Best MF/LF for digital...

[JSpedding]

Hi guys I use a sony a900 as my main work horse but recently I have started using alot more film especially 5x4 sheet film and I have fallen in love with the Sinar system as a way of shooting but obviously film isnt really feasible in a commerical environment.

Anyway....in a few years I am hoping to move upto digital in either large or medium format and I have been looking into the various ways of doing it but wish to buy the camera now before they all become to expensive or ravaged by the passage of time.

Im thinking either buying a sinar and upgrading to the 22MP back (although in 2 years this will probably have changed) or buying a MF camera such as a Mamiya RZ or Fuji GX680 and doing likewise.

Does anyone have any experience with any of these? obviously the Sinar has to be tripod mounted but this isnt to much of a problem for me in fact I like it, the RZ seems the best as I can move around easily with it (compared to the GX680 which is the size of a small human)

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mike_E]

Do you want to stay with a mono-rail or have you looked into field cameras?

Either way I would look into using a really good scanner to digitize your sheet film rather than spending 20 grand on a scanning back. (unless you will be doing commercial work with it then your math may vary )

I own an RB67, Speed Graphic, and a Calumet monorail. I wind up getting out the Speed most often (but then I have a newer model roll film back for it which makes things more doable more often). The thing is is that carrying a monorail around is not enjoyable at all and there is little real difference between an RB/RZ67 kit and a 4X5 Field camera.

 

[JSpedding]

I do like the monorail and enjoy the tilt shift capibilities that come with it, im looking around and RZ bodies are dead cheap atm so I may buy one and sit on it for a few years as who knows what will be brought out by the time I take the leap into digital MF, things like the pentax 645 at affordable prices will surely heat up the competition a bit. Cheer

 

[Alpha]

The RZ isn't a lot less bulky than a 4x5. I would either go compact, like a 645AFD (bodies can be found for CHEAP) or 4x5. Besides, most backs (even down to 645) can be mounted on a 4x5 with a movable reducing back. So in theory you could do both.

It really depends on what setting you're shooting in. In the studio, it doesn't really matter as much if your back can communicate with the camera's exposure controls, so basically any back and body will do.

I would stay away from the 680. Parts and repair are a nightmare.

 

[skieur]

Sony will soon be coming out with an A950 and probably an A1000 next year in the medium format range which will be in the 32 megapixels plus range.

Red One has the advantage of both a medium format module and a large format module. Very large sensor size results in very high resolution. This camera is used for top of the line magazine covers etc.

skieur

 

[Vautrin]

Hi guys I use a sony a900 as my main work horse but recently I have started using alot more film especially 5x4 sheet film and I have fallen in love with the Sinar system as a way of shooting but obviously film isnt really feasible in a commerical environment.

Anyway....in a few years I am hoping to move upto digital in either large or medium format and I have been looking into the various ways of doing it but wish to buy the camera now before they all become to expensive or ravaged by the passage of time.

Im thinking either buying a sinar and upgrading to the 22MP back (although in 2 years this will probably have changed) or buying a MF camera such as a Mamiya RZ or Fuji GX680 and doing likewise.

Does anyone have any experience with any of these? obviously the Sinar has to be tripod mounted but this isnt to much of a problem for me in fact I like it, the RZ seems the best as I can move around easily with it (compared to the GX680 which is the size of a small human)

Thanks in advance.

Mamiya / Holga + good quality film scanner =~ $500 - $1k

Gets you pictures digital equivalent between 25MP and 100MP (depending on film -- maybe even more if you're using a really low iso film)

BUT film will cost you maybe $1 a shot between developing and the cost of film.

Shoot digital and you can shoot all you want but it'll cost you $50k up front for one of the fancy 50MP backs.

So really it's about how much you're going to shoot.

If you're going to reach 100k shutter presses digital is cheaper.

If you just want a couple thousand shutter presses stick with film.

 

[JSpedding]

Sony will soon be coming out with an A950 and probably an A1000 next year in the medium format range which will be in the 32 megapixels plus range.

32MP on a 35mm sensor isn't a good step in my eyes there just isn't enough room on the sensor for all those pixels, the a900 is noisy enough without and extra 8MP on there

 

[skieur]

Sony will soon be coming out with an A950 and probably an A1000 next year in the medium format range which will be in the 32 megapixels plus range.

32MP on a 35mm sensor isn't a good step in my eyes there just isn't enough room on the sensor for all those pixels, the a900 is noisy enough without and extra 8MP on there

32 MP is where things are going at the high end 35mm sensor cameras as well as the "low end" medium format. Back lit sensors are more sensitive to light and result in less noise. Medium format sensors by the way are very noisy at high ISOs, even Hasselblad etc.

Red One by the way uses a larger camera with therefore quite a larger sensor. So, the approaches to noise seem to be new sensors that are more sensitive to light, larger sensors to make room for the pixels, and taking and blending high speed multiple shots automatically, in camera to eliminate random noise in low lighting conditions. Even changing the architecture of the sensors is being looked at by the camera R&D people.

skieur

 

[epatsellis]

Sinar and Betterlight 6K, you will be in heaven.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

DO NOT BUY NOW to do tomorrow's work!

Who knows where technology will take us in the next few months. If you buy today (and spend a god awful lot of money doing so) your gear could well be obsolete by the time you start using it professionally.

 

[epatsellis]

Though in all fairness, my Sinar P and Ektachrome still get a fair amount of use. (as do my Bron lighting, and all the bits that I've been using over the last 20+ years)

It comes down to a simple issue, do you have work now that supports that level of (financial/personal/skill) commitment or are you just looking for toys?

