Sick of 24x36?

As a pro-photographer there is a requirement to produce "great" images for my clients and it the photographs they see that make them book me. They do say "that is a beautiful detailed picture" and I am using 35mm. Only another photographer would make any real comment other than yes or no I like it. I see people here list their gear? Why? It is only listed for other photographers to see. Does having lots a gear make you a better photographer. If I have a Porche and you have a Mini does that make me a better driver? If I have ten cars am I a better driver?

Any getting off topic. My point is when Zac A started in this business he bought lots of kit thinking it would make him a better photographer. He didn't make it is a photographer. He made no money. Not until he changed his thought process about kit did he go forward. He used one lens a 35 f2 and only that for a long time. I heard him say this and he was so right. You don't need the latest and best. I have promised myself for the next two years I am not going to buy anymore equipment as I don't need it unless something breaks. I certainly do not need medium format very few do.

Anyway off to bed 3.18 am here!

Yes, but at what point is "good" "good enough"? I feel it is the obligation of the image-maker to strive for quality beyond what the client can appreciate. We are the torch-bearer's

I like medium format more too, most of the time. In fact my favorite overall is usually anything square.

35mm is handy at times but my ideal with be a square medium format digital view system.

MGiddings Photography wrote in post #13972783
As a pro-photographer there is a requirement to produce "great" images for my clients and it the photographs they see that make them book me. They do say "that is a beautiful detailed picture" and I am using 35mm. Only another photographer would make any real comment other than yes or no I like it. I see people here list their gear? Why? It is only listed for other photographers to see. Does having lots a gear make you a better photographer. If I have a Porche and you have a Mini does that make me a better driver? If I have ten cars am I a better driver?

Any getting off topic. My point is when Zac A started in this business he bought lots of kit thinking it would make him a better photographer. He didn't make it is a photographer. He made no money. Not until he changed his thought process about kit did he go forward. He used one lens a 35 f2 and only that for a long time. I heard him say this and he was so right. You don't need the latest and best. I have promised myself for the next two years I am not going to buy anymore equipment as I don't need it unless something breaks. I certainly do not need medium format very few do.

Anyway off to bed 3.18 am here!

It seems now that Zac has convinced himself that he needs great gear to produce great images. In his blog post about why he went to Medium format, she said he was blown away
by JoeyL's images from Africa. If JoeyL had used a full frame DLSR instead of the Phase1 gear, he would hated the images?

No doubt, bigger sensor - better IQ. The question is - do you really need it if you taking regular pictures for living?
Do you need MF if you do weddings? Absolutely not for 99% and in 70% you'll be able to do it even without 35mm digital sensor. Same for regular portrait business. 35mm will give you benefit of EF primes, compare to crop cameras, but it isn't big deal at all. How about sports and MF?
Bigger digital sensor size (compare to 35mm) in 99% is nothing but much more expensive gear and lenses and smaller market size with few big customers on it.

24x36 pfffffffffftttt it's all about the 8x10 and 11x16

mafoo wrote in post #13970811
I am not sure the point of this post? Are you asking a question, making an equipment statement, or just trying to piss everyone off?

help me, help you.

I actually think that there is a very valid point to Robert's original post. I think he is definitely making a statement, that being that the latest full frame DSLR cameras don't necessarily produce the absolutely highest image quality that is possible.

I think if you read between the lines, you may also feel that he is saying that perhaps a lot of us are far too easily pleased with our images. Does that piss people off? Not if those who read it are obsessed with producing the absolute highest possible image quality every time they click the shutter.

If we are striving for world-class results every time we take a photo, then we would probably appreciate his post, as it would show us that there may in fact be a way to improve our IQ - by using medium format gear. I, for one, greatly appreciate any suggestions that could result in incrementally better IQ.

Any time I examine an image closely, I see ways in which it could be better. I would love to really inspect an image and find that it couldn't possibly be improved upon (especially at the pixel level). Perhaps the only way to achieve these types of results are to use sensors that are significantly larger than the 24mm by 36mm "full frame" sensors.

I think that was the point he made, and it doesn't piss me off.

kf095 wrote in post #13976266
No doubt, bigger sensor - better IQ. The question is - do you really need it if you taking regular pictures for living?
Do you need MF if you do weddings? Absolutely not for 99% and in 70% you'll be able to do it even without 35mm digital sensor. Same for regular portrait business. 35mm will give you benefit of EF primes, compare to crop cameras, but it isn't big deal at all. How about sports and MF?
Bigger digital sensor size (compare to 35mm) in 99% is nothing but much more expensive gear and lenses and smaller market size with few big customers on it.

