Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Justan on January 08, 2009, 01:03:05 pm
-
The title says it all except Thanks
-
The title says it all except Thanks
I assume we're comparing to 35mm dSLRs?
In short: they are different tools. Each is a better tool in some situations and worse in others.
In long: when comparing MF to 35mm dSLRs
Advantages of MF
Bigger sensor
Better resolution
More file flexibility in post (handles a lot of pushing/pulling/manipulation)
More dynamic range
More consistent and faster tethered shooting
Flexibility to shoot on a view camera, technical body, or other specialty gear
Access to better lenses (including the world's best lenses: schneider/rodenstock large format lenses via tech bodies)
Better longer exposure(1)
No anti-aliasing filter (sharper at 100%) (2)
Brand/Snob appeal ("I'm shooting the best camera made")
Pro appeal (an art director or client may personally own a 5DII, but they will NOT have a MF system)
Higher level of service/support (3)
Better resale value (4)
Trade-in programs and mnfr. enforced value for upgrades (5)
Generally sold through dealers rather than direct(8)
Disadvantages of MF
Slower
Heavier
More $$$(10)
Bigger files (requires better computers)
Not as many lenses (6)
No video or decent in-the-field Live View
Often smaller LCDs(7)
High ISO performance not as good(9)
Notes and caveats
(1)Limited to Phase One P+ series backs. No other medium format system performs well with long exposures.
(2)Also more prone to moire
(3)Depends on the dealer, brand of medium format, and what you're comparing it to
(4)Can be debated and is always changing, but I feel still holds true in general
(5)Hasselblad has decided to end their upgrade program
(6)Depends on which system you're comparing to what and if you include third party or legacy lenses
(7)The LCD size varies by company. Phase has smaller LCDs currently; I don't follow Hassy and Sinar very closely but some of their models have larger LCDs and some have smaller LCDs
(8)Hasselblad sells through box-movers like B&H.
(9)The gap is much closer than most comments would lead you to believe, but 35mm do have a lead on very high ISO performance
(10)There are some great low cost options in medium format, including used (because there are no moving parts they last a long time), demo equipment and leasing/renting. But of course, generally it is more expensive than dSLRS
Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer (http://www.captureintegration.com) | Personal Portfolio (http://www.doug-peterson.com)
-
Thanks for the great answer!
I'm thinking primarily about the ability to capture detail. All will agree that a 6x7 film camera can capture far more nuance than a 35mm camera. But I don’t know if that’s the case when comparing, say a 12 MP dslr camera with a 6x7 camera with, for instance a 20 MP digital back. There is more to the formula than just the number of mega pixels. So I'm trying to get an idea of what is considered medium format by today’s standards.
Also, can a 12 MP dslr duplicate the nuance and detail of a 6x7 film camera?
-
Medium format seems to die a slow dead. Take a look at the sales part: back that have cost a fortune some time ago no even don't get sold for ridiculous prices. I myself have a 528c for sala with a price of less than 5000 euro and still nobody reacts. It has the same image quality as any recent multishot back and still better than any one shot but do you think someone is interested... no sir!
On the other hand, it seems that hasselblad never sold as many back's until 2008....
A 12 Mp dslr will never have the detail of a 6/7 neg or slide. Even a 24Mp dslr will not as many users have comfirmed. A digital back on the other hand, even a 16Mp have tremendous detail, partly because of the lacking of the blurr filter. When you use a multishot back, every color is shot on the sensor and there is no interpolation of color and detail. A multishot image is therefore the best what you can achieve. No mather if it's a 16 or 22 or even 39Mp back.
-
Thanks for the great answer!
I'm thinking primarily about the ability to capture detail. All will agree that a 6x7 film camera can capture far more nuance than a 35mm camera. But I don’t know if that’s the case when comparing, say a 12 MP dslr camera with a 6x7 camera with, for instance a 20 MP digital back. There is more to the formula than just the number of mega pixels. So I'm trying to get an idea of what is considered medium format by today’s standards.
Also, can a 12 MP dslr duplicate the nuance and detail of a 6x7 film camera?
Why don't you check out a dealer in your area. They would be (assuming they are any good) more than happy to spend time with you comparing 6x7 film to a digital back.
I won't get into a debate about what the usable resolution of a particular film format size is. I will however comment that we have converted many 4x5 shooters. They walked in convinced before they walked in that they could not get the quality they needed out of digital and walked out the door with a digital back. In other words the proof is in the pudding. Compare them yourself.
The backs... not the pudding.
Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer (http://www.captureintegration.com) | Personal Portfolio (http://www.doug-peterson.com)
-
Medium format seems to die a slow dead. Take a look at the sales part: back that have cost a fortune some time ago no even don't get sold for ridiculous prices. I myself have a 528c for sala with a price of less than 5000 euro and still nobody reacts. It has the same image quality as any recent multishot back and still better than any one shot but do you think someone is interested... no sir!
By this measure automobiles, cars, and high-end computers are all on their way out.
2008/2009 is a hard time to objectively view the underlying fundamentals of any business, especially based on the sales price of distressed assets (like foreclosed homes or used digital backs).
Doug
Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer (http://www.captureintegration.com) | Personal Portfolio (http://www.doug-peterson.com)
-
Hi,
I don't think so, mostly not. It depends on a lot of factors, e.g. the film used in the film camera. I mostly used Velvia and it's no easy film to scan. My scanner was a 3200 PPI Minolta DSMP and I felt that 3200 PPI was a bit excessive with anything but Velvia. I have two 70x100 cm enlargements made from scanned originals and they astonishing. I also made an 70x100 enlargement from a 10 MPixel DSLR and it was pretty good if viewed at 80-100 cm, but any closer it was obviously lacking detail.
My guess is that 25 Mpixel will compare favorably with MF film, resolutionswise film may have some advantage but it will be much more grainy and tolerate far less sharpening. But the proof is in the print.
The other answer is clearly that FF DSLRs are the medium format of the digital world. They are relatively affordable, especially now that we have the Canon 5DII and the Sony Alpha 900, efficient and easy to use. MFDBs go beyond what film based MF used to be, both regarding quality and cost. MFDBs can also be used on Field/View cameras. Except the price best of two worlds.
Erik
Also, can a 12 MP dslr duplicate the nuance and detail of a 6x7 film camera?
-
My guess is that 25 Mpixel will compare favorably with MF film, resolution wise film may have some advantage but it will be much more grainy and tolerate far less sharpening. But the proof is in the print.
Not quite, but close. 6x6 or 6x7 film is actually in the 30-40MP range. 25MP is closer to 645, which is still worlds better than 35mm(about 7MP optical and about 12MP digital) And honestly, Velvia 50 still looks like no digital that I've ever seen when it's projected.
-
A 12 Mp dslr will never have the detail of a 6/7 neg or slide. Even a 24Mp dslr will not as many users have comfirmed.
That may be true only if the film camera is a range finder or a reflex used with the mirror locked up and focused at infinity on a still subject. Any other kind of photography that does not include all the above, will be better done on a +14mp digital reflex.
-
(8)Hasselblad sells through box-movers like B&H.
Your point?
Please bear in mind the world is bigger than the USA alone.
Best,
David
-
Wow, the answer that Doug gave is awesome, well thought out and frankly kind of him to take the time.
Now, I happen to think that each difference / pro / con will be subjective and personal. For example, the reasons I went over and added a MF Digi would be
The reverse crop. My 80mm is wider at 50mm along with a awesome lens.
IMO, the 25MP of a dSLR is NOT close to a MF digital, reason being is that it is ALL about dynamic Range. I don't care which FF dSLR is on the market there is a huge difference in your image and that is due to not only the awesome Dynamic Range but it has no AA filter over the sensor and the difference in IQ is quite clear.
The Mamiya AFD-III now holds in your hand, almost, like a dSLR. It's really quite amazing.
A kit for MF can now be had for around $14K depending on your needs. Mine was the AFD-III with a 65s Leaf Back. I'm able to choose from a long line of 645 lenses with perhaps some Leaf Shutters excluded.
T
-
Not quite, but close. 6x6 or 6x7 film is actually in the 30-40MP range. 25MP is closer to 645, which is still worlds better than 35mm(about 7MP optical and about 12MP digital) And honestly, Velvia 50 still looks like no digital that I've ever seen when it's projected.
In theory possibly, in practice not. I can tell you I only sold my Pentax 6x7 kit when I'd satisfied myself beyond doubt that in real world conditions output up to A3+ prints my 5D gave virtually indistinguishable results. (specific prints I compared used 165 LS lens, mirror lock-up, very heavy tripod, Fuji NPS 160 film, scanned with Canon 9950F/Silverfast)
-
Notes and caveats
(5)Hasselblad has decided to end their upgrade program
(7)The LCD size varies by company. Phase has smaller LCDs currently; I don't follow Hassy and Sinar very closely but some of their models have larger LCDs and some have smaller LCDs
Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer (http://www.captureintegration.com) | Personal Portfolio (http://www.doug-peterson.com)
Doug,
You omit to mention the recent price reduction on all our products. Some as much as 40%. This is why the upgrade program was discontinued and has been explained many times here.
