Back to Film while saving $$$ for D-Back?

[shelby_lewis]

Greetings all,

Just a quick question or two...

I'm an architect who's pretty serious about photography, but currently following it as a creative outlet to augment my design career.

I've been shooting canon 35mm stuff for quite a while... mostly people. Personally, I've never been really happy with 35mm digital (especially the color and rendering of fine detail) and have been contemplating for some time moving to mf digital.

I've got a little spending money set aside and I'm considering investing in a basic mamiya afd kit (or AFD II) and continuing shooting my 35mm digital equipment alongside the mamiya (film) until around new-years when I will acquire a back... probably a refurb p21 or maybe the zd back... I've some more research to do.

Just wondering if anyone else here experienced a point in time where they were shooting mf-film and 35mm digital side by side... and what their experiences were.

Would anyone suggest holding off on the camera and purchasing an entire package at once?

Thanks,
Shelby

[Graham Mitchell]

Which 35mm DSLR are you using? The top models will exceed the resolution of 645 film so if you are already unhappy with the level of detail you are getting, it may be a step backwards. I'd wait and get the whole digital medium fomat package.

[Khun_K]

Which 35mm DSLR are you using? The top models will exceed the resolution of 645 film so if you are already unhappy with the level of detail you are getting, it may be a step backwards. I'd wait and get the whole digital medium fomat package.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128383\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Many may disagree but since I started to use Canon 1Ds I have almost abandoned the medium format film, regardless it is 6X4.5, 6X6, 6X7, 6X9 or 6X12. There are much arguments over film versus digital and very much depend on the work flow of each individual.  That is to say, for my point of view, the quality for Canon 1Ds is comprable to medium format (in general, and certainly someone may find different opinion on varies segments) and 5D and 1Ds MK2 and probably 1D MK3 will be superior than most medium format in general quality. I eventually also use a lot of medium format digital backs but never stop using 135mm DSLR.
The argument will be working on a digital platform and develop the work flow and quality you need from a digital set up now and perhaps migrate to a higher end digital set up when cost and time is right. I think shooting film is quite expensive, and scanning film is quite time consuming, it will be more cost and time and perhaps quality effective to just work on digital now.

[shelby_lewis]

Which 35mm DSLR are you using? The top models will exceed the resolution of 645 film so if you are already unhappy with the level of detail you are getting, it may be a step backwards. I'd wait and get the whole digital medium fomat package.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128383\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

no "top models" here  

I'm shooting the xxD series cameras, so no high mp count... I'm just hesitatnt to drop money on the 1 series stuff when MF bodies are getting more  affordable (used). I can get into a mamiya system for around $2500... 5d is still almost that price, body alone... and I'd rather have a 1 series camera if I'm going to drop the cash. With refurb backs around 10K (or the zd at 7k), I just might wait.

I think i agree with you here and will probably wait until I've got the resources to upgrade to an entire package.

[shelby_lewis]

Many may disagree but since I started to use Canon 1Ds I have almost abandoned the medium format film, regardless it is 6X4.5, 6X6, 6X7, 6X9 or 6X12. There are much arguments over film versus digital and very much depend on the work flow of each individual.  That is to say, for my point of view, the quality for Canon 1Ds is comprable to medium format (in general, and certainly someone may find different opinion on varies segments) and 5D and 1Ds MK2 and probably 1D MK3 will be superior than most medium format in general quality. I eventually also use a lot of medium format digital backs but never stop using 135mm DSLR.
The argument will be working on a digital platform and develop the work flow and quality you need from a digital set up now and perhaps migrate to a higher end digital set up when cost and time is right. I think shooting film is quite expensive, and scanning film is quite time consuming, it will be more cost and time and perhaps quality effective to just work on digital now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for sharing your experiences... I think I am going to wait. I, too, am not going to cease using 135mm, mostly due to portablility and useablility at weddings and lifestyle portrait shoots... but I do want to start some occasional higher quality architecture work (personal stuff)

So am i correct in assuming that unless you have lots of time (and money) on your hands, that scanning is too price/time intensive for the results that wil be returned?

