photography

Add a Comment

Comment by Steve Glashier 1 day ago

Hello B-Uncut...

Comment by Marie Kazalia on December 6, 2009 at 8:47am

Well, that's an amazing amount of info. Thanks for posting it Arthur. I love the large format cameras, but only have experience with film cameras in that format. So it's good to hear the word from an experienced source for digital--thanks again!

Comment by Thomas Hodges on December 6, 2009 at 6:12am

Arthur said it all, I couldn't agree more !

Comment by Arthur Hutchins on December 6, 2009 at 5:20am

Thomas is quite correct, the comparison between 35mm and 6x6 or 6x7 has always been a "No Contest" since the days of film.

When choosing between Medium formats and digital back systems it is down to what you can afford these days. Some proprietory brands are better then others and the camera body and lenses availability is an issue. Particularly in Europe where regs on Lead content has restricted what can be imported.
Hasselblad has kept pace with this when Mamiya has lagged behind, which for me is particularly sad as I prefer Mamiya.

Which is why I am considering the Cambo X2-Pro system for my D3x so I can use my Mamiya lenses or Schnieder 90mm or indeed many other special lenses. No, I wont get the larger CMOS image achieved with a digital back, however I will get the more extensive ISO range if I need it, when I do low light landscapes, not good for hand held of course, but then Lartigue did some baffling work with a large format plate camera so who knows?

It is down to costs of course as the same set up with Hasselblad is five time the cost, and whilst there is software out there that simulates shift, there is a little less in camera flexability.

For your shooting either Mamiya or the Hasselblad produce great fast sport lenses, both at some cost. I'm not shure thier ISO ranges are comparable with a high end DSLR.

You would need to do your home work, (Digital Photography Review is excellent as a starting point) meanwhile consider sharpening your image on a and b in "LAB" as it results in less noise, personaly I think you can overdo sharpenning. LR3 has excellent noise reduction as will the new CS5 RAW shooter.

Comment by Marie Kazalia on November 13, 2009 at 10:55am

Thomas,
This is extremely helpful info I will use in future decision making for camera purchases...I have Nikon high end digital, but I medium format would be useful to have too...

Comment by Thomas Hodges on November 13, 2009 at 8:53am

Ciao Marie, to answer your question, 100 ASA tends to be used frequently, but I would suggest that it should never be considered "normal". ASA is indeed "film speed" and digital cameras should be treated much like analogue cameras, when it comes to film speed. Normally, the reason we shoot at higher film speeds, is because of low-light situations (the faster the film speed the lower the light requirements).

However, the problem generally with digital cameras, is higer film speeds (i.e. higher ASA numbers) tend to introduce unacceptable noise limits into the image. When shooting film, you would get increased grain, when shooting digital, you get increased noise.

If your camera has a decent sized image sensor, this problem will be much less apparent, which is why many high-end pro cameras have increasingly large sensors. The problem with the lower-end cameras, is that not only do they have small sensors, but the manufacturers have an increasing tendency to increase the pixel content of the camera whilst retaining the small sensor, which can actually degrade the quality of your image (often contrary to popular belief, as many consumers tend to believe the more pixels the better, which is not the case).

I frequently use 400 and 800 ASA film speeds, as I shoot extensively in low-light situations. However, I tend not to go beyond 800 ASA on digital, even though I am using a very high-end medium format camera, with a very large image sensor.

The Nikon D3S (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09101403nikond3shandson.asp) which Nrupen mentions is actually using a much smaller sensor than the camera I am using, yet it can shoot at much higher ASA speeds. However, this is achieved by in-camera image processing, and if you look closely at the images, there is clearly a price to pay when it comes to image quality.

I hope this info is helpful :-)

Comment by Marie Kazalia on November 13, 2009 at 7:16am

thanx--good to know...

Comment by Nrupen Madhvani on November 12, 2009 at 11:40pm

It's generally true that 100 is the preferred ISO. The noise factor comes in at higher ISOs especially 400 and above. Nikon has however come out with a DSLR, I think it is called D3S which allows you to shoot at really high ISOs like 12000 and above with very little or no noise.

Comment by Marie Kazalia on November 12, 2009 at 1:12pm

Hi everyone, I just want to check if others agree with this statement:

*100 ISO is generally accepted as ‘normal’ and will give you lovely crisp shots (little noise/grain).*

I read this in a digital photography newsletter explaining when to change the ISO setting on digital camera, which seems to roughly correspond to films speeds /ASA...

Comment by Patty O'Hearn Kickham on November 8, 2009 at 8:39am

I've been here a week and love the site and the concept. I am in some very talented company and feel that I have so much more to learn! Viewing your photos keeps me inspired to try new techniques and perspectives. I need to learn to keep my eyes wide open at all times.

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last