Made the move

JimKasson said:

Here's one stitched from captures for a triptych that I made in 1982 with a Hasselblad and a 40 mm lens.



Anybody recognize the location? It's near Death Valley.

Jim

Click to expand...

Sure looks like Rhyolite, Nevada. My brother and I took our dad on a trip through California back in '97.

Stitching is handy when you don't have a wide enough lens, or wish a different perspective, or have no choice of position, whether with film or digital.

Here is a pano made from 7-8 shots from Apollo 17, and I think they give a much better sense of place than any single shot.







--
Lorne Black
Victoria, BC

LBlack said:

JimKasson said:

Here's one stitched from captures for a triptych that I made in 1982 with a Hasselblad and a 40 mm lens.



Anybody recognize the location? It's near Death Valley.

Jim

Click to expand...

Sure looks like Rhyolite, Nevada.

Click to expand...

Close:

LBlack said:

My brother and I took our dad on a trip through California back in '97.

Stitching is handy when you don't have a wide enough lens, or wish a different perspective, or have no choice of position, whether with film or digital.

Here is a pano made from 7-8 shots from Apollo 17, and I think they give a much better sense of place than any single shot.

Click to expand...

Yes.

--
Posted as a regular forum member.

Damn, that Apollo aircraft hanger was huge! ;-)

Michael Boniwell said:

If you have the GFX and 23mm, I'd appreciate any comments related to landscapes. In particular how you manage the DOF.

For example here's one at F11 from diglloyd:

https://diglloyd.com/blog/2019/imag...ulYTw1xRyA4be5AjdLjUN7GWMUFWPPJeHCcAqGKcTbdMH

If you look at the corners, (eg. zoom in top right), there's significant mush. I'd like to know if it's possible to produce an image that's sharp throughout without incurring unreasonable diffraction.

Click to expand...

I think describing the corners as mush is a little hyperbolic. If you look at the image at the intended size (100%, 2592x1728) in PS, the fall off at the corners is barely noticeable.

It might be good for the discussion if you tell me what you do with the images.

I think folks are a little too OCD about diffraction too. As LC says in his description, he used diffraction mitigating sharpening.

Michael Boniwell said:

Or is focus stacking mandatory?

Click to expand...

Nope.

Michael Boniwell said:

I've asked this question in other threads so sorry for the repetition, but it's hard to find anyone with access to the gear locally.

Click to expand...

I responded in one of threads you appear in and told the OP exactly what he needed to do.

When I first got my GFX with the 23, 32-64 and 120 macro, I played a long time with the 120 trying to get a flower into focus while filling the frame with the subject. Impossible even at f32 (talk about diffraction). The only way I found to accomplish the goal was to increase the distance (step back) and crop in post. Sort of why I asked what you were going to do with your images. I crop every image to a 9:15 regardless of its native aspect ratio so I can get rid of some softness if need be.

Tom Till, a well known photographer around Moab and vicinity took this image:


The print hangs in his gallery in Moab and is at least 3 feet tall. I was surprised to find that a few of those flowers were noticeably out of focus yet I believe the print sells like hot cakes. By the way, I am not trying to persuade you to accept mushy corners but you will need to accept the DoF the format gives you.

Rick Knepper said:

Tom Till, a well known photographer around Moab and vicinity took this image:

https://tomtill.com/onlineshop/courthouse-towers-mulesears/

The print hangs in his gallery in Moab and is at least 3 feet tall. I was surprised to find that a few of those flowers were noticeably out of focus yet I believe the print sells like hot cakes. By the way, I am not trying to persuade you to accept mushy corners but you will need to accept the DoF the format gives you.

Click to expand...

You don't need be the slave to the format. Once you move into FF sensors and larger (and even with APS-C and MFT, if you're not looking for paper thin DOF), you have sufficient options that the format does not dictate the DOF. The thinking photographer chooses the DOF.

