besides the sharks), so others can share what we are talking about?

 

Also, have you tried any close-up (as opposed to true macro (1:1) or micro (>1:1))? If so, could you please post?

 

Thanks!

Dan in NJ

 

PS: I have a 50 inch by 164 foot roll of DuraTrans sitting in a cool corner of my basement, all ready to load into a Lambda or Chromira for your backlit panels!

Edited October 16, 2007 by Dan Schwartz

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Was it the 6x17 or 4x10 Ebony Wide? Which lens(es) did you use?

 

In either case, that would be a camera to shlep underwater!

 

Wandering off-topic slightly, do indeed take a look at Harold Merklinger's articles and books (now available as PDF downloads) on focusing and other technical aspects of photography... This is where I learned the Scheimpflug Rule and the Hinge Rule, among many other things.

 

No

 

But I did regret selling the Ebony Wide!!!

Edited October 16, 2007 by Dan Schwartz

[Paul Kay 46]

It was an older 5"x4" 'wide running a 90mm Fujinon. Simply couldn't make it pay but stunning results - used it with a 6x12 horseman quite a bit.

[Dan Schwartz 0]

As we wander even further off topic...

 

It was an older 5"x4" 'wide running a 90mm Fujinon. Simply couldn't make it pay but stunning results - used it with a 6x12 horseman quite a bit.

 

You're making me jealous: My top rangefinder Pacemaker Crown Graphic and 90mm f/6.8 Super Angulon are sitting in Fred Lustig's shop, awaiting a rangefinder cam and new front standard.

[craig 0]

Hi Craig,

 

All the modern 120 mm macro lenses for 645 and 6 X 7 MF cameras go to 1:1, (life-size) without extension tubes. What most fail to understand is that 1:1 for a 6 X 7 foremat camera is an image 6 cm by 7 cm and for a 645 the image is 6 cm by 4.5 cm with a digital back it is the size of the sensor in the digital back.

 

With a 6 X 7 camera you would need to be at 2:1, (twice life-size approx.) to be at 35 mm life-size.

 

The same is true for 35 mm ( 36 mm by 24 mm) you would need to be at twice life-size (2:1) to be at 1:1 on the Olympus DSLRs which have a sensor 18 mm by 13.5 mm (extra 1.5 mm due to 4/3 format).

 

The same is true going the other way the 645 28 mm lens has an angle of view of 95 degrees (greater than a 20 mm in 35 terms) but it still has the depth of field of a 35 mm, 28 lens, which we all know lacks the depth of field we are looking for when used at ISO 100 or 200 and F-5.6 to 8 which we see on most dives below twenty meters.

 

Phil Rudin

 

Phil,

 

I think everyone who can follow this thread understands that using magnification ratios to compare macro capabilities across formats is dangerous. That's why I quickly converted into frame widths in millimeters when I posed my original question. None of us really care about magnification ratios, all we care about is getting the framing on our subjects right.

 

Different photographers have different requirements when it comes to macro shooting. For some, frame widths of 100mm or more are totally adequate and any rig is capable of doing that. Others will want frame widths down to 10mm or smaller. For them, choice of cameras and lenses makes a profound difference. It's far easier to get to 10mm with a DX sensor, a long macro lens and teleconverters than it is to start with medium format. A plus for DX sensor users is that they can get those tiny frame widths without giving up infinite focus. This is exactly the kind of flexibility that differentiates MF and 35mm.

 

In the Hasselblad thread, I specifically asked about macro capability because I thought it interesting to discuss just how macro is accomplished in a forum specifically created to tell us about housing MF. I was hoping for more feedback than 5" focus and 50mm frame width. I asked if the lens I linked to was the lens used and the answer was yes. That lens is listed as only providing 1:3 macro and 1:2 with extension tubes. If that is not the case, I'd love a link to spec sheets on the lens being used. I have not found specs on a 120mm Hasselblad lens capable of 1:1.

