Goodbye Full-Frame Cameras

[Airy]

Michael, whatever you will be experimenting is worth sharing here and you'll get feedback. It does not matter if X, Y, Z or myself don't fully get the rationale.

[simsurace]

I agree with both viewpoints: it is great to hear different perspectives and experiences on any given topic, but we should also be allowed to point out where we think the reasoning does not hold up. Simply asking for confirmation will not work in the long run, and is also self-deceiving. The community is valuable because no single person can see the full picture.

[Peter Connan]

Just over a year ago, I finally gave up on Nikon ever offering a viable replacement for the D300S, and made the jump from Dx to Fx.

The improvement in image quality staggered me. A friend in the same position recently tested the D500, and prefers his D610. This despite the fact that his main photographic interest is birding, probably the field where "reach" is the most important, and thus the field where Dx should in theory be the best bet.

Looking at his test shots, I actually share his conclusion.

And (assuming everything else is equal, which of course it never is) I guess MF is probably a similar step up in exactly the same areas of performance.

So, while I am not myself about to make the swop to Mf, I think I can understand the reasons.

What worries me is that you have already rejected a number of different products because they were difficult to use or had bad menu structures. I do hope you find the Has to your taste.

I don't see that you have been trashing Nikon, but I also think it a bit weird that you were expecting Nikon to bring out a medium format camera (unless I misunderstand your comments). They never have before, even though these very same arguments have been raging for decades...

[Michael Erlewine]

Just over a year ago, I finally gave up on Nikon ever offering a viable replacement for the D300S, and made the jump from Dx to Fx.

The improvement in image quality staggered me. A friend in the same position recently tested the D500, and prefers his D610. This despite the fact that his main photographic interest is birding, probably the field where "reach" is the most important, and thus the field where Dx should in theory be the best bet.

Looking at his test shots, I actually share his conclusion.

And (assuming everything else is equal, which of course it never is) I guess MF is probably a similar step up in exactly the same areas of performance.

So, while I am not myself about to make the swop to Mf, I think I can understand the reasons.

What worries me is that you have already rejected a number of different products because they were difficult to use or had bad menu structures. I do hope you find the Has to your taste.

I don't see that you have been trashing Nikon, but I also think it a bit weird that you were expecting Nikon to bring out a medium format camera (unless I misunderstand your comments). They never have before, even though these very same arguments have been raging for decades...

I only present MF as the next logical step for Nikon, IMO. MF has been hovering over my work for quite some time, so I finally am giving it the attention I feel it deserves. As for posting more on this topic here, it is time for me to find another place to talk about MF.

[paul_k]

I fell into the 'MF obviously is much better then 35mm' hype more then 35 years ago when I started a pro level photography course at the Royal Academy of Arts in The Hague

I had saved hard and fallen into a fair amount of money, so decided to buy myself a twin body+ lenses Nikon 35 mm set (obvious choice back then, as in that era Nikon really was the only real pro choice, not so much for the 'better' equipment, but also for the wider availability of eg repair shops, 2nd hand gear and third party accesories).
And following the 'expert advise' at school I also bought a multilple lens and filmback Hasselblad 500C/M set, as well as a large format Sinar F (which, I was assured, was an absolute 'must have' long term investment for an aspiring pro photographer).

Well, I soon found out large format studio work was not my thing, and that despite the better technical IQ, the Hasselblad didn't help me shoot better pictures.

So I soon sold the Sinar set, and, although I didn't expect it would happen ( it didn't), in the hope that in future I would grow into it, kept the Hasselblad set in the back of my closet.  It's been there for the last 30+ years gathering dust, never used it in earnest since.