Jim

JimKasson said:

Rick Knepper said:

Tom Till, a well known photographer around Moab and vicinity took this image:

https://tomtill.com/onlineshop/courthouse-towers-mulesears/

The print hangs in his gallery in Moab and is at least 3 feet tall. I was surprised to find that a few of those flowers were noticeably out of focus yet I believe the print sells like hot cakes. By the way, I am not trying to persuade you to accept mushy corners but you will need to accept the DoF the format gives you.

Click to expand...

You don't need be the slave to the format. Once you move into FF sensors and larger (and even with APS-C and MFT, if you're not looking for paper thin DOF), you have sufficient options that the format does not dictate the DOF. The thinking photographer chooses the DOF.

Jim

Click to expand...

There is very little a thinking photographer will encounter that medium format would not be the best format.

Michael Boniwell said:

Greg7579 said:

Michael, You can ponder until the end of time, but if you have ground at your feet on a fairly wide angle shot, it is going to be out of focus to some degree

Click to expand...

I probably should have mentioned I'm used to FF, where it's possible to get everything acceptably sharp in one shot if you gain DOF by shooting wide enough and then stop down. I was wondering if that concept translated into the mini-MF world.

The closest match to the GFX's 23mm I could find is this one from 10 years ago. 19mm on FF at F11:

http://chockstone.smugmug.com/photos/717488137_hfnyB-XL.jpg

Both the foreground rocks and distant peak are in focus, though the rock bottom right is starting to lose it, and there is some haze in the extreme background.

Unfortunately it sounds like chasing "ultimate image quality" with the GFX, at least for my purposes, would require focus stacking and the obvious creative limitations that implies with respect to moving subjects.

Adapting canon tilt-shift is an option, but then I give up weather sealing, which for me, would be a deal breaker given the environments I'm shooting in.

So, pondering still.

Michael Boniwell
http://www.chockstonephotos.com

Click to expand...

Michael,

I don't think your FF comments are correct on shots like we are talking about or that you must focus stack w MF to match FF capabilities concerning DOF. Everything I said about F8 and 11 on wide foreground shots is still true with FF and even APSC. I have shot both FF and APSC for many years and the same DOF challenges exist with these foreground shots. You are not going to get grass or stone at your feet in focus along with infinity at wide angles with any of it.

Having said that I will say that DOF considerations were big in my decision to invest in expensive MF gear. Like you, I want more DOF, not less. The fact is I'm getting two stops less DOF at F8 than I do with my Fuji APSC gear. That along with lack of IBIS effects my EV thinking while I shoot. Plus, with MF, I know I'm going to be pixel peeping resolution and delete images that are not sharp at 1:1. So hand-held speed with MF needs to be a little higher to insure that resolution advantage. All of that is in my mind when I shoot with this new MF rig and make EV decisions.

But you know what? I'm liking it. I already know I'm going to get into this and my closet full of Fuji APSC gear is going to be lonely for awhile.

Rick Knepper said:

JimKasson said:

Rick Knepper said:

Tom Till, a well known photographer around Moab and vicinity took this image:

https://tomtill.com/onlineshop/courthouse-towers-mulesears/

The print hangs in his gallery in Moab and is at least 3 feet tall. I was surprised to find that a few of those flowers were noticeably out of focus yet I believe the print sells like hot cakes. By the way, I am not trying to persuade you to accept mushy corners but you will need to accept the DoF the format gives you.

Click to expand...

You don't need be the slave to the format. Once you move into FF sensors and larger (and even with APS-C and MFT, if you're not looking for paper thin DOF), you have sufficient options that the format does not dictate the DOF. The thinking photographer chooses the DOF.

Click to expand...

There is very little a thinking photographer will encounter that medium format would not be the best format.

Click to expand...

There are many things for which MF is not the best format. There are many things for which MF is indeed the best format.

But the point of my post in green above, in reaction to your saying "I am not trying to persuade you to accept mushy corners but you will need to accept the DoF the format gives you" is this: the format does not give you a certain DOF; you decide the DOF. Within the limits mentioned above, the format does not constrain you. This is a hoary old knock on MF that has no basis in fact.

Jim

JimKasson said:

the format does not give you a certain DOF; you decide the DOF. Within the limits mentioned above, the format does not constrain you. This is a hoary old knock on MF that has no basis in fact.