 

I looked briefly into housing MF but gave up when I realized that the minimum 4:1 macro I considered mandatory wasn't realistic. For the macro I like to shoot, I prefer perspectives far longer than what the 120mm would provide on MF. What macro lenses are there available for MF equivalent to 150mm on full frame 35mm? What magnifications can they achieve?

 

If, in order to achieve 1:1 or 2:1 that you'd like with MF, you have to use extension tubes then you considerably restrict the range of focus you're able use. This makes the flexibility of a smaller format that much more appealing.

 

If using a variable extension tube is standard for MF, how is that housed? What are the practical issues in shooting it?

 

How does TTL work with MF underwater? What kinds of apertures are available and how much strobe power is necessary to get good exposure at base ISO once bellows factor and high numeric apertures are taken into account?

 

Lost in all this discussion is just what the qualitative differences are between the best of breed 35mm body and potential MF imagers. The 39MP back mentioned is an interesting choice. Comparing that to the upcoming 1Ds3, what we have is about a 30% increase in horizontal pixels and a 45% increase in vertical pixels. The qualitative aspects of the pixels may be different as well, but what is clear is that these cameras can be compared from an IQ perspective. Boasts of 8' and 46' output aren't helpful. Those things can be done with 35mm. Huge murals and billboard posters don't require high dpi, and if they did then the <2x pixel count doesn't get you there tremendously faster.

 

If can be readily seen that any difficulty with MF image quality because of optical problems or lack of magnification can eat away or entirely defeat the IQ advantages of the larger format. Same goes for ISO, where 35mm DSLRs hold considerable advantage. Then there's the case of not getting the shot at all due to size, light or focus issues that all work against MF.

 

As has been said before, it's a matter of the right tool for the job. For certain jobs MF may be king underwater, but there are plenty of situations where it's easy to imagine that it's not. I've always felt that the largest sensor will perform the best, but that has to be considered in the context of a complete system including lenses, housings, ports, and strobes.

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Craig,

 

Part of the issue is simply confusing 1:1 macro with "close-up" photography.

 

Last time I looked, the only times 1:1 true macro photography are really needed are for when you look under a loupe; and for alternate process (like Azo) contact printing.

 

Unless you need dimensional measurements, please tell me the difference between 0.9 and 1.1 image sizes?

 

Does it make a difference when blowing up the image to a 20x24 inch print when you can easily crop the scan or CCD image in Photoshop?

 

.........

 

(crickets chirping...)

 

Cheers!

Dan

 

Phil,

 

I think everyone who can follow this thread understands that using magnification ratios to compare macro capabilities across formats is dangerous. That's why I quickly converted into frame widths in millimeters when I posed my original question. None of us really care about magnification ratios, all we care about is getting the framing on our subjects right.

 

Different photographers have different requirements when it comes to macro shooting. For some, frame widths of 100mm or more are totally adequate and any rig is capable of doing that. Others will want frame widths down to 10mm or smaller. For them, choice of cameras and lenses makes a profound difference. It's far easier to get to 10mm with a DX sensor, a long macro lens and teleconverters than it is to start with medium format. A plus for DX sensor users is that they can get those tiny frame widths without giving up infinite focus. This is exactly the kind of flexibility that differentiates MF and 35mm.

 

In the Hasselblad thread, I specifically asked about macro capability because I thought it interesting to discuss just how macro is accomplished in a forum specifically created to tell us about housing MF. I was hoping for more feedback than 5" focus and 50mm frame width. I asked if the lens I linked to was the lens used and the answer was yes. That lens is listed as only providing 1:3 macro and 1:2 with extension tubes. If that is not the case, I'd love a link to spec sheets on the lens being used. I have not found specs on a 120mm Hasselblad lens capable of 1:1.

