A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

digital vs. medium format



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 23rd 05, 09:28 PM
Sheldon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey folks -

I was looking at picking up a used MF camera in my area ( ~ $500 ) and
the sales guy was giving me a hard pitch on the digital cameras they
have in stock. Specifically he was harping on the Canon 10D. He showed
me a print that was larger than 2' in both dimensions that was made
from the canon, and I was impressed. When you looked at it very
closely, you saw what looked like weird Quake texture maps, but with
film you would see grain, I guess, so it seems an even trade off.

Anyway, my original thought was to buy a MF camera ( I like working
with film and holding a mechanical device in my hands ) and buy a
digital back for it later on when the prices fell. I asked the sales
guy about the quality of the lenses, and he said they were worse on the
MF, because poor quality lenses wouldn't be as noticeable on MF! Is
this true? If so, it seems I should just go digital. ( or maybe try to
get a deal on a used MF camera if I finance a digital -- I'll bet the
sales guy makes more money of a new digital than a used MF. )


Interesting question. When I did this for a living full-time I had a 35mm,
a Hassleblad and a 4x5. The 4x5 was just too big, and the Hassleblad
produced stunning photos, but was a pain to carry around with a bunch of
lenses and backs. I always kept gravitating back to the 35 and never
regretted it. The vast majority of shots were more than good enough for any
use, and it was expecially great for action photography.

Now, having experienced the world of digital slr, I can only say that when I
blow up an image to the equivalent of a 16x20 or more, it is possible to get
an image that looks as good or better than 35mm film, and that's at 6.1
megapixels. I can make "noise" look like film grain with a tweak here and
there.

While the idea of a medium format digital looks great on paper, they are
extremely expensive right now, and if you buy a camera that does not yet
have a digital back, you have no guarantee they will ever make a digital
back for that model. And if they do, what are the odds it will cover the
same area as the original film size? Look at what's happened to most
DSLR's, and many think that will be the "new" format for digital SLR's,
which lenses to match the fact that the coverage area is smaller.


  #22  
Old March 23rd 05, 09:52 PM
Inaccessible
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Roland Karlsson wrote:

It is cleaner to detect the digital image directly instead
of first using some electrochemical method. That is a
trivial truth. The smooth pictures you get from high end
digital cameras is a kind of proof. Film is grainy and have
low fidelity.

Of course a large format camera with superb lenses is
much, much better than any digital camera. But at the same
size film sux. And even medium format film has problems
with graininess compared to DSLRs.


Your basing your assumption on scanned film. Try basing your
results on Optical prints for film versus computer generated
ones. Sometimes the digital will be better, sometimes the
film will be. I don't make generalized statements which is what
my issue was.
  #23  
Old March 23rd 05, 09:52 PM
Inaccessible
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Roland Karlsson wrote:

It is cleaner to detect the digital image directly instead
of first using some electrochemical method. That is a
trivial truth. The smooth pictures you get from high end
digital cameras is a kind of proof. Film is grainy and have
low fidelity.

Of course a large format camera with superb lenses is
much, much better than any digital camera. But at the same
size film sux. And even medium format film has problems
with graininess compared to DSLRs.


Your basing your assumption on scanned film. Try basing your
results on Optical prints for film versus computer generated
ones. Sometimes the digital will be better, sometimes the
film will be. I don't make generalized statements which is what
my issue was.
  #24  
Old March 23rd 05, 09:57 PM
Socrates
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey folks -

I was looking at picking up a used MF camera in my area ( ~ $500 ) and
the sales guy was giving me a hard pitch on the digital cameras they
have in stock. Specifically he was harping on the Canon 10D. He showed
me a print that was larger than 2' in both dimensions that was made
from the canon, and I was impressed. When you looked at it very
closely, you saw what looked like weird Quake texture maps, but with
film you would see grain, I guess, so it seems an even trade off.

Anyway, my original thought was to buy a MF camera ( I like working
with film and holding a mechanical device in my hands ) and buy a
digital back for it later on when the prices fell. I asked the sales
guy about the quality of the lenses, and he said they were worse on the
MF, because poor quality lenses wouldn't be as noticeable on MF! Is
this true? If so, it seems I should just go digital. ( or maybe try to
get a deal on a used MF camera if I finance a digital -- I'll bet the
sales guy makes more money of a new digital than a used MF. )



Sure is nice to take pictures without all the computer fuss, which is the
case when I shoot film and MF, and looking at MF slides, for the first
time, on a light table, now that, for me, is excitement.

