The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

MF Digital Precision

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Ouch!

To be honest it's one reason why I ain't changing anything with my DSLR system, after 4 years I finally got every lens dialed in with every body and I hit freeze! Now that everything is working I ain't changing anything!

My uncle bought a Daimler in the days when Jaguar were known for shoddy QC and build quality. He took the advice of a friend and took his car, brand new, to a trusted Jag mechanic. He told him to strip every single component and then build it from scratch - properly. He never had a problem with his car and neither did his friend in an age when Jag's spent more time in repair than on the road. Seems to be that due to the incredible quality possible with digital and the showing up of many errors once covered by film, the same thing makes sense with cameras. Send all your lenses and cameras in to a trusted repair shop and tell them to make all work with each other perfectly. Will cost a lot of money perhaps but whats money compared to all the hair torn out over years of fustration?

A friend of mine took a 2nd hand and very battered 70-200 f2.8 Non IS in to a repair shop, told them to strip it and check everything. They took out and cleaned every element, reseated and double checked then focus calibrated it. I've used the lens, heck it's on my shelf at present while he's abroad. I've never seen a Canon zoom lens that comes close for contrast, sharpness and resolution and I've owned plenty including two 70-200's. I would say that at f4 it's very almost on par with my 85 1.8 prime (also calibrated and stupidly accurate/sharp). I did the same when I bought a 100mm f2, sent it straight in to canon, didn't even bother with detailed testing. Got it back as sharp as a pin and with sweet contrast. If I buy a 3rd 5D then it's going straight in to canon for focus calibration as the other two were. Haven't got the patience to test anymore.
 
S

smei_ch

Guest
For my taste there are a little too many "is quite sure that he used f8/f22/f..." sentences in the text (f22 tests with a 7 micron back? Just one word: diffraction).
And he mentions tests with a Seitz scanback on Alpa, a device which doesn't even exist (yet)?

I'll take it with a big grain of salt...
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Mmmh, a friend of mine is specialist for watches. He recommended me to only give my watch for a mechanical check and maitenance if I had a problem, since every time you open the watch you get some dust and dirt inside, no matter how carefull you are.
Frankly, as long as a unit works without a problem I would never give it away. And then there are better and not so good skilled people. Whenever I had to send a lens in for calibration or repair (to Leica or Nikon or Canon or Rollei), they mostly solved the problem but I couldnt find an improvement of overall performance.



Ouch!

To be honest it's one reason why I ain't changing anything with my DSLR system, after 4 years I finally got every lens dialed in with every body and I hit freeze! Now that everything is working I ain't changing anything!

My uncle bought a Daimler in the days when Jaguar were known for shoddy QC and build quality. He took the advice of a friend and took his car, brand new, to a trusted Jag mechanic. He told him to strip every single component and then build it from scratch - properly. He never had a problem with his car and neither did his friend in an age when Jag's spent more time in repair than on the road. Seems to be that due to the incredible quality possible with digital and the showing up of many errors once covered by film, the same thing makes sense with cameras. Send all your lenses and cameras in to a trusted repair shop and tell them to make all work with each other perfectly. Will cost a lot of money perhaps but whats money compared to all the hair torn out over years of fustration?

A friend of mine took a 2nd hand and very battered 70-200 f2.8 Non IS in to a repair shop, told them to strip it and check everything. They took out and cleaned every element, reseated and double checked then focus calibrated it. I've used the lens, heck it's on my shelf at present while he's abroad. I've never seen a Canon zoom lens that comes close for contrast, sharpness and resolution and I've owned plenty including two 70-200's. I would say that at f4 it's very almost on par with my 85 1.8 prime (also calibrated and stupidly accurate/sharp). I did the same when I bought a 100mm f2, sent it straight in to canon, didn't even bother with detailed testing. Got it back as sharp as a pin and with sweet contrast. If I buy a 3rd 5D then it's going straight in to canon for focus calibration as the other two were. Haven't got the patience to test anymore.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
For my taste there are a little too many "is quite sure that he used f8/f22/f..." sentences in the text (f22 tests with a 7 micron back? Just one word: diffraction).
And he mentions tests with a Seitz scanback on Alpa, a device which doesn't even exist (yet)?

