Jump to content

Change to Rebel XSI DSLR or Medium format?


richard_kriz

Recommended Posts

I currently have 2 Elan II 35mms.. I use one body for color and one for B/W so I don't have to waste film

rewinding mid-roll. I have (all Canon USM) two zooms and a 100mm macro. My shooting usually includes portraits,

fine art and found still lifes...in either color or B/W. I'd like to produce high quality prints up towards the

16x20 range and am not too confident in the resolution of 35mm format...even when using my 100mm macro prime lens.

I'm teetering on the fence between 2 things: utilizing my current lenses and getting my first DSLR (Rebel XSI) or

be an old fashioned purist and get a Mamiya 645 or RZ67. I know that MF film can be drum scanned and/or processed

into the 16x20 range without a problem (except waiting on the pro lab to get to my order). My experience with

digital has only been with a P&S...not to mention that I have zero experience with Photoshopping anything. Which

way should I swing? I'll have around $800-$1000 to play with. Thanks in advance for all the help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had my XSi for about 3 weeks now, coming from a P7S Kodak before that, and a Pentax K1000 film before

that. I didn't have hardly any experience withPhotoshop(still don't) and have excellent results with the camera. I love

it and sure you would too! Here are a few examples

 

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l267/motox424/Framed711.jpg

 

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l267/motox424/FramedBraidyHouhgton.jpg

 

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l267/motox424/IMG_0476-1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've printed 16x20's from my older digital rebel (300d) which is only 6mp. I'm sure the XSI will do just fine at 16x20.

 

The Digital SLR cameras produce a much less noisy picture than a p&s so they can be enlarged a lot more than the equivalent megapixel p&s camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok here we go-- I got it figured out now LOL

 

 

<center>

<img src="http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l267/motox424/Framed711.jpg" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"><br><br>

<img src="http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l267/motox424/FramedBraidyHouhgton.jpg" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"><br><br>

<img src="http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l267/motox424/IMG_0476-1.jpg" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"><br><br>

</center>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard, your question has deeper implications beyond digital vs film. The way you work with a behemoth like an RZ-67 is quite different than any 35mm camera. The MF sytem is heavy and slow to work with. Not great for fast action or light travel. The 35mm camera has a greater range of optics and accessories available. For the fine art approach, where large prints are desired with a slower, more considered way of working, the RZ67 produces stellar images for a reasonable investment. Negs can be printed optically or scanned to provide for a high quality hybrid workflow. Either way it's useful to become aware of current imaging tools and processes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard, yes what Derrick said. The Rebel 1.6x crop will drive you nuts. If you appreciate medium format quality you will

love 5D RAW files. I know you will have to learn all this stuff, but it's worth it in my opinion. Yes there will be a 5D

replacement *soon* (whatever that means), but it will cost twice what a second-hand 5D will, and the 5D is no slouch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 5D is only 3 fps, the slowest in the canon line up. A bit slower than the XSi in-fact. The 5D will give you closet experience to your 35mm. The XSi would have no trouble giving you plenty good quality for 16x20 prints. This assumes you have good glass and learn the proper methods of handling digital files. It is a bit of a learning curve but at the root of all the photographic disciplines and principles still apply.

 

The only real challenges that you will encounter with the XSi compared to the 5D is the smaller view finder and the reduced field of view of your lens. Also the 5D is considered to have better tonal range and smoother gradations. Also lower noise at higher ISO. For the type of work you described high ISO would not be an issue. I also think that with proper file handling you will be fine with the XSi. I have not used it but I used the 300D, XT, 30D and 40D. I do currently own a 5D and love it.

 

While money is always an issue and I understand having to stay on a budget. But think of the money saved when no longer having to buy and process film. I am currently at 5000+ exposures with my 5D. What would that cost in film and processing?

 

But again to answer your basic question, the XSi would print fine at 16x20 with proper technique used.

 

 

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need the 1Ds MKIII - I mean, if you compare the 'classes' of cameras the XSi is NOT in the same class as the 645 or RZ67. That means also the system itself: custom focusing screens, etc...

 

If you want to get your feet wet the XSi is great. The NEW 5D (whatever that mysterious camera is going to be called...probably 4D) should be coming out in the next 6 months. That will give you plenty of time to get used to the digital workflow, editing in Photoshop, etc... You can also buy EF (NOT EF-S) lenses which you'll be able to use with ANY EOS camera now, or in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> shooting usually includes portraits, fine art and found still life...in either color or B/W. I'd like to produce high quality prints up towards the 16x20 range . . . teetering on the fence between utilizing my current lenses and getting Rebel XSI or be an old fashioned purist and get a Mamiya 645 or RZ67 <<

 

Well it depends on what you consider `` high quality prints``, but for the subjects listed, and the comparisons made, the less expensive solution is a 5D, the comparable digital solution is the 1DSMkIII, (and the correct choice of lenses).

 

The XSi does not enter into a reasonable comparison, IMO.

 

I have, and still use Mamiya 645`s, an older 67 and a 5x4: my 5D struggles by comparison in the enlargement stakes.

