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
|
|||
|
|||
4x5 vs. 39MP Digital
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
4x5 vs. 39MP Digital
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
4x5 vs. 39MP Digital
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
4x5 vs. 39MP Digital
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
4x5 vs. 39MP Digital
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
4x5 vs. 39MP Digital
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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
4x5 vs. 39MP Digital
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
4x5 vs. 39MP Digital
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
4x5 vs. 39MP Digital
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
4x5 vs. 39MP Digital
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Nature's Best" contest and film vs digital | Bill Hilton | Photographing Nature | 15 | December 7th 05 11:03 PM |
Price War Hits Digital Photos | MrPepper11 | Digital Photography | 3 | March 19th 05 12:32 AM |
How to Buy a Digital Camera | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 6 | January 18th 05 10:01 PM |
NYT article - GPS tagging of digital photos | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 4 | December 22nd 04 07:36 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |