Posted by David Redding on June 12, 2006 at 11:00 PM
I took a walk through my local camera shop and was talking to one of the sales guys about getting a used medium format camera. He was telling me that there are a lot on the market right now because a lot of people are trading there MF for digitals.
Now I can complete understand why the pros would do this selling that the turn around on printing from a digital would be much faster and that the general public that is paying for the shots wouldnt and couldnt see the quality difference between a shot from a digital and a shot from a MF camera.
But I was just wondering about the reasons some of you folks switched. Was is that you are a pro? Is it that shooting film had just become to inconvenient in your neck of the woods?
Myself, I started with a digital and not to long ago at that, but I cant wait to get my hand a 6x6 or a 6x7 and in the long run, maybe even a nice field camera.
David, there's no denying digital is very convenient and the resolution of high-end DSLRs can rival the print quality of 645 film. Film is a hassle, it's added expense and guesswork and mechanical work (scanning, filing etc.) Personally, I much prefer spending my efforts on more creative activities.
That said, there are things a DSLR just doesn't do for me. Working with a classic Hasselblad or Rollei with a bright waist-level finder is a differrent experience, and of course working with a a view camera is a very different and rewarding experience in itself - the movements, the large glass screen etc. so I have no plans of letting go of my film camera any time soon.
I use digital when it's practical (general hiking, backpacking etc.) and the 4x5 when I'm after something special or for the sheer joy of it.
For a second camera I would suggest going straight to LF - why compromise?
I still have my Mamiya RZ 67 with three lenses and mess of accessories for it. I am not using it too much right now because as a commercial shooter, customers want it right away and press ready. It is a great camera still and I will not give it away to some camera dealer. I use it on occasion and I am glad I kept it.
I recently traded a 35mm for a Hasselblad X-Pan outfit (45mm & 90mm lenses). Can't understand why medium format is so undervalued right now. Even if film were to disappear completely (it won't) some of these cameras will become quite collectible.
Our move to digital was market driven, along the lines of Bob's experience. We still have a crate of Mamiya 645 gear (six bodies and a dozen or so lenses) plus an RB67 and three lenses. We haven't used it in over two years, though we still have call to use our 4x5's for certain types of work. That doesn't mean we are going to get rid of any of it!
As Guy points out, there's a sheer joy in it, and for certain things the 4x5 is unexcelled (movements, big enlargements, etc). I agree with Guy's recommendation to bypass MF entirely and go straight to 4x5. We're still hanging onto the MF gear in the hopes that someday the digital backs will drop down in price to the range of high end 35 while providing the larger sensor. There's little or no chance of that I think, but hope springs eternal. In our experience we get as good results with the high end 35mm as we do with scanned 645 film and virtually as good as 6x7. In addition the 35mm bodies are faster, have bigger buffers and a much larger assortment of lenses available.
And I have to say that I love the convenience of digital over film and don't miss the extra work of scanning. There's also the financial side. The first year we switched to digital our business volume jumped almost 25% and continues to rise, while at the same time our annual film and processing expenses went from an average of almost $30k to less than $1k last year.
The difference buys a lot of digital equipment. That is, unless you have my wife for a business manager! She would much rather put the difference into the mortgage on our studio, or as happened this year, into major remodeling and renovation. Sheesh!
After shooting 35mm film for many years, I upgraded to a Mamiya 645E and four lenses about 5 years ago. When I don't have the time to set up and adjust my 4x5, the 645 works nicely, and the resulting trannies are quite nice. The prints are of excellent quality, as well.
I have a small digital P&S that works well for quick snaps, but for now I 'll stick with film because I can't afford the cash outlay for an MF quality digital system.
I really enjoy photography, and I must say I enjoy it the most when I use my 4x5. There's nothing like it. I'll also continue to use my 645 because it has its place in my work. That said, I agree with Guy: Go straight to 4x5--why compromise.
There's a bunch of 4x5 users here, so if you have questions about it, post 'em in the General Discusssion forum. See ya there!
I would say what Guy and Hank did.
There is one thing, the joy of GG viewing which is unmatched. The only camera came close to it was P645nii. For 2000$s you will get a complete p645nii or p67nii which are fantastic. All you need is the hastle of scnning film.
Having said that, if you are going to take the trouble then it is worth doing it with 4x5. You can get away with a cheap FB scanner as 4x5 will have lots of details.
