Thinking about digital MF

[Steven Draper]

Hello

I've been taking photographs with my D2x for a couple of years, and am really enjoying turning some into good looking prints. I've even sold a few recently in the few hundred $ range.

While I do not profess to be a leading world photographer by any means, I am hungry to capture my view of the world to the best possible quality. Yes, sometimes that means a dSLR like the D2x or the new D3, but other times when I spend ages waiting for the light to be just right in a grassy landscape I wonder if a MF system would help.

a) provide a difference such that I could make highly detailed Bigger Prints.
 smaller prints would have more impact.

I receive a good deal of positive comment from a number of photographers, and I think a lot of this is down to the lengthy processing times, techniques and printing style. So

c) Reduce the processing time (HDR stuff can take hours and doesn't work too well unless calm!) or enable even more to be pushed and pulled from a file.

If anyone sells images and moved from 35mm to MF, has the increase in quality been matched by an increase in sales such to justify the move, an by sale I mean revenue. Selling one massive print is the equal to loads of little ones! Or does the saving in processing time help.

If it is, any advice on what system - I always though Hasselblad would be the way to go, but with all the rumblings am not so sure. Would I be better and wait and see what we get from  the D3 or if a D3 "extra pix" camera emerges.

Many Thanks in advance - I do have a few pictures of various subjects at a website that should be in my profile.

[Graham Mitchell]

There's no website in your profile (as I type this).

You wrote "I am hungry to capture my view of the world to the best possible quality"

The comes down to a combination of factors - usability and technical quality. It sounds as though you are a landscape photographer and that means any camera is easily usable, because landsacpes don't tend to jump around

As for technical quality, the "best possible quality" will be from a scanning back such as Betterlight or for much faster scans, a Seitz. I'd probably go for the Seitz as it can create a 160 million pixel digital pano in one second. See http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/...8/d925/f934.cfm

One shot cameras can't compare with this quality, but of course they have their place for people, fashion, portraits, sports, photojournalism, wedding, etc, with moving subjects.

[bradleygibson]

Hi, Steven,

I was in a similar position earlier this year, and took the plunge into digital medium format.

As I'm sure you've guessed, there's good and there's bad.

First the good:
* At least with the MF back I purchased, the resolution is positively astounding.  I love to print very large, and I'm now printing sizes that I've dreamt about for more than a decade (For example, this weekend I am working on framing a piece that is printed at 48" x 144".  It's a 4-image stitch at 150Mpxls.)

* Beyond resolving power, there is a 'clarity' to the images that my Hassy 500C/M, Zeiss CF lenses and P45 are delivering that just wasn't present in my small format 1-series kit, even with my 300/2.8 IS, which is one of the most magnificent optics I've had the pleasure of using.  I saw the very same performance from Hassy's CF39 back as well when I evaluated it.

In short, with the right glass, the image quality of MFDB's is all that and a bag of chips.  I think if you do your research to hunt down the back that best meets your needs, I am certain you'll be getting the image quality you are looking for.

Now for the bad news:  

That image quality doesn't come for free--and I'm not just referring to the exorbitant pricing of the digital backs--just about *everything* else suffers as well (keep in mind I'm on a Hassy 500C/M at least until I can see how the Hy6 shapes up in the real world).

Handling is poorer, everything is optimized for studio or fair-weather shooting (I shoot nature photography, and inclement weather is often a superb time to go out shooting), performance is slower, AF is slow or non-existent, the body is bigger, heavier and boxier and battery life is poorer.

So if I haven't scared you away yet, then medium format might be for you!  

Knowing what I know now, would I do it again?  The answer is 'yes', I would, in a heartbeat.  Despite the limitations of the format, I'm getting exactly the results I was going for.  If small format could deliver comparable results to medium format, then I might be tempted to go back, but it doesn't.  Even the 1DsMkIII doesn't come close to the image quality that medium format is delivering.  I'm not even sure it is fair to compare the 'convenience' of small format to that of medium format, since the small format system isn't delivering the same quality.  It's a bit like comparing a point-and-shoot to a 35mm SLR for convenience--why bother, since you can't get the same results with a point-and-shoot?

