Medium and large format cameras...a dying breed?

[Jamie R]

"Technology is advancing in exponential leaps."

And technology is indifferent to quality. If progress has taught us anything, it is that being 'advanced' means settling for convenience and less quality. Think McDonalds.

" Does anyone remember 10 or so years ago...."

Yes. I even remember seeing a Sinclair ZX81 with a massive 16kb memory. The problem with technology has been stated above by a previous poster too.

No matter how high the resolution of the CCD, the maximum resolution is limited by the resolving power of the lens. Also, digital quality = digital quality: false coloration + no neutral white balance. Even 'medium format digital' cameras like the new 22MP Hasselblad have a pathetic resolving power against a drum-scanned Velvia from a 6x6cm slide resolving at least 180 lines/mm. Think of it in terms of film = 72Megapixels compared to a digital CCD of 22MP perhaps?

Digital just isn't there yet. It's okay for snapshooters and convenience photography (that includes professional photography sometimes). It's going to stay, because there is a mass demand for convenience.

"Now anything less that 3ghz is considered becoming obsolete very soon."

Not if you're still operating on no-frills Windows 3.1

And now think of Moore's Law: the more advanced technology gets, the more redundant high-end stuff gets. Consumers will settle for cheaper lower quality mass-produced digital cameras with average megapixels. The development of super-super-super CCDs with even greater megapixels will reach an exponential rise, and then plateau (if not crash).

Why? Consumer demand will follow the technological trend, but not to the point of utter financial absurdity. To the point of absurdity - yes. To the point of financial extravagance - yes. But not economic absurdity perhaps. Marketing forces won't be able to blind people into wasting $10,000 instead of $1,000 on a digital camera and run away with an economic success: when a 100Megapixel camera which can operate on one AA battery for at least 1 month, and output photos onto a standard home desktop with a mid-range printer which doesn't drink ink like a camel comes in for less than my monthly salary, then I'll consider digital again for practical purposes.

And that might just be for taking pictures of junk for ebay


"there are going to be finger sized cameras capable of astounding quality and we will be able to blow these photos up to 20'X20' without ever seeing a pixel."

And the fragility of this fantasy is that one single tiny weeny little pixel will blow....one out of all of those 6 million pixels on the CCD....and the photographer will be left with an embarrassing white hot spot in every single image for the rest of his camera's life. And how much is it to fix that single teeny weeny little pixel? Well, try finding a one needle in a haystack of 6 million hay grasses. It's going to be 'cheaper' to dump the camera than repair it. Welcome to the disposable world.

Up with pinhole absurdism! Hooray!


"All in all, technology is going to surpass a lot of what we think it will attain. "

Well, we know what technology can attain: nuclear power; nuclear bombs; nuclear electricity; Chernobyl; unemployment of the masses....er, you get the picture?

I'm heading for the hills now!

 

[GerryDavid]

I have a 1950's Rolleiflex MF that is built like a solid chunk of metal, uses no batteries, and produces amazing photos

Hmm, im going to look this up on ebay. :0) I presume it has manual options? I was considering a holga, but this doesnt offer manual options.

I mean I've been able to do some really decent 8x10 blow ups from just a 1 megapixel camera (thru the use of Photoshop and the "digital darkroom" of course)

Hmm, whats your trick? I can get acceptable results from a 3.2mp camera for an 8X10, but I wouldnt want to try anything less. Its not as sharp as I would prefer.

edit: remembered the name of the holga.

 

[malachite]

What are we trolling for here? I want to catch something too

Digital smigital....... So it's taking over the mass cosumer market. MF and LF film shooters and cameras will remain forever just as vinyl LP's and 45's have. Might become scarce but the nostalgia will never go away........

 

[mrsid99]

"Technology is advancing in exponential leaps."

And technology is indifferent to quality.
Wrong! Advances in technology automatically means smaller (or larger), finer and generally better else it would not be an advance
If progress has taught us anything, it is that being 'advanced' means settling for convenience and less quality.
Technology can be used how people wish but the quality direction is always higher.
Think McDonalds.
You may have gripes with McDonalds but the food is convenient, fast and safe unlike food not that many years back.



" Does anyone remember 10 or so years ago...."

Yes. I even remember seeing a Sinclair ZX81 with a massive 16kb memory. The problem with technology has been stated above by a previous poster too.
And what problem was that?

No matter how high the resolution of the CCD, the maximum resolution is limited by the resolving power of the lens. Also, digital quality = digital quality: false coloration + no neutral white balance. Even 'medium format digital' cameras like the new 22MP Hasselblad have a pathetic resolving power against a drum-scanned Velvia from a 6x6cm slide resolving at least 180 lines/mm. Think of it in terms of film = 72Megapixels compared to a digital CCD of 22MP perhaps?
The resolving power of film is governed by grain size, think of the grains as pixels. When digital sensors are the size or smaller than film grains then their resolving power will exceed film.