I have digital gear that I use professionally, and it is fun, but for
personal enjoyment, I prefer MF. My around town camera is a Fuji GA645,
Zi.


See, this argument about resolution is nonesense. MF has more than
enough, so does digital.


Patrick







  #26  
Old March 23rd 05, 10:06 PM
Inaccessible
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Roland Karlsson wrote:

When making professional prints film is normally scanned.


Another generalized statement.

Good scanners can extract more information from
film than any enlarger can do.


Have you ever made an optical print? I don't need the information
gotten from scanning to make a better optic print than digitized film
produces through a computer printer, provided the film is exposed
correctly to start.
  #27  
Old March 23rd 05, 10:24 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"jjs" john@xstafford.net writes:


The hidden demon of digital at this time is the issue of replacing and
upgrading cameras (or backs) to remain in the 60% sector. The $1,500
digicam
you buy today will be worth zip in four years, but you will probably want
to
replace it in three years. If you want to be at the top of the
professional
game, it's far, far more expensive.


Not really. If you want to be at the top of the professional game,
you're spending 5-figure amounts in lab fees for processing and
scanning each year. You get that free with your digital body. Film
plus professional processing plus lab scanning (needed for nearly any
professional use of images these days) comes to more than $20/roll, so
a $1500 body is paid off in only 75 rolls -- far less than a single
year of professional use.


Maybe times have changed, but when I was involved in product and ad
photography, the client picked up the bill for processing - from film to
end. Now there is a trend to lay a lot of the expense on photographers for
digal work because it seems so "can do", and cheaper for the client. This is
another burden that pushes the pro to obsolete hardware for the next better
thing.

But I don't think they're 'failing' in the marketplace; I think the
professionals are using them. They're just too expensive for the
amateur market, unlike DSLRs.


Well, of course I don't know, but I have a strong hunch that the spendy
units are losing propositions. I'd not mind being completely wrong about
that.


  #29  
Old March 23rd 05, 10:37 PM
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Inaccessible writes:

In article ,
Roland Karlsson wrote:

It is cleaner to detect the digital image directly instead
of first using some electrochemical method. That is a
trivial truth. The smooth pictures you get from high end
digital cameras is a kind of proof. Film is grainy and have
low fidelity.

Of course a large format camera with superb lenses is
much, much better than any digital camera. But at the same
size film sux. And even medium format film has problems
with graininess compared to DSLRs.


Your basing your assumption on scanned film. Try basing your
results on Optical prints for film versus computer generated
ones. Sometimes the digital will be better, sometimes the
film will be. I don't make generalized statements which is what
my issue was.


Well, high-end scanning and digital printing is the best way to
produce professional-quality prints these days, at least unless you
have a freezer full of dye-transfer materials left. In fact, this was
true 3-5 years ago.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/
  #30  
Old March 23rd 05, 10:45 PM
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Inaccessible writes:

In article ,
Roland Karlsson wrote:

When making professional prints film is normally scanned.


Another generalized statement.

Good scanners can extract more information from
film than any enlarger can do.


Have you ever made an optical print? I don't need the information
gotten from scanning to make a better optic print than digitized film
produces through a computer printer, provided the film is exposed
correctly to start.


I've made thousands of optical prints, and also own some really fine
ones made by others (I'm a pretty good B&W printer, but I ain't no
"master").

Consider, for example, this article from June 1999 by Galen Rowell
about how he was converted to digital printing
http://www.mountainlight.com/articles/op1999.06f.html:

My miraculous conversion literally happened overnight. Federal Express
delivered 50-inch prints outputted from my digital files that held all
the saturation of my original 35mm transparencies with even better
tonal separation and the apparent sharpness of medium format.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
once agin: medium vs. digital Steve Lefevre Medium Format Photography Equipment 39 November 23rd 04 01:49 AM
Digital Medium Format Charles Dickens Digital Photography 29 November 13th 04 10:01 PM
11MP digital or medium format film? Beowulf Digital Photography 94 September 5th 04 05:19 PM
Review of two new digital backs for medium format TP 35mm Photo Equipment 0 July 8th 04 10:31 AM
Help..Digital vs film for small (35mm) and medium (2 1/4) format? Digital Photo Equipment For Sale 0 May 23rd 04 09:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.