It however was a nice marketing tool to have around though.
During some shoots I had it mounted on a tripod, which would prompt the client/art director look at it when they came in, and draw a comment ' Ah, Hasselblad, those are going to be great pictures'.
After which I would take some symbolic pictures with it, and continue my serious/the rest of the shooting with my Nikons.
Since the prints were the final product that were looked at, no one eventually cared what format they were shot with
(I used to mainly shoot people, fashion and at times a few events, so unlike technical studio work, the 'ultimate' sharpness, lines per mm etc. were not the prime concern)

Nowadays I 'm a great fan for shooters who eagerly drop their Nikon gear to upgrade for something new and, although unproven, better that hits the market.
It allowed me eg to get lenses like the 1.4/58mm AF, 1.4/85mm AF D, 125mm CC and 1.4/AF D for about 50% MSRP each, a admitted high mileage (120K clicks) but for the rest in excellent working condition D800 + grip for a mere Eur 850, a hardly used (under 10K clicks, including WiFi dongle) D7100 for Eur 375.

Sure, all 2nd hand, so I won't have the rush of unpacking something spanking new, or be able to draw bragging rights from having the latest and greatest gear/gadget. But I'm really not very much into that anyway.

As far as the X1D is concerned, I have handled and shot with it (and other Hasselblad H models) at a demo day of the Hasselblad distributor for Northern Europe.
Impressive weight and built quality, but coming from a D3/D800 I found the AF speed unimpressive
Also for me the 'gain' in IQ etc from the larger chip, and considering that e.g. the menu and UI were at that time still a 'work in progress, were not enough to justify/ a reason to avoid hasty decisions over the huge investment that switching/upgrading would come with.

I did however found a cheap 45 degree PME prism for my 501CM, so maybe I'll start playing more with it again (the look/presence of a - big - film - rather then digital - camera on a shoot, even if no pictures are actually taken with it in earnest, is/apparently is quite popular nowadays .

[Roland Vink]

Michael, whether Hasselblad X1D is the right camera for you, only you can say. But a camera system is more than just the camera body. What are the lens options? I know you love shooting closeups and focus stacking. Are there good options for the X1D which allow you to do this? So far only two lenses are announced - 45/3.5 and 90/3.2, both get to about 1:6 magnification which is about the same as any normal non-macro lens. The 90 might work well with a good close-up lens but image quality is likely to suffer a little, which may negate the advantage of the 50MP sensor. Also, is the manual focus ring sufficiently precise enough the enable focus stacking? Other H lenses can be used with an adaptor, but only lenses with a built-in leaf shutter can be used, so the lens choice may still be restricted.

Maybe the new medium format Fuji would be a better option as there is already a 120/4 macro lens in the roadmap...

[antonoat]

The most blatant question of all hasn't even been asked: does anyone really need a $9,000 camera to capture images of their potted plants and dew drops on their back lawn?

I mean, essentially, you're trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Nothing is going to raise the level of interest in such common, ho-hum subjects.

IMO, that money would be better spent on a trip to somewhere exotic, with truly interesting subject matter, where your existing Nikon equipment will take the more compelling images ...

There is no Hasselblad camera that could have captured these images ... taken at the long end of 900mm:













Bottom Line: Any photo that can be taken with a Hasselblad can be also taken with a Nikon ... but not any photo that can be taken with a Nikon can be taken with a Hasselblad

Jack

To create an interesting photograph, you first have to photograph something interesting, I'm inclined to agree with your thoughts!

tony

[antonoat]

May sound fundamental but surely photographing something in a different way or photographing something different would capture the imagination
more!
It's often been illustrated(by our host) that seeing things and capturing them differently is potentially more rewarding and perhaps more memorable!
cheers
tony

[John Koerner]

To create an interesting photograph, you first have to photograph something interesting, I'm inclined to agree with your thoughts!
tony

To quote Jim Zuckerman, right out of his book, Shooting & Selling Your Photos, he says:

"Many years ago when I tried to determine the difference between my work and that of the photographers I admired, I realized that they were shooting fantastic species in the animal kingdom, going to exotic places, and capturing breathtaking landscapes. I was only shooting around my home. As soon as I began traveling and seeking out new subjects, my images took a quantum leap forward in excitement and salability. Great photography often means a great subject. This shot of exotic butterfly from the Philippines requires the same technical and artistic skill is a photograph of a nondescript brown butterfly taken in Arkansas. The only difference is the choice of subject."

