A Different Kind of "Which Camera"

[reg]

Wow, can I ask how you got shot?

A friend thought it a good idea to mess around with my Saturday night special while it was unlocked and my back was turned, I shoulda had it up but still :thumbdown:. Itty-bitty little bullet went in and out of my calf, and I'm doing fine.

Sorry, I don't have a cool story about taking pictures of a crack dealer or anything.

 

[lostprophet]

This might help http://www.phaseone.com/upload/chipshop0412p25_001.pdf
A friend of mine did a review of a phase one back on a Mamiya 645AF in 2004 and compared it with a P2 with 5x4 and 10x8.

here is Jay Myrdal's site http://www.myrdal.com/ he is the one that is using the P2

One other thing, he also uses old Nikon AI and Pentax PK lenses on his 1DS mkII via a cheap mount found on ebay, he says the results are better than most L-series lenses, I know your not the biggest Canon fan but it might be worth looking into.

 

[Moglex]

This might help http://www.phaseone.com/upload/chipshop0412p25_001.pdf
A friend of mine did a review of a phase one back on a Mamiya 645AF in 2004 and compared it with a P2 with 5x4 and 10x8.

Thanks for the link.

For another comparison of a Phase One back (this time the P45) with 5 x 4, see Here

(Can't wait to see some similar comparisons between the P65 and 5 x 4.)

 

[bigalbest]

Thanks for the link.

For another comparison of a Phase One back (this time the P45) with 5 x 4, see Here

(Can't wait to see some similar comparisons between the P65 and 5 x 4.)

Interesting link, and even though I am being ignored I read it anyways. Here is an interesting quote from the review:

Bill did an experiment during our shoot-out where he asked us to manually focus several of the images as best we could. He then took one with the autofocus — and in every case, the autofocused image was sharper than our mortal efforts.

 

[Alpha]

Thanks to everyone who posted something substantive.

 

[nynfortoo]

Thanks to everyone who posted something substantive.

Have you decided what you're going to do?

 

[Alpha]

No. The thread didn't really go anywhere. My fault I guess.

Hopefully somebody will just lock it.

 

[ksmattfish]

I would like to hear the opinions of some long-time MF/LF film shooters on printing big with a 12MP camera.

I shot 4x5 and 120 for 15+ years. Mostly landscapes and portraits, but some PJ style stuff too. I pretty much gave up on 35mm film for personal work early on; it just wasn't good enough for me. I did my own BW processing and printing in my home darkroom for a decade. I bought my first DSLR, a Canon 20D, 4 years ago. I was reluctant to "go digital", but like you I felt the need from client projects. Also like you I proclaimed that I'd always continue using film, and I'd be printing in my darkroom using traditional methods until the day I died.

Last year I bought a 5D, sold my Hasselblad 500c/m and Pentax 67II, and shut down my darkroom. The image quality I can get from the 5D is very similar to 6x7cm film at ISO 100. At ISO 400 and above my results from the 5D are easily better than any high speed medium format film I've tried. The 5D doesn't have anywhere near the resolution of sheet film, but my 4x5 gear sits gathering dust on the shelf. Why? Because I've found the increased portability, and exceptional precision and control over processing tends to result in a superior finished photograph. That may not be the same for you.

Here's another landscape photographer that used 4x5 for years, but now uses a Canon 5D. I highly recommend reading his article "Farewell To the Revolution".

http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/

Your own tests are all that matter. Can I get great looking 3'x4' prints from a 12mp, 35mm format DSLR? Yep. Can you do the same in the days or weeks after first picking up a 12mp, 35mm format DSLR? I'd say it's unlikely. Just like it took time to learn film, you will need time to learn digital. Digital exposure and processing have different requirements. Digital is much more picky than neg film, and minor mistakes or sloppiness will have a greater apparent effect on final image quality. I think image quality differences between one DSLR or the next are minor compared to the effects differences in skill and experience between photographers will have. I run into plenty of photographers, amateurs and pros alike, that tell me that things I accomplish are impossible. They've got fancy math and all sorts of complicated tests that support their theories. All I've got is prints hanging on the wall to be viewed by human eyeballs. I really don't care about the math. I just care how the finished photograph looks.

No matter what you think about digital now (and unless you really believe that hundreds of thousands of pros and serious enthusiasts who shot film switched because digital is more convenient I'd say the film vs digital debate is pretty much over) with the way the technology is advancing in the near future digital will outperform film in resolution, color accuracy, dynamic range, tonal range, high ISO, etc, etc, etc.... Right now there are digital sensors smaller than 4x5 centimeters that have greater resolution and dynamic range than 4x5 inch film. Sure the cameras cost as much as a new sports car, but they will get cheaper, and someday there will be an affordable, small bodied DSLR that has as much or greater potential image quality as 4x5 film currently does. Realizing that I decided it was important to start learning digital, even if I thought film was better. In my opinion it's an advantage to be skilled in a variety of tools and techniques.

If you love film feel free to stick with it. No matter how good digital gets it doesn't make film worse. The last 100 years have proven that great photos can be created with film. The next 100 will prove that great photos can be created with digital. In the end it's going to be the photographer that really matters.

 

[Alpha]

Well, as much as I talk about sharpness, detail, and resolution, film simply has an indelibly different feel to it that I savor in my personal work. Digital, though, is a must for many paying gigs.

