full frame digital or 4x5 photography

<p>I was in the camera store , one of the sales guys toll me , when you want to get serius about photography<br>

star using 4x5 film cameras. I was sad at that point because i shoot digital. my gear is mark 111 is not full frame but does the work and my lens 24-70 focal lens canon brnd. my question is should i star shooting with 4x5 film camera to get the real pictures.</p>

<p>Luis, If your camera is getting the work done, stick with it. Expand into 4x5 if you wish, but I wouldn't give-up your existing gear. </p>

<p>No absolutely not, if you don't know then don't even think about it. Yes in the right hands 4x5 film can, with lots of additional work and expense, print out higher quality big prints. But it is expensive and you can't do it yourself, well some people can, but not many.</p>

<p>What are you unhappy about with your current gear? A first step, if you want to print big and are more into landscapes and set up shots would be to part exchange your 1D MkIII with a 5D MkII. This alone will give you a much higher quality big print.</p>

<p>The saleman was BSing you. If you're into birds, wildlife, sports, etc. a 4x5 would be foolish, not serious. For certain applications, like birding, a FF camera can be a disadvantage, due to the focal length shortening and tendancy toward slower AF (camera dependent of course). For scenics and archetecture a FF can be really nice, as can a 4x5, but you'll know when you're ready for that, if ever. Your should probably stay away from that store. They seem to be preying on your insecurities.</p>

<p>I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and answer seriously.</p>

<p>In the past, if you were very serious about producing extremely large prints of certain types of subjects including landscapes, there was a very good argument for shooting large format (LF) 4x5 or even larger film formats. Of course, even then, many fine landscape and architecture, etc. photographers were producing very excellent work in these genres using medium format (MF) film equipment, and some did quite well, thank you very much, using 35mm gear - as long as their intent was not to make extremely large prints and/or the circumstances of their shooting precluded the use of LF equipment.</p>

<p>But...</p>

<p>1. These are not the only types of "serious photography" done by serious photographers. Many types of photography have long been done primarily or largely with smaller format cameras - think photojournalism, street photography, etc. If you just go through a list of recognized "serious photographers" you will find that they use and used all sorts of different formats. So this statement about "serious" photographs was never true in a general sense even in the past.</p>

<p>2. Your salesperson seems to either have a personal large format film ax to grind or else he is way out of touch. While there most certainly are some fine photographers who still use LF film (most but not quite all of whom then scan the film and work in Photoshop) many, many of them (I'd guess most, actually) have now moved away from shooting exclusively LF film. What they have discovered is that they can get equivalent results from MF digital back systems, and that using these systems gives them many additional shooting advantages in terms of size/weight of equipment, cost, ease of transfer to computer (download rather than scan), availability of lens options, and on and on and on.</p>

<p>Your salesperson, if he actually said what you say he said, is either a fool or living in the past, or else you misunderstood him.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I shot 4x5 for landscape photography for several years, while still shooting DSLR for everything else. I finally migrated back to digital with landscape as well, and just sold off all my 4x5 gear for a 1Ds III.</p>

<p>4x5 is great, but there are a lot of disadvantages in normal use, including in the landscape context.</p>

<p>"Yes in the right hands 4x5 film can, with lots of additional work and expense, print out higher quality big <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00UiA7?unified_p=1#" target="_blank" >prints</a> . But it is expensive and you can't do it yourself, well some people can, but not many."</p>

<p>It's really easy to develop your own B&W, and it's not very expensive because you don't shoot high volume with LF.</p>

<p>Large Format is perfect when you need to control perspective, particularly when shooting architecture. In addition, you have control over the plane of focus. And the tonality is excellent, even if you don't make huge prints. But there are limitations, so I use digital for many purposes, such as sports and low light photography.</p>