 

I do not need to buy the 1DsMkIII, but I have seen the results at 16 x 20 and beyond, with good lighting, good lenses and good finishing: Stunning.

 

That is not to say the XSi will not give good 16 x 20: but you cannot compare it to MF Film, whereas the `16 x 20 comparisons` begin somewhere between the 5D and IDsMkII, IMO.

 

WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In lite of Giampi's response, I never ment to lead you to think the XSi was comparable to medium format film in any way, shape, or form. I was just saying it would print to 16x20. I do not think you need or should wait for the "new" 5D that is coming soon (I sure as heck hope so). If the 5D interest you, the current one would do well. It is also well equiped.

 

Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm teetering on the fence between 2 things: utilizing my current lenses and getting my first DSLR (Rebel XSI) or be an old fashioned purist and get a Mamiya 645 or RZ67."

 

Here's the thing. If you're happy with 16x20 prints from 35mm film, you'll be happier still with prints from the Xsi at the same size. The XSi will produce a better image file than almost all film emulsions, save say Velvia and 100 TMAX, in 135.

 

However, a high quality scan (Nikon CS9000 or better) of 6x7 will give a noticeably sharper 16x20 than either small format film or small format digital. Don't bother with 645. It's not sufficiently better to be worth the extra hassle of dealing with 120 film.

 

Here's what I'd do. Given your budget, pick up a RB-67 kit from KEH for $300. With the left over money, get a XSi, XTi, or XT, either new or used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

 

I am not sure exactly what you mean by ``Don't bother with 645. It's not sufficiently better to be worth the extra hassle of dealing with 120 film.`` and also for clarification of my previous . . .

 

Well my 16 x 20 (and Larger) hand finished enlargements, by a tech who knows what she is doing, and using excellent enlarging lenses working with negs from 160ProS /120 shot on my 645 with good glass are usually always better than my what I can produce with my 5D using good glass and having the files printed, at the same lab.

 

160ProS / 120 negs from my 6x7 enlarged to 16 x 20 screams in next to my 5D.

 

Perhaps I haven`t yet got the finer nuances of digital capture; digital post production; and pushing the limits of my 5D? Or maybe I just still have access to a great wet lab, with exceptional gear, and a lab tech who is a genius? In this regard I am curious as to your comparisons.

 

WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"My shooting usually includes portraits, fine art and found still lifes.."

 

It seems that you're not high ISO / action shooter. 6x7 behemoths aren't expensive, film is familiar to you and you can get excellent 16x20 prints (and bigger). Money wise there's very little to lose if you buy a MF set.

 

But. Digital is much easier to carry around and you get quite clean ISO 800-1600 and very very clean ISO 100-400. 35mm color neg can't compete anymore. Problem is that you really need to learn Photoshop (post edit in general) to get most of your files. It will take some time to learn appropriate levels/curves/color adjustments and masking/layers, not to mention sharpening to different print sizes. Also, good black and white conversion is not always easy and digital's habit of abruptly clipping highlights doesn't help. You can get wonderful digital b&w and there are hundreds of post edit options but it requires different kind of work than with film.

 

You could buy the MF set *and* something like used 20D for $350 (about?) to practise digital workflow, you already have the lenses and 20D is better than 35mm for color work. I also think you may appreciate 1.6 crop sensor digital for macro. MF is more at home with massive still life / portrait / landscape stuff. (I couldn't believe my eyes when I got my first 20x20 MF print, corner to corner sharp and absolutely no visible grain even in the sky. 16x20 won't be any problem.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having used Bronicas heavily in the nineties, an now using an XTi with L lenses, I don't think the issue for me is resolution. It is convenience. I had a darkroom and struggled mightily with MF color printing that I did for almost immediate gifts for my wedding customers. I did a gift enlargement for mailing or presentation the day after the wedding. The extra effort was worth the good will ( and orders) it brought about. Today producing those same prints at 13x19 would require about twenty minutes. Where digital excels for me is in the much greater flexibility, speed and control over such enlargements. There are drawbacks as the software engineers have added, IMO, a lot of unnecessary complexity to the color process. Photo shop is not necessarily user friendly. I speak from experience directing the development of aviation software products that are complex and yet user friendly. I think my color printing is better using digital than it was using RA4 or Ilfochrome not from the staindpoint of pixel count or sharpness but the ability to enhance and control the output. I loved shooting with 645 bodies and the weight never particularly bothered me nor did manual focusing. The other important point with digital is if I am doing a large print I can do a less than a minute proof and make adjustments on the spot. Changing color balance is a matter of moving a slider not changing an enlargement filter and then reprinting the picture to see if you got it right. It's a matter of choice. I sometimes long for all of the MF wedding gear I traded to get into digital in 2002. I could go either way. Each has its frustrations. I think viewing prints from normal distance its hard to tell the difference if your not a pixel counting photographer and the equipment is good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Rebel XSI DSLR or Medium format?"

