Flatbed Scanner vs. Drum Scanner vs. Digital Back

[tikal]

I will be mostly shooting fine art and fashion. Most shoots will be long and slow, and I will have enough time to scan images later. The end product is 1 to 2 images per shoot. I will be shooting black and white and colour with a Hy6, low light is not a big concern. I enjoy the square crop but I could give it up if a digital back had more benefit. With that little bit of info what would you suggest? Max budget say 4000$us

Nikon Coolscan 9000 at its crazy price.
Some kind of Howtek drum scanner / Imacon non drum? (don't know manufacturers)
A digital back in the price range is like an eMotion 54 or Leaf Aptus-5

Any input is greatly appreciated!

[marcman]

Are you making prints? If so, how big? For 4k you can definitely get a digital back. The only square backs I know of are Phase One H20 and P20/P20+, which are 16MP... Maybe Sinar has one as well? The P backs can shoot untethered, so outdoor location shooting is a bit less of a hassle then with H backs. Hope this helps.

[Graham Mitchell]

The cheapest back which could fit the Hy6 is probably a Sinar eMotion54. There might be some older Leaf backs which also work but I know less about them. You will be lucky to find it for that budget, even used. The Sinar backs use an adapter system so you will need the back and a Hy6 adapter. Phase and Hasselblad don't make anything in that mount, unfortunately.

[tikal]

Sounds like I'm better off waiting. Its for large print larger than 11x17.

P.s. there are no square *digital backs available for my body.

[DanielStone]

where are you located?

If you're not planning on this being a LONG TERM project(like 100+ shots total), then I'd find a reputable scanning house(plenty in NYC, Lenny Eiger here in CA, many others around the world, use google)

if you don't know how to scan, and want to focus on making pictures, I'd recommend just outsourcing scans, unless you want to do them yourself.

-Dan

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I may suggest considering a pro/semipro DSLR like the Canon 5DII. Tests by Michael Reichmann and also me indicate that a modern full frame DSLR can match the resolution of 6x7 film. A major advantage with digital is that is there is some immediate feedback. With film you have a development scan cycle.

Michael Reichmann, Joseph Holmes and Charlie Cramer found that a 39 MP back corresponds to 4x5" Velvia, drum scanned, so it is reasonable to assume that 6x7 Velvia would correspond to full frame film.

This page contains a lot of links discussing Film vs. Digital experience:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/25-dslr-vs-mfdb-vs-film

Anyway, a Canon 5DII would fit your budget nicely and for the remaining money would reach for a couple of decent lenses. Live view seems the best way of achieving exact focus, BTW.

Getting a pre owned back may be a good idea, but the market doesn't seem to be flush with backs, and it is well possible that it would need calibration and cleaning.

BTW, I shoot Sony, not Canon. That works, too. The Nikon D3X is arguably the best of the full frame cameras, but it seems outside your budget.

Best regards
Erik

I will be mostly shooting fine art and fashion. Most shoots will be long and slow, and I will have enough time to scan images later. The end product is 1 to 2 images per shoot. I will be shooting black and white and colour with a Hy6, low light is not a big concern. I enjoy the square crop but I could give it up if a digital back had more benefit. With that little bit of info what would you suggest? Max budget say 4000$us

Nikon Coolscan 9000 at its crazy price.
Some kind of Howtek drum scanner / Imacon non drum? (don't know manufacturers)
A digital back in the price range is like an eMotion 54 or Leaf Aptus-5

Any input is greatly appreciated!

[tikal]

Hi,

I do appreciate your suggestions. I have read a lot on this subject. Especially because I've been shooting with a D2X for the past 5 years. I have chosen Medium Format for many different reasons. I already own the Hy6 body film back etc. My reasons: (although maybe not the most justified. I know that there are always 35mm solutions.)

Option to shoot film or digital at one shoot with one camera
Option of shooting film only on shoots because I shoot differently in these situations. This is merely me. I know that my shooting method with film is completely acheivable with a 35mm digital camera but I can't seem to break the fact that I can see the results on the back of the camera therefore my thought process always stops to see an image and move on from there. Instead of visulising the final image and then shooting. This seems like a small thing to some but I know that my shoots are COMPLETELY different when shooting film only vs. film and digital. Again no need to start a debate here I personally think that right now a Nikon D3x would be much better for almost anything compared to Medium Format setups right now.
My last reason is because I think that Medium Format is slowly becoming obsolete and even though VCR's do exist out there you can't go and buy one or get one repaired that easily. I think the main reason is because our clients just don't see image quality enough for us to justify the cost. There is no one to blame here but I can tell you that although my clients may like a Medium Format shot and not know why, when they accept the final images it's not a big factor. This is also because the majority of my clients do NOT print large. I'm trying to get into that market now.
I think my knowledge of photography has expanded enough to justify the use of a system like this. I have a lot of innovative uses planned for it and will post links when I get this rig toghether.

[Gigi]

Perhaps you are overlooking one of the main assets of a digital back: the ability to take risky shots free of charge.

This is an obvious point, but often overlooked. As film costs get higher (and with processing) the ability to think freely and without limitation is a bit constrained. While I'm a lover of film for many reasons, the MFDB ability to take a quality camera and back, and shoot contemplatively (MF after all!) in a way that gives both top quality but also may be outside of one's comfort zone. If you don't like it, it costs you nothing. If you do, you have a top tier result.

Whether we use it this way is up to us, but its pretty neat. Its a portable "4x5 equivalent" to take out and see what's there.... 

[tikal]

I completely agree, thats why my first reason was to be able to shoot both digital and film. I completely agree that sometimes the best shots are from an accident or just taking some quick shots. but i think i'd get a d3x if that were my main concern.

[EricWHiss]

Prob over your budget but I've seen AFi-5 digital backs on ebay for about $5k and I think there are AFi-7's out there for a bit more.  I've also seen emotion 75's for a bit more.  I think film has a quality that is still hard to reproduce and its nice to have the option.  I think there are a lot more options for the 6008AF bodies in terms of inexpensive digital backs than for the Hy6/AFi bodies right now. 

[coles]

"my last reason is because I think that Medium Format is slowly becoming obsolete and even though VCR's do exist out there you can't go and buy one or get one repaired that easily. I think the main reason is because our clients just don't see image quality enough for us to justify the cost."

MF could probably be described as "already obsolete" for most commercial photographers. However, it still seems to be in strong demand with amateurs and those doing "art" photography. The prices of used Hasselblad have even seemed to gone up recently.

Anyway, my real point is that there is one other option, which is a Nikon 8000. Yes, they are slower than the 9000, but less than 1/2 the cost right now. Their prices do seem have started rising, though. Since the title of your post mentions flatbeds, I'd say that the Epsons (if you're considering one), tend not only to be less sharp than the 8000, but also have some other glaring weaknesses, including poor color interpretation and tendency to blow out highlights.