Further, the MF world is a bit of a mess, to put it politely.  I can't be all that sure that whichever horse I picked in this race would be around in a few years.  Would there be anyone left standing in a few years?  I wasn't sure (and still am not), but I wasn't going to get big, sharp prints by standing on the sidelines.
   
Here is what I found during my research.  Keep in mind that I considered this move for four years, and spent 6 months researching it.  I hope I won't offend anyone's sensibilities, but in the end these are the conclusions I reached.

Backs:

I made this expensive change to get the highest resolution possible, so I only considered the highest resolution backs available.  I ruled out scanning backs because they weren't instant and most require tethering.

The current crop of 33Mpxl backs have a resolution disadvantage of about 5.6% to the 39-megapixel backs.  That's not enough of a drop to be a deal-breaker, but given the magnitude of this investment, all else being equal, I was definitely interested in that extra 6%.  The 33-megapixel backs started off a half-step behind in my mind for this reason.

Leaf Aptus 75 - 33Mpxl:
  * pros: gorgeous large 6x7cm screen
             highest frame rate available (~1fps--not great compared to small format)
  * cons: I observed pretty significantly higher noise relative to Phase and Hassy at ISO 100+
             Lingering centerfold issues, even after some have claimed them to be resolved.

Sinar eVolution 75 - 33pxl:
  * pros: Thierry's support.  He is an incredible asset to Sinar.
             Multishot version available.
             Swappable mounts (user swappable).
  * cons: Couldn't get local support.  I was unable to get even a raw file from this back to evaluate from Thierry, Sinar, my "local" Sinar rep (in San Francisco) or the US distributor.  No local dealers had seen or used these backs.  I'd expect this if I was based out of the Himalayas or something, but not in Seattle.
             Multishot units have no screen.  A deal-breaker.
             Multishot units must be tethered.  More weight in the field.  *highly* undesirable.

Hasselblad CF39/CF39-MS:
   * pros: Excellent support from local rep - Victor Naranjan
              Stupendous clarity and  resolution from multishot back.
              Multishot back has a screen
              Incredible discounts available
              Only vendor with a modern, complete, digital MF package availabe now.
   * cons: H-series use Fuji glass, whose rendering I am not a fan of (find they can be somewhat harsh and unflattering).
              H1/H2/H3 systems are 645--no possibility to go larger (6x6) in the future on these systems
              Have frequently 'broken' the system, moving from V to H, and again from H2 to H3.
              With the H3 and beyond cameras Hassy has become very aggressive with respect to ineroperability
              Multishot requires tethering.

Phase P45+:
   * pros: Superb image quality, second only to CF39MS, IMO
              Best long-exposure and high-ISO performance (still not all that good compared to SF, though)
              Available for most every camera mount.
   * cons: Mount change requires trip back to factory

In the end, Hassy's tactics actively preventing H2 users from using the HCD 28mm lenses, and the 'closed-ness' of the H3D didn't sit well with me.  Even using the back on a view camera required me to be tethered for power or purchase a $2000 hard disk with batteries left me with the distinct impression that they weren't interested in designing the best possible solutions for me.  I may still end up there, but for now, Hassy is a distant 2nd place for me.

Starting with the front of the camera, I knew that I was most interested in Schneider, Rodenstock or Zeiss glass.  And I wanted a modern system.  That quickly whittled me down to the out-of-production Hassy V system, the relatively modern (for MF) Contax, or the forthcoming Hy6.

A friend gave me his Hasselblad 500C/M system on extended loan, and this allowed me to go with the Hassy V for now.  The optics are superb.  The handling is not.    But I'll stay with this for a year until I can get a chance to evaluate the Hy6 and which backs will function fully with it.  Time will tell.

Until then, I'm very happy with the results I'm getting on the Hassy V system.  I did shoot a reception using my small format gear, but aside from that, haven't used the small format gear since June.

Hope that helps at least a bit.  Feel free to contact me offline if you wish as well--I'm happy to help out however I can.

Best regards,
Brad

 
Also, FYI, your homepage isn't listed in your profile.

[Steven Draper]

Graham

Many thanks, that is one very intersting camera - I certainly would have a use for the wide panoramas. I'll keep that in mind - I guess the cost of the camera and equipment is relative to the return from successful prints, not that photography is really a money driven desire, but I would certainly need to justify it too the bank manager! I'm not awhere of anyone else in my locality using such equipment and most of the "postcard" scenes have been photographed to death in 35mm format.