Jim

Click to expand...

Now that was a post that goes into my permanent photo notes.

I was very aware of DOF equivalency at a given aperture facts when comparing APSC to FF to MF before I bought into MF. I knew it would effect my EV decision-making and that I would have less DOF at a chosen aperture than I do with my Fuji APSC gear. Sure.

But the above statement by Jim is a caveat that is also very true. You still decide the EV based on knowledge of what is optimal vs what is traded off, like in all photography.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas

Greg7579 said:

Michael Boniwell said:

Greg7579 said:

Michael, You can ponder until the end of time, but if you have ground at your feet on a fairly wide angle shot, it is going to be out of focus to some degree

Click to expand...

I probably should have mentioned I'm used to FF, where it's possible to get everything acceptably sharp in one shot if you gain DOF by shooting wide enough and then stop down. I was wondering if that concept translated into the mini-MF world.

The closest match to the GFX's 23mm I could find is this one from 10 years ago. 19mm on FF at F11:

http://chockstone.smugmug.com/photos/717488137_hfnyB-XL.jpg

Both the foreground rocks and distant peak are in focus, though the rock bottom right is starting to lose it, and there is some haze in the extreme background.

Unfortunately it sounds like chasing "ultimate image quality" with the GFX, at least for my purposes, would require focus stacking and the obvious creative limitations that implies with respect to moving subjects.

Adapting canon tilt-shift is an option, but then I give up weather sealing, which for me, would be a deal breaker given the environments I'm shooting in.

Click to expand...

Michael,

I don't think your FF comments are correct on shots like we are talking about or that you must focus stack w MF to match FF capabilities concerning DOF.

Click to expand...

Your formulation is a bit different than Michael's, but if we're going to stick with yours, you are right. At equivalent f-stops and fields of view, DOF is the same with FF and MF cameras.

But, using Michael's formulation of the issue, there is a germ of truth there. If we accept as a given for the moment that MF is higher-res than FF, then to take full advantage of that res requires choosing apertures nearer to the optimum ones. This is not an MF/FF thing, though. Increasing the res on a FF camera would result in the same situation.

Greg7579 said:

Everything I said about F8 and 11 on wide foreground shots is still true with FF and even APSC. I have shot both FF and APSC for many years and the same DOF challenges exist with these foreground shots. You are not going to get grass or stone at your feet in focus along with infinity at wide angles with any of it.

Having said that I will say that DOF considerations were big in my decision to invest in expensive MF gear. Like you, I want more DOF, not less. The fact is I'm getting two stops less DOF at F8 than I do with my Fuji APSC gear.

Click to expand...

But the same DOF at f/16, which gives you the same amount of diffraction.

Jim

JimKasson said:

Rick Knepper said:

JimKasson said:

Rick Knepper said:

Tom Till, a well known photographer around Moab and vicinity took this image:

https://tomtill.com/onlineshop/courthouse-towers-mulesears/

The print hangs in his gallery in Moab and is at least 3 feet tall. I was surprised to find that a few of those flowers were noticeably out of focus yet I believe the print sells like hot cakes. By the way, I am not trying to persuade you to accept mushy corners but you will need to accept the DoF the format gives you.

Click to expand...

You don't need be the slave to the format. Once you move into FF sensors and larger (and even with APS-C and MFT, if you're not looking for paper thin DOF), you have sufficient options that the format does not dictate the DOF. The thinking photographer chooses the DOF.

Click to expand...

There is very little a thinking photographer will encounter that medium format would not be the best format.

Click to expand...

There are many things for which MF is not the best format. There are many things for which MF is indeed the best format.

Click to expand...

Disagree. There may be a few things. But in regard to the topic of thread, nope.

JimKasson said:

But the point of my post in green above, in reaction to your saying "I am not trying to persuade you to accept mushy corners but you will need to accept the DoF the format gives you" is this: the format does not give you a certain DOF; you decide the DOF. Within the limits mentioned above, the format does not constrain you.

Click to expand...

This is a ridiculously misconstrued characterization. My only question being are you purposely twisting the words or are you simply confused? Of course, you've snipped a large part of my post.

