Medium format options for 40" x 40" prints

[ondebanks]

That will be quite the lens lineup when they're done. Such long telephotos will be very unique in the medium format world. My main disappointment with the 55mm lens is that it feels a little plasticky. Are the other Pentax lenses like that?

I'm just curious, how come the Hasselblad and Phase One systems cost so much more than the Pentax 645D? I'm not seeing any advantages in their systems right now, am I overlooking something?

You're overlooking profit margins, and a certain degree of flexibility that a detachable back delivers.

Hasselblad in fairness have cut their prices somewhat.

Ray

[ondebanks]

Am I nuts? I thought the Pentax could not handle exposures that long. I haven't seen anything past 60 seconds without it getting quite noisy. Can you link to any tests showing longer exposure capability?

There are several multi-minute examples posted in the Astrophotography and MFD thread, which has been active in the past few weeks.

In the sensors & backs spreadsheet I have compiled, I have "> 20 min" for the P645D. Can't remember off the top of my head what the source was for that figure.

Actually your remark had the reverse effect of surprising me: can you link to any tests past 60 seconds where it's "getting quite noisy"?

Of course, there is a difference between "exposure is long and acceptable" and "camera goes long but results are unacceptable". One of the biggest issues is that firmware in the vast majority of MF backs/cameras doesn't even permit the "camera goes long" part, whatever about how acceptable the results might be - we'll never know because the manufacturers won't let us go there.

Ray

[pjtn]

I think I misunderstood ondebanks reply earlier. Are the Hasselblads completely incapable of going over 32 seconds exposure even without a remote release?

That would completely rule out Hasselblad for me leaving only Pentax and Phase One. Given that I can't find any second hand Phase One backs in my price range my decision is made for me.

[KevinA]

I want to start producing 40" x 40" square prints of my work and feel that MFD is the way to go. Currently I'm demoing a Pentax 645D but I'm wonder about other options available.

The Mamiya DM22 is available in my country for only $6,900, but will it produce files good enough for 40" square prints?

Then there's the camera to mount it onto. I love cameras like the Hasselblad 500 C/M and Contax 645, are there issues mounting digital backs to older cameras such as these? Otherwise I've found the Mamiya 645 AFD on eBay second hand for around $1500, are these bodies any good?

I've been shooting with a Canon 5D MKII so I'm new to the MFD field.

Coming from a different angle, remember the Kodak SLR/n? It came without an AA filter and a funny exposure matrix which could give you 6 iso and long exposure (2 min I think) and clean images. You could pick one up for little money.
Not sure about 40 x 40 though, anything will go to any size it depends on what you expect to see.
As others have said film is a real option, Ilford (http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/producttype.asp?n=3&t=Black+%26+White+Films) will be making B&W films for years to come Pan F or FP4 would be a good choice. If you are happy with one lens something like this would go beyond 40 x 40 http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/
Quite a learning curve finding your exposure development technique (It can be fun), plus I always think when digital runs out of resolution or DR it does it in a big jump, film just tails off more gently. Scanning B&W I find more difficult than scanning colour neg.
Or you could of course go all the way and make wet prints, now that really would be a heavy emotional commitment if digital is all you know.

Kevin.

[amsp]

Just get a 6x6 film camera and be happy. B&W film can be enlarged to huge sizes and still look good, and grain just adds character. Or if you don't mind the extra effort and costs get a large format camera.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Film is a bit problematic.

I have made som very good prints from Velvia 50 using my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro CCD scanner. Unfortunately, neither my scanner nor the Nikon 9000 are made any longer. There is a new MF scanner from  Plustek.

I have spent some time testing 67 Velvia and Ektar 100 recently, and found that I get better results with my Sony Alpha 900 in almost all respects except resolution on high contrast detail.

That test also contains two professional drum scans at 6096 PPI kindly supplied by Dominique Ventzke.

All files from the test are available here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/PublishedTests/index.html , the drum scans are over 1.5 GByte each, so beware of large files.

The tests are here:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/59-sony-alpha-900-vs-67-analogue-round-2

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900


Best regards
Erik

Coming from a different angle, remember the Kodak SLR/n? It came without an AA filter and a funny exposure matrix which could give you 6 iso and long exposure (2 min I think) and clean images. You could pick one up for little money.
Not sure about 40 x 40 though, anything will go to any size it depends on what you expect to see.
As others have said film is a real option, Ilford (http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/producttype.asp?n=3&t=Black+%26+White+Films) will be making B&W films for years to come Pan F or FP4 would be a good choice. If you are happy with one lens something like this would go beyond 40 x 40 http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~razzle/
Quite a learning curve finding your exposure development technique (It can be fun), plus I always think when digital runs out of resolution or DR it does it in a big jump, film just tails off more gently. Scanning B&W I find more difficult than scanning colour neg.
Or you could of course go all the way and make wet prints, now that really would be a heavy emotional commitment if digital is all you know.