<p>A large negative is wonderful. Look at some of the pictures from even ancient folders and other historical cameras on the Classic Camera forum. They have a kind of detail and 'glow' that is hard to match from smaller formats, film or digital.<br /> Since that is so, you have to know that 8x10 view cameras are even more spectacular and will put even 4x5" to shame. There's no end to it, of course, except that it's pretty hard to come by film in the largest formats anymore.<br /> If you go through the old photo magazines from the late 50s and early 60s when the Nikon 35mm was just beginning to replace the 4x5 press camera in journalism you will find a considerable amount of discussion and angst over whether 35mm could equal large format. Some of the magazines even did blow-ups of sections of film from both and found that the differences were not so great as you'd think. Of course, there was a need for much greater precision in the smaller formats to get "equal" results.</p>

<p>Nothing has changed. If you use the best lenses, clamp down the camera tight on a tripod of quality, and take other reasonable measures you can produce superb work, regardless of size of the image, as such.<br /> Frankly, if you are hand holding a 4x5 you shouldn't expect too much of it, so you shouldn't really compare a hand-held image from a small-format camera to be as rock sharp as a big camera or <em>any</em> camera on a tripod. Nor are all lenses created equal and some large format lens designers have been, well, a little sloppy since the larger format compensated for softness in the lens.</p>

<p>There's also a huge "good enough for government work" factor here. Smaller equipment gets you to places where only an Ansel Adams or a Jackson would have packed in a large-format camera.</p>

<p>So, don't be seduced by the large-format side of the force. It's extremely expensive now and will only get more difficult as time goes by.</p>

<p>If you want to experiment with film I recommend 35mm. Depending on your lens types (crop only or full frame) you can likely get a usd film body of the same brand as your current lenses for less than $100. A 35mm film camera and a decent scanner are a lot easier than jumping into 4x5 film. If, after learning on 35mm you want to move on, a starter large format camera like a crown graphic is a good way to get the big negatives.</p>

<p>I used to use large format in college, and I loved it for what is was suited for such as architectural, landscape and studio work. It was an excellent teaching tool in forcing you to pay close attention to the fundamentals of composition, lighting and proper focus and exposure since you wouldn't want to take lots of variations.</p>

<p>Advances have been made though, and nowadays I wouldn't want to give up my FF DSLR since it's faster, much more compact, has way more lens choices and the results are immediately available.</p>

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>I come from a film background and developed and printed in the 70's when pocket money didn't stretch to processors. I can print my 6x9 negatives but I don't anymore, the economies of scale just do not add up, now because you can do all your "darkroom" work in photoshop prior to printing the reality is the skill set needed to print is not learnt by the vast majority of people and the wasted cost in time and paper and chemicals is not cheap either, especially nowadays when chemicals are made in lower volume and are not so easily bought. The film developing is easy, getting that onto a print is not, either expensive drum scans (otherwise there is no point in using bigger formats anyway) or keeping the process wet both incur expenses that are not there once you have your digital camera, photoshop (or any number of free applications) and access to an online printer with good machines and profiles.</p>

<p>For anybody not 100% sure and with a good understanding of what is needed in the medium format film process it is very bad advice to suggest moving from a good digital setup to a film setup.</p>

<p>Luis: Try 4x5 - you might like it... It is a different world than 35 mm (digital or wet.) Rent a camera with a few holders (loaded with film if possible...film loading and keeping the process dust-free is one of the greates headaches of LF shooting) and one lens, get some instruction and shoot some frames...</p>

<p>Back in the days of film photography I used (and still own) a Mamiya BR67 that produces 6X7 cm pics on 120 or 220 film. I have used it very little and on rare occasions. The scans cost me a fortune and the size of photos I made did not warrant the use of such high resolution film images. I am happy with EOS 5D although I am planning to upgrade to Mark II for a bit better resolution and camera features. 4X5 is used by professionals who really need the better resolution it offers. Unless your photos end up in billboards and other large size prints, stick what what you have.</p>

<p>If you look at the statement that if you are serious about photography use 4X5, in the context of learning, I agree with the statement. However, like learning to do anything skillfully, plan to advance in small and steady steps. Over the course of just one year of consistent practice with a large format camera, you will see a marked improvement in your photography regardless of the medium or format that you use. You will also make many mistakes and learn from each one of them.<br>