I won't ever go digital for black and white. The day I can afford a P65, and I burn through my 4x5 Super XX and my Ektalure, I might consider it. But the prints just aren't the same, and I've tried my hand at black and white printing on the best media and the best printers. I won't even get into contact printing, let alone on Azo. Many forget that film and darkroom work are not technologically stagnant, if revivalist. While I work on new workflows for conversions, Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee are resurrecting silver chloride papers. The ritual may be cumbersome, but it's a lovable one. There's something so substantial, as you know, about coming out from under the dark cloth, pulling the slide, and hearing the leaf shutter snap as you depress the cable release.

Even for color work, some things aren't so difficult. I'm working on setting up an editorial fashion gig where I'll be shooting 4x5 chromes on Agfa RSX. God, to see it on the light table is just such a different feel from seeing it on the monitor. Don't even get me started on Ciba. The digital ones on the lightjet just aren't the same.

I'm going to continue building my book with film. Commercial work can be a "get me proofs yesterday" environment, but not always. It's not always so much sweat for me to wait on the lab. But I'm one of the lucky ones. I can do a film shoot in the morning and have a scan by late afternoon.

Some things make me reconsider film even when I could shoot digital. If someone asked me to make a large duratrans for a store-front and I wasn't under enormous time pressure, I might think about breaking out the 4x5.

I like things that I can hold.

I don't like paying for things I don't need. If I could afford digital MF, I would probably buy it in a heart-beat. Unfortunately, I can't even rent it where I am.

That's why I'm leaning towards the Pentax. It seems about as close as I'll get without spending $5k on a back alone. I do want to spend $5k, but not on just a back. I want a couple Speedo Black packs, heads, batteries, and a full line of modifiers. I want a new RZIID for the day I finally make the switch into the big game. But in a smaller dSLR, I don't want to buy the glitz and glam. I just want some pixels and an SD card.

I'm in a somber mood today.

 

[Moglex]

Right now there are digital sensors smaller than 4x5 centimeters that have greater resolution and dynamic range than 4x5 inch film. Sure the cameras cost as much as a new sports car, but they will get cheaper, and someday there will be an affordable, small bodied DSLR that has as much or greater potential image quality as 4x5 film currently does.

I'm not convinced that is true.

A 4x5 has a lot of mm across which to spread the lens' (admittedly, generally, slightly fewer) lppm.

Even if a 35mm digital had infinite resolution I don't believe that the effective resolution (lens + sensor) would exceed that of a 4 x 5.

It's a slightly closer thing with 6x6 but I wonder if we'll eventually get to the stage where the extreme extra cost (the differential is much greater than with film gear), weight and other inconveniences will make the quality premium worth it

 

[ksmattfish]

... film simply has an indelibly different feel to it that I savor in my personal work.

An excellent reason to choose the materials, tools, and processes you use is because you enjoy using them.

I won't ever go digital for black and white. ... But the prints just aren't the same ... I won't even get into contact printing, let alone on Azo. ... Don't even get me started on Ciba. The digital ones on the lightjet just aren't the same.

I've heard it all before. Much of it came from my very own mouth. Then photographers who really knew what they were doing showed me excellent BW and color prints from digital that blew me away, and I realized that even if only one photographer (and since then I've seen lots) was capable of achieving that sort of quality, then the weak link wasn't the gear, materials, or process. It was me.

 

[Alpha]

I've heard it all before. Much of it came from my very own mouth. Then photographers who really knew what they were doing showed me excellent BW and color prints from digital that blew me away, and I realized that even if only one photographer (and since then I've seen lots) was capable of achieving that sort of quality, then the weak link wasn't the gear, materials, or process. It was me.

It's not always about possible. It's about feel. Excellent is one thing. What I want is another.

 

[ksmattfish]

I'm not convinced that is true.

I admit I have no knowledge as to the technical requirements of putting a 40mm x 54mm sensor in a camera body, and it may never be as small as a D-Rebel, but that camera is going to be a lot closer in size to my 5D than it is to my Super Graphic, which I consider small for a 4x5 camera.

Whenever anyone tells me about the limits of technology I always think back to the early 90's when my father confidently proclaimed I'd never fill a 170mb hard drive in my lifetime. Right now I'm sitting on 1.25 tb.

 

[Moglex]

Whenever anyone tells me about the limits of technology I always think back to the early 90's when my father confidently proclaimed I'd never fill a 170mb hard drive in my lifetime. Right now I'm sitting on 1.25 tb.

I know what you mean but this is a logical limit, not really based on something that is suddenly going to double (as most things to do with computers does every sqrt(2) to 2 years).

Unless someone manages to do more for lens resolution than they have done in the last hundred years (and this includes the period where insane amounts of computing power became easily and cheaply availible), I can't see 35mm catching up with 4x5 any time in the near future.

It's a quite different sort of prediction to "I don't think they'll ever make a 35mm sensor more than 100MB". (I remember reading some witless computer reporter confidently pontificating that no one was going to bother making a camera with a sensor of more than 2MP "because that's the most than anyone will ever need".)

 

[passerby]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned sony a350. Beside pentax this a350 boast of 14.5 mega pixel with less than US$700 body only. It can utilize the older minolta lenses, and of course few classy zeiss lens. I have googled few hours to find an explicit statement of "aperture priority compatibility" with the older lenses but with no luck.

I believe the price, the existance of many old lenses and the amount of mega pixel have meet your criteria. You just need to find the aperture priority compatibility directly from them is the best way. This link below to see their available lenses. Good luck:

http://ca.konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/camera-peu/slr/lens/index.html#f

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...10151&productId=8198552921665337554&langId=-1