Large Format 4x5 Photographer needs to Modernize?

[notesfromtheroad]

Hi all,

This is my first post to this forum. I have been using a Toyo Field Camera for my entire adult life, and will continue to use it into next year. (You can see my 4x5s at notesfromtheroad.com) However, I just found out today that Fuji has discontinued its velvia line for 4x5; one of the last straws for a type of photography I love and never wanted or imagined giving up.

I realize it may be time to consider shifting fully to digital. I cannot afford the expensive digital backs or digital medium format systems, but I want to continue with the high-quality images I've been able to shoot with affordably as an amateur for years. I own a Canon digital system, with a few lenses and a macro setup. I always carry this camera when I shoot 4x5, but have always used that for macros and telephotos, while my landscapes and higher quality photos get the 4x5.

What are your thoughts on moving entirely to Canon digital...saving up for higher quality tilt-shift lenses and a Mark 5 III, to replace the Toyo? There are a million benefits of digital which I am well aware, but I'd like to hear from current 4x5 users and those who've switched to digital. Should I continue with 4x5 despite the increasing setbacks and costs?

 

[Light Guru]

You might be interested in this

http://fotodioxpro.com/index.php/fo...-iv-5d-5d-mark-ii-7d-10d-20d-30d-40d-50d.html

 

[notesfromtheroad]

Thanks Light Guru, that is an interesting tool...will consider...

 

[Ysarex]

You should switch to digital. If the loss of Velvia isn't the real last straw then that last straw will arrive soon enough. What new film do you think will be released next year in 4x5 sheets?

I have a 40 year history in photography. I used to shoot with view cameras from 8x10 down. I did a lot of field work with a Linhof Technika, then a Wista field camera -- my last favorite view camera was an Arca. So you want to here from people who have been there. I've been there. Now I shoot with a Canon 5DmkII. I don't consider it a step down I know it is a step up.

The most critical quality determinant of a photograph is tone response. A modern digital camera with a 14 bit AD converter gives you access to more tonal capture than film. The software then gives you more control of that increased tonal information you've brought home. That equates to more capability and better photographs. Yes, large film still records more detail and if you're making really big prints that's a concern. I make 16x20 prints from my 5D that are more than adequate in terms of detail and superior to film in terms of tonal response. I don't require bigger prints and so as far as I'm concerned the scales weigh in favor of digital.

Let me show you a photo. This is from last year's Fall Festival in my neighborhood. The local band was playing in front of the church. They were wearing white in the sun in front of the church facade that was fully shaded. Any photographer should have enough sense to leave the camera in the bag. If you had film this was impossible. However, the church bulletin lady wants a picture for the bulletin. Do I try and explain why it can't be done or do I get my good neighbor brownie points and tell her I'll email her the photo? Here's the JPEG straight out of the camera. The highlights are blown and the shadows are blocked up -- of course.



geezer_band_1 by apo lanthar, on Flickr1


But I shot a raw capture. I had the raw file and all that tonal information was really there. The highlights weren't really blown and the shadow detail was in fact there. I just had to process the raw file and email it to the church bulletin lady. I got my brownie points:



geezer_band_2 by apo lanthar, on Flickr


If I had used my 5D it could be better, but I didn't take the 5D to the festival. I took my $389.00 compact Samsung which also captures raw files and in fact captures more tonal information than 4x5 film. This was done with a P&S. It's time to make the switch.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

The thing I would miss the MOST is the lack of movements when switching to a fixed-body camera like a d-slr. Sure, there are three Canon T/S lenses, and a new Samyang 24mm TS on the way, but...the 5D-III is already way under-pixelled compared to the Nikon D800e, and the Nikon has a better sensor as well, in terms of total scene dynamic range possibilities. I dunno...I suppose the 5D-III and the 24 and 45, and maybe the 90 TS/E lenses would be enough to make you happy. I dunno...the way I see it the 5D III is basically six year-old sensor technology, in a body that's FINALLY decent.Not sure how tied/married you really are to the Canon EOS system. If tyou ewant to "modernize", I don't really think of the 5D-III as all that "modern", since it's basically the 5D-II sensor with one more megapixel, and it STILL has issues with pattern noise at base ISO whenever the image is "lifted" in post.

