"Steve Lefevre" wrote:
Hey folks -
Here's the cons vs. pros:
digital cons:
- 1 year warranty: I work with computers, and I really don't trust a
digital device that's not warrantied for more than one year. It feels like
a
very expensive disposable camera. I know that when ( and when I say
'when',
I do mean 'when' and also 'soon') it breaks after 1 year, it will be more
expensive to repair than to replace.
You need to relate the price of the digital _camera_ to the price of the
film you would have shot. The digital body _is_ disposable. It's a new game.
In some sense, the electronic film cameras are similar in that the
electronics won't be repairable. But older cameras are only repairable if
you can find someone competent and can afford to pay for their time. Playing
with old cameras isn't as easy as some make it out to be.
- low quality images?: I've tried to find authoritative informatino on
grain vs. pixels, but stuff is all over the map. These large digital
prints
I saw at the photo shop were very impressive, though.
IMHO, it's clear that 6MP isn't as good as 35mm, but 8MP is pretty close.
645 and 16.7 MP are probably very close, but 6x7 and 6x9 with ISO 100 film
and 4000 dpi scans will more than edge out 16.7MP.
digital pros:
- No cost for picture taking: I can blow 1000 photos a day and not pay
for
any developing or printing.
At ISO 1600, dSLRs are way ahead of 35mm film.
Medium format pros:
- Higher quality lenses: lenses would be better *I guess* for a MF
system.
Actually, MF lenses are generally worse than their 35mm counterparts in
terms of MTF and limiting resolution performance. They are a _lot_ better in
lines-per-height terms, though.
- Value Retention. The MF cameras would hold value for a long time, while
a
digital camera would wuickly degrade in value. I'm certain after 10 years
a
digital won't work and will be too expensive to fix.
Note that the MF camera has lost the money you spent on film and processing.
If you make your own prints, you need a darkroom or a scanner. The
darkroom's cheaper and makes better B&W, but the scanner + inkjet is a lot
less painful than doing color yourself.
Note, however, that scanning and darkroom work are increadible sinks of
time. Both Adams and Winogrand (sp?) died with multiple tens of thousands of
images taken that they never got around to printing. My experience with
scanned MF is that I get out to the countryside twice a year, shoot 5 to 10
rolls of 120/220, and spend six months scanning. If you go out with your
dSLR and shoot, say, spring flowers, you can come home evaluate the images
in much more detail (and zero cost) than you could with 1-hour test prints
and go out and reshoot the next day. With MF, you really don't know what
you've got till you've scanned or printed, and your next shot at those
images is a year away.
So digital the first day, 6x7 the next is one way to go.
- Alternate films: I can load Infrared film, very fast film ( like star
film), and high saturation film.
With digital, you can change the "film type" with a dSLR at every shot. IR
sensitivity is pretty low, but it's there. If you capture in RAW, you can
change the (daylight/tungsten) type of the film _for the same shot_ after
the fact.
- Digital backs: do they make digital backs?
You can't afford a digital back, and the largest one is 38x48mm, so no wide
angle.
MF cons:
- Film , printing and developing.
- Upfront costs: no financing for used equipment.
I feel like if I buy a digital camera, I will be on a plan for revolving
purchases every 2-3 years.
Exactly. Some people enjoy thatg.
I feel like the repairable MF will last a long
time... I guess if they made digital backs, I would go medium format.
They do. They start at US$10,000.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
|