I'm always hearing mixed reviews on the actual quality of mf scanned film.

I do have to admit that my xxD series cameras do provide most of the resolution i require for web portfolio work and some limited (smaller) print portfolio materials.

It's the "look" and "3d-ness" of the 35mm digital stuff that often doesn't agree with me  

Thanks again,
Shelby

[SecondFocus]

Shelby,

I do like the versatility of the Mamiya system. I have been shooting with a Leaf 65 back and it is just great. But for some projects I have have always liked the look of film so I am one of those people now starting to shoot more of it. I have bought some extra film backs and really like the option of having extra backs loaded with diffeent film on hand for quick changing. So if you want to shoot some film go ahead and do it, the Mamiya will still be a top system when you get a digital back.

As far as the Canon system goes, I do most of my shooting with a MkII with a 30d back up. But from everything I have seen lately, the best value for the money out there is the 5d. The images coming out of that body are tremendous and that would be my choice, not the 1d series, for what you are doing.

[Morgan_Moore]

Greetings all,

I'm an architect who's pretty serious about photography, [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=128338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

just some thoughts

QUALITY

Have you fully experimented with stitching with a DSLR which in the right conditions can render great detail for little money

Especially with 'flat stitching' used with a camera like the cambo ultima

MOVEMENTS
most architecture photographers enjoy 'camera movements' rise fall and swing

If you are considering the ZD back it does not appear at this point to interface with a view camera although an old risefall lense is availavble

the ZD of course doesnt work with a view camera

Consider maybe a P20 a view camera and a sliding back

S

[Don Libby]

As a person who up till a couple months ago shot nothing but a 1Ds II I can say that there’s no way that I’d go back.  I’ve got a Mamiya 645 ADFD II coupled with a loaner P30.  The P30 IMHO just blows the 1Ds II out of the water for what I use it for – that being landscape.  I will continue to use the 1Ds II to shoot wildlife as its better suited for that purpose (at least that is my current thinking).

I like the Mamiya system as it allows me to go “old school” and shoot film or shoot with the digital back.  Shooting film offers it’s own unique problems and costs, eg., film cost, developing, and more importantly scanning.  All that said there still is a lot to be said about having the ability to shoot film.  I still have at least 8 rolls of film in the refrigrator....

I would think that there will be a lot of chances in the near future to pick up a good used refurbished back at a reasonable cost.  There’s even some dealers who right now have a few of their demos for sale.

[mmurph]

How much film do you shoot?

6x7 slide or negative  runs about $1 per frame with professional development. Plus the cost of buying a scanner, all the workflow issues - trips to the lab, cutting film, filing, scanning, spotting, etc.

A Canon 1DsII will probably cost about $1K in depreciation over the next year.  The first two years it was out, the net cost was about $1.5K per year.

I used to shoot $5K in film per year for my personal projects, so I saved quite a bit with a 1DsII.  I am doing some 4x5 film, but no way I would go back to medium format film.  A lot of headaches.    

Look at depreciation vs. other expense over the relavent time frame, not your out of pocket cost.

Best,
Michael

[KAP]

Film ain't that bad if your not on deadline. I find MF superior to the 1DsmkII in all but workflow, it has smoother colour more detail, I've also started shooting 612 and 5x4, I use it when I know I need to go big. My subjects have infinite detail so I like to capture as much as possible, if it was brides, cats and dogs etc the detail is not so important or often desirable. There is nothing wrong with shooting MF film and getting decent scans, other than time and money. They need to be compared with digi backs and not DSLR's for quality. Having said that I shoot 1DsmkII 90% of the time and only recently have I been getting requests for bigger files.
I can see the difference between my Canon and MF images, I'm not shure my clients can. I do think though as clients get more used to seeing files from digi backs, my Canon might  start to look a bit weak.
The question for me is do I want to be one of the first in my market section to shoot P45 and impress my clients or keep the money for myself and for once spend it on some fun and not more equipment.

Kevin.