But modern DSLR's are a lot cleaner than 35mm film, and I would expect a D300s to produce very low noise/grain. To me, the most obvious look of medium format film, compared to 35mm, is less grain. I'm just looking to get that "medium format look"Īnd just what is that? Seriously.
And a brilliant pair of portrait lenses (Nikon 85mm f1.4 and 135mm f2.0 DC) for about $1200 each, and you've run up $5000, with results I don't think you can match on MF without spending close to $20,000 on a used 36x48mm sensor back, a 645 body, and a couple of decent lenses. And how much is a MF body, and a couple of suitable portrait lenses? Don't forget to look at the focal lengths in terms of the 53.6mm sensor, not in terms of "real MF" on film.Īt least the 35mm DSLRs let you get into FF "to the max" portraiture at a reasonable price. How much is the Aptus 17? Remember, that's a 6 year old piece of electronics from a company that went out of business and got their assets sold last year. The latest Blad and P1 backs (too late for Leaf) actually opened up to 68mm diagonal sensors (within 3% of 645 FF), but they cost over $40,000 new, and there's nothing on the used market, yet. That's still cropped, just less cropped than the Aptus 17, and the lens choices open up a bit. The MF makers did address this, with 60mm diagonal (36x48mm) sensors like on a Leaf Aptus 22. But I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between that and an 85mm f1.4 on your D300. You're in a bit better shape for longer portraits, a short 150mm "film" portrait makes an OK 3x "digital" portrait. It's a lot like using the 60mm macro as a portrait lens on the Nikon. You'll find the classic medium format normals (especially if you choose to put the Aptus on a nice 6x7) are harsh as portrait lenses on the small sensor Aptus. It has a crop factor of:ġ.31 relative to "economy sized" medium format like the cruel joke that is 645ġ.5 relative to "real" medium format like a 6圆 or 6x7 The Aptus 17 would leave you in the same situation. The classic 2.5x normal Nikon 105mm f2.5 AiS ($100-200 used, draws like a $2000 Zeiss) so beloved from the film days is an annoying 160mm (3.6x normal) equivalent.
#Leaf aptus ii 6 digital back manual
Īnd the only really impressive 3x normal (medium portrait, equivalent to 135mm on FF or 220mm on MF) is the 85mm f1.4 ($1200 for a Nikon autofocus, $800 for a used Nikon manual focus, or about $500-600 for the Samyang manual focus (which is surprisingly well behaved, if you can handle manual focus on a D300).
I was surprised at how well it performed. If you are comfortable with manual focus, look at the Cosina Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 Nocton (Noctrton?). The old aspheric 58mm f1.2 NOCT Nikkor went from $500 used around the year 2000, to $2000-3000 used in 2005, because people learned it's the only solution to a good 2x normal portrait lens on a 1.5x crop camera. The 60mm macro is the right focal length, but has neither the focusing ability or the bokeh to be an outstanding portrait lens. It's almost impossibel to find a 2x normal (short portrait, equivalent to an 85mm on FF, or a 150mm on MF) at all. I'd guess that most of what you don't like about your D300 is due to lenses, not sensor, and that's due primarily to the 1.5x crop factor (relative to FF 35mm) on the D300. It doesn't stand a chance against a FF Nikon body that probably costs less than a used Aptus back. And pitting its 6 year old "borrowed" sensor technology agaonst the latest and greatest from Sony and Nikon, the Leaf would be hard pressed to beat the 1.5x crop body in terms of image quality, dynamic range, tonality, or noise. The Aptus 17 is a "tweener", with a 53.6mm diagonal (43.2x31.7mm) sensor, only 23% larger than the sensor on a FF Nikon. Are you talking about classic medium format "film" look, because the Aptus 17 can't deliver that. I'm not sure how you define "that medium format look".
0 kommentar(er)