So I see my assumption were right, the switch to digital is mainly a switch of convience and money, but I have never really had pro's to verify it.
To tell you the truth, I had no intention of even looking at a MF camera till I read Guys little spread in Photolife magazine. That got me wondering, I talked to a few other amatuers that shoot MF and they made me realise that for around the same price of a new D200 body I could get a MF kit that would beat the D200 and more expensive camera in picture quality.
My self I am forever the amatuer that loves shooting on the weekends and quality over quantity in my aim.........
Because of the availability of LF cameras in my area, I didnt think about going straight to a MF field camera, but with ebay, KEH.com and not Canadian duty on photography equipment, I may just look at going straight to a field.
Well, I’m one of the few that moved the other way! I moved from years of shooting 35mm to large-format. On the way I picked up a 6x4.5cm camera to use as I learned the in and outs of the view camera and within 6 months I sold the 6x4.5. For those next 5 years I shot only with the view camera. It was a great piece for honing my landscape photography skills and I wouldn’t trade those years for anything. But…but, man, I’ll never go back! I love shooting with the Canon EOS digital system. The 5D gives excellent high quality images that rival my drum scanned 6x4.5cm images and in some cases push 6x7cm scans. With the EOS system they offer the TS-E lenses which gives you tilt and shift/rise and fall (with modification). These movements are somewhat limited but the movements that are available are in excess of that of a view camera. When I was using the view camera I really only used tilt and rise/fall so the TS-E’s are a perfect match for my shooting.
I DO NOT MISS scanning 4x5 transparencies, what a pain in the a**! When scanning high resolution a normal scan takes about an hour from start to finish. As a book & calendar publisher one must figure two books and two calendars per year. That’s about 300 scans minimum per season just for those alone and that doesn’t count the stock image and print sales. With digital I have my image processing down to about 5 minutes max per image. Oh, and as for image quality in publication, my new wall calendar is in and to this date no one person has had the ability to pick out the large-format images over the digital images, unless they knew my photography already. So, come on Canon give me that 22 MP camera and I’ll be set for years to come! At 22 MP’s 6x7cm quality we be the norm and that will be incredible!
BTW, when it comes to quality and dynamic range. High-end digital kills transparency film when dynamic range enters the fray. No more blocked up shadows with blown highlights. And to top it off, with Canon, one can shoot at 400iso and garner images as clean as the best 50-speed film! I consider this enough to offset the difference in detail that the 4x5 tranny offers over high-end digital. Oh, and at $5 per shot for the view camera, I paid for my 5D in one year and for someone that’s in the business to make a living and to fuel a passion for nature photography, digital is the way for me to do it and to actually make a living at it. BTW, in one year I have shot more publishable images than I did in 5 years with the view camera. This is solely due to the quickness of the medium, which allows me to move about freely and bring home more that one comp from a single scene. Yeap, it’s exciting and I’m not going to hide that fact any longer. Some have accused me of gloating and that is not my intent. My excitement with the digital medium is fueled by excitement itself and nothing else! Man, I’m having a blast!
I purchased a 5D to replace my 645 just a couple of weeks ago, so am still weighing the pros and cons. However right off the bat I'm saving about 4 pounds in my hiking pack and about half the camera/lens volume. On the few hikes I've done this has been a noticibly more pleasant weight. One of the first things I was anxious to try was a near-far shot where I could actually get closer than about a meter to the foreground with the improved DOF. I haven't worked with the images enough for a full judgement on the image quality, but so far I'm pleased and think it will be similar to 645 scanned with a high quality scanner. Could just be my imagination, but I'm also pretty certain I'm seeing a wider dynamic range compared to Velvia. On my first few outings I was also able to shoot a number of frames that I would have not shot with film. They were just experiments or out of the box shots that could be good, but I would have conserved film cost with the 645 and not taken them. So, David, I think those are more reasons than just cost and convenience. That said, I'd don't think there is anything really "wrong" with MF film. The prices on MF gear are sure low and a tempting way to get nice image quality without the expense of the latest digital megapixel wonder.
That got me wondering, I talked to a few other amatuers that shoot MF and they made me realise that for around the same price of a new D200 body I could get a MF kit that would beat the D200 and more expensive camera in picture quality.