I've added my web link, though after looking at your site, perhaps I shouldn't!

Steven

[AndrewDyer]

Hi Steven.
Do I assume correctly from your first post that in point "C" you have used HDR techniques before and like them, but realise the difficulties in certain situations?
Also do you hope that a Medium format Digital back will give you a (close to) HDR file?

While the dynamic range is greater than 35mm DSLRs, it is not possible to achieve in 1 shot from a MFDB what your SLR can capture in 3 or 4 shots, and then tone mapped in a good HDR generating program.
A MFDB image can still blow out the sky if you are trying to expose for shadows.
That said, the quality is fantastic.

You may already know that, but I would certainly reccomend getting your hands on some files taken with MFDBs and seeing what you can extract from them.

All the best.

Andrew

[Steven Draper]

Many thanks for the replies; Graham, the Hy6 looks very interesting too, probably a more flexible solution than the Seitz. A reasonable set up for external use with a couple of lens options, tablet pc and accessories looks about $50k plus tax if applicable.

I'm not actually after the computer generated HDR effect that can be achieved by tone mapping across a huge DR, although every technique does have its occasional use and some of the images do have an appeal.

What I am after is to capture the best "set of data" from any exposure across a range of subjects to give me the best opportunity to produce the image / impression that I desire using the various processing techniques with various software.

This essentially what I have been trying to do with my photographic journey with a D2x. And yes the quality I have been getting has pleased me, I've created some lovely looking prints but I look into images of say fall colours and when I zoom in I see blobs rather than leaves. (RRS ball head on Gitzo tripod, using quality glass, sweet spot aperture, Mirror Lock Up etc) I'm also getting much more excited by tone, texture and Black and White.

Often stitching or multi image does not work with delicate outdoor subjects like grasses. So while I accept the MF still has an "operating envelope" with certain limits, those limits may be more suitable in a number of areas that I enjoy to photograph. Its like getting that from 90% to 97 or 98% satisfaction a greater amount of time.

However I am at a bit of a primary-career and photographic cross roads. I am not a commercial or 'professional' shooter, in fact I have never had any kind of photographic tuition in my life and I do not like trying to force or contrive images for the purpose of generating potential image sales. I like to record my view of the world. But without having any kind of real business model currently in place I am starting to sell my prints.

But an investment in the equipment could not made without the understanding that I would need to make images that do sell, and at the bigger price range, not just an increase of $20 5x7's! Where as a photographic eye is always critical, along with a good business model, I am keen to know if moving from 35mm to MF has generated an increase in turnover to justify the increase in capital costs.

Many Thanks

[Geoffrey]

Kudos to both Graham and Bradley for some excellent replies. A couple of thoughts:

Bradley - which back did you end up with?

I've been on this fence for a while, and ended up with the M8 as a way to forestall the investment. Still not sure if going to get a back for the 6008 (to go with the pile of glass) or wait for the Hy6 and get a back for it.

But overall, the compositional aspects of the MF gear just make it that much better - the work seems to have a greater seriousness in composition, and in alignment - somewhat in between LF and 35 mm, as it always has.

The smart economical way is to try MF with film and scanning.... but its none too fun if one is used to digital work flow. Scanning takes time, as does getting the film processed, much less processed well (harder these days).

But you can get into MF with little $ (500-1000) for a setup and see what you think. My own take on it is that looking into a waist level finder is optimal - the sense of composition is not met with smaller cameras. Its not as precise as LF, and really composing on a 4x5, but its pretty good - you can really see and think about whats in and not, in a way that the smaller, more portable cameras just don't promote. You lose the quick snap, the "decisive moment", but you eek out meanings and relationships that otherwise are a bit obscured in the rapid fire environment. At least, this is one man's take.  

Geoff

[jing q]

if you are shooting landscapes you should go with large format film. The image quality still blows a 39 megapixel back out of the water esp if you're printing large.
No point wasting $50k on such things, just get your film scanned each time.