 

I looked briefly into housing MF but gave up when I realized that the minimum 4:1 macro I considered mandatory wasn't realistic. For the macro I like to shoot, I prefer perspectives far longer than what the 120mm would provide on MF. What macro lenses are there available for MF equivalent to 150mm on full frame 35mm? What magnifications can they achieve?

 

If, in order to achieve 1:1 or 2:1 that you'd like with MF, you have to use extension tubes then you considerably restrict the range of focus you're able use. This makes the flexibility of a smaller format that much more appealing.

 

If using a variable extension tube is standard for MF, how is that housed? What are the practical issues in shooting it?

 

How does TTL work with MF underwater? What kinds of apertures are available and how much strobe power is necessary to get good exposure at base ISO once bellows factor and high numeric apertures are taken into account?

 

Lost in all this discussion is just what the qualitative differences are between the best of breed 35mm body and potential MF imagers. The 39MP back mentioned is an interesting choice. Comparing that to the upcoming 1Ds3, what we have is about a 30% increase in horizontal pixels and a 45% increase in vertical pixels. The qualitative aspects of the pixels may be different as well, but what is clear is that these cameras can be compared from an IQ perspective. Boasts of 8' and 46' output aren't helpful. Those things can be done with 35mm. Huge murals and billboard posters don't require high dpi, and if they did then the <2x pixel count doesn't get you there tremendously faster.

 

If can be readily seen that any difficulty with MF image quality because of optical problems or lack of magnification can eat away or entirely defeat the IQ advantages of the larger format. Same goes for ISO, where 35mm DSLRs hold considerable advantage. Then there's the case of not getting the shot at all due to size, light or focus issues that all work against MF.

 

As has been said before, it's a matter of the right tool for the job. For certain jobs MF may be king underwater, but there are plenty of situations where it's easy to imagine that it's not. I've always felt that the largest sensor will perform the best, but that has to be considered in the context of a complete system including lenses, housings, ports, and strobes.

[Dan Schwartz 0]

[cut]

 

If using a variable extension tube is standard for MF, how is that housed? What are the practical issues in shooting it?

 

How does TTL work with MF underwater? What kinds of apertures are available and how much strobe power is necessary to get good exposure at base ISO once bellows factor and high numeric apertures are taken into account?

[balance cut]

 

Unless one is using a focusing rail with bellows, (at least for the Mamiya 645AFd system) one uses one of three different thickness macro spacing rings. Given that they have pass-through contacts (just like your Nikon D lens teleconverters), one can even stack them to get more distance.

 

And TTL is just that: Through-The-Lens, with a photocell measuring the average light bouncing off the film (or CCD) surface. Whatever quantity of light that is used to shut down the strobe is the same amount of light impinging on the film (or CCD) surface.

 

[Yes, different films have different reflectivities; and this is compensated for in the flash itself, or in (the Metz) adapter shoe by sliding a switch...]

 

Lost in all this discussion is just what the qualitative differences are between the best of breed 35mm body and potential MF imagers. The 39MP back mentioned is an interesting choice. Comparing that to the upcoming 1Ds3, what we have is about a 30% increase in horizontal pixels and a 45% increase in vertical pixels. The qualitative aspects of the pixels may be different as well, but what is clear is that these cameras can be compared from an IQ perspective.

[balance cut]

 

1.3 x 1.45 = 1.885

 

39 megapixels divided by 1.885 ~ 21 megapixels.

 

I think your arithmetic is off by about 25%

Edited October 16, 2007 by Dan Schwartz

[Troy Aitken 0]

Hello Craig,

 

 

 

 

Quote:

"In the Hasselblad thread, I specifically asked about macro capability because I thought it interesting to discuss just how macro is accomplished in a forum specifically created to tell us about housing MF. I was hoping for more feedback than 5" focus and 50mm frame width. I asked if the lens I linked to was the lens used and the answer was yes. That lens is listed as only providing 1:3 macro and 1:2 with extension tubes. If that is not the case, I'd love a link to spec sheets on the lens being used. I have not found specs on a 120mm Hasselblad lens capable of 1:1."