What do they mean beat the D200 in picture quality? I really don't think they understand what they are stating. Beat, how? In what? The ONLY place a MF 6x7cm camera is going to out perform a D200 is in image detail of a very large print. Everywhere else, dynamic range, weight, ease of use, DOF...I can keep going, the D200 will out perform the 6x7cm film camera in most every way. So, amatuer or not you have alot to think about. Oh, and with a MF or LF film camera you must also buy a film scanner ($1000 +) and learn the art of scanning. Or you can pay $$$$ for someone else to do the scans and depending on the type of scan that can set you back $50 to $100 per. SO, I remind you that detail in a large print is not and should not be the only determining factor as you make your decision.
Posted by Eric Fredine on June 14, 2006 at 8:59 AM
I started with a 1Ds and mostly shoot 4x5 now - mostly because I want to make very large prints to hang in a gallery. But I agree that film is a complete pain - especially scanning.
MF cameras are cheap, no doubt. But, I think you'll find that something like a 5D will be comparable to MF in resolution (in practice). So, you probably shouldn't make your choice solely on the basis of resolution or probably even image quality in general. The only way to know for sure is to find a way to do your own tests.
4X5 on the other hand offers a serious increase in resolution over 35mm digital. But you have to make very large prints to notice a material difference (larger than calenders and magazines as Jerry notes). The process of using 4x5 is expensive and somewhat time-consuming - much less spontaneous than smaller formats. (I also shoot colour negative for increased dynamic range - but it is even more difficult to scan and colour correct.)
David, you might already know this, but when I have used my 645 and then done scans on my Epson flatbed, they are only marginally better than a good 35mm scan from a dedicated scanner. I've had nice quality scans done for me using a one of the Nikon 8000 or 9000 series scanners. These scanners are running in the $1000 +/- range used on eBay. I used a comercial scanning service for my Nikon scans at about $10 a pop. These are about the cheapest routes for a good MF scan that I know of. Of course, drum scans are much more. I haven't heard much about the new Epson flatbed that are just out. If you've adding dollars up and thinking your saving a bundle on MF gear you might consider the scanner or scanning cost as well.
Posted by Brent Murphy on June 14, 2006 at 4:10 PM
As far as I can tell, there aren't many advantages to MF cameras and film these days. A quality DSLR will offer much more functionality than a MF rangefinder, and weighs a whole lot less than a MF SLR. I would say that a quality DSLR will equal the resolution of a 645, and come close to the quality of 6x7. And you get that image quality with better dynamic range than film, less operating cost, less weight, more lenses, more accessories, etc. And you don't have to process and scan film! If you could easily get lens movements with a MF camera, it would be a different story.
As far as I can tell, it seems to me that if you need movements, shoot 4x5. If not, shoot DSLR. I don't see much of a point to shooting MF these days.
Of course, I still have my dad's old Yashica TLR that I play with once in a while. But its quality and functionality it so limited that I really only use it for fun. I don't expect to get many good shots with it. And I still love shooting with my Holga. A fun camera for $16, but I wouldn't spend any real money on MF any more.
As someone who uses both a Pentax 645 and 67II but respects digital photography, and assuming you - like me - are not a volume professional, here's my advice if you are a trying to decide between high-end DSLR and MF film gear:
Figure out whether you want film itself or not. And let that be the strongest deciding factor in what you do. Everything else is a nuance in comparison. I've seen enough 12-16 MP DSLR work to agree that it is comparable to 645 MF in final overall image quality. And 6x7 doesn't give you much extra quality beyond that. The DOF in a DSLR is a distinct advantage. Weight and bulk, for a smaller DSLR like the 5D but not a larger one like the 1dS-II, is a slight advantage. For a low-volume shooter, film cost is not a factor, and a respectable used MF system can be had for less than a high-end DSLR system (MF bodies are much less, but MF lenses are comparable to more expensive, so it really depends on how much lens coverage you consider to constitute a respectable system). High-quality film scans are expensive, but a low-volume shooter who can afford to even be thinking about the MF or high-end DSLR option can also afford the occasional film scan. So on balance, all these other factors are a wash, in my opinion.
What is completely different about the systems is the experience of working in the field with film, and capturing a physical original on film. Do you like the feel of it? Do you like the smell of it? Do you love the built-in color palette/rendition of a particular film stock? Do you like having something you can feel like is your "final product" straight out of the camera without post-processing? (Note - if you consider your final product to be a print, or publication, then obviously that doesn't apply to you.) For that matter, do you like having something physical straight out of the camera which you can see without a computer? Do you like computers and high tech at all, anyway? Do you mind using what more and more people are considering antique gear - namely film gear? Do you mind using a system - film - that will probably become harder and more expensive to acquire and process as years go on (while probably never becoming impossible to get or develop)? On the flip side, are you attracted to using a system that some consider more romantic, artistic and dashing - film?
These subjective questions are, I think, where the decision will be made. Good luck!
Scott
Posted by Jerry Greer on June 15, 2006 at 12:09 AM
As far as I can tell, it seems to me that if you need movements, shoot 4x5. If not, shoot DSLR. I don't see much of a point to shooting MF these days.
Brent, I just wanted to remind you and the group that Canon has movements! With the TS-E's there's plenty of useable movements and some even more that LF. So having movements are not limited to a view camera.
Posted by David Redding on June 15, 2006 at 12:12 AM
Nice post Scott, but I think my meaning has been misunderstood. I have made my decision, I will be shooting MF in the near future. I really just wanted to know why so many pros had ditched the MF thats all. For myself I have done my research and have decided that Film is the way to go for me. I want the experience, I have never shot film and I believe that I have missed out.
The quality is a factor, kind of........I want the best prints I can get for the money I have and MF does it for me. It comes down to this, to get the enlargement options that 6x7 offers I would have to move to a D2X or a 1ds. Used around here I'd be looking at $4000 for the body alone!!!!! Come on, Im a truck driver for Pete sakes I dont have that kinda money. I have priced out a nice Mamiya RZ67 with two lenses, wide and long with everything I need for around $1500 CDN.......I can get a good scanner like the Coolscan 8000 for under $900 CDN. So thats about $2400, thats $1600 cheaper then a high end dSLR and concidering that Im a weekend shooter that doesnt that a picture of everything that moves (I like thinking about my work) that's $1600 is amazing start towards development and printing.
I think you said it best Scott, I just love the romance of film........Ha whats good enough for Adams I guess. I think another thing that is kind of turning me off dSLRs is that EVERYONE is using them. Where the originality in that?
I'm not saying that I'm gonna be trashing the D50. I do see the advantages of digital and I will be upgrading the digital as well......I just want a round of film first.
Enjoy film and all the fun associated with it, scanning and all. I remember when I had fun doing it, though I will never go back You're the one that makes the final decision so enjoy!
But, your research has taken you a little astray on your camera prices and choices. The 5D is a higher resolution than the D2X and can be bought for about $2450 including the $300 rebate. It also has a full frame sensor with access to all of the super-wide lenses with no conversion.
Posted by Brent Murphy on June 15, 2006 at 10:17 AM
Jerry - You're right, I didn't mention the movements on those Canon lenses, or the Nikon PC lenses. However, those movements are only available on a couple specific lenses, but a 4x5 will allow you to use movements on all your lenses.
David - Your thoughts about the "romance" of film remind me of myself when I started cross-country skiing. I had the option of waxable or waxless skis. I decided to go with waxable skis, because that was the traditional way to ski. I would get to learn all about choosing the right waxes for the conditions, blending waxes, spend nights in my garage ironing wax into my skis. How romantic! Well, you know what? Waxing skis is a pain in the a**. It's somewhat complicated and time-consuming, and if you choose the wrong wax, your day is miserable. Everyone with the waxless skis goes zipping past you while you are either sliding around all over the place, or getting tons of snow stuck to the bottom of the ski, making it hard to go anywhere. Every time I'm working up a sweat struggling with my skis, I wonder why I went with the "traditional", "romantic" method, and didn't just use what everyone else was using. I would have definitely gotten more enjoyment out of the whole sport if I hadn't wasted all that time and energy trying to learn the old-school way.
Posted by Roger Rouch on June 15, 2006 at 12:16 PM
Brent, good thing we're not all the same or it would be a pretty boring world. I rented waxless skiis several times and found that there are certain snow conditions that they just won't work in. I went with waxable skiis using the two wax system and couldn't be happier about it. I'd rather spend time doing a little waxing on the trail than all day slipping and sliding.
Let's see.. I think we were talking about cameras. David, it's sounds like you've made up your mind, but I'll chime in with Jerry. The $300 rebate from Canon was the final kicker for me and picked up the 5D for about 2500. I got the Tamron 28-75 lens for a starter lens for around $300 as there is a rebate on it and also it's very highly rated from what I could tell. You probably have all of the other information you need, but you ideas on digital camera prices were probably a little off.
Posted by Brent Murphy on June 15, 2006 at 1:35 PM
Roger - I wasn't trying to indicate that everyone should use the same thing. However, when you see everyone else moving to digital while you're still shooting film, you have to wonder if there's a good reason, which was David's original question. And the answer, for most people, would be that yes, there are good reasons to shoot with a DSLR instead of MF film. Reasons: less initial cost, less operating cost, smaller size and lighter weight (compared to MF SLRs), no more scanning, switching ISO as needed, switching white balance as needed, better dynamic range, more lens options, more accessory options . . . I could go on. All these benefits, and you get equal, or nearly equal image quality.
So, my point was, that yes, you can still shoot the traditional way, but there are a lot of good reasons most people are using the latest technology: it's less expensive and more convenient, for an equal final product.
(Note: When I say less expensive, I'm considering lenses as well. MF cameras may be going down in price, but those lenses are still very expensive).
Brent, hopefully I didn't take away from the point you were making. I was only wanting to exchange some pleasantries about cross country ski methods. No deeper meanings than that.
Since I'm at it though.... Having recently come from the film world and may go back some time, I never really figured any sort of romance to the whole thing. But I have to say that there is something about having a tranparency on a light table or in a file folder than gives me a better feeling than a file on a hard drive.
I don't see how one calculates the initial setup cost of the high-end DSLR option to be cheaper than the initial setup cost of MF film. Right at this moment, KEH (http://www.keh.com) is selling a manual Pentax 645 body with 120 insert for $286; a 45-85mm manual lens for $499; and a 80-160mm manual lens for $299. Those are "Excellent"-condition used buys. That's everything you need to start shooting landscapes from wide-angle to near-telephoto, except the film and batteries (and let's not forget tripod and cable release, of course :-).
Total: $1,084, or way less than half the price of a Canon 5D body alone. And that's before you buy the lenses and memory cards and various computer hardware and software items you'll need for viewing and storing your images.
Of course I acknowledge the many advantages of a high-end DSLR over MF film. (To my mind the biggest advantage over MF, for a low-volume landscape shooter, is DOF - and its odd you don't hear much about that.) But initial setup cost these days is a "plus" in the MF column, it seems to me.
In any case, as I said earlier, I think for the kind of shooting many people on this board do, the various advantages and disadvantages are a wash. And the most important deciding factor is simply whether you prefer working in the film or digital media.
Scott
Posted by Roger Rouch on June 15, 2006 at 11:18 PM
Scott. if I hadn't just traded up from nearly the exact same Pentax outfit you mentioned, I think I'd be tempted to let the old digital/film thing go with out adding more, but I'm pretty fresh on giving this a lot of thought and weighing the costs. I think most folks who would get medium format film would also want a decent scanner, so add several hundred to the fim side. But no matter how you slice it used MF gear is going to cost less than a Canon 5D which might be the 645 digital equivalent. I don't have a love afffair with film or digital and if film is what a person can afford then it's not a bad deal. For a thousand or fifteen hundred, assuming you need a scanner with the MF out fit, more you get new gear vs twenty five year old used gear and a basket full of advantages that aren't just convenience. For most people this isn't chicken feed. I've had a digital camera fund for over a year, and will get at least some of the cost back by selling the some of my film gear. MF will give a person great photo gear and so will digital. In my book there are pretty decent digital advantages but they don't come cheaply.
Posted by Brent Murphy on June 16, 2006 at 3:58 PM
Wow. I know the costs of MF were coming down, but I didn't think they were coming down that much. You can scratch all my comments about DSLR being cheaper. I had no idea. Still, after lugging a Mamiya RB around a few times, I'd much rather have a DSLR in my pack than a MF SLR.
Discussion
23 repliesNow I can complete understand why the pros would do this selling that the turn around on printing from a digital would be much faster and that the general public that is paying for the shots wouldnt and couldnt see the quality difference between a shot from a digital and a shot from a MF camera.
But I was just wondering about the reasons some of you folks switched. Was is that you are a pro? Is it that shooting film had just become to inconvenient in your neck of the woods?
Myself, I started with a digital and not to long ago at that, but I cant wait to get my hand a 6x6 or a 6x7 and in the long run, maybe even a nice field camera.
That said, there are things a DSLR just doesn't do for me. Working with a classic Hasselblad or Rollei with a bright waist-level finder is a differrent experience, and of course working with a a view camera is a very different and rewarding experience in itself - the movements, the large glass screen etc. so I have no plans of letting go of my film camera any time soon.
I use digital when it's practical (general hiking, backpacking etc.) and the 4x5 when I'm after something special or for the sheer joy of it.
For a second camera I would suggest going straight to LF - why compromise?
Guy
I still have my Mamiya RZ 67 with three lenses and mess of accessories for it. I am not using it too much right now because as a commercial shooter, customers want it right away and press ready. It is a great camera still and I will not give it away to some camera dealer. I use it on occasion and I am glad I kept it.
I recently traded a 35mm for a Hasselblad X-Pan outfit (45mm & 90mm lenses). Can't understand why medium format is so undervalued right now. Even if film were to disappear completely (it won't) some of these cameras will become quite collectible.
Bob
As Guy points out, there's a sheer joy in it, and for certain things the 4x5 is unexcelled (movements, big enlargements, etc). I agree with Guy's recommendation to bypass MF entirely and go straight to 4x5. We're still hanging onto the MF gear in the hopes that someday the digital backs will drop down in price to the range of high end 35 while providing the larger sensor. There's little or no chance of that I think, but hope springs eternal. In our experience we get as good results with the high end 35mm as we do with scanned 645 film and virtually as good as 6x7. In addition the 35mm bodies are faster, have bigger buffers and a much larger assortment of lenses available.
And I have to say that I love the convenience of digital over film and don't miss the extra work of scanning. There's also the financial side. The first year we switched to digital our business volume jumped almost 25% and continues to rise, while at the same time our annual film and processing expenses went from an average of almost $30k to less than $1k last year.
The difference buys a lot of digital equipment. That is, unless you have my wife for a business manager! She would much rather put the difference into the mortgage on our studio, or as happened this year, into major remodeling and renovation. Sheesh!
After shooting 35mm film for many years, I upgraded to a Mamiya 645E and four lenses about 5 years ago. When I don't have the time to set up and adjust my 4x5, the 645 works nicely, and the resulting trannies are quite nice. The prints are of excellent quality, as well.
I have a small digital P&S that works well for quick snaps, but for now I 'll stick with film because I can't afford the cash outlay for an MF quality digital system.
I really enjoy photography, and I must say I enjoy it the most when I use my 4x5. There's nothing like it. I'll also continue to use my 645 because it has its place in my work. That said, I agree with Guy: Go straight to 4x5--why compromise.
There's a bunch of 4x5 users here, so if you have questions about it, post 'em in the General Discusssion forum. See ya there!
-PB
There is one thing, the joy of GG viewing which is unmatched. The only camera came close to it was P645nii. For 2000$s you will get a complete p645nii or p67nii which are fantastic. All you need is the hastle of scnning film.
Having said that, if you are going to take the trouble then it is worth doing it with 4x5. You can get away with a cheap FB scanner as 4x5 will have lots of details.
To tell you the truth, I had no intention of even looking at a MF camera till I read Guys little spread in Photolife magazine. That got me wondering, I talked to a few other amatuers that shoot MF and they made me realise that for around the same price of a new D200 body I could get a MF kit that would beat the D200 and more expensive camera in picture quality.
My self I am forever the amatuer that loves shooting on the weekends and quality over quantity in my aim.........
Because of the availability of LF cameras in my area, I didnt think about going straight to a MF field camera, but with ebay, KEH.com and not Canadian duty on photography equipment, I may just look at going straight to a field.
Thanks all for your replies
I DO NOT MISS scanning 4x5 transparencies, what a pain in the a**! When scanning high resolution a normal scan takes about an hour from start to finish. As a book & calendar publisher one must figure two books and two calendars per year. That’s about 300 scans minimum per season just for those alone and that doesn’t count the stock image and print sales. With digital I have my image processing down to about 5 minutes max per image. Oh, and as for image quality in publication, my new wall calendar is in and to this date no one person has had the ability to pick out the large-format images over the digital images, unless they knew my photography already. So, come on Canon give me that 22 MP camera and I’ll be set for years to come! At 22 MP’s 6x7cm quality we be the norm and that will be incredible!
BTW, when it comes to quality and dynamic range. High-end digital kills transparency film when dynamic range enters the fray. No more blocked up shadows with blown highlights. And to top it off, with Canon, one can shoot at 400iso and garner images as clean as the best 50-speed film! I consider this enough to offset the difference in detail that the 4x5 tranny offers over high-end digital. Oh, and at $5 per shot for the view camera, I paid for my 5D in one year and for someone that’s in the business to make a living and to fuel a passion for nature photography, digital is the way for me to do it and to actually make a living at it. BTW, in one year I have shot more publishable images than I did in 5 years with the view camera. This is solely due to the quickness of the medium, which allows me to move about freely and bring home more that one comp from a single scene. Yeap, it’s exciting and I’m not going to hide that fact any longer. Some have accused me of gloating and that is not my intent. My excitement with the digital medium is fueled by excitement itself and nothing else! Man, I’m having a blast!
What do they mean beat the D200 in picture quality? I really don't think they understand what they are stating. Beat, how? In what? The ONLY place a MF 6x7cm camera is going to out perform a D200 is in image detail of a very large print. Everywhere else, dynamic range, weight, ease of use, DOF...I can keep going, the D200 will out perform the 6x7cm film camera in most every way. So, amatuer or not you have alot to think about. Oh, and with a MF or LF film camera you must also buy a film scanner ($1000 +) and learn the art of scanning. Or you can pay $$$$ for someone else to do the scans and depending on the type of scan that can set you back $50 to $100 per. SO, I remind you that detail in a large print is not and should not be the only determining factor as you make your decision.
MF cameras are cheap, no doubt. But, I think you'll find that something like a 5D will be comparable to MF in resolution (in practice). So, you probably shouldn't make your choice solely on the basis of resolution or probably even image quality in general. The only way to know for sure is to find a way to do your own tests.
4X5 on the other hand offers a serious increase in resolution over 35mm digital. But you have to make very large prints to notice a material difference (larger than calenders and magazines as Jerry notes). The process of using 4x5 is expensive and somewhat time-consuming - much less spontaneous than smaller formats. (I also shoot colour negative for increased dynamic range - but it is even more difficult to scan and colour correct.)
Cheers,
Eric
As far as I can tell, it seems to me that if you need movements, shoot 4x5. If not, shoot DSLR. I don't see much of a point to shooting MF these days.
Of course, I still have my dad's old Yashica TLR that I play with once in a while. But its quality and functionality it so limited that I really only use it for fun. I don't expect to get many good shots with it. And I still love shooting with my Holga. A fun camera for $16, but I wouldn't spend any real money on MF any more.
Figure out whether you want film itself or not. And let that be the strongest deciding factor in what you do. Everything else is a nuance in comparison. I've seen enough 12-16 MP DSLR work to agree that it is comparable to 645 MF in final overall image quality. And 6x7 doesn't give you much extra quality beyond that. The DOF in a DSLR is a distinct advantage. Weight and bulk, for a smaller DSLR like the 5D but not a larger one like the 1dS-II, is a slight advantage. For a low-volume shooter, film cost is not a factor, and a respectable used MF system can be had for less than a high-end DSLR system (MF bodies are much less, but MF lenses are comparable to more expensive, so it really depends on how much lens coverage you consider to constitute a respectable system). High-quality film scans are expensive, but a low-volume shooter who can afford to even be thinking about the MF or high-end DSLR option can also afford the occasional film scan. So on balance, all these other factors are a wash, in my opinion.
What is completely different about the systems is the experience of working in the field with film, and capturing a physical original on film. Do you like the feel of it? Do you like the smell of it? Do you love the built-in color palette/rendition of a particular film stock? Do you like having something you can feel like is your "final product" straight out of the camera without post-processing? (Note - if you consider your final product to be a print, or publication, then obviously that doesn't apply to you.) For that matter, do you like having something physical straight out of the camera which you can see without a computer? Do you like computers and high tech at all, anyway? Do you mind using what more and more people are considering antique gear - namely film gear? Do you mind using a system - film - that will probably become harder and more expensive to acquire and process as years go on (while probably never becoming impossible to get or develop)? On the flip side, are you attracted to using a system that some consider more romantic, artistic and dashing - film?
