[Mark D Segal Silver Member Posts: 951]

Cameras, Lenses and Shooting Gear

on: November 19, 2019 at 9:38 pm

Hi Steve,

I very much appreciated this article because I can easily relate to your experience, in my case with the Sony mirrorless line and their excellent lenses; different brand but similar type of equipment and the basic points you make apply just as well. It’s unfortunate from a financial perspective that DSLRs in which we had once invested a lot of money are being devalued steeply, but that’s what technical progress does. Your article really makes explicit what I and I suspect a good number of other mirrorless users have been experiencing over the past several years. It should also lead to no surprise seeing Canon and Nikon radically shifting the balance of their new offerings from less DSLR to more mirrorless. In fact it could be argued that both of them have been late to the party.

 

But all that also leaves one wondering about the medium format niche. The two main arguments supporting the use of very costly Phase One equipment, for example, are that their sensors combined with Capture One cannot be surpassed for making very large prints (i.e. far upwards of 17×25 inch) and that their colour/tonal rendition is superior (however measured or appreciated). If I’ve interpreted a good part of the medium format rationale correctly, it would seem to suggest that DSLR technology is effectively squeezed from both ends (mirrorless in the 24MP range to MF in the 50+ MP range). And implied therein, buying a Phase One system, for example, makes the most sense for those intending to make very large prints and/or who appreciate any perceptible difference of colour/tonal quality the Phase One sensor offers relative to the sensors used in the better mirrorless cameras. Save for those requirements, I believe, and your article reinforces me in this belief, that much fine photography of various kinds can be achieved with a first-rate mirrorless system costing a fraction of medium format. This paradigm boils down to what I would call a discontinuous cost curve in the equipment field – a considerable choice of fine mirrorless offerings within a price range of say 1,000 to 7,000 depending on models and lenses, and then a very substantial step-up for those who need the MF Megapixels, with not too much that justifies itself in-between. Is this a fair assessment of where we stand with optimal camera choices these days?

[Louis Foubare Silver Member Posts: 286]

Re: S. Gosling: Using Mirrorless Cameras For Landscape Photography

Reply #1 on: November 19, 2019 at 11:26 pm

Mark

No arguments with your comments. I have just tried the Sony IV for the first time based on Kevin’s enthusiasm for the Sony line. I use the Phase and Fuji for MF. When comparing the Fuji 50 images to the Sony images I find the Sony files have clarity and sharpness whereas the Fuji  MF files have a smooth aesthetic. Neither is good or bad just different.

My dilemma is do I need 3 systems. No is the short answer. Will the Fuji 50R with the new 50/3.5 lens work for the street? Probably and the files are so malleable in C1. The Sony is smaller and with the Zeiss Batis AF lenses I find the AF and tracking superior. I must decide soon. So many great choices these days.

[Mark D Segal Silver Member Posts: 951]

Re: S. Gosling: Using Mirrorless Cameras For Landscape Photography

Reply #2 on: November 19, 2019 at 11:30 pm

Louis, how do you find the Fuji 50R files compare with your Phase files (which model?)?

[Louis Foubare Silver Member Posts: 286]

Re: S. Gosling: Using Mirrorless Cameras For Landscape Photography

Reply #3 on: November 19, 2019 at 11:49 pm

Mark D Segal wrote:

Louis, how do you find the Fuji 50R files compare with your Phase files (which model?)?

The Phase IQ4150 Achromatic files are in a league all their own. If I never saw a Phase file then I would be more than happy with the 50R files as they are superb. As you have commented in the past, printing requirements/needs often dictate what you shoot with. If my long term requirements will be around 17×22 then I do not even need the Sony, but if one system is the end goal then this could be it. I like to crop where I feel like it, so to have a few more MP than necessary gives me comfort. Of course 150MP is over the top, but it sure is fun when you get it right.

[Mark D Segal Silver Member Posts: 951]

Re: S. Gosling: Using Mirrorless Cameras For Landscape Photography

Reply #4 on: November 19, 2019 at 11:58 pm

…….when you get it right. Bingo.

Interesting perspective, thanks Louis.

[Jeff Schewe Gold Member Posts: 136]

Re: S. Gosling: Using Mirrorless Cameras For Landscape Photography

Reply #5 on: November 30, 2019 at 3:24 am

Mark D Segal wrote:

But all that also leaves one wondering about the medium format niche. The two main arguments supporting the use of very costly Phase One equipment, for example, are that their sensors combined with Capture One cannot be surpassed for making very large prints (i.e. far upwards of 17×25 inch) and that their colour/tonal rendition is superior (however measured or appreciated).

