5d or medium format?

I posted this in both forums because each form maybe a little basis.

 

Hi, I am thinking of getting a Hassy or one of the 6x9 formats (Pentax, Bronica).

My question is will I be like WOW! I currently use a 20d (with all "L" glass)and on rare occasions a EOS3.

My paln is to shoot some landscapes and most importantly some portraits of my kids and have some large

prints to hang on my wall. Or maybe jusy get a 5D?

thanks.

Richie

My opinion? Get a 5D.

<p>

When and why do you use EOS 3 - when is film more appropriate than digital?

<p>

How large do you blow things up? What size? Are you not happy taking a 20d capture to

the size you want (hanging on a wall with appropriate viewing distance it might work?)

Are you shooting Raw to get every last bit of the data out of the 20D now?

<p>

Do you have a medium format scanner or were you going to use a lab?

<p>

Me, I shoot a 1Ds Mk II digital for my people and general work. And I am surprised at

practically speaking how large I can go with the output (24" x 36" on a well shot image

does not seem to be a problem). For extremely serious work I shoot 4x5" and scan and

print large - I have a couple hand held 4x5 cameras which I use with studio strobes for

people and I also use for landscape work. I decided to skip the medium format for large

format to get massive info for large prints when I needed it.

<p>

This all probably doesn't help. Anyway, I suspect the 5D performance would be fairly close

to the 1Ds Mk II. Any possibility of going to a camera store and firing off some test shots

and printing out per your workflow?

If you are shoting kids, I'd go the 5D. It all depends on how old (and fidgety) your kid is. In my my case, my kid is 18months and he is a non-stop running around kid, and getting a portrait of him using an MF or LF camera would be hard (maybe because of my lack of skills). The Leica M works well on a fidgety kid, but the 5D really shines.

 

However, as far as image quality of the 5D vs 6x9 or 6x6 or 645, I can't comment, but the 12.8megapixels of the 5D is very high quality megapixels, unlike some of the P&S stuff that boast incredible megapixels but the quality is very poor.

I third the recommendation to get a 5D. I shoot 20D and 30D most of the time, but I also have Fuji 645 and 67 rangefinders, and a 4x5 field camera. I'll be getting a 5D in a month or so, and I suspect that the rangefinders will start to gather a lot of dust, although they produce spectacular photos.

If you want spectacular landscapes with large prints then medium format is the way to go. For portraits I'd prefer your EOS film camera or the 5D both for ease of use. I have done portraits with MF but it definitely takes much more effort.

`on rare occasions a EOS3. `

 

Hi, I`ve been usng Hassy for over 3 decades and always processed my own, I closed my pro lab down as digital took over, now mixing chemistry and the RA4 procrssor is a pain, If you want to go MF do your own or at least make sure you have a good pro lab nearby.

 

IMO if you have good glass a 5d should suffice, all my MF is for sale to get a 5d its successor or 1dsmk2, I`ve been using a 20d for some commercial jobs and not quite happy with its limitations, and can`t justify a phase 1 back. I know the MF with digital backs are far better with greater dynamics etc. The 5d would be so much better for some portraiture.

 

for large scenes a fuji 6x9 with 65mm lens would be enough for me, on rare occasion. although you may have heaps of spare time

 

good luck

From 2004 till 2006 I used MF (P645N) for almost everything. Now I have the 5D and I haven't touched the 645 in 8 months.

Richie, I have used 35mm film, MF and 5x4 LF but now shoot digital using a 5D. For ultimate quality LF still cannot be beaten and a well taken 6x9 LF will just pip the 5D imo. But for me the 5D wins on all round handling and convenience and the 12.8 MP sensor will produce files that will look good in large print sizes.

Richie and James- I've been looking at a 5D as well. Just wanted to let you know that Canon is running a double rebate offer if you buy a body and lense (Limited to certain models). It ends 2-19-07. Check COSTCO on line. -Anthony

Richie,

I've been having the dilemma for a while now. The only difference that I own an a 5D already (and and EOS3 too). I am looking for a good deal on a medium format but always back out of the purchase because have similar doubts as you. First, with the 5D and the 3 I have my whole workflow under control. Images from both cameras end up printed on my own Epson R2400. I scan 35 mm slides with my Nikon Coolscan V ED. If I get a medium format, the control is gone because I won't afford now to get a the top of the line Nikon scanner to scan. If you print commercially, then I would get the medium format though. Oh, and by the way, with the 5D it is actually my printer which is the bottleneck, I could print larger prints if I had a bigger printer.

 

Bottom line: it is you print size what determines you tools.

Miklos

If you do it right, the MF will blow away the 5D. Really. Detail and tonality to make any

Canon slink off whimpering.

 

That means getting a good camera, a lower speed film that you like (you may need to try a

few), and finding a good lab for 120 (they aren't as common as even a few years ago) or

processing your own film (another thing to learn). You need to get prints made at your

good lab (not cheap) or get a medium format film scanner (also not cheap---if you want

to really beat the 5D, a flatbed won't do) or have scans done somewhere else (a bother,

and not cheap). If you cut corners, you'll reduce the frequencey of that WOW experience.

