Phase One XF with new 100mp /16bit raw (700+mb tiff files)

I need to win the lottery....
||COOLPIX 5000|●|D70|●|D700|●|D810|●|AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D|●|AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D|●|AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G|●|AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D|●|AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED (Silver)|●|AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III|●|PB-6 Bellows|●|EL-NIKKOR 50mm f/2.8||
«1

Comments

  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,985Member
    The potential of medium format is yet to be fully realized.
  • paulrpaulr Posts: 1,176Member
    I hear that Phase One are taking Houses in Part Exchange for their new IQ3 100.
    I hear they are taking Houses in Part Exchange towards the cost
    Camera, Lens and Tripod and a few other Bits
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,997Member
    The potential of medium format is yet to be fully realized.
    Unless the price of a basic MF system becomes less expensive than a mid-range luxury car, it will likely stay that way.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,985Member
    I wonder. I think the price of medium format sensor will drop dramatically and the rest of the camera does not need to be so expensive. Imagine a D610 with its FX format sensor replaced with a medium format sensor and no other changes to the camera besides a change in dimensions to accommodate the larger sensor. I could image that design being cheaper in 10 years than a D610 is today.

    However, there is no getting around the lenses. Medium format lenses will always be more expensive. In my mind, the real question is how much more?
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 3,997Member
    edited January 2016
    Even if the price falls into the range of the Pentax 645D, I doubt there would be mass adoption of MF, outside of high end portrait photographers looking to beat the FX crowd. That and there are already too many people complaining that FX is too heavy to lug around, just imagine those people using MF...

    MF has always been expensive, maybe not as expensive as today, but it has always been rather high. The reality is that low sales figures alone will keep the price of MF high.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • SnowleopardSnowleopard Posts: 244Member
    Apparently the new sensor is "full frame" medium format meaning 6x6 or 645 size..... all the past medium format sensors where crop ( crop from 645/6x6). And that is a big deal.
    ||COOLPIX 5000|●|D70|●|D700|●|D810|●|AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D|●|AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D|●|AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G|●|AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D|●|AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED (Silver)|●|AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III|●|PB-6 Bellows|●|EL-NIKKOR 50mm f/2.8||
  • SnowleopardSnowleopard Posts: 244Member
    edited January 2016
    So your basic setup (The body, an 80mm F/2.8 and the 100mp back is $48,900.

    If I want the waist level view finder that is an extra $800.... Now on to the lens (System).

    I want to replace my D810 and all my lenses... meaning I need the 35mm equivalent of the:

    14-24mm F/2.8 (Not available) in Phase One
    50mm F/1.4 (I guess the 80mm F/2.8 will work here)
    60mm F/2.8 Macro
    105mm F2.8 Macro (possibly available)
    70-200mm F/2.8 - Not available
    400mm F/2.8 - Not available
    24mm PCE (tilt/shift) not available
    85mm PCE (tilt/shift) not available

    A full function bellows unit (Not available)

    The reason I would want a complete MF Digital system.... While people think of the Phase One XF as a studio camera, they clearly are marketing it for landscapes also (All the pictures of the mountains out side)

    I want my macro''s for "Flat Field of View and 1:1 reproduction work" I want the zooms for wild life and I want the tilt shifts for architecture and jewelry shots.
    Post edited by Snowleopard on
    ||COOLPIX 5000|●|D70|●|D700|●|D810|●|AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D|●|AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D|●|AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G|●|AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D|●|AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED (Silver)|●|AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III|●|PB-6 Bellows|●|EL-NIKKOR 50mm f/2.8||
  • flipflip Posts: 99Member
    I downloaded the 2 tiff files from the website pushed them to 100% in PS and the detail, contrast and DR "feels" sharper and cleaner then 4x5 chrome film using the best lenses and drum scanned (and I have lots of these). Just look at the details of the Penguins on the ridge. I think I would fork over say $1500 to rent the XM and 2 lenses, 50mm and 150mm, for a long weekend. Beyond that well I would live with what I have. If I owned one of these I don't think I would get much sleep.
  • moreorlessmoreorless Posts: 120Member
    The potential of medium format is yet to be fully realized.
    Unless the price of a basic MF system becomes less expensive than a mid-range luxury car, it will likely stay that way.
    Definitely, at present all of these digital back systems are only really aimed at the ultra high end of the market.