These subjective questions are, I think, where the decision will be made. Good luck!
Scott
Brent, I just wanted to remind you and the group that Canon has movements! With the TS-E's there's plenty of useable movements and some even more that LF. So having movements are not limited to a view camera.
The quality is a factor, kind of........I want the best prints I can get for the money I have and MF does it for me. It comes down to this, to get the enlargement options that 6x7 offers I would have to move to a D2X or a 1ds. Used around here I'd be looking at $4000 for the body alone!!!!! Come on, Im a truck driver for Pete sakes I dont have that kinda money. I have priced out a nice Mamiya RZ67 with two lenses, wide and long with everything I need for around $1500 CDN.......I can get a good scanner like the Coolscan 8000 for under $900 CDN. So thats about $2400, thats $1600 cheaper then a high end dSLR and concidering that Im a weekend shooter that doesnt that a picture of everything that moves (I like thinking about my work) that's $1600 is amazing start towards development and printing.
I think you said it best Scott, I just love the romance of film........Ha whats good enough for Adams I guess. I think another thing that is kind of turning me off dSLRs is that EVERYONE is using them. Where the originality in that?
I'm not saying that I'm gonna be trashing the D50. I do see the advantages of digital and I will be upgrading the digital as well......I just want a round of film first.
Enjoy film and all the fun associated with it, scanning and all. I remember when I had fun doing it, though I will never go back
But, your research has taken you a little astray on your camera prices and choices. The 5D is a higher resolution than the D2X and can be bought for about $2450 including the $300 rebate. It also has a full frame sensor with access to all of the super-wide lenses with no conversion.
David - Your thoughts about the "romance" of film remind me of myself when I started cross-country skiing. I had the option of waxable or waxless skis. I decided to go with waxable skis, because that was the traditional way to ski. I would get to learn all about choosing the right waxes for the conditions, blending waxes, spend nights in my garage ironing wax into my skis. How romantic! Well, you know what? Waxing skis is a pain in the a**. It's somewhat complicated and time-consuming, and if you choose the wrong wax, your day is miserable. Everyone with the waxless skis goes zipping past you while you are either sliding around all over the place, or getting tons of snow stuck to the bottom of the ski, making it hard to go anywhere. Every time I'm working up a sweat struggling with my skis, I wonder why I went with the "traditional", "romantic" method, and didn't just use what everyone else was using. I would have definitely gotten more enjoyment out of the whole sport if I hadn't wasted all that time and energy trying to learn the old-school way.
Let's see.. I think we were talking about cameras. David, it's sounds like you've made up your mind, but I'll chime in with Jerry. The $300 rebate from Canon was the final kicker for me and picked up the 5D for about 2500. I got the Tamron 28-75 lens for a starter lens for around $300 as there is a rebate on it and also it's very highly rated from what I could tell. You probably have all of the other information you need, but you ideas on digital camera prices were probably a little off.
So, my point was, that yes, you can still shoot the traditional way, but there are a lot of good reasons most people are using the latest technology: it's less expensive and more convenient, for an equal final product.
(Note: When I say less expensive, I'm considering lenses as well. MF cameras may be going down in price, but those lenses are still very expensive).
Since I'm at it though.... Having recently come from the film world and may go back some time, I never really figured any sort of romance to the whole thing. But I have to say that there is something about having a tranparency on a light table or in a file folder than gives me a better feeling than a file on a hard drive.
Total: $1,084, or way less than half the price of a Canon 5D body alone. And that's before you buy the lenses and memory cards and various computer hardware and software items you'll need for viewing and storing your images.
Of course I acknowledge the many advantages of a high-end DSLR over MF film. (To my mind the biggest advantage over MF, for a low-volume landscape shooter, is DOF - and its odd you don't hear much about that.) But initial setup cost these days is a "plus" in the MF column, it seems to me.
In any case, as I said earlier, I think for the kind of shooting many people on this board do, the various advantages and disadvantages are a wash. And the most important deciding factor is simply whether you prefer working in the film or digital media.
Scott