Digital just isn't there yet.
There's quite a few digital cameras that can match 35mm quality already.
It's okay for snapshooters and convenience photography (that includes professional photography sometimes). It's going to stay, because there is a mass demand for convenience.
Sounds like an elitist argument to me.

"Now anything less that 3ghz is considered becoming obsolete very soon."

Not if you're still operating on no-frills Windows 3.1
And if you are you're not running any worthwhile (advanced) software.
And now think of Moore's Law: the more advanced technology gets, the more redundant high-end stuff gets.
That's not Moore's law, Moore's law, simply stated, says that the number of transistors in a microprocessor will double every 18 months.
Consumers will settle for cheaper lower quality mass-produced digital cameras with average megapixels. The development of super-super-super CCDs with even greater megapixels will reach an exponential rise, and then plateau (if not crash).
You're correct in that there's always a market for "cheaper" but there's a far greater one for "better".

Why? Consumer demand will follow the technological trend, but not to the point of utter financial absurdity. To the point of absurdity - yes. To the point of financial extravagance - yes. But not economic absurdity perhaps. Marketing forces won't be able to blind people into wasting $10,000 instead of $1,000 on a digital camera and run away with an economic success:
But that's the whole point of technological advance, making items better and affordable.
when a 100Megapixel camera which can operate on one AA battery for at least 1 month, and output photos onto a standard home desktop with a mid-range printer which doesn't drink ink like a camel comes in for less than my monthly salary, then I'll consider digital again for practical purposes.
Meanwhile you'll keep spending a lot more on developing and printing? But that's your choice.
And that might just be for taking pictures of junk for ebay


"there are going to be finger sized cameras capable of astounding quality and we will be able to blow these photos up to 20'X20' without ever seeing a pixel."

And the fragility of this fantasy is that one single tiny weeny little pixel will blow....one out of all of those 6 million pixels on the CCD....and the photographer will be left with an embarrassing white hot spot in every single image for the rest of his camera's life. And how much is it to fix that single teeny weeny little pixel? Well, try finding a one needle in a haystack of 6 million hay grasses.
The classic "strawman" argument. How many 6Mp cameras have that problem today (not that you'd notice it anyway) and as technology steadily improves the reliabilty goes up.
It's going to be 'cheaper' to dump the camera than repair it. Welcome to the disposable world.

Up with pinhole absurdism! Hooray!


"All in all, technology is going to surpass a lot of what we think it will attain. "

Well, we know what technology can attain: nuclear power; nuclear bombs; nuclear electricity; Chernobyl; unemployment of the masses....er, you get the picture?
I get the picture that without technology the only employment would be working dawn to dusk for bare survival and in fact technology is the only thing that can support the worlds present population.


I'm heading for the hills now!
Maybe you're already there?

 

[voodoocat]

You may have gripes with McDonalds but the food is convenient, fast and safe unlike food not that many years back.

Convenient, fast... yes. Safe. Hell no. Just because something doesn't kill you in one meal doesn't mean it's safe. Considering obesity is the 2nd biggest killer next to cigarettes for preventative illness, I don't think one could call mcdonalds safe. Do you have any idea what mcdonalds does to your body?

anyway.. back to the discussion.

The resolving power of film is governed by grain size, think of the grains as pixels. When digital sensors are the size or smaller than film grains then their resolving power will exceed film.

That is only one piece to the puzzle. As mentioned before, lenses are needed to resolve the detail. They are unable to. I am no expert on engineering optics... but you can't just "program" a lens to resolve the detail. I imagine you are limited by the imperfections inherent in all glass. Like I said, I am no expert therefore the previous statement was a pontification.

There's quite a few digital cameras that can match 35mm quality already.

That is because the sensor is the size of an APS frame.... Sure the high megapixels make it look smoother (and often times more digital like) but 35mm still resolves more detail than aps sized sensors. I don't doubt digital's ability to make things much smaller and better quality.. but my outlook on it is until we see a major breakthough in lens technology, the fantasy of a tiny sensor rivaling the quality of an 8x10 slide is science fiction.

 

[Jamie R]

Hi there,

I'm back from the wet rainy hills. Thankfully my view camera didn't short-circuit. Now that I'm cosy and safe behind (or in front of?) my computer screen, I'll have all the time to composite a few terrible images on photoshop in the rain.

Okay...a few responses to your points:

"Wrong! Advances in technology automatically means smaller (or larger), finer and generally better else it would not be an advance"

I wonder if this opinion could be justified. I'd love to hear why it's wrong. What's said is not an argument for technology and quality having any relationship. If defining McDonalds as the epitome of quality works for you, I'll have to leave you to enjoy your beefburger in peace

The length of this thread is devoted to the question of whether medium and large format cameras are a dying breed: arguing that digital has got to the resolution power of 35mm film
(now that Technical Pan is discontinued?) doesn't address the question of "why" many photographers won't be ditching medium and large format kit. In the example I stated that the new Hasselblad 22megapixel camera still failed to resolve anywhere as close as the detail of medium and large format film using fine grained film which is equivalent to 72Megapixels of camera when drumscanned. That's why I feel "Digital just isn't there yet."