The LCD is 3.0" on all the H3DII cameras... but I am sure you knew that even though you don't follow us closely. ;-)
Best,
David
-
The title says it all except Thanks
I believe the answer is simple: Medium format in digital age is no different than was in film age.
I gave up on Nikon SLR & DSLR for three reasons:
1) Desire to expand into a larger format (people did so in film days also)
2) Because i found DSLRs did not yield the image quality as 35mm slides did (I used Velvia 50 vs. D200).
3) DLSRs was pain to process because they teach you to photograph like machine guns, too many photos to review... medium format slows you down... yield higher success ratio by planning, just like with film .
The shame of digital is that it has made film more difficult. It has sold people on that digital is superior, which it is clearly not. It is only more difficult of where to buy film and where to process to quality. It was for those reason that I went digital in first place, not because higher quality or lower cost. Tried the ZD, but it was faulty and lost over 2,000 USD in process. The Leaf Aptus 65 was expensive but beats any DSLR in low ISO. There is color and DR superior to any DSLR, in particular if you not desire to sit in computer and process each photo long time, and like me have a sensitive eye to color and image rendering. That said anyone with a smaller camera with just announced higher MPs will stick it out and claim it is same as a bigger and more expensive... and... the G10 is similar to 5DII, is it not???
Above said... I do have a DSLR: Sigma DP1 which fits in my pocket. Why is that a DSLR? Same sensor as Sigma DSLRs. Well... it is same format as a cropped DSLR sensor... I also experience the sensor medium format like when I process the photos in CS4, while of course colors and rendering is not up to medium format sensor. There is a very high DR, 3d effect etc.
I also use film and compared ZD to my Mamiya 7 and Velvia 50. In details/pixel peeping they were about similar (although film render poor details better than digital), in colors the film won hands down. Search for my thread MFDB Challenge from last year here in this forum... many processed my ZD files that time. I can add that I find the Leaf Aptus 65 is far superior to ZD.
Another issue with medium format in digital age is that medium format digital is very expensive! Then yet... is not also DSLR compared to 35mm film SLRs? How much more do they cost, and how many times have we upgraded? The Aptus 65 is bound to last me long time... so perhaps compared to a D700, D800, D900 and those new Nikkor lenses... the cost is not that different??? But... we are all paying much more for gear with digital... are we not??
Regards
Anders
-
I think a lot of people do indeed forget that a back that was perfect a couple of years ago, with the same sensor, only other casing than the present ones is still a great back. I cannot believe there are no photographers left who make enough monney to buy my 528c for a ridiculous 4750 euro. Is economy reaally going that bad or is it that we still want the newest, somethime, when there is monney, instead of a workhorse to make monney with???
-
Hi,
Some viewpoints...
a) The ZD back is low res for an MF back. Comparing the Aptus to Velvia is more adequate.
Velvia is notoriously difficult to scan.
c) Sharpening is an essential part of the digital workflow, weather scanning slides or using sensor based photography.
d) Velvia is a 50 ISO film, with DSLRs we can go to 1600 ISO or even more in the middle of the roll.
e) With DSLRs and RAW processing we can develop any exposure an infinite amount of different ways. Ansel Adams would love it!
Regarding costs.
I just bought an Sony Alpha 900 for about 3000 USD. I can use it with all my old lenses, some (an 80-200) is about 20 years old. I guess that 3000 USD buys you an MF body, but not much else. What's the price of your Aptus?
By the way I was shooting MF (also Velvia) for many years. For me digital came as a great relief.
Best regards
Erik
I believe the answer is simple: Medium format in digital age is no different than was in film age.
I gave up on Nikon SLR & DSLR for three reasons:
1) Desire to expand into a larger format (people did so in film days also)
2) Because i found DSLRs did not yield the image quality as 35mm slides did (I used Velvia 50 vs. D200).
3) DLSRs was pain to process because they teach you to photograph like machine guns, too many photos to review... medium format slows you down... yield higher success ratio by planning, just like with film .
The shame of digital is that it has made film more difficult. It has sold people on that digital is superior, which it is clearly not. It is only more difficult of where to buy film and where to process to quality. It was for those reason that I went digital in first place, not because higher quality or lower cost. Tried the ZD, but it was faulty and lost over 2,000 USD in process. The Leaf Aptus 65 was expensive but beats any DSLR in low ISO. There is color and DR superior to any DSLR, in particular if you not desire to sit in computer and process each photo long time, and like me have a sensitive eye to color and image rendering. That said anyone with a smaller camera with just announced higher MPs will stick it out and claim it is same as a bigger and more expensive... and... the G10 is similar to 5DII, is it not???
