medium format backs0

[Brian R]

[font color=\'#000000\']I have read your post seversl times and am not sure what to tell you. I finde I have to shoot both digital and film, it all depends on what the aplication is. In studio I shoot Digital (Highend Leaf Volare 3 pass system), but on location I shoot film (3 pass is hard to use on location and the Volare is a little bulky). Shooting fashion I prefer film, it renders nicer skin tones (with less photoahop time). I won't go on from here I think you have the idea. Tell us about the work you produce and under what conditions, and I think we'll be able to offer some suggestions

Brian[/font]

[sergio]

[font color=\'#000000\']I have the same doubt as Ziya.
I work professionally as a fashion photographer for press output most of the time. The vast majority of my work is published in magazines which at the biggest is tabloid @ 304 dpi. I use Mamiya RZs and 4x5. For the output conditions I wonder if I could replace my 6x7 system with either the Kodad 14n or  Canon 1Ds, still getting at least similar results. Film format conditions image quality, but other variables in post production too(assuming the pictures are well taken). Is it really worth the difference (if there is)? DSLRs offer great advantages in workflow (creating new problems too). Any thoughts out there?

Sergio

www.bartelsman.com[/font]

[Brian R]

[font color=\'#000000\']I agree with Erik, but have a cheeper method of testing the waters. Rent a system a few times, or better yet, rent several systems. Also you can call some industry reps and get a free demo. Don't buy the first system you think you like. Try as many as you can get your hands on.
   I can tell you this, your going to like the digital backs over the the SLR type. The resolution is worlds better and more conducive to professional applications. If your biggest concern is portability, than you still have plenty of options. But your talking about an outlay of at least $10,000-$25,000. So again I say rent. I have known photographers who have rented systems by the job, and have done this for years. After you have done this for a while, and get comfortable with a system, than take the plunge.
  One last thing. keep your film equipment if you can, I still shoot some film and I've been Digital for 5 years.

Brian[/font]

[ziya tacir]

[font color=\'#000000\']I am a serious amateur photographer and have started to use studio strobes for professional still life works mostly for textile and table cloth production.However,my main photographic interest is mostly landscapes ans buildings and cities.
I use Mamiya 7ii and all lenses the system offers for my studio work and for most of the landscape pictures and I also have an Eos-1v and L-series lenses and I use mostly 70-200 telezoom .
What I am considering is replacing my Eos-1v with Eos-1 ds and leaving 35mm film completely and use my 1 ds for most of my studio work and keep my Mamiya system completely for some more time.However,eventhough I have been reading comparisons among  35mm film,645 film and eos-1 ds,I would like to learn how a Kodak 16mp 645 medium format back which has also 24x36mm sensor compares with others.
As a result,
question #1.should I leave my 35mm system for eos-1 ds now or wait for higher mp cameras next year?
q#2.or should I leave my current 35mm and 6x7 Mamiya7 system for eos-1 ds or 645 medium format with a 16 mp digital back or wait for higher mp cameras a couple of more years,something like a Mamiya7 with a 6x7 sensor with 40 mp(a dream)?
thank you and best regards.
ziya tacir[/font]

[Brian R]

[font color=\'#000000\']Sorry, I just realized that you did tell us what you shoot ( Brain F*rt). When I shoot landscape it's film all the way, I get a better quality from film. By that I mean the image is less harsh and shadows are less muddy. Architecture however I shoot both. A good single pass camera 18 to 22 MP will render great detail. Colors may need to be tweeked a bit but that's no big deal. What is your end result? Posters, Web? are you shooting for clients?

Brian

I also can't spell worth a darn.[/font]

[Erik M]

[font color=\'#000000\']I think what's causing most of the angst is the false 'either or' reasoning. I assume all the equipment the previous posters possess they already own and is doing the job it was purchased for, more or less. The questions is will new digital equipment 'do the job' in a more efficient and pleasant manner? Or will it not? The unspoken fear seems to be what if I perform a wholesale change in equipment and find out I don't like digital?

Well, I think the most rational way to approach this is simply to slowly add digital to your mix. Buy that DSLR or digital back. Shoot it along side your conventional equipment for a month or two. If you love digital then you can sell your old equipment and invest more in your digital system, confident you've made the right decision. If you don't like your new digital equipment, you can sell it for a small loss (I'm assuming an evaluation time of a month or two), and you still have your old equipment to fall back on.

Really all you'll be doing is risking a few thousand dollars in depreciation if it turns out you don't like digital. Only you can decide if you want to take that risk or not. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking that you must buy digital *and* sell all your old equipment at the same time. Think of your first pro digital purchase as a test. It won't be a cost free test. But I think my suggestion contains far less risk than performing a wholesale change in equipment all at once.[/font]