4x5 vs. 39MP Digital

A nice comparison can be read about he

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
A nice comparison can be read about he

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml


It's damn near as nice as the 4x5 film! Good for it. Of course, at
$40,000, they aren't likely to become more popular than film any time soon.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

It's damn near as nice as the 4x5 film! Good for it. Of course, at
$40,000, they aren't likely to become more popular than film any time soon.

Yeah, but I wouldn't expect them to remain at $40K too long either.

Note that the author used different sharpening methods for each sample.
It is entirely possible that with a bit of tweaking both samples could
be improved, perhaps with the result of the digital sample appearing
superior.
But even the small differences he noted probably wouldn't be detectable
when viewing a 30"x40" print, and certainly wouldn't be detectable at
sizes smaller than that.

Matt Clara wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
A nice comparison can be read about he

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml


It's damn near as nice as the 4x5 film! Good for it. Of course, at
$40,000, they aren't likely to become more popular than film any time soon.
I don't know, just how many people are currently shooting 4 x 5?

I would think that very few amateurs would switch from a 4 x 5 view
camera to it, but I would bet that any number of pros to will use one
to replace MF cameras and LF cameras.

What people often miss when looking at the cost of a camera is the
total cost of using it. Let's say you go for the cheap drum scans of
your 4 x 5 film, call it $50 / scan) That is 800 photos and you have
paid the $40,000 just in scanning cost. Seems to me that making a case
for buying a $40,000 camera is not too hard to make.

Scott

"Scott W" wrote in message
ups.com...
Matt Clara wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
A nice comparison can be read about he

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml


It's damn near as nice as the 4x5 film! Good for it. Of course, at
$40,000, they aren't likely to become more popular than film any time
soon.
I don't know, just how many people are currently shooting 4 x 5?

I would think that very few amateurs would switch from a 4 x 5 view
camera to it, but I would bet that any number of pros to will use one
to replace MF cameras and LF cameras.

What people often miss when looking at the cost of a camera is the
total cost of using it. Let's say you go for the cheap drum scans of
your 4 x 5 film, call it $50 / scan) That is 800 photos and you have
paid the $40,000 just in scanning cost. Seems to me that making a case
for buying a $40,000 camera is not too hard to make.

Scott


Considering the needs of most pros, digital 35mm will do just fine, and so
again, they won't sell many at $40,000. Bret may be right and the price
will come down. I'd love to use one on my Rollei.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

On 20 Jan 2006 10:43:53 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

What people often miss when looking at the cost of a camera is the
total cost of using it. Let's say you go for the cheap drum scans of
your 4 x 5 film, call it $50 / scan) That is 800 photos and you have
paid the $40,000 just in scanning cost. Seems to me that making a case
for buying a $40,000 camera is not too hard to make.

I'd look at 40,000+ sheets of film developed & printed in my darkroom.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography

Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Scott W wrote:

Matt Clara wrote:

"Annika1980" wrote in message
groups.com...

A nice comparison can be read about he

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml


It's damn near as nice as the 4x5 film! Good for it. Of course, at
$40,000, they aren't likely to become more popular than film any time soon.

I don't know, just how many people are currently shooting 4 x 5?

I would think that very few amateurs would switch from a 4 x 5 view
camera to it, but I would bet that any number of pros to will use one
to replace MF cameras and LF cameras.

What people often miss when looking at the cost of a camera is the
total cost of using it. Let's say you go for the cheap drum scans of
your 4 x 5 film, call it $50 / scan) That is 800 photos and you have
paid the $40,000 just in scanning cost. Seems to me that making a case
for buying a $40,000 camera is not too hard to make.

Scott


Not if you can bill $100K yearly & deduct the cost from your taxes.

David Starr wrote:
On 20 Jan 2006 10:43:53 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

What people often miss when looking at the cost of a camera is the
total cost of using it. Let's say you go for the cheap drum scans of
your 4 x 5 film, call it $50 / scan) That is 800 photos and you have
paid the $40,000 just in scanning cost. Seems to me that making a case
for buying a $40,000 camera is not too hard to make.

I'd look at 40,000+ sheets of film developed & printed in my darkroom.

That is fine if you are making prints for your own use, but if you are
taking image for commercial use you are going to need an image in the
computer. And those folks are spending a lot of money on drum scans.

Scott

Mike wrote:
It's damn near as nice as the 4x5 film! Good for it. Of course, at
$40,000, they aren't likely to become more popular than film any time soon.

Yeah, but I wouldn't expect them to remain at $40K too long either.


They will have to come down to $2000 for me to consider giving up my 4x5
camera. Even so, I really enjoy doing traditional B&W "wet" work.

Enjoy your measly 6 megapixels :-)

Why do you believe we are limited to anything like 6 megapixels?
Me I like lots of pixels, like say 173 MP.
http://www.sewcon.com/temp/car.jpg

BTW Bret's camera is a bit more then 8 not 6 MP.

Scott

Scott W wrote:
Matt Clara wrote:

"Annika1980" wrote in message
groups.com...

A nice comparison can be read about he

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml


It's damn near as nice as the 4x5 film! Good for it. Of course, at
$40,000, they aren't likely to become more popular than film any time soon.

I don't know, just how many people are currently shooting 4 x 5?

I would think that very few amateurs would switch from a 4 x 5 view
camera to it, but I would bet that any number of pros to will use one
to replace MF cameras and LF cameras.

What people often miss when looking at the cost of a camera is the
total cost of using it. Let's say you go for the cheap drum scans of
your 4 x 5 film, call it $50 / scan) That is 800 photos and you have
paid the $40,000 just in scanning cost. Seems to me that making a case
for buying a $40,000 camera is not too hard to make.

Scott


A used Heidelberg Tango runs just under $10000, with a warranty. A new
Creo iQSmart1 runs slightly less, with results that are extremely close
to the Heidelberg.

I think a funny accounting aspect of the Mr. Cramer story is his P45
being a tax deduction. If his film usage was also a tax deduction, then
he is not "saving" money. He was making business decisions.

See my posting on the large.format group for more comments and
discussion. These things are nice, but they are not flying out the doors
of the PhaseOne company headquarters.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com