This past week I've been sleep deprived, socially inactive, and holding a camera in my hands for more than I ever have in my entire life. You see, this past week I've been working with PRO EDU to film my first tutorial series to go on sale at the Fstoppers store this summer. Though learning a lot about my own work and process, I think I learned the most when I used a rented PhaseOne IQ250 system for one of my shoots.
PhaseOne has a brilliant system within their website that allows you to apply to take their camera system for a test drive. Many hoops may stand in your way during the application process, but if all goes well, you'll be left with an exceptional camera system to use for a week, to really put your DSLR to shame. And this is exactly the system I used to get my hands on a PhaseOne 645DF+ and IQ250 system with three Schneider leaf shutter lenses.
I've used both Hasselblad and PhaseOne systems in the past during my career as both an editor for Fstoppers and as a photographer. Certainly, I've been impressed, but I was never swayed enough to really understand the importance of these systems when compared to my Canon 5d Mark III. I always thought the better sharpness and dynamic range were great, but never at the expense of having a bogged down computer working the 50MP files, or the added weight of a massive medium format strapped to your side. After spending a week with the latest PhaseOne system, consider me swayed, and I learned quite a few lessons from my past ignorance.
My Canon 5d Mark III Isn't The King Of The Castle
If we can ignore the impending Nikon vs. Canon debate for a second, I've always thought that by having one of the top of the line camera systems by Canon, I was a couple steps ahead of anyone else in my field. I always considered the Hasselblads and PhaseOnes to be old in their ways and a fading system in the industry. Never did I expect to look at my Mark III with shame, but it happened this morning.
What was most satisfying process during this experience wasn't the ease of setting it up to get a PhaseOne in my hands (Being an editor of this place has it's perks), nor was it the frantic scribbling of my signature on the FedEx delivery man's signature authorization pad; it was the dynamic range of this beast of a camera. Upon taking the camera out for its first shoot in my nervously sweating hands, I did a light test - and the magic presented itself. Much to my dismay, nothing was blinking, nothing was striped red, and nothing was any different than photos from 100 clicks in. Let me elaborate -
I use highlight priority on my shooting. For those unfamiliar with it, it's that little setting on your camera that will notify you when you've got unrecoverable highlights in your image. When a light is just a little too bright, or your shutter is just a little to slow, you get a glaring notification of your error. PhaseOne is no different, they have this built into their system, marking it with a glaring red spot, a red spot I wasn't seeing. I wasn't seeing it because the dynamic range of this camera is insane, allowing you to get more shadows that aren't black, and more highlights that aren't white.
My Images Are Not That Clean
For my entire career as a photographer, I've always been told that my images are really clean. I've never fully understood what that meant, but I always considered it better than someone calling my work "So dirty" and took it as a compliment. After taking a few thousand photos using a medium format camera, I learned one very important lesson - My photos aren't clean. Never before did I realize I was hiding laziness within the smaller resolution of my sensor, but I was. Never before was I able to shoot a full body photograph and zoom in to look at pores on the face. And never before was worried about small imperfections in my images like flyaway hairs, dust on my sensor, or even a rogue eyebrow hair - I am now. The added resolution of this sensor has shown me every little thing I haven't been paying attention to, and showing it off to me with glowing criticism.
Adobe Lightroom Has a Worthy Competitor
I've been using Adobe products for my entire life. My career with Adobe begins in 1999 with Photoshop 5, where I learned how to develop web templates to sell to anyone who was comfortable buying from a 13 year old - my lemonade stand of a 56k era. From that moment, I've been a loyalist to Adobe - assuming we can both ignore my brief flirting with Jasc's Paint Shop Pro in the early 2000s. Never have I even considered that someone would be able to compete with Adobe in their innovation-heavy outlook on the art community. Well, PhaseOne is gaining ground on Lightroom with their Capture One software.
I've heard of others in the past using Capture One over Lightroom, but I've always kind of scoffed at it - comparing it to those who stubbornly use Gimp over Photoshop. Attached in the Pelican case that the PhaseOne system came in was a thumb drive. A thumb drive labeled "Capture One" and tucked away in a mesh pocket, mounted to the pelican door, and begging my curiosity to get the best of it. Well it did.