[bradleygibson]

Bradley - which back did you end up with?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145852\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I purchased a Phase P45+ with a mount swap (value added package).  My goal is to mount swap it onto a Hy6, assuming the Hy6 lives up to expectations.

But you can get into MF with little $ (500-1000) for a setup and see what you think. My own take on it is that looking into a waist level finder is optimal - the sense of composition is not met with smaller cameras.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145852\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I couldn't agree with you more on this.  Giving it a try with film is a good way to get your feet wet without the expense of a digital back.  There are great used MF cameras available for very little money.  Also, if you can, do be sure to try out the waist level finder--my small format photographer friends literally gasp as they try it for the first time--it's just an incredible experience being able to use both your eyes while composing!

[H1/A75 Guy]

I do not like trying to force or contrive images for the purpose of generating potential image sales. I like to record my view of the world. I am starting to sell my prints.

But an investment in the equipment could not made without the understanding that I would need to make images that do sell, and at the bigger price range, not just an increase of $20 5x7's! Where as a photographic eye is always critical, along with a good business model, I am keen to know if moving from 35mm to MF has generated an increase in turnover to justify the increase in capital costs.

Many Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you have answered your own question. Buying a MF system would put you in a postion of generating contrived prints which has not been (up until now) your goal. There is no guarantee that MF will generate more than $20 11x14s. The wind still blows and leaves look like blobs in SLR or MF. I would buy the MF system when you can steer your way in financially and continue enjoying photography as you currently are. I think you will get into DMF because that is where your heart is, and that is not going to change. Perhaps a resale AFDII and Phase back (or that great friend who can loan you a system).

David

[Graham Mitchell]

But you can get into MF with little $ (500-1000) for a setup and see what you think.

I don't fully agree with this. The entire package is important, including the usability of the back and the whole digital workflow. The camera is only part of the equation.

Find (or make) a friend with an MFDB and see if you can spend a day with him/her and the camera.

[marcwilson]

if you are shooting just landscapes, or in fact any similar paced images for print sales, and do not need to shoot for stock etc at the same time I really can not see any reason to shoot digitally other than wanting to spend huge amounts of money!

Of course the digital workflow is quicker, etc then the film / processing / printing or scanning retouching printing workflow but to the price to be paid for quality equal to that of 66/67 or larger format film for large size print can not really be justified...you are looking at having to get the most expensive digital backs to get close to / equal film quality equalling 30 inch square or above prints so you really need to look very carefully as to wether the cost justifes the easier workflow.

But even if the cost was not an issue you need to be completely sure that you are certain that the image quality from the best digital back is equal in YOUR eyes to what you get from yoru chosen format of film (wether mf or lf) , as in the fine art print world it is equally about your perception of the quality of your work as that of your clients...you need to be able to back up and stand by your images. (That is why I never sell any images I have happened to have shot on my 5d at larger than 16x12 inches...not because of the buyers perceptions of the image quality but because of mine...and why I always try to have my mf film camera with me also..but yes that is a pain!)

...but of course if more commerially minded jobs  / stock etc come into the equation then it can be looked at differently.

[Graham Mitchell]

I agree that the upgrade might not make sense financially. The original poster should do his sums and work out how many frames per year he intends to shoot over 5 years, for example, and how much that would cost in 5x4 film, processing, trips to the lab, and high-end scans.

For example, $30 x 1000 shots over 5 years is still a lot of money, and 200 images a year is not a high output.

There is also the matter of how much time a digital solution can save, and the advantages of a digital workflow, and what that is worth to the original poster.

Finally there is the resale value of digital equipment at the end of 5 years. The film solution leaves you with nothing.

It is no accident that digital has killed off film.

[marcwilson]

I agree that the upgrade might not make sense financially. The original poster should do his sums and work out how many frames per year he intends to shoot over 5 years, for example, and how much that would cost in 5x4 film, processing, trips to the lab, and high-end scans.

For example, $30 x 1000 shots over 5 years is still a lot of money, and 200 images a year is not a high output.

There is also the matter of how much time a digital solution can save, and the advantages of a digital workflow, and what that is worth to the original poster.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=145983\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

agreed on paper but surely nothing can be more important, specifically in the slow processed landscape world, than the final image quality..but yes if the poster feels a digitaly captured image will give him as good final large scale print quality as his choice of film option then yes, certainly, the digital route is a wonder in terms of workflow, etc. although landsacpe photography and print sales do not really need a quick after capture workflow.

