digital vs. medium format

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. )

wrote:

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. )

I was within 24 hours of buying a 500CM, back and 150mm f/4. The lens
had some minor deposits on the 2nd group from the front (oil?). But
that put me off as I love backlit shots on MF E-6. Then I found the 7D
at a good price... so, MF will have to wait until the fall.

I've sent a medium print job from one of my first images via the web to
be printed. I'll pick it up later today.

MF Lens quality? The word "worse" is probably the wrong one to use,
but _yes_: many high quality 35mm primes from Minolta, Nikon, Canon,
Pentax, Oly, Tamron and others are SHARPER than most Carl Zeiss optics
for MF. They have to be to push the 35mm format. With MF sized film
the lens maker has a more breathing room.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

In article .com,
wrote:

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. )

Medium format is traditionally less fussy about lenses than the 35mm and
digital stuff, because you're not enlarging the results as much.

As for comparative image quality, the large prints from the 6/8mp DSLRs do
indeed look very good, but similar medium format prints look better, a lot
better, IME.

If you want to give it a try, you could do far worse than pick up a second
hand Twin Lens Reflex, such as a Rolleicord, Rolleiflex Automat, or Yashica
Mat 124 for not much money, shoot off a few rolls of slides or negatives,
and see if you feel comfortable with the format. You can pick up a decent
"starter" TLR on eBay for less than the price of all but the cheapest lenses
for a DSLR.

If you're happy with the fixed lens, manual focusing and exposure, and not
being able to do macro, then a twin lens reflex really is a joy to use, and
will produce some truly stunning results.

Good luck!

Here's a little calculation for you to look at. Let us say you got a
6x4.5 format MF camera. And let us say the lens for it was indeed
poorer such that you could only get a maximum resolution of 45 lp/mm on
film so assume its maximum theoretical resolution was double that at 90
lp/mm so that the film sensors must be able to pick up 180 patches per
light per mm (since a line must have dark and light elements to be a
line). So a 6x4.5 (really 57mmx42mm) will have this many effective film
sensors:

57*180*42*180 = 77,565,600 sensors

Now for digital cameras, the current design is to have colored masks
over the sensors so one picks up green, one red and the other blue
light so it takes 3 digital sensors to give a true color so a digital
camera back would need:

77,565,600 * 3 = 232,696,800 pixels

So when 232 megapixels backs for MF cameras are firstly made and come
down in price to a sensible level then you can buy one to stick on the
back, knowing it will give you just as good results as film.

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. snip
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. )


I used Mamiya RB67s alongside a couple of OM systems for a great many years.

The RB was an absolute joy to work with. Each shot took ages to set up and
take, but the results were always stunning.
I even trekked around SE Asia taking an RB and selected lenses in preference
to (much) lighter 35mm gear.

The lenses aren't so much poorer quality (they certainly weren't!) as lower
resolution. But with acres of negative to squirt light at - who needs the
resolution?

Being able to swap film backs meant I could shoot with a whole range of film
stocks - including polaroids to keep the locals happy and smiling ) Of
course now I've gone digital I have all the film stock in camera .... but
nothing to give to the locals. And I'm afraid, no matter how hard I try, I
can't develop the same relationship or enthusiasm that I had with the RB's.

Dammit, I think I'm talking myself into turning back the clock.....

wrote in message:

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.

Depending on your wants, needs, shooting habits, computer skills, lab
access, etc. either one could be right for you. Before jumping into
medium format on the basis of cheap used equipment, though, remember
that consumables costs for medium format are still significant. Since
I don't develop my own film, each medium format slide costs me about
70 cents just to proof.

However, if my sales guy was harping on the discontinued Canon 10D, I'd
seriously consider taking my business elsewhere. Normally I have no
issue with buying discontinued models, as long warranty service is
available and the price is right. However, since the 10D can't mount
EF-S lenses, it limits the alternatives for wide-angle lenses and
wide-to-tele zooms.

While I don't respond well to hard pitches in general, had he been
pitching the 20D or even the 300D/Digital Rebel it would have raised
less of a red flag in my mind. To me, it sounds like he was trying
to get rid of his old stock (and possibly earn a spiff by doing so.)

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

"RolandRB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here's a little calculation for you to look at. Let us say you got a
6x4.5 format MF camera. [...]

Here's my assertion - pure digital capture is cleaner and capable of higher
resolution color fidelity than scanned film of the same size as the sensor.
Have fun with that.

"Michael Benveniste" wrote in message
...

Depending on your wants, needs, shooting habits, computer skills, lab
access, etc. either one could be right for you. Before jumping into
medium format on the basis of cheap used equipment, though, remember
that consumables costs for medium format are still significant. Since
I don't develop my own film, each medium format slide costs me about
70 cents just to proof.

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.

I'd like to know the real sales figures on the super-high-end MF digital
backs. I strongly suspect the prices are going to remain very high because
they aren't selling enough, to make the economy of scale; the marketplace
isn't going for the product. We will know when/if a manufacturer finally
gives up on the product because they cannot make decent-enough money for the
stockholders. Stockholders have a way of killing good things that are not
highly profitable. There's a bust coming up in two years - that's my little
risky prediction.

I was looking at picking up a used MF camera in my area ( ~ $500 ) and
[...]

A quality print requires 300dpi of information, which means that every
step of the final printing process must have at least that much
information. (But see my caveat below. Also, 200dpi doesn't look bad
either, but not nearly as good as 300dpi). For a 24"x36" print, then,
you need

7200x10800 or 77Mpix

for a great print, or

24x36x4000 or 34Mpix

for a good print.

Even most 35mm film has trouble coming up with 77Mpix of image data,
but medium format does very well.

[...] 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

It is technically true that a minor defect on a MF lens will be less
of a problem than a minor defect on a 35mm or dSLR lens, because the
defect contributes to less of the picture on MF than on smaller
formats. But don't be misled. A good MF setup can produce much
crisper enlargements than anything a 35mm camera can.

Caveat: When I say that a good print requires 300dpi of information,
I'm talking about a good, sharp, print. I have 12x18 enlargements
from my 3Mpix camera which I love, but with only about 120dpi, they
more resemble impressionist paintings than photographs.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"RolandRB" wrote in
oups.com:

Here's a little calculation for you to look at. Let us say you got a
6x4.5 format MF camera. And let us say the lens for it was indeed
poorer such that you could only get a maximum resolution of 45 lp/mm on
film so assume its maximum theoretical resolution was double that at 90
lp/mm so that the film sensors must be able to pick up 180 patches per
light per mm (since a line must have dark and light elements to be a
line). So a 6x4.5 (really 57mmx42mm) will have this many effective film
sensors:

57*180*42*180 = 77,565,600 sensors

Now for digital cameras, the current design is to have colored masks
over the sensors so one picks up green, one red and the other blue
light so it takes 3 digital sensors to give a true color so a digital
camera back would need:

77,565,600 * 3 = 232,696,800 pixels

So when 232 megapixels backs for MF cameras are firstly made and come
down in price to a sensible level then you can buy one to stick on the
back, knowing it will give you just as good results as film.

Nope.

The film is grainy and has a non linear response.
It is also not as flat as a digital sensor. The
color fidelity of the layers is also questionable.
There is also the matter of scanning or making
an enlargemant of the image - losing lots of quality.

Direct light to digital sensor is a much cleaner way
of recording images. Film sux!


/Roland