 

[Soocom1]

Ime with cloudwalker on this. Ive played the game of going RB 67 w/ a digital back. Ok outside of the fact I can now claim I am shooting Med. Format Digital, compared to cameras like the Blad H3, your dead in the water. Especially with faster shooting like a wedding.
In all seriosness, I say build up the money to get at least a newer system. I love the 6x7 format, and think itll do just fine in the near future, but the reality is that when the time comes to go that route, the technology will be on par with where Film in Med. format was just before the dig. revolution started.
Mamyia isnt the only game in town, and if the roumors I hear are correct, this whole pixle chase thing is about to go way of the do-do anyway.

 

[epatsellis]

Ime with cloudwalker on this. Ive played the game of going RB 67 w/ a digital back. Ok outside of the fact I can now claim I am shooting Med. Format Digital, compared to cameras like the Blad H3, your dead in the water. Especially with faster shooting like a wedding.

True, if you need that type of camera. I shoot predominantly product and architecture, and for my uses even an ancient scan back trumps the newest digwonder. For the market's they were intended for (arch., product work and fine art repro) a scan back is the best bang for the buck. I consistently shoot 20x24 images at 300 dpi native res. With color accuracy and the ability to capture detail that anybody using a single shot camera can only imagine. If you're curious, see the betterlight website for many sample images and an explanation of why a bayer pattern sensor typically used in nearly every single shot camera by it's very nature interpolates.

Mamyia isnt the only game in town, and if the roumors I hear are correct, this whole pixle chase thing is about to go way of the do-do anyway.

There was a paper/report I saw published I will try to find, essentially what it boils down to is simply that today's high resolution digital backs are essentially empty numbers, the tolerances needed to maintain accuracy are on the order of 2 microns, far in excess of what can be manufactured consistently, if you can find lenses that resolve in excess of 120 lp/mm. In comparison, the sensel pitch of a scan back means that any lens that resolves more than 50 lp/mm (and that's about every LF lens and enlarging lens made in the last 50 or so years) can out resolve the sensor.

 

[Vautrin]

Ime with cloudwalker on this. Ive played the game of going RB 67 w/ a digital back. Ok outside of the fact I can now claim I am shooting Med. Format Digital, compared to cameras like the Blad H3, your dead in the water. Especially with faster shooting like a wedding.

True, if you need that type of camera. I shoot predominantly product and architecture, and for my uses even an ancient scan back trumps the newest digwonder. For the market's they were intended for (arch., product work and fine art repro) a scan back is the best bang for the buck. I consistently shoot 20x24 images at 300 dpi native res. With color accuracy and the ability to capture detail that anybody using a single shot camera can only imagine. If you're curious, see the betterlight website for many sample images and an explanation of why a bayer pattern sensor typically used in nearly every single shot camera by it's very nature interpolates.

Mamyia isnt the only game in town, and if the roumors I hear are correct, this whole pixle chase thing is about to go way of the do-do anyway.

There was a paper/report I saw published I will try to find, essentially what it boils down to is simply that today's high resolution digital backs are essentially empty numbers, the tolerances needed to maintain accuracy are on the order of 2 microns, far in excess of what can be manufactured consistently, if you can find lenses that resolve in excess of 120 lp/mm. In comparison, the sensel pitch of a scan back means that any lens that resolves more than 50 lp/mm (and that's about every LF lens and enlarging lens made in the last 50 or so years) can out resolve the sensor.

So how do these scan backs compare to film? With my mamiya and a very small grain film (iso 100 E6) I can get the equivalent of 100 MP with my scanner...

Those images on the betterlight page are only about 50 MP... Full Resolution Zoomify Image List

They offer 1 model for $20k that offers 100 MP....

 

[epatsellis]

Though some call it bs, take the raw MP rating and multiply it by 3 to arrive at an equivalent single shot bayer pattern megapixel rating, according to JCIA guidlines. (my experiences bear this to be pretty close to accurate, maybe 2.5 or so)

I can readily oversample at least 2x before I have to start doing anything outside the ordinary, though I rarely need to upsample, and frequently capture at less than the highest resolution.

While you may think you are getting 100mp of data, abot 60-75% is empty data, outside of a drum scanner, there's no way you can optically resolve more than about 1500-2400 dpi max., even with my Linotype scanners I have here that are designed for scanning transparencies. The the whole issue of just how much detail can the film resolve, my experience (shooting 6x7 for the last 20+ years, and a film/digital workflow for the last 8 or 10) has been that carefully exposed E6 film in 6x7 tops out at about 1800 dpi, anymore is just empty data, and even at that, it's pretty rough looking at 100%.

Scan backs, in comparision with film, as long as you have the light, I can get more detail out of my scan back than scanned 4x5 E6 film. Somewhere on Betterlight's website is a comparision of DSLR/Scan Back/Film (in fact here: The Rest of the Picture ). The results are pretty obvious, I urge you to look at them if you have any doubts. If the ulitmate in image quality is your goal, single shot backs and DSLR's can't even hold a candle to a scan back in terms of accuracy, detail and image quality. I've had several single shot/multi shot backs in studio, as I really do miss using strobes for some of my work, but only after comparing a Sinar 54m in multishot mode to the scan back and wondering where the hell the detail was convinced me to stay with the scan back.

Other's needs are different, and I'm far from an expert, but for my work, in my studio, the scan back is king of the hill.