 

That is not really a requested comparison that one ever expects to have to address. You are talking an entry-level DSLR, on the one hand, compared to a rather sophisticated film system on the other. If you want a meaningful comparison with medium format, you are going to have to go to the full-frame digital cameras, and even there it is going to be a stretch. Can you get the prints that size (16x20) out of the XSi? Keep in mind that sixteen on the "small" side really puts you into good-sized cut paper. If you print that size yourself, you will need a comparatively wide carriage (17") printer. I would not want to try to push the XSi that far. I admit that I have gotten some good prints on 13x19 paper out of my first digital camera, the Olympus E-20, on a 13" carriage printer, and things have come quite a ways since then. I just cannot see trying this with an XSi (and I have one, as well as a 17" carriage printer) if you want real quality. Keep in mind also that you are packing 13 MP onto a cropped sensor, and so you are not going to have the clean pictures that you would get on a full-frame sensor with those kinds of megapixels. The Canon 5D or Nikon D3 (or D700) would haveno trouble with that many pixels, but you are going to get some noise with that many megapixels on a cropped-sensor camera.

 

--Lannie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the owner of an XTi (the older XSi) I can say it's a lovely camera, but from your background I would tend to agree with

some here and say you should find a used 5D. The XSi will give you great results for the money, but you will probably

bump into its limitations too quickly and want to upgrade anyway.

 

What you should really do is rent a 5D (if you can) and spend a weekend with it. Shoot Raw files and download a demo of

Lightroom or Aperture to process them. Once you've seen how quickly and efficiently you can work like this, you might

forget about scanning all that MF film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

 

"I am not sure exactly what you mean by ``Don't bother with 645. It's not sufficiently better to be worth the

extra hassle of dealing with 120 film.``"

 

From the tone of Richard Kriz's post, it seems that budget is an issue. The infrastructure for 135 is still

prevalent enough that recurring cost can be held fairly low. With 120, this is only the case for a DIY operation

where the enthusiast is willing to take control from exposure to print. There's a beauty in this, and this is

why I still do 120 B&W.

 

The issue though is that costs shoots way up if a commercial lab is interposed anywhere in this workflow. It's

possible to get decent scans from 6x7 using consumer level equipment. It's starts to get iffy at the smaller 645

size.

 

Okay, so say the higher recurring cost of a commercial 120 workflow is acceptable. It makes sense still to

choose a format that maximizes all the qualities (tonality, resolution, sharpness) that drove the switch out of

135 to begin with. This comes back again to the desirability of a larger usable film area. This is especially

the case when taking the print into account.

 

6x7 fits the 16x20 target print size exactly, while 645 requires additional crops. The advantages of the typical

645 camera like faster optics and faster operation tend not to be as important in the studio - portrait, fine

art, and still life as Richard first mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well normaly I would say go for the DSLR because often a person has been using photoshop for a while scanning slides. As you have no photoshop experience you may want to try the medium format route if you have a good film workflow. However medium format film and processing is not cheap at only 10 shots per roll if you shoot 6x7 I would want a fair few keeper per roll if you get what I mean.

 

The idea of a used 5D is not a bad one image quality is supposed to be very good and you are probably going to want to learn photoshop at some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Richad,

 

I am also a happy 35 mm guy, my suggesions to you if you need fast paced captures like sports, or if you need low noise/ high ISO performance, than swith to DSLR other as your described work profile, you won't like the prints of digitals. Film tonality and exposure latitude is still unbeatable by digitals (as my experience).

 

Medium format resolution is great, you can print anything at anysize by your proper way of shooting and focus. You can get scaned you MF neagatives by any cheap flatbed scanner like Canon 8800f or Epson V350/500/700, rathen I won't suggest to print from scanned files if you want a very decent and different from digital prints of your very important and ambisious assignment.

 

This is very hard to switch on DSLRs if any is habiture of films, no matter what format....!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert:

 

``The issue though is that costs shoots way up if a commercial lab is interposed anywhere in this workflow.``

 

OK I got your point(s). Thanks for taking the time to explain it better.

 

I didn`t even look at cost.

 

My brain `read`: . . ``portraits, fine art . . . I'd like to produce high quality prints . . .``

 

and I believe I then reacted and answered particular to my circumstance: I use 645 to shoot Formal Wedding Portraiture, and the negs are processed at a Pro Lab.

 

I also note your comments about 645 the crop required to print 16 x 20 (compared to a 67), specific for Richard`s application: a very good point and again I did not consider that.

 

I guess because I still have both 67 and 645 gear . . . I was NOT looking at it as: `what would I buy now will it be 645 OR 67?`

 

Also, on a personal note, your comments specifically regarding 120 B&W have given me food for thought for my `hobby photography` and also for applications for my daughter, who is doing a 2 year course, which still has wet work . . . they use 135 format, but perhaps she might want to play with my 645.

 

The other point I am gleaning strongly is that one`s location (i.e. where we each live) might be a strong dictator of the number of existing quality functioning wet labs.

 

Thanks again for the explanation . . . good food for my thought.

 

WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...