I'll take it with a big grain of salt...
You know, we can always question other people's methodologies and memories but in general his experience exactly matches my own. I test every piece of equipment I buy as soon as I unpack it and have an absolute rule that if it isn't right, right out of the box, it goes back immediately.

Since I got into MF I have had to return (or test in store and not buy) more items, especially lenses, than I can remember. My Phase kit arrived with a wonky kit lens. Silvestri could have had a lot of my money if I had been able to get any of their kit to focus. Mamiya lost me after two 28D's were just C**P and I eventually went second hand. I could (and have in the past!) go on and on but the fact is that this stuff is mighty sensitive to poor QC and poor QC is widespread.

Had I read this article before starting my journey in November, I would at least have known I was entering a vale of tears. As it was, there have been months of lost shots, detective work to try and work out which of many elements was the weak link in the chain, a feeling that everything I purchased was doomed. Now I learn that this is just standard. And, controversially, I have come to the conclusion that anyone who has not had the same experience has probably been either extraordinarily lucky or, more likely, they are insufficiently observant or demanding.

I now have a setup that works perfectly: A Cambo RS with Schneider 35XL and a P45+ back mounted on a Gitzo GT354LS with Manfrotto 410 geared head. It produces images at F11 which are sharp to my standards from edge to edge. I also have a Phamiya AFDIII which I regard as very flawed and only just fit for purpose, a Mammy 28D which is a good example but not really good enough for a big exhibition print, an 'old' Hartblei super rotator which again is a great example but still flawed in some ways. I also have some good glass for the Phamiya. Then there are numerous discarded tripods and heads, the Metz flash kit recommended by Phase and yet not suitable for TTL use as advertised and so on and so on.

SO: for anyone thinking of going the MF route: read Mr Holmes' article. It is detailed, informative and in my experience entirely correct.

You have to kiss a lot of frogs.

Tim
 

jlm

Workshop Member
it seems that most of the focusing errors he points out have to do with the reliability of the lens barrel markings or the similarity of the ground glass image plane to the sensor image plane. the first method seems limited by your ability to measure camera-to-subject distance and the barrel markings, both limited in precision. In my experience, the ground glass focus method is most practical, so that is where precision is paramount. of course tethered is the most accurate (wysiwyg), and offers something never available with film
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I do think there is a lesson here even if the method can be debated .. like it always is ;)

Most all of us have had some sort of issue with expensive gear that our expectations are high for ... and the lens or camera disappoints by not delivering on those expectations.

My experience is not unlike Ben's ... if you get a kit zeroed in it can be more valuable than the latest, greatest that may or may not be calibrated correctly ... which is often difficult to diagnose due to so many factors than can effect minute performance.

I had a very frustrating time of it with my Leica M8 and a slew of M lenses ... but once zeroed in, I simply will not give up this specific camera and set of lenses unless financially forced to. It is now incredibly precise with every M lens I own ... and any new lens has to work as well or it immediately gets sent back to the seller.

I discovered an issue with my D3 after many slightly OOF shots ... and when using the camera's optional calibration menu, I saw it was off consistently with each lens. A quick trip back to Nikon and it is now incredibly accurate. That in itself is a real confidence builder when I use that camera ... especially with lenses like the 200/2 up close.

While I have never had a Phase One digital back, I have had my share of independent backs that were off just a bit one way or another ... the back maker said the camera's tolerences were off, and the camera maker said the back was off. Can't speak for anyone or anything else but myself ... but this is what convinced me to go with a totally integrated system approach where the back is specifically calibrated to the camera before I got it, not after. It comes with a few disadvantages (like not really being able to swap backs on identical models of cameras ... but for me I could care less as long as the system delivers that shooting confidence that I now enjoy.)

Love the one you're with ... IF it is on the money ... it saves a lot of grief.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
it seems that most of the focusing errors he points out have to do with the reliability of the lens barrel markings or the similarity of the ground glass image plane to the sensor image plane. the first method seems limited by your ability to measure camera-to-subject distance and the barrel markings, both limited in precision. In my experience, the ground glass focus method is most practical, so that is where precision is paramount. of course tethered is the most accurate (wysiwyg), and offers something never available with film
But tethered shooting, at least with my Phase back, is deeply flawed: even if you could,as Holmes suggests, use an iPhone screen in the field for focus check, the sensor readout is pretty useless outside of studio conditions. Actually just make that useless. I wouldn't take a laptop into the field with me for this purpose even if I had three assistants. Unless it was dusk or dawn there would be no point.

