Roman this is an interesting dilemma and one that I have also pondered for quite some time though I don't have a situation where budget is no object. Even if I did I am not so sure at this point I would choose any of these options. Don't get me wrong in their own way they look like capable and effective systems for some things. Landscape photography as you know has its own unique requirements and set of problems to grapple with and while there are many practitioners out there using some very high end digital capture systems from the Betterlight scan backs to the H39 or Sinar Brons I have come to the conclusion none of them really fit the bill as well as, and dare I say it, view camera and film be it 6x9, 4x5 or even larger.
Well, in the mix I want the ability to hike back and the kit needs to be more compact. I have a potential client that will be wanting VERY large (60" wide prints) and we are starting to hammer out a deal as they will need them from every area they service across the US. Architectural and Landscape shots will be needed. My D300 and super wide can handle the Architectural side as this is more for advertisements, (will probably end up getting the new 14-24 lens though for its corner performance, and maybe even the D3) but the landscape work will need big prints and I want to hike back to more remote locations and get them more original work. So a self contained lighter system will need to be my focus. I don’t want to lug around a laptop to attach to the system.
Allow me to elaborate. Hopefully others who have adopted a high end digital capture workflow will challenge my thoughts and perhaps prove me wrong. First lets consider the cost, most of the high end systems you mention can run a price tag of 30 to 40 grand or more especially with the cost of some of these wide angle lenses and cameras, you don't have to be Ben Bernanke to figure out one can buy a ton of film and processing for that investment, especially 120/220 roll film. And I would still be willing to bet a properly scanned 6x7 or 6x9 image will outperform the vast majority of the MF DB systems, the eMotion 75 with its macro scanning capabilities might be the exception. Film will loose out in dynamic range for sure but when it comes to realistic detail I am not convinced of most of the MF DB's. Color is too subjective and manipulative to bring into the argument and can be changed all too easy in PS anyway. One can shoot brackets with film, scan and HDR merge those scans for a higher dynamic range too.
Well, the contract will offset the cost quite handsomely. And this is my opportunity to get into a well thought out medium format system. I have been quite pleased viewing Elizabeth Carmel's success with the Hassy system, and yes I do understand its limits with diffraction.
But at the end of the day one of the biggest impediments I see is the issue of proper DOF, and nothing works with this better than a view camera and film. Yes there are systems which have TS lenses but you also have to take into account diffraction limits which are reached at F11-F16 if not sooner in the vast majority of cases, and expensive digital lenses not optimized to go beyond these apertures and the whole package starts unraveling pretty quick. With the Nikon D2x I can see a noticeable difference between F8 and F11 and no amount of stitching is going to make those F11 captures regain that softened detail. In the old days of large format film based capture, shooting at F16 was almost the equivalent of shooting wide open even with medium format. Put simply there is no digital capture system I am aware of that allows you stop down to say F45 or F32 with ample movements and still have an image worth looking at. And the larger the chip as in 39 mp backs the more exacerbated the situation becomes.
I work mostly wide to super wide, so it become less of a factor as hyperfocal distances become more manageable under these circumstances. I am guessing blending 2 shots at different focus points will also be an option. I owned a D2X, and currently own a D300 and fully feel the impact of diffraction. When I got my D2X, I went on a initial outing to Yosemite, and came back with work that would only present on the web as critical focus at f/16 to F/22 really ruined my efforts for any serious printing....I only had a few pieces at f/8- f/11. Lesson learned. :~)
My first digital camera investment was in the mid-late 90's it was the Phase One Photo Phase scan back, not as good as the Betterlights but thats another story. For a vast amount of my studio digital capture I used the Rodenstock APO-Sironar 105mm digital lens and I can tell you with no uncertainty by F16 things were not looking so good and the linear array chips on that camera had much larger pixel cells than all of the MF DB's produced now days.
I have to say that Hassy system the micro lenses are doing an impressive job of filling the bit bucket. I have played with a Hassy Locally (very limited play time in an outdoor location) and I have a friend that was using the 39MP back east and he has sent me a CD full of files to play with and I am quite impressed.
Bottom as of this moment is film is starting to look pretty good again.
I can understand what your saying. I have to say though that I am a dedicated digital shooter, the immediate feedback and 100% control from start to finished product appeals to me strongly. Film definitely has it's place....and I understand what you are saying....I just see digitals benefits (at least for me) outweighing the film aspect.
Hope this helps.
Rob
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=178220\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It has helped my thought processes quite a bit....and thank you kindly for your well thought out reply.
Roman