Everything is relative. For a small percentage of professional photographers, probably primarily in the landscape and fashion segments, the superior image quality provided by medium format is professionally necessary or at the least significantly preferable to that provided by the 35mm format. The fact that most photographers don't need/want the image quality obtainable from MF doesn't mean that no one needs/wants that level of image quality.

MGiddings Photography wrote in post #13972037
I see so much snobbery in photography it is untrue. I read about those who reminess over the good days of film like it is some badge of honour. Same with medium format. To the op if you don't like the 35 mm format then go get a medium format camera and use film or a digital back. I don't want film, I have no use for it. Film is an old fashioned thing and within 5 years i suspect it will be really totally dead. I like being able to photoshop my stuff. I get great clear image quality from all my large prints.

Film? Dead? Unlikely. It'll continue to be a niche market for a long long time. And yes, I'm one of those 'snobs' that loves film. If you'd take the time to learn the craft, you can learn to 'photoshop' with a film negative. At least all the important adjustments. The fact is, you're missing the point of the post, which was that he's striving for more image quality than even FF digital can provide, and you're just going off on an anti-film diatribe... maybe if you actually took the time to try film you'd be won over. I remember being wary the first few times I went in the darkroom, but it really is magic in there.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #13976536
I actually think that there is a very valid point to Robert's original post. I think he is definitely making a statement, that being that the latest full frame DSLR cameras don't necessarily produce the absolutely highest image quality that is possible.

I think if you read between the lines, you may also feel that he is saying that perhaps a lot of us are far too easily pleased with our images. Does that piss people off? Not if those who read it are obsessed with producing the absolute highest possible image quality every time they click the shutter.

If we are striving for world-class results every time we take a photo, then we would probably appreciate his post, as it would show us that there may in fact be a way to improve our IQ - by using medium format gear. I, for one, greatly appreciate any suggestions that could result in incrementally better IQ.

Any time I examine an image closely, I see ways in which it could be better. I would love to really inspect an image and find that it couldn't possibly be improved upon (especially at the pixel level). Perhaps the only way to achieve these types of results are to use sensors that are significantly larger than the 24mm by 36mm "full frame" sensors.

I think that was the point he made, and it doesn't piss me off.

Looking at your photos Tom, I am not sure how you could benefit much from medium format. And even if you could, your looking at tens of thousands of dollars to do so.

In the world of photography, high end DSLR's are way up there in picture quality. Is the IQ as good as Medium Format? Of course not. Are the images lacking because if it, no.

His post came across as demeaning to anyone shooting with a DSLR, who thinks there images are world class quality.

He could have said what he meant, in a thousand different ways, that would have been far less offensive. One of them for example, is your post.

tzalman wrote in post #13971098
Wow, so much righteous indignation and defensiveness. Of course there just as many self defenders on the P&S forums slagging off the "DSLR snobs". Simple fact of life, folks, size matters. When your girlfriend told you otherwise she was trying to be kind. MF will always be better than 135. No matter how much the technology improves, the gap will always be the same.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …t_the_small_det​ails.shtml

I am actually wondering about the sample shots of flowers showing how vastly superior the medium format is compared to the the 135 format. I wonder if by using a better lens and using the highlight tone priority function the smaller 35mm sensor camera would be able to close the gap a little bit.

tzalman wrote in post #13971098
Wow, so much righteous indignation and defensiveness. Of course there just as many self defenders on the P&S forums slagging off the "DSLR snobs". Simple fact of life, folks, size matters. When your girlfriend told you otherwise she was trying to be kind. MF will always be better than 135. No matter how much the technology improves, the gap will always be the same.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com …t_the_small_det​ails.shtml

No one is talking about the quality of the technology...

If I went to a P&S forum, and said all your work is sh*t, and I feel sorry for you all for not knowing any better, I am sure I would get the same deserved hatred this guy is getting.

A belated thanks. You understood my point and restated nicely.

These kinds of threads are funny. I posted 3 shots in another thread. One with my Panasonic GX8 (micro four thirds sensor) one with my t2i (APS-C) and one with my 6D (full frame) and had people guess what was shot with which camera. No one got it right. All had been edited and compressed for the web as most every shot people on this forum ever take is. I am a pro photographer, my only source of income is from the photos I shoot and Ive shot national magazine covers with a t2i and $75 nifty fifty lens. Ive also made 24x36 prints from that setup, have two of them on my wall in my studio right now in fact, both look great. Bottom line is unless you are a pro fashion photographer shooting billboards for Sunset BLVD or Times Square, or shooting for huge prints hanging inside a retail store, or a landscape photographer being commissioned by an art gallery etc...APC-C is more than enough and 35mm is pure overkill for 99% of the people on this forum.

I am one of the 99%. Most of the time I have to look at EXIF to tell if I shot something with the 6D or with my P&S. For those times that it does matter, it matters a lot. I don't tend to use my P&S at ISO 3200+.