    I don't think this is purely down to sensor cost always being high though, the Pentax 645Z for example offered the same smaller CMOS MF sensor for a fraction of the price of the digital backs alone.

    I wonder whether this larger sensor might be interesting to Nikon? there has been some vague rumours of MF from them and Canon but my feeling is that the 44x33mm sensor was really not different enough from FF to justify it.

    Looking at the price of the Pentax I wouldn't be supprized if Nikon could put out something with this sensor for less than $10k which would obviously open up a much larger market.

  • paulrpaulr Posts: 1,176Member
    When The PhaseOne IQ3 was announced I went to the trade opening, Their policy was the new IQ3 Body would sustain any future developments with complex firmware updates without having to buy further new design bodies. This included new digital backs and lens development. This was rumoured at one time that Nikon were thinking of this type of protocol, pity it never happened.
    Camera, Lens and Tripod and a few other Bits
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    edited January 2016
    A lot of the hype of MF is in my opinion, about merchandising. I used to shoot 11" x 14" Ektachrome, before many on this forum were born, and this was because the client wanted the 11 x 14" vs. 8" x 10". Quality, probably could not be seen in the final product.

    As one who has enlarged a D800E image to 30" x 65" and it is perfectly acceptable, there really is little need for MF except for extremely limited use, and I cannot even imagine one at present.

    Now, would I want one if i did win the lottery.... of course, but this is more about my obsessive compulsive nature regarding the "ultimate" rather than the expectation it would improve my images.
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,985Member
    A lot of the hype of MF is in my opinion, about merchandising. I used to shoot 11" x 14" Ektachrome, before many on this forum were born, and this was because the client wanted the 11 x 14" vs. 8" x 10". Quality, probably could not be seen in the final product.

    As one who has enlarged a D800E image to 30" x 65" and it is perfectly acceptable, there really is little need for MF except for extremely limited use, and I cannot even imagine one at present.

    Now, would I want one if i did win the lottery.... of course, but this is more about my obsessive compulsive nature regarding the "ultimate" rather than the expectation it would improve my images.
    I don't know. Even at f/5.6m on my 85 1.4G, I find the eyelash detail on full body shots wanting.
  • flipflip Posts: 99Member
    I find the D800 adequate for prints up to 20x24, but after shooting 4x5 chromes and enlarging them for years, a100MP MFSLR or DB. like LF would add just enough additional fine detail, color depth and DR enhancement for those situations where fine details make the image. A good friend and well respected landscape photographer, Hans Strand, has been shooting Hasselblad H3, H4 and H5 up to 50MPs along side the D800e and feels that the color depth and finer detail of the Hasselblad gives him the edge in print reproduction. The D800 is close but when you want the best result only the finest equipment will do. For the abstract work that I do, this would be an excellent tool.

    Check out On-Landscape website for comparison of LF film reproduction vs the 80MP Phase backs vs D800. I recall a conclusion that the Q180 approached 4x5 results but there were a number of variables including film resolution characteristics and type of drum scanner used. The D800 details were mushy in comparison.

    The big issue with MF is obtaining enough DOF so TS lenses are preferred and they are extraordinarily expensive. Schneider and Rodenstock seem the lenses of choice.

    I don't consider my desire for the Phase compulsive just another tool to express my own vision. LF was my go to format for years but I would really enjoy a chance to use the new XF with several lenses, particularly during spring and fall.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,167Member
    I have recently been printing D800 images at 24 inches by 36 inches and they are very good. I have also used photomerge to stitch panoramas which I printed 59 inches wide. They were very good and could have been printed 7 feet wide and still be printed at 300dpi. There really is no need for medium format for most of us.