JimKasson said:

This is a hoary old knock on MF that has no basis in fact.

Click to expand...

Does anyone on this forum really think I am knocking medium format? Again a ridiculous twisting of words.

JimKasson said:

Jim

Click to expand...

Jim, I am trying to help the guy. Why don't you try to do the same?

JimKasson said:

At equivalent f-stops and fields of view, DOF is the same with FF and MF cameras.

Click to expand...

Jim, I am not an expert on aperture equivalency between APSC/FF/MF. But I am a veteran of the Fuji forum where this has been argued to the point of warfare at times.
I have educated myself on it over time, but it still confuses me a bit. A lot of guys think there are differences in light gathering at say, F2.8, between the sensor sizes but most then argue that the one-stop equivalency difference is only concerning DOF - not light gathering. That is what I have convinced myself of currently. (The old incident light meter has no sensor-size setting argument.) There have been many bloody threads about that on the Fuji forum over the past 4 years.

For example, there is a world-class fashion pro who shoots both Nikon and Fuji on the Fuji Forum. He teaches us stuff from time to time. His name is Ben K. He has shot countless covers for Vogue and Elle and everything else. He says, for example, that to get true Nikon FF F2.8 sliver of focus (he calls it bokeh- deliciousness) and separation he has to have a stop better than that with Fuji APSC lenses. He would have to have F2. Or if it is a Nikon FF F2 lens, he would have to have F1.4 to get that same DOF with Fuji APSC XF glass. That is why he loves the Fuji XF 90mm (F2) for his pro work, but wishes it was F 1.4. He is talking about DOF that he needs for his portrait fashion-shooting work, and he gains a stop of DOF with his Fuji APSC XF glass - a stop he does not want, because he wants less DOF in a lot of his pro fashion-shooting work. He is not talking about light gathering. He says that is a wash. (I hope I did not misstate what he hays repeatedly taught us).

So I'm curious because what you said above, which I totally accept as true, is confusing to me. DOF is the same between FF & MF at a given F-Stop if you have the same field of view. They would be a stop apart DOF-wise at a given aperture, but if you made the field of view the same by compensating for the distance to subject difference by moving or by using a 100 mm lens (MF) and an 89 mm lens (FF) to compensate for the sensor size "crop" thing, DOF would be the same?

I did not know that.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

At equivalent f-stops and fields of view, DOF is the same with FF and MF cameras.

Click to expand...

Jim, I am not an expert on aperture equivalency between APSC/FF/MF.

Click to expand...

Here's the best primer that I know of:

Greg7579 said:

But I am a veteran of the Fuji forum where this has been argued to the point of warfare at times.
I have educated myself on it over time, but it still confuses me a bit. A lot of guys think there are differences in light gathering at say, F2.8, between the sensor sizes but most then argue that the one-stop equivalency difference is only concerning DOF - not light gathering. That is what I have convinced myself of currently. (The old incident light meter has no sensor-size setting argument.) There have been many bloody threads about that on the Fuji forum over the past 4 years.

For example, there is a world-class fashion pro who shoots both Nikon and Fuji on the Fuji Forum. He teaches us stuff from time to time. His name is Ben K. He has shot countless covers for Vogue and Elle and everything else. He says, for example, that to get true Nikon FF F2.8 sliver of focus (he calls it bokeh- deliciousness) and separation he has to have a stop better than that with Fuji APSC lenses. He would have to have F2. Or if it is a Nikon FF F2 lens, he would have to have F1.4 to get that same DOF with Fuji APSC XF glass. That is why he loves the Fuji XF 90mm (F2) for his pro work, but wishes it was F 1.4. He is talking about DOF that he needs for his portrait fashion-shooting work, and he gains a stop of DOF with his Fuji APSC XF glass - a stop he does not want, because he wants less DOF in a lot of his pro fashion-shooting work. He is not talking about light gathering. He says that is a wash. (I hope I did not misstate what he hays repeatedly taught us).

Click to expand...

That paragraph is phrased somewhat imprecisely, but, if I understand you right, I have no essential disagreement with it.