Kevin.

[amsp]

Hi,

Film is a bit problematic.

I have made som very good prints from Velvia 50 using my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro CCD scanner. Unfortunately, neither my scanner nor the Nikon 9000 are made any longer. There is a new MF scanner from  Plustek.

I have spent some time testing 67 Velvia and Ektar 100 recently, and found that I get better results with my Sony Alpha 900 in almost all respects except resolution on high contrast detail.

Best regards
Erik

Just like there's more to the MFD vs. DSLR debate than megapixels, there's more to film vs digital than just resolution. I know you love to look at everything in a very scientific manner, measuring, counting pixels, making graphs and so on, but there's a look & feel to film that is different than digital. If said look & feel is something one appreciates is a different matter all together, but there's no doubt it's there. There's also an emotional aspect to it, some feel it's a huge pain in the ass to work with film, while others love it and feel more connected to the whole process than with digital. Anyway, my point is it's more complex than just numbers.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes you are right. Some folks love film and some have problems with it. I belong the latter category.

If we go back to the original posting the OP wants to make large prints, like 40x40 and ask for advise on weather MFDB is the route to take or not. Add to that he wants to make long exposures, which are problematic with DALSA based backs. The question is why he needs long exposures, I don't know. Film has a reciprocity failure so for light collection it is not very good, but if he needs long exposure for artistic reasons film may be a good option.

On the other hand, my experience is really that my 24MP digital equipment beats my 67 MF analogue equipment. The OP wants to print large, and from what I can see from my tests I have doubts that MF will print better than digital.

My experience is that I can make 70x100 cm prints from 67 Velvia, but also that it is a lot of effort. In square format that is only 27.5". I have not made larger print for practical reasons. I see at least three issues with film.


- Handling and development. Fine if you develop your self.
- Scanning equipment is expensive, and hard to find
- Scanning film is in no way easy

The other issue is that all my tests with film has really been a hassle:

1) Waiting for development
2) Velvia (which was my favorite film in my film days) is very hard to scan because of it's D-MAX
3) I have problems getting colors right
4) Drum scans are needed for best quality and they are expensive

The tests I posted describe my experience with film, based on the equipment I have. Most of the files are downloadable so anyone can check out the files and make their own conclusions. There are also two very high resolution drum scans included. http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/PublishedTests/index.html

I was quite enthusiastic for MF film for a long time, and invested a lot in scanners and also a 6x7 projector, so I was seriously involved with MF analogue, but for me it lost out to digital.

Anyway, the original poster seems to test a Pentax 645D and seems happy, so the original question may have been solved. That is always a good thing.

Best regards
Erik

Just like there's more to the MFD vs. DSLR debate than megapixels, there's more to film vs digital than just resolution. I know you love to look at everything in a very scientific manner, measuring, counting pixels, making graphs and so on, but there's a look & feel to film that is different than digital. If said look & feel is something one appreciates is a different matter all together, but there's no doubt it's there. There's also an emotional aspect to it, some feel it's a huge pain in the ass to work with film, while others love it and feel more connected to the whole process than with digital. Anyway, my point is it's more complex than just numbers.

[pjtn]

I only just remembered someone on this forum suggested that I stack exposures to create the effect of one long exposure. Doing this has a number of advantages, there are more cameras available to me, the noise is minimal and I can judge my exposure more accurately.

The biggest disadvantage that I see is I can't work on the RAW file as easily in Lightroom. I will need to do some minor corrections and export as TIFF for Photoshop where I can create the final file. I like to keep the files in the RAW format as long as possible so not to degrade the image quality.

I've started taking a liking to the Hasselblad H3DII-31 and 50-110mm lens. There seems to be a few floating around second hand at reasonable prices. Next week I'll get a chance to look at some Hasselblads too.

Some of those film examples were very impressive and it sorely tempts me. The look is so much more pleasing than digital. I've seen some 30" x 30" prints from Stavros Pippos made from 6x6 Velvia and Provia that looked fantastic. I'm assuming B&W film would be even greater resolution?

