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
|
|||
|
|||
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. ) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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..... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
once agin: medium vs. digital | Steve Lefevre | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 39 | November 23rd 04 12:49 AM |
Digital Medium Format | Charles Dickens | Digital Photography | 29 | November 13th 04 09:01 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 |