(that said when i find a digital capture that a, is in my visual opinion equal to my choice of film capture and b, I can afford it and its financially sensible / worthwhile then I'll jump at the digital route!...it'll save me carrying two cameras if nothing else....)

..but we need to be sure before spending all that money...a digital back adds up to a lot of landscape shooting film, processing and drum scans!

[Steven Draper]

Many thanks for your interesting thoughts, comments and observations.

As a result I will be collecting a 4x5 camera from a photographic artist friend who used it during their degree and early part of their artistic career Wed / Thur.    I'm not sure on the make, model, lens, details or any other info yet but as this is all coming free I am hoping that it will provide a taster of MF for limited outlay. Getting Film and Scanning in rural Canada may prove a challenge but thats what life is for and of course this may influence me over the D3 possible mega pixel or a MF solution. I may even decide I like film and just hunt around the used stores and send my "users" in to be drum scanned.

Now a major question. I am fairly happy with the operation of digital 35mm, but my film use goes way back to kodachrome64 days as a teenager and I have never used a MF camera of any discription. Obviously I'll try and work things out for myself, I know this one is all manual, heavy and slow to use, but which forum is best to ask here, this one suggests Digital MF....

One Again Many Thanks
Steven

[Kumar]

If you're going to shoot 4x5 film, there's no better place than
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/index.php
Great help from great people!

Cheers,
Kumar

[nicolaasdb]

don't buy a mfdb...because once you do...you don't want to use your nikon anymore!
Last week I used both my canon ds1 markII and my leaf 65 first 3 looks with canon and the last 4 with leaf....and the difference is HUGE!!...BUT if you never have used medium format..you will be more than happy with your 35mm Dslr. because I stil love my canon files.

[Steven Draper]

Thanks Kumar, the site will probably be a great help.

Thanks for the warning nicolaasdb, very neat web site and imaging!!! I realise that in some respect I am perhaps taking a big risk by even thinking about MF. My D2x files are very pleasing too, and everyone who see's the prints I make likes them. As someone who doesn't earn a living from making images I am very fortunate to have such a capable camera.

But I think cameras are in some way tools or instruments designed for a role, like cars! Yes a modern dSLR is a bit of the Sports Utility, but I see MF as a more specialist areana for certain shots, styles etc. How its exploration developes my style only time will tell, but thats th fun of it all.

There are many things I use my dSLR for that I cannot see a MF camera doing, time lapse, low light, social events. So it will have a place, and hopefully the new D3, but I have so many questions I need to explore, adventures to have.

[margelatu]

Steven,
Advantages of digital Nikon/ Canon over MF backs are not that many but really important ones:
-easy to carry, I lugged around a Mamiya with a film back and 3 lenses on a trip to Europe and it is heavy, I mean really heavy. 120 film ends fast and by the time you change it...
Scanning the films? That is a majestic waste of time...
Results? Truely amazing but you do pay the price... Mamiya fast lenses: they do not exist.
-low noise in high ISO, fast lenses etc.

I bought a Mamiya AFD with 3 lenses and planning to buy a ZD back once they start showing up. Many places show them "in stock" but that is a big fat lie. Adorama, BH, only got a few shipments but nothing major yet.

Reviews? There are a couple around but not too many. There are some sample photos around but again not too many. Try a system with film and see if you like it. Then try a digital back (if you find a vendor/dealer that allows you to do it).
Mamiya does not move very fast in the US market so I guess that is a major problem. The ZD body has been out for a long time, the ZD back is out since beginning this year but the stores do not have it.

[Doug Peterson]

If you're looking to lower your initial investment in order to more easily make a return on your investment you should consider a used digital back. If you buy through a dealer you can get a back with a known history and will have someone to support you if you run into problems. Often a used back will still have months or years left on its warranty.

We, and other dealers, have a constantly changing inventory of used backs (often more/different than what is listed on our website at any given time).

If/when you move up to MFD, make sure you update us on whether your sales were impacted.

Doug Peterson
CaptureIntegration.com
740.707.2183