Need advice...digital or medium format?

Ok-I've gone back and forth a million times.

Get a Canon 10d digital or get the Nikon Coolscan 8000scanner and a

medium format camera.

 

My budget is $2500

 

I will be shooting both beauty close-ups as well as

editorial/cataloge fashion (possibly stock as well).

 

Can I get a medium format camera with a polariod back

(interchangable backs), @ 2 decent lenses (one for close up and one

for full length), that can sync with my studio flash @ /125 for under

$1200?

 

I really need to do a lot of testing with my style so cost of

film/develping is an issue.

 

I could rent medium format if an advertiser or agency needs it.

 

 

What would you do?

Both editorial and fashion can burn through a lot of film and require a lot of experimentation, and to get the best out of film you will really need to go for drum scans, which is expensive, so digital may be the better tool for you.<br>But if you are going to go along the digital route you may want to re-think your budget and go for a Kodak 14N, or a least a Fuji S2.

If I were in your position, I'd get the Canon 10D. Most clients will be more interested in how quickly you can get your work to them. And the quality of digital is "good enough."

 

Plus, there's the added feature of knowing you have the shots right then. There's nothing worse than blowing an assignment because you accidentally opened the back, dropped the film somewhere in a parking lot, have the lab rip the film (last wedding I shot) or lose the film (the guy who shot my brother's wedding) or bungling the flash setup, etc., etc.

 

Digital also eliminates the steps of processing and scanning -- a lengthy, laborious process that will quickly drive you mad, because each scan can take a number of minutes to complete, and then you have to do post-process work. There will always be dust spots to remove, color correction, etc.

 

By the way, you'll still have to do post-process work with digital, but it should go much quicker.

 

And you're right -- you can always rent MF, if the client wants it.

Well this is not an answer but maybe it will help, Im going to guess used is an option

at $1200

 

I recently upgraded to a used Bronica ETRSi and if I had the money Id buy the 8000ED

and never look back, Id be set and heres why

 

ETRsi body, 1 120 back, 150mm 3.5 lens, 100mm F4 macro lens and waist level or

prisim finder for under $750 1/500 sync speed and parts are common

 

film and developing is cheap prints and/or contact sheets would be more but all Id

need is developed film to feed my scanner and I can choose what and how to print

each photo

 

I could be wrong but the 645 negitive is still higher rez than any digital body (So far)

Its would be like having almost the best of the of each speed would be all you would

lose (I get 120 film back from my lab and even Rits in a few hours prints take a week

or more, I have only seen scanns from the 8000 and 35mm so I am guessing it would

be even better from MF)

 

also check out the price of used Mamiya RB67 gear if the size and weight wont bother

you, bigger 6x7 neg and with the built in bellows you will not need the extra lens

since you can shoot pretty close

 

keep in mind how fast digital prices drop, who knows in 2 years you might buy a

digital back for the MF for under $1500

 

one last thing when you get an idea of what you may need Id rent it for at least a day

to see if you like the way it works and feels to you

 

Good luck, and I hope my rambling helped a little

 

Ray

Id be willing to bet the odds of getting a roll of film lost are about the same if not less

than data loss from a computer crash or fried card

Medium Format film is wonderful...Would you like to buy a mint Pentax 645 NII with 45 F2.8 lens for a great price? I am going digital too.

 

The quality is better in digital; it is faster (no scanning time; and no large 100+MB files to save to the HD) and more efficient. And the future is digital, not film.

 

The only downside to digital is that the technology is changing so quickly that what one buys today will be surpassed by something better in 6-10 months. Film cameras are at least stable in this respect: they are about as good as they are going to get...

 

Email me me if you want a good deal on a Pentax 645 NII camera and body. It is a great system...