Greg7579 said:

So I'm curious because what you said above, which I totally accept as true, is confusing to me. DOF is the same between FF & MF at a given F-Stop if you have the same field of view.

Click to expand...

No, that is not right. DOF is the same between FF & MF at an equivalent F-Stop if you have the same field of view. Round numbers, f/2 on APS-C, f/2.8 on FF, f/4 on 33x44.

Greg7579 said:

They would be a stop apart DOF-wise at a given aperture, but if you made the field of view the same by compensating for the distance to subject difference by moving or by using a 100 mm lens (MF) and an 89 mm lens (FF) to compensate for the sensor size "crop" thing, DOF would be the same?

Click to expand...

I meant by the same field of view choosing a focal length in each format that has the same angular spread, then standing in the same place for all the images.

Greg7579 said:

I did not know that.

Click to expand...

That's good, because, as you phrased it, it wasn't true.

Jim

Rick Knepper said:

JimKasson said:

Rick Knepper said:

JimKasson said:

Rick Knepper said:

Tom Till, a well known photographer around Moab and vicinity took this image:

https://tomtill.com/onlineshop/courthouse-towers-mulesears/

The print hangs in his gallery in Moab and is at least 3 feet tall. I was surprised to find that a few of those flowers were noticeably out of focus yet I believe the print sells like hot cakes. By the way, I am not trying to persuade you to accept mushy corners but you will need to accept the DoF the format gives you.

Click to expand...

You don't need be the slave to the format. Once you move into FF sensors and larger (and even with APS-C and MFT, if you're not looking for paper thin DOF), you have sufficient options that the format does not dictate the DOF. The thinking photographer chooses the DOF.

Click to expand...

There is very little a thinking photographer will encounter that medium format would not be the best format.

Click to expand...

There are many things for which MF is not the best format. There are many things for which MF is indeed the best format.

Click to expand...

Disagree. There may be a few things. But in regard to the topic of thread, nope.

Rick Knepper said:

But the point of my post in green above, in reaction to your saying "I am not trying to persuade you to accept mushy corners but you will need to accept the DoF the format gives you" is this: the format does not give you a certain DOF; you decide the DOF. Within the limits mentioned above, the format does not constrain you.

Click to expand...

This is a ridiculously misconstrued characterization. My only question being are you purposely twisting the words or are you simply confused? Of course, you've snipped a large part of my post.

Rick Knepper said:

This is a hoary old knock on MF that has no basis in fact.

Click to expand...

Does anyone on this forum really think I am knocking medium format? Again a ridiculous twisting of words.

Rick Knepper said:

Jim

Click to expand...

Jim, I am trying to help the guy. Why don't you try to do the same?

Click to expand...

I am helping him. Telling him just to accept the DOF that MF gives him is not helping him.

But if you feel misunderstood, please explain in detail what you meant by "you will need to accept the DoF the format gives you."

Jim

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

At equivalent f-stops and fields of view, DOF is the same with FF and MF cameras.

Click to expand...

Jim, I am not an expert on aperture equivalency between APSC/FF/MF.

Click to expand...

Here's the best primer that I know of:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

JimKasson said:

But I am a veteran of the Fuji forum where this has been argued to the point of warfare at times.
I have educated myself on it over time, but it still confuses me a bit. A lot of guys think there are differences in light gathering at say, F2.8, between the sensor sizes but most then argue that the one-stop equivalency difference is only concerning DOF - not light gathering. That is what I have convinced myself of currently. (The old incident light meter has no sensor-size setting argument.) There have been many bloody threads about that on the Fuji forum over the past 4 years.