Above said... I do have a DSLR: Sigma DP1 which fits in my pocket. Why is that a DSLR? Same sensor as Sigma DSLRs. Well... it is same format as a cropped DSLR sensor... I also experience the sensor medium format like when I process the photos in CS4, while of course colors and rendering is not up to medium format sensor. There is a very high DR, 3d effect etc.
I also use film and compared ZD to my Mamiya 7 and Velvia 50. In details/pixel peeping they were about similar (although film render poor details better than digital), in colors the film won hands down. Search for my thread MFDB Challenge from last year here in this forum... many processed my ZD files that time. I can add that I find the Leaf Aptus 65 is far superior to ZD.
Another issue with medium format in digital age is that medium format digital is very expensive! Then yet... is not also DSLR compared to 35mm film SLRs? How much more do they cost, and how many times have we upgraded? The Aptus 65 is bound to last me long time... so perhaps compared to a D700, D800, D900 and those new Nikkor lenses... the cost is not that different??? But... we are all paying much more for gear with digital... are we not??
Regards
Anders
-
Erik,
It is fine if we agree that we disagree. I use medium format and before used DSLRs. Above and following was and is my experience;
"a) The ZD back is low res for an MF back. Comparing the Aptus to Velvia is more adequate."
22Mp is good resolution on a MF back and per my experience about equal in resolution/details to 6x7 Veliva slide but not in pleasing color rendering. The Leaf Aptus 22 sensor use same 22MP sensor by Dalsa as ZD but have far better color rendering and handling of shadow and dark areas than ZD or any DSLR. I have found that around 28.6MP gives less problem with noise because it is smaller noise due the more pixels. The Aptus 65 does not give me same color rendering as Velvia 50, but the Aptus 65 is the only digital product I have used which out of box at default settings common give me pleasing colors.
"B) Velvia is notoriously difficult to scan. "
On DiMage SE 5400 my 35mm Velvia slides scanned like a charm, albeit slow. I have not scanned medium format Velvia 50 myself, but medium format leads me to shoot less frames, thus more planned and higher success ratio and thus less to scan, which will not take same time as 35mm slides.
"c) Sharpening is an essential part of the digital workflow, weather scanning slides or using sensor based photography."
For DSLRs yes, thanks to AA filter. For medium format digital not as much needed.
"d) Velvia is a 50 ISO film, with DSLRs we can go to 1600 ISO or even more in the middle of the roll."
Yes, but most DSLRs do not go to native 50 ISO. I never shot 1600 ISO with film, thus do not see that need, but perhaps some people do. I do shoot nearly only ISO 50 for landscapes and people. Yours and other peoples preference may differ. Though to yield highest image quality from any digital camera it should be shot at native ISO, which is the lowest standard ISO (not extended).
"e) With DSLRs and RAW processing we can develop any exposure an infinite amount of different ways. Ansel Adams would love it!"
Ehh. A medium format digital provides far greater DR, color rendering etc. Which would Ansel have choosen? Landscapes are often best at ISO50.... And... what is best to start off from, a RAW file you first need correct colors for relative correctness before making your interpretation of the scene or not?
"I just bought an Sony Alpha 900 for about 3000 USD. I can use it with all my old lenses, some (an 80-200) is about 20 years old. I guess that 3000 USD buys you an MF body, but not much else. What's the price of your Aptus?"
If you are happy with the Alpha, then I am happy you enjoy it. I do enjoy what I use, not becuase it is gear, but finally because the Leaf Aptus 65 is the first digital product I feel I can use and enjoy like I did with film. The Sigma DP1 falls behind it... but to be frank colors are not as commonly pleasing from that one when I open the RAW files.
This a medium format forum. What is point to argue a DSLR here? I am happy with the Mamiya 7 + AFDIII + Leaf Aptus 65. Actually just bought a Shen Hao 4x5 because want to do some more film in larger format on select occasions too, just different paint brushes to me. I am also content with the DP1 and I do like the Foveon sensor which is a DSLR sensor I enjoy.
Would I feel I should sell my Aptus 65 and buy a Alpha 900 or similar? The Aptus cost me more than four times the money you paid for your Alpa. I am not rich but finally said goodbye to that money because I wanted to enjoy photography in the digital age. I would not be pleased with the image quality and machine gun handling from any DSLR on market, so no... am not selling even though could give me cash after the swop. There is a difference DSLR and MFDB, very obvious such. It is up for who ever sees it. Galen Rowell shot 35mm and enjoyed it. I much admire his work. That is ok also .