    The FX sensor, expeed processor and in camera software have not yet been maximized. We will see 100 plus megapixel FX sensors in a few years (look for it first in the D800 line), we will see sharper lenses designed for those high megapixel sensors like the Sigma Art series, we will see 16 bit color in FX bodies once the processors are faster and can keep up with all the data. etc. And, most importantly, all these improvements will occur for about the same price as a D5 and D810 ($4,000 to $7,000 price range) since they will appear in the replacements of those bodies.

    If you want shallower depth of field now shoot at f1.4 and simply move the background further back or the subject further away from the background to create more blur.

    If you want less depth of field than 1.4 (or 2 or 2.8 maximum on some lenses) simply use the Benizer method.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenizer_Method
    fstoppers.com/post-production/brenizer-effect-fantastic-examples-5696
    http://ryanbrenizer.com/2011/05/brenizer-method-instructions/

    There is no need to spend $50,000 to achieve that "medium format look" anymore. I should also note Nikon mentioned skin color tones have been improved in the D5 (and likely also in the D500?) so that also helps narrow the gap with 16 bit medium format skin tones.

    Of course, those who have special needs or simply want the ultimate available today can make a case for medium format and I do not contest their point of view. I just expect the medium format market to shrink as better FX bodies/lenses become available.
  • SnowleopardSnowleopard Posts: 244Member
    edited January 2016
    I saw an article asking people if $48,900 was allot of money for the XF with the 100mp sensor and they broke it down in terms of 120 film shot at 645, 6x6 and 6x7...

    Apparently after spending the money on a similarly spec'ed medium format film camrea used in 2015.....

    Take the Mamiya RB or RZ 67..... fully setup would run you about $1000-$2000. So subtract that from the $48,900 price tag.....

    So then take say the $46,900 balance and buy a $200 scanner (To scan the negatives). Now we are down to $46,700.

    Then take the balance of $46,700 and spend that on rolls of 120 film and developing film.

    buying the film on sale from B & H would get you about +/- 900-1000 rolls of film and cover the developing.

    So that is your break point for someone that does not really need a $48,900 medium format camera with 100mp.

    in 6x6 format, that is about 12 exposures per roll; best case senario you will get 120,000 frames/ photo's shooting 120 film on a professional medium format film camera.

    I shoot 120,000 frames on my my full frame Nikon's in a year (+/-). So I guess after the first year of shooting the XF with 100mp back is free and has paid for itself. (Compared to shooting 120 film)
    Post edited by Snowleopard on
    ||COOLPIX 5000|●|D70|●|D700|●|D810|●|AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D|●|AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D|●|AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G|●|AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D|●|AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED (Silver)|●|AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III|●|PB-6 Bellows|●|EL-NIKKOR 50mm f/2.8||
  • paulrpaulr Posts: 1,176Member
    Further to Snowleopard coments , dealing with any form of film process will have a small form of inherent dust problems, something digital users in general get away with. Removal of dust particles from the negative in scanned process takes time something working photographers have to consider.The other problem is serious depreciation of value of the camera and what can be charged extra, by using such an high grade camera/Lens Example here on Ebay,
    http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/272090851900?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT
    Camera, Lens and Tripod and a few other Bits
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,035Moderator
    Wow, that's a bargain - if somebody here doesn't snap it up I'll be surprised.
    Always learning.
  • SnowleopardSnowleopard Posts: 244Member
    edited January 2016
    If I had $9,600 USD sitting around I might pick it up, but you need to look at what he is selling.... The body is only worth about $1500......... the rest of it is the lens and the back..... That back is 1-2 generations old.....|

    But if you figure the value of the lens brand new is about $6,000..... Then even though that back is 1-2 generations old, it is technically still a steal to get into a Phase One system.
    Post edited by Snowleopard on
    ||COOLPIX 5000|●|D70|●|D700|●|D810|●|AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D|●|AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D|●|AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G|●|AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D|●|AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED|●|AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED (Silver)|●|AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III|●|PB-6 Bellows|●|EL-NIKKOR 50mm f/2.8||
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    There is no question that a larger format produces a "sharper" image. Also, the more data, the better color rendition. For me, the question is which will produce the results desired?