 

 

Troy's comments:

 

I think captured images would tell the story best of what works and what doesn't work. Please be patient to see some of my images coming soon. I think a 5mm - 10mm macro critter or several of them in their environment would tell a wonderful story of their habitat and interactivity. Putting such a macro critter that size in a 50mm wide enviornment can become quite creative when printing to large format as opposed to a very tight shot. Better to learn the limitations of a tool and work with it for your advantage for others to enjoy.

 

 

Quote:

"Lost in all this discussion is just what the qualitative differences are between the best of breed 35mm body and potential MF imagers. The 39MP back mentioned is an interesting choice. Comparing that to the upcoming 1Ds3, what we have is about a 30% increase in horizontal pixels and a 45% increase in vertical pixels. The qualitative aspects of the pixels may be different as well, but what is clear is that these cameras can be compared from an IQ perspective. Boasts of 8' and 46' output aren't helpful. Those things can be done with 35mm. Huge murals and billboard posters don't require high dpi, and if they did then the <2x pixel count doesn't get you there tremendously faster."

 

Troy's response:

 

You're right. Huge murals and billboard posters don't require high dpi. We do large and very large printing for companies, tourism, government and hotels all the time. This is not what I was talking about. For large fine art printing, large giclees, large custom photographic prints and high quality murals you need a high quality file that has has a lot of attention to detail put into it. These are the products our company produces all the time. I think a well composed macro shot that has the subject or subjects in focus with some information going on around it with eye candy color bokah in the background that can be printed to such a large print as 5ft x 8ft and still look as good as the 11x14 would, I think that would be quite amazing. It could be used for an array of purposes in advertising a product, dive shop, equipment that was used or someon's home on canvas. By the way, I print canvas giclees almost on a daily basis and there is a more natural professional quality in mf prints compared to 35mm. Consumers don't usually see the difference, prosumers should see it and professional really enjoy the difference.

 

 

Quote:

"If can be readily seen that any difficulty with MF image quality because of optical problems or lack of magnification can eat away or entirely defeat the IQ advantages of the larger format. Same goes for ISO, where 35mm DSLRs hold considerable advantage. Then there's the case of not getting the shot at all due to size, light or focus issues that all work against MF."

 

 

Troy's response:

 

It cannot be readily seen. Anyone can criticize something or someone they really don't know or have experienced. Why not discuss an image someone has captured using a mf camera along with a macro lens instead of putting it down with specs w/o any experience what so ever. Believe me, it is not as limiting as you think, although it is not as easy to use as what you have mentioned using 35mm. Dive sites known for their macro critters have so much opportunity on a single dive alone. Be honest, how many files do you discard compared to the ones you actually keep? If you ever get a mf in your hands u/w you will be ruined for the ordinary. Moreover, get to play with the file and do a print then everything will fall into perspective and you will appreciate both formats equally and know they are two different animals that have different strengths and weaknesses.

 

A proper set-up is good, having a photographic eye is better, but being in the right place at the right time and having the right settings for that moment in time is the best.

 

Keep an open mind and let's see what images pop up soon.

 

All the best

Troy

Edited October 17, 2007 by Troy Aitken

[james 0]

Hi Dan - your post two posts back shows that you haven't really tried all of this yet. I think you'll learn a lot when you get in the water and start shooting a lot. The folks here are trying to help but you have to read and really think about the replies you are getting - because we're taking a lot of time and putting a lot of thought into them.

 

Cheers

James

[loftus 42]

Troy,

Unfortunately it will be tough for us to truly appreciate the quality of your images and compare on our measly monitors. I read somewhere, maybe on the other housing thread, that you plan to display these at a gallery. Where do you have a gallery? I get to the Bahamas at least 3-4 times a year and would love to see some prints first hand.

Any chance you'll be at DEMA in Orlando in a few weeks?