My images look better in Capture One. Now I'm still in the honeymoon phase with it, so I can't tell you why. Whether it's their ACR algorithms or some other magic the hide within the program, but my images look better for some reason. Now keep in mind, I haven't loaded any DSLR images into Capture One, nor do I plan them to look any different than on Lightroom. But in terms of PhaseOne, their software is optimized to handle the PhaseOne files, and do it better.
Their software is also slower. While I can imagine this being a huge pain when I have hundreds of photos to process and go through, right now it has been exceptional for my work. I've always said that patience is what separates good photographers from great photographers. So in my current state, I'm loving how Capture One is slowing me down, and having me properly adjusting my Raw images before sending them off to Photoshop to get down and dirty with a few dozen layers.
So does this mean I'm making the transition to PhaseOne? We'll have to see. At this point, I'm giving myself some time and space away from this love affair I've been having with another camera system. Spending tens of thousands of dollars isn't within my bank accounts limits either, so that's another hurdle to jump when I get there. But at this time, I'm impressed - I'm really impressed. Fstoppers might need a new Canon fanboy in the coming months, cause this one is going through some mixed feelings.
For more information about the tutorial series I've been putting together, be sure to check out PRO EDU, and look for it in the Fstoppers Store and PRO EDU store sometime in late July/August.
As someone who is currently on the fence about MFD, interesting article. I think the files might 'look better' but I don't think that the camera itself inherently makes the quality of the photography any better. I think the SIDE EFFECT - is that it forces you to slow down, both on location and in post - and as a result the photos are better.
I don't think that the pictures are necessarily any better because you shot them on this huge camera with this huge megapixel count. I think they're better because you slowed down (same thing happens to me when I shoot 4x5).
As I have always said, if the photograph moves me emotionally, it's a success. Doesn't matter what kind of camera it was shot on. MFD/film may make the photographer slow down and as a result, they'll create more interesting photos. That's my theory, at least.
The only reason I would buy one of these is because I'm now regularly printing and selling pieces over 60" across, and the resolution certainly helps there. I don't think it will make me a better photographer, or make me more sales, though.
Hey Mike,
When you print that large, how are you "up-resing" your images? Just image dimensions in Photoshop? Also, what dpi do you end up printing at? Are you happy with the print quality when printing that large? Sorry for the question barrage, but I'm interested in making really big prints.
I'm not sure exactly what Mike is shooting with but I had the pleasure of printing his LA plane image fairly large and it looked pretty good considering. (I do large format printing at ABC photo in Vancouver) Conner, the best thing to do is figure out your desired print size and size your image to that in photoshop, if it doesn't hit 300dpi, set it to 300 anyways. then turn on your rulers, and zoom in till your ruler is apx life size. then you'll get a relative idea how clear your print will be at that size.
There are some tricks you can do to help it, such as up res-ing to 600 , adding noise (very little), and resizing back down to 300 to clean up the pixel stretching from upsizing, but things like that only work on particular files, and if you're not stretching to much.
Also if you're using a 35mm DSLR, I can't express how big a difference of a clean file (shot low iso) and a noisy file (1k+) can make. I used to use a 5dmk2 and with a 50L and iso 50 @ f8, I did a 30x40" print and it looked good, I would be hesitant about printing larger, but you could do it.
We have some clients that print large using phase one/hassleblad systems and you really have to know how to use those cameras to make decent prints. And I would honestly say from visual experience a iso 800 file from a d800 will print nicer than an iso 400 file from a ccd sensor MFD camera. (I haven't had the pleasure of seeing files from the new CMOS MFD cameras)
Honestly, if you're wanting to print large, with optimal quality, nothing touches film. A quality drum scan from a good 6x4.5 negative will blow anything digital out of the water. And if you shoot something larger like 6x7, 6x9, or sheet film, the quality is limitless.
"Honestly, if you're wanting to print large, with optimal quality, nothing touches film."
I doubt this. A properly exposed low ISO transparency 4x5 perhaps, scanned on a photomultiplier tube-based drum scanner with manual controls for focus and aperture. But 120? I'm not so sure.