    Medium format and D800/810 images at usual viewing distances may not be differentiated, unless, and this is the critical point, one has both images side by side. This is a similar situation as color memory. If one has a color swatch and tries to remember what it is, goes to a paint store, attempts to match the color this is nearly an impossibility. Once again, we have to have the examples in front of us to see any real differences. In real life, we only see the one image in its final production.

    And, once again, if I had the financial resources, I would jump on a Phase One and all the lenses I wanted. Along with a Sherpa to carry the stuff.....

    One more point, my opinion that is, both my D800E and D4 bodies, Nikkor lenses have abilities which are so far beyond my abilities, I doubt seriously I could produce much better work with a MF camera. I believe it is easy for us to purchase equipment, and I am one of course, to improve our technical results because this is one way we can make our work look better. But the limiting factor is our interaction with our subject. And, this is true whether we shoot live subjects, landscapes, products, or architectural....how we see the subject as it relates to our life experience, this may be the key to ultimately producing great images.
    Msmoto, mod
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 2,985Member
    A well considered and balanced perspective MSMOTO.
  • flipflip Posts: 99Member
    All respectable positions MSMOTO and thank you for sharing them. I rarely handhold my D800s so with tripod, mirror lockup, remote release and no or minimal wind, I expect I am realizing the ultimate quality from my Nikkor lenses other than the fact that I rarely shoot at optimum apertures. If you have ever seen a Rodney Lough 8x10 image as a point of reference only, there are some situations in which I would like attain that quality with digital, pushing the image to an ultimate experience for the viewer, which is initially me. I guess my point is if I visualize an image with a certain resolution, 3D quality, color depth and impact, and can obtain equipment, albeit temporarily, to realize what is in my mind, I see no reason to inhibit that impulse by rationalizing that what I have should be sufficient. It's not that a D810 doesn't satisfy, but that I can attain something more personal by using equipment with greater capacity to see what I see. Once you shoot color LF chromes, I guess nothing nearly satisfies. It's just that shooting film of that size is much too expensive and with digital output constantly improving, we will see LF film eclipsed and this offering by Phase may be the ticket.
  • paulrpaulr Posts: 1,176Member
    Hard times for Hassleblad Maybe the Medium Format Manufactories are struggling, Hassleblad are offereing some of their cameras with a huge 40% discount from the factory, I can't see that happening with Nikon!
    Camera, Lens and Tripod and a few other Bits
  • DJBee49DJBee49 Posts: 133Member
    As always, Msmoto writes great sense.

    Like her, my background is shooting virtually all my work on MF and 5X4 transparency but only very occasionally on 8X10, and never on 11X14 which sounds fairly terrifying!. In the past, my only 35mm format work was family snaps. Of course there is a difference in sharpness as you go up in the size of the film or the sensor but with film, in my experience, the other huge difference is that the improvement in the subtlety of tonal gradation and colour rendition is very marked.

    As I have never shot anything on MF digital I can only guess that the same is true in the digital world. There is certainly a jump in both these when going from (say) a D700 to a D800.

    However, as Msmoto has said, for me, what I have is much better than I really need. I do not undertake any professional work anymore and almost never print bigger than A3. I am constantly amazed at how good my D810 is and think how lucky I (we) are to have such great gear! If I was still shooting for money, I might think seriously about getting a 5X4 digital back and probably skip medium format altogether. I do miss all the wonderful tricks that are possible with a Technical Monorail camera!
  • flipflip Posts: 99Member
    Hasselblad is a good choice frankly given the range of quality integrated products including their 1.5 TS converter. Placing a 100mp back on a used H4x might be the right choice, if that is possible with a Phase back.
  • FreezeActionFreezeAction Posts: 758Member
    With wall paper being printed on roll to roll printers for commercial buildings these files may be big but I can see still stitching to get that tack sharp finish for high class locations. Even floor coverings are being made from these large photographs now. Sublimation printers with rotary drums presses are printing direct to fabric now at 120" wide. Times are changing and opportunity is increasing for the next generation. The pace of change may be slow but it will win the race in time. Grand format is not for everyone but neither is a dslr. Some will never get past a cell phone. As far as art copy I'd love one of these MF systems with a macro lens.
Sign In or Register to comment.