The Liveview focus on my 5dII is infinitely superior.

The biggest single saleable innovation that Phase and others could offer to make me upgrade is not more pixels but proper zoomable live view focus. Closely followed by better higher ISO...
 

jlm

Workshop Member
"The biggest single saleable innovation that Phase and others could offer to make me upgrade is not more pixels but proper zoomable live view focus."


amen, brother
 

woodyspedden

New member
You know, we can always question other people's methodologies and memories but in general his experience exactly matches my own. I test every piece of equipment I buy as soon as I unpack it and have an absolute rule that if it isn't right, right out of the box, it goes back immediately.

Since I got into MF I have had to return (or test in store and not buy) more items, especially lenses, than I can remember. My Phase kit arrived with a wonky kit lens. Silvestri could have had a lot of my money if I had been able to get any of their kit to focus. Mamiya lost me after two 28D's were just C**P and I eventually went second hand. I could (and have in the past!) go on and on but the fact is that this stuff is mighty sensitive to poor QC and poor QC is widespread.

Had I read this article before starting my journey in November, I would at least have known I was entering a vale of tears. As it was, there have been months of lost shots, detective work to try and work out which of many elements was the weak link in the chain, a feeling that everything I purchased was doomed. Now I learn that this is just standard. And, controversially, I have come to the conclusion that anyone who has not had the same experience has probably been either extraordinarily lucky or, more likely, they are insufficiently observant or demanding.

I now have a setup that works perfectly: A Cambo RS with Schneider 35XL and a P45+ back mounted on a Gitzo GT354LS with Manfrotto 410 geared head. It produces images at F11 which are sharp to my standards from edge to edge. I also have a Phamiya AFDIII which I regard as very flawed and only just fit for purpose, a Mammy 28D which is a good example but not really good enough for a big exhibition print, an 'old' Hartblei super rotator which again is a great example but still flawed in some ways. I also have some good glass for the Phamiya. Then there are numerous discarded tripods and heads, the Metz flash kit recommended by Phase and yet not suitable for TTL use as advertised and so on and so on.

SO: for anyone thinking of going the MF route: read Mr Holmes' article. It is detailed, informative and in my experience entirely correct.

You have to kiss a lot of frogs.

Tim
I did a workshop with Joe Holmes and indeed he is a scientist and works and sweats the details. Some (or perhaps all) here may be familiar with the work he has done on color spaces. Again a very arcane subject but he arguably knows more about the subject than anyone around today. He is a one of a kind.

Woody
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
What do you mean by 'a 645 mount' ?
I have a P45+ back with a Mamiya fitting to mount on a 645AFD camera type such as the Phase/Mamiya AFDIII. I wanted to purchase an Artec but was told by a Sinar representative there were no current plans to make the camera with a back fitting that would take my P45+ and indeed consulting the Sinar website spec sheet for the camera shows the available fittings to be:

'Sinar Hy6, Leaf AFi interface, and Hasselblad V'

So unless I were to have my P45+ back's fitting changed, I can't use an Artec.

If we assume for a moment that very large numbers of MF digital photographers use Phase One backs and that a lot of them also use Phase AFDIII cameras then it is clear that like me, a large number of photographers are automatically excluded from the Artec. A point I was just trying to make to Edwin, since he works for them!

Best

T
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
. Now I learn that this is just standard. And, controversially, I have come to the conclusion that anyone who has not had the same experience has probably been either extraordinarily lucky or, more likely, they are insufficiently observant or demanding.
Tim:

The other conclusion to consider is perhaps the folks that have not had the same experiences as you did not begin with the same expectations as you...

