I'm a Canon guy. Before digital and since the 1970s, my camera bodies have been Canon. Soon after higher-end and reasonably-priced digital, SLRs arrived, I purchased a Canon 10D, then a 20D, and then a 5D. The more I think about this 35mm dSLR vs. dMF thing, the more I think it might be worth my time to wait-out whatever Canon's product development plans are for their next generation, small-format, dSLR, and see who comes out with a somewhat affordable dMF SLR... I'm guessing it won't be Canon.
Pentax has plans to release their Pentax 645 Digital MF SLR. And, of course, there's Mamiya's 645AFD II with digital back and an 80mm f/2.8 AF lens. Mamiya's system is in the $10K range... no word on pricing for the Pentax. In the next year or two, who knows who's going to come out with what in the digital MF market and at what price? I'll bet the price of sensors, even large sensors for MF systems, are eventually going to come down substantially in cost.
An (assumed) decline in the cost of sensors brings up another possibility: Perhaps it makes sense to purchase an MF film system--one that is compatible with digital backs--and wait and see (i.e., hope to see) if the price of some of those digital backs declines substantially? I've looked at
Decisions... decisions...
The gratuitous pretty girl at the top is Paola. This is one from a series with Paola I shot a month or so ago. Nice
7 comments:
Hey Jimmy,
Great thoughts and ideas. I currently have a Pentax 645 system with 3 lenses and I'm awaiting the release of the Pentax 645 Digital Body. It's about 3 years since the annoucement and there have been some protype on display at the photo trade shows. I hope it's out soon. I will be able to utilize my lenses on this camera. The Mamiya looks like it's going to be an affordable Digital MF camera. In the meantime I like shooting with MF film and scanning. I love the look of Fuji Astia for skin tones as well as Kodak Portra VC. Yes your correct, you can pick up great MF gear very cheap nowadays. Even black and white is amazing when using MF film. I use Fuji Acros and love it!
A well known photographer friend of mine in California who shoots fashion and sexy editorial pics uses MF film 70% of the time. He just got the Canon Mark II 1Ds and he is very pleased with the results. The pics are very close to MF quality. He credits film for his photgraphy success, so he still uses it. He's not a computer type person either, he'd rather be shooting.
All the best with your MF shopping and purchase.
Veddy interestink.
A friend of mine who shoots stock was having this same discussion with me. He has a consumer level (is there even a thing called prosumer anymore?) digital Nikon and a Hasselblad. Of the two, he's way more comfortable with the Hasselblad ("Heavy is good; heavy is reliable...")
One of the stock agencies he's thinking about sending to only accepts digital files from cameras with 11 MP or more. For film MF is fine.
We were wondering when/if digital MF backs get cheaper, if it doesn't make more sense to wait and shoot film. At least that way the camera won't seem so foreign to him.
Keep up the good work.
...scott
Hi Jimmy
I have spent many days and nights researching the same topic even though my need is different to yours. I am seriously aiming to make money out of landscape shooting whereas pretty girl shooting for me is just a hobby.
But the same issue as you really, I want more pixels and more dynamic range.
My research leads me to believe scanned 645 film gives you the same definition you would achieve with a 16MP digital. However the scan would have more dynamic range but also more grain in a large print.
I'm suggesting therefore if you started using a 645 film camera you may not find the results much better than you are getting now with your 5D.
I have shot a lot of film lately using a 6cm x 12cm rollfilm back on a large format camera. The results are very impressive. However the costs of film, processing and scanning are not insignificant.
And I am achieving a similar, probably even better result stitching together 4 or 5 shots from my 5D. The problem is that even in landscapes there are times where the subject has movement...fast moving clouds, running water and so on so you can't always use the stitching approach.
So I have been following the progress (lack of actually) of the Pentax 645D with interest. Quite a while ago it was announced that it would be around 31MP if I recall and true 16bit. And it was hinted or rumored that the price would be well under $10K. I reckon you and I and thousands of others would somhow manage to afford that!
But it has been a long while since there was any further word from Pentax, certainly none since Hoya took them over. There are many unconfirmed rumors that the Pentax 645D project has been cancelled. I really hope they are wrong.