Jeff

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Hi Dan - your post two posts back shows that you haven't really tried all of this yet. I think you'll learn a lot when you get in the water and start shooting a lot. The folks here are trying to help but you have to read and really think about the replies you are getting - because we're taking a lot of time and putting a lot of thought into them.

 

Cheers

James

 

James,

 

You can bet the house I'm paying close attention to the answers I'm getting here from the real experts in underwater photography... Especially when it comes to the physical handling of bulky MF gear, which is something I didn't even consider at first!

 

That being said, I believe some of the replies reflect a misconception of where the medium format market has gone over the last 3-5 years, especially the part driven by Mamiya. Basically, my 645AFd with my Metz 54MZ-3 TTL flash is on a par, performance-wise, with my Nikon N90s and SB28 flash (witha non-D-chipped lens).

 

I also realize full well that certain things I take for granted on dry land, such as changing film backs in mid-roll, and lens movements, are nary well impossible under the sea. D'oh!

 

On the other hand, please do take a look at Troy's photos with his H3D... No matter how much you bolt on to a Nikon, you just can't get that kind of quality out of a 35mm piece of film... Or equivalent-size sensor.

 

The challenge is -- And Troy met this challenge -- is to get medium format image quality under the surface.

 

Again, thanks to all of you helping guide me on this rugged journey!

Dan

[echeng 0]

Did I miss a link to Troy's photos somewhere? All I saw was that shark image attached to the other thread. The image quality looked pretty good, but the image itself wasn't compelling (although, it's impossible to tell anything at web resolution). I have no doubt the potential of digital MF underwater is incredible, but I have yet to see any good images!

[Dan Schwartz 0]

Eric,

 

Look at the delicate tonality of the (foreground) shark's belly as it transitions from white to dark; and also the holding of highlight detail on the belly itself.

 

Also, note the eye, especially the lack of any blowing out of the highlights.

 

Put another way, although some of the shadow details, especially in the background are gone (somewhat due to post processing, IMHO), overall, Troy's shot could pass for a drum-scanned 4x5 chrome on my calibrated Trinitron monitor.

 

Yes, the image is THAT good... At least to this photographer's eyes.

 

The downside: Troy has at least $40 grand in his rig

 

-----------------

 

Once in a blue moon an image crosses my (virtual) desk, and makes me sit up. The last image in this category was a panorama of Tokyo Bay by Eduardo Galvani. [In fact, I contacted him, and he supplied me his .PSD file to print out on the Durst Epsilon I was using at the time: He let us print out a 30 x 400 inch (2.5 x 34 foot!) poster to hang on the lab wall in return for a pair of 15" x 200" prints for his office.]

 

Cheers!

Dan

 

Did I miss a link to Troy's photos somewhere? All I saw was that shark image attached to the other thread. The image quality looked pretty good, but the image itself wasn't compelling (although, it's impossible to tell anything at web resolution). I have no doubt the potential of digital MF underwater is incredible, but I have yet to see any good images!

[Troy Aitken 0]

Good morning Dan

 

Good eye. Yes it was done in post. During this shark dive, there was more stir up than usual. Too much sand and silt in the background so I crushed the blacks so the focus would be the 8ft shark and his side kick with a little mystery created ny the kneeling diver and the one to the right laying down. The original file size is 258mb in tiff 16bit mode.

 

Have a great day,

troy

[Troy Aitken 0]

hello Loftus,

 

Our company is called Aitken Imaging in Nassau. The business district is called Palmdale. Our company is over 35 years old. Just let me know when you are down and i will show you my work and maybe we can do a dive together. You can test it first hand. I will warn you though, you might fall in love with it, from the clear big viewing u/w to the final capture.

 

We have three departments: The Sign shop, Lab and Studio and Frame Art.

 

May I ask what is your interest when you are in the Bahamas?

[loftus 42]

Mostly diving, playing some craps at Atlantis, and subsidizing my wife's shopping addiction.