You would be surprised how far negative film has come, kodak ektar for example, I've done some 6x7 scans on an HR-500 Kodak scanner blown up to 50" on the long side that look flawless. A good drum scan from a sharp 6x7 neg on ektar or even portra 160 can yield gorgeous prints up to 72" or larger. Drum scanning and film technology has advanced quite well where a lot of these current films hold a ton of detail when shot properly. Not only that, with film and proper chromogenic printing, keeping continuous tone, your prints will come out much cleaner. If you don't believe me, come by ABC in Vancouver, and I'll show you first hand. :)
Although I did not operate them, I've worked in separate environments where there was an Isomet 455 in one and a Heidelberg Tango in the other. The Isomet was spectacular, but the Heidelberg was an embarrassment to photomultiplier tube-based drum scanning, but that's another story.
Typically anything scanned off negs were noisy as hell. Transparencies were the way to go. I don't know how you're scanning negs, but as long as it works for you then great.
Still, I'm hard-pressed to believe you're going to get better results from 120 scans versus a modern-day DSLR.
It really depends on the film. Obviously if you're shooting 400 speed colour neg, its going to be grainy, even on 6x9. But Ektar 100, for example is nearly as fine grain as modern slide films. Even a mediocre 6600x5400 HR-500 scan (not drum) from ektar I would choose over a d800 file and with a quality drum scan (we use a howtek hi-resolve 8000) you're surpassing MFD.
Like I said with modern film technology, there are very impressive results. Also with the benefit of continuous tone film and printing, (providing you're printing chromogenic) the prints come out alot smoother and more pleasing. But it's variable. With these new CMOS MFD cameras, shooting at higher speeds might yield better results with the digital.
I'll try out Ektar, out of curiosity. The neg stuff that was scanned was also ISO 100, just noisy. I no longer have access to the Isomet unfortunately, so I'll have to use a solid state scanner. Honestly though I doubt it will be any better.
Absolutely Mike. Since I went with Medium format it slowed down my Photography a lot, really it changed the way I shoot and the way I look at pictures. The camera systems has some great features, which I don't want to miss anymore. But you have to handle a MF camera the right way to get the best results.
As you said, it's not the camera that is responsible to capture a great image ;)
But I have to say that the quality of the pictures (I own a 40MP back) compared to my Nikon D800 is much better espacially in portrait photography. I have so much more colors, depth and strength to the image which make them special. And medium format has that special look ;)
But in the end - the image needs to be good and the camera is "just" a piece of equipment and here medium format makes my job much easier.
I think people forget or maybe they just don't know that there are many differences between 35mm DSLR and medium format DSLR's past just the fact the one has a bigger sensor and more MP. Color depth, dynamic range, focus fall off, glass and many more. Medium format is not inherently better or worse then 35mm and the pictures you get from MF cannot be duplicated in 35mm and vise versa. In our art, or field, the equipment use can help define the look and feel of an image or take away from it, one camera does not rule them all.
The amount of information is jawdropping. I've used a P40+ on a Mamiya RZ67II a few years back when I was in college, they had one in the studio and I got to use it for a whole
semester (I wasn't a Photo major). I agree, it doesn't make the quality of the photography better, the workflow does. You think better before hitting the shutter button...and man...that quality is astonishing. I remember once seeing myself in the eyes of the subject during a studio session and the capabilities of large prints is definitely there (4ft by 1ft prints). I'm dying to have my 120 Kiev 88 with me to keep shooting film.
I WOULD load some of your DSLR images in Capture One. I use Lightroom but have Capture One and Capture One makes images look better in my opinion. I kind of bounce back and forth because I have a problem being a software junkie.
Sounds to me like someone's gotten a little bit lost in the technology and minute details and forgot about the images themselves. :P
The problem I have with the IQ250 is with its crop factor and CMOS sensor, it seems to simply be a slightly larger D800E at 12x the price.
If you want a technically sound, large dynamic range, large DOF image, that can currently be obtained with the D800E. I'm sure the 5DMk3 is essentially just as good. Plus, as others have noted, you get real AF, capture speed, and substantial ISO. If one is obsessed with ultra-sharpness, just shoot your DSLR with the manufacturer's pro glass, or Zeiss, and process with DxO.
But for me, the purpose of MF is for the physical look, especially with shallower DOF images. The larger sensor, as one can experience with 120 film, just has a different feel to it.
"If you want a technically sound, large dynamic range, large DOF image,
that can currently be obtained with the D800E. I'm sure the 5DMk3 is
essentially just as good."
Not at all. Resolution aside, the Canon sensor is surprisingly bad for this day an age, compared to the Sony sensor in the D800. Just really noisy. All the Canon sensors are actually, compared to the Sony ones. Hopefully for Canon users the new gen they are working on will finally come around in improved dynamic range.