Hum…still drinking that Kool-Aid huh Mark?  :~)

I went on a field shoot with my daughter where I was planning on packing and carrying my Phase camera, IQ 180 back, my Nikon D810 and my Sony RX 100 (as my baby camera). I was holding the Nikon camera bag and the Phase camera bagged I gently removed the Phase bag from the back of the car. Seems I couldn’t rationalize the weight and pain in the ass camera of the Phase system vs the 36MP D810 and the range of lenses  could easily carry including a 14-24MM, 24-70MM and 70-200MM.

Note that my last 3 trips, including Tucson, Joshua Tree & Death Valley-Yosemite I left the D810 at home and took the same 3 lenses but with the Nikon Z7 instead. At 45MP I can make a non-interpolated print at almost 15″x20″ @ 360PPI (it’s actually 14.857″ x 20″ @ 361PPI). That’s a pretty nice sized print…course, as I am inclined to do, I usually do a 3-5 shot pano which throws that limit out the window :~)

Are the IQ 180 files “better” than the Z7 files? Not really…they are different but I recently shot some things in Death Valley that I shot with P65 and IQ 180 backs and can compare the Z7 files compare favorably…but the Z7 camera itself is so much easier to use that medium format cameras were for me.

Can’t comment on the Fuji GFX 50S or bigger brother GFX 100. But one of the limits will still be lenses…IMHO and do you really need a 100MP camera?

BTW, the attached image is a 35 image HDR/Pano merge whose cropped size is 11,968 pixels X 7,589 pixels.

[Kevin Raber Silver Member Posts: 1311]

Re: S. Gosling: Using Mirrorless Cameras For Landscape Photography

Reply #6 on: November 30, 2019 at 9:23 am

That location came out very well.  Nice one Jeff.  Now if we can just put some clouds in that blue sky.

Kevin Raber
Owner and Publisher of photoPXL

[Mark D Segal Silver Member Posts: 951]

Re: S. Gosling: Using Mirrorless Cameras For Landscape Photography

Reply #7 on: November 30, 2019 at 10:39 am

Jeff Schewe wrote:

Mark D Segal wrote:

But all that also leaves one wondering about the medium format niche. The two main arguments supporting the use of very costly Phase One equipment, for example, are that their sensors combined with Capture One cannot be surpassed for making very large prints (i.e. far upwards of 17×25 inch) and that their colour/tonal rendition is superior (however measured or appreciated).

Hum…still drinking that Kool-Aid huh Mark? :~)

Hi Jeff,

Hah, hah, smiley duly noted, but for absolute avoidance of doubt – Nope – not drinking even a milliliter of Kool-Aid;  notice how I phrased that point. I mentioned the two most prominent arguments supporting medium format simply to phrase what the argument is about. My first sentence “But all that also leaves one wondering…..” is where I’m at. Wondering, because picky as you know I am about the photographic properties and qualities of large prints, I’m most satisfied with what I produce using my Sony a6300 (24MP, APS-C) and Lightroom. At the same time I acknowledge the superb quality of Phase One equipment and Capture One software. It wouldn’t add enough value for me to continue with such investments, but many others obviously feel it does, otherwise the company would have been out of business long ago – and one would wonder why others are entering that niche.

As you well know, there are several key variables to this comparison (before we get to printing): (1) megapixels, (2) sensor and firmware quality, (3) raw processing quality, and finally (4) the photographer. At some point, and most importantly absent stitching, print size could influence the choice of sensor dimensions. Below that point, item (4) is the most critical variable as far as I’m concerned. Stitching (which gets better and easier all the time) of course changes the whole conversation about what size sensor one needs for what size prints. We are blessed that sensor, lens and processing qualities have become so excellent across many products.

In that context, BTW – lovely photograph! As usual, you’ve “aced” it. And Kevin – it would have been pretty tricky adding clouds to that shot  :-).

[Jeff Schewe Gold Member Posts: 136]

Re: S. Gosling: Using Mirrorless Cameras For Landscape Photography

Reply #8 on: November 30, 2019 at 12:06 pm

Kevin is talking about his goofy app for adding clouds, right Kev?

🙂

[Mark D Segal Silver Member Posts: 951]

Re: S. Gosling: Using Mirrorless Cameras For Landscape Photography

Reply #9 on: November 30, 2019 at 12:08 pm

Does his goofy app also add the clouds properly to the reflection in the water? 🙂 ????

[Jeff Schewe Gold Member Posts: 136]

Re: S. Gosling: Using Mirrorless Cameras For Landscape Photography

Reply #10 on: November 30, 2019 at 1:12 pm

Doubt it 🙂

 

Ask Kev…

[Mark D Segal Silver Member Posts: 951]

Re: S. Gosling: Using Mirrorless Cameras For Landscape Photography

Reply #11 on: November 30, 2019 at 3:27 pm

Earth calling Kevin…………. does it, doesn’t it?

[Author]

Posts