 

rdcny@earthlink.net

First of all, I will admit that I have not done digital. Only talked to many people about it before making the decision to switch. And one of the things that has perked my ears is the fact that digital acts a lot more like transparency film than it does like negative film. Meaning that "perfect exposures" take much more careful lighting that film exposures generally do. In addition, all digital isn't created equal. Every system has its quirks and it is my understanding that it is very possible that one can have a digital sensor that starts to lose sensitivity in some of its pixels or whatever they are.

 

On the other hand, I have seen some absolutely gorgeous large (30 x 40 ) prints made from digital files.

 

Bottom line. The workflows are different and the considerations are different. Therefore, I think the best thing for you to do is rent something in each discipline before you make your final decision.

Here is how I look at it.

 

Digital camera technology is changing very quickly and, while the Canon 10D may appear to be frontline technology today, it won't look so impressive when the next big increment in technology comes out. So, you will find youself lusting after the latest and greatest.

 

On the other hand, scanner technology is relatively stable and you will find that the advances in technology will take place with film which you will be able to take full advantage of for the minimal cost of a roll.

 

I have medium format cameras from the 40's and 50's which can use 21st century film technology that was unheard of when the cameras were manufactured. The Coolscan can also take advantage the advances with film and it will be quite some time before you have the temptation (or need) to buy a new scanner.

The DSLR will be fast to use and economical for the amount of pictures involved. MF will provide better quality. Given your needs, it would probably be best to opt for the former, though keep in mind the MF possibility when you need better quality (renting is not a bad idea.)

Try a few digital cameras and see if you can live with the shutter lag for the type of work you do. I don't know much about the Canon digital SLRs but if the shutter lag is anything like it is with my Nikon Coolpix 990 it would be worthless for fashion work if you're working with a moving model.

 

For the static subjects on my website digital is a huge help, for all of the reasons stated above.

 

PJW

The 10D should be more than sufficient -- today and tomorrow -- for your needs,

and you will save money and time if you shoot a lot.

I'm not sure from the responses whether the people advising you have this gear and

use it every day.

 

I do.

 

The 10D is not a professional level camera that you should count on every day. It's a

nice back-up to the more rugged Pro Canon choices (which is how I use it).

 

But if all you have is $2,500. I don't think you can get a MF camera, lens, polaroid

back AND a MF scanner. Maybe, but I doubt it.

 

On the other hand a new 10D and a couple of used zooms should be with-in that

budget.

 

BTW, if you are serious about stock work, you may want to research whether digital

from a 10D will be acceptable.

A used Hasselblad setup with two lenses will easily consume your entire budget of $2500. The scanner itself will cost you $1500 used and $1800 new. We are talking about a total budget of $4500, at which point the comparison is a Kodak DCS-14n.

<i> The 10D is not a professional level camera that you should count on every day.

</i><p>

 

It is for Douglas Kirkland, and for many other less well known editorial/fashion/stock

photographers.

It sounds like the people you're going to work for want digital files either way as you're looking to buy a scanner if you go MF. If that's the case, I would say go with the 10D. It is an excellent camera capable of professional results and image quality exceeding 35mm. It fits within your budget better and will allow you to shoot, shoot, shoot until you learn what's best/what works. It's also A LOT less work than scanning film.

 

Shutter lag is a non-issue with the 10D and you'll find that dSLR's have matured. The 10D didn't make the D60 obsolete, and the next model won't make the 10D obsolete. So go for it.

'The quality is better in digital; it is faster (no scanning time; and no large 100+MB files to save to the HD) and more efficient. And the future is digital, not film.'.............................Grand sweeping generalizations and predictions, what kind of quality is better? Give us specifics, what are you comparing?

 

You've not mentioned how many cameras you have, but a scanner provides you a way of scanning anything you produce with anything, I have both film and digital gear, and the best way co-exist with both is to get work them together when need be in the most cost effective way.

 

A scanner gives you flexibility if you already have a computer, and you can scan all the values, tonality, fidelity, and the ability to hold together highlights from a film camera that some of these digital camera/backs can do. You're not tied down to taking/using any particular camera when you decide digital will fit what you wanna do, so I would suggest that a scanner provides you with move flexibility.