Now, lets step back to your initial post and be to point: "What is medium format in the digital age?" I believe medium format in digital age is still same as it was in film days. It is regardless of pixels not same as DSLR, for there is more than pixels. Or... is there a point to argue that a Canon G10 equals an Alpha 900? Lets be frank, the pixel number difference between those to is far less than 35mm film and medium format film ever was... Is there any more difference between the image quality of them???
Regards
Anders
-
Hi!
Sorry! I did not mean DSLR but a digital device as a comparison with film. What I meant was that Ansel Adams would have loved RAW processing, because it would give him more control than what was available with film.
Regarding scanning Velvia I'm quite familiar with it as I have been using Velvia since it was introduced on the market, and was scanning MF Velvia for a long time. My experience is with Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and it's predecessor the Scan Multi II. The issue when scanning Velvia is in my and as I believe others view is that it has a fairly extreme D-MAX of around 4.0. My Minolta DSMP was specified to have a DMAX of 4.8 but I'm pretty sure that was a "phantasy figure".
Now, the question was: "What is the medium format in the digital age"? The comments I gave should be seen in that context.
I would suggest that it is a valid view that DSLRs make inroads into the territory where medium format film was used, and the comparison I intended is mostly with film. Full frame DSLRs are also in the same territory as film based medium format used to be regarding cost. I used a Pentax 67 before going digital, that camera was definitively medium format.
As far as I understand digital medium format does replace 4x5" film. MFDB:s can be used on different systems and as far as I understand many photographers have found the P45 at least as good as 4x5" film.
In this sense I see APS-C cameras in essence play the role that 135 played before. Full frame DSLRs are the next step in photographic systems, at the same level of costs we have seen earlier with entry level 120 SLR systems, like the Pentax 67. MFDB are definitively above that. The only step up from MFDBs may be scanning backs. So if MFDBs are the medium format what is the large format in digital picture taking?
Do I see DSLRs replacing medium format film? Yes, I see digital replacing film in general.
Will DSLRs replace MFDBs? To some extent yes but to some extent no. My presumption would simply be that photographers will normally use the most adequate equipment for a given task within the limitation they are willing to spend. We have seen some interesting comments from James Russel who uses both Leica M8 and MFDBs with Canon DSLRs in beetwen. As far as I see he certainly factors in economy in his equipment choice. As far as I understood he felt at this time it was not necessary to invest in the latest and most expensive backs. The requirements of his clients would not justify the costs
You perhaps have seen that Michael Reichmann, the author and owner of this site:
- First used Pentax 120 equipment 645 and 67
- He sold the Pentax and went to MFDB (Contax with Kodak back)
- When the Canon 1DsII arrived he sold of the Contax equipment and used the DSLR exclusively
- With the arrival of the P45 he invested in a Linhof view camera and special view camera lenses designed for digital
- When planning for an expedition to Africa he decided that he needed an SLR camera for the P45 so he made the investment in his present Hasselbald system.
Michael discussed the reasoning behind his choices on this site.
Best regrads
Erik
"e) With DSLRs and RAW processing we can develop any exposure an infinite amount of different ways. Ansel Adams would love it!"
-
I think a lot of people do indeed forget that a back that was perfect a couple of years ago, with the same sensor, only other casing than the present ones is still a great back. I cannot believe there are no photographers left who make enough monney to buy my 528c for a ridiculous 4750 euro. Is economy reaally going that bad or is it that we still want the newest, somethime, when there is monney, instead of a workhorse to make monney with???
I think the poverty is not in the photographers but with the clients - time is money to them
My D3 is so great I can shoot so fast with nearly no lighting tripod or set up at all
great ISO , great AF
Are the pictures as good as my Hassy or your Hassy - no way
Is the clients pleased - yes - because I shoot four times as much per day and it is great quality for the web or their A5 brochure
S
-
Hi!
Sorry! I did not mean DSLR but a digital device as a comparison with film. What I meant was that Ansel Adams would have loved RAW processing, because it would give him more control than what was available with film.
Regarding scanning Velvia I'm quite familiar with it as I have been using Velvia since it was introduced on the market, and was scanning MF Velvia for a long time. My experience is with Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and it's predecessor the Scan Multi II. The issue when scanning Velvia is in my and as I believe others view is that it has a fairly extreme D-MAX of around 4.0. My Minolta DSMP was specified to have a DMAX of 4.8 but I'm pretty sure that was a "phantasy figure".
Now, the question was: "What is the medium format in the digital age"? The comments I gave should be seen in that context.
I would suggest that it is a valid view that DSLRs make inroads into the territory where medium format film was used, and the comparison I intended is mostly with film. Full frame DSLRs are also in the same territory as film based medium format used to be regarding cost. I used a Pentax 67 before going digital, that camera was definitively medium format.
As far as I understand digital medium format does replace 4x5" film. MFDB:s can be used on different systems and as far as I understand many photographers have found the P45 at least as good as 4x5" film.
In this sense I see APS-C cameras in essence play the role that 135 played before. Full frame DSLRs are the next step in photographic systems, at the same level of costs we have seen earlier with entry level 120 SLR systems, like the Pentax 67. MFDB are definitively above that. The only step up from MFDBs may be scanning backs. So if MFDBs are the medium format what is the large format in digital picture taking?
Do I see DSLRs replacing medium format film? Yes, I see digital replacing film in general.
Will DSLRs replace MFDBs? To some extent yes but to some extent no. My presumption would simply be that photographers will normally use the most adequate equipment for a given task within the limitation they are willing to spend. We have seen some interesting comments from James Russel who uses both Leica M8 and MFDBs with Canon DSLRs in beetwen. As far as I see he certainly factors in economy in his equipment choice. As far as I understood he felt at this time it was not necessary to invest in the latest and most expensive backs. The requirements of his clients would not justify the costs.
You perhaps have seen that Michael Reichmann, the author and owner of this site:
- First used Pentax 120 equipment 645 and 67
- He sold the Pentax and went to MFDB (Contax with Kodak back)
- When the Canon 1DsII arrived he sold of the Contax equipment and used the DSLR exclusively
- With the arrival of the P45 he invested in a Linhof view camera and special view camera lenses designed for digital
- When planning for an expedition to Africa he decided that he needed an SLR camera for the P45 so he made the investment in his present Hasselbald system.
Michael discussed the reasoning behind his choices on this site.
Best regrads
Erik
"e) With DSLRs and RAW processing we can develop any exposure an infinite amount of different ways. Ansel Adams would love it!"
-
At moment I am reading Ansel's book the Negative. Indeed I believe he would have been thrilled with RAW, as a complement to film. It is an interesting book also with mind on digital.
When 6MP cameras came reputable names claimed they equalled 35mm film and that film was dead. Nowadays it is claimed that 12MP do. Are we not many who have been caught into belief that the newest and latest technology replace film and film formats and is incrementally superior to the last prior models of digital?
If P45 equals 4x5 I should be please that my Aptus 65 must be near equal to 4x5. With my eyes it is not. While my eyes and mind may be some that differ in view, granted they are in my 40's and sharp. A technical (digital) viewcamera does not give you same view or way as working as traditional viewcamera do. It is also $$$$. For one the image on groundglass is tiny. These and the attraction of 4x5 sized slides made me now venture into Shen Hao ...
Film and digital are different. They can complement.
As an amateur I had enough of constant upgrade cycle. That has kept me away from photography by needing learn new camera between my photographic outings, and having my head stuck much too much time in forums about gear. With the Aptus I have what I can keep a long time and be content of image quality. That is also a consideration and to me as an advanced amateur an advantage with medium format in digital age, as compared to 35mm based digital...
Regards
Anders
-
Hi!
All comparisons between digital and film depend on which film the comparison is based. Some films like T-MAX 100 have very high resolution. High MTF at high frequencies would be a better description than resolution, I just use a shorter word. So if we say that a certain camera is equivalent to film it's needed to discuss which film is the base of comparison. The other issue is the quality of the pixels and that depends on quite a few factors the infamous AA filter being one and "raw" convertion and sharpening another.
Michael Reichmann I think once mentioned that Kodak suggested that a pixel size of 5 microns would be achievable on MFDBs. If we go beyond that we get diminishing returns, because any pixels smaller than that would be limited by diffraction even at moderate apertures. On the other hand I have seen good arguments on this forum for the need of "AA" filters and that the best way to eliminate the need of the "AA" filtering is to oversample, that is use more pixels than the lens can resolve.
The other issue is that we have any number of ways to process digital images and I seriously believe that almost any effect that can be achieved in digital, at least as long we are comparing with transparency film. Another area where I actually think film may be better than digital is specular highlights. Film has a saturation behavior but digital clips, so with digital we need to expose for the highlights and that is not always possible.
Digital images are quite different from film based images, at least at low ISO there is no grain in a digital image. Grain can actually contribute to an image.
Fact seems to be that quite a few 4x5" photographers seem to switch over to digital MFDB. It may be that some return to film I don't know. Charles Cramer talked about the experience here on the Luminous Landscape Video Journal.
And finally that $$$$ part matters for most people.
I hope that you are going to be happy with your Aptus and your Shen Hao. I hope that you don't mind the question, but what are you doing with your 4x5" transparecies? When I was using my Pentax 67 it was intended for B&W, but soon enough I started shooting slide film, so I finished up buying a 6x7 slide projector hand made in Germany, it was absolutely gorgeous.