For interest sake this is a quick test I did in my backyard with my 5D MKII set on ISO100. The shot on the left is a single 15 second exposure. On the right 14 exposures varying from 15-30 seconds where stacked in photoshop. The raw files had a little fill light added. In Photoshop I uprezed to 30x30" @ 240ppi and then sharpened. The difference is huge:

Full size image at: http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/3448/stackexposuretest.jpg

[ondebanks]

Stacking works of course, but bear in mind that all MFD long exposures will have lengthy gaps in between (while the equally long dark frame is taken internally and subtracted). So if your application cannot have such time gaps, you would be better off with MF film in a motor-winding camera (no dark frames! so long exposures are immediately consecutive, and can be scanned and stacked), or your 5DII (modern CMOS hardly requires dark frames in exposures under a minute or two).

Ray

[pjtn]

Hmmm, so at what point does a Hasselblad H3DII-31 need to start doing dark frames? Why is it when I finally think I have all this worked out another spanner gets thrown in the works...

[ondebanks]

Hmmm, so at what point does a Hasselblad H3DII-31 need to start doing dark frames? Why is it when I finally think I have all this worked out another spanner gets thrown in the works...

The H3DII and H4D manuals are silent on the matter, so hopefully a user will answer this.

Ray

[Sussex Landscapes]

your print sizes are getting bigger everytime a see a thread from you, 20x20 - 30x30 and now we are upto 40x40! you sem undecided in what size you want, and really need to iron that down first before knowing what camera you want
on your latest quest- http://www.photoacute.com/

simon

[pjtn]

Oh dear someone's keeping tabs on me

My original plan was to purchase an Epson 7890 and only print up to 20" x 20". I did however want to go larger than this but knew my 5D MKII wasn't really up to it so started looking into other cameras. I decided to head towards medium format and put the printer on hold for the time being. I figured this would allow me to print to 30" x 30" at my local lab. After demoing a Pentax 645D I realised then that it will happily print 40" x 40" sizes and have settled on that number.

I've tried to decide on size first each and every time but other things start to change and it throws my original plans right out. If I end up with a system that can only print to 30" x 30" though it won't be the end of the world. I can always introduce the larger size later when newer equipment allows.

Ultimately I've realised I want to try and keep below the $10,000 mark when setting this up. Everyone has been very helpful here in my erratic decision making process.

[mmurph]

It's late, a few quick comments.

1) You can add noise to digital and make it look remarkebly like film if you like.

2)  I switched to scanning film and all digital output in 1998.  My digital prints are 3 orders of magnitude better, and also that much easier, than traditional silver prints.

3)  With the Canon 1DsII at 16MP, I abandonded 6x7 film in favor of 18"x27" prints at 180 dpi.

4) Film can be a lot of money and scanning and archiving a lot of work, depending on volume.

5) Film and scans can be very ugly and very dirty.  Spotting, small scatches, etc. can take a lot of time in PS.

6) You will need a 9000 series printer to go larger than 24" on the shorter side.

7) I am hoping to print up to 27"x40" at 200 dpi (approx) with the Nikon 800E.  I prefer not to rez up. But if you added noise and rezzed up you could probably go higher. If you like the noise feel.

For anything larger than 24"x30", 6x7 was inadequate for me (with any scan that I could afford, with a $3,000 scanner,  other than a $100 per frame drum scan.)  Instead I used 4x5 for larger prints.

Just my biases and observations and personal decision making history. I shot all B&W film up to 1998 (20 years.)  I switched to color around then and scaned film with digital output . I switched to all digital input - a huge, huge improvement in workflow in my mind - in 2004, except for 4x5 film.

Good luck!
Michael

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Our photo club had a small exhibition and one the exhibitors said "print sizes go up for each year", that statement is certainly true.

Best regards
Erik

Oh dear someone's keeping tabs on me

My original plan was to purchase an Epson 7890 and only print up to 20" x 20". I did however want to go larger than this but knew my 5D MKII wasn't really up to it so started looking into other cameras. I decided to head towards medium format and put the printer on hold for the time being. I figured this would allow me to print to 30" x 30" at my local lab. After demoing a Pentax 645D I realised then that it will happily print 40" x 40" sizes and have settled on that number.

I've tried to decide on size first each and every time but other things start to change and it throws my original plans right out. If I end up with a system that can only print to 30" x 30" though it won't be the end of the world. I can always introduce the larger size later when newer equipment allows.

Ultimately I've realised I want to try and keep below the $10,000 mark when setting this up. Everyone has been very helpful here in my erratic decision making process.