 

You have to adjust your shooting habits---you can't shoot as quickly as you could with

your current cameras. You may not have AF (and if you do it will be slow) or a built-in

meter, and you'll likely have slow fixed focal length lenses (along with your slow film and

bulkier camera, it makes low light a challenge). Changing film is fiddly, and likely needs

to be done every 8 (6x9) or 12 (Hasselblad) shots. You must slow down, and you will

likely shoot far fewer frames.

 

Every now and again you'll get a shot that matters to you, and that beats any digital

camera by a fair measure. With the 5D, you'll get dozens of shots that you couldn't shoot

(in a practical sense) with an MF camera. The real question is which are the shots that

matter to you---I'll trade dozens of nice photos any day for one I'm thrilled about. But if

it is the 5D shots that you really want, you'd be crazy to use MF.

 

For most folks asking your question, the 5D is the right answer. But some will find MF a

very rewarding experience. The only way to know is to choose one, get it, and see how it

works for you.

 

Good luck,

 

Clyde Rogers

Yes, I agree with Clyde and Les on all what they say. MF must be a totally different experience.

BTW, what I meant that by saying that with MF there is no control because I can't afford the scanner, I meant that that because I already own a 5D for long time. Now, if I did not have a 5D, it would be MF with a top scanner what I'd go for.

The debate of 35mm vs. MF will have a whole new meaning after the pending introduction of the new 1DsIII which is allegedly a 22MP cam with ISO 6400 capabilities. Some rumors also say that it features a Foveon type sensor. Wait a few weeks and revisit the question.

thanks guys, I almost feel like I am moving backwards with film, however there is a certian

charm with film. If I go 5d, it brings me back to when I bought a 10d and shortly after a 20d

came out. That is what you should expect which today's technology moving forward so fast.

I may buy a bargin pentax from keh and just have fun experimenting for awhile and wait for

the new 5d, but I did recently buy a 24-70mm F2.8L, I guess I could get the double rebate on

both if I act soon?

You consider reading this, too: <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml</a>

that article is woefully incomplete - even misleading - as it doesn't say how the film was scanned. Few doubt that a really well-shot low-ISO film (drum-scanned at high enough resolution to resolve grain) has more LPI than current FF DSLRs.

 

Drum scans that large run $100 each - not for everyday use. My low-end Coolscan V produces more pixels than a 1Ds2, or even the theoretical 1Ds3, but they're soft soggy pixels that don't sharpen well, and prints from my 5D look considerably sharper at large sizes.

For your main needs, let me answer a question with a question: given that portraits do not require much in the way of resolution and are less demanding than most nature subject matter, will a 5d do such a better job than a 20d? Now for landscapes: medium format film cameras are just brilliant at this. You need a tripod anyway, and low ISO, and time to consider your composition...you see where we are going with this? It gets me when people complain about the cost of MF film scanners, after telling me they just bought a big L zoom for megabucks...it's a priority issue.

 

It is clear that the d/top film scanners are very close to Imacons and close enough to drums, especially with all that real estate of any MF format...crops that murder detail in an APS or even full-frame digital, are very viable with even 645.

 

I see very few MF film scanners for cheap, or even much less than new prices - I suspect there is a reason for that. And finally, film does great things for human skin with say, NC160; while dishing up the same treatment for landscapes with E100G/Astia/RVP100/Provia.

 

I despair at the loss of detail in prints from all but the best of the uber-DSLRs; shame because the convenience of it all is very attractive, apart from snake oil like pano stitching [clouds and movement anyone?].

 

But convenience seldom equals quality; in food, shopping, friendship or most things worthwhile in life. When is the next leap forward in affordable digicams, you know, the one with the real (not PR, booster-driven) kind of quality to get film diehards to switch camps with few reservations?

Biased? Nah! ;p Yep, here it's mainly "get a 5D, MF sucks" and there it's "get a MF, digital sucks" Did you expect any less?

 

Have you checked the prices over at KEH lately? For what you can get some 645 rigs for, you aren't even 1/3 of the way to the next L lens, much less covering the price of a 5D. I say go for it, you really can't lose with current prices.

 

I'll repeat part of my other post: I'm finding the 20D and MF rigs complement each other and I enjoy shooting both.

Well ... I was considering the same and eventually got 4x5" for landscapes and happily shoot digital. When I see, THE quality on 1920x1200 screen of the digital shots, I'm impressed.

 

I'd not go for film based MF anymore.

Q: some landscapes and most importantly some portraits of my kids

Les Sarile, thanks a lot for hard to find link to popphoto!

Re Richie: fot landscapes I would prefer 6x9 or 6x12 (respectively stichting painfully 3 6x6 together...) and a strong back and last but not least a supporting wife :-) :-)

 

For Kids: a lot of digital (as others have posted already) and additionally some archival grade slide films and/or real black and white for in 60 years from now.

 

Eventhough this is a EOS forum the (Minolta) sony Alpha 100 does a much better job in Image Stabilization than Canon IS (recent test in the german FotoMagazin Jan 2007)!

 

hope this helps? rainer Nagel