If you do not expect it to take practice time (and patience) to master, you will be frustrated.<br>

Large format is not about print size - it is about image quality. A good image looks good at any size. </p>

<p>it depends on whether you want to expand your knowledge and explore the wonderful world of photography, or whether you are happy to continue shooting with what you currently have. large format photography requires discipline and patients, and it sure is worlds apart from a small format digicam. but learning and trying new things in your chosen hobby should be fun. no one said photography was meant to be convenient and easy. but if you create a succeful image with something like a linhof technica, then you can take full credit for the image, and you can be proud of the fact that you had no automated electroncs to nanny you along.</p>

<p>There is nothing to stop you taking up large format but it cannot replace full frame digital as they two systems are good at different things. Digital is all about speed, flexibilty and convenience while LF is about taking your time and achieving best quality. So if you want to do large format and the money goes that far why not buy a LF outfit to go alongside your digital gear? LF cameras and lenses can be bought quite cheaply as there are lots available second hand. </p>

<p>But stick with digital for the day-to-day work. </p>

<p>"...should i star shooting with 4x5 film camera to get the real pictures."</p>

<p>Should you trade your current vehicle in for a monster truck? Should you wear an astronaut's suit instead of regular clothing? Should you replace your 4-burner stove with a 12 burner stove? Should you use a sledge hammer instead of a small claw hammer? All of those things are bigger, and in some situations they are better. Can you think of any situations where they wouldn't be a good choice? :) 4x5 is definitely bigger, and folks tend to think bigger is always better. Except it's not. View cameras and large format film are just another tool and materials option. In some situations for some photographers they are the better choice, but in plenty of situations and for plenty of photographers the weaknesses of view cameras/sheet film would be detrimental.</p>

<p>Do the sales guys ever talk to you about light and shadow, or composition, or color, or the emotions your photographs inspire in viewers? Those are some of what you really need to worry about if you are serious about photography. Look to the art museum for inspiration. The camera shop guys are just desperate to enhance your camera collection. A 4x5 camera is definitely a must for any serious camera collector. :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Before you jump into 4x5, you should do some homework on it and the work. Doing on the cheap always sounds fun until you hit the limit of your equipment, find it tedious, or don't like the results. And you'll find sheet film isn't cheap. Even processing your own, you're looking at a $3-5 dollars per sheet (one exposure). I use 4x5, but also take my Canon digital gear because I have similar focal lengths lens (equivalents0 and can take the same shot with both systems, and I can use the Canon to walk around to find the best place to start with the 4x5.</p>

<p>And real pictures come from the photographer. The camera system are simply the tools to capture them.</p>

<p>Buy only what you will use.</p>

<p>The nice thing about 35mm is that it is so convenient and not a lot of trouble to carry around.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>There is nothing more satisfying (in photography) than looking at a perfectly exposed, perfectly composed image that you created on a piece of 4x5 film like Velvia 50.</p>

<p>Having said that, what a pain in the neck getting there! It takes dedication, perserverance, experimentation, patience, and the list goes on. I had hoped that getting a full frame digital camera would make the 4x5 flow a little less cumbersome, since I could confirm exposure and composition immediately, but I still have a very hard time motivating myself to get the film holders loaded and get out there with my 4x5 system. As it is now I am lucky if I go out once in the summer, once in the fall, and once in the winter! Part of the difficulty is that I am in a time of my life when I am fully dedicated to the activities of my two teenagers, and my job/commute take up more than half my day. I keep contemplating selling the 4x5 system but I know in a few years I would kick myself, so I will hold on to it for a less busy time.</p>

<p>When you find your 24mm lens is not wide enough, on a very regular basis, then you could consider a full frame DSLR. First it will make your 24mm even wider, second, it will open more superwide lens possibilities, and thirdly it will provide the best sensor for use with superwide and wide angle lenses. My 14mm lens is pretty much glued to the full frame for landscape and architecture, while I use a pro crop body for everything else, mainly the kids' soccer and motor racing events.</p>

