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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Should I buy a MAMIYA 7 II or use my Nikon D300
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:53:32 -0700, toucky70 wrote:
Hi everybody, I know is two very different concepts but maybe explaining my doubt someone could open up my mind... I've never had a MF camera. I have an important photographic project to carry on consisting in portraits of interiors with no artificial lights. By "...no artificial lights...," I'm assuming you mean lighting that you would bring to supplement the existing ambient light. the first part of these pictures were made with a Digital Nikon D70, this year I have bought a D300 lens 12-24 (18-35 35mm) Some experts photographs who saw this pictures suggest me to use a MF, specifically MAMIYA 7 with 43 lens. As this choice would be very expansive either for the camera costs, the negatives and scans shoud I afford it? The result have to be professional. Could someone give an opinion? Whether you should go with the Mamiya 7 or stay with the D300 entirely depends on what the end use of the photographs will be. Web, brochures, publication in magazines, prints no bigger than 11x14 inches or so? The D300 is more than sufficient. For very large prints? The Mamiya has the advantage, but only if the prints are made directly from a negative and not from scanning a transparency first. The primary advantage of digital these days compared to film is that digital images have considerably more dynamic range making them far easier to produce good images under bad or marginal lighting conditions. Plus, the added ability to adjust contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc. "in camera" or post production. To do the same with a film image, whether printed directly or scanned, would require considerable added production time and a person who knew what they were doing, and you still might not get a satisfactory image. If you really think that the D300 images just aren't suitable, I think you'd be better off getting a full frame digital like the newly announced 21 megapixel Canon 5D Mark II. Even with a suitable lens, the combination would be cheaper (and much more versatile) than a Mamiya 7 with a 43mm. Stef |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Should I buy a MAMIYA 7 II or use my Nikon D300
"Stefan Patric" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:53:32 -0700, toucky70 wrote: Hi everybody, I know is two very different concepts but maybe explaining my doubt someone could open up my mind... I've never had a MF camera. I have an important photographic project to carry on consisting in portraits of interiors with no artificial lights. By "...no artificial lights...," I'm assuming you mean lighting that you would bring to supplement the existing ambient light. the first part of these pictures were made with a Digital Nikon D70, this year I have bought a D300 lens 12-24 (18-35 35mm) Some experts photographs who saw this pictures suggest me to use a MF, specifically MAMIYA 7 with 43 lens. As this choice would be very expansive either for the camera costs, the negatives and scans shoud I afford it? The result have to be professional. Could someone give an opinion? Whether you should go with the Mamiya 7 or stay with the D300 entirely depends on what the end use of the photographs will be. Web, brochures, publication in magazines, prints no bigger than 11x14 inches or so? The D300 is more than sufficient. For very large prints? The Mamiya has the advantage, but only if the prints are made directly from a negative and not from scanning a transparency first. The primary advantage of digital these days compared to film is that digital images have considerably more dynamic range making them far easier to produce good images under bad or marginal lighting conditions. Plus, the added ability to adjust contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc. "in camera" or post production. To do the same with a film image, whether printed directly or scanned, would require considerable added production time and a person who knew what they were doing, and you still might not get a satisfactory image. If you really think that the D300 images just aren't suitable, I think you'd be better off getting a full frame digital like the newly announced 21 megapixel Canon 5D Mark II. Even with a suitable lens, the combination would be cheaper (and much more versatile) than a Mamiya 7 with a 43mm. How does post-production times, image storage, and printing procurement compare between the two media? From memory, a lot of commercial assignments demanded trannies, but I dare say they would probably want digital files as well these days. Would he need a pro lab for the final deliverables? Cheers. Stef |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Should I buy a MAMIYA 7 II or use my Nikon D300
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:22:03 +1000, r m wrote:
"Stefan Patric" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:53:32 -0700, toucky70 wrote: Hi everybody, I know is two very different concepts but maybe explaining my doubt someone could open up my mind... I've never had a MF camera. I have an important photographic project to carry on consisting in portraits of interiors with no artificial lights. By "...no artificial lights...," I'm assuming you mean lighting that you would bring to supplement the existing ambient light. the first part of these pictures were made with a Digital Nikon D70, this year I have bought a D300 lens 12-24 (18-35 35mm) Some experts photographs who saw this pictures suggest me to use a MF, specifically MAMIYA 7 with 43 lens. As this choice would be very expansive either for the camera costs, the negatives and scans shoud I afford it? The result have to be professional. Could someone give an opinion? Whether you should go with the Mamiya 7 or stay with the D300 entirely depends on what the end use of the photographs will be. Web, brochures, publication in magazines, prints no bigger than 11x14 inches or so? The D300 is more than sufficient. For very large prints? The Mamiya has the advantage, but only if the prints are made directly from a negative and not from scanning a transparency first. The primary advantage of digital these days compared to film is that digital images have considerably more dynamic range making them far easier to produce good images under bad or marginal lighting conditions. Plus, the added ability to adjust contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc. "in camera" or post production. To do the same with a film image, whether printed directly or scanned, would require considerable added production time and a person who knew what they were doing, and you still might not get a satisfactory image. If you really think that the D300 images just aren't suitable, I think you'd be better off getting a full frame digital like the newly announced 21 megapixel Canon 5D Mark II. Even with a suitable lens, the combination would be cheaper (and much more versatile) than a Mamiya 7 with a 43mm. How does post-production times, image storage, and printing procurement compare between the two media? Digital is a lot faster. About 3 times, based on my production schedule for commercial work--architectural, industrial, corporate--to get a finished product to the client. Just considering the time it takes to get to the "editing" point with chromes: the next day, if you have a lab do it; about 4 hours, if you process "in house." With digital: I finish the shoot and in a couple minutes, I'm editing. Image storage? Properly produced and stored b&w prints and negatives should last a couple hundred years. Color--negatives, chromes? A lot less. Prints? If they are dye transfers or Cibachromes, a hundred years, maybe, longer. Digitals? Depends on the storage media. Magnet domains fade over time. Optical storage? Until the media (plastic mainly) degrades. Jury's still out on that one. From memory, a lot of commercial assignments demanded trannies, but I dare say they would probably want digital files as well these days. Trannies? Not so much these days. With most "normal" commercial work, digital files (12 megapixels [equivalent] and higher) are fine, and most times, requested. Pro Stock Houses that I'm familiar with seemed to be mostly requesting 18 megapixels and higher resolutions. Some aren't accepting film anymore. Would he need a pro lab for the final deliverables? Based on a later post by the OP on the end product--very large prints--a pro lab, whether from film or digital. In the long run, it would be more cost effective. Stef |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Should I buy a MAMIYA 7 II or use my Nikon D300 | Alan Browne | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 4 | September 19th 08 07:02 AM |
MB-D10 for Nikon D300 | Chris W | Digital Photography | 1 | March 21st 08 04:32 PM |
NIKON D300 - FIRST LOOK | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | August 19th 07 03:23 PM |
What will the Nikon D300 be like? | Alexander Arnakis | 35mm Photo Equipment | 69 | December 13th 05 04:13 AM |