I will no longer argue for the 5D2 except to say no zoom can do it justice, you must use primes focused as carefully as a view camera to realize maximum quality.
I believe the reason Crewdson left 8x10 is that he was practicing techniques we now mostly associate with digital photography in ways that were very inconvenient with the large camera.
I'm drawing this information mostly from an
Aperture interview.
He would often shoot separate exposures for different parts of the scene, and also shoot what amounts to focus stacking sets, where he would incrementally march the focus through the scene from near to far, shooting one or more plates at each position. In the Aperture interview he said he sometimes wound up drawing parts of the final image from as many as 50 different plates for a single scene. He also mentioned shooting separate focuses for a window frame and the subjects just barely inside the window, and from far away. Basically, he was using intensive stitching and focus stacking techniques with film negatives!
The notion that you can swing and tilt an 8x10 camera into a position that will sharply record every part of any scene in a single exposure is simply wishful thinking. Any time you work close with a view camera in a complex set with a lot of depth, something's got to give if you want to shoot just a single exposure. So you've got to either simulate digital techniques with a film camera, or just shoot digital in the first place.
And I'm sure Crewdson was very happy to have the effectively increased depth of field from the smaller sensor on the IQ 180, versus the 8x10. It's hard to convey how thin the truly sharp focus plane is on a big camera, but seriously it ain't much even at the smallest apertures when you're close to the subject and you want big prints. I am quite convinced that when working in ranges around 15 or 20 feet and closer, the total amount of sharp detail contained in a medium format or DSLR shot is effectively much greater than you could hope to get from 8x10, and the reason is the slower fall off in focus surrounding the location of absolute prime focus. The 8x10 might be sharper at the absolute prime focus, but it would fall off much faster away it, compared to a smaller negative or sensor.
Can't resist...If you want to shoot sharp chain link fences, use an 8x10 and nail that fence with a loupe on the ground glass. If you want to shoot scenes in depth, use a smaller camera and/or digital.
Of course there are much more straightforward view camera approaches than Crewdson's for simpler subjects. But as photography evolves in the digital age we are increasingly seeing the use of creative techniques that are best served by digital. For instance check out Annie Liebowitz's
Disney Character personifications of Hollywood Stars. In my old age I can finally relax enough to think that's a hoot. Stuff like that is the new big thing, or one of them.
So for my money, the only argument for 8x10 is, umh, money! And that I can fully understand. But in the meantime, mama don't take my 5D2 away.