Yet another conclusion, and the one I subscribe to, is that in contrast to everybody else being extraordinarily lucky, was that you had an incredible amount of bad luck ;)

FWIW, I interact with Joe offline regularly and we have shared numerous ideas and maladies of getting our MF systems to work the way we want them to. In fact both of us reached the same conclusion regarding tech cameras --- that for all intents and purposes, NONE of the current offerings provide enough precision to work more reliably than the basic Mamiya body and lenses, at least until we get usable live focus capabilities in an untethered back... (Though we do however remain optimistic about the Arca RM3D if we ever see an actual production unit.) We even have a difficult to find, special Zeiss loupe that allows us to check for critical focus through our Mamiya viewfinders. (Yes really.)

Cheers,
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Thanks Tim. now I understand what you mean. The old camera and lens system versus the digi back system and associated compromises/positives/negatives and wish lists.

Maybe ten years from now chip production will be cheap enough to give us full frame 4x5 = problem solved! Sadly, nothing out there in digi land works like a 4x5 or LF camera and film system.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Thanks Tim. now I understand what you mean. The old camera and lens system versus the digi back system and associated compromises/positives/negatives and wish lists.

Maybe ten years from now chip production will be cheap enough to give us full frame 4x5 = problem solved! Sadly, nothing out there in digi land works like a 4x5 or LF camera and film system.
Hiya Peter,

I'm not sure I agree totally: I think that I get better results in general from my P45+ than I did with 4x5 film and that there are advantages and disadvantages to both ways of working.

The difference is that film is a mature technology and digital is not. So all this messing about with LLC shots and centre grads and so on, plus the inability of many manufacturers to get the sensor sufficiently well lined up with the plane of focus, and the inability to make Live View work with these sensors is symptomatic of that immaturity and we suffer for it.

So now I find that if I want to get assured focus on longer lenses I have to use the Phamiya body, which I really do think is clunky, slow and nasty. And if I want wider angle shots that are in focus to the edges then I have to use a tech camera and put up with all the associated glitches that go with it.

If I had known all this before I started, might I not just have sunk about a third of the investment into an Imacon scanner and stayed with film?

Hmmm. Maybe. Probably not on balance. But the balance is very, very much finer than I thought it would be when I walked into my dealer with a 4x5 field camera last fall and said 'what would you give me for this if.....'
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Tim:

The other conclusion to consider is perhaps the folks that have not had the same experiences as you did not begin with the same expectations as you...
Jack, that's exactly my point: this gear is incredibly more expensive than, let's say a D3X or equivalent and it's heavier, slower and much harder to use. It should therefore deliver results notably in excess of the high-end DSLRs. If people don't have the same expectations of it as me then they probably either should have, or should stick to FF gear. Holmes is one of the people who seems to have the same expectations as me and naturally we both think those expectations are reasonable.

Yet another conclusion, and the one I subscribe to, is that in contrast to everybody else being extraordinarily lucky, was that you had an incredible amount of bad luck ;)
Not at all! Joe has had a roughly equal amount of grief. He's had a lot of kit that is simply not built properly and lost a lot of shots as a result. Neither of us have been unlucky. We've been picky, because that's what we've paid to be. And we've been finely observant of our results. I really want to lay this to rest for the sake of other people thinking of going this route. I've spent months thinking I was unlucky and I now absolutely don't think that's true.

FWIW, I interact with Joe offline regularly and we have shared numerous ideas and maladies of getting our MF systems to work the way we want them to. In fact both of us reached the same conclusion regarding tech cameras --- that for all intents and purposes, NONE of the current offerings provide enough precision to work more reliably than the basic Mamiya body and lenses, at least until we get usable live focus capabilities in an untethered back... (Though we do however remain optimistic about the Arca RM3D if we ever see an actual production unit.) We even have a difficult to find, special Zeiss loupe that allows us to check for critical focus through our Mamiya viewfinders. (Yes really.)

Cheers,
I know where you're coming from on this but I have to say that my Cambo/Schneider 35XL combination seems to be the only way of getting results at wide angle that equal those I get with an 80D or longer. Sure, you have to guess focus, but I can and do get results with it even with this guesswork that are, to my standards, as close to perfect as I expect. I might be speaking too soon here since all the above is true of my WDS and the RS has only just arrived but early signs are promising!

