Uhg. Is it that most posters are stuck in the MP, technology of latest rave, and what they sell??? Indeed there is more ;
What about tonality? I only have personal experience between 4X5 and FF DSLR but the difference was somewhat like a skyscraper and a shack. I assume that the same size ratio of imaging area would be true between the MFDB and 8X10 if not more exaggerated. Imaging area size is more than just pure resolution is it not?
As some of you likely recall I compared Mamiya ZD raw files to drum scans of Velvia 50 from Mamiya 7 some time back
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....&pid=153583On that merit, and now instead using a 28MP Leaf back, and of being new to 4x5 with Velvia 50, I can simply state that I am overwhelmed by the appearance of large format film. To my humble eyes (which are sensitive) the resolution of 28MP Leaf back compared to 4x5 Velvia appears to make my digital back a tad like a shack compared to a skysraper... Not only that, Fuji Quickloads are cheap in comparison.
Yet, there is more to the difference, the rendering of digital vs. film is very different. It sure makes me wonder many times why I as an amateur have a $$$ digital back in my possession, and not stuck and shot more with film...
In terms of resolution, you may stitch three, six or more digital captures to achieve 4x5 or 8x10 film resolution, but IMHO, it's difficult for MFDB to achieve the tonality of large size films. I had extensively compared a Phase One P25 and briefly a P45 with 4x5 early this year, and now I decide to go back to film for this particular reason. Sorry my financial capability won't allow me to try a P65+.
The constant comparing of dslr vs mfdb, and now in posts here even dslr compared to 8x10 is tad pathetic. Photography is a loads of more than just pixels and gear. Murray Fredricks posted above, and I looked up his website. Indeed very, very impressive photos with a Leaf Digital Back. Same time my observation is that those photos demonstrate one use for landscape at which a digital back can excel. As for the traditional type of landscape photography, e.g. such as by Jack Dykinga I am not at all convinced that a digital back prevails, actually in situations of capturing strong light in golden hours I feel rather convinced that slide film provide a much superior rendering. Digital and film are two complete different medias with complete differing renderings. One need to consider if digital is actually correct for ones use. Personally, I remain being struck by landscapes photos made with large format and medium format film more than I am by digital. Simply the rendering of light and colors of Velvia 50 is amazing. Also, very few know how to delicately adjust and process landscape photos to very high quality levels, as compared to what is done for portraits. Frankly speaking, indeed to reach very high quality levels for digital landscape photography it takes alot more than a dslr and CS4/Lightroom. Gear wise a quality digital back such as Leaf or P1 is superior to dslr, yet more so, with ditgital so much of the of rendering is placed into hands of the photographer, and frankly speaking most common is that the adjusted renderings do not have the naturally looking enhancements of the landscapes as film does. I believe painted art can teach us some.
Further, I wish to also express that discussion of digital back or dslr replacing film is tad pathetic, since that places all focus on digital technology and pixel peeping. Film and digital are simply different tools. As for what MP equals film, that argument has been going on for years...
For 3.1MP being claimed equal to 35mm Provia 100 -
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...s/d30/d30.shtmlFor 6MP being claimed equal to slight less than 6x7 slide film -
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5003Indeed the whole business wish us to believe that digital is superior (they wish to SELL)... is digital superior for landscape photography really, for I assume that is what 8x10 is used for? I suggest an experiment: take a look at books of landscape photography, is there any with digital that even come near the ones which were made to the top notch level using slide film? I have found none. My latest addition is "Transient Light: A Photographic Guide to Capturing the Medium" by Ian Cameron. Flipping throw it the images indeed are impressive. They were all shot with Pentax 6x7 SLR and Fuji Velvia 50, apparent scanned on a Nikon 120 film scanner...
Above stated, my Aptus 65 digital back is stellar and one I am very pleased with. The downside is lots of weight due to the Mamiya 645 system, and that it does not replace film or vice versa. Film days was much simpler and lighter weight.
Above my humble view to share.
Anders