Digital back or new SLR ?

[elrafo]

Hi,

I own an old but in excellent condition Hasselblad 500 c/m.
I would like to buy a used Phase one P-20, 16mp, I know the results are really good, but there Is an important crop factor...
for the same budget I could buy a 5D MII with a 24-70 f2.8 L ...
In your opinion, at low Iso, is the 5D far better ?
I am more concerned by image quality than portable issues. I Love my Hassy but I don't have the chance to try a P-20 here in Montreal, this model is discontinued.

do you have any opinion on this?

thanks!

 

[benhasajeep]

I don't know much about them, so I looked them up. It is 16mb into a (nearly 37mmx 37mm) larger sensor than the 21 into the full frame of the canon (36x24). But it seems prettly slow. Says up to 1.15 seconds for capture time. Obviously your not shooting high speed with a Hassy. But I think the technology has passed this back. Will be paying still somewhat a premium for older technology (guessing since I really don't know when it came out).

For me, I would go with the Canon (I still have my Bronica's). When I have the desire to use my SQ's I don't mind at all going with film. Film for at least the near future will still be available. If you think about it. A nikon 9000ed scanner, scanning your film would be cheaper and higher resolution than the 16mp of the back.

I don't know what the current theory of max scanning value to mega pixels is today. But with MF film. I think you could scan it to beat at least 16mp for quality. I have been wanting to get the coolscan for over a year now. Never even considered a back.

 

[elrafo]

Thanks!

actually yes I understand your point, but scanning is really time consuming! removing dust, scratches (they allways are even using all anti static stuff), I spend almost 2 hours for scanning 6 pictures and make them printable.
Also Film is a bit expensive, almost 150 $ per shoot (5 films + dev) ...

this is why I consider digital back, but yes, 5d is also very attracting...

 

[benhasajeep]

Thanks!

actually yes I understand your point, but scanning is really time consuming! removing dust, scratches (they allways are even using all anti static stuff), I spend almost 2 hours for scanning 6 pictures and make them printable.
Also Film is a bit expensive, almost 150 $ per shoot (5 films + dev) ...

this is why I consider digital back, but yes, 5d is also very attracting...

I shoot only slide with my SQ's, and do the developing at hom, if the need ever comes up. Not a pro so I can save up the rolls until I feel like processing them. Useually I wait till I can use up an entire 5 liter kit of chemicals using a Jobo processor.

I have been doing scans on an epson 4990 pro and not totally satisfied with the results. Pretty good, but think they can be better. But know what you mean about time spent scanning.

 

[jstuedle]

I was ready to buy a back for my Hassy 503 C/M the day the D3 was intro'ed. I chose to preorder my D3 instead. I am convinced it was a much better choice.

 

[Jeff Canes]

Any models above the Canon 5DmII or Nikon D300 should have as good or better image quality at a better price plus they have more lens options

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I'd go with the 5D, 16mp for a really slow medium format back doesn't sound really all that great. You can get more resolution by scanning even 35mm film, let alone medium format.

I'd go for the 5D and get your film sent out to be scanned. Good labs can scan medium format at about 25-35mp and for usually less then $15 a roll.