I have thought about the Mamiya ZD too. It does look very interesting. However it is 14 bits so presumably will increase dynamic range 3 stops over a dSLR as opposed to the additional 6 stops provided by the 16 bits offered by pretty much all other dMF solutions.
The other light at the end of the tunnel I see is that second hand dMF backs are becoming more affordable. I constantly watch eBay for dMF gear and have seen Hasselblad 39MP backs under 20K and 22MP for 14-15K.
If you take the plunge with film, you might be interested in my experiences with scanners so far.
Scanning my 6cm x 12cm trannies with the top Epson transparency scanner the results were somewhat disappointing. Admittedly I was scanning dry and wet is said to be better. But the problem it seems, is that although Epson claims incredible resolution such as 4800 dpi in fact their optical resolution is not much better than 1600 dpi. So as I understand it, it takes for example a tiny dot in your image 1/1600 of an inch wide and turns it into 9 pixels (3x3)but because of the lens resolution they are basically all the same and the digital image would be pretty much the same if you scanned at 1600 dpi and the dot on the film became 1 pixel.
Scans I made with a borrowed Nikon Coolscan 9000 were significantly better and this scanner reputedly has a true optical resolution of 4000 dpi.
Scans done for me by a bureau using an Imacon scanner were a bit better than the coolscan. But quite expensive. The best price I can find in Australia for 6x12cm scans on an Imacon is $15 per shot.
Sorry to be so verbose but thought you may find some food for thought here!
Regards
Mal
Just remember that when scanning those negatives you need to worry about dust and hair getting on your negatives.
Well, let's see if this does it for you all:
Camera: Graflex Pacemaker 4x5, $275 ebay
Lens: Schnieder Tele Arton 270mm/5.5, $215 keh
Scanner: Epson Perfection 4870, $281 ebay
Film: Fujia Astia, $21/10 sheets FreeStyle
Developing: $2/sheet Titan Pro Lab, Troy MI
Round trip shipping to lab: $2/sheet roughly
Polaroid proof: $4.50/sheet
Total for pic: $781.6
Additional pics (color): $10.60ea
Additional B&W pics with self developing: less than $1ea
B&W Developing tanks, hangers, and chimicals: less than $100
Pic:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmxphoto/793489246/
Now I scanned it at 23mp and sized it down to 3. The scanner claims to go up to 4800dpi and I used 1200dpi. If my calculations are right (dang squares!) I believe the theoretical max is in the 400mp range (4800x4x4800x5).
I was betting that even though you didn't reply to my comment that it was provoking some serious though. MF would definitely be more practical and econimical, though the cost of the camera might be more. Doing my own e6 developing is something I'll be looking into as well.
-James
I'm in a stop and see mode right now. Technology is the only thing in my lifetime that I have seen improve and get cheaper so waiting is always good. For the time being, I know I'm being trumped really bad with dMF but I'll still wait. Already spent my share of money on $2000.00 digital bodies that are now $695 or obsolete. I know this may seem like I'm being unrealistic, but hell I gotta eat! In this wave of "get the gear to get the photos" I'm truly hoping that once it's in my price range I can someday say "Yeah I started out with a Coolpix and learned to light with that." :)
I shoot with a 1Ds II. I also have a 5D, which isn't used much anymore because I prefer a 100% viewfinder. My output is mostly wide format inkjet prints, ranging from 16x24 to 20x30.
For my work, here's what I found when comparing scanned MF film to 1Ds II files: nothing--that is, no meaningful difference in the output between the two.
Is that true when comparing dMF and 1DS II files? No. But the relatively slow workflow of a dMF system (focus acquisition, buffer write times, handling, etc.) makes it unsuitable for my work. And then there's the cost, which isn't just the dMF system itself, but all of the additional storage and computing resources required to process the ever-increasing file sizes.
If the workflow restrictions and cost are not considerations, then I suggest renting some dMF gear and giving it a real workout. By the way, I found out yesterday that Calumet made a deal with Hassleblad allowing them to rent the H3 for about $250 per day, which I think is almost half the rental rate of the H2/Phase combo.
Good luck in your quest.
Will
Post a Comment