It may very well be an elitist argument, but it's an unfair world. My camera is way bigger than yours. A heck of a lot bigger. My tripod is way bigger than yours. My film bags are way bigger than yours. And my lenses! Whoo! Don't even try and imagine how big these are! I know it's a paltry male thing to be comparing sizes, but when it comes to quality, the small widdler of a 6MP just doesn't compare. Fancy helping me carry all this heavy kit sometime?

" Moore's law, simply stated, says that the number of transistors in a microprocessor will double every 18 months."

The problem is that the above is simply stated without thought about the future developmental limitations of digital. Thus far, and no further? Go one step further. The number of transistors doubles and rises exponentially: " technology advances in exponential leaps." And What happens at critical mass? Wake up!

One analogy: cancer cells in an organism can stay undetected for years as their 'growth' doubles over a period of time. At critical mass, a threshold is reached when the organism crumples under the loaded mass of the cancer's exponential growth. TThe organism then deteriorates rapidly. Comparing digital to cancer isn't necessarily a helpful analogy, however the result of exponential development is limited: it is unfounded to believe that technology can keep on developing exponentially without limitations.


"You're correct in that there's always a market for "cheaper" but there's a far greater one for "better".

Young idealism has its virtues, but also needs to believe in progress and improvement in the face of adversity.. History counters us otherwise: 35mm film was invented by Leica for convenience in an era of bulkier, higher quality medium format kit. The marketing was impeccable, and the 6x6cm folding camera died by the late 1950's. Today the marketing is still there: fancy a custom made green alligator skinned Leica MP for a 35mm camera costing a quarter the price of a digital one?

The problem of blowing pixels is never going to affect the majority: just the minority. And the problem will become more apparent over years: something which is inevitable when technological products fail. Trying to get a quote to fix my Kodak 14 megapixel camera for a blown pixel which shows up: the bright spot shows up especially when images are interpolated through enlargement. This isn't an argument against digital: it's a reason to stay with medium or large format which is more reliable out in the hills. The last quote I had for mine was £3000 to repair the sensor (and it wasn't just dust on the sensor either).

"The classic "strawman" argument. How many 6Mp cameras have that problem today (not that you'd notice it anyway)"

I love the agricultural reference; hicks do! I'm not doing a survey either. Firstly 6MP cameras aren't medium format quality let alone large format. A snapshooter getting 6x4cm prints from his 6MP won't notice. Once you start wide-format printing 40"x50", 6MP isn't going to fill even the lower bottom corner of your print and hold any quality. I'm thinking too that this point is focussing only on resolution: to say nothing about tonal rendition: colour balance: bokeh and contrast.


A 6MP is a fine start for any photographer, but life doesn't end with the number of pixels you have. It's fine to be enthusiastic about the new purchase of a 6MP toy, but think wide: think large. Think large format


"Maybe you're already there? Laughing"

I'm smiling at that

Have a good day too. I'm not out to anti-dgitise anyone btw - I've tried it, but it just doesn't work for me: other medium and large format users reflect the same findings, although the advertising hype to abandon film is very seductive.

Best wishes.

 

[mygrain]

I have a 1950's Rolleiflex MF that is built like a solid chunk of metal, uses no batteries, and produces amazing photos

Hmm, im going to look this up on ebay. :0) I presume it has manual options? I was considering a holga, but this doesnt offer manual options.

Yes, my rollei TLR is completely manual. But don't pass the Holga up all together. They are cheap and WELL worth it. Holgas can be modified to be a bit more user friendly...http://www.holgamods.com/index.html. This guy does some amazing modifications.

 

[ksmattfish]

MF and LF film shooters and cameras will remain forever just as vinyl LP's and 45's have. Might become scarce but the nostalgia will never go away........

No kidding. I regularly use MF and LF cameras that are 50+ years old. People are not going to be using 10Ds in 50 years.

 

[Jeff Canes]

What is this guys point :?: :?: :?: :scratch:

 

[photobug]

People are not going to be using 10Ds in 50 years.

They won't need paperweights in 50 years? :shock:

 

[malachite]

VH1 - "I Love(d) the 21st Century"

 

[GerryDavid]

People might be using 10D's in 50 years, assuming the elctronics will hold up. People are still using camera's today from 50 years ago, and consider it to be artistic or nice to use basic cameras. In 50 years, if the camera still works, the 10d will still produce images that are large enough to print at a fair size. And by then they may have anthorisms *spelling?* to make it even larger. :0)

 

[Corry]

I highly doubt people will still be using 10D's in 50 years. Digital technology moves too fast...it will long be oblsolete.

 

[GerryDavid]

One way to find out. :0) *waits 50 years*. Hehe.

 

[SWFLA1]

One way to find out. :0) *waits 50 years*. Hehe.