There is another dimension to this and that is craftmanship. Some people like you enjoy to "slow down" and the craftmanship of photographic work. That aspect is a very important factor especially for amateurs.
Best regards
Erik
When 6MP cameras came reputable names claimed they equalled 35mm film and that film was dead. Nowadays it is claimed that 12MP do. Are we not many who have been caught into belief that the newest and latest technology replace film and film formats and is incrementally superior to the last prior models of digital?
If P45 equals 4x5 I should be please that my Aptus 65 must be near equal to 4x5. With my eyes it is not. While my eyes and mind may be some that differ in view, granted they are in my 40's and sharp. A technical (digital) viewcamera does not give you same view or way as working as traditional viewcamera do. It is also $$$$. For one the image on groundglass is tiny. These and the attraction of 4x5 sized slides made me now venture into Shen Hao ...
Regards
Anders
-
Amateurs, if we would have been smart we would have stuck with film! Digital is much higher $$$. Pros would have shot large amounts of film and is different for.
Digital has and is still a huge mountain of knowledge to climb. Film was simpler.
The next step to me as I am doing now is combining them... which camera to use when? Well... that is same as which lens to use when, (or in film days different formats?), simply get to know which one we prefer for when and in what situations.
4x5 slides? What to do with digital shots? Slides are in many ways simpler to file for future. And will last better... no constant backup... conversions...
-
Amateurs, if we would have been smart we would have stuck with film! Digital is much higher $$$. Pros would have shot large amounts of film and is different for.
Digital has and is still a huge mountain of knowledge to climb. Film was simpler.
The next step to me as I am doing now is combining them... which camera to use when? Well... that is same as which lens to use when, (or in film days different formats?), simply get to know which one we prefer for when and in what situations.
4x5 slides? What to do with digital shots? Slides are in many ways simpler to file for future. And will last better... no constant backup... conversions...
Analog and digital - its a comparison that will go on for some time. One way to look at them is in the learning curves: you can gradually move up the analog curve, and learn bit by bit, at your own pace. If you fall back, you still have all the accomplishments in your learning you had before. Imagine once you have mastered making a print, you learn each time to make a slightly better print, but the learning is incremental.
Contrast this with the learning curve for digital, and that curve is much more dramatic: it comes with particular moments of big gain. Mastering digital processing is not casually done - there are several places where you have to really apply concentration and think it through. Consider gamut and color theory - it existed before, but didn't impact our work that much. Now, its almost essential to understand color theory to do digital color work. How did that happen? Sometimes its enjoyable, sometimes rather difficult.... but its a different pace/organization than analog learning.
Same applies elsewhere: another place to see this is in design fields: hand drawing vs. CAD in the design fields . If you hand draw something by hand, and are interrupted, if you've organized the drawing correctly (guidelines, then "bringing it up graduallly") you still have a drawing. In the CAD world, until you have outputted it, you have nothing... in the early days, this used to drive people nuts (and still does - about 5% of architecture students fail to make our final review due to printing problems!), but is largely solved. On the other hand, for good looking work, fast, and the ability to make changes painlessly, nothing beats CAD. Both have their place.
Digital work flow has some spots where its "all or nothing". Its a subtle thing - as there are many other places where the digital world permits fine tuning and refinement far beyond the more mechanically oriented analog work flow. Imagines layers, curves, masks, channels, in the analog world - doable, but not easy. So in some realms, the digital is clearly superior work flow. But overall, the learning curves are different.
Film seemed simpler, and in some ways, for most of us it was. The same issues may have existed at the top of the field (for some), but we could ignore them and still be happy with our work. Now.... things are both richer, more available, and perhaps harder. Clearly different.
-
Hi,
For me it's the other way around, at least since I'm shooting "raw". I can go back to my old picture which I may have taken in the "Provia" mood and convert them to the "Velvia" mood I'm in now. With film my misstakes were cut in stone, with digital I can make a lot of new misstakes.
With "raw" we have essentially all information the camera can see. We can select what we want to do with the image afterwards. Expose for the highlights, that's about it. B&W or color, Velvia, Agfachrome or even Futurechrome is a choice we can do in the raw processor. In ten years we can reprocess our images with new technology. Problem is that our "raw" format may not be around. That is a reason to work on a common ground, for now DNG. Let's hope that DNG is here to stay and that DNG will stay DNG forever. Forever is more than 36 months ;-(
Analog and digital - its a comparison that will go on for some time. One way to look at them is in the learning curves: you can gradually move up the analog curve, and learn bit by bit, at your own pace. If you fall back, you still have all the accomplishments in your learning you had before. Imagine once you have mastered making a print, you learn each time to make a slightly better print, but the learning is incremental.
