Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: 4x5 or 8x10 vs GFX50S vs 645Z vs XP100 vs Mamiya 7 HELP!! Going crazy!  (Read 6390 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10639
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/

I am wondering why stitching is somehow left out of this discussion.

I have 2m wide prints made from 300+ megapixels DSLR spherical stitches in planar projection that make the 8x10 images I have seen feel a bit low-fi... :)

And these are now super easy to do with the 100mp backs such as my H6D-100c.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3705
    • Photos of Arkansas

I left it out, but yes stitching is something I almost always do.  With the 100Mp pretty much always on a tripod, but the GFX allows hand held work (for me) and so LR does a great job on the stitching.

Paul Caldwell
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com

TomChik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22

I saw his show, that is way too much, I appreciate the approach and the honesty in it, but is nothing I am looking at when I talk about detail. Let's say is quite the opposite of portability vs detail.

I am interested on the learning curve of artists I admire. Gursky 10 years ago were making great prints with a 30/40MP back. Its interesting to notice why this won't be enough today becacuse we have 100MP now, and so on.

Will a 1TB back make Merkel print look bad in 50 years from now, I doubt it. I know we are talking about something that has to do with photography, but also is not defining it. Although is very interesting Burtynsky pointing out negs shipping, x-ray... same problem I face all the time. And just the idea to fly with an X1D or GFX, way better imho than a whole digital back and camera... feels like a dream.
Logged

TomChik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22

Bernard, stitching doesn't feel right to me, I always like human figures to be in picture, probably works best for landscape, but photography to me is 8x10. And I would love to find the closest thing to take one shot, one, and have it safe with me without thinking of negs lost or Fedex packages lost when coming home.
Logged

Joe Towner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736

Hey Tom, where are you located at?  I think the biggest thing you need is some time working with someone who can show you what works for them.  You need to get the files in your hands, and see what you can make of the details.  Stitching, even a 2 shot with folks in it could cover you for resolution & scale.

And printing a 5'x7' is very different from a 16"x24", so the end result does matter.
Logged
t: @PNWMF

hcubell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 806
    • http://www.howardcubell.com

The X1D has its quirks, but it is the closest thing I have ever used in medium format digital to the ethos of the Mamiya 7. It is decidedly NOT a Leatherman tool-like camera. I like that. It seems to freak out others.
Interesting interview with Burtynsky for his take on "Hasselblad color" v. "Phase One color". Apparently he doesn't subscribe to the popular view expressed here that everything that comes off the same Sony medium format sensor is the same and can easily be equalized in post (i.e., it's all just a matter of profiling.) But, hey, what does he know? He is only one of the most successful fine art photographers in the world and founded/runs his own major fine art printing operation in Toronto. 
Logged

TomChik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22

Hcubell, I was impressed by that interview too, and again thanks Landscapephoto for sharing.
I am not 100% sure about negative to be Imacon and chrome being Phase. And honestly, Phocus is a nightmare compared to C1.

About stitching, Joe, I'm currently in Paris, will be back in Miami soon, I travel a lot.

Not sure, if you can stitch, why they bother selling 50k camera? Maybe its enough stitching with a Fuji GFX.
Although stitching can widen horizon, I am more interested in the closest digital process to a Mamiya 7 or a 4x5/8x10, but without film shipping and airports and expenses superhigh.

Burtynsky touches a nerve in the interview, the slow process of a 4x5, will be missed when shooting. But what digital gives you in terms of production of image (speed, number of images in a year, travels, dust cleaning?!) its a lot.

Until now, I was just thinking at this setup:

4x5
Sony Rx1RII

or (at this point, and after our long chat, and thanks all of you guys)

Hasselblad X1D / Fuji GFX
Leica M6!

or

her majesty Hasselblad 100MP
10k less than Phase its a lot.
I just wonder if I can resell it after, and if Hasselblad offers the same (amazing) assistance and fast repair of Phase....! (Doug I hear you already...)
Logged

TomChik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22

Another question since I forgot to throw in another game changer... A7RII, what will be the best lens to match X1D quality for Sony camera? equivalent of a 35mm on 24x36mm format... thank you!
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10639
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/

For what it's worth:
- some images shot with the H6D-100c: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/albums/72157676446696963

- some pano stitches: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/albums/72157600916381270

Let me know if you need more info. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!

Joe Towner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 736

Not sure, if you can stitch, why they bother selling 50k camera? Maybe its enough stitching with a Fuji GFX.
Although stitching can widen horizon, I am more interested in the closest digital process to a Mamiya 7 or a 4x5/8x10, but without film shipping and airports and expenses superhigh.

