100MP or 4x5 Film?

[narikin]

It's a bit of a silly, very old, question.

In terms of sharpness and colour, it's game over in favor of the 100mp back. And economics too, despite that high entry price.

If, however, you prefer the look of 4x5 photography, and I'm not talking some grainy hocus pocus here, but the fact that your standard lens will be 150mm and a portrait lens 180/210mm, which will give you a very specific look you cannot get with 645 mf, then you should do that. If you are the sort of person that prefers that slow, careful construction of a photographic moment with a view camera, then that's it, you must choose that. It's a very good and valid reason. But if your are talking about resolution, and happy with the MF type camera, and it's style of photography, then the Phase option wins, hands down.

Good luck.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My take is:

• 100 MP digital, excellent results with little effort
• 4x5" needs a lot of effort. Excellent results possible, but a lot of effort.

So, my guess is that 4x5" is quite OK for low volume work, if you know what you are doing. Takes a lot of work and needs good scanning. Excellent results achievable with affordable gear.

An MFD back will deliver excellent results with little effort, but cost of entry is high.

Second hand MFD is quite affordable, may be worth a try. That said, I am a bit skeptic…

Best regards
Erik

It's a bit of a silly, very old, question.

In terms of sharpness and colour, it's game over in favor of the 100mp back. And economics too, despite that high entry price.

If, however, you prefer the look of 4x5 photography, and I'm not talking some grainy hocus pocus here, but the fact that your standard lens will be 150mm and a portrait lens 180/210mm, which will give you a very specific look you cannot get with 645 mf, then you should do that. If you are the sort of person that prefers that slow, careful construction of a photographic moment with a view camera, then that's it, you must choose that. It's a very good and valid reason. But if your are talking about resolution, and happy with the MF type camera, and it's style of photography, then the Phase option wins, hands down.

Good luck.

[Hans Kruse]

It's a bit of a silly, very old, question.

In terms of sharpness and colour, it's game over in favor of the 100mp back. And economics too, despite that high entry price.

If, however, you prefer the look of 4x5 photography, and I'm not talking some grainy hocus pocus here, but the fact that your standard lens will be 150mm and a portrait lens 180/210mm, which will give you a very specific look you cannot get with 645 mf, then you should do that. If you are the sort of person that prefers that slow, careful construction of a photographic moment with a view camera, then that's it, you must choose that. It's a very good and valid reason. But if your are talking about resolution, and happy with the MF type camera, and it's style of photography, then the Phase option wins, hands down.

Good luck.

The look or perspective is only dependent on exactly where you stand and shoot and where the subject is. The look will be different depending on the rendeting by the lens and the DoF. So you will not get a different look from a 4x5 than a 100MP Phase One camera, only if you choose different positions relative to your scene.

[BernardLanguillier]

Using a back with live view of a tech camera may be the best of both worlds.

It is really hard to beat live view, especially with the ease of double tapping on a touch screen to zoom in a fraction of a second anywhere in the screen.

Cheers,
Bernard

[razrblck]

The look or perspective is only dependent on exactly where you stand and shoot and where the subject is. The look will be different depending on the rendeting by the lens and the DoF. So you will not get a different look from a 4x5 than a 100MP Phase One camera, only if you choose different positions relative to your scene.

Unless one can use stitching to cover the 4x5 area, it will look different for the same subject and composition. Using the same lens will mean having to be much further away with the digital back, changing perspective and dof in the process. At the same distance you would need a shorter focal length instead, which will change perspective and dof as well as other lens characteristics.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My way of shooting is to look for subject and after that finding a vantage point. Done that I try to find the best composition and choose lens in accordance. Ideally I would have the perfect lens for the compostion, that works very well in 24x36mm as I use a bunch of decent quality zooms. With MFD it is a bit more tricky. But, would I shoot say 120 mm at f/8 with my P45+ and 90 mm at f/5.6 on the A7rII perspective, look and DoF would be virtually the same.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDLook/Perspective/MFDvsFF.jpg



Would we include APS-C, we would need a 60 mm lens at f/3.8. Not having that I used a 50 mm at f/4:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDLook/Perspective/MFDvsFFvsAPS-C.jpg


The composition may need an 80 mm lens on the P45+, but I may only have 60 mm and 100mm. In that case I may use the 100mm and do a stitch. Perspective would be the same, but I would need to stop down a little bit more, using say f/10 instead of f/8 for the same DoF.

Getting back 100 MP vs. 4x5 film. You can make excellent 4000 PPI scans from 4x5" for around 31$ at http://www.drumscanning.co.uk/prices/

Making the best of a film scan will take some work and turn around will take some time. For low volume the film option may be viable. Break even may be around 1000 high resolution drum scans.

One other point is that to make best use of 4x5" film you would still need to shoot medium apertures. Stopping down beyond f/11 takes you in diffraction affected territory. That applies both to 100MP MFD and 4x5".

Best regards
Erik

Best regards
Erik

Unless one can use stitching to cover the 4x5 area, it will look different for the same subject and composition. Using the same lens will mean having to be much further away with the digital back, changing perspective and dof in the process. At the same distance you would need a shorter focal length instead, which will change perspective and dof as well as other lens characteristics.

[Jim Kasson]

One other point is that to make best use of 4x5" film you would still need to shoot medium apertures. Stopping down beyond f/11 takes you in diffraction affected territory. That applies both to 100MP MFD and 4x5".

Erik, you correctly worked out that, with appropriate lens focal length selection, that DOF, perspective and FOV can be identical across formats.

The same is true of diffraction. At the apertures that equalize DOF, diffraction in same sized prints will be the same.

Jim

[Deardorff]

It's a bit of a silly, very old, question.

In terms of sharpness and colour, it's game over in favor of the 100mp back. And economics too, despite that high entry price.

If, however, you prefer the look of 4x5 photography, and I'm not talking some grainy hocus pocus here, but the fact that your standard lens will be 150mm and a portrait lens 180/210mm, which will give you a very specific look you cannot get with 645 mf, then you should do that. If you are the sort of person that prefers that slow, careful construction of a photographic moment with a view camera, then that's it, you must choose that. It's a very good and valid reason. But if your are talking about resolution, and happy with the MF type camera, and it's style of photography, then the Phase option wins, hands down.

Good luck.

On this I disagree.
Have not shot 4x5 for at least 15 years. Reason being 5x7 and 8x10.
I can put together a competent 4x5/5x7 or 8x10 camera/lens/holders out fit for under $1000. Spending more I can get one of higher quality and precision.

Shooting B&W and contact printing I can go from loading film to finished contact print - silver or Pt/Pd or even carbon transfer - all without electricity. I know as I have done it when living where we had no electric power.

One is not superior to the other. Film and digital both have advantages. For me the only real choice is which I prefer to use. Film has me involved and moving around. Digital has me in front of an electronic hellbox for hours on end. Sitting and static for the most part. Digital costs worlds more to use and on the high end with medium format backs - the cost is astronomical compared to Large Format film.

As long as the final image looks the way I want and the process is satisfying and enjoyable - it does not really matter. It is the old bitching about oils or watercolor, mixing ones own pigments or getting them from commercial sources.

I'll enjoy final images, mine and yours - no matter how you got them. In many cases the fact the original print I am looking at is the result of the artist hand, limited in number to how long they have the patience to produce them rather than digitally printed with the real ability to output ten thousand perfect and identical prints is what I prefer. Just a difference in 'touch and involvement' to various degrees.

The fact one is technically 'superior' doesn't really matter when I am looking at the finished image. That is me - your mileage may vary.

[kers]

For me the only real choice is which I prefer to use. Film has me involved and moving around. Digital has me in front of an electronic hellbox for hours on end. Sitting and static for the most part....
...
I'll enjoy final images, mine and yours - no matter how you got them. In many cases the fact the original print I am looking at is the result of the artist hand, limited in number .....

depends of what your final outcome is...
If your outcome is a homemade wet darkroom print i believe you; if you scan your film and put it to a inkjet printer you will find yourself spending more hours in front of this hellbox getting the colours right and removing dust than when you started digital. Digital does not mean it has to be produced in large numbers or vice versa.

[DanielStone]

Why not just rent a MFD system when you need it? If you're in a major market like LA, NY, SF, etc then there are plenty of guys who will rent you a kit I'm sure.

I'm super low volume, as I only shoot for myself. So film works best for me and my work flow. Outsourcing drum scans and doing the post work myself keeps costs quite low. Yes I can't just "scan everything" as if I had my own drum scanner(used to, sold it due to low use).

To me, 50MP is a sweet spot in the digital domain. Big enough to make some BIG prints from with enough clarity and detail, but small enough you can still fit enough shots on a 16gb card

If I were to go for a digital solution, it'd be a 50mp solution. Then again, I'm not doing mural size prints to stick my nose into either

-Dan