As for the PhaseOne, this is one of the first camera with a CMOS, so although it is the equivalent of a medium format APS-C sensor, it's larger photosites should finally give the digital MF cameras better dynamic range than we've been seeing with the Sony sensors.
Does it actually have larger photosites than the D800? I have not done the math or research, but it seems that it's essentially the same size photosizes, just more of them to fill the slightly larger chip, thus the 50mp vs 36mp.
Good point, I could be wrong. Searching about, I've discovered it is 44x33mm, and made by Sony! So even if the photosites are identical in size, they are probaly the same technology used in the Nikon sensors, and with correspondingly similar dynamic range.
The sensor isn't everything of course, the processing chip will determine what can be yielded from the sensor, as is the case with the Nikon Expeed processors that do better with the Sony sensors then Sony themselves do with their own cameras.
Capture one pro makes lightroom look like total garbage. When you start using capture one you realize how bad camera raw is
Can't wait for Sony to start making Medium Format cameras for 1/10th the cost.
I doubt that will happen.They may however manufacture a medium-format sensor.
They already are manufacturing them, supposedly. The Pentax 645D II and the Phase One iq250 both are rumored to use the same Sony manufactured Sony CMOS sensor.
Yeah, I just discovered that looking further into the IQ250.
If only I could use the Hasselblad backs at school with Capture One. C1 is probably the best RAW processor out there.
What "loops" have you had to go thru to test drive the camera? Please elaborate ;)
It seems pretty straight forward to me on the website.
A lot of the points for this topic can also be put towards the sigma dp merrill cameras.
1) insanely sharp and resolves so much detail it up there with a d800e (or at times better)
2) leaf shutter lens for very fast flash sync (upto 1/2000)
3) slow camera making you slow down and think about your shots.
4) around 40 shots per battery
Sure its not MF and you only get the dof of apcs sensors and it doesn't have the dynamic range of a d800 but for £340 currently for each version nothing even comes close (he'll even the lens you buy are not as good as the ones in the dpm's for that price) but from everything I've seen by using it and read about printing large from it its a very capable high IQ system that isn't much larger than some point and shoots.
Dynamic Range - Is it over rated?
How many fstops does the print have? Ever try to measure it?
What you describe as "highlight priority" isn't highlight priority, it's highlight alert. Otherwise an interesting article. Would love to see back to back comparisons with competitor's cameras. As for LR vs. CaptureOne, it's possible that you have a different calibration loaded, or different default settings applied. If you used a calibration tool such as a colour checker passport, in theory you should see no difference.
I just made the jump into a Phase One system this week. I signed a contract with a client that made the purchase a no-brainer. It's always interesting to see the comments on MF vs DSLR but I never see anyone talk about the optical difference as it relates to DoF of the bigger sensor. You duplicate that look with a DSLR (i have a few canon cameras and even my 85 1.2 cant touch the 120 f4). Of course you slow down with a bigger camera and that usually effects your photography positively. That's a great side effect. But the people that argue that the photos aren't better from MF perplex me. I tested my phase one side by side with the same product shot in studio vs my canon 5d3 w/85 1.2(not at 1.2 mind you) and the MF just looks better. It's not just me saying that. My AD was blown away too.
Since this is definitely directed at me, I will counter that being an architectural photographer, the reduced DOF is actually a hindrance because I would need to shoot at smaller apertures (f16+), low ISO, which would require a ton more lighting power. They're good cameras, don't get me wrong, but it's very situational. I would love one, I just don't want to pay for one when the advantage that it would give to me is pretty marginal.
welcome to the world of post 2008 sensor technology. it's not so much that MFD is amazing, as it's astounding to realize how crappy the canon sensor technology is compared to what's out there. I had similar 'revelations' when I switched from a 5d2 to nikon d800's. The d800 is on par with many MF systems out there, but with a great AF system. I had to start paying much more attention to my retouching b/c the details are so much more apparent. With the 5d2/3, you can just 'smear' the details away so easily in post and not even notice it.
Captureone has tons of potential, but it's a laggy beast if you're working on more than 20 photos....
I'm sure it's a good camera. As a D800 owner, it (Phase One) may probably have better DR. But as an event photographer, my current gear simply works. My choice of lenses are even better. Niche, as I would say...