Stitching gets you larger files, but you can't freeze a scene the same way as you can with a single shot of a 100mp camera.  It's why I'm still tempted by a Horseman SW612 setup.  Stitching the Eiffel Tower makes sense (btw - who the F*#k thought it a good idea to do a zip line there? http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/06/you-can-now-zip-line-off-the-eiffel-tower-6687923/ ) while stitching a dancer doesn't.
Logged
t: @PNWMF

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 320

funny how people just casually talk about shooting 4x5 and 8x10...how many here have actually done it? the process, the cost, the time, the hassle,....it's a hobby....do it if you really enjoy the process, don't if you want a perfect file....i have shot a lot of 4x5 and quite a bit of 8x10....and even compared to 4x5, 8x10 is a different animal....and it's all really pointless if the scans aren't top notch.....
if i would shoot large format today i would look into alternative processes, transfers and maybe go even bigger.....large plates....
otherwise any 50mpix back with latest sony chip will provide IQ that really allows no excuses....even A7RII or 810 will do....but for big prints i would go with a DMF system....better files....
of course the new 100mpix backs are better but lets not forget that everything hanging in museums and galleries is not shot with any of those....and next year the new 100mpix X1D or GFX100 will come out for a lot less.....

the one thing that i do prefer about larger negative(s) is the different look of the different formats......a normal lens for a 8x10 is about a 300mm lens....and that comes with a different compression and DOF then a 50 on a A7RII or a 65 on a hasselblad/fuji/phase......the stretched foreground/background of a 16mm (on 35mm) landscape shot is just not possible on 8x10....but you get this amazing (to me more natural) perspective......especially when it comes to shooting people....

back in the day of shooting film when we had to shoot groups of people in a tight room and not want to pull out the ultra wide for obvious reasons (foreheads, noses, hands closer to the lens look huge,....) we would set up 2 (mamiya's, hasselblads, fuji's) and shoot simultaneously.....2 shots stitched with a 90 look a lot different then one with a 55....especially when it comes to people.....and it is a lot easier to shoot with 2 120/220 cameras then with one 4x5....
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

jamgolf

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 139

TomChik>>>>   I am more interested in the closest digital process to … 4x5/8x10
TomChik>>>>   anything digital that is comparable to a 645 film or 67 film and that won't cost 50k and maybe around 20k?
TomChik>>>>   ...but photography to me is 8x10
TomChik>>>>   Burtynsky touches a nerve in the interview, the slow process of a 4x5, will be missed when shooting.

Based on all of these comments, you should look into a technical camera (Alpa STC, Arca Rm3Di, Cambo WRS, Sinar, Linhoff …)
That would be the closest thing to view camera, both in terms of shooting experience as well as image quality.
An IQ180 would fit your stated budget, but if you can manage an IQ3-100 would be the best for usability and image fildelity.

Although, I must say that for 16x20 inch prints 8x10 film or IQ180 is an epic overkill.
I doubt the image quality differences become evident until print sizes of at least 36 inch (long side).
« Last Edit: June 06, 2017, 10:43:52 PM by jamgolf »
Logged
IQ3 100 • Cambo 1600 • Rodenstock 23,32,50,90 • Zeiss 350SA
UnTroubled Land

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10729
    • Echophoto

Hi,

Some reflections...

When the 39 MP MFD sensors arrived back in 2006 a lot of 4"x5" shooters switched from film to digital. Michael Reichmann, Charlie Cramer and Bill Atkinson did a comparison between film, up to to 4"x5" at that time. There was some critique that they scanned 4"x5" at 2000 PPI.

My guess is that the 2000 PPI was enough for what they were doing. It is possible to scan higher PPI but file size may increase more than quality.

The great attraction of digital may be that the images can be virtually noise free and may be very tolerant of post processing.

My normal print size is 16"x23" inch. It is the largest print size for desktop printers using cut sheet paper and works very nice with 50x70 cm frames ( 19" x 29" ). Personally, I have found that 12 MP are quiet enough for prints at that size, but that is based on my perception and eye sight. That said, I was perplexed how small difference there was between 12 MP APS-C and 24 MP full frame at 16"x23" print size.

Since than I have moved up to 39 MP on MFD and 42 MP on 24x36 mm. I would not say I felt there was an advantage of 39 MP MFD compared to 24 MP full frame at my standard print size, viewed with the naked eye. Viewing with a 5X loupe the MFD advantage was very apparent.

Jim Kasson did a lot of evaluation on the Fuji GFX, comparing it to his other system that is a Sony A7rII. The GFX was much better in measurable image quality, but he found that measurable advantage was not visible in prints 15" high. 