<p><em>There is nothing more satisfying (in photography) than looking at a perfectly exposed, perfectly composed image that you created on a piece of 4x5 film like Velvia 50.</em></p>

<p>Guess it depends on the person. I've done that (an architectural shot for a book cover), and it is satisfying to look at those big transparencies on a lightbox. But it didn't even rank among the top 100 most-satisfying moments I've experienced doing photography.</p>

<p>One answer to your question depends on what you're shooting and where. If you're doing high-volume shooting in a studio, stick with the Canon. If you have time to spend on composing and getting everything just so, use the 4x5. I would always have the 4x5 on hand in the studio and would usually allow addition shooting time to use it. I would sometimes spend twenty minutes, sometimes more, setting up one shot with the 4x5.</p>

<p>Try 4x5 and 6x7 if you can afford it, without giving up your current equipment and at your own pace.</p>

<p>Luis, what subjects do you use, for what purpose-audience, how large you print and how many shots do you expect to produce a month?</p>

<p>If say, you shot landscapes, to sell prints for art display larger than 20x30, you can afford to concentrate on each print and have no need to produce more than a handful a week/month.... The you would probably find LF-MF film more rewarding; and certainly have the potential to produce technically superior results. But it depends on what your needs are. Sometimes both film and DSLRs have a reason to coexist. You can use a DSLR when convenience and quick turnaround is needed and film when you focus on quality and treating yourself to the experience.</p>

<p>Shoot both, if you can, for a while and see where you gravitate to.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The original post is a little unclear on the context of this conversation with the salesman. I can only assume that you were discussing some dissatisfaction with the level of detail you are seeing with the Mark III, and that you must have been addressing some situation where a 4x5" would actually be a reasonable idea.</p>

<p>i.e. I get myself out of bed early before the sunrise and go hiking (ala Adams). I find that perfect scene that I've been pondering for weeks, just waiting for today when I know the mist is going to rise just so, etc, and I want that moment when the sun hits this whatever, and every so often after a storm the whole sky turns Orange in the morning, etc. After fidgeting with the camera on the tripod for 30 minutes, and checking light readings and exposures, timing, and the light finally hits and I make that first 20 second exposure, I know that picture is perfect. But then, when I get that large print back from the lab, it just doesn't have the fine detail that I need to justify that care and time that I have put into this photograph.</p>

<p>For this reason the only natural suggestion would have been: "try a good 4x5 view camera next time, with full rise and fall, tilt, shift, and swing movements. You'll be able to nail the fine focus in area X and control the depth of field better in area Y, as well as be able to pull all the detail out of feature Z."</p>

<p>This doesn't sound unreasonable to me, or even that expensive. You will find yourself taking your first picture with your brand new 4x5" alot cheaper than your first picture with a brand new 5D Mark II. And I think all this goes without saying that you are going to keep your existing gear.</p>

<p>There is no doubt that right now, 4x5 or larger film sizes have a quality advantage over even the best digital systems. One of our customers (at Bruce's Field Camera Store), to whom quality is everything, gave up using his Hasselblad digital for 4x5 negatives shot in a Linhof. If quality is the most important thing to you about photography, you might consider adding a large format camera to your equipment. There are, of course,many advantages to digital such as no wet darkroom, no chemical pollution of the earth, speed and ease of use, easy retouching, and the picture on the back of the camera. Recently I needed a self portrait for something and quality was important. I shot 35mm film, digital with a d700 and 5x7 film. I ended up using the 35mm film picture. It was better overall than the digital picture, and as usual, the darkroom work on the sheet film did not get done in time. It really depends on your priorities, and on the time allowed for the job, whether you shoot LF film or digital. If quality is utmost, why bother with 4x5? Go straight to 8x10 film. I do not "have an ax to grind" with these comments, despite having a little LF store. I am willing to give digital photography credit for the things it does best, and I even shoot it at times, especially when shooting for the computer. However, for B&W prints, I will be sticking to film and silver or platinum printing.</p>