Best

T
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Maybe I come from a differnt way of thinking and expectations than most people. I view MF as i would view any progression in format going up in size. I look at it like P&S camera's are the easiest to work with just point and shoot and it does it's thing than move up to 35mm and the work is fairly easier but still tougher to use than a P&S camera and your expectations are differnt. We all know that any MF system we pick and I don't care what brand you pick certain things will not change . There slower , there harder to work with and tougher to focus and DOF is null and those expectations are not the same as you would get in 35mm. Frankly I never compare the two systems against each other. I know when I bought MF exactly what i was getting . BUT BUT and one more BUT. I have yet to find the limitations in shooting MF as a serious issues than what it was and is made out to be by many users.I shoot fast runway , events, golf with it and slow down also to a snails pace with it and frankly since this is all I own i force my work and my thinking to work within it. I rarely complain about MF if ever actually. I know what my expectations are and I know what I can do and what I have to do to get it done. But I know that with any system and in any format. The key I think is having the ability to adjust to it and draw the most you can from it.

In reality I don't find it painfully slow and I don't find it hard to work with but my expectations are real and not something beyond what I know what it can and can't do. I don't know maybe I have been shooting so long in my life and have had so many formats and camera's in my hands that this stuff does not phase me in the slightest. I come from shooting speed graphics hanging out of helicopters doing aerials. Thats 4x5 folks handheld and guessing at everything just like some old dogs here have been around BEFORE polaroids. LOL.

Honestly I find all lot of this stuff just more BS in your life. I rarely miss anything that I need to get with any camera i have in my hand. Now not because i think I am great or anything like that but my head just adjusts to that style of shooting. Heck i don't even have a favorite proportion size. I have just learned to shoot with whatever is in my hand without cropping which for me is extremely rare to do.I just think we get to hung up on what CAN"T be done or what we think can't be done. I think learning how to pull the rabbit out of the hat given any gear is just more important than figuring out how he got in there in the first place. Okay that was the 2:30 am thinking and not being able to sleep thoughts. :bugeyes:
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Maybe I come from a differnt way of thinking and expectations than most people. I view MF as i would view any progression in format going up in size. I look at it like P&S camera's are the easiest to work with just point and shoot and it does it's thing than move up to 35mm and the work is fairly easier but still tougher to use than a P&S camera and your expectations are differnt. We all know that any MF system we pick and I don't care what brand you pick certain things will not change . There slower , there harder to work with and tougher to focus and DOF is null and those expectations are not the same as you would get in 35mm. Frankly I never compare the two systems against each other. I know when I bought MF exactly what i was getting . BUT BUT and one more BUT. I have yet to find the limitations in shooting MF as a serious issues than what it was and is made out to be by many users.I shoot fast runway , events, golf with it and slow down also to a snails pace with it and frankly since this is all I own i force my work and my thinking to work within it. I rarely complain about MF if ever actually. I know what my expectations are and I know what I can do and what I have to do to get it done. But I know that with any system and in any format. The key I think is having the ability to adjust to it and draw the most you can from it.

In reality I don't find it painfully slow and I don't find it hard to work with but my expectations are real and not something beyond what I know what it can and can't do. I don't know maybe I have been shooting so long in my life and have had so many formats and camera's in my hands that this stuff does not phase me in the slightest. I come from shooting speed graphics hanging out of helicopters doing aerials. Thats 4x5 folks handheld and guessing at everything just like some old dogs here have been around BEFORE polaroids. LOL.

Honestly I find all lot of this stuff just more BS in your life. I rarely miss anything that I need to get with any camera i have in my hand. Now not because i think I am great or anything like that but my head just adjusts to that style of shooting. Heck i don't even have a favorite proportion size. I have just learned to shoot with whatever is in my hand without cropping which for me is extremely rare to do.I just think we get to hung up on what CAN"T be done or what we think can't be done. I think learning how to pull the rabbit out of the hat given any gear is just more important than figuring out how he got in there in the first place. Okay that was the 2:30 am thinking and not being able to sleep thoughts. :bugeyes:
Ditto.

To me they are all boxes with media at one end and a lens on the other. Each format inherently has it's level of expectations and are selected based on the priorities at hand. MF is selected when IQ is the priority ... it does most all the rest (perhaps a bit more inconveniently,) but IQ is the priority.
 
Top