Contrast this with the learning curve for digital, and that curve is much more dramatic: it comes with particular moments of big gain. Mastering digital processing is not casually done - there are several places where you have to really apply concentration and think it through. Consider gamut and color theory - it existed before, but didn't impact our work that much. Now, its almost essential to understand color theory to do digital color work. How did that happen? Sometimes its enjoyable, sometimes rather difficult.... but its a different pace/organization than analog learning.
Same applies elsewhere: another place to see this is in design fields: hand drawing vs. CAD in the design fields . If you hand draw something by hand, and are interrupted, if you've organized the drawing correctly (guidelines, then "bringing it up graduallly") you still have a drawing. In the CAD world, until you have outputted it, you have nothing... in the early days, this used to drive people nuts (and still does - about 5% of architecture students fail to make our final review due to printing problems!), but is largely solved. On the other hand, for good looking work, fast, and the ability to make changes painlessly, nothing beats CAD. Both have their place.
Digital work flow has some spots where its "all or nothing". Its a subtle thing - as there are many other places where the digital world permits fine tuning and refinement far beyond the more mechanically oriented analog work flow. Imagines layers, curves, masks, channels, in the analog world - doable, but not easy. So in some realms, the digital is clearly superior work flow. But overall, the learning curves are different.
Film seemed simpler, and in some ways, for most of us it was. The same issues may have existed at the top of the field (for some), but we could ignore them and still be happy with our work. Now.... things are both richer, more available, and perhaps harder. Clearly different.
-
Thanks very much for all for these thoughtful comments.
Does anyone have examples of a detailed photo taken with a few small to mid size digi cameras. Say 10 MP and up from there. It would be great to see these.
BTW I've taken some time to look through the references of those who have provided them in their sig. The collections are marvelous! They all speak to a very high degree of technical skill.
It appears that the minimal criteria for medium format is something > than 20 MP. Would any or all agree on this?
-
Medium format refers primarily to the size of the image sensor. Right now, the lowest-resolution medium-format (larger than 24x36 mm) sensor I am aware of being manufactured new is the 28 mp Leaf (21-22 mp sensors were current until recently, and someone may still be building a back with one - there are certainly still some for sale, and I'm not sure whether they are all leftovers). The recent complication is that there are now 24x36mm DSLRs with resolution figures in that range. The image quality of the new Nikon D3x (which is somewhat higher than other 20+ mp DSLRs so far, both from user experiences and technical measurements) is proving to be very comparable to the medium-format backs at 31mp and below, all of which (with the possible exception of the 28 mp Leaf) use older sensor designs. The new 24x36 mm DSLRs have not removed the rationale for medium format, but they HAVE moved it up the resolution line - a 31 mp camera for $18,000 makes little sense with a 24+mp camera as good as the D3x going for $8000 (not to mention lower-end 20+ mp cameras with still very good image quality under $3000). I would predict that the MF systems 31 mp and under will soon be gone from new sales. However, nothing less expensive will touch the quality of a 50+ mp MF setup (and the laws of physics do a pretty good job ensuring that nothing with a smaller sensor ever will). We're getting close to some real limits around 30 mp (plus or minus 5) in 24x36 mm, and MF will allow for something more than double that, depending on how big the sensor actually is.
-Dan
-
Lets be sure not to confuse megapixel with sensor/film area...
The area of the capture area is one of key attributes of medium format (relation to lens, DOF etc). Also the proportions of that area has until now been a character of medium format (although some P&S now use 6x7 proportions). Megapixels is something camera industry has stuck to us as important, which is rather nonsense in a discussion of different camera formats... Or... should we compare the latest P&S to DSLRS??? Or should we discuss low grain 35mm film compared to large grain 645 film???
Lets wake up, there is far more than pixels. Older medium format sensors are perhaps lagging because of noise, but not image quality at optimum (low) ISO and good light. Even the rather recent 22MP digital backs still have very superior quality to DSLRs, check Frank Doorhof's images as example.
A medium format camera is also a different shooting experience, slower, more planned. Not like a machine gun as DSLRs.
Both Leaf and Phase One sensors of around 28MP and up are newer than 22MP generations, which were newer than 18MP generations. Compared to DSLRs the quality of the images captured by those sensors tend to be different and higher DR, but less good high ISO performance, althogh much improved by newer sensors.
Interesting is also the Foveon sensor for Sigmas... it would be nice to see sensors of that type for the full frame 645 capture area... even if only 20MP
Regards
Anders