For example, there is a world-class fashion pro who shoots both Nikon and Fuji on the Fuji Forum. He teaches us stuff from time to time. His name is Ben K. He has shot countless covers for Vogue and Elle and everything else. He says, for example, that to get true Nikon FF F2.8 sliver of focus (he calls it bokeh- deliciousness) and separation he has to have a stop better than that with Fuji APSC lenses. He would have to have F2. Or if it is a Nikon FF F2 lens, he would have to have F1.4 to get that same DOF with Fuji APSC XF glass. That is why he loves the Fuji XF 90mm (F2) for his pro work, but wishes it was F 1.4. He is talking about DOF that he needs for his portrait fashion-shooting work, and he gains a stop of DOF with his Fuji APSC XF glass - a stop he does not want, because he wants less DOF in a lot of his pro fashion-shooting work. He is not talking about light gathering. He says that is a wash. (I hope I did not misstate what he hays repeatedly taught us).

Click to expand...

That paragraph is phrased somewhat imprecisely, but, if I understand you right, I have no essential disagreement with it.

JimKasson said:

So I'm curious because what you said above, which I totally accept as true, is confusing to me. DOF is the same between FF & MF at a given F-Stop if you have the same field of view.

Click to expand...

No, that is not right. DOF is the same between FF & MF at an equivalent F-Stop if you have the same field of view. Round numbers, f/2 on APS-C, f/2.8 on FF, f/4 on 33x44.

JimKasson said:

They would be a stop apart DOF-wise at a given aperture, but if you made the field of view the same by compensating for the distance to subject difference by moving or by using a 100 mm lens (MF) and an 89 mm lens (FF) to compensate for the sensor size "crop" thing, DOF would be the same?

Click to expand...

I meant by the same field of view choosing a focal length in each format that has the same angular spread, then standing in the same place for all the images.

JimKasson said:

I did not know that.

Click to expand...

That's good, because, as you phrased it, it wasn't true.

Jim

Click to expand...

OK, I understand completely now. Good. Got it. Good because that is exactly what I thought and what so many on the other forums don't understand.

But I didn't think it two years ago and I was wrong.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas

JimKasson said:

Rick Knepper said:

JimKasson said:

Rick Knepper said:

JimKasson said:

Rick Knepper said:

Tom Till, a well known photographer around Moab and vicinity took this image:

https://tomtill.com/onlineshop/courthouse-towers-mulesears/

The print hangs in his gallery in Moab and is at least 3 feet tall. I was surprised to find that a few of those flowers were noticeably out of focus yet I believe the print sells like hot cakes. By the way, I am not trying to persuade you to accept mushy corners but you will need to accept the DoF the format gives you.

Click to expand...

You don't need be the slave to the format. Once you move into FF sensors and larger (and even with APS-C and MFT, if you're not looking for paper thin DOF), you have sufficient options that the format does not dictate the DOF. The thinking photographer chooses the DOF.

Click to expand...

There is very little a thinking photographer will encounter that medium format would not be the best format.

Click to expand...

There are many things for which MF is not the best format. There are many things for which MF is indeed the best format.

Click to expand...

Disagree. There may be a few things. But in regard to the topic of thread, nope.

JimKasson said:

But the point of my post in green above, in reaction to your saying "I am not trying to persuade you to accept mushy corners but you will need to accept the DoF the format gives you" is this: the format does not give you a certain DOF; you decide the DOF. Within the limits mentioned above, the format does not constrain you.

Click to expand...

This is a ridiculously misconstrued characterization. My only question being are you purposely twisting the words or are you simply confused? Of course, you've snipped a large part of my post.

JimKasson said:

This is a hoary old knock on MF that has no basis in fact.

Click to expand...

Does anyone on this forum really think I am knocking medium format? Again a ridiculous twisting of words.

JimKasson said:

Jim

Click to expand...

Jim, I am trying to help the guy. Why don't you try to do the same?

Click to expand...

I am helping him. Telling him just to accept the DOF that MF gives him is not helping him.

Click to expand...

You are not discussing his problem. You are criticizing my statement.

JimKasson said:

But if you feel misunderstood, please explain in detail what you meant by "you will need to accept the DoF the format gives you."

Jim

Click to expand...

Listen, I don't believe I really should dignify your criticism but... If you followed the thread, it was the OP who feels the DoF is too shallow, mushy, whatever but you wrote it as if I said it. I gave alternatives. The OP actually provided one of his own. As in everything else in life, one has to accept the facts and the truth of this camera and make a decision. You may take it as a life lesson Jim.