 

Having used digital since '97 I would say this about digital, it's great when you get the effect you're after, but it is not simple, efficient or quick, mechanical cameras and film are the quickest, most efficent, cost effective way to shoot, with digital you're going to have downtime, crashes, conflicts between gear, patches, upgrades, time spent reading all the manuals, loading updates and fixes.

 

People who brag about digital don't seem to bring up the problems, the expense of keeping current, and these same folks seem to suggest that the act of digital capture means you're done, whether for yourself or for a client, you WILL be spending some time in front of you computer removing hairs/dust/tweaking color balance/brightness/contrast, and on and on.

 

Your specific question notwithstanding the statement that the 'future is digital not film' is meaningless, there are several websites devoted to the alternative processes, Kalitypes, Platinum prints, Cyanotypes, Polaroid transfers, and so forth, because of the Internet, the number of folks praticing these disciplines are growing.

 

The tone abrasion process, Hurrell drawing on prints with a pencil, along with these, there are a number of film processes with a richness of patina that involve a tactile quality and 'hands on' feeling that digital will always be hard pressed to match.

 

Better, faster,..........what does those terms really mean, digital is a different world, I suggest that you can have the best of both worlds buy spending money on a scanner, giving you a window for most/if not all of your work/for any camera have or will ever purchase.

Not knowing the abilities of the Canon, my buddies D100 outputs beautiful

pictures. For myself, as soon as I can afford a DSLR I'm there. Medium format

holds nothing for me except expense (I have 2 systems) since I can satisfy

most of my customers with a 35mm camera. Remember to also buy

Photoshop and learn to use it if you haven't already. I think you'll find that the

benefits of using a digital camera way outweigh a mf camera and scanner.

Put any extra money into a microdrive. It's amazing how many pictures you'll

shoot with a digital camera. I can take 40 with my 4mp in my backyward in

less than an hour and there's no film or processing cost.

If you already have the post-imaging hardware to go digital, then that may be the way. But then again, consider that top fashion photographer David LaChapelle uses an oh-so-unsexy Pentax 645.

 

Use whatever you are most comfortable with. It's about the images and not the hardware.

Daniel Taylor says that "Shutter lag is a non-issue with the 10D"

 

Perhaps you could tell us just what the shutter lag of a 10D is? Then we could judge for ourselves whether or not it's a non-issue.

 

For me, the shutter lag of my SWC is a non-issue. And I'll bet my bottom dollar that it's considerably less than a 10D.

 

PJW

I've already given my views on this but I'm disappointed (although not too surprised) to find that, except for Marc Williams and RJ Fox, most people seem either to be applying their own quality requirements to your question or to be turning your question into a film-v-digital argument.<p>So I'll expand on my previous answer, and hope that this may help a bit.<p>1. I think your budget is far too low, either for MF or digital. If you want to produce professional quality then you will need to use professional tools. <br>2. A MF 6x4.5 will produce good quality but 6x7cm will produce much better quality and the polaroids will be much larger and easier to read.<br>6x4.5mm will produce 15 or 16 shots on a roll against 10 on 6x7 but all the other costs (polaroids & scanning) will be the same per shot.<br>3. The polaroid costs will be extremely high if you're shooting a lot of fashion, even catalogue fashion - are you sure that this will be acceptable to your clients?<br>4. Likewise scanning. To get the best out of your film shots you will need to pay for drum scanning - there is no comparison between the quality produced by drum scanners and the type of scanner you have in mind.<br>5. If you go for digital you will need to be sure that the quality will be acceptable to your clients. The cheapest digital camera that I would personally consider for your purpose is the Kodak 14N. But you will need a backup camera too, and if you are using the Nikon-based 14N the obvious choices are the Fuji S2Pro or the Nikon D100. I use a 14N and a S2Pro. The D100 is a fine camera but personally I greatly prefer the S2Pro. If you prefer to go along the Canon route you will pay more - a lot more - for the bodies but less for the lenses.<br>6. If you go digital you will need a powerful computer system too. I also have a (networked) computer in the studio, which allows my digital shots to be viewed directly on the computer monitor - Correct lighting is essential whatever the tool, correct exposure is essential with digital and both problems are easily and precisely dealt with using this method.<br>7. Digital also requires extra expenses - a few 1 Gb CF cards for location shooting (not Microdrive, which are slower and which eat batteries) + a few batteries as well.<p>If you are able to produce the required quality, have a good client base and are good at marketing, the capital costs are neither here nor there.