I'll definitely take note and look you up next time.

 

hello Loftus,

 

Our company is called Aitken Imaging in Nassau. The business district is called Palmdale. Our company is over 35 years old. Just let me know when you are down and i will show you my work and maybe we can do a dive together. You can test it first hand. I will warn you though, you might fall in love with it, from the clear big viewing u/w to the final capture.

 

We have three departments: The Sign shop, Lab and Studio and Frame Art.

 

May I ask what is your interest when you are in the Bahamas?

[Troy Aitken 0]

ok

troy

[craig 0]

Craig,

 

Part of the issue is simply confusing 1:1 macro with "close-up" photography.

 

Last time I looked, the only times 1:1 true macro photography are really needed are for when you look under a loupe; and for alternate process (like Azo) contact printing.

 

Unless you need dimensional measurements, please tell me the difference between 0.9 and 1.1 image sizes?

 

Does it make a difference when blowing up the image to a 20x24 inch print when you can easily crop the scan or CCD image in Photoshop?

 

.........

 

(crickets chirping...)

 

Cheers!

Dan

I don't think there's any confusion here, at least not on my part, and since when am I splitting hairs like you suggest? I don't care to tell the difference between "0.9 and 1.1 image sizes" because that has nothing to do with me. If you think the solution to lack of macro magnification with MF is cropping then I don't see why you even bother with the larger format.

 

If I need a 20mm wide frame and I can only get 50mm, some may say it's not a big deal but it would be more of a big deal than the difference between 21MP and 39MP. I frequently desire frame widths that small so it's an important consideration for me. I believe many, not all, feel the same way.

 

1.3 x 1.45 = 1.885

 

39 megapixels divided by 1.885 ~ 21 megapixels.

 

I think your arithmetic is off by about 25%

It's not. The 1Ds3 is 21MP.

 

Unless one is using a focusing rail with bellows, (at least for the Mamiya 645AFd system) one uses one of three different thickness macro spacing rings. Given that they have pass-through contacts (just like your Nikon D lens teleconverters), one can even stack them to get more distance.

So this is just extension tubes. That's fine but extension tubes significantly limit focusing range. If the lens itself is capable of 1:1 then there isn't really a problem. If it is 1:3 like I've seen then extension tubes aren't a good solution. What can be done to narrow the 120mm perspective short of a 2x tele which robs the system of the resolution that justifies it in the first place?

 

And TTL is just that: Through-The-Lens, with a photocell measuring the average light bouncing off the film (or CCD) surface. Whatever quantity of light that is used to shut down the strobe is the same amount of light impinging on the film (or CCD) surface.

So MF digital TTL works just like film TTL? That would be very nice, as TTL in that case is better than any current 35mm DSLR setup (save the S2).

[echeng 0]

I was referring to the quality of the PHOTOGRAPHY, and not the quality of the highlight detail! As a pixel peeper, I appreciate the image, but as a photographer, I do not...

 

Eric,

 

Look at the delicate tonality of the (foreground) shark's belly as it transitions from white to dark; and also the holding of highlight detail on the belly itself.

 

Also, note the eye, especially the lack of any blowing out of the highlights.

 

Put another way, although some of the shadow details, especially in the background are gone (somewhat due to post processing, IMHO), overall, Troy's shot could pass for a drum-scanned 4x5 chrome on my calibrated Trinitron monitor.

 

Yes, the image is THAT good... At least to this photographer's eyes.

 

The downside: Troy has at least $40 grand in his rig

[Dan Schwartz 0]

So MF digital TTL works just like film TTL? That would be very nice, as TTL in that case is better than any current 35mm DSLR setup (save the S2).

 

Why wouldn't it? Once you determine the EV offset for the particular digiback's CCD reflectivity, just dial it in and fuggetaboudit.

 

 

 

Damn, I need to clean the dust out!

 

Edited October 17, 2007 by Dan Schwartz