Going 30" height, there was a significant difference: http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/gfx-vs-a7rii-visibility-of-improved-iq/

Jim has indicated that he has analysed those images looking very closely.

Once I got to 42 MP on my A7rII, I have not done a lot of comparisons between the A7rII and the P45+. What I have seen is that the A7rII can match and surpass the 10 year old P45+ with Hasselblad V-series lenses.

But, I have also found that a decent viewing distance can negate resolution advantages. The Hasselblad Distagons I have are not so great of axis. For instance, my Distagon 40/4 CF on the P45+ is no match for the Canon 16-35/4L zoom on the A7rII. If I make a 33"x47" print with both systems the A7rII just smokes the P45+/Distagon combo. But, increase viewing distance to three feet and the weakness of the Distagon disappears.

I would also say that it is very hard to make best use of the high resolution of today's sensors. We need a dead on precise focus and a flat subject.  Going outside the optimum other factors like 'CoC' and diffraction will play a significant role.

So, my best suggestion would be to get the best sensor and the best lenses you can afford. To make best use of them you need to do everything absolutely right.

A steady tripod, mirror lock up and accurate focusing at 1:1 magnification in live view may be a decent starting point…

Best regards
Erik


I know its crazy. I've shot 8x10 and XP100 Phase One, a lot. I own an 8x10 and I want to buy a digital to be able to travel without carrying all that stuff with me, to avoid x-ray scanning, to avoid all risks of travelling with film.

I've tried the GFX50S and X1D, I am not sure, can someone help me on telling me where they differs from a 645Z as image quality? Is it the very same sensor? I had a better feeling with Fuji, "faster" than Hassy.

Will they represent a real substitute of film? Will a human eye tell the difference on a 16x20' print and lower size, between the film and digital?

If we pick a 100 of us, with 2 print, left print 16x20 from GFX50S and right print from 4x5, will a lot of us get what is what exactly?

Its very hard for me to jump to digital, not sure why, changes fast, years ago people were amazed by P21, now we almost have in our phone, and still I can recall pros telling me that P21 file were so much more detailed than a 4x5 drum scan, now we will laugh about such a sentence.

Now some says that a drum scan of a 35mm film will need a Phase One 150MP (coming up soon with an X1D/like camera?).

So where is the truth?

What should I buy in order not to spend 2000$ on each shoot with film and still have a comparable image quality to a human eye?

I know it goes personal, for instance in my case I found a drum scan of a medium format film negative to be more pleasing than a XP100MP file.

But anything digital that is comparable to a 645 film or 67 film and that won't cost 50k and maybe around 20k?

Is a IQ180 a good solution?

thank you for your help!

TomChik

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22

Thank you Eric, good points.

Jamgolf, thank you, sure, when I was mentioning about 8x10 I was mentioning it more for single shoot idea vs stitching, photography is many things (luckily).

Bernard thanks for sharing, wonderful images.
Logged

Richard Man

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
    • Richard Man Photography

funny how people just casually talk about shooting 4x5 and 8x10...how many here have actually done it? the process, the cost, the time, the hassle,....it's a hobby....do it if you really enjoy the process, don't if you want a perfect file....i have shot a lot of 4x5 and quite a bit of 8x10....and even compared to 4x5, 8x10 is a different animal....and it's all really pointless if the scans aren't top notch.....

I just shot 130+ sheets of 4x5 Portra 160 in 2 long weekends for my personal projects. Does that count ~_o?

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 320

I just shot 130+ sheets of 4x5 Portra 160 in 2 long weekends for my personal projects. Does that count ~_o?
you are my hero! i have done enough of it to appreciate it!
it does not surprise me that you did it for a personal project....
a very good friend is doing the same thing right now...ongoing project....he just told me he just found out that one of his film holders has a light leak:) oh well...the joys of large format...i have been there too!
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

Richard Man

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 115
    • Richard Man Photography

re: the Burtynsky interview, those were some really innate interview questions. Couldn't they have asked a more knowledgeable person to do the interview?

Juanito

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 221
    • John Raymond Mireles

Nothing like a good ol' digital v. film, this platform v. that platform, x number of pixels v. y number of pixels thread. ;-)

As others have said, at 16x20, you won't be able to tell the difference between 4x5, MF digital or even small format digital. Shoot whatever you want at that scale. You can probably shoot an iPhone at that size and most would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

I print my images at 44x60. Mostly I use the H5-40 though I just purchased the X1D (which is in for repairs - another story. Not happy). My work consists of larger than life portraits. The detail that you can see on my prints is astounding. I could shoot with a higher resolution camera but I don't know that it would do any good. I recently completed a commission for a solo museum show that will consist of about 50 44x60 prints. For this commission, I shot over 4,400 images. From a workflow standpoint, just developing, proofing and editing that number of photos would be too incredibly tedious. From a cost standpoint, it would be prohibitive. Shot with 4x5, the costs of film and processing alone would be in the $50,000 range. Shot with 120mm film, the costs would be in the $30,000 range. Those costs don't include the cost of high end scans either. That's just not going to happen.