In short, for any prints smaller than about 8x10, the only concern you have is the price. If you desire to make prints bigger than, say 11x14, MF is clearly a winner, for now. Here is why:

 

For a MF negative of 6x4.5 with a Nikon 8000Ed scanner, you get a file size of 85MB, while the top of line digital now offered (Kodak DCS 14n) is 14MB. So your scan from the smallest MF negative is about 6 times bigger in prints.

 

Plus digital cameras do have a significant shutter lags, even the industry admits that. The small lag for digital is not so far compared to any traditional cameras. The shutter lag for digital camera is still in 10th of a second range, while traditional one is in 1000th of a second range.

 

If I only have one camera system, I would go at least a Canon 1D with several lenses, which can easily exceed your budget.

 

I think more realistically you should plan about $4-5000 for a set up either digitally or MF.

I will get really basic...

 

If the end result is to be a digital product, then go digital all the way... example: editorial shot, sent over the phone as a digital file, to magazine, to printed picture... Digital all the way is the only answer

 

If the end result is to be a high accutance, double page, glossy, coffee table picture book, or a 16x20 color print to go into a thousand dollar frame, then no digital steps should be involved - silver halide process all the way...

 

Those were easy... It's the in between stuff that is hard... Given what you posted I would say go digital all the way... If you get an assigment that needs more quality, rent a Hassleblad and send the film out for scanning...

 

Denny - black and white, silver halide, wet chemist...

I have both a full Hasselblad kit & a Canon 10d kit. Both are great camera kits & both have their merits.

 

The bulk of my work is corporate stock, brochure bits & creative odds & ends for my agency . . . my hasselblad's getting dusty now. I would honestly say that unless you have a specific need for medium format's enlargement powers for print then buy the 10d & a Canon 'L' lens. Don't skimp on a cheap lens as it really makes the difference (voice of experience). You'll easily get a single page spread from the 10d & could just about stretch to a double page spread depending on the content.

 

Before people start sending me hate mail, I'm not anti-medium format, I've sung it's virtues for years, and always been anti 35mm & previously digital. I just get more, day-to-day out of digital because of its instant shoot & deliver ability & the costs saved.

 

I did a office rental companies brochure shoot for 2 properties on my 10d in under 2 hours last week, inside & out with a small lowepro pack's worh of kit & not once did I get Polaroid gunk on my fingers & then rub my eye - usually followed by copious swearing. I do still however use my Hassy for certain work - I just can't fail too. If I didn't own one I would just hire a kit for the day/week as needed as the costs are negligable against a job.

 

Feel free to email me questions.

 

Regards

 

Gavin

 

www.urban-landscapes.co.uk

Michelle,

 

I have looked at your photo.net portfolio of images and your requirement of shooting "beauty close-ups". I believe most beauty close-ups are done with large format. Especially those that end up in light boxes for cosmetic advertisements. Can the other posters give their opinions?

 

My own answer to your question in general, is a question whether I want a "medium format look" or a small sensor look, not even a 35mm look given your budget. If the majority of the output are in less than high quality brochures and flyers, I guess any format will do.

 

Regards.

<i> I believe most beauty close-ups are done with large format. Especially those that

end up in light boxes for cosmetic advertisements.</i><p>

 

A substantial number of product shots are still made with large format, but I think

that medium format is common for beauty closeups. And digital (esp. MF digi backs)

has made inroads.