See Fred Miranda's Nikon D800 vs Canon 5D Mark II comparison article. Canon's lagging badly.http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

 

[Ysarex]

The thing I would miss the MOST is the lack of movements when switching to a fixed-body camera like a d-slr. Sure, there are three Canon T/S lenses, and a new Samyang 24mm TS on the way, but...the 5D-III is already way under-pixelled compared to the Nikon D800e, and the Nikon has a better sensor as well, in terms of total scene dynamic range possibilities. I dunno...I suppose the 5D-III and the 24 and 45, and maybe the 90 TS/E lenses would be enough to make you happy. I dunno...the way I see it the 5D III is basically six year-old sensor technology, in a body that's FINALLY decent.Not sure how tied/married you really are to the Canon EOS system. If tyou ewant to "modernize", I don't really think of the 5D-III as all that "modern", since it's basically the 5D-II sensor with one more megapixel, and it STILL has issues with pattern noise at base ISO whenever the image is "lifted" in post.

See Fred Miranda's Nikon D800 vs Canon 5D Mark II comparison article. Canon's lagging badly.Part II - Controlled tests

I agree with Derrel, make the switch but consider that Nikon has taken the cutting-edge lead.

Joe

 

[Helen B]

I still shoot 4x5 and 8x10 film - 4x5 for personal and commercial work, and 8x10 for personal work. No plans to give up. I've been taking pictures and developing film for 50 years, and using LF for the last 40 of those. Now I use both film and digital. Though I still have a large stock of E100G for commercial studio work, I use mostly negative film for my personal work because of its greater dynamic range. Have you thought about using neg film? I assume that you are scanning your Velvia now. What are you using? I can see that unless you are using a high end scanner digital could be better quality than 4x5 film.

I have a sliding Nikon back for 4x5 - I usually use it with an Arca Swiss Field Compact (the one with the 110 mm front board). It's not all that useful because the depth of the mirror box restricts the focal length of lens that will work. Neither too long nor too short. I find that the three Nikon PC-E lenses I have (similar to the Canon TS-E) give good results, and are easy to use. The Canons are a little more versatile, and there is the 17 mm, which Nikon haven't produced yet. I suspect that you would be happy with them, though they aren't as versatile as a 4x5 can be. If you want a longer lens than those offered by Nikon and Canon there are Schneider and Zeiss/Hartblei T/S lenses, albeit at a price.

A lot of it is personal choice, and what makes you happy. There are few technical limits - digital is wonderful; film is the best it has ever been. If the loss of Velvia means that you don't want to use 4x5 any more, then stop. If you still like using 4x5, then continue to use it.

Good luck,
Helen

 

[unpopular]

You might be interested in this

Fotodiox Pro Canon EOS to Large Format 4x5 Adapter - Offset Camera Mount - fits Cambo, Linhof, Calumet, Horseman, Omega, Toyo, Kodak with graflok back on Digital Canon EOS Bodies 1d, 1ds, Mark II, III, IV 5D, 5D Mark II, 7D, 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D,

That would be great if there were appropriate lenses available at remotely reasonable cost.

 

[Helen B]

If you want T/S lenses, then Canon has a definite lead on Nikon because of the lenses, except maybe for macro, perhaps enough to overcome the advantages of the D800/E.

 

[notesfromtheroad]

Hi everybody - thank you for these incredible answers. I particularly appreciate Ysarex's reminder about the power of RAW, which I use and cherish constantly when I use digital. The main reason I have always used the large format is the resolution, with the idea that maybe some day I will actually print these things huge. And the manual control and the tilt shift have been my friends all along. Here is what I believe I need to do:

Phase out my Toyo 4x5 field camera and the 24mm and 65mm lens equivalents I have used for the past 12 years.

My Canon system is a 40D with a 10-20mm lens, a 100mm macro and a 100-400...and a twin strobe for macros.

To replace the large format for landscapes and cityscapes, I would convert to the Canon Mark III, and start with one 24mm tilt shift and eventually save up for the telephoto tilt-shift to replace my 65mm LF lens (actually a 200mm). I will assume that within a few years, Canon will be moving up in megapixels. I agree about some of the benefits of Nikon, but I've invested in Canon already and I do appreciate the line of tilt-shift lenses.

A few random concerns about switching entirely to digital. When I use my spot meter and I know my shot, the way my LF has executed the image has always been pitch perfect. While my Canon 40D and admittedly low quality lenses have been great with macros and certain types of images, I have never been able to reproduce the crisp colors and exact tonal ranges of the LF. With the Mark III and high-end lenses, can I safely assume this worry will go away? Also, my spot meter has become like my pen, almost my main tool when using large format. Would I be wise to keep a spot meter in my quiver, or do digital photographers always do all of this in-camera?

Thanks again for your advice and help on this...

 

[amolitor]

The nice thing about the view camera, if you love wet photography, is that it's the smallest size which will always be practical no matter what happens to commercial film. You'll always be able to do wet plate work with a 4x5 or bigger, if you're an even moderately competent cook.