Beyond just the resolution issue, which for me is a nonissue, digital opens up greater freedom to shoot and experiment without having to worry about per shot costs. The factor that drove my decision to purchase Hasselblad was the fact that the Pentax and Fuji systems are limited to 1/125 flash sync speed. I regularly shoot with a flash outdoors so I unfortunately couldn't consider those options. If that weren't a concern, I'd probably make my buying decision based upon price. I'm not a fan of throwing money away at these ridiculously priced camera systems. I think for most people, a simple FF DSLR is more than enough camera.

By the way, here's my review of the X1D on Petapixel. I've posted this before but perhaps you haven't seen it.

John

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10729
    • Echophoto

Hi John,

Thanks for good points. Just a few comments:


  • It is quite true that film would have horrible costs if we shoot the way we do with digital. But, we may shoot differently with film.
  • With digital we can use a liberal number of exposures and may catch a better moment. I don't think that shooting with sheet film is that good at capturing spontaneous expressions.
  • Workflow stuff matters. In old time the photo lab was doing most of the workflow stuff. Now it is mostly the photographer doing the lab work, on the computer. If we edit our stuff ourselves we need to scan film.
  • The most practical way to scan film may be to capture with a high resolution digital camera.
  • But, if you have a high resolution digital camera, why not use it for the original capture?
  • Drum scanning film may still be the best option, and it may not be prohibitively expensive. After all we only need drum scans of the pictures that will hang.
  • Scanning film is not easy. Slide film has very narrow dynamic range combined with high density range. That means harsh shadows that even good film scanners have hard time handling. Drum scanners are better at this.
  • Negative film has a high dynamic range, but it has a lot quirks. Making excellent conversions of negative colour into good positive colour takes a lot of experience.

So, you get best detail with a drum scanned 8x10 low speed film. It is reasonable that 39MP digital back will yield image quality similar to 4"x5" as many photographers made the switch to 39MP backs.

Personally, I have been perfectly happy with everything starting with 12 MP APS-C for my 16"x23" that is my standard print size.

I would think it is better to focus on making good captures and good processing rather than gear.

Best regards
Erik

Nothing like a good ol' digital v. film, this platform v. that platform, x number of pixels v. y number of pixels thread. ;-)

As others have said, at 16x20, you won't be able to tell the difference between 4x5, MF digital or even small format digital. Shoot whatever you want at that scale. You can probably shoot an iPhone at that size and most would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

I print my images at 44x60. Mostly I use the H5-40 though I just purchased the X1D (which is in for repairs - another story. Not happy). My work consists of larger than life portraits. The detail that you can see on my prints is astounding. I could shoot with a higher resolution camera but I don't know that it would do any good. I recently completed a commission for a solo museum show that will consist of about 50 44x60 prints. For this commission, I shot over 4,400 images. From a workflow standpoint, just developing, proofing and editing that number of photos would be too incredibly tedious. From a cost standpoint, it would be prohibitive. Shot with 4x5, the costs of film and processing alone would be in the $50,000 range. Shot with 120mm film, the costs would be in the $30,000 range. Those costs don't include the cost of high end scans either. That's just not going to happen.

Beyond just the resolution issue, which for me is a nonissue, digital opens up greater freedom to shoot and experiment without having to worry about per shot costs. The factor that drove my decision to purchase Hasselblad was the fact that the Pentax and Fuji systems are limited to 1/125 flash sync speed. I regularly shoot with a flash outdoors so I unfortunately couldn't consider those options. If that weren't a concern, I'd probably make my buying decision based upon price. I'm not a fan of throwing money away at these ridiculously priced camera systems. I think for most people, a simple FF DSLR is more than enough camera.

By the way, here's my review of the X1D on Petapixel. I've posted this before but perhaps you haven't seen it.

John

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10639
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/

For what it is worth I have uploaded a full res 100mp image shot with the H6D-100c with a Rodenstock 90mm f5.6 HR. It is at f11, so probably not 100% peak sharpness but it should still provide a good idea about what can be done with a single capture. Nothing prevents from stitching such scenes of course if this is too "coarse". ;)

I would be surprised if 8x10 done right were significantly better than this, but I could. Be wrong obviously.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/35109904090/in/photostream/

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up