staunch film advocate considering digital...

[icassell]

Have you thought of the Russian shift lenses?

http://kievcamera.net/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=71

Hey, Dimitri, do you have any experience with these? The price is certainly alot cheaper than the Canon.

 

[mallard]

Have you thought of the Russian shift lenses?

http://kievcamera.net/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=71

Wow! thanks for the link....that may have just enabled me to taste digital via a lower end pentax instead of plunking down the cash on a canon lens

 

[ksmattfish]

One of the things I do like though is movements on a 4X5 which I wont be able to get in a digital unless someone knows of a digital field camera (or any view camera) that is affordable to normal humans.

You can get adapters that allow DSLR bodies to be attached to the backs of modern view cameras. This guy made his own

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/canon-view-camera.html

Can digital get an exposure now that normally require a long exposure on film? (im talking like 5 minutes and up)

Consider that astronomers long ago abandoned film for digital. All of their photos require long exposure and very fine, clean detail.

http://www.astropix.com/GADC/GADC.HTM

I experience two main problems with long exposure digital. One: the battery eventually runs down. There are vert grips and battery packs that may offer power longer, or the DSLR can be plugged in. I guess it depends on where you are shooting. Two: noise from heat build up at the sensor. Astronomers keep their digital cameras cool.

I'm using Canon DSLRs, and I don't notice significant problems with noise or the battery running down, but my longest exposures are 15 to 20 minutes. I've held on to a few fully mechanical, film cameras just in case I need to do an all night exposure.

One advantage of digital over film for long, low light exposures is that there's no reciprocity failure. Not a big deal for 1 to 5 min exposures, but once you go over 5 min it adds up quick. High ISO digital is significantly cleaner than film, allowing for similar image quality at a higher ISO. When calculating exposure times for some ISO 100 films considering reciprocity failure compared to ISO 400 digital and no reciprocity failure the exposure that requires an hour with film only needs about 15 min with digital.

 

[Bifurcator]

One of the things that made me reconsider digital is a couple articles I saw on HDRI. Are there any digital SLRs which can incorporate this at the moment of exposure or is this always done with bracketed exposures (can any DSLR instantaneously bracket? so as to get an HDRI of a dynamic scene like action, animals or other movement).

Fuji is doing it with some degree of success. I hear others may be following - like Sony and Casio (though Casio hasn't yet produced a dSLR that I know of).

From what i read it's for in-camera JPEG processing. Blown out areas are used as a sort of feathered luma-key and masked out to a lower range of tones. It seems to work OK on the samples I saw in the shop - and when I tried it out a bit.

To that end I will still continue on with getting back into sheet film and then scanning it. (any recommendations of a scanner which can handle 35mm, 120 and 4x5?)

Reviewers who actually test the products seem to favor the Canon's 1st and Epson's second.

Canon CanoScan 8600F

Epson Perfection V750-M Pro
Epson Perfection V500 Photo

HP Scanjet G4050 Photo Scanner

Microtek ArtixScan M1 Pro
Microtek Scanmaker 9800XL HDR

These are all models that excel at film scanning - all do 35 & 120, & 4x5 or larger. All are 48 bit external capable and the HP listed there is 96 bit internal with the best color fidelity of the bunch.