The point being here, if the OP "can't get excited" taking photographs of his backyard flowers, from ten-thousand different angles, stacked over and over and over again, using a Nikon D810 + the finest lenses made ... I seriously doubt buying a $9,000 MF camera is going to make his backyard flowers (or dewdrops on his front lawn) any more exciting ... for him or anyone else.

Spending that same money going to Costa Rica, or Thailand, or Malaysia ... and actually photographing exciting subjects with his already-excellent equipment would be money better spent IMO.

Jack

[BruceSD]

Jack, nothing wrong with photographing where you live.

Those purple butterflies in the Philipines might look amazing to you, but to the local Philipinos who see hundreds of them every day for years they are ho hum and boring.   While these same Philipinos would view my backyard brown butterflies as unique and exceptionally beautiful.

This is a small planet, and just about everywhere has been fully explored and photographed.   It's really hard to photograph something that's totally new or never seen before.  I don't believe that's the  object of photography (unless you're NASA and shooting space shots).  Rather most of our photography is in fact shooting mundane stuff that has been photographed a million times, only you are attempting to put your own spin on it.

My favorite historical photographers all took most of their award winning photos that are now in museums in their own home areas. 

Also, when you go to the Philipieans to shoot butterflies, please realize that there are hundreds of Philipino photographers who have equipment at least as good as yours, and skills as good as you too.   But they have a giant advantage over you, they are there all of the time and can more fully explore the subject you are there to shoot than you can.

[Michael Erlewine]

The point being here, if the OP "can't get excited" taking photographs of his backyard flowers, from ten-thousand different angles, stacked over and over and over again, using a Nikon D810 + the finest lenses made ... I seriously doubt buying a $9,000 MF camera is going to make his backyard flowers (or dewdrops on his front lawn) any more exciting ... for him or anyone else.

John Koerner:

Since I am the Original Poster, your comments are directed at me personally.

You have, both in this forum, and in others, belittled me for my interest in close-up photography in the studio, and also suggested that I don’t do field work or anything other than studio-type photos. I have been doing nature photos since 1956 and have done thousands of field-guide-like photos... in the field. I shoot outside (and not just in gardens) from spring to fall. When winter comes, I go inside.

You continue to look down on studio work and, in your post here today, you state that my work is not exciting to me or to anyone else. I am tired of this kind of attitude being directed at me personally. I like field photography also, but I enjoy what I do, outside, inside, studio, etc.

We are all different and, as they say, ”Different Strokes for Different Folks.” Let’s honor that and not get personal.

[Andrea B.]

Michael, I apologize for that negative comment (and some others) slipping past the admin crew.

Apparently Mr. Koener is not able to recognize that others may not share his particular set of photographic values.

We all here at NG value your beautiful work and your creative explorations. We admire your generosity in making your guides freely available to everyone.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Contributors, in general, are given the benefit of doubt if any comment is off the mark. It can happen to the best of us and often will be the result of nuances lost in translation.

However, once they make a habit of submitting bad derogatory comments, they have crossed the line of no return.

[Michael Erlewine]

Michael, I apologize for that negative comment slipping past the admin crew.

Apparently Mr. Koener is not able to recognize that others may not share his particular set of photographic values.

We all here at NG value your beautiful work and your creative explorations. We admire your generosity in making your guides freely available to everyone.

This is not Koener's first abuse. He has done it on other forums (and here) as well, and I was told he was kicked out of some for his personal attacks on other photographers. It is hard to understand why he could not be tolerant of other approaches to photography. When I told him on LULA (or somewhere), where I was talking about Focus Stacking, that I had done hundreds of thousands of photos (which I have, because of focus-stacking), he called me a liar and all kinds of other stuff. I am tired of his being allowed to treat others this way.

[Andrea B.]

We are discussing this further right now.