Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Jack Flesher on June 21, 2004, 12:21:00 pm
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I think everybody's opinions vary a bit on this topic, but here are mine FWIW:
Any of the newer 6MP DSLRs essentially provide a direct replacement for 35mm film, and in some cases due to low noise (noise in digital is essentially the same as grain in film) will upscale (interpolate) to provide better large images than 35mm film could have.
After I got my 11MP 1Ds and compared results, I found it was a tad better than my drum-scanned Contax 645 transparencies and a just a tad less detailed than my scanned Mamiya 6x7 trannys. Yet it was also a whole lot more convenient to use and get files into the computer than it was with MF and scanning, so I sold all my MF film gear. (This turned out ot be a mistake, as I recently repurchased a Contax 645 system so I could mount a digital back on it, but that's another story )
So, you MAY decide that the D70 will do everything you need to do well enough -- and almost certainly it will do it more conveniently than MF. But if you really want to replace drum-scanned MF film, you'll probably need at least 11MP to accomplish that.
Cheers,
Jack[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Jack is correct. For landscapes a 6MP camera does not match medium format; however, 6MP digital is fine for 'tight' shots and macro and tight portraits, provided you don't print much above 12x18. To be honest, I use both. After a few months you'll learn where to use digital and where medium format film is to be used. They really compliment each other; and not everything needs to be printed large.[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']The 1Ds will be usable as a close alternative to medium format. Its successor 1DsII should be a real replacement for MF. The 1DII and the 6MP crowd are not in the same league. At the moment there are some very nice but unrobust Kodak cams with excellent resolution.
Edmund[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Actually I believe it is a mistake to compare the printout from a digital capture with the printout made based on a negative scan. You bring in the scanner optics, and the printed file will be the picture of a picture. A negative is meant to be printed straight through good glass on paper. A pain from a workflow point of view, but hey, we are not bringing in negative prints based on a photographed computer screen showing a digital picture and claiming it was the output of a digital camera.
If you have a worthy negative and spend $$$ on MF equipment, I believe there is some money left for a good handmade print?[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I have a Nikon film cameran and a Pentax 645. I just returned from my local pro camera shop, where I put my name on the waiting list for a D70. I did this to replace my 35mm film camera. The sales rep., whom I know and respect, tells me once I try it I will ne trading in all me MF equiqment. I am having a hard time accepting this. Can a 6 MP file really be res'd up wihtout loss of detail? As I tought I was in the market for a Nikon N8000, I could use some advice from someone who has "been there".[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']Got the D70 about a month ago. BW printing on Fuji Frontier (better Minilab stuff, prints on real photo paper) is ok, but it has a long long way to go before it reaches what can be done in the darkroom with a correctly exposed and processed negative. I never did color darkroom work myself but I got a few pro prints from color negatives shot with a Mamiya M6, and again, the D70 is left in the dust.
Nevertheless as I prefer the abstract processing on the computer to the long hours in the darkroom. Trying things out is (I have amateur experience only) is very much less time-consuming also, that's why the big M6 is currently sitting on a shelf. I'd go as far as to say a good print from a smaller-format negative is better than current 6 MPix prints. You get what you pay for nevertheless - modern minilabs scan your negative at 6 Mpix, and apply all kinds of digital voodoo you never wanted when you carefully chose your color film.
BTW, those prints made from the large glass negatives (ca 1890) beat D70 also![/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']I have a theory about cameras, FWIW, " a good camera is one you use"
Of course, in numerical, "scientific" terms, a D70's resolution will not match a high quality scan from 645, nor will it come close to those from my 67 outfit, but since "going digital", I've seen the resale value of my four-lens 67 outfit tank and my productivity in "shots per day" skyrocket. I shoot more and I shoot better.
The scanned-film workflow is expensive and slow. The digital workflow is convenient, fast and cheap.
IMHO, D70 Print quality at 8X10 is visually identical to scanned 120 and at 13X19, more than adequate. On my wall, Cibachrome prints from 120 hang next to inkjet prints from 6 MP digital They're equally satisfying.
regards,
Peter[/font]
-
[font color=\'#000000\']"Actually I believe it is a mistake to compare the printout from a digital capture with the printout made based on a negative scan."
Huh? Why? They're both prints, hanging on the wall.
"A negative is meant to be printed straight through good glass on paper."
That's exactly what the Cibachrome prints are. Chemical prints from originals, made by traditional means with an enlarger and trays of smelly chemicals. Only I used positives, in this case, not negatives.
" A pain from a workflow point of view, but hey, we are not bringing in negative prints based on a photographed computer screen showing a digital picture and claiming it was the output of a digital camera."
Sorry, but I just don't understand this sentence. Nobody's photographing their comupter screen or making any such claims about digital cameras.
What I did claim was that the Cibachrome prints from 120 on my wall are just as satisfying as the inkjet prints from a digital camera that hang right next to them.
"If you have a worthy negative and spend $$$ on MF equipment, I believe there is some money left for a good handmade print?"
I don't undestand this sentence either. With respect, is English your native language?
I'll say it again, just for clarity, and to answer the original question, which was (roughly) "can a D70 replace 645?"
IMHO, the image quality of the two systems is comparable for print sizes up to 8X10 or even 11X14. In addition, the workflow, ease of use and cost advantages of an all-digital system render 645 systems irrelevant. The market price for used MF gear agrees with me.[/font]